Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

[Voltron]

Can someone post a summary ? Or do we have to read the 350 pages ? I heard about Curta, but I dont think I have the time to read his book.
Nevermind, my answer is on the first page. didnt see it.

[Dimko-piperkata]

The Making of the Slavs - F. Curta, En - YouTube

[Daskalot]

Nice review Dimko, thank you for posting it!

[Onur]

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showpost.php?p=96819&postcount=37

Florin Curta`s book is quite comprehensive and very good if you are interested with this.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Here is an interested and relevant Egyptian/Arabic parallel with the Macedonian/Slavic 'situation' being discussed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaonism

What is most significant [about Egypt in this period] is the absence of an Arab component in early Egyptian nationalism. The thrust of Egyptian political, economic, and cultural development throughout the nineteenth century worked against, rather than for, an "Arab" orientation... This situation—that of divergent political trajectories for Egyptians and Arabs—if anything increased after 1900.

"[Egyptians] did not possess an Arab nationalist sentiment; did not accept that Egypt was a part of the Arab lands, and would not acknowledge that the Egyptian people were part of the Arab nation."

The Egyptians are not Arabs, and both they and the Arabs are aware of this fact. They are Arabic-speaking, and they are Muslim —indeed religion plays a greater part in their lives than it does in those either of the Syrians or the Iraqi. But the Egyptian, during the first thirty years of the [twentieth] century, was not aware of any particular bond with the Arab East... Egypt sees in the Arab cause a worthy object of real and active sympathy and, at the same time, a great and proper opportunity for the exercise of leadership, as well as for the enjoyment of its fruits. But she is still Egyptian first and Arab only in consequence, and her main interests are still domestic.

Pharaonism is deeply rooted in the spirits of the Egyptians. It will remain so, and it must continue and become stronger. The Egyptian is Pharaonic before being Arab. Egypt must not be asked to deny its Pharaonism because that would mean: Egypt, destroy your Sphinx and your pyramids, forget who you are and follow us! Do not ask of Egypt more than it can offer. Egypt will never become part of some Arab unity, whether the capital [of this unity] were to be Cairo, Damascus, or Baghdad.

Some contemporary prominent Egyptians who oppose Arab nationalism or the idea that Egyptians are Arabs include Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities Zahi Hawass,[11] popular writer Osama Anwar Okasha, Egyptian-born Harvard University Professor Leila Ahmed, Member of Parliament Suzie Greiss,[12] in addition to different local groups and intellectuals.[13] This understanding is also expressed in other contexts,[14][15] such as Neil DeRosa's novel Joseph's Seed in his depiction of an Egyptian character "who declares that Egyptians are not Arabs and never will be."[16]

Egyptian critics of Arab nationalism contend that it has worked to erode and/or relegate native Egyptian identity by superimposing only one aspect of Egypt's culture. These views and sources for collective identification in the Egyptian state are captured in the words of a linguistic anthropologist who conducted fieldwork in Cairo:

Historically, Egyptians have considered themselves as distinct from 'Arabs' and even at present rarely do they make that identification in casual contexts; il-'arab [the Arabs] as used by Egyptians refers mainly to the inhabitants of the Gulf states... Egypt has been both a leader of pan-Arabism and a site of intense resentment towards that ideology. Egyptians had to be made, often forcefully, into "Arabs" [during the Nasser era] because they did not historically identify themselves as such. Egypt was self-consciously a nation not only before pan-Arabism but also before becoming a colony of the British Empire. Its territorial continuity since ancient times, its unique history as exemplified in its pharaonic past and later on its Coptic language and culture, had already made Egypt into a nation for centuries. Egyptians saw themselves, their history, culture and language as specifically Egyptian and not "Arab.

[Mygdon]

Can someone post a summary ? Or do we have to read the 350 pages ? I heard about Curta, but I dont think I have the time to read his book.
Nevermind, my answer is on the first page. didnt see it.

well, you should take time, my friend..

[George S.]

voltron just read the damn book & you'll see what we have been saying is true.In contrast to your gov't propaganda which is all all bs.Just read the fucking book & tell us at the end what you think of it.

[Pelister]

SoM, one question at a time.

I think I'll address this point you made, first.

The english translation of the sources are on the front page of this thread. Which sources are missing? The actual Latin and Greek texts? The Old Macedonian and later Church Slavonic texts? What will they reveal that isn't already known?

When I said you really need to go back to the primary source material, I did not mean translations of the original sources, or references to them in English (which is what you continually do). I have been saying it to you for all our benefit, that if you want to be taken seriously here you need to go back to the original sources - yes, that means the Latin and the Greek, and the Macedonian (note that I didn't call it 'Slav', because the Macedonian language is unique, original and distinctive) - because translators often had a habit of changing the lettering of the original words. They saw what they wanted to see, not what was actually there.

There is the book, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia, 1897-1913, by Douglas Dakin, sponsored by the Insitute for Balkan Studies which is based in Solun. The author refers to the inhabitants of Macedonia as "Slav speakers" and "Exarchists". Again, he has taken up the substance of Cvijic's assesment I brought to light earlier in this thread.

Macedonia never formed a racial, linguistic or political unit...nor was it a definite geographical term. p.3

Dakin, Douglas, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia, 1897-1913, Institute for Balkan Studies, p.3

Slav speaker = No distinctive Macedonian language

I know that people have in the past described the Macedonian language as a 'Slav' language, but they were almost always foriegners, to begin with; and over the centuries its application to the Macedonians has always been political; or, based around events related to the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries invaders which are very poorly understood, and based on the flimsiest of evidence. There are too many unsubstantiated assumptions in all of it - assuming you know the identity of these invaders is still an assumption. There is no evidence just 'who' they were, or what they called themselves. We hear it again from foreigners.

Orbini was expressing a Western concept of the East - whether its Orientalism, Hellenism, 'Slavism' - these are Western concepts of identification of others, and cannot be divorced from the language of imperial conquest, racism and power; because that is precisely how they have been used. Its a false history, and its a false historical identity. The Russians, and others have been good at exploiting it. I think your probably borderline, in terms of exploiting it. The whole 'Slav' thing is based on very shallow research, and too many stupid assumptions.

[Risto the Great]

I know that people have in the past described the Macedonian language as a 'Slav' language,

I don't think I have ever seen it described as that. I have seen it described as a slavic language. Do you distinguish between the terms?

[Soldier of Macedon]

When I said you really need to go back to the primary source material, I did not mean translations of the original sources, or references to them in English (which is what you continually do). I have been saying it to you for all our benefit, that if you want to be taken seriously here you need to go back to the original sources - yes, that means the Latin and the Greek, and the Macedonian........

We have already discussed the written form of the word in Greek (Sklavenes), Latin (Sclaveni) and Macedonian (Slovjani) sources during that period in this thread. Are you denying that this is how the original sources recorded the term? A very plausible and sensible explanation has already been provided as to why those who recorded the term in Greek and Latin used the 'k' and 'c' respectively. Here is it again:

I wrote about this earlier somewhere, not sure. Anyhow, the reason why Romans wrote Sklavenoi or Sclavi, i.e. why include k or c, or even th as in Greek Sthlavenoi, is due to Slavic pronunciation of their name itself. The L in Sloväni is the velarized alveolar lateral approximant or "Dark L". In pronunciation it sounds like KL or THL, and that is how the Romans and Greeks heard it the first time. It changed to a regular L, alveolar lateral approximant, somewhere past the 9th century AD, since in OCS it is still velarized, which means it was so in the Macedonian dialect it was based upon. Only Slavic dialects that still have the Dark L are in eastern Poland and west Belarus, and they use the letter Łł to write it down. The Dark L is pronounced exclusively only in front of back vowels: o, u, a, just like in Sloväni.

There is absolutely no doubt that the terms Slavenes, Sclaveni, etc are related to Slovjani. As I mentioned previously, even the 10th century emperor of East Rome (Constantine Porphyrogenitus) recorded the term 'Sklavoi' in relation to people who were without doubt Slavic-speaking and would have considered themselves as Slovjani in a broader linguistic sense.

........(note that I didn't call it 'Slav', because the Macedonian language is unique, original and distinctive)......

It is unique and distinctive, but it is also related to other languages in a significant way.

There is the book, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia, 1897-1913, by Douglas Dakin, sponsored by the Insitute for Balkan Studies which is based in Solun. The author refers to the inhabitants of Macedonia as "Slav speakers" and "Exarchists". Again, he has taken up the substance of Cvijic's assesment I brought to light earlier in this thread.

Why do you keep making reference to people who have manipulated the term to the detriment of Macedonians, like I am unaware of their malicious intent? Why don't you instead address the texts from Macedonian writers in the medieval period who use the term Slovjani?

The whole 'Slav' thing is based on very shallow research, and too many stupid assumptions.

The manipulation of the term is stupid, but so is deliberate ignorance of the truth and logic.

[Soldier of Macedon]

St Clement of Ohrid is reported to have written the historiography of both Cyril and Methodius, his fellow Macedonian educators. Here is the opening line for his 'Life of Constantine (Cyril)', transliterated into the modern Macedonian alphabet:

http://www.helsinki.fi/slaavilaiset/ccmh/VC.TXT

Пaмeт и житиje блaжeнaгo yчитeлja нaшeгo Kocтaнтинa филocoфa, пpвaгo нacтaвникa cлoвeнcкy jeзикy.

The rough english translation is: Memory and life of our blessed educator Constantine the philosopher, first teacher of the slavonic language.

Here is the famous line from the 'Life of Methodius' with respect to Michael III and his urging of the Macedonian brothers to educate the Moravians:

http://www.helsinki.fi/slaavilaiset/ccmh/VM.TXT

.........ви бo jecтa Ceлyнeнинa, дa Ceлyнeнe вcи чиcтo cлoвeнcки бeceдyjyt.

The rough english translation is: .....you are both from Salonika, and all Salonikans speak pure slavonic.

[Napoleon]

I believe the problem with the definition of the word "Slav" today as we understand it is not because it has come to denote a large related linguistic community in Europe. The problem is that it has now also come to denote an extremelly flawed view of history...the '6th century migration/invasion theory'. The question that should be asked is not who the Slavs are, but rather, why is the '6th century migration/invasion theory' is still so strongly propagated today when there is absolutely no evidence for maintaining it. The only reason I can see as to why the '6th century migration/invasion theory' is still propagated is that just about every other nation or people in Europe other then the 'Slavs' themselves benefits from maintaining it.

Until the early 1800's, whether it be 'Macedonian', 'Thracian' or 'Illyrian' in the past etc, I believe the term 'Slav' is simply the latest word to denote the indigenous peoples of the Balkans. It was only after the 1800's that the term 'Slav' came to be associated with the flawed '6th century migration/invasion theory', and this didn't happen by accident. This occured in the early 1800's when Austro-German Politicians and scholars of the Austro-Hungarian empire and their western European allies started propagating todays defintion of the term 'Slav' as a direct response to the spirit of national awakening that was occuring in the western Balkans at that time.

By connecting the term 'Slav' with the '6th century migration/invasion theory', the Austro-German Politicians and scholars deliberately set out to infer that the 'Slavs' of the western Balkans, being the Slovenians, Croatians and Serbs were merely just 'foreign invaders' who therefore do not 'own' the lands that they now live on and as a result, have no right to demand national or ethnic rights within the Austro-Hungarian empire. This is exactly the same argument used against Macedonia today by its enemies.

It is this inference that is now drawn from the term 'Slav' today, that they are merely 'foreign invaders' that resulted from a 6th century migration and therefore do not 'own' their lands, is the main reason I believe that this modern definition is of the term 'Slav' is still maintained. This is the sole reason why I believe many Macedonians and others have a problem with the term 'Slav' and the negative connotations which are drawn directly from it etc.

Another problem with the term 'Slav' is it's vague meaning in it's original context. Obviously, the term 'Slav' as we understand it today meant something rather different prior to the politics of the 1800's, and then again it would also have meant something completely different prior to the 6th century when it was first starting to be used by Roman historians.

[makedonche]

I believe the problem with the definition of the word "Slav" today as we understand it is not because it has come to denote a large related linguistic community in Europe. The problem is that it has now also come to denote an extremelly flawed view of history...the '6th century migration/invasion theory'. The question that should be asked is not who the Slavs are, but rather, why is the '6th century migration/invasion theory' is still so strongly propagated today when there is absolutely no evidence for maintaining it. The only reason I can see as to why the '6th century migration/invasion theory' is still propagated is that just about every other nation or people in Europe other then the 'Slavs' themselves benefits from maintaining it.

Until the early 1800's, whether it be 'Macedonian', 'Thracian' or 'Illyrian' in the past etc, I believe the term 'Slav' is simply the latest word to denote the indigenous peoples of the Balkans. It was only after the 1800's that the term 'Slav' came to be associated with the flawed '6th century migration/invasion theory', and this didn't happen by accident. This occured in the early 1800's when Austro-German Politicians and scholars of the Austro-Hungarian empire and their western European allies started propagating todays defintion of the term 'Slav' as a direct response to the spirit of national awakening that was occuring in the western Balkans at that time.

By connecting the term 'Slav' with the '6th century migration/invasion theory', the Austro-German Politicians and scholars deliberately set out to infer that the 'Slavs' of the western Balkans, being the Slovenians, Croatians and Serbs were merely just 'foreign invaders' who therefore do not 'own' the lands that they now live on and as a result, have no right to demand national or ethnic rights within the Austro-Hungarian empire. This is exactly the same argument used against Macedonia today by its enemies.

It is this inference that is now drawn from the term 'Slav' today, that they are merely 'foreign invaders' that resulted from a 6th century migration and therefore do not 'own' their lands, is the main reason I believe that this modern definition is of the term 'Slav' is still maintained. This is the sole reason why I believe many Macedonians and others have a problem with the term 'Slav' and the negative connotations which are drawn directly from it etc.

Another problem with the term 'Slav' is it's vague meaning in it's original context. Obviously, the term 'Slav' as we understand it today meant something rather different prior to the politics of the 1800's, and then again it would also have meant something completely different prior to the 6th century when it was first starting to be used by Roman historians.

Napoleon
Sobering analysis!

[Soldier of Macedon]

I believe the problem with the definition of the word "Slav" today as we understand it is not because it has come to denote a large related linguistic community in Europe. The problem is that it has now also come to denote an extremelly flawed view of history...the '6th century migration/invasion theory'.

While I firmly adhere to the notion that strong lexical commonalities existed between the Balkan and Danubian populations since antiquity, the rise to prominence of the Slavic linguistic community is inevitably tied in one way or another to events that took place during the 6th century and afterward. There is no good reason why we should give our detractors a free reign to manipulate the meaning of the term 'Slavic' in a way other than what it actually represents.

The question that should be asked is not who the Slavs are, but rather, why is the '6th century migration/invasion theory' is still so strongly propagated today when there is absolutely no evidence for maintaining it.

There is no evidence of a mass migration, however, there is evidence of an invasion, or more precisely, invasions. They had an impact on the social structures in the Balkans which were developed during the Roman Empire and on the linguistic landscape of the region. If we are to be completely objective and honest with each other then I don't think we should be denying this. We should instead be confronting and explaining it, which isn't that difficult in any case.

Until the early 1800's, whether it be 'Macedonian', 'Thracian' or 'Illyrian' in the past etc, I believe the term 'Slav' is simply the latest word to denote the indigenous peoples of the Balkans.

Not just the Balkans, but also the indigenous peoples of the Danube area and further north.

It was only after the 1800's that the term 'Slav' came to be associated with the flawed '6th century migration/invasion theory', and this didn't happen by accident. This occured in the early 1800's when Austro-German Politicians and scholars of the Austro-Hungarian empire and their western European allies started propagating todays defintion of the term 'Slav' as a direct response to the spirit of national awakening that was occuring in the western Balkans at that time.

I agree that there was an overemphasis on the 'invasions' in the 19th century with the purpose of negating the indigenous character of Slavic-speaking peoples in the Balkan and Danube regions. But the term 'Slav' is merely the English equivalent of Latin 'Sclaveni', Greek 'Sklavene' and Macedonian 'Sloveni', terms which have historically been connected to events from the 6th century onward. What matters most is a logical interpretation after taking all facts into consideration. The suggestion by Germanic politicians and scholars that Slavic-speaking peoples were not indigenous to their contemporary homelands was not based on logic, but rather on a deliberate misinterpretation which failed to account for a number of proofs that demonstrate significant pre-existing ties between the peoples of the Danube and Balkan regions.

Another problem with the term 'Slav' is it's vague meaning in it's original context. Obviously, the term 'Slav' as we understand it today meant something rather different prior to the politics of the 1800's, and then again it would also have meant something completely different prior to the 6th century when it was first starting to be used by Roman historians.

Why do you think our own ancestors used this word to decribe the language which they and others in Europe spoke? What do you think it meant to them, in the context of both themselves as Macedonians and the Moravians and others they were educating?

[Pelister]

SoM,

What you assume needs to be tested.

I suppose I'll start by addressing the duplicity in your position with regard to what you are claiming to be doing, and what you are actually doing.

But before I get to the problems with the term 'Slav' as you use it, I just want to make a comment about something you said. You could, as you have indicated, start looking around for 'evidence' of every time Macedonians have used the term 'Slav' (Gligorov being an example, I suppose); but if you did that you would in my opinion only be advancing the narratives of our enemies - the Greeks. Macedonians, particularly intellectuals have a habit of adopting foriegn nomenclature and the language of European imperialism, and conquest. This could possibly include language invented by Romans. All the Macedonians I know, (apart from the intellectuals) and have known have never used it.

You have some people convinced that you are only using it in reference to a broad linguistic group; as you continue to state. But clearly you are carrying all the assumptions our enemies use against us. One of those assumptions you have been pushing repeatedly, I have quoted below. Your making a historical assumption - EXACTLY the same one that our enemies use against us to deny our indigenous identity. It is a theory of discontinuity which they apply to us to deny us any rightful ancient connection to the land - Macedonia.

Look at what you wrote here:

How did all of the Slavic-sounding placenames in the Balkans suddenly appear after the 6th century?

Assumption:

1. "Slavs" and their language appeared in the 6th century "suddenly"

2. "Slav language" was "suddenly" brought down in the 6th century

Otherwise, as you state how else did all the "Slavic sounding" placenames appear?

There are a couple of critical problems with your assumptions about "Slavic sounding placenames suddenly appearing in the 6th century".

a) The biggest problem is that you assume you know the identity of the 6th century invaders (yet, you have not produced a single original source, not from Procopius, Theophylact of Simocatta, Marcellinus Comes nor the one or two others)

b) Furthermore, you not only assume to know 'who' they were, but you assume to know what language they brought with them, and then assume to give it a name 'Slav'

There is no evidence what language "6th century invaders", spoke or used or brought with them. There doesn't appear to be a single contemporary who uses the term "Slav" either; it looks like that it appears for the first time about 400 years later in one source! But what did its author mean by it? Yet, not only have you a modern meaning, which has its own historical development in the Western tradition, it is something you are happy to apply retroactively, in a blatantly anachronistic manner. Now that might not mean much to the average Macedonian, but what it does mean is that your engaging in some mischief here.

Which brings me to a few points:

I believe and I would encourage you to consider it that it is better to call them "6th century invaders", even though it is a bit cumbersome, particularly if nothing substantial can ever really be known about them. I would rather you call them "6th century invaders" than "Slavs". It would be historically, far more accurate and HONEST to do so. It would also avoid all the 'baggage' that comes with the term 'Slav'. Secondly, if you are going to locate a term that may appear to be 'Slav' you really need to apply a few tests, a) what is the term, b) who is using it, c) what could they mean by it. This is to add the all important context to it, I keep going on about. It is irresponsible of you to assume (as you have done) that every time someone has used the term 'Slav', or 'Sclav' or 'Sklav' or 'Saclav' - that they are in fact referring all to the same thing, and they all mean the same thing by it. It is even worse that you assume that they are all referring to a language! This is a genuine criticism and I am only trying to help all of us by pointing it out.

I would really like to see us challenging some of these assumptions, but it makes it hard when it is a Macedonian pushing them.

Am I being too critical?
.