- This topic has 186 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 3 months ago by Anonymous.
- October 21, 2013 at 9:05 am #345887
1. The name Upper/North Macedonia is maybe good but New Macedonia is better since New zealand for instance has nothing to do
with Dutch Zealand (Zeeland), except its discoverer was Dutch. Compare with Ireland and Northern Ireland, Ireland still has
unofficial but almost official territorial claims on Northern Ireland.
2. The indigenousness of a population in a territory based solely on it indigenousness/autochthonousness in (teoretically)
only one or a few settlements shouldn't be a historical argument. Indigenous nations in a territory can be forcefully moved
out of that territory or killed by non-indigenous nation who had previously managed to conquer that territory. Neither should
the present-day domination of a certain ethnic element be of any value since that can be changed also. The single viable
historical arguments for claiming a territory are:
a) the nation whose independent stathood first had possession of that territory. For example: the Roman Empire and therefore
the present-day inhabitants of Rome, the present-day Latins/Romans, the Italians were the first to possess Macedonia, before
the Greeks (if we accept the improbable version that ancient Macedonians were no Greeks). But the Greek city-states had
possession of Southern Italy (including agricultural land around the city-states) before the Romans, also of Varna region,
Dobruja, Tyras region neither Dnestr river, before the Romans, Slavs/Bulgarians, Romanians and so on. Why is this the most
important historical argument? It's simple, because only a very small portion of the any territory or region has ever been
inhabited, the rest is agricultural land, never inhabited permanently by any ethnicity. For instance during the 1890s only
approximately 1% of the territory of Northern Dobruja was inhabited, now in 2013 about 10%. The rest was never inhabited
About the historical right to inhabited localities, settlements: one should take into account the original household-by-
household situation. For instance Vatican is an independent country even though it's only a neighborhood of a city (Rome).
This means that we should take into account the original, initial possessor's ethnicity of every house. Therefore, since
moist of houses and the adjacent territory of the households of the Romanian villages in Serbian Timocka Krajina have been
created, built by Romanians and Romanianized Serbs, Romanians have the historical rights to claim those villages. As far as
the surrounding agricultural territory of Timocka Krajina, it has belonged first to the Roman empire, before to any Serbian
statehood, meaning the Italians if not the Romanians are entitled to claim it.
3. Kosovo is already independent even though it has no UN seat. Neither has Vatican, an independent country. Kosovo doesn't
approval, membership of the UN.
4. What genes do mulattoes have? The genes of their black or of their white parent? They definitely look more Black than
White. Another reason why genetic studies are irrelevant.
5. The Slavs from FYROM used to be Bulgarian during as late as the 1860s. The Serb Verkovic's Folk Songs of "Macedonian"
Bulgarians on page 283 if I'm not mistaken contain a song about a competition between "bugarka", a Greek and a Vlach woman,
meaning the Slavs themselves declare they were Bulgarian in their folk songs. The same can be said about Miladinovs brothers
song book where the word Macedonian does not occur. It should be mentioned that there was no protest on the part of any
"Macedonian" leaders in the Serbian press, or any other press against their forceful "Bulgarization" by Verkovic or
Miladinovs'. If we accept that the "Macedonians" have initially been Macedonian, and not Slavs and a bit later Bulgarians
(when the Slavs switched to the ethnonym Bulgarian) that means that during the 1860s they had already been Bulgarianized,
later they rebegan "Macedonizing" themselves (starting with the ones from Florina/Lerin-Bitolya area, see user traykov,
Bulgarian with Macedonian roots on slavorum.org who is very well documented), then in Pirin "Macedonia" but also in Albania
and Greece they rebegan Bulgariarizing themselves. See Macedonist Kanzurov's claim that in the Greek census from the 1920s
relatively many Slav people from "Aegean Macedonia" still called themselves Bulgarian and not Macedonian.
6. The initial name of Bulgarian Slavs was simply Slovene, inherited in Romanian from Latin as "schiau" (<sclavus=Slav) and
borrowed also in Albanian with a very similar form shqaj (both the words are very old, from the time when Bulgarian Slavs still
didn't call themselves Bulgarian).
"Macedonian" so-called historians are apparently missing their logic:
1. Let's assume (ancient) Macedonians were never Greeks, spoke a different language and had only been linguistically assimilated by the Greeks prior to Slavs arrival in the Balkans and their Slavization of the (ancient Macedonians). Better still, Macedonians had not even been linguistically assimilated prior to being Slavicized into today's "Macedonians". Ok then. But Pirin "Macedonian" was inhabited by Thracians as well as eastern FYROM while Western FYROM and Golo Burdo and the other Vardar "Macedonian" settlements in Albania (towards which FYROM has territorial claims) were Paeonian. FYROMian "historians" like Stoyko Stoykov, Radule (actually not "Macedonian" but Vlach which hates Bulgarians) and Riste/Risto Stefov claim that Paeonians were not Illyrian (Albanians would them justifiedly have historical claims on western FYROM, not just demographically) but a different ethnicity and that both Paeonians and Thracians had been "ancientMacedonized" so that they ceased to be Paeonians and Thracians anymore.
a) Paeonians were actually Illyrian
b) Thracians in "Pirin FYROM" (Pirin Thrace, Pirin "Macedonia") were indeed Thracian and not Macedonian as claimed by your so-called historians. Skaptopara=Blagoevgrad is a Thracian place name with the Thracian suffix -para and not a ancient Macedonian name
c) Ancient Macedonian language was Greek, for instance they were using the word "kai"=and (conjunction) which clearly shows that they even used Greek conjunctions, a type of words which is hardest to borrow (even though in "Macedonian" "language" there is at least one Greek conjunction oti=that but in ancient times it was much more difficult to borrow such essential conjunctions)
d) FYROM only has a tiny portion of itself which belong to ancient Macedonia, the rest lies in Greece (the so-called "Aegean Macedonian"). This means that half of the territory of Greater FYROM was not Macedonian and probably half of the population of Greater FYROM in ancient times was not (ancient) Macedonian. This means that the Macedonians couldn't have possibly genetically assimilate the Thracians and Paeonians since they were approximately just as many as the two populations that they were supposed to assimilate. This means that Pirin Bulgarians ("Macedonians) and Eastern FYROM Bulgarians are actually more Thracian than Macedonian, despite having been ancientMacedonized (genetically only very partly and linguistically). Not to mention they are more like the Bulgarians in nearby Thrace, rather than like FYROMians in Western FYROM and Golo Burdo, genetically speaking. Actually this ancientMacedonization of Thracians and Paeonians never occured, not even the "linguistical" one (dialect Greek one actually). This means also that Western FYROMians are more Illyrian (Albanian) than ancient Macedonian. Not to mention the further complication that a Slavic "language" brought about by the arrival of the Slavs brings to this Paeonian/Thracian-Macedonian mixture of ethnicities (What are FYROMians: Slavs, Thracian/Paeonians or Macedonians???). Stoyko Stoykov, the wannabe "historian" and also separatist politician from Bulgaria's Pirin "Macedonia" claims that Bulgarian "historians" (actually real historians) are wrong when claiming that Bulgarians of present times are the result of three ethnicities mixture: Thracians, Slavs and Bulgars (proto-Bulgarians) because an ethnicity cannot be composed by others like a dish being composed of different ingredients. The lack of logic is obvious: "Macedonian" can but Bulgarians cannot
e) Italians are the successors of different ancient and modern Indo-European ethnicities and even non-Indo-European (Etrusks, Etrurians): Italians, Greeks (southern Italy=Magna Graecia), Usco-Umbrians and so on. This means that Bulgarians are the successors of Thracians, ancient Macedonians (in the tiny part of FYROM included in ancient times in original Macedonia), Paeonians.
f) Genetical "studies" claiming that present-day "Macedonians" share the genes of ancient, real ones (IGENEA) are fake, made up by Western enemies of formerly pro-Russian Greeks and Bulgarians (Orthodox Christians like Russians). Other equally acknowledged as accurate genetic "studies" claim that European Turks are more Thracian than Bulgarians, despite arriving much later in Thracian territories (which by the way inclued also western parts of Asian Turkey, not only European Turkey), that Bulgarians are closer to Italians, Spaniards and Greeks rather than to Serbs, that Romanians are Slavs or Hungarians (the same IGENEA) and so on. So these are not genetic studies, they are genetic "studies".
One more thing: Out of a 100 children born of 50 genetic mixed marriages (for instance Albanian-Bulgarian/Serbian), not 50 resulting children have Illyrian genes and 50 Slavic, the figures are not equal meaning the genes of some are "stronger" than the genes of other ethnicities, meaning genetic studies are totally irrelevant. One beautiful example of this is that children resulted from African-Caucasian mixed marriages are predominantly African, they look Black, not Caucasian/White. It takes dozens of addition Black-White mixtures in order for the children to look White.
Speaking of Radule, the Vlach "historian"-separatist from Blagoevgrad. Someone should ask that guy why is he so anti-Bg, pro-"Macedonian" if he is Vlach??? He should care about his own nation's history, not stir more hatred between Bg and Bg from FYROM with his "historical" and also "historic" "proofs and arguments" that present-day "Macedonians" are the same thing as the real, ancient, Greek ones.
The third "historian", "Macedonian" separatist from Greece, Risto Stefov used to declare himself Bulgarian before convincing himself that he "is" "Macedonian" (pictures of his documents with self-declared Bulgarian ethnicity can be found on the Internet)
As for Stoyko Stoykov, the other separatist from Pirin area: emprison him for his political and "scientific" Macedonistic separatism. Watch closely his past and future declarations for proofs of separatism and in case he was negligent send hime to prison for separatism, and also Radule.
On the question of why are Slavs from "Macedonia" (the Slavic: Bulgarian, Serbian, FYROMian notion of Macedonia is wrong and doesn't coincide with ancient, Greek geographical representation of Macedonia) called Serbs by Byzantine Greek chronicle writers even as soon as they arrive there the explanation is simple:
"Serb" is an old Slavic macro-tribal name used also by Sorbs in Germany who speak 2 languages, one closer to Polish, the other closer to Czech. However the most important and oldest etnonym for all Slavs is "Slovenians", Slavs (approximately "Slovene" in common Slavic language), this means that "serb" is far less important and even irrelevant as far as "Macedonia" is concerned. It is teoretically possible for the Moesian and Thracian Slavs to have called themselves plainly Slavs (=Slovenians, Slovaks) upon arrival in the Balkans (6th century) whereas "Macedonian" Slavs might have called themselves Serbs upon arrival there, this is totally irrelevant, since before the macro-tribal name Serb appeared, the "Macedonian" Slavs had been calling themselves plainly Slavs, just like the Bulgarians (that happened before their arrival into the Balkans). To deny the Bulgariandom of FYROMian Slavs is like calling the Slovenes or Slovaks, since they don't speak Serbian or Slovenian or Slovak, and they are Slavs.
Another proof of the Bulgarianness of FYROMian Slavs is the tribal names of the Slavs of "Macedonia" which are of eastern Slavic type, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian and not of Western, Slovak, Polish type. It is true that this is less relevant since, for instance, White Croats are now Ukrainians (eastern Slavs) whereas present-day Croats are Western, Southwestern Slavs but these cases are exceptions. This means that the tribal names of "Macedonian" Slavs are also a clear indicator that most of them or all of them designated eastern Slavs, just like the ones used to designate Moesian and Thracian tribes.
This Gruevski is a moron: Calling Greece Former Ottoman Province of Turkey is like calling Turkey "Partly Former Byzantine Greek Province, Partly Former Armenian Province Turkey". Besides, Turkey hasn't got a province called Greece and Greece hasn't got a province called Turkey or Ottoman Empire as its component. All this Macedonists are missing their logic and also few screwsOctober 21, 2013 at 4:30 pm #422475
Well Vanče, permit me to make some remarks.
1) Most historians actually today accept that the Paeonians were neither Illyrians nor Thracians, but an independent palaio-Balkan people related to the Agrianians. The Macedonians included the Paeonians among their barbarian (non Greek) allies, but distinguished them from both Illyrians and Thracians. For example, Alexander the Great's speech before battle with the Persians is highly illustrative:
To his fellow Macedonians Alexander says that "they are fighting for Hellas" that is why they have the "moral highground" against the Greek mercenaries that were fighting in the persian side. To his "barbarian"/foreign allies, Alexander says that they are the finest soldiers of Europe (Balkans beyond Hellas) and lists them separately as Illyrians, Paeonians, Thracians and Agrianians.
The other factor are the Dardanians. Although they sometimes are erroneously called 'Illyrians' by the ancient sources, in reality tha majority of their personal names were Thracian or, bettern Daco-Mysio-Thracian. The Skopje and Polog regions were inhabited by Dardanians and the Daco-Mysian toponyms -deva,-dava,-dova (cf. Philippoupolis > Thrac. Pulpu-deva > Bulg. Plovdiv) are found until the current border between Albania and Kosovo (the geographer Claudius Ptolemy names the Dacian cities Thermi-dava and Queme-dava as located between Scodra/Shkoder and Ulpiana/Lipljan), meanwhile, somewhere in current NE FYROM there was a city called Itadeva. In that region, the ancient name of Kratovo was Tranu-para, the "-para" suffix being charactristic of the Thracians proper.
So the demographic situation of the ancient territories that today belong to RoM were more or less like this:
Daco-Mysian is a language group with two main dialects (Dacian and Mysian) which was closely related to Thracian.
Triballians and Dardanians spoke Daco-Mysian.
Herodotus says that the river Angrus (Zapadna Morava) "started from the Illyrians and passed through the Triballian plain before meeting Brongus (the Juzna-Veliki Morava axis)", meanwhile the river Scius (Oescus, Iskar) started from Paeonia near Rhodope and after crossing the Haemus ended in the Danube/Ister.
Around 200 BC, the Dardanians were the most important balkan enemy of the Macedonians. The Paeonians accepted to be Macedonian vassals in order to escape Dardanian harashment. Philip's V anti-Dardanian strategy was the following:
1) He formed an anti-Dardanian alliance with the East Germanic Bastarnae who would eventually settle in Polog after axpelling the Dardanians from there. The plan was never completed.
2) He brought "Thracians and other loyal Barbarians" to the vassalized Paeonian territory in order to reinforce the anti-Dardanian defence. His plan was to make the vassalized Paeonia a buffer zone that would protect Macedonia proper from the Dardanian invasions.
To all that we must add the minor remnants of the Balkan Phrygians/Bryges who are mentioned from time to time here and there (they are mentioned living in northern Pelagonia, they are mentioned living in the hinterland of Dyrrachium, the are mentioned along the Strymon as "Thracian Briges" and the ancient name of the Prespa lakes was "the Brygeid lakes" («Βρυγηίδες λίμναι»). Along with the Phrygians we must also mention the Celtic Scordisci who have settled in both Kosovo and the peri-Danubian regions (Belgrade).
The Daco-Thracian element around Skopje remained important until the end of late antiquity. Local soldiers from Skopje, describe themselves in inscriptions as "Bessians" = (Latin term for 'Thracian'), meanwhile the emperors Justin and Justinian who were from the Dardanian regions (Bederiana, Tauresium) had strong Daco-Thracian connections. Justinian's real name was Petrus Sabatius (after the Thracian god Sabazios), meanwhile Justin's comrades with whom he went from Bederiana to Constantinople had pure Daco-Thracian names (Zi(a)markos, Ditybistos).October 21, 2013 at 6:35 pm #422476
More on the Paeonians and the Agrianes from Thucydides description of the ca. 429 BC borders of Sitalkes' Odrysian kingdom.
He starts with the mountain Scombros ,which separates the headwaters of the Strymon/Struma and the Oskios/Iskar (hence it corresponds to the modern Vitosha mountain). South and west from Scombros dwell the most eastern Paeonian tribes, namely the Agrianes and the Laiaioi and they were the western most subjects of Sitalkes' kingdom. The Paeonians of RoM are called "Independent Paeonians". East of the Scombros dwell Thracian tribes, meanwhile north of the Scombros dwell the Triballi.October 22, 2013 at 10:40 am #422477
He starts with the mountain Scombros ,which separates the headwaters of the Strymon/Struma and the Oskios/Iskar (hence it corresponds to the modern Vitosha mountain). South and west from Scombros dwell the most eastern Paeonian tribes, namely the Agrianes and the Laiaioi and they were the western most subjects of Sitalkes’ kingdom. The Paeonians of RoM are called “Independent Paeonians”. East of the Scombros dwell Thracian tribes, meanwhile north of the Scombros dwell the Triballi.
Sorry about my inaccuracy about Paeonians. As far as I know they were related to Thracians according to V. Georgiev, Duridanov or Dujcev. Actually the present-day Albanians are almost surely the successors of Thracians, having nothing to do with Illyrians. For instance the words buza and murg(av) are present in Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian (probably Aromanian Vlach and Meglenite and Istrian Vlach also) and they are neither Latin, nor Slavic, meaning they could be Albanian. See Klaus Steinke article in Le Monde Thrace, 1982. Buza or murgav (I forgot which) is only present in Thrace, being absent from Moesia, meaning Bulgarians couldn’t have borrowed it from Romanian which had borrowed it from Albanian/Thracian.October 22, 2013 at 7:25 pm #422478
The city opf Skopje which was known as "skupi" was a dardanian city, which was later hellenised/latinised durig the roman period, and then slavicised during east roman and then Bulgarian period.
Dardanians were more related to Illyrians than to Paionians.October 23, 2013 at 6:41 am #422479
AnonymousOctober 23, 2013 at 8:22 am #422480
Dardanians were more related to Illyrians than to Paionians.
Sorry but I didn’t pay much attention to your quotations. I will read them later on today.
So Ace and Dux: What were the Dardanians? Illyrians, Paionians or Daco-Thracians?
Another question for Ace: Is this proven by linguists that Triballians were Thracians and not Illyrians?
The initial name of Bulgarian Slavs was simply Slovene, inherited in Romanian from Latin as “schiau” (<sclavus=Slav) and borrowed also in Albanian with a very similar form shqaj (both the words are very old, from the time when Bulgarian Slavs still didn’t call themselves Bulgarian). So they were non-Bulgarian Bulgarians? Does that makes sense? Of course, for instance the ethnonym of present-day Meglenites is Vlachs (both endonym and exonym) but in the past they used a term derived from Latin “romanus”, just like ruman, roman (Romanian) and arman, raman (Aromanian Vlach). That doesn’t mean we’re talking about two different nations/ethnicities/peoples but one and the same with two ethnonyms/glottonyms. Similarily Italians used to call themselves Latin and Roman. The word “schiau” used to mean Bulgarian, not just Slav, it was then replaced by “sarb” (Bulgarians use to be called “Serbs” not only by the Greeks, but also by Romanians) and only relatively recently it was replaced by “bulgar”. It is interesting to note that the Albanians in the only Albanian village of Bulgaria, Mandra, use even today “shklaj” or something similar with kept “-l”.
As far as I know they were related to Thracians according to V. Georgiev, Duridanov or Dujcev. Actually the present-day Albanians are almost surely the successors of Thracians, having nothing to do with Illyrians. For instance the words buza and murg(av) are present in Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian (probably Aromanian Vlach and Meglenite and Istrian Vlach also) and they are neither Latin, nor Slavic, meaning they could be Albanian. See Klaus Steinke article in Le Monde Thrace, 1982. Buza or murgav (I forgot which) is only present in Thrace, being absent from Moesia, meaning Bulgarians couldn’t have borrowed it from Romanian which had borrowed it from Albanian/ThracianOctober 23, 2013 at 11:43 pm #422482
About your question for dardanians: Many sources show them as thracian, but most i have read show them as Illyrian.There is even a map showing them as Illyrians
Anyway, the majority would say that they were something between thracians and Illyrians, or that we can not conclude what exacly they wereOctober 25, 2013 at 8:42 am #422483
1. Saying that "Macedonians" are Serbs is like saying Serbs are Slovenians or Slovaks since Slovenians=Slavs and there is a dialect continuum between Slovenian and the language spoken by Serbs, Croats, Bosnians and Montenegrins or like saying "Macedonians" are Slovenians or Slovaks
2. At present Serbs live only in very few settlements of Kosovo, meaning they are indigneous only there, the rest of the localities making up a compact mass are inhabited by now indigenous Albanians, since there are no Serbs living there anymore
3. There is at least one settlement (village) in Timocka Krajina inhabited by indigineous Romanians, Korbovo (from "corb"=raven in Romanian), meaning the village was founded by Romanians.October 25, 2013 at 3:23 pm #422484
Is not really true, but never mind. I get your point.October 27, 2013 at 1:48 pm #422490
Slavs=Slovenians/Slovaks etymologywiseOctober 27, 2013 at 2:59 pm #422491
Slovenec = Slovenian of which root indeed most likely steems from Slovenin = Slav, yes but its not same like you try to put it.October 27, 2013 at 4:29 pm #422492
By origin, yes, but they don’t mean the same, like you’d like to picture it, if I see that correctly? Literal meaning of Slovenec is “mali Sloven”, which originally ment Slav, but means a member of the Slovene nation from some 10th century onwards. Since I believe to know where you’re aiming, let me tell, that the fact that we call ourselves Slovenci doesn’t mean we have no name for ourselves, but rather no name for the whole group of Slavs together.October 28, 2013 at 10:09 am #422493
In present-day Bulgarian “-ec” and “-yanin” are both used with nationalities’ or inhabitants’ names. For instance rumynec=Romanian doesn’t mean small Roman/Romanian. Sofijanec (Sofia inhabitant) but datcanin (Dane). It is a matter of random suffix choice. I suppose this could also be the case with Slovenian “slovenec”. Slovak=small Slav, rusnak=Small Russian=Rusyn, in the past also Ukrainian? Btw what does “slovjak” mean?
Btw Belarus=White Ruthenia, not White Russia=White Ukraine or, maybe better, White Rus’, not White Russia (Weissruthenien, not Weissrussland)Quote:Since I believe to know where you’re aiming, let me tell, that the fact that we call ourselves Slovenci doesn’t mean we have no name for ourselves, but rather no name for the whole group of Slavs together.
No, I didn’t mean to say you have no word for yourselves, I bet you even have different words albeit on of them recent for Slavs and Slovenians and one for Slovaks in Slovenian. I was aiming at the difference between Serbs and MacedoniansOctober 28, 2013 at 11:34 am #422494
Suffix -ec can mean both in Slovenian. Depends on the word.
Otherwise, we have a few words for ourselves. The most interesting for me is how Resian Slovenes call us (all other Slovenes). They call Slovenian language tabuški and not slovenščina or slovenski jezik like the rest of us. Povhec might know the form for the nation, he’s more into them …
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.