Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Pelister

The term "Slav" the way you are using it is neither here nor there - it is neither a linguistic group, nor a tribe - it connects nothing, because it is nothing.

Thanks Pelister, but I beg to differ for the reasons already outlined in my previous posts on this and the 'Slav Macedonians' thread, and I don't see the necessity in repeating the same thing again. I think by now you should be able to appreciate my position and what I mean by the title.

If we do not know what the language of the Sklavenoi was - we do not know.

I wouldn't settle at that, there is more to know, that is one of the points of this thread.

You do not know who the "Sklavenoi" were.........

It's not always black and white, but in some cases we do know.

The term "Slav" cannot be used scientifically to refer to both 6th century invaders (firstly because they were NOT called "Slavs" by their contemporaries) and at the same time to be used to describe modern day "Slavic speakers", because there is no evidence of a material and/or linguistic connection between the two groups.

But unfortunately, as wrong as it may be, it is used in such a way today by the mainstream. Along with the citing of sources, I aim to expose why this is so and any falsities accompanied with it.

[TrueMacedonian]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

I have heard of it, but don't have it. I have meaning to get Florin Curta's book for a while but haven't got around to it yet. Have any of you read it thoroughly?

I have to admit that I haven't read Curta's book either. However I think someone once created a pdf file of the entire book so you could get it for free online. Maybe Daskalot would know about this or I of Macedon who I believe has read Curta's book in and out.

[I of Macedon]

Considering the increased discussions on the whole Slav notion I thought I would bump this thread upward - to add to the discussions if needed

[Soldier of Macedon]

Good thinking IOM, this is what Pelister was talking about concerning the term 'Sklave', information that is best used to bring into perspective the scenario and make sense of the varied sources.

These parts I find interesting:

Horace G. Lunt suggested that common Slavic was used as a lingua franca within and outside the Avar qagnate. Building upon an earlier suggestion by Omeljan Pritsak, Lunt argues that only as a lingua franca could Slavic have spread throughout most of Eastern Europe, obliterating old dialects and languages, while at the same time remaining fairly stable and remarkably uniform through the ninth century. (pg 9)

I think, if this really took place, it would have been at a developing stage prior to the Avar Khaganate, probably during the time of the Huns and Goths.

Gradually a Slavic lingua franca developed in the military camps of the Avar pax, a language more sophisticated than the «hamlet idioms» and capable of conveying military orders, recording bureaucratic reports, and expressing ideas in the emerging, if limited, cultural life of the pax.

This is plausable.

Βαϊουνητ-
Βελεγεζητ-
Βερζητ-
Δρουγουβιτ-
Σαγουδατ-

.......the five names preserved in Mir II are not «Slavic tribal names», but self-designations of Proto-Bulgarian Sklavin bands; accordingly they have clear Hunnic or Iranian etymologies.

This also sounds plausable, but how do we fit in the tradition of the Brsjak in all of this? Would this mean that the Brsjaci are not connected to the Berzites?

Also, what about the invasions in the Peloponnese? While some archaeological evidence suggests that Avar types also reached that far south, the Slavic placenames in the regions proves beyond doubt that Slavic-speaking types did reach that area and made a significant impact.

Could the Hunnic-Avar-Bulgar ravaging around the Danube and the Balkans have triggered a movement of Macedonians, Illyrians and Thracians south into the Peloponnese? That could be one explanation of the below, which was posted on another thread:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...p?t=435&page=3

Going back to the relations between the various Balkan tribes, there was an Illyrian tribe called the Dassaretae, that lived within the vicinity of Lake Ohrid. The Illyrian word for 'lake' is Oseriates, very close to OCS Ozero and Macedonian Ezero.


Oseriates (Lake, Illyrian)
Ozero (Lake, Slavonic)
Ezeritai (Slavic tribe, Peloponnese)

Dassaretae (Tribe living close to lake, Illyrian)
Do ezero (Next to lake, Macedonian)


These hydronyms and subsequent tribal name bear a striking similarity to the name of a Slavic-speaking tribe from the Peloponnese, that went by the name of Ezeritai. Are there possible links between these tribes? Could the Ezeritai in the Peloponnese be descended from tribes around Lake Ohrid?

What do you guys reckon of such a scenario taking place?

[Soldier of Macedon]

IOM's thread:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...4377#post24377

[TrueMacedonian]

Theophanes Anni Mundi 6095-6305 Sept.1, 758 - Auguest 31, 758 18. 4. 4. 5.

In this year Constantine captured the Macedonian Sklavinias and subjected the rest of them.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by TrueMacedonian

Theophanes Anni Mundi 6095-6305 Sept.1, 758 - Auguest 31, 758 18. 4. 4. 5.

TM, does it go on to say anything else in relation to this event on the same excerpt?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Something interesting from Curta concerning the sources of Sclavenes in different decades during the 6th century, and the Roman perception.

It is hard to understand, however, why Procopius should invent the “Slavic democracy” if nothing justified the use of this concept for contemporary Slavic society. It is interesting to note that, with the exception of the quasi-legendary King Boz of the Antes, Procopius’ contemporary, Jordanes, also ignores any Slavic leaders. I am inclined, therefore, to take Procopius’ evidence as a strong argumentum ex silentio. Something had radically changed in Slavic society as the Slavic raiding activity resumed in the late 570s. A detailed discussion of this change is to be found in Chapter 7. For the moment, it is important to note that in terms of their social organization, the Sclavenes of the 580s were different from those of the 540s. Pages 115-118.

What all this suggests, in my opinion, is that the name ‘Sclavene’ was a purely Byzantine construct, designed to make sense of a complicated configuration of ethnies on the other side of the northern frontier of the empire........It might be that ‘Sclavene’ was initially the self-designation of a particular ethnic group. In its most strictly defined sense, however, the “Sclavene ethnicity” is a Byzantine invention. Pages 118-119.

[TrueMacedonian]

page 64

page 65



These pages are taken from The Chronicles of Theophanes.

[TrueMacedonian]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

TM, does it go on to say anything else in relation to this event on the same excerpt?

Just a footnote from the translator that says;

These are the small, tribal, statelets of the Slavs who settled the Balkans after the collapse of the Avars.