|
Post by makednon on Nov 5, 2011 11:14:43 GMT -5
Makedon, you are entering deep waters now. I agree that the theory of those huge slavic migrations seem rather impossible. But OTOH Slavs had/still have such a vivid spirit that *IF* they were always here that would mean, that : a) either the whole Greek story about antiquity is just a made up conspiracy that never existed (VERY HARD, since the legacy is just huge + there are still living leftovers from the ancient Greeks in Crete/Cyprus) (how could two such vivid civilizations co-exist ?? How didn't the Greeks mention Slavs at all?) b) or.......... this is MY theory !!!!! SLAVS = ANCIENT GREEKS the 2 Languages were MUCH MUCH MUCH closer back then.... It is a huge puzzle, this problem is one of the most difficult problems in history .... and smth tells me, that certain "powers" (non-balkan, non-slav) made sure this puzzle is there to stay. 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.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 5, 2011 13:22:48 GMT -5
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. Its the other way around. Eastern romans recognized the "Sclavenies" as being formal parts of the empire, so they definitely do not abandon the term "slav" upon the cooperation and christianization is achieved. On the contrary "Antes" were the "bad" guys for them. I think you got it swapped. Slavs were living all over Greece, even in southern Greece in their S(c)lavinies, Antes were in the north outside the Roman empire. I own Curta's "making of the slavs", and it is a very interesting book. Nothing close to ground breaking tho. He still aligns with the classic migration theory, and believe it or not, even being one of the very very few balkanologists with native origins (Romanian) and adequate knowledge of the balkan slavic languages, he still fails to give explanation to the many puzzles existing today in the balkans. The problem stands still. Now regarding Antes, i just think they were more eastern types of slavs (today's russians/ukranians) and they contributed more to the formation of Bulgaria. They also had civil wars with "Sclavenoi" but alliances as well. They disappear some time around 800 AD. About slavs speaking "latin" or "greek" can you give me some examples/literature? Curta thinks that Slavic was the lingua-franca of the middle ages. The defacto language of europe. And the many Slav-like toponyms of northern africa, middle east, gives no other option but to think the obvious. But in this case, we are against a huge conspiracy, trying to hide the most wide-spread civilization (a cultural empire) of all times..... Its the biggest puzzle IMO. The basic core foundations on which more modern theories about slavs are based on are: (while trying to explain the plethora of Slavic toponyms across Germany/Scandinavia/Romania/Albania/Greece/Africa) (but especially in Greece the numbers are just too huge to neglect) - Slavs were many but insignificant and weak - Slavs were few but fairly strong Of course even today the bare eye can easily see that any of the above assumptions fail miserably to give answers to reality. Some day i will save the time and express the problem more formally.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Nov 5, 2011 13:55:24 GMT -5
Quoted for truth brother.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 5, 2011 14:27:33 GMT -5
^^^ a correct conclusion is useless and harmful if drawn accidentally or based on wrong assumptions. What makedon says is true, but the explanation goes way off accepting that balkanians are just "slavicized" illyrians (your theory). I hope you understand the difference.
|
|
punisher
Moderator
JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL
Posts: 806
|
Post by punisher on Nov 5, 2011 14:30:40 GMT -5
^^^ a correct conclusion is useless and harmful if drawn accidentally or based on wrong assumptions. What makedon says is true, but the explanation goes way off accepting that balkanians are just "slavicized" illyrians (your theory). I hope you understand the difference. pyrri,how did the washing go today
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 5, 2011 14:43:54 GMT -5
Our albanian servant-maid takes care of washing. Problem is hiding money all the time. Albanians are known to have no pride. So leaving her unattended poses a serious security vulnerability to our house.
|
|
punisher
Moderator
JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL
Posts: 806
|
Post by punisher on Nov 5, 2011 14:47:47 GMT -5
Our albanian servant-maid takes care of washing. Problem is hiding money all the time. Albanians are known to have no pride. So leaving her unattended poses a serious security vulnerability to our house. DNT LIE YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO WASHES HER PANTIES YOU ARE HER SLAVE,[glow=red,2,300] SHE HAS YOUR BALLS[/glow]. and btw instead of hiring a maid you better could do something to help the greeks who lost their job.GREECE IS BANKRUPTED CAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO DNT WORK AND JUST SPENT MONEY WICH THEY DNT HAVE.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Nov 5, 2011 15:23:05 GMT -5
Why dont you guys just read into what your own people have said about your ethnos ? If you read Misirkov he cleary identifies his ethnos as a Slavic one. Ive have read his articles and you would have to be in complete denial by not accepting it. As a matter of fact his worst fear was being over taken by Non-Slavic people such as Greeks. Now are you advocating that Slavs are in fact related to Ancient Macedonians ? Have you been in the balkans for a millenia ? Sure, but thats a long way from antiquity my friends. And DNA does not matter as someone already mentioned we pretty much share some common genes in our area so you cannot use DNA as a qualifier for the term Ethnos. In this case your own people again define you as a Slavic ethnos. Stop the bulls**t already. The only people that can claim any continuity to Ancient Macedonians are Greeks. Accept it already the whole balkans are laughing at you.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Nov 5, 2011 23:04:58 GMT -5
I don’t choke very easily … and I am always happy to admit when I am wrong. However, this is not one such occasion. And by the way I’m not so sure you are in a position to comment on my intellect … I can’t get into your link but from what I can gauge you are pointing to Ellis Island records (!?) – I might be wrong so excuse the digression. This is one of your people's usual arsenal of half-truths, always presented out of context as evidence that the Slavs of the area saw themselves as ‘Macedonians’. Even though – and I don’t have details of percentages here – there were plenty declaring ‘Bulgarians’ from the same villages and ethnic Turks and others declaring as ‘Macedonians’ - clearly not exactly the phenomenon you believe it is. If there were so many people unambiguously aware of themselves as ‘Macedonians’ in that period kindly explain why they were practically entirely invisible to the outside world. Invisible to travellers, authors, diplomats, missionaries, their ethnic neighbours etc etc etc. However, you are right about them not having their own country ‘for like eternity’ although in your head, when you say this, you’re thinking about antiquity and ancient Macedon which has, of-course, absolutely nothing to do with your people. The fact is that this is the period (late nineteenth - early twentieth century) in which the Slavs of Macedonia were starting their road to a separate awareness as a unique people … a route that has taken some very strange paths but could just as easily, had external forces been different, taken a different one. It has led them away from the Bulgarian road they were on ‘for like eternity’ and brought them to a wonderful world of fairies and make belief … to dreams of ancient glory and large statues in the park and classical dress-up parties where Snezana, Zvonko and Blagojce invariably arrive, with big smiles on their faces, as Cleopatra, Philip and Alexander. And of-course to the fantasies about a lost state, One United Macedonia, that in reality never existed in the way they conceive it. The fact is that the late nineteenth into the mid twentieth century was a very dangerous time in the broader Macedonian region not to mention the general Balkan and Near East. With all the dangerous attention it was prudent for the Slavs of the area to distance themselves from the main antagonists and to start to belief, given impetus by the uniqueness of their experience, that they were a people apart, a separate group. The fact is they are the newest kids on the block. Their separate existence as a distinct ethnic group did not precede the advent of the age of nationalism like all other ethnic groups and sub-groups in the Balkans and beyond. Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, Vlachs, Gypsies, Romanians, Pomaks, Gagauz, Arvanites, Cretans, Chams, Tosks, Ghegs, Montenegrins, Shopi, Cherkez, Jews: Romaniotes, Sephardim, Valaades, Turks, Koniar Turks, Moglen Vlachs, Bursyatsi, Mijaks, Liaps etc etc etc but no ‘Macedonians’. No-one knew of such a group, the term had a broader meaning away from a strictly unique ethnic meaning. It was co-opted later for a specific political reason. And, what’s with the ‘Makednon’ nick … you Dorian now are you??
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Nov 5, 2011 23:17:11 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. This is a gross misreading of Curta driven by typically blind desire for an ex Deus machina overthrow of accepted wisdom so as to magically arrive at the fantasy world shared by your ilk such as the bananas at the ‘MTO’ forums. Curta does not contend that the Slavic Migrations never took place. He clearly sees the Danube limes (boundary) as a complex interface [his words] between Byzantium and the conglomeration of peoples who dwelled just over the river – perhaps for a very long time. He thus sees the ‘Slavs’, or rather the people the Byzantines would come to describe as Slavs, as living north of the Lower Danube in present day Romania. Clearly they had to migrate in order to get to into the Balkans … which means I have news for you: The Slavic Migrations did happen. Curta takes issue with how far we can still push such notions as ‘Slav homeland’ (eg the Pripet marshes), still fashionable in many quarters, which he views as conjecture not drawn from any real direct evidence. As I understand it his thesis is, to a large extent, pre-occupied with concepts of ethnogenesis in the face of what he sees as the absence of evidence for the existence of a people conceiving of themselves as ‘Slavs’. This is not the same as him believing that there were no ‘Slavic Migrations’. Curta, observes that a group needs to conceive itself under a label before it can present itself and be accepted by others by that label. Curta argues that this was not the case with any ‘Slavic’ group. He points out, characteristically, that ‘Slavs did not become Slavs because they spoke Slavic, but because they were called so by others’ and insists there is no evidence that the Slavs called themselves Slavs. Curta sees the ethnic descriptor ‘Sclavenes/Slavs’ as being borne of internal and bookish assumptions of Byzantine chroniclers, driven by their own motives to use the Sclavene label (which may very well have belonged to one particular tribe/group). He states: ‘Byzantine authors seem to have used ‘Sclavenes’ and ‘Antes’ to make sense of the process of group identification which was taking place under their own eyes just north of the Danube frontier. They were, of-course, interested in the military and political consequences of this process than in the analysis of Slavic ethnicity. (p. 349, Making of the Slavs) His issue also has more to do with the nature, intensity, motives, scale and magnitude of the so-called ‘Slavic invasions’ but he does not deny that there were migrations. His is a new approach but hardly the earth-shattering overturning of the fact that the ‘Slavs’ entered the peninsula in the early middle ages. His is no re-translation of the Rosetta stone. For your reference, here’s how Bideleux and Jeffries, historians who can actually read, summarise Curta’s contribution in their ‘A History of Eastern Europe’. I found this after I wrote the stuff above: “In place or 'a great flood of Slavs coming out of the Pripet marshes', Curta postulates that the name "Sclavene" was a purely Byzantine construct, designed to make sense of a complex configuration of ethnies on the other side of the northern frontier of the Empire" (Curta 2001: 3, 118—19). ‘Slavs, did not become Slavs because they spoke Slavic, but because they were called so by others" (p. 346). "The making of the Slavs was less a matter of ethnogenesis and more one of invention, imagining and labeling by Byzantine authors. Some form of group identity, however, which we may call ethnicity, was growing out of the historical circumstances following the fortification of the Danube limes. This was therefore an identity formed in the shadow of Justinian's forts, not in the Pripet marshes … That no "Slavs" called themselves by this name [until the twelfth century] not only indicates that no group took on the label imposed by outsiders but also suggests that this label was more a pedantic construction than the result of systematic interaction [let alone investigation] across ethnic boundaries’ (p. 350). Thus, in place of the hitherto prevalent notion of a great Slav migration from origins somewhere in Poland or Belarus during the sixth and seventh centuries, Curta suggests that there were relatively short range inflows of unknown peoples from just north of the Danube (present-day Romania), and that these were most probably not a single ethnic group or even speakers of a common ‘Slavic’ language. They were called ‘Sclavenes’ by Byzantine authors for lack of any hard information about who they were – and the label eventually stuck and began to be imbued with more specific ethnographic content. This conjecture is reiterated in Curta (2005: 59-61). Nevertheless, Curta’s thesis remains nothing more than yet another conjecture and, while it does appear to offer a more-or-less plausible explanation of the emergence of the Balkan Slavs, it has nothing to say about the subsequent emergence of either the ‘Western Slavs (the forebears of the Poles, Czechs and Slovaks) or the ‘Eastern Slavs’ (the forebears of the Russians, Ukrainians and Belarussians). Consequently, Curta has only established that no one really knows for sure how, when or where the Slavs originated.” Curta’s overall discussion is very interesting, although a little too ‘precious’ for me in places and at times a little ‘esoteric’ … but his conclusion is hardly the simplistic one you want to believe it is. Accordingly, at least with respect to the Balkans, there was quite definitely a migration of people into the peninsula, which I think is still fair, albeit perhaps convenient (taking Curta’s point), to refer to as the ‘Slavic’ migrations or invasions - although we might debate its magnitude and its genetic impact on the locals. How could there not have been a movement of people given the obvious linguistic/toponymic differences (if nothing else) that distinguish the ancient Balkans from the Balkans of the middle ages and beyond? Best you stop clinging to YOUR interpretation of Curta, evidently the next in a line of self-serving delusions that seem to characterise your chicken thief nation (Rosetta; Slavic Homeric poems; IGENEA; Ethiopian genes and so forth). The ‘Slavic’ invasions happened indeed and Curta’s is simply a different response to elements of the traditional viewpoint. Archaeological evidence exists for the newcomers and the effect of their arrival(fibulae, numismatics etc), although unfortunately such strata have in the past usually been bypassed for more ‘glorious’ earlier periods and relevant ‘digs’ have not been given the attention they deserve. Literary evidence clearly exists to describe the disruption caused by the migrations - the natural exaggeration of the chroniclers notwithstanding. And again let’s not forget the most obvious: linguistics and toponymics. The earlier Greek and Paleo-Balkan toponymy of antiquity has been indisputably supplanted by a new linguistic element. The absence of Latin borrowings in Slavic is entirely telling – it was simply not there before. There is enough surviving linguistic material from antiquity to undermine your absolutely ridiculous and laughable view that Slavic is simply re-badged Illyrian/Thracian/Epirote(!)/Macedonian(!!!) – what a convenient jumble (but that’s another topic). Who the f.uck are you trying to kid? You‘ve only taken part of Curta’s message (labelling; the ethnic make-up of the ‘Slavs’) and added your own twist to suit. So may I suggest, dear Zhivko with a Greek nick, that you read Curta again, this time not through your magic ‘Macedonian’ prism, and stop peddling your deluded ‘Slavic invasions never happened’ bullsh.it here
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Nov 5, 2011 23:30:44 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. What the f.uck are you talking about, retardo? This is the most rambling misconstrued logic I have ever seen … OK, I exaggerate, I have seen worse. But yours is pretty sh.ithouse and gets an honourable mention. First let’s have a look at to your take on the early history of Macedon’s expansion and what you think my logic is. Before I go any further, let me point out here that you and Chento – evidently your whole people – seem to have a peculiar ‘gift’; a complete inability to correctly interpret text and what is being said (see your take on Curta for example). Also, let’s not lose sight of the fact that the issue that I have hitherto been discussing with Chento, the whole context of our argument, is ‘ancient Macedonian DNA’ (…. and I still can’t believe I’m talking about this sort of sh.it) and where one might logically expect to find it. In this regard I’m not entirely sure what you are saying. For example, it is known that at the height of its power Paeonia extended its control westwards into Pelagonia and Lyncus (Hammond, 1979; p. 63)… hence Pelagonia being Peonian land in the Iliad. But what has that to do with the argument at hand? Now, you correctly point out that Pieria – actually its costal regions - was one of the earliest areas acquired by the Macedonians after their expulsion of the Thracian ‘Pieres’. According to Hammond the Pieres inhabited the coastal plains of that region (the ‘fat/rich’ land in Greek) since before the Trojan War having themselves evidently ousted the Magnetes – who were very close cousins of the Macedonians … but I digress. For your information the Macedonians did their expanding from the heights above the Pierian plain-land, that is, from the Pierian mountains and the northern foothills of Olympus. This mountain and hill country was also known in antiquity as the ‘Macedonian mountain’. Now pay attention. The Macedonian mountain was the historic core region par excellence of the ancient Macedonians and therefore the area with the deepest concentration of their DNA. Now, having expelled the Pieres, they inhabited Pieria themselves and accordingly their DNA came with them to that region. This happened very early in their history and you are therefore actually splitting hairs … Pieria was one of their core regions. And very importantly – make sure you are taking notes now – this area (Pierians mountains and plains) remained essentially Greek-speaking ever since. In a similar fashion, the Macedonians, having expanded out of their mountain bastion, took possession of the plain and marshy land to their north; an area known as Bottiaea after the local inhabitants reputedly of Cretan (probably pre-Greek) origin. Being Greeks, the Macedonians named the place ‘Emathia’ in reference to the ‘sandy’ alluvial nature of the place. The Bottiaeans were displaced and ended up in the hinterland of the Chalcidice peninsula. Again, logically, Macedonian DNA came with the Macedonians to this area the largest portion of which was Greek-speaking at the turn of the twentieth century. It was known as the Roumlouki by the Turks in reference to its Greek population. The northern part was largely Bulgarian (oops, sorry … Slav) including Misirkov’s Postol with sizeable Turkish population also. As I understand it, a large number of these Slavs were subject to the terms of the voluntary Greek-Bulgarian population exchange of 1919 and the area received many Greeks from Bulgaria. Any ancient Macedonian DNA that the exchanged Slavs may have possessed followed them to Bulgaria. The Macedonian expansion into Pieria and Emathia occurred very early and certainly by 550 BC. The Macedonians next expanded into Almopia and then Eordaia, again destroying and expelling the Almopes and Eordi according to their traditions although I recall reading that the displacement of these two groups was not as thorough as that of the Pieres and Bottiaeoi. Again, a good degree of Macedonian DNA would have logically entered these lands. Almopia was largely Slav at the turn of the twentieth century, with a sizeable Vlach and Turkish population. Eordaia was essentially Turkish with some Slav and smaller Vlach and Greek populations. Later Macedonian expansion did not result in as wholesale a destruction of local peoples although their expansion into Mygdonia did involve partial destruction/eviction of the Thracian Edones of the region. More commonly the Macedonians would henceforth introduce colonists to ensure their control of vulnerable and strategically sensitive regions that they had acquired. This includes regions within southern Mygdonia and the Chalcidice, the lower Strymon valley and the Pangaion region around Philippi largely to protect Macedonian interest against their main threat in those regions – the Greek colonies and probing Athenian ventures in the area. Accordingly these areas received considerable inflow of Macedonian DNA. The Macedonians also contested the strategic area around Demir Kapu with the Paeonians where they planted their colony of Antigoneia – perhaps the only region with any appreciable Macedonian presence in the FYROM, although still essentially Paeonian. Crestonia, Bisaltia and the plain east of the Vardar do not appear to have had much of any real injection of Macedonians. Ultimately the Macedonians achieved possession of their ‘Macedonia’ in antiquity through rather brutal methods. They were Grcki katili indeed. Amusingly this is exactly what the Slavs are accusing the modern Greeks of having done in ‘illegally occupying Aegean Macedonia’! As I have said elsewhere, the ‘Upper Macedonians’ (Elimeians, Tymphaeans, Orestians, Lynkestians, Pelagonians) were strictly speaking Epirote Greeks, cultural and linguistic cousins of the Makedones, whose institutions and nobility were co-opted, with varying degrees of force, by the Macedonians so that they became ‘Macedonians’ politically and their lands served to add greater territorial depth to the kingdom. They inhabited the Aliakmon valley and much of the area watered by the Crna Reka (Erigon) river and its tributaries. At the turn of the last century their lands were shared between Greeks (Elimeioi, Tymphaeioi, Orestians) and Bulgarians (Orestians, Lynkestians, Pelagonians) with populations of Vlachs, Turks and some Albanians. So you see, I cannot quite understand how your fairly irrelevant talk about tribal displacements, Paeonians in Pelagonia, who was there first, Macedonians also having been newcomers etc change my thesis that you will have to look in Greek Macedonia to find Macedonian DNA? Here’s a map I posted earlier to try and explain to your boy Chento that his belief that his people have ‘antic Macedonian DNA’ a la IGENEA is a crock of sh.it . . Bear in mind that the map stops in antiquity and does not take into account the impact of the Slavic migrations into the area (as debateable as its magnitude is), that is, of your ancestors. I have arrived at the concentration of ‘Macedonian DNA’ on deductions based on what is known about where the ancient Macedonians actually lived and the course of their expansion. You will see that the most concentrated level of DNA will logically have to be their original homeland in the Pierian mountains and the northern foothills of Olympus with a lessening of degree in those areas to which they spread:
So once and for all, in seeking to find ‘ancient Macedonian DNA’ my personal belief is that the best place to look is in areas known to have been both inhabited by the ancient Macedonians in antiquity AND by Greek-speaking Macedonians at the turn of the last century. In other words Pieria, Emathia south of the old lake/swamp; Chalcidice’s hinterland and southern Mygdonian basin, the lower Strymon and the valley of the Angitis . With respect to the remnants of the old Epirote ‘Upper Macedonians’ one should look in the Aliakmon valley just short of Kastoria (while also including that town).
With respect to the Slav-speakers who lived in areas inhabited by the old Macedonians and Upper Macedonians (which again was overwhelmingly within Greek Macedonia), and if – for argument’s sake - we ignore the likely impact of the incoming Slavs in these areas, we will observe that a very large number of these were Grecoman and have opted to identify as Greeks keeping any old DNA within Majka Grcija.
So there you go. Where would you logically need to look to find any ancient Macedonian DNA if not in Greece? Tell me. Where? Where in f.uck’s name would you look? Kichevo? Shtip? Kumanovo? Your people are not linguistically, not culturally, not ‘genetically’ (to any extent worth mentioning) and not strictly geographically Macedonians. Only by virtue of the fact that you inhabit a land that can be considered to be part of the broad definition of Macedonia can you be said to be Macedonian. No amount of giant statues nor artful yet clumsy re-jigging of history books will alter the fact that you are essentially a Slavic people, who were until relatively recently universally regarded a part of the Bulgarian people.
Some further remarks concerning your observations:
For the record Slavs are not new-comers to Macedonia (other than in relative terms), but they are certainly brand new to the idea that they are ‘the’ Macedonians … and that is the issue.
Understand that yours is the newest identifiable ethnic group in the region contrary to the half digested bullsh.it you like to feed yourselves. All groups in the region, with the exception of yours, long preceded the advent of nationalism with respect to being unique and identifiable ethnic entities conscious of their separateness. They had long interacted with each other giving rise to ethnic stereotypes, to stories around this interaction, to jokes about their supposed characteristic etc Basically each of these people has a ‘historic memory’ of the other. Your ‘Macedonians’, however, do not feature in any of this short of whatever may have developed over the last several decades. Basically, your people, as ‘Macedonians’, are trying to wrangle their way into a club that was there long before them and are doing so by appropriating material to define themselves, which does not belong to them.
In terms of your comments about Kutlesh, Palatica etc, no-one said the Slavs did not have a presence in the region. For God’s sake they reached the Peloponnese (quite an achievement, really, if you entertain the idea that there were no Slavic migrations, don’t you think!). I have never argued ‘purity’; that there has been a Slavic impact practically throughout the Balkan region is beyond doubt (again remarkable in the absence of ‘migrations’). Clearly though, in many regions the Slavic element has long since been absorbed within the local population. However, although I do not claim to be any sort of linguistic expert, I am not entirely sure that Kutlesh and Palatica are Slavic – for one thing I cannot find them in Vasmer’s work (what do they mean in Slavic … and for that matter what does Postol mean?). Be that as it may I can give you undoubted Slavic toponymy in the general Pierian region if you want although toponymy needs to be handled with a little bit of care. You will find places with Greek names such as Arkoudohor (‘bear village’) near Naousa that was inhabited by Bulgarians and Tourkohor (meaning ‘Turk village;’ in Greek) in the same region which was also inhabited by Bulgarians.
I appreciate the sentiments you express in your last paragraph and to a large extent I agree. But sure … go ahead and help yourselves to the patrimony of your neighbours and then sprout your ‘we should all be friends’ s.hit. See how much credibility that has for us.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 6, 2011 4:22:28 GMT -5
BBB , Bulgarians should make a statue after you in the Vitosa museum lol. You are constantly confusing the few greek-slavs with a clear pro-Bulgarian bias inside greece's borders or the vlahs in FYROM's south/east, with the vast percentage of slavomakedonians who feel south Yugoslavs, pro-Yugoslav, pro-Serbian, or just ... makedonians. Your dogma (the current Greek pro-Bulgarian failure) builds on the following : On one hand, you emphasize on the non-makedon : Slavic nature of FYROM On the other you keep repeating the Bulgarian propaganda. Those two are fully mutually exclusive. pro-slav FYROM means YUGOSLAV FYROM right? Not Bulgarian. You start to see the problem here? Bulgaria is of course a slavic country, but *NOT SO SLAVIC* as Yugoslavia right? Getting clearer now? On top of that, Bulgaria has a huge cultural weight, and could *EASILY* bulgarify not only half of FYROM but certain other regions of Greece. So, Bulgaria *IS* a threat to hellenism, they are more disciplined, more clean, more cultured, more smart, more hard-working, etc.... SO? ? Why keep on repeating pro-bulgo stance? A yugoslav slavic makedonia, would give both FYROM and Serbia/Bosnia AIR to breath, a field, of lively importance for their economies. And would keep their eyes off the greek part of makedonia. OTOH Bulgaria *NEEDS* size, 8m ppl is to little, and it would take another 4m to balance Bosnia (2+2), So in this case Greek makedonia IS IN TROUBLE. Can't any one of the greek idiots think the OBVIOUS INTEREST FOR GREECE?? It seems the west has been raping us for so many centuries that our brains have burned.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 6, 2011 4:51:22 GMT -5
^ Well said brate, it will also create a larger Bu Lgarska wrapping itself around Greece, very dangerous in my opinion also. It was Russia's interest to have a huge Bulgarian Khanate in the Balkans back in the late 19th century, hence why she funded them to the teeth so that serbian vardar would be lost to them Its not about a greater serbia, its also in the interests of Greece that vardar is a state of serbia, it will neutralise this stupidity of the current vardarian concept of Macedonia.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 6, 2011 5:15:49 GMT -5
^^ Novi bro, the big powers (and russia) *KNOW* that Bulgos cannot bulgarify south hard-core Serbia, that's why they are playing this FYROM game.
I am afraid, in the end FYROM would end up in yugoslavia, but portions of the greek makedonia transfered to Bulgaria....
And the greek-slavs are infact pro-bulgo. Maybe greeks are afraid of them, and NOT FYROM??
Maybe fyrom was designed AS A BULGARIAN PROXY *BUT NOT* a future-bulgaria teritory?
Maybe FYROM is supposed to work for Bulgaria (giving parts of Greece to Bulgaria), and then go back to Serbia?
Who knows what the mighty powers have in their minds in London/NY.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 6, 2011 5:36:19 GMT -5
"I am afraid, in the end FYROM would end up in yugoslavia, but portions of the greek makedonia transfered to Bulgaria...."
You might be onto something brate, l've read comments from the BuLgari from other forums that they *feel* more pain for not having been able to *secure* Greek Thrace and some other parts of the Aegean than Vardar. You know brate that Russia desparately wanted European Turkey to be part of the BuLgarski Khanate, if European Turkey was secured for this new Khanate, it would had given Russia a major victory in the meditteran and surpreme power over the west (UK and USA). The US and UK saw the consequences and MADE sure that Turkey was to told on to the Bosporus.....and in the process, considering that the BuLgari had a substanial population in todays European Turkey, were removed.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 6, 2011 6:28:15 GMT -5
^^^ brilliant.
|
|
punisher
Moderator
JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL
Posts: 806
|
Post by punisher on Nov 6, 2011 6:31:08 GMT -5
the morons are on it again LOL
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 6, 2011 6:42:15 GMT -5
^ plz keep your garbage comments in the Albania forum.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 6, 2011 6:47:04 GMT -5
"brilliant."
Believe me brate even the stupid BuLgari don't even know this. In the end there was an agreement that the BuLgari focus on vardar than European Turkey.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Nov 6, 2011 6:54:27 GMT -5
The thing is that FYROM's own patriots defined themselves as Bulgarians. When you call them on it they say that it is taken out of context. Now for whatever reasons they felt closer to Bulgaria (Exarchate) and what not is a different issue. But the fact of the matter is that their political leaders always leaned if not outright defended the Bulgarian character of the region. Even if you read Karev's interview he says the same. Now if the majority of the Slavs in the region is something else I do not know. Im just going by the historical references I have read.
|
|