|
Post by makednon on Nov 8, 2011 22:03:32 GMT -5
Here is one groundbreaking scientific interdisciplinary fact for you: Slavic Migrations did not happen, ever! First of all, the "Slavs" are archaeologically invisible. No traces what-so-ever have been found of those so called en masse migrations in almost the entire Balkans or anywhere for that matter (exception is Slovenia, but Mitija Gushtin thesis died soon after he proclaimed it). - Poulter "The Transition to Late Antiquity. The Danube region and Beyond" - F. Curta "The Making of the Slavs" - F. Curta (editor) - "Borders, barriers and ethnogenesis" - F. Curta (editor) - "East Central and Eastern Europe in the early middle ages" - F. Curta - Medieval Archaeology and Ethnicity: Where are We? - F. Curta - Etnicitet u ranosrednjovjekovnoj arheologiji: Primjer ranoslavenskih nalaza u jadranskoj regiji - F. Curta: - The early Slavs in Bohemia and Moravia: a response to my critics You can find F. Curta's articles on academia.edu and his books can easily be found in electronic forms on the net. His theories have been widely accepted by both western and eastern scholars. His editions and texts are published in almost every meaningful history/archaeology magazine and encyclopedia's on the subject of Early middle ages. Related bibliography is mentioned in his papers. His most recent book is "The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, ca. 500 to 1050. The Early Middle Ages" which i havent had the chance to read yet. In favor of this new revisionist theory of slavs and their so called migrations are also the genetic researches from various authors, which point out to the conclusion that the three most present hg's in the balkan slavic populations can be traced back to the paleolithic and neolithic on the very territories they live in. One way of interpreting the spread of slavic languages is presented by Mario Alinei: "Interdisciplinary and linguistic evidence for Palaeolithic continuity of Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic populations in Eurasia, with an excursus on Slavic ethnogenesis". More on the linguistic subject in Curta's books (he presents the thesis of Slavic being Lingua Franca of the Avar and Bulgar Qaganat's). Basically, what the theory says is that the term "Slav" is political construction of the Eastern Roman Empire in order to mark various territorial and political groups of people which were opposing them, therefor after getting complete control of the territories where these groups are mentioned as having residence, they completely vanish from historical sources. It is not linked in any way with language or culture. Actually the earliest accounts of a language which was used by the so-called "Slavs" in the historical sources is Latin, and if i'm not mistaken, certain "Slav" was mentioned speaking Greek. On the contrary, the term "Antes" is used for various groups of people which were always allied to the East Roman Empire. After this initial use of the term, it was first accepted in the western sources, and later it just become adopted evidently to describe a long range of people and states. Anyway, just read some of the books (at least its conclusions which usually aint long) to get a brighter perspective. It doesnt exclude the Greek culture in any way. "Slav Culture" is something that had different form in the early antiquity (maybe something that connected Thracians, Illyrians, Paionians, Epirotes, Macedons etc etc) and it is not tied to ethnic terms as we see it today. Its something totally different. I have never been on the "MTO" forums and their alleged fantasy world so honestly i cant say anything about them but lets go on. The above statement can mean two things, that either you havent read at least one of his books and you are basing your arguments on reviews and second hand info, or you terribly misunderstood it. "No model nudi alternativu dosadašnjoj interpretaciji arheoloških nalaza utemeljenoj na migracijskom modelu. Ako je, kako se sugerira, slavenski jezik korišten kao lingua franca unutar kasnoga Avarskog Kaganata, ne može biti slučajno da se baš u posljednjih pola stoljeća avarske povijesti (oko 750.–800.) utjecaj avarske materijalne kulture širi u današnju Sloveniju i Hrvatsku.117 No, bez obzira na to je li slavenski jezik došao u sjevernojadransku regiju posredstvom avarskog utjecaja ili pak nije, ne postoje indikacije da su ljudi za koje arheolozi vjeruju da su bili prvi slavenofoni u tom području, došli s nekog drugog područja.118 Ako ništa drugo, preispitivanje problema u svjetlu Making of the Slavs, snažno sugerira da Slaveni nisu morali migrirati iz neke udaljene prapostojbine da bi postali Slovencima ili Hrvatima." (Curta 2010) Translation: "But the model offers alternative to the old interpretation of archaeological finds which is based on the migration model. If, as suggested Slavic language was used as “Lingua franca” inside the late Avar Kaganate, it cant be circumstantial that the influence of avar material culture is spread in today’s Slovenia and Croatia in the last half a century of the avar history (750-800). But, no matter if the Slavic arrived in the northern Adriatic with the patronage of the avars or not, there are no indications that the people for which archaeologists believe to be the first slavophones In the area came from another location. If nothing else, the reinvestigation of the problems in the light of “Making of the Slavs” strongly suggests that the Slavs didn’t have to Migrate from some distant homeland in order to become Slovenians or Croatians." He further enchances that thesis in "The early Slavs in Bohemia and Moravia" A response of my critics" (Archeologické rozhledy LXI–2009) "The earliest archaeological evidence of settlement assemblages postdating the general withdrawal of Roman armies from the Balkans is that of the 700s. This suggests that there was no “Slavic tide” in the Balkans following the presumed collapse of the Danube frontier. In addition, the archaeological evidence confirms the picture drawn from the analysis of written sources, namely that the “Slavs” were isolated pockets of population in various areas of the Balkans, which seem to have experienced serious demographic decline in the seventh century." (Curta 2001, page 338 - edit - had page 348 instead) Well being a real modern scientist, you can never expect him to say that "slavic migrations did not happen at all". He rather reinterprets the historical sources and make statements of the kind that "there is no material evidence" to point towards it, but he never excludes the possibility, as he should. Just for reference, i honestly disagree with the ridiculous theory of the re-translation of the Roseta Stone, at least so far with the evidence presented. The most major point is that there is a complete lack of evidence in regards to the "Slavs" south of the Danube. These is close to no artifact which can suggest otherwise. And a migration theory can not be supported just on the basis of doubtful and maybe misinterpreted historical sources. Its hard to imagine that nameless, rugged people came in a culturally strong area, absorbed it and left no trace of its arival. For example, there is only one strong material culture from 7th century in R. of Macedonia, the Komani-Kruja, and has long been labeled as a product of local population. Many archaeologists in Greece and Serbia also say that until present day, there is close to no evidence. Raids yes, cities were raised, fires spread, but where are the newcomers and what did they bring with them here? Werent they warriors able to even pose threat on major capitals such as Thesalonika and Costantinopole? Where are their dead? Got incinerated with no trace? There is no such culture anywhere south in the Balkans which will support such claim of mass migration. For reference of the spread of Slavic language - 2004: The Slavic lingua franca (Linguistic notes of an archaeologist turned historian). East Central Europe 31, 125–148. Fibulae - out of which whooping six have been found south of the Danube, spread all over. - Not "Slavic" after all: bow fibulae of Werner's class II Aby Florin Curta | In Între stepă şi imperiu. Studii în onoarea lui Radu Harhoiu. Ed. by Andrei Măgureanu and Erwin Gáll, pp. 149-175. - A note on the 'Slavic' bow fibulae of Werner's class I Jby Florin Curta | Archaeologia Baltica 12 (2009), pp. 124-136 - Once again on bow fibulae of the 'Pietroasele type' (Werner's class I F)by Florin Curta | Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 59 (2008), pp. 465-492 - Some remarks on bow fibulae of Werner's class I Cby Florin Curta | Slavia Antiqua 49 (2008), pp. 45-98 I will refrain from terms you use in this paragraph just out of courtesy. If you think that those make you more right and serve your argument, then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by makednon on Nov 8, 2011 23:04:25 GMT -5
Pieria was not one of Macedon's core regions. It was one of the earlieast regions aquired, yes, but Herodotus says that it was inhabited by thracians before the annexation, which were resettled at the vicinity of Amphipolis and the coast with Pydna and Methone was collonized by Hellenes. So by your logic, since Slavs are still newcomers to ancient macedonian lands (even though we live here for a millenia and a half ROFL if we really did came from behind the Carpathi), Macedons are newcomers too! Further more, Pelagonia was mentioned as being Paionian land in the Iliad along with lower Axios (which means Amphaxitis and Mygdonia), the Eordai and the Almops were enslaved and expelled, Krestonia, Bysaltia and Edonia were Thracian and therefor not Macedonian also! Which leaves Emathia as the core Macedonian region right, which was, until like 80 years ago, inhabited by Slavs! I mean Misirkov is from Pella/Postol, both the villages of Kutlesh and Palatica have clear slavic names and were inhabited by Slavs! So where should we look for ancient macedonian dna again? That logic my friend is flawed on so many levels that it really doesnt even require any attention. Its been proved times and times and times again, that language, especially the written version, and culture are almost always =/ ethnicity, and that the later is mainly political construction from various factors which led to its creation which almost always disregard stuff like common ancestry, common culture, language and similar factors. Those old theories died a long time ago. And i'm sick and tired of trolls who only talk gibberish on public forums without any sense what-so-ever and taking no consequences for their actions and often considerably contribute for hatred and antagonism between nations. The fact of the matter is that until old stereotypes exist, our countries, such as they are, will never prosper and live up to their potential. We are all kin. Slavs, Greeks, Bulgars, Romanians, u name it. We have been "sharing DNA" for milenia. And until we bloody realise that and start uniting this god forsaken piece of Europe, we will always be toyed by the real intruders, be that French, Germans, Americans, English, Arabs, you name it, who will profit by taking our companies, from our unemployment, from our bloodshed. My argument, as you mention it below, was pointed towards the flawed logic that the “Slavs” are newcomers to this region in case the “Slavic” migrations ever happened, even though they lived in those lands for milenia and a half (again, according to the migration theory), which is awfully long period of time. Ancient Macedons, according to the “questionable” histories of the past, are newcomers to the whole of the “genuine” ancient Macedonian region that you point in one of the posts here. But anyway, you seem to went into deeper analysis of the comparison i made so lets just roll with it If you follow Herodotus’s version of the story Macedons are newcomers to the region also, and by some logic, that should have happened somewhere after the Trojan war = End of the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. The region of Macedonia is very densely inhabited since the early Neolithic which is far far before Trojan war. And Pelagonia was not the only land mentioned in the Iliad. Asteropaious, also a Paionian that died at the hand of Achilles, came from the city of Amidon from the banks of Axios, which many scholars (although I disagree with many of them, but that’s not the point, since no1 I know of actually puts forward another theory), should be located in the lower Vardar/Axios region, or some of the sites there that were quite inhabited in the corresponding period: Vardino, Vardaroftsa or Kastanas. In accordance with that is the mentioning of several “Paionian” tribes living in the area around the northern shores of the Aegean Sea: Siropaiones, Paioples and the “Paiones around lake Prasias” (many scholars identify this with the dried lake Kerkine), which were subdued and some of them transferred in Asia Minor, but later returned. The archaeological facts point towards something else with regards to Pieria. There are no traces of any migrations, depopulation and arriving of new people. Actually Pierian sites fit quite well within the picture of almost the entire region of Macedonia, including great deal of the territory of Republic of Macedonia. The iron age burials at Pydna and the tumuli found in the near vicinity of Dion (some of which published in the archaeological guide for Dion written by Pandermalis), point to that fact. Just compare it to any of the sites published in W. A. Heurtley’s “Prehistoric Macedonia”. There’s nothing which can be assigned to “Macedonians”, “Dorians”, “Pieres”, “Thracians” etc. or any migration taking place in the hinterlands of the region. There might be some new study pointed towards the subject which I’m not aware of, and if that is the case, please tell me which are they (only interested in archaeology here, not historical say so). Again no material evidence what-so-ever, both of Cretans, newcomers, depopulation, arriving of new people, departure to Chalcidice. Just out of interest, is there any official and public document regarding the exchange of inhabitants from 1919, like from where and how many people arrived/departed? Never took closer interest in it but I would like to have a look if its possible. Actually, Demir Kapija is ancient Stenae, shown on Tabula Peutingeriana (and there are actually athenian graves there, with specific form of the lecythos burial pots). Antigoneia is modern day Negotino at the site of “Gradiste”. And its far from the only ancient Macedonian presence in Republic of Macedonia, the others being Vardarski Rid – Gevgelija (confirmed by inscription to be ancient Gortynia), Isar – Marvinci (Idomenai), Bukri (Lyncus), Bonche (Pelagonia which was the fourth meridae with its own coinage, where three remains of three macedonian shields have been found just several years ago, with dedication to Demetrius I Poliorketos), Heraklea Lyncestis – Bitola, Stybera – Chepigovo, and the city of Lychnidus (which even Touratsoglou pointed that it’s a genuine ancient Macedonian town, with Macedonian tombs, and a complete material culture which is Macedonian-oriented) – Ohrid. Nah they weren’t so brutal. Hey, they were the first true Kosmopolitans even. However, I cant say that the greek policy towards the “Slavs” in Macedonia was/is humane. And no, I don’t find the “occupation” illegal. Its ratified internationally and there is no way to get that back apart from chaos and blood and war. However, I cant find one good reason not to allow those people to practice their own customs, to pertain their own names and surnames without being put to public persecution, attend in schools on their mother language – all these things are parts of the internationally accepted human rights code. Ok you lost me here totally. First you put Orestians, Lynkestians and Pelagonians and others in a group which were “streakly speaking” Epirote Greeks. First of all, until recently, and I say recently because I’m not aware of any “more” recent publications, there weren’t any attested inscriptions in the Macedonian regions until 4-th century bc, and even afterwards, the only attested inscriptions are on Attic koine greek. No epirote greek is actually attested (A. R. Crossland, Linguistic problems of the Balkan Area in the late prehistoric and early classical period, Cambridge Ancient History Vol. III Part 1, page 843). Actually, even in northern Epirus no greek is attested earlier then 4-th century (idid. Page 841). The only paper which i resemble portraing some epirote niche to those lands is M. A. Templars 2009 essay but he doesnt quite exlains his map of spreading of epirote greek. Historical sources speak the same. Apart from the Orestians, no other of those “tribal” formations are listed as Epirote in any historical source known to me. Then you put the above in “Bulgarians”, and one of them – Orestians in Greek also, I guess referring to the territories of the ancient populations lived in. I’m strongly against making parallels from ancient people to present day populations simply because it is a point not possible to prove. First of all, your “thesis” was not set in broader Greek Macedonia but in Pieria. By stating that Pieria was pure Macedonian region. I gave you example that if you drive conclusions strictly from historical sources, your theory is wrong, since Herodotus attests tribes of “different” origin living in Pieria with addition of more recent southern greek colonists in Methone and Pydna, which cant give you pure “Macedonian DNA”. Archaeology speaks that no migrations in the “Macedonian” Pieran hinterland took place and that it has continuity at least since 1100 BC. Another point towards this antithesis is that Pieria was a border region with Thessaly, where strong Mycenaean culture is attested (megarons, tholoss tombs, middle heladic pottery etc), which is totally different with what was happening north. On the other side, there are “certain” artifacts which belong to the Mycenaean culture, like couple of ring gems inscribed in Mycenaean manner, which prove that there were certain contacts (which is only logical), most likely genetic one also, which favor the exclusion of Pieria as a place where pure “Macedonian DNA” can be found. The remark about macedons being newcomers was irony trying to ridicule the theory that the “Slavs” are newcomers, by proving with same kind of arguments, that macedons are newcomers too. I’m certainly no geneticist, but by “amateur” look at the genetic studies, there’s a conclusion that anyone can draw which points towards similar genetic percentage of the same hg’s in Balkan population today until the population in the Neolithic (King at al., Differential Y-chromosome Anatolian Influences in Greek and Cretan Neolithic, Annuals of Human Genetics 2008, pages 205-214; Pericic et al., High-Resolution Phylogenetic analysis of Southeastern Europe traces major episodes of paternal gene flow among Slavic populations, 2005) and point that almost all major hg’s are present here from a long time ago with small change of percentages of certain hg’s through time here and there. Ok look. The amounts of statues that were raised and hopefully will be raised in the future, describe the heritage of this region which we are part of, and all the historical personas that gave a great deal of culture and civilization to it. Of course there are certain delusional people that would go too far in their interpretations in parts of it, but same can be said by any Balkan nation. No matter if it majority or minority or what ever amount of DNA or culture, it is a fact that all of them were borned, dwelled and died here. I didn’t hear any complaints about the Alexander statue in Edinburgh. You cant just say that “the history from now until then” is mine and only mine and I have a monopoly over it. I mean seriously dude. History is to the historians and the world, not to Greece. You can take pride in whatever you want and I and everyone here don’t give a damn f*ck, be that Hellas or Macedonia. The name Macedonians wasn’t a matter of choice. It was given to us and most closely resembles what we are in this modern and twisted “ethnic” term. It is the only name that causes adrenaline rush to an extent that you would rather die in agony for its protection then leave it be in peril. No other name does. And it certainly isn’t several decades as you would like some to believe. No matter how you interpret some of the evidence. And don’t bloody tell me that the language is a crucial factor in ethnicity of certain people because it’s the most pity full argument ever. Are the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh English? No? Why did Poles and almost all of Western Slavs were Latin speaking until high in the middle ages? Why are today Egyptians speaking Arab? Why did the Franks, even though they conquered Gaul, accepted Romano-gaelic language? Why are the Norwegian Vikings which settled in England defining themselves today as Britons? Or even better one: Why were the Byzantines, which wrote greek, defined themselves as Romans? Why did the german tribes which conquered Italy accepted Latin? And why shouldn’t we have credibility? When did we do anything to endanger any of our neighbours? Is really your paranoia waranted? We faced embargo from like day 1, we are negated, denied membership in EU and NATO kuz of it. We changed our constitution so to give up from our national minority in Greece, we changed the flag, the name. Seriously now you want us to change our identity? And in return we get what? Your government and republic have done so much harm to this little piece of land that its bordering on faschism. And here every national minority is accepted. Turks, Roma, Vlachs, Serbs, Albanians can study and practice on their mother tongue, even in public administration. Have you even consider how much suffering has your state caused? And to what extent do you think you can spill out bad blood around? You know, the biggest catalyst of the modern national awakening here, and even in your own country, is by your own fault. It is causing people to feel revolt and disgust. I mean seriously, you outnumber us like 10 to 1 just numerically, let alone technologically and infrastructurally. What threat do we pose and have we ever threatened you officially (by government officials) in any form? Do you honestly believe that if Bulgarians ever get hold of today Republic of Macedonia they will stop there? Their propaganda has much deeper roots in your lands today then the Macedonian propaganda. And yet here I am, offering my hand in friendship and hoping that it will be one more example for some of similar kind in the future. I have friends both of greek and Serbian nationality and I would and did trust a whole lot to them if asked. At the end, every ethnicity is political construction, no exceptions. It’s a decision certain group of people makes which will define them as separate from everyone else and it involves manipulation with culture and symbols. All I wish is everyone to put to rest the hatred. Leave the science to scientists. Leave regional identities to continue to evolve uninterrupted if that is done in civilized manner. And lets all finally come together and evolve this region rather then devolving it. Because I would rather live with people rather then hate them and kill them. Anyway, although we derailed the thread big time, kudos for the discussion. I must say i enjoyed it, apart from some agresive words.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Nov 15, 2011 6:46:41 GMT -5
OK. First, my apologies for the 'aggressive words'. Let me say, however, that when I’m told to ‘choke on something’ my instinctive reaction is to have that person choke on my c.ock. I have never been on the "MTO" forums and their alleged fantasy world so honestly i cant say anything about them but lets go on. I’ll take your world for it. However, it is evident to me that you share a good deal of their moronic fantasy world amongst which is your apparent belief that there is no essential distinction between some sort of ancient mass comprised of Illyrians//Thracians/Epirotes/Macedonians (really, how on earth can you group all these together as if they were the same?), and the Slavs. That the ‘Slavs’ have always been in those Balkan regions; that they had not done any migrating and are simply now known by a different name due to a perceptual change that took place from the early Middle Ages. The above statement can mean two things, that either you havent read at least one of his books and you are basing your arguments on reviews and second hand info, or you terribly misunderstood it. "No model nudi alternativu dosadašnjoj interpretaciji arheoloških nalaza utemeljenoj na migracijskom modelu. Ako je, kako se sugerira, slavenski jezik korišten kao lingua franca unutar kasnoga Avarskog Kaganata, ne može biti slučajno da se baš u posljednjih pola stoljeća avarske povijesti (oko 750.–800.) utjecaj avarske materijalne kulture širi u današnju Sloveniju i Hrvatsku.117 No, bez obzira na to je li slavenski jezik došao u sjevernojadransku regiju posredstvom avarskog utjecaja ili pak nije, ne postoje indikacije da su ljudi za koje arheolozi vjeruju da su bili prvi slavenofoni u tom području, došli s nekog drugog područja.118 Ako ništa drugo, preispitivanje problema u svjetlu Making of the Slavs, snažno sugerira da Slaveni nisu morali migrirati iz neke udaljene prapostojbine da bi postali Slovencima ili Hrvatima." (Curta 2010) Translation: "But the model offers alternative to the old interpretation of archaeological finds which is based on the migration model. If, as suggested Slavic language was used as “Lingua franca” inside the late Avar Kaganate, it cant be circumstantial that the influence of avar material culture is spread in today’s Slovenia and Croatia in the last half a century of the avar history (750-800). But, no matter if the Slavic arrived in the northern Adriatic with the patronage of the avars or not, there are no indications that the people for which archaeologists believe to be the first slavophones In the area came from another location. If nothing else, the reinvestigation of the problems in the light of “Making of the Slavs” strongly suggests that the Slavs didn’t have to Migrate from some distant homeland in order to become Slovenians or Croatians." "The earliest archaeological evidence of settlement assemblages postdating the general withdrawal of Roman armies from the Balkans is that of the 700s. This suggests that there was no “Slavic tide” in the Balkans following the presumed collapse of the Danube frontier. In addition, the archaeological evidence confirms the picture drawn from the analysis of written sources, namely that the “Slavs” were isolated pockets of population in various areas of the Balkans, which seem to have experienced serious demographic decline in the seventh century." (Curta 2001, page 338 - edit - had page 348 instead) Well being a real modern scientist, you can never expect him to say that "slavic migrations did not happen at all". He rather reinterprets the historical sources and make statements of the kind that "there is no material evidence" to point towards it, but he never excludes the possibility, as he should. The most major point is that there is a complete lack of evidence in regards to the "Slavs" south of the Danube. These is close to no artifact which can suggest otherwise. And a migration theory can not be supported just on the basis of doubtful and maybe misinterpreted historical sources. Its hard to imagine that nameless, rugged people came in a culturally strong area, absorbed it and left no trace of its arival. For example, there is only one strong material culture from 7th century in R. of Macedonia, the Komani-Kruja, and has long been labeled as a product of local population. Many archaeologists in Greece and Serbia also say that until present day, there is close to no evidence. Raids yes, cities were raised, fires spread, but where are the newcomers and what did they bring with them here? Werent they warriors able to even pose threat on major capitals such as Thesalonika and Costantinopole? Where are their dead? Got incinerated with no trace? There is no such culture anywhere south in the Balkans which will support such claim of mass migration. Perhaps I have misunderstood elements of Curta’s theories, that is entirely possible, at least with respect to the nitty gritty stuff. I won’t pretend to have spent hours in bed with his work like you apparently have. However, I get the distinct impression that in reading Curta you’ve ‘understood’ from it what your heart of hearts hoped he was saying. The secondary sources I posted are rather categorical. Are you seriously insisting that you have understood Curta better than actual scholars in the field such as Bideleux and Jeffries? And what does it mean that Curta, as ‘a real modern scientist’, can never be expected to say that the ‘Slavic migrations did not happen at all’. Why wouldn’t he if he actually believes it? There is no reason why a ‘modern historian’ can’t state what he actually thinks. Curta does not deny the migrations because he cannot. Your more careful account of Curta here is a long way from the initial presentation you gave of his work, that is, that it had now overturned accepted wisdom on the subject of Slavic migrations such that it has carried all before it and is now the prevalent view. Curta’s is a different approach that has much to recommend it but it is basically just a theory, one of a long line of theories about the Slavic migrations. It is a theory you’ve misinterpreted and, in its misconstrued form, one that you have disingenuously tried to pass off as the now dominant view accepted by all authorities. In one of your quotes above, Curta concludes that the archaeological evidence can be used to confirm the view drawn from literary sources that the ‘Slavs’ formed isolated pockets in various parts of the peninsula. Can I ask you how these isolated pockets can have come about if not through some sort of migration into the peninsula in keeping with ‘an analysis of written sources’ which talk of such migrations? How were these pockets formed otherwise? Curta is pretty much stating here that that there is archaeological evidence and it confirms the literary sources – that there were in fact migrations although clearly his emphasis is on disputing their magnitude (the ‘Slavic tide’). In the other of your extracts (re Croats, Slovenes) he is apparently challenging the distance that they have had to travel to get there (although I won’t pretend to know the exact nature of his particular argument at that point). However, you somehow manage to read the very text you have cited as talking of a ‘complete’ absence of evidence to support the migration theory when in fact Curta talks both of archaeological evidence and the literary sources with which he has synthesized it: Curta says: ‘The earliest archaeological evidence … suggests that there was no “Slavic tide” in the Balkans … the archaeological evidence confirms the picture drawn from the analysis of written sources, … the “Slavs” were isolated pockets of population in various areas of the Balkans’. You say: ‘…there is a complete lack of evidence in regards to the "Slavs" south of the Danube. These is close to no artifact which can suggest otherwise. And a migration theory can not be supported just on the basis of doubtful and maybe misinterpreted historical sources. … and left no trace of its arival’. You need to read carefully. Let’s also not forget that some of the best attested Slavic ‘pockets’ are those in the general region of Macedonia (Dragovites, Sagudates, Berzites, Rinhini , Strumliani and so on). In fact this area, along with the Morava valley, is perhaps where the ‘Slavs’ were thickest on the ground. And for the record, the Komani-Kruja culture is actually centred in, and about, northern Albania - not in the FYROM - and in representing the continuation of a local population (presumably Illyrian), it would be doing so of a population wedged between any number of these ‘pockets of Slavs’ (including those in the FYROM’s territory) that Curta concedes existed. For God’s sake our sources also speak of the Slavs as ‘Scythians’, and occasionally interchangeably as ‘Moesians’, in evident reference to their place of origin – terms that clearly do not indicate these people were locals. The ‘Scythians’ term places them over the lower Danube while the ‘Moesians’ label would suggest that they had trickled over the Danube and been living in the old province of Moesia for some time before their campaigns further south to which many of the sources refer. You ask how a rugged people entering an area of strong culture can be so invisible. A more natural question for me would be how one can account for the linguistic change that the Slavs were able to make in the Balkans - a very clear break from antiquity - both with respect to the Slavic language that now prevails over such a large part of it, as well as in the area’s toponymy that extends even further than the current range of spoken Slavic. How can this occur without migrations of people who spoke Slavic, whether solely or as a lingua franca together with another language. How is this possible (without, of-course, resorting to the idiotic fairytale that the Illyrians and Thracians etc already spoke a form of the ‘Slav’ language)? In the extract you quote above, Curta offers at least one obvious reason … namely that the Slav pockets were formed in those areas “which seem to have experienced serious demographic decline in the seventh century”. In other words under-population constituted a pull factor for Slavic migration – it is in those areas that they settled to create their ‘pockets’. Just for reference, i honestly disagree with the ridiculous theory of the re-translation of the Roseta Stone, at least so far with the evidence presented. I’m glad to hear that although you don’t get any points for stating the obvious. The last part of your statement, however, is a little worrying. The original translation of the Rosetta stone has been used very successfully for many years now to read Egyptian hieroglyphics. It doesn’t need any new evidence. My argument, as you mention it below, was pointed towards the flawed logic that the “Slavs” are newcomers to this region in case the “Slavic” migrations ever happened, even though they lived in those lands for milenia and a half (again, according to the migration theory), which is awfully long period of time. Ancient Macedons, according to the “questionable” histories of the past, are newcomers to the whole of the “genuine” ancient Macedonian region that you point in one of the posts here. But anyway, you seem to went into deeper analysis of the comparison i made so lets just roll with it If you follow Herodotus’s version of the story Macedons are newcomers to the region also, and by some logic, that should have happened somewhere after the Trojan war = End of the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. The region of Macedonia is very densely inhabited since the early Neolithic which is far far before Trojan war. And Pelagonia was not the only land mentioned in the Iliad. Asteropaious, also a Paionian that died at the hand of Achilles, came from the city of Amidon from the banks of Axios, which many scholars (although I disagree with many of them, but that’s not the point, since no1 I know of actually puts forward another theory), should be located in the lower Vardar/Axios region, or some of the sites there that were quite inhabited in the corresponding period: Vardino, Vardaroftsa or Kastanas. In accordance with that is the mentioning of several “Paionian” tribes living in the area around the northern shores of the Aegean Sea: Siropaiones, Paioples and the “Paiones around lake Prasias” (many scholars identify this with the dried lake Kerkine), which were subdued and some of them transferred in Asia Minor, but later returned. First of all, your “thesis” was not set in broader Greek Macedonia but in Pieria. By stating that Pieria was pure Macedonian region. I gave you example that if you drive conclusions strictly from historical sources, your theory is wrong, since Herodotus attests tribes of “different” origin living in Pieria with addition of more recent southern greek colonists in Methone and Pydna, which cant give you pure “Macedonian DNA”. Archaeology speaks that no migrations in the “Macedonian” Pieran hinterland took place and that it has continuity at least since 1100 BC. Another point towards this antithesis is that Pieria was a border region with Thessaly, where strong Mycenaean culture is attested (megarons, tholoss tombs, middle heladic pottery etc), which is totally different with what was happening north. On the other side, there are “certain” artifacts which belong to the Mycenaean culture, like couple of ring gems inscribed in Mycenaean manner, which prove that there were certain contacts (which is only logical), most likely genetic one also, which favor the exclusion of Pieria as a place where pure “Macedonian DNA” can be found. The remark about macedons being newcomers was irony trying to ridicule the theory that the “Slavs” are newcomers, by proving with same kind of arguments, that macedons are newcomers too. The archaeological facts point towards something else with regards to Pieria. There are no traces of any migrations, depopulation and arriving of new people. Actually Pierian sites fit quite well within the picture of almost the entire region of Macedonia, including great deal of the territory of Republic of Macedonia. The iron age burials at Pydna and the tumuli found in the near vicinity of Dion (some of which published in the archaeological guide for Dion written by Pandermalis), point to that fact. Just compare it to any of the sites published in W. A. Heurtley’s “Prehistoric Macedonia”. There’s nothing which can be assigned to “Macedonians”, “Dorians”, “Pieres”, “Thracians” etc. or any migration taking place in the hinterlands of the region. There might be some new study pointed towards the subject which I’m not aware of, and if that is the case, please tell me which are they (only interested in archaeology here, not historical say so). Again no material evidence what-so-ever, both of Cretans, newcomers, depopulation, arriving of new people, departure to Chalcidice. I suggest you stop telling me what my thesis was. It is clear that you have missed my point and we’ll be going around in circles as a result. I am fully aware of the extent of Paionian lands over different periods of history and that the region that can loosely be termed ‘Macedonia’ today was populated for many millennia by a variety of peoples. This is not anything new or surprising. Nor am I unaware of the timing of the ancient Macedonian expansion into lands already occupied by earlier peoples. I do not know why you expend so much energy arguing that the Macedonians too can be seen to have been relative newcomers to Macedonia. I do not dispute it. However, your whole argument here entirely misses the point. The issue of who is a newcomer is irrelevant to my discussion with Chento – it was not about which group was here first. Yes the Slavs have been here for fourteen centuries or so and yes the Macedonians were newcomers to the lands they conquered. That your people may have been relative latecomers to Macedonia does not reduce the legitimacy of their connection to their lands. However, it does draw attention to the outrageous nature of their claim to the ancient Macedonians (to whom they have no connection whatsoever) particularly when a claimed affinity with such older (but less glamorous) groups as the Paeonians might make greater sense (at least geographically). The battle thus concentrates on the name of the ancient Makedones, the most famous group that the region has produced and the one to have lent its name to the entire region (latecomers as they may have been compared to even earlier groups); on who ‘can rightfully claim’ them and through them their land, its history and symbols, its patrimony and yes – ludicrously – their ‘bloodline’. Chento’s absurd insistence that your people are Macedonians because they carry their DNA, in keeping with what is apparently a cherished fairytale observable on the net (IGENEA etc), was what I took issue with to the point of being compelled to demonstrate that if anywhere the ancient DNA of the Makedones, based on where they actually lived, would logically be found in Greece (let alone discussions centering on the uncomfortable fact – for you - that this ancient group was a Greek people). This was my thesis. The general principle I adopted, for the sake of this 'thesis' is that DNA will largely have remained in the area where it had existed in the past – a view-point rather hard to dispute. I expect, given your view concerning the continuation of Paleo-Balkan bloodlines, that you will agree. (We will of-course disagree on the extent of the Slav impact - but for the sake of my exposition I largely let that go). In this light the DNA of the ancient Macedonians (whatever combination of hgs that may have comprised) and those of the Upper Macedonians will logically also be sought in those lands which they inhabited. Hence my exposition arriving at the inevitable conclusion that ancient Macedonians DNA remains overwhelmingly in Greece. My whole discussion with Chento had thus centred on dispelling his delusions concerning the ‘antic Macedonian DNA’ and my reference to Pieria (amongst other areas) served to emphasize the fact that ancient Macedonian DNA would be found in areas such as that with deep associations to them. My discussion about Pieria was only a part of the actual point I was making. And since you are so keen on returning to Pieria – the land in the ‘Shadow of Olympus’ - there is no doubt that it was very central to the Makedones of old from a very early period. Accordingly it must heavily carry ‘old Macedonian DNA’ if such a thing has survived (even if you want to see a measure of Hellenised Thracians in that mix – despite the tradition that the Thracians were expelled). And yes there is little to doubt the view that this area remained Greek-speaking since antiquity. Mind you, if you’re going to base your argument on literary sources (Herodotus), and I agree it is entirely legitimate to do so even in the absence of archaeological evidence, then you will have to accept the traditions of the Macedonians themselves, recorded in our sources, according to which they seized the Pierian plain (and Bottiaia, Almooia and Eordaia) from pre-existing peoples and peopled those areas themselves. Make up your mind, will we only accept evidence uncovered by the archaeologist’s spade (a naïve expectation at such a micro level, really) – as you seem to be arguing elsewhere - or can we also accept other evidence (literary, linguistic etc)? I will answer this for you: all evidence is relevant and must be properly synthesized. What archaeological evidence is there, for example, to account for the arrival of the Koniar Turks into the Kailar/Eordaia and the fate of the pre-existing population (whether Slav or Greek-speaking)? What archaeological evidence might future archaeologists expect to uncover to point to the expulsion of the Muslim Chams by the Greek state and so forth. It is rather ridiculous to expect to have it always and at such a relatively micro level. We know from our literary sources, in yet another example, that Albanian groups spread into Greece in the late middle ages, and this is observable in their later known distribution within southern Greece, yet I am unaware of any archaeological proofs of this. Should we doubt that those migrations happened due to an absence of archaeological evidence? Basically it is ludicrous to expect archaeology to identify the countless tribal movements that have taken place (both large and small scale). And as it happens, there actually is evidence of the Bottiaeans and their reputed Cretan origins - discoveries of items adorned with the labrys (double-headed axe) symbol which followed them also to where they were expelled – to the base of the Chalcidice peninsula, later called Bottike after them. Just as we know through classical sources that there were Pieres living in the Pangaion region in eastern Macedonia to where the Pierian Thracians of the Pierian plain were known to have been expelled in keeping with the – albeit unproven by archaeology – literary tradition. Archaeology may not directly be called on to prove that the Pierian Thracians were expelled (for example, and the same would apply for the Almopes, Eordi etc), or indeed that they landed at the Pangaion region, but we can be pretty confident that it did happen. Historical sources attest to them being in the Pangaion region, after all. In other words evidence does exist beyond the archaeological evidence on which you rather self-servingly insist. I will not pretend to be an expert in archaeology – I am certainly not – particularly not in relation to how it relates to the Slavic migrations. However, I think you might be expecting a little too much of it at the expense of other evidence, in particular the literary tradition and the resultant observable linguistic/toponymic facts which quite clearly accord with it. As a last point here, let me just state that your objections to Pieria as a likely repository of ancient Macedonian genes because of the presence of Mycenaean elements there (apart from betraying your rather transparent motives) is entirely self-defeating. That is, you start of with your own definition which must of necessity exclude any Mycenaean input and proceed from there … that anything Macedonian must follow whatever patterns may have been occurring further north. That the Makedones were brothers of the Aeolic Magnetes who probably shared the region with them before being pushed further south into Thesssaly (probably by the Thracian ‘Pierians’) – does not trouble you in the least. Anything to dismiss the centrality of this indisputably Greek area to the Macedonians; an area full of so many early associations for them. What a joke. Actually, Demir Kapija is ancient Stenae, shown on Tabula Peutingeriana (and there are actually athenian graves there, with specific form of the lecythos burial pots). Antigoneia is modern day Negotino at the site of “Gradiste”. And its far from the only ancient Macedonian presence in Republic of Macedonia, the others being Vardarski Rid – Gevgelija (confirmed by inscription to be ancient Gortynia), Isar – Marvinci (Idomenai), Bukri (Lyncus), Bonche (Pelagonia which was the fourth meridae with its own coinage, where three remains of three macedonian shields have been found just several years ago, with dedication to Demetrius I Poliorketos), Heraklea Lyncestis – Bitola, Stybera – Chepigovo, and the city of Lychnidus (which even Touratsoglou pointed that it’s a genuine ancient Macedonian town, with Macedonian tombs, and a complete material culture which is Macedonian-oriented) – Ohrid. Yes I know it is Stenae – a nice old Macedonian word! And I never meant to imply that Stenae by itself was the only Macedonian site in that area. I used the term Demir Kapu loosely, to denote the general area leading to and around the ‘narrows (Stenae)’ which had strategic value for the growing state such that the Macedonians fought the Paeonians there for its control and used colonists to effect its possession. We’re basically talking about a strip of land along the Vardar/Axios. Incidentally Hammond sees Gortynia further south inside Greece while he argues that Gevgelija was the site of Eidomene (not to be confused with Idomenai at Marvinci). As for the sites in Pelagonia … well, yes they were ‘Macedonians’ in as much as the former Epirotes there became Macedonians with expected input from the Macedonians proper. And by the way it is ‘Poliorcetes’ not ‘Poliorketos’ – please ensure you render the Greek names and epithets of ancient Macedonians correctly. Nah they weren’t so brutal. Hey, they were the first true Kosmopolitans even. However, I cant say that the greek policy towards the “Slavs” in Macedonia was/is humane. And no, I don’t find the “occupation” illegal. Its ratified internationally and there is no way to get that back apart from chaos and blood and war. However, I cant find one good reason not to allow those people to practice their own customs, to pertain their own names and surnames without being put to public persecution, attend in schools on their mother language – all these things are parts of the internationally accepted human rights code. You talk with protective fondness for them … again as if they have some special connection to you. They don’t. And they were quite definitely not cute and cuddly in the means they employed to create their state. Ok you lost me here totally. First you put Orestians, Lynkestians and Pelagonians and others in a group which were “streakly speaking” Epirote Greeks. First of all, until recently, and I say recently because I’m not aware of any “more” recent publications, there weren’t any attested inscriptions in the Macedonian regions until 4-th century bc, and even afterwards, the only attested inscriptions are on Attic koine greek. No epirote greek is actually attested (A. R. Crossland, Linguistic problems of the Balkan Area in the late prehistoric and early classical period, Cambridge Ancient History Vol. III Part 1, page 843). Actually, even in northern Epirus no greek is attested earlier then 4-th century (idid. Page 841). The only paper which i resemble portraing some epirote niche to those lands is M. A. Templars 2009 essay but he doesnt quite exlains his map of spreading of epirote greek. Historical sources speak the same. Apart from the Orestians, no other of those “tribal” formations are listed as Epirote in any historical source known to me. Then you put the above in “Bulgarians”, and one of them – Orestians in Greek also, I guess referring to the territories of the ancient populations lived in. I’m strongly against making parallels from ancient people to present day populations simply because it is a point not possible to prove. Yes you are confused. Firstly, inscriptions do in fact exist within Epirus (proper) from at least the early fourth century BC that clearly and unequivocally attest to the native NW Greek speech of the Epirote tribes. This view is pretty much universally held amongst experts in the relevant field and has been for quite a while. Even such obscure specialists as Antonin Bartonek of the Academia Prague (Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences) in his 'Classification of the West Greek dialects at the time about 350 BC (published in 1972)', a manuscript which I happen to have a copy of in my personal library, quite casually and quite naturally treats the dialects of Epirus as a normal member of this Greek dialectal group (despite them being comparatively less well documented that the others). Likewise the historian Eugene Borza, who seems to have almost ‘rock star’ hero status amongst your people (again because of a misinterpretation of his views) takes it as a given ... I suggest you should also. That the tribes that later became the ‘Upper Macedonians’ (Orestians, Elimeians, Pelagones etc) were originally Molossian/Epirotic is also pretty much accepted wisdom – you’ll notice, for instance, that Borza treats them this way in his ‘In the Shadow of Olympus’. This connection is recorded at least as early as Hecataeus in the sixth century BC. As for inscriptions specific to this tribal continuum I am aware only of recent finds at the site of ancient Aiane (capital of Elimeia) in the Kozani region which attests to the NW Greek speech of these ‘Upper Macedonians’ in keeping with the Epirotes that they were. If you are after inscriptions for the speech of the Makedones themselves, although admittedly there is far less of it, the Pella katadesmos, is as good a place as any to start. Here are some extracts from Hammond for your reference – ones I could immediately find in his heavy-going volumes; my apologies, I tried to find more succinct summaries. Hammond had this to say about the Molossians one of the three main tribal groupings of the Epirotes (the others being the Chaones and Thesprotoi). You will see further on that the Orestians and the other Upper Macedonian tribes were originally reckoned as Molossian tribes at least as early as Hecataeus in the sixth century BC: "...The Molossoi provide a relevant analogy. That they were Greek-speaking might have been deduced from Herodotos' inclusion of them among those who participated in Greek colonization; but it was only the discovery of inscriptions which showed that in 370-68 BC their speech, nomenclature and political terms were entirely Greek and had been in the time of Thucydides, since the patronymics too and the tribal names were Greek. In the seventh century BC the Molossoi probably spoke a north-west dialect of Greek. So too the Thesprotoi and the Chaones, for whom similar late fourth century inscriptions have come to light..." (Hammond, 1988)The following quite typical extract from Hammond’s first volume – one little snippet - should also suffice to give you a taste. It is from discussion centring on the Derriopes, a ‘lesser’ tribal group, in today’s FYROM (south and west of the Crna Reka) often confounded with the Pelagones: This structure of large tribal groups, containing lesser tribal groups, and forming into political units of εθνος, φυλη, πολις, κωμη, and κοινον, is one which we should regard in central and southern Greece as typical of the archaic period. Was it indigenous in these remote north-western territories or was it imposed by Macedonian or Roman rulers? All historical parallels suggest that it was indigenous, a survival of a system congenial to the peoples of this high and mountainous terrain and as old as the time of their first arrival. The ethnos and the komai were already in Lyncus in the fifth century (Thuc. 2. 99. 2 and 4. 124. 4). If the structure is Greek, it may not be exclusively Greek; for all we know, the Illyrian Penestae or the Dardanii may have had similar institutions. But there is another point of distinction, not only the use of Greek speech but the very high proportion of Greek names. The ephebic lists found at Tsepicovo, being evidently those of the Styberraei, and those of the ephebarchus and the ephebes found at Bela Tsarkva, being probably those of the Alalcomenaei, contain a great many names. These are almost to a man Greek names; the exceptions are some Latin names, due no doubt to legionary fathers, and an occasional Illyrian or Thracian name, such as Epicadus, Beithys, Sitas, and Getriporis. If the Derriopes were in fact Illyrians or Thracians in descent, it is impossible to account for the purity of their Greek speech and for the almost complete dominance of Greek names, especially as the occasional one which is admitted cannot be regarded as substantial evidence of Illyrian or Thracian survival. It seems clear that these people were Greek by descent; that is they bore the mark of institutions, language, and nomenclature which distinguished the Hellenic tribes from their neighbours, and they were Greek in this sense before they became Macedonian in a political sense.
The closest parallels to the origin and situation of the Derriopes, Pelagones, and the others are to be seen in the tribes of Epirus, which were also neighbours of Illyrians. There we have the same tribal structures in large groups, e.g. Molossi or Chaones, and numerous small tribes making up a large group but each having its own koinon; the same use of Greek language and the same dominance of Greek nomenclature, both seen from inscriptions of 370-368 B.C. and neither attributable to the extension of Macedonian rule. But, more than this, we have a close similarity in the formation of the ethnics of north-western Macedonia and of Epirus: Lyncestae, Dolenestae and (in Epirus) Hyncestae, Ethnestae, Orestae; Derriopes and Hellopes; Alcomenaei and Eurymenaei; Argestaei and Aegestaei; Limnaei and Larisaei; Combreatae, Geneatae, (?) Maleiatae and Oriatae, Phylatae, Edonesatae; Pelagones and Chaones, Amymones, Sylliones. The names of the Derriopan cities are also comparable to those in Epirus: Styberra (Strabo's Stybara) to Kemara (modern Himarre), Alalcomenae to Eurymenae, Bryanium to Bryanium, Pluinna to Gitana. These analogies are so close that we have no reason to doubt the ancient tradition in Str. 7 C 326 and 9 C 434 that the Pelagones, Elimiotae, and Orestae, and in general the inland tribes bordering on the Illyrian mountains (οι υπερκειμενοι και συναπτοντες τοις Ιλλυρικοις ορεσι) were Epirotic tribes. I shall discuss later the origin and significance of Strabo's statements. They rest upon observations of ethnic relationships rather than of a way of life; for Strabo goes on in C 326 fin. to say that 'some' (indicating a different source) call the whole area up to Corcyra 'Macedonia' because of similarities of tonsure, dialect, and dress (the chlamys).
While we have the geography of the north-western area in mind, it is desirable to note the extent of Strabo's statement in C 326. The Illyrian mountains begin for him in book 7 to the north of the Via Egnatia, and the traveller has on his right 'the Epirotic tribes’ (C 323); in general these tribes lying inland and bordering on the Illyrian mountains occupy rough country, and some of them are 'close to the Macedonians’ rather (than to ? central Epirus), whereupon Orestias is mentioned (C 326). But the Illyrian tribes are interspersed there, that is those tribes by the south part of the (Illyrian) mountain range and those inland of the Ionian Gulf; for the Bylliones and Taulantii (being inland of the Ionian Gulf) and the Parthini and the Brygi (being at the southern end of the Illyrian range, ie. where the Shkumbi cuts through it) live inland of Epidamnus and Apollonia. After a short digression he adds apparently to his list of 'the Epirotic tribes' the Lyncestae, Derriopus, Pelagonia, the Eordi, Elimea, and Eratyra. And at the end of the chapter he explains, as he does also at C 434, that as a result of imperialism the Epirotes close to the Macedonians became part of their domains and indeed all except a few inland of the Ionian Gulf (C 326 fin. Πλην ολιγων των υπερ του Ιονιου κολπου). Now if his list of the interspersed Illyrian tribes is complete, it means that the Dassaretii, the Amantes, the Parauaei, and the Chaones are regarded by him as Epirotic, and of these the few close to Macedonia and inland of the Ionian Gulf who escaped Macedonia's clutches were the Dassaretii and the Parauaei. There are also independent reasons for supposing these two peoples to have been in some sense Epirotic; for FGrH I (Hecataeus) F 103 describes the Dexari—those after whom the district Dassaretis was named—as a Chaonian tribe living under Mt. Amyron, which is the great mountain behind Berat, Mt. Tomor; and FGrH 265 (Rhianus) F 19 attributes the Parauaei to Epirus as a Thesprotian tribe. I conclude then that the Dassaretii were a Greek-speaking people of the so-called Epirotic group, akin to the Lyncestae and the Orestae, for instance, and to the more southerly tribes of the Chaones. (2) (2) Because the territory west of Macedonia and north of Epirus was known generally as Illyris and later was part of the Roman province of Illyricum, there has been a tendency to regard all peoples in it, except those of Apollonia and Dyrrachium, as Illyrians. And some more Hammond: The tribes in this barbarian area were divided by Hecataeus, as we have seen, into various groups. The ‘Molossian tribes’ extended at least from the Molossians in the south to the Talares in the east and to the Orestae in the north. The Chaones formed a separate group of constituent tribes from the Thyamis river in the south to the Dexari in the north. The Thresproti were the group of tribes south of the Molossian and Chaonian tribes to the Ambraciote Gulf, Further to the north a group of tribes particularly Lyncestae, Pelagones, and Elimiotae - was associated by Hecataeus with the Orestae and the general group of ‘Molossian tribes’' rather than with the Macedonians to whom they were later annexed (Str. 7. 7. 8 and 9. 5. 11). In the time of Hecataeus the Illyrians were pressing upon the peoples of this northern group. The passage in Strabo (7, 7. 8) which describes this pressure is clearly taken from Hecataeus. It refers to the period before the northern group was annexed to Macedonia; it contains many names which appear in the fragments of Hecataeus; and it enumerates the tribes west of the Balkan range in the south-to-north order, which is that of Hecataeus. It is interesting to note that just as the Molossian tribes of ‘Upper Macedonia’ became ‘Macedonian’ other Epirote tribes readily became Thessalian or something else. The Epirus area, after all, constituted the original reservoir of Greeks from which many tribes expanded into other areas of the Greek peninsula. Such Epirotes even include the original Thessalians (the Thettaloi or Pethaloi) themselves and such well-known groups as the Boiotians! We know of the Molossians in Epirus but Herodotus informs us that Molossians, along with other Greeks, also took part in the early ‘Ionian’ migrations resulting in the colonisation of various parts of the Aegean coast. We have the Talares in Chaonia (south Albania) … and also the Talares in north-west Thessaly; the Ainianes inhabiting the Spercheios valley of Thessaly in classical times were known to have once been called Paraouaioi (dwellers by the Aous – Vijose river); the Ethnestae (a Molossian sub-group) were likewise later absorbed into Thessaly; the Amantes/Abantes who evidently occupied the valley of the Polyanthes (Shushice) in Chaonia in classical times were also found in Euboia; the Thessaloi (already mentioned) were, according to tradition, neighbours of the Thesprotoi while the Boiotians were believed to have migrated from the Boion region on the Pindus. Other than the well known ones in the Peloponnese, Arcadians are noted also in Pindus region of Athamania; one can even add the Makednoi (your namesakes LOL) who, as Dorians, spread throughout much of southern Greece. Indications also exist that the pre-historic Macedonians themselves hailed from a part of Epirus (reputedly in Orestis) and that they travelled down the Haliakmon valley before landing in the Pierian mountains and the northern Olympian piedmont where early history finds them. The Greek speech of these migrating Epirote tribes readily allowed them to combine with other Greek formations further afield – a case applicable also to the integration of ‘Upper Macedonians’ with the Greek-speaking Macedonians which made them politically Macedonian and allows your people now to point excitedly at possessing a part of ancient Macedonia in Pelagonia. I’m certainly no geneticist, but by “amateur” look at the genetic studies, there’s a conclusion that anyone can draw which points towards similar genetic percentage of the same hg’s in Balkan population today until the population in the Neolithic (King at al., Differential Y-chromosome Anatolian Influences in Greek and Cretan Neolithic, Annuals of Human Genetics 2008, pages 205-214; Pericic et al., High-Resolution Phylogenetic analysis of Southeastern Europe traces major episodes of paternal gene flow among Slavic populations, 2005) and point that almost all major hg’s are present here from a long time ago with small change of percentages of certain hg’s through time here and there. This doesn’t change anything. There is nothing to say the ancient Macedonians were distinguishable from their neighbours from a genetic point of view (one of my earlier points in different posts/threads), nor that they possessed any distinguishing marker. They were, however, different culturally and linguistically from their non-Greek neighbours with whom they may have shared DNA including, perhaps, and for argument’s sake, the Paeonians who would logically form the major sub-stratum in your country if any ancient DNA survived. The simple point of the matter is that despite any of this, one would have to look in Greece to even pretend to search for the DNA remnants of the Makedones and not amongst the people in the FYROM. Ok look. The amounts of statues that were raised and hopefully will be raised in the future, describe the heritage of this region which we are part of, and all the historical personas that gave a great deal of culture and civilization to it. Of course there are certain delusional people that would go too far in their interpretations in parts of it, but same can be said by any Balkan nation. No matter if it majority or minority or what ever amount of DNA or culture, it is a fact that all of them were borned, dwelled and died here. I didn’t hear any complaints about the Alexander statue in Edinburgh. You cant just say that “the history from now until then” is mine and only mine and I have a monopoly over it. I mean seriously dude. History is to the historians and the world, not to Greece. You can take pride in whatever you want and I and everyone here don’t give a damn f*ck, be that Hellas or Macedonia. The name Macedonians wasn’t a matter of choice. It was given to us and most closely resembles what we are in this modern and twisted “ethnic” term. It is the only name that causes adrenaline rush to an extent that you would rather die in agony for its protection then leave it be in peril. No other name does. And it certainly isn’t several decades as you would like some to believe. No matter how you interpret some of the evidence. And don’t bloody tell me that the language is a crucial factor in ethnicity of certain people because it’s the most pity full argument ever. Are the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh English? No? Why did Poles and almost all of Western Slavs were Latin speaking until high in the middle ages? Why are today Egyptians speaking Arab? Why did the Franks, even though they conquered Gaul, accepted Romano-gaelic language? Why are the Norwegian Vikings which settled in England defining themselves today as Britons? Or even better one: Why were the Byzantines, which wrote greek, defined themselves as Romans? Why did the german tribes which conquered Italy accepted Latin? And we still do occasionally call ourselves Romioi (in song for example). Do you still call yourselves Bulgarians’? There can be no dispute that the Greeks of Byzantium were Romans at least in the political sense as the Eastern part of the Empire was dominated by Greek speech and culture from early on and what remained of the Roman Empire gradually contracted over time to essentially Greek-speaking Orthodox lands. Segments of other groups were naturally incorporated within the Romioi (we’re talking about an Empire after all), but in general it can be said to be a unique term meaning ‘Greek’ in the context of the Middle Ages and was used to distinguish them from surrounding peoples (even those that were included in the Empire as a result of conquest, ie Bulgarians, Albanians, assorted Slavs, Armenians and many lesser known groups). External people frequently referred to these ‘Romans’ as ‘Greeks’ as it was clear that they were, to all intents and purposes, Greeks. Identity is changeable, this is true, and language is but one criterion that impacts on it (see Grecomani). However, I’m not entirely sure where you are taking your argument as far as the Macedonians are concerned. I presume you are arguing that although your people speak a Slavic language they are still ‘Macedonian’ (a la the descendants of Philip and Alexander). If you are saying this … there is little hope for you. There is no link whatsoever as there is, for instance, between the now English-speaking Scots, Irish and Welsh with their Celtic past. From Byzantine sources to William of Tyre’s observations in the 12th century to the accounts of early travellers like Evliya Chelebi and the mountain of evidence from the 19th century onwards, the Slavs of the region were considered Bulgarian. The Slavs of Albania are still locally called Bulgarians despite the machinations of FYROM aimed at having their official status accepted as ‘Macedonians’. Even the Vlachs of the FYROM still use the term Virgar (= Bulgarians) in their own language in reference to the Slav majority of their FYROMian countrymen. The ancient Macedonians were Greeks, as were the Upper Macedonians. They inhabited regions almost wholly within Greece. Your people are Slavs, who inhabit an area only marginally part of Macedonia, Upper Macedonia at that. The name may stir you … it certainly stirs us and has done a very long time. Yet it has stirred you only recently and has caused you to come up with much nonsense in attempting its defense. Before that it was the Bulgarian name that moved you to adrenaline ‘such that were moved to die for it’. And by the way, statues of Alexander in Edinburgh, or other similar homages to our history (there are many the world over), is an absolute honour; something Greeks should try and live up to. We’re never likely to complain, why would we? The Scots are not claiming to be the Macedonians and that their old lands and ancient capital are currently under occupation by the Greeks! And why shouldn’t we have credibility? When did we do anything to endanger any of our neighbours? Is really your paranoia waranted? We faced embargo from like day 1, we are negated, denied membership in EU and NATO kuz of it. We changed our constitution so to give up from our national minority in Greece, we changed the flag, the name. Seriously now you want us to change our identity? And in return we get what? Your government and republic have done so much harm to this little piece of land that its bordering on faschism. And here every national minority is accepted. Turks, Roma, Vlachs, Serbs, Albanians can study and practice on their mother tongue, even in public administration. Have you even consider how much suffering has your state caused? And to what extent do you think you can spill out bad blood around? You know, the biggest catalyst of the modern national awakening here, and even in your own country, is by your own fault. It is causing people to feel revolt and disgust. I mean seriously, you outnumber us like 10 to 1 just numerically, let alone technologically and infrastructurally. What threat do we pose and have we ever threatened you officially (by government officials) in any form? Do you honestly believe that if Bulgarians ever get hold of today Republic of Macedonia they will stop there? Their propaganda has much deeper roots in your lands today then the Macedonian propaganda. And yet here I am, offering my hand in friendship and hoping that it will be one more example for some of similar kind in the future. I have friends both of greek and Serbian nationality and I would and did trust a whole lot to them if asked. At the end, every ethnicity is political construction, no exceptions. It’s a decision certain group of people makes which will define them as separate from everyone else and it involves manipulation with culture and symbols. All I wish is everyone to put to rest the hatred. Leave the science to scientists. Leave regional identities to continue to evolve uninterrupted if that is done in civilized manner. And lets all finally come together and evolve this region rather then devolving it. Because I would rather live with people rather then hate them and kill them. Anyway, although we derailed the thread big time, kudos for the discussion. I must say i enjoyed it, apart from some agresive words. Cut the crap my friend, you know very well that the circus is in town in Skopje and it is designed to consolidate your people’s take on its history and foremost its completely non-existent link to Alexander’s people. As far as we Greeks are concerned this is aggression; an attack on us on a cultural and symbological level at the very least. Your talk and maps of ‘One United Macedonia’ (an imaginary place that never existed for Slavs) and lost lands to be re-conquered, doesn’t help either. As far as we are concerned you are indeed taking from us. I imagine that the Bulgarians see it in a similar way but as they see you essentially as Bulgarians, I presume they relate to your ‘transgressions’ against them somewhat differently, with greater bemusement perhaps. In addition to our objections over the name, the embargo Greece imposed at the very start came about because you were trying to get away - like chicken thieves - with such symbols as the Macedonian Sunburst. You were clearly hoping that you could present yourselves to the world - unchallenged – as the inheritors of Alexander and his people; the legitimate heirs of ancient Macedonia and all that belonged to it. At any rate, despite what you think, we do not have hatred for your people and likewise hope to live in peace, friendship and mutual respect. Progress in that direction can really only be made when the truth is respected, something in short supply generally in the Balkans … but particularly, and increasingly, in Gruevski’s theme park. Anyway, I’ve spent far too much time here … Cheers
|
|