Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

[Pelister]

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

Do you want to elaborate on that?

What slavic invasion?

I ask myself the same question all the time.

I differ with SoM on the theory of 'Slavic invasions' around one key point. There is no doubt that there were people crossing the Roman line (the Danube), into Roman territory during the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries. But there is no evidence what language they spoke, as far as I am aware. They left no evidence that could be directly identified with them. It is all circumstantial and heresay, I think. There are I think, four, maybe five primary sources from that period that mention the 'Sklavenoi', but never 'Slavs'. It is a key thing for mine, it is anachronistic to even use the term 'Slav' to describe these invaders, when so little is known about them. There is no way we can know that the langauge of these invaders, was the same coined much later as 'Slavic'. There is even some 'evidence' that suggests that the 'invaders' were locals and the raids were happening from inside the Roman provinces, not outside of it. Which is why I often ask the question, 'What Slavic invasions?'

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Pelister

......... there is no evidence what language they spoke, as far as I am aware. They left no evidence that could be directly identified with them.

Pelister, placenames across the Balkans are evidence enough of the fact that Slavic-speaking peoples have invaded. While they may have spoken a related language to Thracian, Illyrian, etc, it was different enough to make a distinction. Granted, not all people termed as 'Sklaves' were Slavic-speaking, but a significant portion were, and their language was the most dominant as evidenced by placenames.

There is even some 'evidence' that suggests that the 'invaders' were locals and the raids were happening from inside the Roman provinces, not outside of it.

I don't think there could be any doubt that there was local support, otherwise these enclaves could never have survived.

[Pelister]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Pelister, placenames across the Balkans are evidence enough of the fact that Slavic-speaking peoples have invaded. While they may have spoken a related language to Thracian, Illyrian, etc, it was different enough to make a distinction. Granted, not all people termed as 'Sklaves' were Slavic-speaking, but a significant portion were, and their language was the most dominant as evidenced by placenames.

I don't think there could be any doubt that there was local support, otherwise these enclaves could never have survived.

The identity of the "Sklavenoi" is a mystery, I think. As far as I know, there is no evidence that the 'Sklavenoi' spoke a "Slavic" language. They left no written records, and no documents of any kind. The only way to understand a people, or a language is to find out what they understood themselves to be, what they called themselves and their language. There is also the problem with the term "Slav". Who first used it, and what did they mean? Who or what was it describing in the 10th century? All balkan placenames are no more "Slavic" than I am. It is a foriegn word, describing what exactly? The Macedonians have never used it to describe themselves, which should be basic unit of measure here. Using that term retrospectively, or blanketing past events, people, places and yes, even languages, with it is very problematic. I personally wouldn't use it until I know more. I am not about to use a system of terms belonging to a Western tradition (a pretty recent one actually), because it comes with alot of baggage.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Pelister

As far as I know, there is no evidence that the 'Sklavenoi' spoke a "Slavic" language. They left no written records, and no documents of any kind.

Pelister, how do you think they identify linguistic elements of Macedonians, Thracians, Illyrians and other Paleo-Balkan peoples who didn't leave written records? Placenames has much to do with it. If we use your argument, then we don't know what they spoke either. And this is simply untrue.

There is also the problem with the term "Slav". Who first used it, and what did they mean?

The term comes from the word 'slovo' (- to speak, or in more elaborate terms, people who speak the same language). It is a pan-linguistic identity that would have first started to develop from the 3rd century, around the time of Gothic rule north of the Danube. People who spoke a form of the language in this domain were a majority, and it is likely that they began to unite as a bulkwark against the more politically dominant Germanic element of the Goths. This is also supported by the reference to Germanic peoples as 'nemci' (- mute, or in more elaborate terms, people who don't understand the language). In a way, this development ensured their presence in the later Hunnic and Avar empires. Just because the Romans came across this term for the first time in the 6th century doesn't mean it was created then, nor does its later use as a synonym for 'slaves' make it any less a native word.

Who or what was it describing in the 10th century?

By this time it was only Slavic-speakers being called 'Slavs'. In fact, the pan-linguistic identity was given greater clarity as a result of the works of Cyril, Methodius, Clement, Naum and others, who spread Old Macedonian literature to other 'sloveni' (people who spoke the same language).

All balkan placenames are no more "Slavic" than I am. It is a foriegn word, describing what exactly? The Macedonians have never used it to describe themselves, which should be basic unit of measure here.

It isn't a foreign word, it is a native word and our ancestors used this same word to describe themselves in a pan-linguistic sense. Saying that Macedonians never used this word to describe themselves is a denial of the truth. Cyril, Methodius, Clement and Naum called the Old Macedonian language 'Slavonic'.

Using that term retrospectively, or blanketing past events, people, places and yes, even languages, with it is very problematic.

It is only problematic when people don't accept all of the facts collectively and only cherry-pick sections of our history. We have nothing to hide from, and if we took a more sensible and mature approach to our history we could still embrace it patriotically without detriment to the Macedonian identity. We are Macedonians, that is and always will be our only ethno-national identity. Our language is Macedonian and it belongs to the Slavic linguistic group, which in turn belongs to a larger Balto-Slavic group, which in turn was closely related to the Paleo-Balkan languages.

[Pelister]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Pelister, how do you think they identify linguistic elements of Macedonians, Thracians, Illyrians and other Paleo-Balkan peoples who didn't leave written records? Placenames has much to do with it. If we use your argument, then we don't know what they spoke either. And this is simply untrue.

We need to look at the facts.

The facts never mention 'Slavs', they mention 'Sklavenoi' to be precisely accurate. I think you will find that some Western historians have interpreted 'Sklavenoi' in the text of their books as 'Slav'. This is a simple error of fact, and potentially a massive distortion of the truth (if we ever find out). It is one big assumption. It is a fact that there is no other information on the 'Sklavenoi' apart from some comments relating to customs. It is a fact that there is no evidence what language they used, or what language they spoke. The only piece of apparent 'evidence' as to their identity (not language) of the 5th and 6th century invaders is a piece of 'Prague Style' pottery, identified by Vryonis in northern Greece. That is it, but again there is no telling how that pottery got there, and Vryonis also relies on the same assumptions your relying on here to make his thesis stick. He is relying on the assumption that we are talking about "Slavs" in Western discourse. It is one big assumption to guess what their language might be without evidence. Another fact based on the evidence, relates to how many of them had crossed the Danube, and where they settled. This is also a mystery in general, although some of the later sources provide some clues, I think. I guess my point is that the blanket application of the term retrospectively (which is what is happening here), is problematic. First of all, its use as a descriptive noun, and adjective for 5th and 6th century invaders (based on the records) is plain wrong; its use to describe the language of these invaders, is a big assumption, because no evidence exists; and that is before we even begin to unravel who and what the Western historiographic tradition means by it.

We know what language the Thracians spoke, and used because the Thracians left records - what we do not know is what they called it. There is no evidence of what they called their language.

Originally Posted by SoM

The term comes from the word 'slovo' (- to speak, or in more elaborate terms, people who speak the same language). It is a pan-linguistic identity that would have first started to develop from the 3rd century, around the time of Gothic rule north of the Danube. People who spoke a form of the language in this domain were a majority, and it is likely that they began to unite as a bulkwark against the more politically dominant Germanic element of the Goths. This is also supported by the reference to Germanic peoples as 'nemci' (- mute, or in more elaborate terms, people who don't understand the language). In a way, this development ensured their presence in the later Hunnic and Avar empires. Just because the Romans came across this term for the first time in the 6th century doesn't mean it was created then, nor does its later use as a synonym for 'slaves' make it any less a native word.

That is interesting, but I need to see some sources and references to the meaning of the term 'Slovo' and who, and when it was being described as a 'pan-linguistic identity'. Hopefully they are in this forum. I am asking this because during the 18th and 19th centuries there were some forces that had a vested political interest to promote a pan-"slavic" ideology; and all kinds of connections were being made between Russians and everyone else ...etc.

By this time it was only Slavic-speakers being called 'Slavs'. In fact, the pan-linguistic identity was given greater clarity as a result of the works of Cyril, Methodius, Clement, Naum and others, who spread Old Macedonian literature to other 'sloveni' (people who spoke the same language).

I have a number of simple concerns. Macedonian Christianity and the Macedonian alphabet (cyrillic) spread throughout Europe; possibly creating the perception of a "common language". It is possible also that Orthodox Christianity, as it spread north out of Macedonia and the translation of the bible in the various ethnic languages of south east Europe, created "common words". I am a bit ignorant in this regard, but they are just conerns. There are obviously deeper connections, which I don't know much about, but more context is needed.

Originally Posted by SoM

It isn't a foreign word, it is a native word and our ancestors used this same word to describe themselves in a pan-linguistic sense.

Can you explain more about this? How do you know this?

Originally Posted by SoM

Saying that Macedonians never used this word to describe themselves is a denial of the truth. Cyril, Methodius, Clement and Naum called the Old Macedonian language 'Slavonic'.

Before the 20th century, I have come across only one very dubious source (out of thousands) of Macedonian using the term 'Slav' in connection with his identity.

What does 'pravoslavni' mean?

Originally Posted by SoM

It is only problematic when people don't accept all of the facts collectively and only cherry-pick sections of our history. We have nothing to hide from, and if we took a more sensible and mature approach to our history we could still embrace it patriotically without detriment to the Macedonian identity. We are Macedonians, that is and always will be our only ethno-national identity. Our language is Macedonian and it belongs to the Slavic linguistic group, which in turn belongs to a larger Balto-Slavic group, which in turn was closely related to the Paleo-Balkan languages.

I can accept that today "Slavic" is a term that describes a branch of languages. But I am skeptical of the meta-narrative, about as skeptical as I am of the proposition pushed by 17th and 18th century Westerners that the Albanians were the descendents of "Illyrians" and of "Thracians". I think that "Slavic" is just about as useful as the term "Celtic" and probably worse.

I really like your theory, and agree with it in principle on most points. Then again, I am not as versed as you in this field of history. Please give us anything that might shed some more light on this.

[Vangelovski]

SoM,

This is an area that is obviously outside of my field of "expertise" and normally off my radar in terms of pet interests. But you mention a 'pan-linguistic identity'. What do you mean by that?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Pelister

The facts never mention 'Slavs', they mention 'Sklavenoi' to be precisely accurate. I think you will find that some Western historians have interpreted 'Sklavenoi' in the text of their books as 'Slav'. This is a simple error of fact, and potentially a massive distortion of the truth (if we ever find out).

Foreign sources mention 'Sklaveni' and 'Sclaveni', later the 'k' and 'c' are dropped from the word to read as 'Slaveni', which is where the English equivalent comes from. In Slavonic literature itself, which begins at the end of the 9th century AD, the term used is 'Sloveni'. It would be very far-reaching to suggest that there is no continuity and relation between the above terms. Just because some Turkic and Iranian groups were also referred to by this name in the earlier sources doesn't mean that the whole picture is distorted.

It is a fact that there is no evidence what language they used, or what language they spoke.

There is little ambiguity as to what language the majority of people in the 'Sclavinias' came to speak between the 6th-8th century AD. If you think there is no evidence, can you show me where all of the Slavic-sounding placenames are located in the Balkans prior to the 6th century AD?

The only piece of apparent 'evidence' as to their identity (not language) of the 5th and 6th century invaders is a piece of 'Prague Style' pottery, identified by Vryonis in northern Greece.

That could have been from Goths, Huns, Avars or some other group that either invaded independently or accompanied Slavic-speaking peoples from the Danube. It is wrong to identify it specifically with any one group when there is a clear lack of evidence to corroborate it further.

I guess my point is that the blanket application of the term retrospectively (which is what is happening here), is problematic.

I understand where you're coming from, but if the people involved in this discussion are able to adequately articulate and provide distinction when and where necessary, then I don't see it as being a problem. Your whole argument seems to rest on certain cases where the term was applied to people who didn't speak a Slavic language (or who didn't speak it as a native tongue). If this was as significant as you're trying to suggest, then where are all of the Germanic, Turkic and Iranian placenames in the Balkans from the 6th century AD and onwards? Why are there overwhelmingly Slavic placenames during this period? How did they come about?

We know what language the Thracians spoke, and used because the Thracians left records......

I can tell you that most of what we know about their language comes from placenames, tribal names, personal names, etc, most if not all recorded in foreign sources. The small handful of local inscriptions on a ring, vessels and gravesites aren't (yet) of much use because they have remained largely undeciphered. So how can you be so confident in the Thracian example but not in the Slavic one, when the criteria is basically the same?

That is interesting, but I need to see some sources and references to the meaning of the term 'Slovo'.........

See examples from the below glossary:

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/l...csol-MG-X.html

noun, neuter; nominative singular of <слово> word

adjective; accusative plural feminine of <словѣньскъ> Slavonic, Slavic

I am asking this because during the 18th and 19th centuries there were some forces that had a vested political interest to promote a pan-"slavic" ideology; and all kinds of connections were being made between Russians and everyone else ...etc.

That is a seperate (albeit related) issue.

Macedonian Christianity and the Macedonian alphabet (cyrillic) spread throughout Europe; possibly creating the perception of a "common language".

I am not even sure of what you're trying to say here. What do you mean by Macedonian Christianity? How can the spread of the Macedonian alphabet create a perception of a "common language", unless there were pre-existing linguistic ties with others in Europe to serve as a foundation?

It is possible also that Orthodox Christianity, as it spread north out of Macedonia and the translation of the bible in the various ethnic languages of south east Europe, created "common words".

Please cite some examples or your thoughts on how it was possible for this to take place.

Before the 20th century, I have come across only one very dubious source (out of thousands) of Macedonian using the term 'Slav' in connection with his identity.

Pulevski and Misirkov spring to mind as people who have used the term 'Slav' both as a single noun and a prefix on some occasions.

What does 'pravoslavni' mean?

It means Orthodox, coming from 'pravo' (correct) and 'slav' (worship). The latter term is also connected to 'slovo' (word) and 'slusha' (hear), all of which derive from the concept of being able to speak - hear - (being heard of) fame - glory - worship. All derive from the Proto Indo-European root of *ḱlew- (to hear). The term 'sloga' (unity) may also be related, it would make sense.

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

This is an area that is obviously outside of my field of "expertise" and normally off my radar in terms of pet interests. But you mention a 'pan-linguistic identity'. What do you mean by that?

See below for my previous explanation on what I mean by pan-linguistic identity:

It is a pan-linguistic identity that would have first started to develop from the 3rd century, around the time of Gothic rule north of the Danube. People who spoke a form of the language in this domain were a majority, and it is likely that they began to unite as a bulkwark against the more politically dominant Germanic element of the Goths. This is also supported by the reference to Germanic peoples as 'nemci' (- mute, or in more elaborate terms, people who don't understand the language).

Further to the above, as the peoples who speak Slavic languages today are quite often distinct from each other in terms of ethnicity and history, being 'Slavic' can only mean a linguistic identity resulting from a common ancestral tongue.

[Vangelovski]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

See below for my previous explanation on what I mean by pan-linguistic identity:

Further to the above, as the peoples who speak Slavic languages today are quite often distinct from each other in terms of ethnicity and history, being 'Slavic' can only mean a linguistic identity resulting from a common ancestral tongue.

SoM, the problem that I see with referring to it as an identity is that it implies political and/or cultural elements. The example you provided where 'slavonic' speakers united against the Goths refers to a common political goal based on common cultural characteristics (keeping in mind that language is a component of culture, with some scholars arguing that it is fundamental to culture). Political unity on the basis of cultural affiliation is what we call 'ethnic identity' these days.

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

I am not even sure of what you're trying to say here. What do you mean by Macedonian Christianity? How can the spread of the Macedonian alphabet create a perception of a "common language", unless there were pre-existing linguistic ties with others in Europe to serve as a foundation?

Please cite some examples or your thoughts on how it was possible for this to take place.

Again, this is outside of my field, but I think English is a perfect example of this. The political, economic and technological innovation of English-speaking people and its spread across the world has created many common words based on English (such as internet as one tiny example) in every language in the world, even those that have absolutely no common linguistic characteristics. I believe Latin, Koine and French (just to name a few) did the same in the day. It is not possible that Macedonian had its own influence through the spread of the Bible?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

SoM, the problem that I see with referring to it as an identity is that it implies political and/or cultural elements.

Among the people north of the Danube who came to be identified as 'Slavs' and their language as 'Slavic', that is exactly what it was. Although forming a natural boundary, the Danube was hardly a hindrance for cultural interaction between the peoples on both sides - for example, Thracians and Illyrians had historically lived on both sides. When the Slavs began to establish the 'Sclavinias' south of the Danube from the 6th century onwards, these political and cultural elements (together with the language) naturally had an impact on the indigenous peoples that inhabited the area. The common linguistic background between the language of the invading Slavs and that of the Paleo-Balkan peoples facilitated the adoption of Slavic, thus extending its use as a lingua franca in a chain of autonomous enclaves that stretched from the Peloponnese to central and eastern Europe. The 'Sclavinias' never united into one large state and they lacked the literature to efficiently educate people in the Slavic language - yet, the language was quickly adopted. I consider the spread of Arabic to have underwent a similar process in North Africa, where its adoption was also facilitated by a common linguistic background, in this case with other Semitic and Afro-Asiatic languages like Phoenician and Egyptian.

Political unity on the basis of cultural affiliation is what we call 'ethnic identity' these days.

That is not applicable in all cases. Not all people who affiliated themselves with Greek or Roman culture were ethnic Greeks or Romans.

It is not possible that Macedonian had its own influence through the spread of the Bible?

It's not only possible, it's a certainty. Old Macedonian from the 9th century was based on the Slavic language (and a Paleo-Balkan substratum) which was brought with the invaders of the 6th century - and those invaders originally came from the regions where Cyril and Methodius later went to spread their literature. As a lingua franca, Slavic remained uniform enough for the Old Macedonian translations to be relatively comprehensible to the Moravians (perhaps this was the intent of Cyril and Methodius and they used a more common Slavic vocabulary). Check the below link to see some texts from Old Slovenian which was contemporary to Old Macedonian, it doesn't look too different.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ript+slovenian

[Onur]

The word "slavs, sclavinians" are just loose terms invented by the Romans. They used this term to refer people in Balkans and central Europe who came there with and after hunnic/germanic expansion after late 4th century. Obviously, they were allies of the huns otherwise they couldn't settle in Pannonia/Danube together with Avars in 6th century cuz they wouldn't be tolerated by them. The ones, who were hostile against Huns migrated/escaped as far as Spain, like Visigoths did but only the ones who were ally of them was able to settle in Balkans.

We don't know if these so-called slavic people ever identified themselves as "slavs" at all. It`s most likely that this term invented by Romans and slavs themselves just started to adopt this term after 9th century. These so-called slavic people were consisted of various tribes from Eurasia and Balkans, probably speaking similar languages and developing that mutual tongue by intermarrying between each other.

Florin Curta`s book is really good for this subject;
http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...9&postcount=37


Pelister, the cave in today`s Romania represents the oldest remains belonged to the people themselves. There are inscriptions written by the people of Balkans in that era and it represents the transition period of them to the christianity in late 9th century;

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ead.php?t=4741

I think that "Slavic" is just about as useful as the term "Celtic" and probably worse.

It`s "worse" according to your terms cuz we don't have many findings excavated from that era other than some Bulgar and Avar items but for the Celts, after 20th century, lots of items and many important findings has been found in archeological sites belonging to the Celtic people. We also know their language too. Celts wrote their language by using Latin script in 5-7th century.

Actually, we knew nothing about Celts `till 20th century but we know some information about them today because of new archeological findings. The reason for that is everything about slavic people and Celtic pre-christian era has been deliberately destroyed in 9-10th century.

If this was as significant as you're trying to suggest, then where are all of the Germanic, Turkic and Iranian placenames in the Balkans from the 6th century AD and onwards? Why are there overwhelmingly Slavic placenames during this period? How did they come about?

Are you sure about that SOM? I know that there are many Persian and Turkic titles and placenames in Balkans much earlier than Ottoman era. Some words as you think as slavic might be Turkic like "zupa, zhupan, dushan, kocani, temirov, aldomir, Asen and variations of kuman" or Persian words.