The Rosetta Stone Hoax stubbornly promoted in FYROM

Yesterday we had another  lecture hold in the amphitheater of the Mechanical Engineering Faculty in Skople where the two infamous Engineers Tentov and Boshevski promoted their Rosetta Stone Hoax to the public, on the scope of  indulging to the mind of the average FYROMian a sense of false pride based on his alleged “ancient roots”.

The result was to be expected. Their lecture was televised by several major TV houses and was part of the main-term news on all of them.  To make the things worst, TV anchors are giving false statement that the Rosetta Stone was “hitherto untranslated”, without using qualifiers in relations to Tentov/Boševski statement like “allegedly”,”according to the authors” and alike, but instead enthusiastically confirming.  Today you can see the aftermath of yesterday’s lectures in the main internet sites of FYROM.

Since FYROM’s population loves to swallow anything which will allegedly promote their non-existing links with antiquity, let us remind them for once more simple and logical Facts which they conveniently love to ignore.

(a) The two UNQUALIFIED engineers Tentov and Boshevski have admited themselves that they “are not specialists in the area of linguistics”. [*]

(b) Even Tom Boshevski’s  colleagues, members of MASA think of ”his discovery as “science fiction”". [*]

(c) The two UNQUALIFIED to Linguistics, Engineers have sent their discoveries  to the Institute (Oriental Institute in Chicago, a research centre part of the University of Chicago) but as they admitted themselves “ So far there have been no reactions, nor a reply”.  It looks the experts in Linguistics didnt even bother with the irrational findings of Tentov and Boshevski. [*]

(d) Since none from the academics coming from the US universities and from around the world who are experts in Linguistics, unlike the two Unqualified Engineers took them seriously, Tentov and Boshevski “bravely ignored the local and international intellectual community and have presented the language and script of the Ancient Macedonians”. [*]

[e] A statement from one of the two Engineers in the press “I have not heard a negative response from official experts in this field, except ignorance and refusal to meet to discuss the topic“. Actually as you admitted yourselves none even replied.  Thats why you have not heard a negative response. The reason is obvious. No expert even bothered to waste his/er time with “science fiction”.

[f] The fact that no serious Academic from the greatest Universities around the world bothered with  this “great discovery”, forced Tentov and Boshevski to make the following statements:

 I am all for holding dialogue with all that can contribute, specifically with international historians who have taken the WRONG PATH in solving this problem. ”

“It would be difficult for them to deal with the news that they made a MISTAKE in translating the artifact, for which they have written and published many books and spent a lot of money. ”

So according to Tentov and Boshevski “International Historians are in the WRONG PATH” and Institutes have made a MISTAKE” in translating the artifact!!!!! Everybody else, including the world Academia is wrong but the two Unqualified Engineers arent!!!

To end with this pitiful demonstration of nonsense its a fact that the usage of Demotic is attested in Egypt from the mid 6th century, in other words 250 years before the start of the Ptolemaic dynasty.

Demotic has been found on stelae from the temple of Serapis at Saqqara from around 600BC. It is attested in pre-Ptolemaic administrative, legal and commercial inscriptions as well as a few literary compositions and scientific and religious texts. Therefore given that Demotic pre-dates the Ptolemies by some 250 years, the hoax promoted by the Two Unqualified Engineers is proved to be entirely nonsensical, unless they start claiming now for a greatest dose of amusement for any logical person that Egyptians spoke…Slavic!!!!

Even a cursory review of the origins and history of Demotic shows it pre-dates the period on which Bosevski and Tentov refer to. Their analysis is simply nonsense and that is why it has been treated as such both among their collegues and around the world.

 

 

From the British Museum we find:

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/r/the_rosetta_stone_translation.aspx

“..and the decree should be written on a stela of hard stone, in sacred writing, document writing, and Greek writing, and it should be set up in the first-class temples, the second-class temples and the third-class temples, next to the statue of the King, living forever. ”

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/rosetta-stone-translation.html

Ancient History Sourcebook:
The Rosetta Stone: Translation of the Greek Section

“54. Hard stone in sacred [that is hieroglyphic] and native [that is demotic] and Greek characters and set up in each of the first, second, ”

You can read also the refutation of the Rosetta Stone hoax promoted in FYROM here:

http://issuu.com/history.of.macedonia/docs/boshevski_and_tendov_s_egyptian_illusions

From “Chicago Demotic Dictionary”, Janet H. Johnson, The Oriental Institute 2002-2003 Annual Report we read:

“I have, over the years, talked about different aspects of dictionary making and of the range of vocabulary attested in Demotic. Many of you may find it interesting to know how the Egyptians conceptualized their own language/writing systems. At the end of the Decree of Canopus, one of the so-called “trilingual” decrees set up by the Egyptian priesthood to honor various Ptolemaic rulers, it is stated that various officials are supposed to write the text of the decree on a monument of stone or copper to be posted in the open areas of the first, second, and third class temples of Egypt. It further indicates that the text is to be written in the “writing of the ‘house of life,’ document-writing, and the writing of the Greeks.” The “house of life” was an institution associated with temples, serving as a scriptorium, library, and center for performance of rituals.

The writing of the “house of life” was hieroglyphs, the script used in the topmost inscription of the trilingual. In the Rosetta Stone, another of these trilingual decrees in honor of Ptolemaic rulers, the hieroglyphs are called the “script of the divine word.” The Demotic section, in the middle of the decree, is here, and elsewhere, referred to as “document-writing.” This name reflects the fact that Demotic, when it first came into use, was used exclusively for personal documents (letters, contracts, and so on). Gradually Demotic replaced hieratic (a cursive script derived from hieroglyphs) for administrative documents and then for literary, including religious, texts. Hieroglyphs continued to be used for formal monumental inscriptions. Most classical Greek authors who discussed Egyptian scripts distinguished between a “sacred” script (hieroglyphs and hieratic) and a “popular” (Herodotus’s “demotika”) script. Greek texts written in Egypt usually distinguished two Egyptian scripts, the sacred and the “Egyptian” (as in the above-mentioned Canopus Decree). Clement of Alexandria, writing in the second or third century of our era, distinguished all three Egyptian scripts: “hieroglyphic,” “hieratic,” and “epistolary.”

Greek was not, of course, the only non-Egyptian language and script with which Demotic writing Egyptians came into contact. During the time of the Persian Empire, before 330 B.C. and before Alexander and the Ptolemies, Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Near East.

Numerous documents written in Aramaic have been found in Egypt. Many of these were personal documents written by or for Persian administrators or Aramaic-speaking immigrants or settlers in Egypt, especially the communities of mercenaries settled at various posts throughout Egypt (including the Jewish colony at Elephantine). But some official documents were also written in Aramaic. One such document was a summary of the laws of Egypt, drafted by senior Egyptian “soldiers, priests, and scribes” at the request of the Persian King Darius. Although no copy of this “code” of the laws of Egypt has been preserved, a reference to its composition is found in a short Demotic text (currently in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris) which notes that copies were prepared in the “writing of (As)syria” (i.e., Aramaic) and in “document writing” (i.e., Demotic). One assumes that this compilation was made to enable Persian administrators to run Egypt, but it is important to note that they were to do so according to Egyptian law and custom.”

 

[*]Interview in Dnevnik.

 http://www.dnevnik.com.mk/?itemID=EBE00D5F1DA4DA488BD360F278A7533B

Thanks to Battlefield of Cannae and Samios Makedonas for their infos.

source :history-of-macedonia.com

The struggle of scientists to construct the “Real Face of Cleopatra” keeps up

Every now and then we are having attempts by scientists to construct the “real face of Cleopatra”, accoring always to each one’s perceptions. We had recently one more attempt taking place by the Egyptologist Sally Ann Ashton who believes “the compute regenerated 3D image is the best likeness of the legendary beauty famed for her ability to beguile“.

You can read the whole article here.

The final result of Dr. Ashton’s perception of Cleopatra’s face is this one.

Dr Ashton, of Cambridge University, said the images, to be broadcast as part of a Five documentary on Cleopatra, reflect the monarch’s Greek heritage as well as her Egyptian upbringing.

‘She probably wasn’t just completely European. You’ve got to remember that her family had actually lived in Egypt for 300 years by the time she came to power”.

Here is my main objection.  Dr Ashton’s conjecture is based on an  misconception.  Firstly, Cleopatra VII was daughter of Ptolemy XII the ‘Auletes’ and Cleopatra V Tymphaena who were also brother and sister. It was a custom among the members of Ptolemaic Dynasty to marry between eachother. Ptolemies were one of the few royal families who continued their dynasty through incestuous marriages. This way,  Ptolemies distinguished themselves from mortals - as egyptian and greek gods did - and appeared as successors to the Pharaohs.  Politically, their incestuous marriages had the effect of strengthening the dynasty, excluding foreign influences. The line of descent was characterised by these intermarriages except by extremely rare cases, such as ie  Ptolemy III Euergetes who married Berenice II, eventhough she was also of greco-macedonian descent and  Cleopatra’s VII paternal grandmother, a cocunbine,  whose identity is not known with certainty. The latter has  brought forward a groundless speculation - mostly by afrocentrist supporters- that this ancestor of Cleopatra VII might be a member of Egypt’s native population. However considering the strict policy of Ptolemies until then, NOT to have been married with any member of the Native Egyptian population it makes the whole conjecture not to hold any ground.

http://genealogy.about.com/library/family_trees/bl_cleopatra.htm

The premise of Dr Ashton’s main argument that ”Cleopatra’s family had actually lived in Egypt for 300 years by the time she came to power” therefore she “probably wasn’t just completely European but of  a woman of mixed ethnicity” is groundless.

source : history-of-macedonia.com

Skopje’s Uneducation System and the Good Professor Čepreganov

By Marcus A. Templar

 

 In defending his and his compatriots’ “Macedonian” ancestry, it seems that Dr. Todor Čepreganov, Ph. D, and Director of the National History Institute at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje (todorc@yahoo.com) has been quoted as saying, “Eugene Borza (Prof Emeritus Penn State University) published many books on Alexander the Great and Antic [ancient] Macedonia, has asked, ‘Why would the Macedonians invade, kill and enslave their own people?’”[1]

 

Since Dr. Čepreganov did not understand that it was only a rhetorical question, I offer Eugene Borza’s response to his own question: “ancient history is replete with examples of bona fide Greeks who fought constantly against one another.”[2]  I would love to send a copy of Borza’s paper to the good professor, although one can read Borza’s statement on the first page of JSTOR (second paragraph, fifth line) without a subscription.[3]

 

There is not a single historian outside the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and its diaspora that would give a different answer.  Non-FYROM Slav historians respect themselves and their degrees.  As for the FYROM “historians” and their diaspora, I would suggest that they take a good look and study very carefully the WHOLE book The Peloponnesian War authored by Thucydides, the first and foremost scientific historian ever, and the reasons behind the authorship of this book.  The title could give them a hint!  It would be useful, as well, for the same “historians” to read about the Melian Dialogue in the same book (Thucydides V, 84-116) and the result of that debate.  I do not want to confuse these “historians” with offering information on other battles like the Battle of Helos that took place in circa 1213 BC, 20 years before the Trojan War (1193-1183 BC). Nevertheless, the Battle of Leuktra (371 BC), the two Battles of Mantineia (418 BC and 362 BC) could give them the clue. 

 

Regarding the part “Why … enslave their own people?”  I am referring the good professor to Pausanias who affirms:

I know also of the following rite which is performed here.  By the sea was a city Helos, which Homer too has mentioned in his list of the Lacedaemonians:  These had their home in Amyclae and in Helos the town by the seaside.”  It was founded by Helius, the youngest of the sons of Perseus, and the Dorians afterwards reduced it by siege.  Its inhabitants became the first slaves of the Lacedaemonian state, and were the first to be called Helots, as in fact Helots they were.  The slaves afterwards acquired, although they were Dorians of Messenia, also came to be called Helots, just as the whole Greek race were called Hellenes from the region in Thessaly once called Hellas.[4]

 

I must note that the Macedonians never “enslaved” anyone the way the Spartans did, but it seems Dr. Čepreganov had cut class the day his professor was teaching that chapter. Nevertheless, how is it possible for someone who claims to be a professor and historian with a degree in History to read the book The Peloponnesian War and quote everything on ancient Macedonia and Macedonians, but miss the reasons why the author wrote the book?  It is as if one reads Lev Tolstoy’s book War and Peace quoting various parts and not knowing that the war and peace that Tolstoy wrote about was between France and Russia! 

 

If the good professor wants to offer a real service to himself and his compatriots, he should start working on their Slavic history, language, and heritage.  Of course, if he still feels “Macedonian” he could author a scientific paper filled with scientific arguments using primary sources of the time on the imaginary amalgamation of the Slavic population of geographic Macedonia with the Greek speaking Macedonians, as Fanula Papazoglu determined on page 333 of her dissertation “Macedonian Cities during Roman Times.”  Dr. Mikhail D. Petruševski was the editor of her dissertation that was written in Serbian, and the University of Skopje approved it in 1957.  Perhaps professor Čepreganov would like to offer a catalogue of about 1,500 ancient Macedonian monuments and inscriptions, of course all Greek, hidden in the basements of museums in Skopje!  The inscription of Oleveni would do it for starters.[5]

 

However, the professor was also quoted as saying:

Ernst Badian (Harvard University - History Department) explains the last battle between Macedonians and Greeks: ‘After hearing and rejoicing on the news of Alexander’s death, Greek soldiers and mercenaries saw their chance to remove themselves from Macedonian despot rule and rebelled. However, a Macedonian army under Pithon did defeat the rebels. Pithon, no doubt recognizing their immense value for the empire as a whole, persuaded them to go back to their posts, assuring them personal safety in return. Yet, contrary to his oath, seventeen thousand Greeks were cut down, after surrendering their arms, by the enraged Macedonians, and Pithon could not stop them.  The patent needs of the empire and the oath of their commander were swallowed up in the explosion of what we can only regard as the men’s irrational hatred for their Greek enemies.’

 

Since the good professor has no scientific argument on his own, I would like to respond to Dr. Badian’s argument, but why do I have the feeling that the good professor of Skopje was not interested in Badian’s whole statement.  I have no doubt that Badian has read Polybius V, 108, 3, 7, 8 where he says that a few Macedonian cities had revolted against Philip, who eventually re-captured them.

 

Here is the text,

3. He therefore set forth at once with his army to recover as soon as possible the revolted cities, … 7. as he was convinced that this was the only way by which he could recover his principality of Pharos. 8. Philip, then, advancing with his army recovered the cities I mentioned, took Creonium and Gerus in the Dassaretis, Enchelanae, Cerax, Sation, and Boei in the region of Lake Lychnis, Bantia in the district of the Caloecini and Orgyssus in that of the Pisantini. 9. After these operations he dismissed his troops to winter quarters. This was the winter in which Hannibal after devastating the wealthiest part of Italy was going into winter quarters at Gerunium in Daunia, 10. and the Romans had just elected Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paulus to the consulate.[6]

 

As the professor can see, not only “Greek” cities, as he put it, revolted against the Macedonian kings, but also Macedonian cities against their own king.

 

For the sake of the reputation of Skopje’s Academy of Sciences and Arts and all its members, one only hopes that Dr. Todor Čepreganov is neither a member nor a representative of the academic view of his country.  For if he was a member and a representative of the academic view of his country, the education in the Republic of Skopje has reached rock bottom in scientific thought and arguments equal to the level of the sixth graders those books were intended for (indeed yes, the capital of a country can name the whole country, i.e. Mexico, Panama, Rome, Byzantium to name a few.)  If in the end the professor’s scientific findings convince historians of his part Slavic and part Greek Macedonian ancestry, then we might have something to talk about.  Until then, I have news for the professor: he is a Slav!!! 

 

There is reciprocity in all fair and balanced scientific arguments.  The FYROM Slavs cannot demand from the Greeks to prove scientifically that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks and simultaneously demand from the world to take their word that they are “the Macedonians” through an amalgamation that never existed.  Why should anyone take the word of the Slavs for their unproven “Macedonian” ancestry, but not the word of the ancient Macedonian kings that they were Greeks? 

 

Whether the ancient Macedonians were Greeks or not is an unprofitable historical question.  The Athenians were Pelasgians according to Herodotus, but the dear professor has not spent a minute trying to argue scientifically whether the ancient Athenians were Greeks or not. Since however, he insists that he is “Macedonian” and connects himself to the ancient Macedonian culture, I would recommend that instead of concentrating in de-Hellenizing the ancient Macedonians, the professor should try to connect his Slavic ancestry to the Greek Macedonians; scientifically, of course!

 

I wish him Good Luck in his efforts; he definitely needs it!

---

[1] http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/3584/49/

[2] Eugene N. Borza, “Athenians, Macedonians, and the Origins of the Macedonian Royal House,”Hesperia Supplements (American School of Classical Studies at Athens),1982.

[3] http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=1064-1173(1982)19%3C7%3AAMATOO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J 

[4] Homer Iliad 2.584; Pausanias III, 2.7; Pausanias III, 20.6

[5] Fanula Papazoglu, Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times (Amsterdam, Hakkert, 1978), 556. The plaque found at the town of Oleveni near Bitola is written in Greek.

[6] http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/5*.html  

source :history-of-macedonia.com

Dion - The Religious Centre of ancient Macedonians in Macedonia, Greece

Sanctuary of Demeter in Dion (Photo from the Greek Mag. “Archaeologia)

 

Dion (fr Gr Ζεύς, gen, Διός) means a holy, sanctified site Dion, in Macedo­nia, occupies a very narrow stnp of land between Mount Olympus foot and the Thermalhos Sea. The Olympian Zeus temenos, the main sanctuary of all Macedonians In antiquity was located there. Its history is related to the royal names ot Macedonia, such as Archelaos, Philipos II, Alexander. Cassandros, Philipos V and Perseus.

 

Prof. Soteriades (Left) & Prof Bakalakis (Right), Photo from the Greek Mag. “Archaeologia”

 

In 1928 G Soteriadis, Professor and Lector, at that time, of the University ol Thessaioniki started excavating the site. The excavation was carried on un­til 1931 and brought to light a number of Hellenistic and Roman buildings Most important among them was a vaulted Macedonian tomb with a Doric facade, an Ionian anteroom and a spacious funerary chamber with a large marble bed. A second phase of excava­tions started In 1963 and lasted, with a tew Intervals, until 1972. During this phase, which was realized due to Pro­fessor G. Bakalakis^. Initiative, the south part ot the fortification wall as well as the Roman theater have been research­ed. Since 1973 the excavation has been supervised by Professor D. Pandermalis. The steadily progressing works had as a primary objective the research of the sanctuaries and then that of tha town and cemetery. The feast of Olympian Zeus in Dion was the most venerated event In the religious life of ancient Macedonians The festive activities were lasting for nine days and, besides sacrifices, theatrical and athletic competitions were also included. In the temple of Olympian Zeus the statues of the Macedonian kings were in display as well as the stelae Inscribed with Impor­tant official texts, such as treaties of alliance, definition of borders, honorary decrees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Head of Goddess Demeter found in Dion (Photo from the Greek Mag. “Archaeologia”)

 

Demeter, the goddess ol earth fertility, was also venerated in Dion as in most of the Greek sanctuaries. Demeter’s temple was discovered in 1973 a few meters away from the town walls ot Dion. The older edifices are Iwo small lemples of the sixth century BC, that were replaced by  bigger ones in the early Hellenistic period. The meticulous research through the layers of destruc­tion produced a late fourth century BC marble head of the goddess, a number of sculpture, an abundance of clay idols, pottery, coins and jewels. The sanctuary was repaired in the Roman penod and its life lasted until the fourth century AD.

 

To the east ot Demeter’s temple was discovered in 1978 a temenos dedi­cated to the cult of the Egyptian gods Sarapis, Isis and Anubis were worship­ped there, but mainly Isis Lochia, tha goddess who was taking care of women during the critical period after childbirth. The central temple of the sanctuary was dedicated to her. However, from inscriptional and other sources we draw the conclusion that another goddess of childbirth has originally been worshipped here, the goddess Artemis Eileithyia, who in the Hellenistic period has been succeeded by Isis Lochia.

Statue of a Muse (probably Terpsichore), Photo from the Greek Mag. “Archaeologia”

 

Another temple was dedicated lo Isis as goddess of Luck, while a third to Aphrodite Hypolympidia (=Aphrodite worshipped at the foot of Mount Olympos); a charming cult statue of this goddess, dating from the second century BC, has been discove­red during the excavations. The theater of Dion is located at the area of the sanctuaries outside the town walls. It has been constructed by accumulating large quantities of earth in the years of Philipos V; its seats are made of big Hellenistic bricks. The theater displays a spacious orchestra and a coelon so designed as to ac­comodate a large number of people, since it was the theater not of a local, but of an important, famous sanctuary. A strong wall over 2,600 m. long, built in the years of Cassandros, was protec­ting the town. The fortification was fur­ther reinforced by a number of lowers standing 33 m. from each other. This wall was once repaired in the Hellenistic period and was rebuilt in the second half of the third century AD, when fierce barbaric raids had to be repelled. In the fourth century AD a new, but mediocre, wall was built around the Early Christian settlement, a small, faded reminiscence of the an­cient town.

 

The public baths, excavated in the south sector of the town, is an impressive group of buildings of 200 AD: Shops and workshops, public lava­tories, a court for gymnastics, a small roofed theater ( = odeum), bathing areas, recreation rooms and a chamber dedicated to the cult of Asclepius. A unique group of sculptures represen­ting Asclepius’ whole family has been found in it.

A large villa with a roomy bath, two atriums, a spacious banquet hall, a series of shops etc, is under excavation to the east of the town. The villa has been endowned with a wonderful mosaic pavement showing the trium­phal epiphany of Dionysus. This central theme is framed by six smaller panels decorated with theatrical masks.

 

Dionysus Mosaic, Photo from the Greek Mag. “Archaeologia”

 

Four statues of philosophers have been discoverd in the same room, while in another, smaller one with a niche, the statue of the venerated god Dionysus. The cemetery of Dion lies, mainly, to the north and east. Its funerary monuments date from the fifth century BC to the fifth century AD. Most impor­tant among them are the vaulted Macedonian tombs and most eminent of all the one with the Doric facade, the Ionian anteroom and the largo funeral chamber with the decorated marble bed.

Since 1980 are excavated to the west of Dion tymboi ol the Early Iron Age (1000-700 BC). They usually contain box-shaped graves, whose funeral offerings is, mainly, pottery. The women’s jewelry is made of copper, rarely of gold and semi-precious stones like sard. The pottery is closely related to that of Thessaly.

 

The central area of the Early Christian Dion is occupied by a three-aisled basilica of the late fourth century AD, decorated with mosaic pavements and wall paintings. The church was ruined by an earthquake and was rebuilt in the early fifth century, but on a much higher level. Another Early Christian basilica has been recently discovered outside the town walls —at the border of a

cementery - and is now excavated. In the stoa outside its narthex a marble, built trapeza has been found; its relation to an adjacent cenotaph probably sug­gests the worship of a Christian martyr. Dion seems to become abandoned dur­ing the fifth century AD due to a succes­sion of natural disasters (earthquakes, flood). Since then its inhabitants found shelter on safer locations at the foot of Mount Olympos, where new settlements were built.

 

Source: Greek Magazine ”Archaiologia”, Dec. 1989.

http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2008/12/06/dion-the-religious-centre-of-ancient-macedonians-in-macedonia-greece/

Slavic Settlement in Povardarje (FYROM) Reviewed: History, Ethnology and Politics

This article presents a brief outline of Slavic settlement on the territory of modern-day Povardarje - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). The current state of knowledge about the transformation of the ethnic character of this region in Middle Ages shall be restated. While summary of known historical events-or set of events, as is the case here, taking place from 6th to 7th century CE-are useful as orientation points within the body of historiography, concise narrative of this event is particularly necessary due to the confusion created by the adherents of Pseudomacedonian propaganda, both in FYROM and abroad. An atmosphere of denouncement and rejection of the Slavic ethnic aspect engulfed the general “Macedonian” population of FYROM. Motivated by impressive propagandist efforts based on ignorance, low self-esteem and a desire to impose an exclusive, pure “Macedonian” ethnogenetic theory for political purposes bordering on fraud, the propagandist managed to add to the identity-crisis among Slavs of FYROM. Also, the indolence of the organized scholars in FYROM deserves criticism: while they are competent to uphold the factual, documents based state of knowledge regarding the problem of early Slavs in the Balkans, not much has been done with the much needed upgrade of the theoretical base.

The non-productivity of a rigid, too conservative methodology still broadly employed in FYROM is aggravated by either deficits or complete absence of anthropological, paleobotanical, paleoeconomical , demographic and technological studies. Not rarely, the form in which this issue is presented in school textbook and popular literature offers nothing more than oversaturation with crudely presented and well-known facts. The time is ripe for a new wave of research and publicist activity which may lead to a firmer, in-depth knowledge of what is a crucial point in region’s ethnodemographic history. The well founded historical fact about settlement of the Slavs in the Balkans today finds its opponents embodied in the pseudoscientist circles of FYROM lead by Aleksandar Donski, Tašo Belčev, Vasil Iljov, Vangel Božinovski, Aristotel Tentov, Tome Boševski and others. The most substantiated criticism of their collective body of work is its apriorism and obvious nationalistic bias in the process that appears to have outward form of a scientific inquiry but is unable to withstood serious criticism. In this article we shall summarize the main body of historical, archaeological and linguistic evidence about settlement of Slavs in the territory of modern day FYROM.

A note should be made about Early Slavs and their original habitat. This is one of the most puzzling issues in Europe’s ethnic history. Principal Slavic homeland was sought from Central Europe and the Baltic all the way to Danube and steppes of Central Asia. Today the most accepted theory supported by archeology and paleolinguistics (Slavic character of hydronymy, otherwise a remarkably conservative feature) is that the primitive area of formation and ethnic living of Slavs is to be sought between the Middle Dniepar and southern tributaries of the river Pripet. Another type of evidence is furnished by retention of the common Proto-Indo-European (PIE) words for birch, oak, ash, alder, aspen, elm, maple and hornbeam in modern Slavic languages. This fact conclusively establishes their homeland in the temperate zones north and northeast of the Carpathians. This would be the area of collapse of the Balto-Slavic linguistic commonwealth and crystallization of the Proto-Slavic, probably well before 1st millennium BCE.

The most plausible theory about the origin of the ethnonym Slav (Slowene) is that it is derived from “slovo” (word, speech) having the meaning of “(people) who speak a same language”, in contrast to the ethnic name given by Slavs to Germanic peoples “Nemci” (speechless, mute, dumb people).

Based on the archaeological and linguistic research, it may be deduced that Slavs retained a stability with regard to the occupation of their primordial space. Challenges related to the expansions and regrouping of the nearest ethnic groups, the Germanic people in particular by all likelihood caused a certain reorientation of the early Slavic society to a more stratified (but still without a centralized authority) form of organization which included a military aspects as evidenced by the Germanic loanwords signifying economic terms and weaponry. This early deficiency of basic military structuralism is evident from the fact that some of the terminology for certain types of arms in early Slavic is of Germanic origin: mečĭ “sword” from Gothic mēkeis, Helmŭ, Old Church Slavonic Šlěmŭ, “helmet” from Germanic helm, as well as military term vitȩdzĭ “knight” and *pǔlkǔ “military formation” from Common Germanic *fulkaz “armed troop”.

The Slavic word for king/duke knez is derived from Germanic kuningas. Družina-the Slavic council of noblemen is probably a Scythian influenced formation. According to Procopius, Slavs were not ruled by a single men, but the lived in a democracy. The rule of a tribal chief and council is an Indo-European vestige.

As a derivative of their mythology, the name of the god of horned animals “Veles” became a name of the town of Veles, south-east from Skopje. The cult of Veles-Volos was present in Russian folklore until recent times.

The name of the supreme Slavic god, Perun, the god of thunder, cognate to Lith. Perkǔnas was given to the mountain peaks Perun on the Kozjak mountain, and Perun over the village Vitolište in Mariovo, both localities being in FYROM

Scholars generally agree that the “Slavic problem” started with the Huns in the first half of the fifth century, although there is no firm historic or archaeological hypothesis. It is known that Slavs were in company of Attila’s Huns at whose funeral Jordanes mentions the feast as the Slavic word “strava”. Priscus, a Byzantine diplomat sent as envoy to the Huns, noticed that the people in Banat and Bačka drink “medos”, also a term with Slavic root.

After the death of Attila, Hunnic tribes roamed between the Dnieper and the Ural mountains. From these, the Bulgarian groups of Kutrigurs and Utigurs raided Thrace, Macedonia and Thessaly from 493 to 517, a period after which the Slavic raid escalated in intensity. Procopius, in his work “About the Gothic Wars” mentions an event regarding German, a military commander: “When Justin, uncle by German’s grandmother, held the Imperial throne, The Antes which lived quite close to Slavs passed through Danube and with a great army they went into the Roman land”. The ferocity as well as the magnitude of the attack is well presented by Procopius : “Illyricum and all of Thrace, i. e. the whole country from the Ionian Gulf [the Adriatic to the outskirts of Byzantium, including Greece and the Chersonese, was overrun almost every year by Huns, Slavs and Antae, from the time when Justinian became Roman emperor [527], and they wrought untold damage among the inhabitants of those parts. For I believe that in each invasion more than two hundred thousand Romans were killed or captured, so that a veritable ‘Scythian wilderness’ came to exist everywhere in this land. “

The Empire under Justinian started a mass program of establishing fortifications throughout the Balkan. According to Procopius, 11 cities had their fortifications significantly expanded. These measures were not sufficient not only to stop the Slavs, but the incoming raiders from Asia, the Avars. Organized around heavily militarized horsemen formations, the Avars were joined by Huns and Bulgars. Often aligned with Slavs, Avars managed to impose their own dynamics in the military relationships in the later half of the 6th century. Byzantine historian Menander Protectors states: “In the fourth year of Tiberius’s rule [578] , around 100. 000 Slavs ravaged Thrace and many other areas. . . . . Hellada was devastated”. The occupation of Sirmium by Avars in 582 and of Singidunum two years later marked the devastation of the Byzantine defense system. John of Ephesus states in his “History of the Church”[585] that Slavs attacked and devastated the Roman areas from Constantinople to Thrace, Thessaly and Hellada. With the murder of Emperor Maurice in 602, the possibility of concentrating the defense effort against Slavs, obtained after his victory over the Persian, was lost. A wholesale invasion and settlement of Slavs was to follow.

The source “Miracula Sancti Demetrii” mentions how Thessaloniki was sacked and how all of Greece and the Aegean islands were attacked between 610-626. The tribes mentioned are Draguvites, Sagudates (perhaps a tribe of Hunnish origin) Velegezites, Vaiunites, Berzites (Brsjaci of modern-day FYROM?) and others. This book uses the term Σκλαβιναι in order to designate every land populated by Slavs.

According to Bishop Isidore of Seville , the Slavs “took Greece from the Romans” (Sclavi Graeciam Romanis tulerunt”), which must be consider an exaggeration, since the highly fragmented and insular character of Greece in the narrower term of the word wasn’t convenient for mass settlement by Slavs , who used their primitive vessels, the monoxyles , to perform limited raids. The Slavic invasion ended before the middle of the seventh century. The scope of Slavic colonization is evident from the “Armenian geography” which mentions that Thrace and Macedonia, among other lands were populated by Slavs.

Analysis of Slavic hydronyms in Bulgaria by the linguist V. Georgiev demonstrated that the bulк of Slavic river names are to be found in North-Western Bulgaria and Eastern Serbia, thus demonstrating the route of Slavic colonization via Vardar and Struma rivers.

G. Pisida mentions the newly-introduced Balkan ethnic group as Σκλωοις. The source “Paschal Chronicle” from the first half of the VIIth century speaks about Σκλαβους. Theophanes the Confessor is the first author who mentions Sklavinias in relation to Macedonia (”Sklavinias throughout Macedonia”).

Archaeological surveys of FYROM discovered a number of Slavic finds belonging to the earliest era of Slavic settlement. These are however, rare, due to poor fundings and primitiveness of local archaeology

Some of them are:

Slavic pits for keeping grain with ceramic vases in Berovo, Prilep, Bašino Selo near Veles.

Belt application from St. Erazmo, Ohrid, Amphorae, Vases, Torc and fibulae from the same location, ceramic vases from Prilep.

The monk Hrabar in his tractat “O Pismeneh” (9th century) uses the following terms to designate ethnolingustic realities of his time :словѢане (Slavs), словѢньскы (Slavic), словѢньскаа писмена (Slavic letters), словѢньскоу рѢчь (Slavic word), родь словѢньскыи (Slavic breed), словѢньскы книгы (Slavic books), по словѢньскомоу іазыкоу (in Slavic language).

Teophilactus mentions that the brothers from Thessaloniki found “Slavic letters” (”Σθλοβενικα γραμματα”). The Pope John VIII issues a document in which he calls that language: lingua sclavinica, sclavina.

After the colonization of Slavs on the area of FYROM, much of the old geographic terminology was replaced with Slavic names: towns of Struga, Ohrid (Lihnid), Velbužd (Pautania), Kičevo, Debar, Raven, Kočani, Radoviš, Prosek, Delčevo, Stena, Sokolec, Črnče, Trnovo, Modrič, Belica, Železnec, Dobrun, Črešče, Lukovica, SlaviÅ¡te, rivers Sateska, Bistrica, Lepenec, Pčinja, Kriva Reka, Treska, mountains Korab, Bistra, Belasica, Vodno etc.

Slavic personal names attested in medieval period are: Bratan, Bratislav, Boleslav (cf. Polish. Boleslaw), Boleslava, Vladimir, Verota, Vŭlkan, Grdju, Dobri, Dobresin, Dobroslav, Dragomad, Desislav, Dragan, Draža, Krasna, Kurica, Litovoj, Milju, Miroslava, Obrada, Prodan, Prevo, Rado, Radoslav, Stana, Stano, Slava, Slav, Tihomir, Černikosa etc.

From all of these matters combined we can conclude that the area of FYROM was indeed colonized by Slavic settlers who changed the ethnic make-up of the population, consisting mostly of Greek and Vulgar Latin speaking people. The Slavs were novelty to the Balkan peninsula which brought rudimentary material artifacts in their cultural inventory, but nevertheless managed to establish themselves demographically and later politically. The process of Slavic settlement from Eastern European core homeland to FYROM can be traced via historical, archaeological and linguistic evidence. The Slavic character of Pseudomacedonians is evident from their language, folklore and mythology. Slavs are not autochtonous population in Northern Geographic Macedonia, as some pseudo-scholars, motivated by aprioristic ideological fixations suggest.

Vasko Gligorijević

Further reading:

Adžievski, K. “Pelagonija vo sredniot vek”, Skopje 1994
Antoljak, S. “Srednovekovna Makedonija”, Vol. 1, Skopje 1985
Backman, C. R. , “The Worlds of Medieval Europe”, Oxford 2003
Belderovski Z. , “Slovenski srednovekovni jami od Berovo”, Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica No 9, 1983-1984, p. 230-232
Dabinovic, A. “Early Balkan Migration”, Slavonic and East European Review 16 (1937-1938), p. 363-411
Dimevski, S. “Makedonskite opštestveno-kulturni tekovi vo feudalizmot”, Skopje 1981
Đerić, V. “Nekoliko glavnih pitanja iz etnografije Stare Srbije i Maćedonije”, Sremski Karlovci 1922
Gimbutas, M. “The Slavs”, London 1971
Haldon, J. “Byzantium at War, AD 600-1453”, 2003
Ilievski P. Hr. , “Pojava i razvoj na pismoto”, Skopje 2001, p. 233
Ivanovski, O. “Makedonskite Sloveni od VI do IX vek”, Skopje 1962
“Knjiga o Balkanu”, Vol. 1, Beograd 1936
Lunt, Horace G. “The Beginning of Written Slavic. ” Slavic Review 23, no. 2 (1964): 212-19
Obolensky, D. “Byzantium and the Slavs", 1994
Ostrogorski, G. “Vizantija i Sloveni”, Beograd 1969
Pančovski, I. G. , Panteonyt na drevnite slavjani i mitologijata im, Sofija 1993
Pohl, W. “Conception of Ethnicity in Early Medieval Studies”, p. 13-24 in: “Debating the Middle Ages: Issues and Readings”, Ed. Little K. L. , Rosenwein, B. H. ”, 1998
Stefoska, I. “Slovenite na počvata na Makedonija”, Skopje 2002
“Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije”, Vol. 1, Beograd 1955
Živković, T. “Sloveni i Romeji”, Beograd 2000
Zogović, S. “Etničkite zaednici vo Makedonija do krajot na raniot sreden vek”, Prilep 2001