Post by Emperor AAdmin on Nov 26, 2008 15:28:36 GMT -5
Cvijic talks about slavophone populations in Macedonia as well as those in what is now western Bulgaria and southeast Serbia as one without clearly defined ethnicity (neither Bulgarian or Serbian one) and one that viewed itself as simply being Slav (with clearly Byzantine culture) up to 19th-20th century.
Cvijic o Makedoniji: Najveca mesavina naroda u Evropi (Cvijic on Macedonia: Biggest Mix of people in Europe)
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Nov 26, 2008 16:29:28 GMT -5
(translated some from before and some today using google translator and modifying some of it and here it is)
Cvijic about Macedona: Biggest mix of nations in Europe ------------
How did Serbian scientist Jovan Cvijic see Macedonian Slavs
Biggest mix of nations in Europe
Nowhere else in Europe are ethnic groups so intermixed as they are in Macedonia, especially southern Macedonia - states Cvijic. There is an existence of national and religious-national propaganda, and some of them for decades are forcing Macedonians, especially Macedonian Slavs, their own national identity, and with the same idea in mind are they also attempting to influence their language and theirs customs.
Professor Jovan Cvijic (1865-1927), Vienna doctor of geographic sciences, geographical sciences, founder of Serbian geography and anthropic-geography, rector of Belgrade university, honorary doctor from Sorbonne and University in Prague and president of Serbian academy of sciences, one of the shiniest (biggest) names of Serbian science. As a scientist with international prestige, during a piece conference in Paris, after first world war, was a president of territorial commission.
Involving himself with Yugoslavian and Serbian questions, this scientist has walked throughout Balkans, is the one credited with the borders of Kingdom of Yugoslavia (land that was founded by king Alexander, while Tito "extended it for twenty hectares").
Responding to desires of numerous readers we are publishing sections of Cvijic's book "Macedonian Slavs, observing the ethnography of Macedonian Slavs", that was published by the publishing house Gece Kona, in Belgrade during the year 1906.
This we are doing with best of intentions, without any "greater-Serbian motive", as it might be stated by our already seceded brothers from former Yugoslav republics.
After all, Macedonian people have expressed their emotions towards brotherly Serbian nation, in the best of manner proved with last year's (1999) demonstrations against NATO attackers, who were bombing Yugoslavia.
Related to Serbs and Bulgarians
Nowhere else in Europe - states Cvijic - are ethnic groups so intermixed as they are in Macedonia, especially southern Macedonia. Further, there is examples of interchanging and assimilating from one ethnicity to another, especially Slavs into Greeks, Turks and Albanians, Tsintsars (Cincars) into Greeks and Slavs. Assimilation occurs into different levels:
(Semi-modified google translation starts here)
somewhere it just started, it shifts away somewhere, and somewhere it is almost complete. Finally, national mass of Macedonian 'Slovenes' (Slavs) has no specific national conscience, had no independent historical past, does not have its language.
Says the language on which there are three opinions: close to Serbian, closer with Bulgarian and that it may be an independent south Slavic language. Therefore, there is no reliable ethnographic character, on the basis of which would the 'Slovenian' people become marked as Serb or Bulgarian.
The question remains further complicated with these influences. There are national and religious-national propaganda, and some of them for decades imposed Macedonia, the Macedonian Slavs in particular, our national awareness, then them in this regard covering language and customs change.
In the Balkan states that have right to Macedonia, for decades through the formation of intelligence around the inaccurate performances of ethnic Macedonians. Each of the Balkan states applied all Macedonian Slavs their nationalities, and it has become feelings of biggest segments of intelligentsia. Because of this there is a public opinion, which it mostly believed.
Foreign writers are Macedonian Ethnographic question discussed on the basis of twofold information. Some are informed at the intelligence of one of the Balkan peoples and their supporters in Macedonia, and therefore represented inaccurate opinion.
Others, who have more independently worked, and almost none knew neither Serbian nor the Bulgarian language, have not felt People want to reduce near the Macedonian Slovenia, and ruled only by foreign characters, especially by name, marking them as Bulgarians.
In addition to this - still says Cvijic - the concept of Macedonia in recent times spread towards Skoplje and Tetovo region, which was not never computed in Macedonia.
Macedonian Ethnographic question is, therefore, one of the hardest and most complex ones. Next, it was noticed all false starting points, which are forward said, he discussed mainly false methods and toward false major observations.
For this reason, I will present his opposite results of ethnography Macedonian 'Slavs', which I came across traveling, and watching and studying literature. I grouped observations about these theories as following:
1 False geographical concept of borders of Macedonia. Skoplje and Tetovo region belong to the old Serbia.
2 National mass of Macedonian Slavs has no specific national identification and national minds, neither Serb neither Bulgarian, although they are very related with the Serbs and Bulgarians.
3 Bulgarian name, which Macedonian Slavs as a rule called, is not Ethnographic name and does not mean an ethnic Bulgarian.
4 Foreign, German, French, English and other ethnographic map of Macedonia are not ethnographic, are not linguistic but colored only on the basis of falsely understood Bulgarian names, which Macedonian Slavs often were called.
5 Statistical tables are untrue or false.
At the Macedonian Slav can be reliably observed following feelings. They know that their side is not that of the Turks and Greeks, if the latter are connected with them via church, then feels that they are in terms of national identity wobbly mass, which does not have ethnic predisposition favoring Serbs or Bulgarians.
People's mass, that is not affected by propaganda, feels neither Serb nor Bulgarian, but rather has sympathy for both people, with whom they can intercommunicate and who they hope will liberate them. As with every subdued people, measure of sympathy toward Serbs or Bulgarians depends on gives them bigger chance for freedom.
I have seen - highlights Cvijic - that in the villages belonging to the Bulgarian party, farmers talk with me about their misfortunes and liberation in this regard as the Serb party, and stating that they were equally glad under the Serbs, or Serbia or Bulgaria. I have listened to them and from at times exarchate priest and cleric who anyway heads over Bulgarian currents among Macedonian Slavs.
In recent years, while among us yet were not taken by 'filokser' destroyed vineyards, many merchants from Serbia came in 'Tikve' vine growing and other regions of Macedonia, and bought grapes. The people came with them in contact, speaking almost the same language, and I found, after traders left, and have felt that in many villages peoples mood goes over to the Serb side, although they were Bulgarian parties, and even though our propaganda has never worked in Tikve and that we have not had one of their villages.
In the year 1904. I traveled with many peasants in Solun environment (area), which are Bulgarian komites, because the Serbian there has never been, and I slept over in their villages. These were whole informing me of their work and plans and I clearly felt that they considered me one of their, and that they do not have any specific predilections towards Bulgarians as the Bulgarians.
Of all, who themselves knew people, often comes unplanned tribute to Macedonian Slavs as having no specific national conscience, and that they only, feel antagonism toward the Turks and Greeks, favoring Bulgaria or Serbian influence, or whoever brought the battle against the Turks or Greeks.
Verkovic, who was a writer and canvasser of Bulgarian things in Macedonia, admitted to being to several places (National songs of Macedonian Bulgar
At the Macedonian Slavs can be reliably observed following feelings. They know that their side is not of the Turks and Greeks, although the latter are connected with them via church, then feels that they are in terms of national identity wobbly people's mass, which does not have ethnic predisposition favoring Serbs or Bulgarians.
People's mass, that is not affected by propaganda, feels neither the Serbs nor the Bulgarian, but rather has sympathy for both people, with them can intercommunicate and who they hope will liberate them. As with every subdued people, their sympathy toward the Serbs and Bulgarians depends on who gives bigger chance for freedom.
I have seen often happened - highlights Cvijic - that in the villages belonging to the Bulgarian party, farmers talk with me about their misfortunes and liberation in this regard as the Serb party, and stating that they were equally glad under the Serbs, or Serbia or Bulgaria. I have listened to and from at times exarchate priest and cleric who anyway heads over Bulgarian influence among Macedonian Slavs.
In Macedonia there are four different nationalities: Slav, Macedonian-Wallachian or Cincar, Greek and Osman).
Sopov, then Bulgarian trading agent in Thessaloniki, very credible for the development of Bulgarian influence in Macedonia, wrote polemic writing about the ethnography of Macedonia, in which the more capable versus anyone else, were represented by Bulgarian aspirations to Macedonia.
The same is the case with the Serbian writers, who only find Serbs in Macedonia, while traveling and watching Macedonians. This opinion that the Macedonian Slavs do not have the Serb nor the Bulgarian People's minds and that they are in terms of national ethnicity a flotant People's mass, which is oscillatory between Serbs and Bulgarians, I have briefly presented in Vienna newspaper "Die Zeit", and then it is with many intuitions developed and further brought to light by a gifted writer N. upaniæ. Macedonian revolutionary organization printed it 1904. its known memoir, in which same position was taken, as the only proper one from the Macedonians point of view.
Great impact of church
(continue later on)
Consequences described feelings with Macedonian Slav is a phenomenon that they, after falling under Serbia or Bulgaria, quickly, reliably in the second generation, ethically identify with being Serbs or Bulgarians. Ones who understood the true Balkan situation were aware, for example, that the people of Custendil or Pirot region before the liberation (from the Turks) had the same lack of ethic feelings like Macedonians, and that the peasants from Custendil or Pirot regions now fully feel as Bulgarians or Serbs. As to the second example shows, it's a reliable forecast for the future Macedonian Slovenia, if they were taken by Serbia or Bulgaria.
Next, in the tests done by me and my colleagues it is conluded, that the composition of today's population of Serbia was influenced in a significant number of Macedonian Slavs, and that many of our city families are of Macedonian descent. The same case is with Bulgaria. The difference is that Macedonians of Serbia, mostly belong to older migratory currents, and Macedonians of Bulgaria are most newer immigrants.
"Kranjci" and "Slovinci"
Cvijic says that the particular 'Slovinian' (Slav) feelings or undefined national feelings and scarcity of ethic identity among National Macedonians, very similar with feelings of so-called "Kranjci" (Kajkavica speakers in NW Croatia) in Croatia or "Slovene" or "Slovinaca" in Dalmatia. It is known that the first ones have separate speech, which is very similar to Serbo-Croatian, and besides being of Catholic faith: they did not until recently had, and even now most have no specific national conscience. They were unsure between Serbs and Croats, but they are mainly Croats became of religion and government organizations, which is Croatian. When the struggle started between the Italians and Serbo-Croats in Croatia, last ones, especially ones of Catholic faith , called themselves the "Slovens" (Slavs) and often did not have specific tribal mind, Serb or Croatian. Even in Dalmatia still there are some "Slovines".
Great impact of Bulgarian church
• Bulgarians have sustained because of the church a large number of Macedonian Slavs • With patriarchy the Greeks created their 'electricity' (influence) and nationality on the Macedonian soil • It is not clear whether they speak a separate Macedonian language
Bulgarian propaganda is older, better organized, says Cvijic. Bulgarians in Macedonia have their church, 'egzarhat', with more bishops, with a number of clergy. Egzarhat has the right to open Bulgarian schools, and that creates Bulgarian municipalities, and in the municipalities is occurring almost the entire Turkish public life of Christians. In Macedonia, can not create a national party as religion, which only belongs to a people and identify with ethnicity, and under influence of nationalist schools such feeling cements itself and becomes deeper.
Egzarhat, Bulgarian church, it is considered as Slav one as the antithesis to Greek church, the Patriarchate.
Because of church Bulgarians gained for their party a large number of Macedonian Slavs. With patriarchy the Greeks are there to create their influence and ethnicity, where by no means are there any ethic Greeks. Serbs do not have their independent churches and all those efficient ways to make propaganda work, which the church has.
In Turkey, devotion to religion is the identity, and only those peoples who have their own church may be called officially by their ethnic name. Officially, then the Serbs have no rights in Macedonia or to their name, which is in recent years only tolerated. In addition, Serbian propaganda is young, and it has not known enough opportunities and to consolidate way of work.
Because of mentioned, many beneficial events, Bulgarian propaganda has given a lot of significant results, versus the Serbian. Especially it has created the Macedonian Bulgarian intelligence, and among all Slavs of Macedonian places the Bulgarian party has majority, mainly most significant majority. But, because of scarcity of endogenous ethic conscience such propaganda results are not permanent, can change under the work of Serbian propaganda, such as in many towns has changed.
Further, when Macedonia would be granted Serbian government organization, it would quickly become Serb, in exactly the same way that for the past 20-30 years has become Bulgarian, because of Bulgarian church and propaganda work. But the less-favored main question is that the broad masses have not received the influence of propaganda and a particular unchanging folk identity of any Balkan nationalities.
Strongest association with the Bulgarian or Serbian ethnicity was by inhabitants of those regions, where in recent times was rising to national color, and where the Macedonians expressed and cemented their solidarity with certain ethnicity through spilled blood.
Bloody Events create mutual history, which connects participants, their families, and sometimes the village. Therefore the example of the Bulgarian ethnicity being intimately tied around the ends of the upper position of river Struma, especially Razloš vicinity and the area around the village Kresne, where still during the Russo-Turkish wars in 1878. were armed uprisings, which were brutally stifled. In recent times there was a Cetnik uprising.
(to be continued)
Serbs victims of Bulgarian terror
During my first travel so-called "Internal organization was purely Bulgarian, was founded under influence and work from Bulgaria. Later it somewhat evolved and become Macedonian, because a few prudent leaders saw that it was a mistake to give the movement purely Bulgarian mark, still will therefore have to fight with the Serbs and supporters of other nationalities.
(In more recent times has the "Internal organization", which is headquartered in Sofia, again, completely take the Bulgarian nationalist position).
In the first phase it is a start of so-called "vinièka buna" (Vinicka uprising) in Koèanska valley. It has recruited a few determined peasants in the village and made the the warehouse of weapons and ammunition there. These peasants with Bulgarian label kill and plunder richest Beg in Vinica. Investigating, Turkish authorities detect the conspiracy, find weapons, kills some peasants, and many are tortured. As a result of these events otherwise loose connection with Bulgaria becomes much more firmer in the village.
Early on the "Inner organization" especially was killing supporters of Serbian nationality. However, it has not always succeed, to intimidate using terror, and that they change sides from the Serb party to the Bulgarian one. On the contrary, I know such cases, for example, in Drimkol, north of Ohrid, where the descendants of those killed become so hardened in Serbian identity, that they became uncompromising national fighters.
Because of such work, of "Interior Organization," antagonism was created more and more, which has already existed between the Bulgarian and Serbian parties in Macedonia. Organized were the Serbian 'chete' (armed groups) in the vicinity of Kumanovo, in Porec in the field between Veles and Prilep. They had bloody collisions with the Turkish army and Bulgarian cheta's, then with those ceta's of "inner organization" which were of the Bulgarian colors.
I have reliable observations that it is in the mentioned areas where it was hardening the Serbian People's awareness among the Macedonian Slavs.
Linguistic moment is used very often and abused in discussions regarding the Macedonian ethnographic questions. Very early on it has been locally observed undoubtedly Bulgarian or undoubtedly Serb lines in the Macedonian Slav language, and chauvinistic or uninformed writers have immediately announced, that in their Macedonia language is closer to the Serbian language, or Bulgarian language.
However, all serious writers in pursuance of that claim state that there is not enough reliable data to be able to get a complete picture regarding Macedonian speech.
Besides that in the well-known folk material, which is used for the basis linguistic studies, often stated not only inaccuracies and incompleteness, already has stated that the language in the story and songs sometimes has been modified in terms of political aspiration and excitement from the national gatherers and publishers. Still, many of gatherers were unprepared for this work.
Looks undoubtedly, that, unilaterally doing it, can within the Macedonian speeches one find the line, which are only characteristic to them, but they are only Serbian or Bulgarian.
It is clear that I can not indulge in the debate of the mentioned linguistic questions. But, proving the lower observations: that the people talking around Skopje, Kumanovo, Kratova, and the Tetovo and Gostivar, certainly are closer to Serbian than the Bulgarian language, that in the language of other Macedonian Slavs there are also Bulgarian and Serbian linguistic lines, and Serbian and Bulgarian influence, or as Professor V. Jagic has stated: macedonian language is composed of dialects which represent a crossing of the Bulgarian toward the Serbian-Croatian language.
This is the opinion of alsothe Russian linguist, A. Kocubunski.
Next it is likely that the language of some parts of Eastern Macedonia is closer to Bulgarian.
(to be continued)
Discussions about the language
Known name of Vuk Karadžic, which was first to introduce scientific world with Bulgarian, felt that the people's speech of Tetovo, Gostivar, Kicevo and Debar was closer to Serbian then to Bulgarian language, this is conclusion he came with after talking with several people from these regions (Kovèežiæ for history , Language and traditions of Serbs of all three laws, pp. 1.1849. - Glossary 1852. Yr.) The aforementioned S. Verkoviæ have similarly admitted, that the dialects of Vranje, Kumanovo and Dupnice (in Bulgaria) are "more approaching Serbian language, versus this south Macedonian speech. "
In recent time Olaf Brosh, a professor at the University 'Hristijanija', studied dialects of southern Serbia, and on the map he presented that these dialects stretch south of Vranje, over the southern border of Serbia, towards Skopje, Kumanovo and Kratovo.
From his objective discussion and disclosed forms of speech it derives that such are Serbian dialects, which were influenced under Bulgarian speech and the Serbian official language. Dr. A. Beliæ claims, says that the entire field south of the Serbian border, which has proven to be always in the Old PC Serbia, according to Slavic lines in phonetics and morphology purely Serbian.
They represent more archaic Serbian forms, and as such observed represnt one unit with speeches Eastern and southern Serbia and western Bulgaria. By Belic some of these speeches have received clause, either from the Bulgarian speech, either from the Macedonian dialects or perhaps from the Roman population, from whom those Slavic languages have received such features.
That also counts for simplifying of flection, which are performed by all of them. However in southern Macedonia there is speech, which is today surviving in weak remains and is gradually geting lost as a speech type.
This interesting, archaic speech was questioned V. Oblak and came to conclusion that it must be considered as an ancestor of old-Slavonic language, and that it is closer to Bulgarian language. Its affinity with today's Bulgarian language comes from the fact that some phonetics (žd. St, nasals, semivowels) and syntax-morphological features within have developed similarly.
Between these two zones is the biggest part of Macedonia, in which is the mix of this south-Macedonian and north-Macedonian (old-Serbian) speech. St. Novakoviæ has by careful and objective testing founded that for a large part of this region are characteristic Serbian voices "Dj"(Dj) and "C"(Ch). This is greatly recognized by Bulgarian linguist, for example, B. Conev and Czech ethnographer L. Niderle.
It is known for Macedonians to go on mass to work in Serbia and Bulgaria, where their language is changing. In addition, the language of younger macedonian generations has been changed via many schools of various propagandas, especially Bulgarian one. May, therefore, very easy mistake in the selection of 'faces', which are subject to linguistic study. Selection of all of this is a bit more serious linguistic works on the Macedonian speeches, in addition to them, and did not come to uncontested results, that would definitely solve Linguistic-Ethnographic question.
It is not clear today whether the macedonian speeches are separate south Slavic language with more dialects, although it is almost unbelievable, or these speeches, if so, in whole closer to Bulgarian or Serbian language.
(to be continued)
Byzantine view of the world
• Careful viewer will notice that the deep psychological features of these Slavs are similar to Byzantines • All the better ecclesiastical buildings in Macedonia are from the time of the Serbian dynasty of Nemanjic • Dusan's Statute adopted in Skopje
Old tribe: Mijaci from Galicnik
Numerous and one from the other somewhat different Slav tribes, among which could be such that had more of the Serb features, or more features or lower-Danubian Slavs, the first and longest, were under the Byzantines, and Byzantine cultures left on them deepest traces Says Jovan Cvijic.
And the influence of such culture, over especially the city Macedonian Slavs, has not stopped even during the Bulgarian and Serbian rule, and was felt through all of the Turkish period.
Old Balkan culture is precisely the Byzantine culture, but in no other Balkan country and among no other Slavs is not felt as much as it it the case with Macedonia, where it is strong among the Slavs in rural southern Macedonia.
Careful viewer will notice that the deep psychological features of these Slavs are often Byzantine.
During the Bulgarian and Serbian rule Macedonia had been also colonized. Serbs from Rascia colonized even are around Ber (near Salonika), in Skopje region, and probably colonized other regions.
It is known from xrisovulias (church books) that Rascians, especially during the rule of King Milutin, colonized Skopje region. In addition, the Serbian medieval state, of superior organization and higher culture, has left many traces in Macedonia. All the better ecclesiastical buildings in Macedonia are from the time of the Serbian dynasty of Nemanjic, as was determined by scientific expedition of Russian Academy of Sciences.
In addition Rascia took Macedonia after Bulgaria, and Turks took it from the Serbs. As a result historical traditions, which many regions of Macedonia have (especially around Serez, Prilep, in Porec, Skopje region, etc.), mainly or solely from our Nemanjic era. Older Serbian cultural capital of Macedonia is considerably larger versus Bulgarian one.
It is interesting to note that in almost all of Macedonia words such as 'kralj' and 'varos', which Macedonians could only have gotten from influence from the north, from the Serbs. But, still, none of these influences, nor the Serbian who was younger and unevenly more intensive versus Bulgarian, has not made a lasting moral awareness about the ethnicity of Macedonians.
(to be continued)
All Macedonian tribes
Macedonia is composed of many basins, which are geographical units. Therefore, in Macedonia there is more regional names than in any other Balkan country. Equally often, the people of individual regions have been named after the name of the tribe, whose tribal organization had been lost. So that's how tribal names of Brsjaci and Mijaci had been saved.
Brsjaci are called the Slav residents of Kicevo Valley: there are immigrants in Krusevo in Upper Prespa. Mijacima is called a population of Mala Reka (villages: Galiènik, Lazarpolje, Tresonce, Selce, Rosoki, Osoj, Gerry and Susica) and environment (Upper and Lower Melnicani, G. and D. Kosovrati).
There are immigrants in four villages in the vicinity of Debar, then in the villages Evlofrc in Kicevo region, and Smiljevo, in the Bitola region, finally in the said villages of Paradište and Oreš in Veles region.
Before it was exposured that Šops are called a substantial portion of the population of Skopic Old Serbia and NE Macedonia, and probably also such name was result of being originally tribal.
It looks like we have similar descent for Mrvaci name, as is called the mojority of Slav population in Solun, Seres and Drama regions, until Mesta.
In the East from Mesta are Pomaks, and here are the considering not only islamized people (as usual), but also Christians.
It seems that by Rupci it is called only such "dospat(?)" slav population, which deals with or is involved in mining.
Sometimes groups of Macedonian population are called by some linguistic features or other features. Such are Pulivakovci, around the upper and middle Galika, Esti in "Zupa" , on the right side of the Black Drim, south of Debar, and Uljufi in some Drim region villages (Steblevo, Ginec, Sebište and Gorovo).
Vlahovci are called slavized Wallachian groups and families (eg. Kufalovo).
Often are the names given out of ridicule. So Prilipcani call Morihovce by Torlak name in a familiar sense, Kicevo Brsjaci call peasants of Prilep fields by the name of Purjaci, while the name Keckari is given to peasants of Drim river villages (Lukovo, Jablanica, Modric, etc.).
It is interesting that the Slavs call greek population between Serez and Ziljahovo by the name of Darnaci, Anyway it seems that Macedonian Greeks have no other names other than the folk name.
In addition to these regional and local names of various origin and meanings in some areas one hears the serb name, as in Porec and skopian Black Mountains. But Macedonian Slavs themselves as a rule call Kaurs (Turkish for non-Muslims) and Bulgars (not Blgars or name used in Bulgaria by Bulgarians).
Russian writer V. Kacanovski says that he heard in Macedonia, the the peasants called themselves simply as Slavs, and I'm here reè èuo in South Macedonia and noted that the farmers know that they are Slavs. Greek peasants always call them as Bulgarians.
Arbanasians (Albanians)almost regularly call them Škejans (Slavs). Since the Arbanasi as settlers are older over the Macedonian Slavs, the name Škjeji and Schiavoni means, that the Macedonian Slavs during the settlement only used this name.
Of these names are misread the name Bulgarian, as a result that in the old literature the name is understood as ethnic, national name.
(to be continued)
Bulgars - of simpler life
As wide masses of Macedonian Slavs have no national conscience, also Bulgarian name in Macedonia is not people's name, nor does it represent nationality. Each more careful observer, who is spending more time among the Macedonian Slavs, must notice this.
When Macedonian peasant use of the name Bulgarian, two meanings are indicated by it: people of the simpler life, subdued and lowly position then puts this trivial working mass, which speaks Slavic, in contrast to the Non Slavs - Greeks and Turks, who are above it and who view it for something inferior.
First meaning is the most significant one: word Bulgarian in the first place indicates simpler life, work and thought. Thus, for example they would say that they are "Asli Bugari" ("real Bulgars"), when you visit their home, as they do not have the dishes and do not have anything to offer you.
For primitive mode of work they say "Bulgarska rabota." ("Bulgarian work") When they want to mark that something is simplistic, thinks and acts as a peasant, Macedonian would say , "prikaûuva kaurski", "prikuûuva Bulgarski."
From southern Macedonians (Kufalovo near Salonika), I heard say word of "izbugari se" ('it bulgarized itself'), when wheat goes bad, not good as a seed, and "pobugari be", in the sense, when some thing becomes worse off, the worst type of wheat is "Bugarka".
These words, as well as the Bulgarian name, have therefore strange shape, which is not Macedonian, and they are perhaps adapted by Macedonian Slavs from Turkish administration (in which, in earlier times were many Muhammadan Serbs from Bosnia) or from Greeks. These as the ruling class or higher class, could give those words meaning of the above.
In a similar manner did "Kajkavian" populace of northern Croatia change their name. It is in 16, 17 and 18 century it was called Slovenes, and the Slovenian language. Through official and other influences aforementioned "Kajkavian" populace around 1700. was starting to be Indented with the Horvat (not Hrvat or Croat, Horvat is Hungarian for Croat), and that name was adopted gradually.
In wider, by propaganda unaffected popular mass of Macedonian Slavs, Bulgarian word has no meaning in ethnic sense. Has, therefore, entirely different meaning than for example in northern Bulgaria, where the word for the Bulgarian has national awareness linked to it.
There is no intelligent Macedonian, no matter what the national party he belonged to, that this would not felt by. This clearly is unknown to only foreign observers who do not know the language or know so little that they can not understand the nature and feelings of one, to them foreign population.
This is noticeable in various aspects from these examples. When Macedonian peasant hears Russian, Serbian or Bulgarian real speech, he will say that those are also Bulgarian.
I have known in southern Macedonia the Serbian supporters, who have fought and died for the Serbian nationality, and are still, for extraction from the Greeks and Turks, have called themselves as Bulgarians, and their simple life and work that of a Bulgarian.
If the semi-Hellenized Macedonian Slavs - 'Chifchia' - or in general belong to agriculturist class, they will sometimes, in conversation, also call themselves Bulgarians, although in fact consider themselves as Greeks and somewhat speak Greek.
(to be continued)
For the Greeks Serbs are also - Bulgarians
and Greeks called Bulgarians also the Serbs from Macedonia and ones from Serbia and the Serb name for the Greek peasants was only a political concept, and when and why has the name Bulgarian spread through central parts of European Turkey and Byzantine writers have those Slav tribes, which have been in Macedonia for a time of great invasion when people settled, called simply Slavs.
Greek farmer names Macedonian Slavs always as Bulgarians, and under this term understand simple men who speak Slav. By that logic, among Greeks the name of the Bulgarian is same as Slav name, and as such an ethnographic concept, writes Jovan Cvijic.
The Greeks called the Bulgarians and the Serbs from Macedonia and Serbs from Serbia if you do not know it from there. Otherwise, the Serbs from Serbia, however, called the Serbs. Serb name for the Greek peasants, only a political concept.
In the fall of 1904. year I crossed over "Limpa" from Macedonia to Greece and arrived with a Serb escort in small place called Dereli. At that time in southern Macedonia there was bitter 'chetnik' battle between Greeks and Bulgarians. From both countries armies were crossing into Macedonia.
I was viewed even by those Greeks, who were understood some of slavic macedonian language, as a Bulgarian, and so were not attentive. Only when I showed authorities passport and recommendations, and they were convinced that I am from Serbia, have they stopped to consider me for a Bulgarian.
There is a similar meaning of the Serb name in Romania, then in some of our monuments of 14th century. As it is known, Romania has settled Bulgarians from northern Bulgaria, in addition to that Romania is entered every year by many thousands of Bulgarians and Serbs for work. Both, settlers and seasonal workers, Romanian call by the name of Serbs.
Serb name here is identical with the concept of Slavs. In our monuments of the already mentioned time period Serb name has three meanings: ethnographic Serb, political Serb, then agricultural, as antithesis of Vlah or 'pastir' (shepherd).
It is very interesting to find out when and why has Bulgarian name so much spread across central parts of European Turkey and how did it acquire mentioned un-national meaning.
Such historic examination does not belong to the tasks of this file, which has as a focus to determine the today's meaning of name of Bulgarian in Macedonia. But from the last point of view it is of interest to mention several facts, from it can be seen how did Macedonians call themselves earlier.
(to be continued)
Macedonia - "Slovenia"
Regarding the Bulgarian name Ivan äiömanov had written very erudite discussion, and for the Serbian name and the others which in Macedonia during centuries had been mentioned, recovered the data, Dr. V. Đerić.
Đerić worked through statistical method, stating the name and the year in which the name is mentioned. I have personally viewed in more important sources, to get the conviction and picture of frequency of names Serb and Bulgarian.
In addition, I have politely viewed with Mr. LJ. Kovacevic many charters especially during Nemanjic era, that Mr. Kovacevic has retyped and which will this year be printed in editions of our Academy. From sightseeing mentioned documents and handwritings this is published.
They speak "Dubrovnik-ian"
In his multi-annual research Cvijic has marked that Vij, French consul to Ianina Ali-Pasha code-paöe Ali, called Bulgars those Slavs, that he encountered in his journey, and only because he heard that they were called such by the Greeks and his Turkish personal followers. At one time he said somewhat more about those "Bulgarians".
"French consul considered their language as Slavicn, similar to Dubrovnik (Serbian). But it is clear that nobody is seriously agreeing with the consul, and even I do not dare use the above words in Serb benefit."
The same is the case with Koziner, who has been before or after the French Revolution the French consul in Thessaloniki and spend time in Voden, BER, NJegoö, Pazar, Serez, Drama and Kavala, regarding archeological digs. And he called the Macedonian Slavs as Bulgarians, but elsewhere he thinks that these are old Macedonians, Peonians and others, and that Slavs had imposed only the language.
(to be continued)
On basis of such, for Ethnographic issue absolutely unusable sources and their incorrect recordings, just mainly on the basis of what foreign scientists heard from their Turkish or Greek followers that the Macedonian Slavs are called by Bulgarian name, has been colored Macedonia in Bulgarian color - says Cvijić.
Byzantine writers called the Slav tribes, which were settled in Macedonia during the Great Migration, called simply Slavs, and their land are sometimes called Sclavinia (Macedonia).
During the Bulgarian rule, especially during the Bulgarian considerable power under Emperor Simeon in the 10th century, the Macedonian Slavs were called political by the name of Bulgarians, and their land, Bulgarian.
Without a doubt this is a political name, and people started to receive it, as even today happens in similar cases. Besides that, Dr. Đerić claims, that since "the oldest times until the beginning of the 19th century, there are no reliable examples, that the Slavs in Macedonia called themselves Bulgarians or their language as Bulgarian."
Later, in the 13th century, Macedonia, was taken by the Serbs. There are signs that the Slav tribes, which lived around Skopje, Kumanovo, Tetovo and in Porec were always closer to Serbs. Also today the people mentioned by all the areas above by ethnographic characteristics, and linguistic ones, is closer to Serbs, although there are also Bulgarian influences.
Next the region since 13th century was under Serbia, then in the Turkish times, until 1767. year has been under Serbian, Pec patriarchate. Although from 1871. Bulgarian church was introduced here, residents were in 1878. fighting against Turkey as Serbs and begged the Berlin congress to be part of Serbia.
(to be continued)
Where are the Bulgarians in Dusan's law
From the monuments is clearly seen, that the Slavs in real Macedonia since the actual Serbian rule began to receive the name of Serb, and political name of Bulgarian was almost completely gone. At the time of Milutin only once next to the Serbs and Greeks was it mentioned, and in Dusan's time completely disappears.
Dusans statute referred to the Serbs, Greeks, Vlachs, Arbanasi and Saxons, and nowhere Bulgarians. Code adopted by Parliament in Skopje (1349th yr.) And Serez (1354th Mr.), and it counted for all of Dusans empire, which was from the Danube to southern Thesalian border.
In all charters by Dusan and in Dusan's time, which relate to the Macedonian regions, only makes reference to the Serbs, Greeks, Vlachs, Arbanasi, Saxons, again nowhere about Bulgarians. Byzantine emperor "Jovan Kantakuzin", who led in Macedonia wars with emperor 'Jovan' and Empress Ana, then with Dusan, on several places Serbs are mentioned.
So the story of Serb villagers near the city Prosek, about Dusan's voivoda "Hrelj", who reigned in Strumica and Petrić and was of Macedonian descent, called the Serb.
When after Dusan's death, during the government of his son Uros, Macedonian local rulers separated and formed a separate statelets, as the king Vukasin in western Macedonia, and Dejanović and Ugljesa in Eastern, they are still calling themselves, their government and their soldiers - Macedonians - by Serb name.
Before the end of the 14th century, then, the name of Serb prevailed in Macedonia. By the above lectures confidently is seen that the Macedonians are very easy to receive a Serbian name, probably very easy versus they previously received Bulgarian name, otherwise it would not be possible for a Bulgarian political name to be so quickly suppressed.
Any interpretation of this fact is only a hypothesis, but to me it seems quite natural to assume this.
Bulgarian name is of foreign, Urals-Finnish people, who ruled over Slavs of eastern half of Balkan peninsula.
It took a lot of centuries to get used to by them, with Tatars assimilated Slavs, that not only politically, as a state, call themselves as Bulgarians, but also that their language and themselves as an ethnographic whole to be called Bulgarians. It is known from the monuments that their language was long called Slav, and state as Bulgaria.
While the Serbian state was ethnographic, state of the Serbian people, this was a state of military caste by Urals-Finnish Bulgarians, who have ruled over Slavs. When such state and Serbian state interchangeably ruled over nationally neutral Macedonian Slavs, is a natural that these Slavs easily received the Serbian name.
Uninformed colored in the "Bulgarian-green"
• As one geologist, who did not know either Serbian or Bulgarian, for the first time colored Macedonia in "Bulgarian green," and what was the influence of this map on European public opinion • "Battle" between Serbian and Bulgarian national names
Oasis of Serbdom: Monastery of St. Kliment of Ohrid
By the end of the 14th century, the Turks conquered the whole of Bulgaria and there was no more statehood for them. Serbia was gradually conquered. First the Turks took southern regions of Serbian people, then the other: Macedonia definitely on 1394 year, then Brankovic's Serbia in 1458, 1463 Bosnia 1463, Herzegovina in 1483, and finally Zeta 1496 year. In the field of Serbian statehood and nationhood was held, therefore, one hundred years after the conquest of Bulgaria.
Turks conquered the south countries and a free Serb state more and more moved towards north and north-west. Because of well-known features of human nature it is understandable the psychological consequences of this: the name of Serb was compromising before the Turks because the Turks from Serbs conquered Macedonia, and since Bulgaria fell, there was a hundred years of struggle with the Serbian government centers. For this reason, it is not odd that the name of Serb was avoided o and lose out to the benefit of Bulgarian name, said John Cvijic.
This process was assisted by the fact that the inhabitants of southern countries of the Serbian state, as a result of the decrease caused by the Turkish invasion from the south, were mixing with real Bulgarians from Bulgaria, who were already under the Turks, had with them the same fate and started under the same difficult circumstances to feel as christian community and people of related language.
(to be continued)
Serbian ties with Russia
However, the Serbian name survived in Macedonia still in 16th and 17 and 18 century and perhaps was stronger then versus name of the Bulgarian. From the monuments we know that they priests and other people from Solun environment, Kostur, Ohrid, Kratovov and Skopje were keeping links with Russia and went to Russia to collect contributions for the church and monasteries. All people from the places mentioned were stating there that they are the Serbs or from serb land.
In the 16th century Siderokapsu mine in southern Macedonia was visited by Frenchman Pier Belon, and he says "that the peasants in surrounding villages, which come on a pazar (shoping), Christians and speak Serbian and Greek", and workers in mines are Bulgarians.
Hadji-Kalfa, Turkish geographer in 17th century, says that "in the mountains Kostur kadiluk live Serbs and Vlachs," further mentioned that on the shore of the lake (between Serez, Salonika and Siderokapsa) there is a village where they live Greeks, Serbs and Vlachs.
Serbian Patriarch Vasily Brkic, described in the 1771. The Turkish regions and their Christians, and mentioned the Serbs and Bulgarians in Debar region (Rekalije), Serbs and Bulgarians in Custendil region and Bulgarians and Serbs in the Skopje region.
Jerotije Racanin, who, going to Jerusalem, crossed the Ovce Polje in 1704. year, mentioned very lively Serb traditions that he heard from peasants.
Doctor J. Miller, who has long been doctor in the European Turkey, and even mentioned at the start of 19th century only the Serbs in Bitola vilayet.
French consul, Lezan, which around the half of the 19th century traveled through Macedonia, distinguishes Serb oasis around Prespa and Ohrid.
Same is in the latest time frame during 1900. year, and France's Berar mentioned.
But from the last two and from many other passengers from the 19th century it is known at that time already what has prevailed is the Bulgarian name in Macedonia.
Finally to note, according to Jastrebov the name Bulgarian spread across Macedonia, especially after the establishment of Bulgarian exarchate in Istambul (1871. Year).
"Camouflage" in front of the Turks
Clearly, then, the Bulgarian name in Macedonia spread during Ottoman rule, but especially in the 19th century.
It seems that, for the propagation of the Bulgarian name was detrimental the absence of one hundred years of Serbian civil life after the fall of Bulgaria, and earlier (for 63 years) liberation of Serbia, and especially the establishment of an independent Slav church, Bulgarian exarchate, in 19th century. Because of insurrection, and Serbian liberation, renewed the compromising of the Serb names in front of Turks and therefore Macedonian Slavs again had serious reasons to avoid Serbian and adopt Bulgarian names.
The psychological impact is clear, and it is not necessary to document examples. Serbia at the later dates was seen as element of revolution by Turks, everything from Serbia started amongst the Macedonian Slavs, was considered as a tendency to Slav seceding from the Turks and annex themselves.
Bulgaria as the country did not exist. Than during the half of the 19th century what was started in the territory of today's Bulgaria was a justified movement for the establishment of an independent Slav church and for the separation of Slav from European Turkey from Carigrad (Istambul) patriarchate. This movement would not dare to have the Serbian label.
And Russia, which cared for an establishment of an independent Slav church and that this movement most energetically aids (probably from their own political reasons), knew that the movement for the Slav church must not have Serbian label.
When the Bulgarians are doing it, they do it within the Turkish state and have only the aim to establish a church of the Slav language. It is a struggle for the establishment of the Bulgarian exarchate, which spreads the Bulgarian name across Macedonia to the scale, as seen in the start of the marked head. This has made today's powerful Bulgarian party in Macedonia.
Region today entire all joined the exarchate. However, it is very characteristic and important to know, that more than a third of Macedonian Slavs remained in opposition of Exarchate and have not left the of the Greek church - patriarchy even after the struggle of four decades.
On the general scientific point of view it was interesting to follow the fight between the two national names, the Serbian and Bulgarian, in the area of the Macedonian Slavs, who are neither Serbs nor Bulgarians, but rather, truthfully, closely related Slav mass, but without their national awareness and national names.
Whether one or the other name prevails, depends on the warring, on the political events and various events on the territory of Macedonia and abroad, which within the Slav mass produced certain feelings and instincts and this would change in striving for the Serbian or Bulgarian name. But it is clear that the Macedonian Slavs in earlier times as well as in recent times, can easily exchange one name and receive another.
As for Macedonians is now easy to change people's names, to us in the Balkans is well known. This example shows such was the case in earlier times. In the 1400 yr. Arta was attacked by a Slav captain Bogoje (Vongois), so that it would be won easily, he had, according to annalists, announced that he was of "the Serbian, Arbanas, Bulgarian and Greek origins."
No national feelings
Exposed to established historical overview of the basic profile that Macedonian Slavs did not have even earlier or today the national feelings, Serb or Bulgarian, and that, not having peoples names, they receive Serb or in recent times Bulgarian name.
In the 1847 year known geologist, A. Bue, published ethnographic map of European Turkey and Greece where Macedonia was colored in Bulgarian green. True, earlier, in 1842 Safarik issued Slav 'narodopis' (peoples writings) with maps and text on Czech language. This is the first ethnographic map, in which are entered the people of the Balkan peninsula, but do to language barrier it remained largely unknown to other cultured (non-slav) people.
A. Bue produced an ethnographic map, based on their travels and observations in the European Turkey. But Bue map was to become the foundation, which all later ethnographers held, and only effected minor changes in those required when their observations proved to them, for some to be incorrect.
By this map first in the European Science brought wrong basis and a great mistake assumption that the Macedonian Slavs must be incorporated to one of the two Balkan Slav peoples.
However, it is known from numerous A. Bue writings, that he didn't possess any serious knowledge of Slav language, that he knew several Serbian-Bulgarian sentences that foreign passengers usually learn, and that he could not feel the differences between the Serbian and Bulgarian languages.
It is known further from Ami Bue's writings, that he could not become inspired towards the idea about Bugarism of Macedonians without knowledge of ethnographic and folk psychical features.
A. Bue had colored Macedonia with Bulgarian paint just so, because he heard that the Macedonian Slavs were called Bulgars, and did not, as a foreigner, understand the meaning of the name.
That's the opinion of a Serbian "scientist". It has zero value. The same "scientists" that claim the Romanians (the so-called Vlachs) in Timocka Krajina are Romanianized Serbs and not Romanians. According to your "scientists" "logic" the few Serbs of Timocka Krajina that have not been Romanianized are in fact Slavicized Thracians and not Serbs, because when the Slavs arrived in present-day Timocka Krajina they found the Triballi, a Thracian tribe and perhaps many Romans (Romanized Thracians). Torlaks, "Macedonians" and Gorans are Bulgarians.
"some Vlach-speakers were formerly Slavs (such as in the village of Šljivar near Zaječar and the village of Slatina near Bor, where Serbs had been assimilated as Vlachs for centuries) or even Roma (such as in Lukovo)."
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Nov 27, 2008 13:00:26 GMT -5
If you would have bothered to read the article it it says that Cvijic (prominent early 20th century UNBIASED Balkan scientist) NEVER said that Macedonian Slavs are Serbs. In fact he says that they only view themselves as Slavs. Called them people's mass without ethnic identity (same he called in late 19 century people of western Bulgaria, people of SE Serbia and people of NW Croatia as well as some Catholic Slavophones of Dalmatia ) that feels neither Bulgarian or Serbian while feeling akin to both and feeling distant (if not outright antagonistic) towards Greeks and Turks. He said they favored whoever (meaning Serbs or Bulgarians) was the one to give them freedom or assist them in gaining it from Ottomans. Their ethic identity was shift able as it was not cemented yet (unless perhaps on some level in areas where these slavophones were engaged themselves in a bloody uprising and payed within it with blood).
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Nov 27, 2008 16:41:28 GMT -5
Aadmin, you've always had a negative view of the whole Bulgarian identity and role. why's that? was the mailman Bulgarian?
I have nothing against Bulgarians on contrary I was always sympathetic towards them. Disagreeing doesn't equal having a negative view towards anyone, it just means disagreeing.
All the areas where these ethically 'undefined' slavophone people resided (W Bulgaria, Macedonia, SE Serbia, NW Croatia, Dalmatia) were occupied by non-Slav foreigners and were not yet subjected to heavy duty nationalist propaganda that is the most likely cause of the Balkan nationalities as we know them today. Nationalism replaced religious identity as main means of identification (such was the medieval, Byzantine and Ottoman, mentality among Balkan people) after French Revolution to catch up in Balkans in the 19th century (Serbs, Bulgarians, 'Illyrians'/Yugoslavs, Romanians, Greeks), early 20th century (Croats, Albanians, Slovenians, modern Turks), mid to late 20th century ('Macedonians', 'Montenegrins', Bosniaks).
Now, Lets stick to the scientific article at hand as all I am doing is translating it without favoring any one side (as true science should be).
Less Balkanian Dogmatic Paranoia! More Ancient Hellenic Wisdom! (Zetaman/Zecanin)
In short: Admin believes no Bulgars penetrated the Balkans, may be just the small amount of 10 000 of them. You don't ask him how they maneged to fight successfully the Byzantines, the Avars and the khazars (the greatest powers of that time, he has no answer), he will just tell you fairy tails of whatever insignificant matter. The same with Rhezus wanker. So pitiful...
unless there were authors that counted the bulgars, i dont think we d get their real number... personally i do not think they were that significant, even though i am from moesia, where they first settled. why? because Bulgarian culture today is first slavic, then balkanic...which for me kind of gives away that ethnically we are more desedants of the slavs and the thracians... of course we dont know alot about the bulgars but it is evident we dont have much in common with the remains (if they are such) of Volga Bulgars... However it is in the state they build that the Bulgarian nation emerged, tnx to their strenght Bulgar nation was the biggest in Thrace, Moesia, Macedonia. Well in Macedonia it was till recently when the Serbs took the Bulgarians and brainwashed them into hating us.
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 30, 2008 17:38:23 GMT -5
"Well in Macedonia it was till recently when the Serbs took the Bulgarians and brainwashed them into hating us."
But how ioan when the Turkish backed exarchate was the major factor that influenced these people in the 19th century.
Read the following:
"It is understandable that the Turks preferred the patient and submissive Bulgar to the rebellious Serb or Greek. Since the Serbian principality had gained its freedom, the Turks regarded every Serb who declared himself to be such as a rebellious conspirator against the Turkish regime.
This circumstance was widely exploited by the Bulgars in order to spread their propaganda among the Serbs outside the principality. Whoever was reluctant to become a Bulgar and persisted in calling himself a Serb was denounced to the Turks as conspiring with Serbia, and could expect severe punishment. Serbian priests were maltreated; permission was refused to open Serbian schools and those that were already in existence were closed; Serbian monasteries were destroyed.
In order to avoid persecution, the population renounced its nationality and called itself Bulgarian........during the last thirty or forty years, propaganda has been rife in which the Bulgars have encouraged the Turks to act against Serbs and Greeks. Hence, throughout Macedonia, Thrace and Dardania, Slavs are considered to be Bulgars, which is quite incorrect. On the contrary, the Slavs in Macedonia are incapable of understanding a Bulgar from Jantra.
If it is desired to designate these Slavs correctly, than they must be considered as Serbs, for the Serbian name is so popular among them that for example male children are sometimes christened "Srbin" [Serb]*. the Serbian hero of the folk poems, Marko Kraljevich is obviously the Serbian ruler in Macedonia."
Alexander von Heksch "Die Donau von ihrem Ursprung bis an die Mundung",Leipzig,1885,pp.63
""It is understandable that the Turks preferred the patient and submissive Bulgar to the rebellious Serb or Greek. Since the Serbian principality had gained its freedom, the Turks regarded every Serb who declared himself to be such as a rebellious conspirator against the Turkish regime."
that is the stupidest quote ever. i guess 1878 wasn't humiliating for them. i also find it interesting how you state the wanted a Bulgarian exarchate when that meant that the ottomans would lose most possession in europe....interesting?
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 30, 2008 21:40:37 GMT -5
^ maps like these were sketched during the period of the Exarchos. Travellers passing through there were obviously going draw maps like them and describe these people as Bulgarians, example:
karl oestreich "Die Bevolkerung von Makedonien" p.273 writes
"A considerable part of the rural population, although it then felt to be Serbian, seized the first opportunity of obtaining Slavic priests and so declared itself to be Bulgarian......Whoever joined the Bulgarian Exarchate was registered in the Turkish population records as BULGARI-MILET and to the world at large was a Bulgar.
I want to add this quote in from Gorche Petrov because in his Memoirs he recalls of Serbophile Villages in Bitola, and that, when they began to organise the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary, they were undecided whether to include these "Serbophiles" in their organisation because as he says, "We decided to accept them with freat caution and reserve, for fear they might betray the cause to the Greek bishop"
Spomeni na G'orche Petrov, Skopje, 1950, p.20 and 26.
rex362: ahahahaha.....too many freedoms ahahaha...cherk-whatever ahahahah....fair & cool serb ahahahahah...you ass kissing communist ahahahahah bad ending-for who ? you ? aahhaahhahhaaa
Jan 8, 2023 13:21:46 GMT -5
leandros nikon: pyro is funny guy of the forum.I am cherkesian?No man i am Asia minor Greek!on the other hand you are a confused Greek,mperdemenos eisai!
Jan 8, 2023 15:45:09 GMT -5
Rusyn: @leandros nikon Vatra is "fire" in Serbian, and Pyrros is Greek equvialent of that name. Also Pyrros was used to be known as Kralj Vatra in his older accounts hence Admin calls him both ways.
Jan 8, 2023 16:20:56 GMT -5