We Europeans

Greek opposition to NATO extending to Macedonia (sorry, FYROM) draws, like Serbia’s stance on Kosovo, on the historical mythmaking of communities that claim to have suffered the indignity of occupation by the Ottomans (an experience often portrayed in that part of the world as much worse than it really was).

The Greek attitude fully exploits the fact that there is no clear identification with real estate. Pre-Alexander, classical
Greece was a conglomeration of city-states. With Alexander, it became an empire which extended to
Afghanistan. Post-Alexander, it became part of someone’s else’s empire, Roman, Byzantine, then Ottoman. So the gap has had to be filled by an almost mystical sense of ‘Greekitude’ which is not even determined by language. The Greeks’ relaxed attitude also to ethnic identification is demonstrated by the cavalier description of the Macedonians they acquired in 1913 as ‘slavophone Greeks’.

Unlike their ancient homonyms, with whom they have little in common, today’s Greeks lack a sufficiently coherent identity to feel secure (maybe they should be told that none of us Europeans have a really coherent identity). So they claim, with great vehemence and against all the evidence, direct lineage with the ancient Greeks. This overlooks the fact that – according to many people, including a number of properly informed Greeks – they are more Slav than Greek. To be more precise, Slav on the east side of the peninsula, Albanian on the other…

Even Greeks, when they feel reasonable, will admit to their uncertain origins. The author Nicholas Gage, a Greek despite his name, concedes that for the most part “modern Greeks are the product of centuries of racial mixing, and the invasions by the Turks, Slavs, Franks, and Italians can be read in their faces.” Not to mention the Albanians.

The classical Greeks didn’t have to worry about this kind of thing. What they were was evident to everyone, including themselves, even if Philip of Macedonia’s wife – Alexander the Great’s mother – hailed from Epirus which, in terms of the modern map of Europe, straddles Albania as well as northwest
Greece.

In any case Philip and Alexander were, as Macedonians, not exactly kosher by Athenian standards. No less than Demosthenes spoke of “Philip – a man who not only is no Greek, and in no way akin to the Greeks, but is not even a barbarian from a respectable country – no, a pestilent fellow of Macedon, a country from which we never even get a decent slave.” In fact most of Alexander’s Greek contemporaries viewed the Macedonian and his cohorts with fear and loathing: they had reason to do so since he snuffed out the fragile flame of Athenian democracy.

Yet brushing aside Demosthenes’ judgement and the record of history, today’s Greeks consider Philip and Alexander to be Greek enough by contemporary standards to justify all the fuss about FYROM, the Star of Vergina, etc. The rest of us are still barbaros, barbarians.

Author :
Print

Comments

  1. haha at least some of the europeans know the thruth and speak about it, not like ur EU hipocritic goverments, the greeks made 3 genocides to the macedonian ppl in the southern aegean part of macedonia in the 1st balkan war, in the 2nd balkan war and after the 2nd world war in the so called greek civil war. these r the 3 largest genocides made by greeks against my ppl which r today still present…..these genocides were helped by the europeans goverments of england, france and germany, giving the greeks firepower and napalm bombs and amnesting them for doing these terrible thing,
    and the day will come when ur goverments will apologize (like the australian gov made for the aboriginies) for doing this terrible unjustice to the macedonian ppl the only one that gave europe an ancient history for all of the europeans to be proud of together with roman and byzantine

    macedonia is one and only state and nationality in the bulgarian part there r more than 70% of the population that calls themself macedonian, in the small albanian part of macedonia more than 90% r macedonians and the albanian goverment recognizes them they have a party and city major, only in greece part there r “no” macedonians couse the major part was killed or dispeled or simply changed their names and brainwashed to become greek

    the day will come when Europe will be attacked from al-kaeda helped by ohlocratic faschist greece, but i fear it will be too late and nevertheless the balkan ppl will have to drow these terorists back due to the lack of leathership in EU

    today some greek terrorist orgasnization from creetes and cyprus, in al-kaeda style threathend to kill all the skopianos (how they like to call macedonians) just like their grandfathers killed our grandfathers in northern greece 100 years ago
    and we must not be deff to the thrats and we must take them most seriosly and not to underestimate them

    regards

  2. Dear mr Hill,

    to your inslulting for Greeks ( full of historical inacuracies) article I have really not much to say! As you are probably an english man I will just quote from Oxford Dictionary of the classical world.
    1.” Hesiod considered the “Macedones” to be an outlying branch of the Greek speaking tribes, with a distinctive dialect of their own” page 441, 2005,2007, oxford university press.
    2. After taking into account the views of Hammond,Borza, Griffith, Errington, Fick, Hoffman, Bonfante,Kalleris, Russu etc the OXFORD CLASSICAL DICTIONARY says ” we must wait for new discoveries, but we may tentatively conclude that macedonian is a dialect related to north west Greek”
    As a Macedonian I would invite you to visit any part of Macedonia where you wil find around 6000 inscriptions of the ancient macedonia era in the Greek language. There is not even one inscription in the language they speak in what is nowadays called FYROM. They actually speak a language which belongs in the slavic group of languages with great similarities to Bulgarian.
    Whats in a name you ask? More than you think is the answer. It’s heritage, proudness, history, philosophy,…it is the Greek based Hellenistic culture tha Alexander the Great spread in the east…. but Iam afraid thats all Greek to you…

  3. georgios you make yourself look stupid when you try to insult someone who knows what they are talking about unlike yourself.
    how are you macedonian did your family move in to the occupied territory under greece at this moment 90 years ago because if they did then you are as much macedonian as a frenchmen.
    and if your family didnt settle in no later then 95 years then you are a confused person a product of the greek governments which have occupied that land for a 100 years.
    ancient macedonian was not related to greek in any way as mr Hill politley put it to you. the separate state of macedonia and the actual macedonians in greece which are being oppressed are one nation. there was never a greek nation untill 1900’s. greeks never stepped on macedonian lands untill the 1900’s. also the modern greeks are not related to the ancient greeks as this is clearly noted by most historians.
    to say that the seperate state of macedonia is slav is a big mistake the slavs who invaded in the 6th and 7th century assimulated into the macedonian population.therefore the true macedonians have ancient macedonian blood running through them. the language spread accross europe is not a ‘slavic language’ but the actual macedonian language. 🙂
    as for the scriptures and artifacts which are writeen in so called greek were planted by the previous greek governments when they realised that they could lose their newly stolen land. however there is ancient artifacts and some scripts which are written in macedonian and prove that the macedonians were a seperate poeple from the ancient greeks or in this case the modern greeks which are not even related to the ancient greeks to begin with.

    it is sad to see that the average greek citizen does not have the capacity to see what is reasonable and logical which i have already started. this modern greek state is probably the only nation in europe which has such a need for nationalism and racism towards anyone that is not ‘greek’. it is funny as it seems the population are trying to prove to themselves they are macedonian because deep down i dont think you know what you really are or where you come from.
    open your eyes and stop opressing and killing innocent and actual macedonians.

  4. Dejan

    really feel sorry for the brain washing, u and your pseydomacedonian nation has been put to over the years… so the ancient scriptures in Macedonia were planted by the Greek government!?
    How about the ancient scriptures and coins in the Greek language found in Turkey India Pakistan and Alexandria in Egypt? Do you know what is written on Them? ?????????? IN greek my dear friend… did the greek governments planted those all over the world? Dont make yourself look foolish!!! Just wake up and write to OXFORD for your objections…Did you see the quotations really? As regards my family comes from the ancient macedonian(mentioned by Thucydides) town called VERGI (Serres)renamed kopatsi when the slavs and Turks invaded it.. and renamed Vergi after we got liberated again from Bulgarians in
    1913. The area has kept its customs, its language and its heritage… so u better look for your roots up in the North where your race came from. My area is full of ancient coins with greek inscriptions of Alexanders name on the one side and Alexanders head ont he other. Such coins are exhibited in Museums in Rome, In London etc. and their authenticity has been thorougly checked by experts before they are placed there… so just open up your eyes and stop amusing people with your groundless stories…Glossology experts say the svavic idiom u speak is linguistically very close to the Bulgarian language not me!

  5. I am living in the UK so well accustomed with the complexes of many contemporary Brits towards Hellenic culture. So Richard’s idiotic assessment and straight forward distortion of history (albeit ancient or contemporary) doesn’t really comes as a surprise!! Enough to say that is knowledge of anything Hellenic don’t extend anything beyond a glass of Ouzo when sober!
    Coming back to the case of Skopja the issue really is nothing to do with antiquity! By tolerating the idiotic attitude of some British circles considering themselves the true inheritors of the classical world (Parthenon booty BM LOL) we have proven that we are well equipped can get over the cheap and coarse forgeries of mixed Bulgarians to be consider some kind of so called ‘Macedonians’ . The true problem lies in the deep paranoia fanaticism and their shear bigotry assuming that the whole area belongs to them as our part in their virtual reality occupied by Hellenic or Bulgarian aliens! They even dreaming and planning the revision of the 100 years old Bucharest treaty! Such is the depth of their paranoia!
    Even though currently they are really just as powerful and as annoying as horseflies their past record don’t allow us to rest idle! They were still insignificant ants back in 1948 but then again grasping the opportunity of our Civil War wanted to march towards Thessaloniki! And creating a situation in Greece akin to the Korean Peninsula with plans to later accommodate the North bit the United Macedonia Wonderland! They pay of course dear for the illusions as well as for their murderous treason. However these memories sometimes fade so the present Greek stance will serve them to understand that they should never extend their claws beyond what strictly is theirs! And Macedonia its lands its history and culture were never theirs nor will be any time soon! So they better get accustomed to this and adapt accordingly!

  6. and the biggest JOKE u mentioned ” the slavs who invaded Macedonia were assimilated by Macedonians” if thats so, then why do u speak a svavic originated language close to Bulgarian?
    Did it ever occur to u that it is the other way around that some macedonians up in the north who didnt have the chance to move to the south were assimilated by the Slavs? Thats what wikipedia world’s renounned encyclopaedia claims anyway!!!
    take care
    after all we r neighbours and one way or another soon or later we will find a way to coexist…

  7. That’s more the spirit, Georgios, and hopefully sooner rather than later. I knew I was putting my hand in a hornet’s nest, and I leave it to you and the others mutually to sting yourselves numb.

  8. Thanks Richard

    You have done an ‘excellent’ work as always stirring things up! Some were actually bees but then again equally painful for you to be fully justified feeling numb

    ‘Regards’

  9. How stupid can you “greeks” be? You consider it “a prove” the fact that Alexander was speeking “greek”. How do you expect him to lead his enormous falanga without knowing greek? He had thousands of greek slaves in his army! How shalow can you be? No wander you and your politics is stuck in 15 century! Do you want a real prove? I hope you do, because we have it. It’s called GENETIC PROVE! Here some parts of the study: “The Macedonians are one of the most ancient peoples existing in the Balkan Peninsula, probably long before arrival of the Mucaenian Greeks about 2000BC.””Macedonians are related to other Mediterraneans and do not show a close relationship with Greeks.””Much to our surprice,the reason why the Greeks did not show a close relatedness with all the other Mediterraneans analysed, was their genetic relationship with SUB-SAHARAN ethnic groups now residing ie Ethiopia, Sudan and West Africa.””Macedonians are NOT related with the geografically close Greeks, who DO NOT belong to the “older” Mediterranean substractum”. Now you tell me who are the MACEDONIANS!

  10. sadly but it was NATO who was doing ethnic cleansing in aegean Macedonia in 45-49. Hence, NATO is pushing us to sign that we are legalizing NATO’s etnical cleansing towards the Macedonian people in Greece. Greece is just a pawn here. I pee on democrartic EU and USA now!!!! Soner or later EU will fall apart and Europe will face terible wars because i see now this unity is artifical and created by force not by the will of people. NATO you should appologize to us for the etnical cleansing and you should light green light for Macedonians to return their property and you should not exercise etnical cleansing in our own country now!!! The cold war is over the slavic union is over(do not be xenofobic about slavs anymore). it is time to fix one of your mistakes. Uluckily for you Macedonia is in the heart of Europe and you cannot imose nondemocratic measures and expiriments on us. sooner or latter the world will find out the truth.

  11. Kate:

    Many thanks for bringing all the facts that prove that Slavoskopjans are not only mindless bigots but idiotic racists as well. I will bring news to you (Obviously Slavoskopjan Propaganda hasn’t told you yet!) that the voodoo science sponsored research has comprehensively proven a ludicrous racist thesis by the eminent geneticist Cavalli-Sforza. This is yet another one trademark attempt from all the charlatans you are calling ‘academics’ to prove that you have a remote connections to Macedonia. Obviously you have none.
    Not only cheap liars but abysmal racist too!
    And by the way never dare to look down on Ethiopians… They have created a substantial civilisation you cannot even dream creating with all forgeries masquerades and blunt racism! Pitty you!

    Anita:

    Thanks as well for bringing into attention your anti-NATO credentials. When the civilised world supported Greece in the 1940’s when your fanatical butcher forefathers tried to put their claws in Macedonia they knew that the light of forces were confronted you the forces of evil. Luckily for freedom you lost and lost badly! History has been proven once more correct:
    “One thing we know for sure is that imbeciles and fanatics never learn from their mistake as they are bound to repeat them again”. This time Anita will be infinitely more difficult as we will make sure that you will not have the weapons to do so! And I mean the name and all goes with it It’s that simple!!!!!
    If you read the communiqué of NATO’s meeting in Bucharest you will see that behind the spin certain people put (blame it on the NABUCO pipeline) the civilised world still supports Greece!

    Have both a nice day ladies!
    Macedonia loves you!

    Especially you the SlavoSkopjan ladies….

  12. …and Kate if supposedly we only had two choices: Either to have a DNA akin to Ethiopians or the Slavoskopjans overwhelmingly we would had chosen the former!
    We would had been proud to be in par with the brave Ethiopians and we would had felt an abysmal humiliation if we had to be similar to the forgerers, murderous, liar and racist Slavoskopjans!

    Once again my Lady
    …have a nice day
    Macedonia still loves you!

  13. The ”Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” has no connection with the Historical Macedonia of Alexander and the Greeks, since the term is used only because they live in a close geografical area of the Historical Greek Macedonia.

    The present political regime, useless try to confuse their young citizens that their slavs ancestors mixed with indigenus greek macedonians,so to giustify the conflict about the name issue with Greece.

    But the statements of different political officers of FYROM confirm the truth.

    Indians, Persians, Afgans, Egyptians are more related to Macedonians and Greek culture than Slavs of FYROM.

    a. The former President of The FYROM, Kiro Gligorov said: “;We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century … we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians” (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).

    b. Also, Mr Gligorov declared: “We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That’s who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia …; Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century” (Toronto Star, March 15, 1992).

    c. On 22 January 1999, Ambassador of the FYROM to USA, Ljubica Achevska gave a speech on the present situation in the Balkans. In answering questions at the end of her speech Mrs. Acevshka said: “We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great …; Greece is Macedonia’;s second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nemitz.” In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that “we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language.”;

    d. On 24 February 1999, in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM’S Ambassador to Canada, admitted, “We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian.” He also commented, “;There is some confusion about the identity of the people of my country.”

    e. Moreover, the Foreign Minister of the FYROM, Slobodan Casule, in an interview to Utrinski Vesnik of Skopje on December 29, 2001, said that he mentioned to the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, Solomon Pasi, that they “belong to the same Slav people.”;

  14. Firstly I’d like to say well done Kate.

    Georgios what you should be sorry for is the murdering; oppressing and expelling of native actual Macedonians from this so-called Greek Macedonia. I will state exactly how the Greek government from 100 years ago and all the Greek governments following it stole land that doesn’t belong to them.

    During the First and Second Balkan Wars (1912-1913) Macedonia’s neighbors fought with the Ottoman Turks using the Macedonian people as a ploy in an effort to grab land. As a consequence, under the Treaty of Bucharest, Macedonia was partitioned and Greece annexed the southern portion of Macedonia (what Macedonians call Aegean Macedonia). Before 1913 and throughout history Macedonia was never a territorial part of Greece.

    After 1913, Greece, which was still ruled by a Bavarian king, undertook a policy of forced assimilation to unify its many different ethnic groups. Let me highlight a few examples of Greek policy towards Macedonians:

    In 1925, the primary school textbook (the ABECEDAR) sponsored by the League of Nations and printed in Athens, was revoked by Greece in order to deny Macedonians an education in their native language.

    Greece changed the names of some 1500 Macedonian towns and villages, as well as the personal names of the population it acquired when it annexed Aegean Macedonia, in order to make them appear Greek.

    Do you recall the humiliation, torture and killings inflicted upon Macedonians who refused to assimilate or call themselves Greek? They were tortured and made to drink castor oil.

    Greece declared there are no Macedonians, only Greeks and referred to those Macedonians who refused to assimilate as “Bulgarians.”

    Macedonia, the Macedonian language, and everything Macedonian was forbidden by the Greek dictator, Metaxas. Even our ancient churches and cemeteries were destroyed to cover up any historical evidence of the Macedonian people in the area.

    One could only hear whispers from the Macedonians who lived in Greece, and they were whispering when they spoke in Macedonian because they where afraid of the Greek police who constantly monitored them. If the police heard them express their Macedonian identity in word or song they would place them in jail, their businesses would be confiscated and they would be beaten, and worse.

    Everything was going on, and on, like this in Greece, until the Republic of Macedonia became independent from Yugoslavia. At that time, Greece started worrying about the Macedonian territory it annexed in 1913 and all the Macedonian properties it had confiscated over the years. It became concerned about the Macedonians who were forced to flee Greece because they declared their nationality as Macedonian and not Greek.

    My grandmother was born in Chegan (Agios Atanasios), in the Voden (Edessa) region. For centuries, all of her ancestors were born there. They were never Greeks. Like hundreds of thousands in the Kukush (Kilkis) area, the Lerin (Florina) area, the Kostur (Kastoria) area and the many other areas of Aegean Macedonia they spoke an older Macedonian language, which was the precursor of today’s standardized Macedonian.

    My grandparents’ ancestors transferred the history of Macedonia and the Macedonian people orally for centuries within the family, “od koleno na koleno” (from knee to knee) as we say. My grandfather was murdered in a jail cell by Greeks because he declared his Macedonian ethnic heritage and refused to say he was Greek.

    I feel very sad when I think about my grandmother and grandfather and the mistreatment they received under the Greeks only because they were Macedonian. I know that thousands of Macedonian families suffered a similar fate.

    Macedonians never stated that they were not Greek citizens, they just wanted to have the right to freely express and preserve their ethnic identity, language and culture. Greece never permitted this because it would undermine its revisionist claims on Macedonia.

    The terms “Macedonia” and “Macedonians” were suppressed in northern Greece until the late 1980s. When it finally became clear the Republic of Macedonia would separate from the Yugoslav Federation just about everything in Greece was instantly renamed “Macedonia.”

    Greece became anxious the Republic of Macedonia might make a (legitimate) claim to be re-joined with its ancestral southern portion, the Aegean part of Macedonia, now the heavily-colonized northern Greek province of Macedonia.

  15. Georgios what I just posted was from an actual Macedonian in the so called Greek Macedonia. Now maybe your parents, grandparents etc lived there before 100 years ago then that will make you an actual Macedonian however you are a product of Greek governments and racist Greek nationalism that has been inflicted with great violence in mother Macedonia for a 100 years.

    I said that the Greek governments planted artefacts and scriptures in the so called Greek Macedonia not over the world. You seem to have a talent for twisting words and reading however not absorbing. It makes no difference if there are ancient objects in Greek writings in other countries with the fact that ancient Macedonian and Greek were different and the actual Macedonians of today are descendant of the ancients ones. Ancient Macedonian language was not written down only spoken between Macedonians that’s how it was passed down from generation to generation until finally came into writing when Kiril and Metodil the Macedonian Byzantine brothers finally came up with an alphabet according to the language the people spoke in the so called Greek Macedonia.

    Demosthenes: “not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave.”

    He was an ancient Greek however he has the decency to show the truth unlike your government. He also proves that the ancient Macedonians were different to the ancient Greek. Obviously today after more then 2000 years there cannot be a direct link between any ancient group and today’s people as there is mixes with something else. However the ancient Macedonian language is present today in a modern form with what you Greeks like to call ‘Bulgarian language’. That is a direct link to the ancient Macedonian language my language today. As the actual Macedonians lived in the so called Greek Macedonia for thousands of years and Greeks never entered Macedonians lands before 1913 when it was stolen from the rightful owners it is the truth to say if anyone is related in some way to the ancient Macedonians it is the oppressed people you call slavophones and the separate country of Macedonia you call FYROM which are one nation and have always been. And as you say where are Slavs if that is so then you are the same as we are, as we are from the same region which was invaded by the Slavs not only where I come from but also from where you come from. However it is unreasonable to say that the invaders of that time completely wiped out the Macedonians from my Macedonia and from the Macedonia that was stolen by Greeks not too long ago which is one nation.

    As for you claim on wikipedia and encyclopaedia as well as the oxford dictionary which for this part are wrong as the great powers helped you country take and steal the Macedonia that does not belong to you. It is only natural that they support you with their lies as they helped you steal the land that otherwise you wouldn’t have been able to then as you didn’t have the man power against the native Macedonians which would with no doubt have defended and won if the great powers didn’t supply the Greek government with firepower and man power. They were on your side as the Macedonians picked the communist side and the Greeks picked the democratic that we all know won today.

    Georgios Alexander the Great was half Greek half Macedonian however counted more Macedonian as his father king Philip 2’nd was Macedonian and back then you were what your father was. King Philip conquered and Greek states and made them fight for Macedonia as all proper historians know. The Greeks back then hated the conquerors and feared them. Why would they hate them if as the Modern Greek government says Greeks are the only Macedonians? The propaganda does not even make sense unless your brainwashed.

    Bogdan one question are you Greek? As your name sounds Serb. Those Macedonian people you quoted did actually say that I will not argue with you on that however they like money more then who they are and were either bribed or threatened in some way shape or form to say that. And if they weren’t then they were brainwashed by the Greek nationalistic government.

    I will always be Macedonian and nothing can change that. The only ambition of the Greek government is to wipe out our distinct ethnic Macedonian race to prevent questions being asked about the actual Macedonian citizens in the stolen Macedonia who are being oppressed and because they hate us for what we are and who we are Macedonians. They are trying to wipe us out as a people which will NEVER happen. We do not have claims on Greek Macedonia even though it is rightfully ours. We just want the oppressed Macedonians in Greece to be given full rights to speak their own language and treated equal and the sperate country Macedonia to be recognised under its constitutional name Macedonia. That is what the Macedonian government wants it does not wish to claim land back we only want to be treated fairly, I do not have anything against Greeks unless they oppress my people. The Macedonian government also changed its flag and constitution to please the Greeks as well as its constitution saying that we cannot claim lands. Yet still the Greek government oppresses us and try to wipe us out. Peace is the only way takes care.

  16. I am a firm believer that the “slavic migrations” of the 5th & 6th centuries did not take place, and that this whole theory is based on a very weak foundation. The goegraphic placing of the Slavs does not support a migration theory, on the contrary rather, their location seems to suggest that there was no migration at all, or at least not anytime after 1000 bc.

    There is no continuation of Slavic lands, they are seperated into southern and northern groups. Seperating these two groups is Austria, Hungary and Romania. Neither of these three peoples or their languages are native to the lands, all three are settlers after the death of christ.

    The Germanic peoples are said to be descended from Scandinavia, migrating from the north down south sometime shortly prior Christianity. Austria seperates the Czech Republic from Slovenia, who share many similarities in their dialects. If the western border of the Czech republic was to extend southwards to the tip of the Adriatic, it would fall in line with Slovenia’s western border, thus potraying Austria as artificially placed, a result of 2nd-3rd century a.d German expansion south-eastwards.

    Hungary stands between Slovakia to the north, Croatia and Serbia to the south. The Hungarians are descended from 4th, 7th & 8th century a.d Turkic tribes such as the Huns and latter Onogurs, but have been heavily europeanized mainly due to Germanic subjugation. This Germanic pressure occuring from Hungary’s west, where lay Austria.

    The Romance peoples of Romania and Moldova speak a Latin language with a heavy Slavonic influence to the tune of about 20%. Originally the home of the Dacians, of whom it is said were related to the Thracians, the area became a strategic outpost and frontier region on the eastern Danube to protect the northern borders of the Roman Empire. Rome sent legions and settlers to the area and for two hundred years the local culture made way for Latin and its language. By the time the Roman armies relinquished control of the region due to pressures, the population was speaking Latin and seem to have fully identified themselves as Romans, testifying to this is their name. It was an a Latin settlement in traditionally non-latin lands, however the influence was strong enough, in language and culture to build strong foundations. Romania is bounded by the Ukraine to the north, with Serbia and Bulgaria on the south.

    Not directly relevant here, however worth the mention is the origin of the Albanians. There is a striking similarity between Romania and Albania, namely that they were both strategically important for Rome and Italy from very early times. Albania’s importance to Italy is obvious for if Rome were to control Albania, then it would control all traffic entering and exiting the Adriatic sea. All in all, Albanian shares most similarities with the Latin language with an admixture of Greco-Slavonic, and a heavy Turkish influence. Albanians are most likely a combination of Latin settlers who assimilated the local peoples, their strategic importance meant that the Latin influence would never be far off.

    With all this in mind, a migratory comparative study is next. The Romanians were state organized settlers, not migrants so thus are excluded from this comparison. The Turkic tribes such as Huns, Bulgars, Finno-Urgic, e.t.c migrated a great distance from their ancestral asian homelands to reach their current european destinations, there is no land link or trail to their homelands. The Germanic expansions(not their southern kingdoms) covered a much less distance than the Turkic tribes, however there is a continuation of territory from their Scandinavian origins to mainland Europe, seperated only by short strips of sea isles. The Germans were solidly expanding whereas the Turkic tribes were wanderers. The “slavic migration” theory does not fit into either of these patterns, for if they were like the Germans why is there no link from their apparent “homeland” to the Balkans? Or if they were more like the Turkic tribes, why would they only migrate such a short distance south, defeating the purpose?

    There is simply no evidence to suggest of a Slavic migration, on the contrary those peoples who divide the northern & southern Slavs are all immigrants, and their origins can be traced. If the “slavic migrations” took place in the 6th century a.d as certain neo-historians calim, then in accordance with the migratory pattern of the Germans the Slavs should be occupying Hungary, Romania and Austria, not the Balkans. Which again leads to the suggestion that the Slavs have always been where they are today, and were themselves the victims of immigrants and settlers such as the Germans, Romans and Turkic tribes, being displaced from their homes in present-day Austria, Romania and Hungary, and thus leading to a seperation of a people into north & south.

    Ancient history refers to a Greek language and a “barbarian” one in the Balkans. Ancient historians refer to the Thraco-Illyric tribes all collectively as “barbarians”, none the wiser of any commonality amongst them. While it wasn’t till the 5th century a.d that these barbarians of a common tongue began to be refered to as Slavs, when this eventually occured the extent of their living space and indeed their numbers was realized, even the Scythians spoke Slavonic.

    Simply putting it, there was no Slavic migration, there was Germanic migration and expansion, Turkic migrations far from origins, and Latin settlements, all these can be verified. Not one historical document states the homeland of these Slavs, they are just assumed to be there, which they have been for thousands of years prior. Looking at the lingustic groups of Europe, all Latin lands are connected(minus Romania & Albania), all Germanic lands are connected, however the Slavic lands are divided by three peoples who a clearly not native to that region.

    Athenians & Thebans, seperate nations however all known as “Hellenes”. Thracians & Illyrians, seperate nations however all known as “barbarians”(from europe). The Athenians & Thebans came to be known as Greeks, as the Thracians & Illyrians came to be known as Slavs, there was no migration.

  17. yea Richard,

    u better check your sources more carefuly before
    before u write that crap!!
    U might get stung yourself somehow!!!
    Poor Kate u havent been informed of the new genetic research(done by four respectable universities) which shows no evidenc of your claims quite the opposite actually!!!
    Dejan
    thanx for admitting Alexander was half Greek it will take u a little longer but u will soon realise that Alexander united all the Greek speaking tribes and went with them as far as India to spread the hellenic civilisation…
    Aristotle his tutor taught him Philosophy in Greek…
    AS some of u seem or pretend not to understand I quote from OXFORD DICTIONARY that Hesiod considered ” the Macedones to be an outlying branch of the Greek speaking tribes, with distinctive dialect of their own similar to north west Greek”
    catch u later quite busy today…
    Dejan I have the answers about the existence and deportation of slavophone people in Northern Greece but it takes a long discussion and Ihave no time today…try to catch u later if possible
    regards

  18. Dear friends,

    In my opinion our northern neighbours should partly use the macedonian identity. The other part should be a characteristic to distinguish them with the Greek Macedonians so as to avoid confusion. An acceptable name therefore should be “X Macedonia” where X in {North, Upper, New, Slavic, Vardar, …} i.e. something that definitily defines the now called state former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

    The respective state has the right to use the name Macedonia since its’ inhabitans live in a part of the geographical region of Macedonia for more than 14 centuries.

    The best for the two countries would be to quickly solve the issue and then become strong allies, promote development and increase the welfare of our people.

    Best Regards,
    Patros Panos

  19. I would agree with Patros Panos with one small modification. Use your equation when X=Pseudo

    So we have a rather descriptive term for FYROM:

    ***** PSEUDOMACEDONIA ******

    Very Good Richard!!!

    PS

    I remember some time back I went to Sainsbury’s Supermarket looking for original Greek Feta! I found a brand called Patros Feta (coincidence?). Patros seemed quite Greek to me so I purchesed it and went home. I was certain that I did the right thing. But my wife who is half Greek called me off! Oh Johny I asked you to buy a Greek Feta not one Made in Denmark!!!! If you cant get what I mean!!!!

  20. It will be wrong to consider Dejan’s gabble, splutter hallucinations and straightforward distortion of many facets of historical reality as simple garbage fantasies (which they certainly are)! His contribution is indeed very useful and valid pointers of past and modern Slavoskopjan indoctrination that unfortunately very many Slavoskopjans other than Dejan believe valid!
    It will take very many pages to take on each and every of Dejan’s unhistorical allegations and shot it down straight! But I believe if I do this it will be a waste of my and many reader’s time! The fallacy of very many is fairly obvious to spend any effort to prove so!
    In the end of course Dejan and every Dejan has the right of his own personal fantasies and unbounded hallucinations. Nor anyone should care if a Dejan consider himself a ‘Macedonian’ or ‘Napoleon the Great’! The issue here is not the individual Dejan. The issue is the danger of collective psychosis and actions that may stem from them.
    I have isolated the most important of his remarks in this respect:

    “We do not have claims on Greek Macedonia even though it is rightfully ours”

    Says the ‘good’ Dejan!

    Never mind the obvious many contradictions in this very sentence, the above widely shared belief is the epitome of dangers lurking for Greeks and Balkan stability as a whole if the Slavoskopjans are ever allowed to monopolise a name they don’t own and don’t deserve to have!

    Dejan you actually claim but for obvious reasons you don’t utter it publically as yet! If you did not only everyone will laugh uncontrollably owing to your insignificant means to achieve your ends but the very many naïve ‘progressive’ circles that seem to support you will turn them their backs on you here and now! This will be very unproductive for your short and long terms targets! This is why you don’t claim it more openly exactly as yet! This doesn’t mean that you don’t claim it overtly! Anyone who can take a stroll at the numerous Slavoskopjan websites will see this very CLAIM bare naked some from very official directions! Their School books are full of this kind of coarse trash indoctrination too!
    And what exactly you expect from us Dejan? To thank you for this great ‘generosity’? To thank the thief who decided not to rob our house today just because he found the doors and windows shut! Because he left his ‘tools’ elsewhere? To reward your ‘magnanimity’ by allowing you to enter our house (NATO, EU) from the main entrance? Handle you the keys as well?
    Enough to say that in general not having claims on others (never mind the obvious Slavoskopjan hypocrisy I am implying) is not good enough! You have to RESPECT them and their lands and history! And this is not optional but a MUST instead!
    And never mind that Macedonia were never rightfully yours nor ever will be; what one can understand from this collective state of mind? That given the opportunity you will exercise this ‘rights’! One plus one equals TWO! This fully justifies what Greece says all along: That the name is just the tip of the iceberg the vehicle that moves around straight forward Slavoskopjan EXPANSION policy! The fact that at the moment you are utterly incapable to materialise it is simply IRRELEVANT! NATO and EU are meant to be a club of allies and friends! Not a rag tag gathering of strong friends and weak enemies! This is a very debasing view for these organisations.
    I hope that many of the Slavoskopjans well-wishers in the West open their eyes and minds a bit more! And see that behind the sheep’s skin hides the same wolf that butchered many of my compatriots either from the ranks of the Nazi sponsored Ohrana and Komitat or the Communist Titos’s separatist SNOFites. For them the end is still the ‘rightful’ ‘United Macedonia’. And they don’t care who they will follow to albeit this is Hitler, Tito or Bush! They are still the same.
    I hope also that many of our friends and enemies alike understand a bit better that the Greek position although not very convenient for perhaps some local interests of there is both reasonable and fully justified in view of the first obligation of any Greek state is firstly to secure and protect its citizens! And we will do so no matter how unpleasant may appear to some!

    Dejan I see you are commending Kate! Well I will congratulate you both! Both have made my work infinitely easier to convey the message for the unequivocal rights of my countries position vis-à-vis FYROM. A message that any well meant and objective reader will have not difficulty in grasping.

    As for you the Slavoskopjans Greece is not having any bad intentions. Hence its substantial financial investment in you so far. We pity you though because largely you have become the real victims, the pawns in the claws of imbecile fanatical megalomanics that are hell bent on revenge for reasons that only the science of psychology and not history can perhaps best understand.

  21. It is very amusing to see these so called ‘Macedonian’ speaking on human rights! Especially when the treatment of the very many Macedonians who feel and cherish their true national identity comes in light! For those who know intimately the situation know that very many of those fake ‘Alexander’s the Great decedents’ have no problem declaring the truth! They feel Bulgarians they speak Bulgarian. The case of the former Prime Minister of FYROM Lupco Georgievski is just one loud case! He is now not only a happy Bulgarian citizen but also a Bulgarian official. The same applies for the tens of thousands of fed-up FYROM’s citizens that queue endlessly in front of our Embassies for these magical documents: The Bulgarian passport and the Bulgarian Nationality! With this as an undisputed fact have you seen any reflection of this reality to their political mainstream? Anyone who dare says this loud is prosecuted, Bulgarian monument desecrated. Those who say it loud insulted in public or worse in private!
    For how long can they keep the gini inside the bottle only time will tell! But my gut feeling is not that long.
    Yes Macedonians by geography they may be but Bulgarian by identity and Language have always been!

    When this truth will be heard?

  22. Georgios how about you admit Alexander the great spoke Macedonian a language distinct from Greek. You all think you can have it both ways, delusions of grandeur can be a tool, however it eventually explodes in your face. Aristotle was his tutor but again you have selective hearing that’s makes me laugh and pity you. I don’t want to hear your delusional answers to anything about your so-called slavophone people I know the truth that world is realising with every day that passes. The Americans already have declared the truth, 120 countries have recognised our constitutional name, and the day will come when the oppressors will lose their power. Only in your wildest dreams could you think that Macedonian is a Greek dialect. I can only laugh at these comments.

    Panos you mention the danger of collective psychosis and actions that may stem from them. Oh are you talking about how the Greek government a hundred years ago with the blessing of the great powers practiced genocide on a whole nation. Killed many Macedonians who were only trying to defend themselves, their families and their lands. Then how the government to disguise that the actual Macedonians who lived in the historical area of Macedonia took in Christians from turkey as well as Greeks from the north to outnumber the native macoednians and be renamed ‘macedonians’. It is funny how you point out instantly that we are trying to take out land back when you took what didn’t belong to you in the first place.

    What I meant by that comment is that land belonged to the actual Macedonians, which you’re past governments ethnically cleansed and your previous government is still torturing, brainwashing and silencing by any means possible all who you like to call ‘slavophones’. However what is done is done the past cannot be changed but the future can. If your government was to admit what they know is certain that the Macedonians were killed and the land was stolen from them and let them speak their language, have their own institutions and rights as other Greek citizens have then there will have no problem. That is the only thing that we ‘dejans’ claim we do not want the province back we only want our people to be fairly treated.

    All I can hear from you panos is paranoia. Greece has had bad intentions for the last 100 years. And we take sides with allies no not Hitler panos that will defend us from the government that is still trying to wipe out who we are. You can ramble on about how innocent and how much you have invested in Macedonia or as you call it panos ‘skopje’ which is very stupid as skopje is a city. Greece then should be called Athens. You don’t make sense your governments policies don’t make sense and the world is realising this. Your country invests in my country only to control it economically we are not stupid your country denies other foreign investment from entering Macedonia and keeps a strangle hold on it economically denying other countries investing in it to prevent the country becoming wealthy. Frankly will be better of being invested in by Zimbabwe then Athens. The truth is coming out and it is only a matter of time until everyone realises. Athens has been instigating terrorism against Macedonia and Macedonians for 100 years. So don’t try to look innocent cause your government knows its not innocent and other government are beginning to realise your lies.

    Panos stop being childish and saying like your government we have territorial claims on lands. You’re like a baby and I pity you and your nationalistic government. We all know racism doesn’t last for long as those who are guilty are punished in one way or another.

    The western countries ignore Greek policies towards actual Macedonians and ignore what has been done and the truth however they will and your government will apologise to all the Macedonians and other oppressed people it has murdered and still to this day persecutes because of nationalism.

    Richard you know as well and are older and wiser then anyone on this forum the truth which you just stated in your article I’m pretty sure you know about all the oppressed people that panos says Greek governments first objective is to protect its citizens however why then does it persecute what they like to call ‘Slavophones’? I pity you panos and your childish games aswell as your racist government.

    I am not responding anymore to any of you as all that seems to happen when I show facts is that panos and georgios become like little children and everyone who thinks like them it is a waste of my time with which I could do more constructive things then argue with pitiful children.

    All that is left to say is even though I’ve already said peace is the only way and I will not be pushed to become violent in any way good luck to you all and the truth will come out.

  23. to all so called ancent greek decendants
    Can anybody give us exact dates since when Macedonija is greek land?
    I would say since 1989.Prior to that was FORRBIDEN to use that name in “birthplase” of modern democrasy .RIGHT?

  24. No Cope
    thats another big lie of your propaganda.
    Many macedonians joined the rebellion against the Turks in 1821 by joining the greek rebels in the south, and also we have what we call macedonian warriors which fought the Turks and Bulgarians later such as Pavlos Melas, Telos Agras, Kapetan Yiaglis,even the slaphophone Kapetan Kotas who when was killed by the enemy yelled in your language hooray Greece!! Macedonia has always been a province of Greece just like Ipiros, Thraki, Pelloponisos etc.

    Degan I will accept your right not to talk to me and Panos any longer no hard feelings truth is hard to bear sometimes I will let u live your virtual reality…
    As regards the deportation of the slavophones from greece during the second world war I will tell u that in most cases thiw happened becouse those people sided and collaborated with the NAZI’s while the Greeks were up in the mountains fighting the fascists. I bet your grandparents forgot to tell u this minor detail… they were traitors DEgan thats why they were deported… Greek newspapers recently published photos of your people posing with the Nazis… I will dedicate it to u ….only you should be ashamed of yourselves!!!
    Finally, you forgot to comment on Todor Moisov…
    and the people queueing outside the Bulgarian Embassy to get the bulgarian nationality…another proof of me being right when I say u speak a slavic idiom linguistically close to the Bulgarian language!
    Concluding I would say that FYROM is a not so charming coctail of Bulgarians, serbs, albanians,gipsies,Vlachs(most of them of Greek origin)and some slavs like u which are a bit of all the previous…according to your ex ppresident Kiro Gligorof and your ex prime minister Lupo Georgiefski..

    regards

  25. Dejan you say that you will not respond any longer!

    Why is this man??? Don’t do this!!! Speak up!!! Spill the ‘beans’!!!

    Show everyone clear and loud how the un-historic revisionism how fanatical true facist the FYROM collective mentality is!

    Tell them all Dejan! Show everyone around what bulls in a china shop you really are! How uneducated and damn stupid your policies have come to be!

    Why go Dejan!!! Stay here! I cannot imagine the Greeks capable of painting the bleak situation of FYROM’s PseudoMacedonians as accurate as your ‘frank’ comments actually do!

    I am sure in the end the Greeks will thank you for making their case crystal clear …not any of your past politicians (Gligorov etc…) who I have to recognise that they were sincere in telling the truths and somehow help free the FYROM’s citizens from the induced Pseudomacedonian syndrome!

    I am sure an extra vintage Metaxa’s Brandy is ready to go Dejan! Send them your address.

  26. Dejan you keep on bickering with the Greeks! This is your favourite sport! This is your favourite way to cloud the scene! To shift attention away from where it really matters! You feel that fighting for claiming direct lineage with Alexander the Great will short out the internal insecurities and growing doubts, the valid questions of your citizens about what their real identity is?
    Wake up and smell the coffee Dejan. Alexander the Great was Greek! He has no relations to us and to you!
    People can no longer made fools with your Srboaman practices! They can answer with themselves simple questions like:
    Why I don’t have a clue of what scriptures dated from the ancient days written clearly in Greek say, while at the same time I have no problem reading all the Bulgarian either old or modern? Why my language is almost exact replica of Bulgarian when I have to go to Foreign Language classes to understand elementary Greek? Why most of my modern national heroes declared themselves Bulgarians? Why the flag of our greatest national uprising Ilidien is clearly the Bulgarian flag? Only the fanatics still linger to the fact that FYROM has any relation whatsoever to the Greek Ancient Macedonia! They don’t need such cover to feel proud for what have always been. And you know the answer Dejan, even though you clearly scared to death pronounce it! You know the answer: BULGARIAN.
    During the 2nd World War when our Bulgarian Armies rolled in the Egeiska and Vardar Macedonia we were received like liberators! Like true heroes! There wasn’t any opposition until very late when Tito sent his imported ‘partisans’! Don’t hide behind your thumb. Most Macedonians only turned to the Serboman propaganda when the fate of this War had already long decided! It is then when Tito and his propaganda invented the ‘Macedonian’ Nation. It was then the real and massive Human Rights abuses of all Macedonians started! And it wasn’t much in Greece, but firmly in your Socialist ‘Serboman’ People’s Republic of ‘Macedonija’! This is when the real and enduring torture of all Macedonian took place! This is how you became janissaries of an alien and fictitious ethnicity.
    I am really laughing when I hear you speaking of Human Rights? You have created a Frankenstein state out of people’s lives and dare speaking on Human Rights! What do you know of them? How you think that you can hide the truth behind all this Alexander the Greek façade and fakery? For how much longer? And with what cost to the real people? When you will stop your intimidating practices towards all those who want to be what always had been?
    You are a real danger not only of all Balkans but to the vast majority of Macedonians who not only speak Bulgarian but ….feel BULGARIANS among all!

  27. Have you forgotten the ‘happy days’ Dejan…when you were really happy been among us? I can’t see the portrait of Alexander the Great in this photo! But I can clearly see the portrait of our Boris! And I can see you feeling proud too!
    http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6149/bulgarian125ip9.jpg
    I am really fed up speaking to indoctrinated fanatics like you! But the rest can see and make a judgment for themselves! Where the true lies and where FYROM’s mythology!
    Have my Regards Dejan and I hope one day you will wake up as well!

  28. to all FTPH (Formaly Turkish Province Hellass) dumbheads: thanks for supporting the name & history of “Macedonia”.
    Your “barking” makes us only stronger and even the last pacifist is now proud to be macedonian!
    let love rule!

  29. @ Todor: go steal a car (b´lgarian profession) & drive directly to deep asia. it might be THE journey to your roots.

  30. I hope the many civilised people that may visit this blog understand perfectly well that the brainwashed citizens of FYROM except of been grossly oblivious of their roots and history (old and modern) are very very RACISTS as well! Once again it is proved that FACISTS are first among all blind and unable to accept the true picture of reality! I hope that you now all understand perfectly well why these characters has turned out to be the pariahs of the Balkans!

  31. todor its funny how stupid you are. i said i wont reply but your stupidity is compelling and funny. your poeple moved in to europe from asia, however my poeple have been their for 1000’s of years. you got your language from us buddy your speaking macedonian its funny how you turkic asians idiots support your little greek buddies.

    you dont even know what your on about todor, im suprised you and your country support these facist greeks, you should be on our side since we gave you the language you speak today.listen hear asian you came from asia adopted macedonian names and the language which is known very well with poeple who actually know what their talking about. you can only deny all where your culture comes from macedonia. all you racist pricks will have the tables turned and your continuos propaganda will turn on you. so go back to asia and dont visit this blog as it has nothing to do with you and you are embarasing yourself.

    to john im not even going to reply to what you wrote since its so stupid all i can do is luagh at you and your racist companians. i said i wasnt going to reply any more cause there is no point with arguing with poeple that dont know what they are talking about. frankly i dont think you know what your talking about.

    never the less you cant anger me as i know where i came from and who i am unlike you todor along with your buddies. stay out of a blog that has nothing to do with you as you are embarassing yourself. as i said i am not replying anymore to any of you as you are like babies i pity all of you its funny to read your stupidity but. listen to lazaro his making a valid point. now that these greeks have showed their true colours all macedonians unite again.

  32. Dejan, as I said in my original blog, even Greeks, when they feel reasonable, will admit to their uncertain origins. It makes no sense to talk about ‘my people’, as if nothing had changed over the last two millennia. And the fact is that, if we go back far enough, we all came from Asia. Why not leave it at that? Europe today is complicated enough. Richard

  33. Richard i respect your views and opinions and as a writer i really do. as you have probably gone over what i wrote you know i admit that things have obviously changed over 2 millennia. however macedonians are being persecuted for who they are especially in aegean or what is now called ‘greek macedonia’ you have to admit this is a civil rights problem and if someone does not stop this madness the whole of eastern europe will pay, why does the west ignore the atrocities that have been commited agaisnt all macedonians? i said i wouldnt reply but because i respect you and your views i replied to only you and will take your advice and say no more then i have. regards

  34. Dejan, having spent some time in the Thessaloniki region and talked to people locally, I think the evidence supports your point of view. And, whichever side one is on, it is ultimately an issue of human rights involving everyone. Richard

  35. Richard
    Some time back I used to share some of your thoughts.
    Not any longer!
    I have to say straight away that I strongly now accept that the Greeks have a very valid case!
    And I have every reason to believe that most of the upper echelons of Europe fundamentally share this position too! The final communiqué of recent NATO’s summit wasn’t the result of Greece pressure and all those involved in these knows perfectly well what I am speaking about.
    And I suppose it’s not rocket science to see why I and others have our changed position. Look in detail how and what the SlvMacs say here! Pay particular attention to the explicit RACIST Connotations openly expressed. Look at their unfounded megalomania! And it’s all right if the funny bloke in the Streets of Skopje says so! You may smile and carry on. But Richard these kinds of things go on in much higher places in there! Speaking with officials holding very responsible places I have heard similar things:
    How ‘historically’ is proven beyond reasonable doubt the direct lineage of present day SlavMacs to Alexander the Great. When I questioned them why all Ancient Macedonian always had written in Greek the answer comes back due to the fact they say the Ancient Macedonian knew foreign languages!!!!!!They do believe this cr..p Richard! They do!!!!And when they are probed why such an important civilisation never left a trace of their supposedly own different language they say that they are searching….Still haven’t found anything!! LOL. So much so for their Great Macedonian Heritage!!! But they go on and on with this Megalomania which to my opinion would have reached Nazi proportions if it wasn’t for their pathetic size and power base! If this wasn’t the Balkans one could had stay to the amusing side of things but we have to be extra careful here and we should not allow this fanatical and unfounded behaviour of them to go on any longer!
    Their Bulgarian ancestry is another of the much publicised case! You have seen the idiotic answers they give. They speak of Asian and African people with the most debasing of words! Yet they cannot answer straight elementary and basic questions as those posed by Todor! Their Genetic ‘studies’ proving that the Greeks are Ethiopians is not only an idiotic attempt to prove that the Greeks have no Relation to Hellenes but also speaks volumes of what they think of Africans or the niggers as they routinely referred them! What they are doing with Greek history and heritage is mirrored to what they are doing with Bulgarians. How on earth they mix Bulgarian and Greek history is beyond me and I think to any other sane person in the world! Especially when they claim that both belong to them in the first place!!!!!!!!
    Their claims on Human rights are another one of their spurious beliefs. These very people are the ‘champions’ of the millions of oppressed ‘Macedonians’ beyond their borders yet they denied basic human rights to all those SlavMacs that happened to be gays, forcefully ‘persuade’ all those who want to declare themselves ethnically Bulgarians within their borders its not ‘wise’ to say so! And I haven’t spoken about the Albanians yet!
    It is well known truth that many Slavmacs that lived in Greece openly collaborated with the Nazis during WW”. There are images and there are documents. They have committed well documented atrocities towards the Greek population during the time of Occupation. Particularly towards those Greeks who were refuges from Asia Minor after the 1922 exchange of population between Greece and Turkey. Even today the Slavmacs simply hate this strand of Greeks even though these people came from Hellenistic centres of the East where Ancient Macedonian presence is well documented. Hence these unfortunate people may be the more Macedonians of the lot! Anyway when the fortunes of WW2 changed, all those Slavmacs to save their skins turned communist and under Tito’s guidance and support wanted to take the whole Greek Macedonia. Quite naturally Greece resisted and when the fate of their ‘experiment’ went pear shaped they left Greece to avoid the punishment coming. These were testing times for whole Europe. The numbers involved for those who escaped were of the order of 20-30,000 but quite obviously not the millions they claim. Nor what is left back in Greece are of any significance! Around 10,000 at most! They even now have a political party there called Vino Zito that never managed to get more than few thousands votes (5,000 ?) even though their political agenda was clearly this of ‘oppressed Macedonians’ . It is also amusing to see in the leadership of Vinho Zito Mr Voskopoulos has a cousin who is district governor of Florina and openly declares himself a Greek as well as Mr Lithoxou who as he says is of Greek- Albanian extraction. Mr Nekratzas another one of theirs is clearly a Greek Refuge from Asia Minor ie one of their supposedly arch enemies! If they were the millions oppressed I am sure you would have seen scenes of Tibet’s proportions in the streets of Thessaloniki! So their paranoia on this respect is well substantiated.
    It is also funny that all that all those SlavMacs could obtain unlimited access to the Greek Macedonia if they join the EU! And all the obstacles their stubborn and unreasonable behaviour is placing to this path makes us wonder if what they want is civilised access to the Greek Macedonia or creating the framework to claim it as rightfully theirs! We have to be very careful when we express support to them as so far has been translated as an open endorsement of their fantasies.
    Richard we are all somehow genetically mixed! The same applies to the old or the moderns. When man meets a woman the outcome is mixed!!! Yet we have no problem to assume and accept direct linage to our respective Cultures and Heritages like English, German, Spanish, Scotish etc. And we cannot mix them in aspects that are clearly different. And we all find it irritating when an imposter tries to claim our heritage as theirs. This is the case of Greeks with the Slavmacs. And the reason is not their love of the past but their desire to grab the Greek Lands somehow, sometime in the future! Look at the maps of the ‘United Macedonia’ they are openly promoting! 30% of modern Greece falls within their supposedly ‘ethnic’ lands domain. Are we to blame the Greeks for openly declaring this to be a Slavmac expansion claim! Few days back a Vodka company did an adv campaign in the US showing a map with half the USA lands as part of Mexico. A huge uproar resulted and the adv was promptly withdrawn. Imagine is this map was not published by a Vodka Company but by the Mexican Government! I am sure the F16 would had sent rolling, Not the well mannered legal Greek objections!
    We don’t know the origins of Ancient Macedonian! We cannot be for sure who they really were and were they came from! But the evidence we have is that they were integral parts of the Hellenic civilisation and they spread Hellenic ideals to the world they knew! They were no doubt mixed with others! But these others in turns espoused the Hellenic Civilisation! The Greeks of today have every right to feel the continuation of the Hellenic world! Not because their blood is purely Hellenic but because of their Cultural direct linage and because a pure blood is a term with no meaning! SlavMacs are clearly basically Slavs! They have no connection to the Ancient Macedonian Heritage! They can admire the Classical Helenic Civilisation of Macedonia as much as they like in the same way that anyone one of us can do! But to consider it theirs is just a smoke screen of Expansion and nothing else!
    And all of us rather than cuddling the beast and pondering opening the Pandora’s Box we should clearly and loudly voice our objections and affirm our justified stance that Greeks are Greeks, Bulgarians are Bulgarians, Albanians are Albanians and Slav Macs are Macedonians only by Geography!

  36. Yep Cope I understand what is the meaning of ciganos: GIPSY! Have you the ‘master Macedonian’ race of Serbomans decided eliminating Gipsy traces as well! The Hitler legacy is alive and well in FYROM! LOL

    And all you look at our ‘civilised’ Lazar advise as the Bulgarians: To stay away from this blog! Now imagine what would had happened if this blog was their FYROM wonderland! They would have made sure that indeed we would HAVE ‘stayed away’. So all I was saying graphically proved correct once more! And they still offered any rational answer to many of my questions other than cheap racist drivels and slurs.
    Richard no matter how much spin you put to twist reality no matter how important your marketing professional background experience is the truth cannot be hidden. As I assume you consultant them on image communication and marketing matters, you may try to ‘educate’ them a bit more in order to hide their truth well!
    Because at the moment every time they open their mouth it’s a public disaster for your contract! And a total waste of their ‘investment’ to you. LOL

  37. Oh dear oh dear Ricky!

    What is there for the Greek bee to sting at the Slavoskopjans???? Can you not see them?
    wearing the torn ‘made in china’ ‘Alexander the Great’ outfit, the full of holes replica of a ‘macedonian’ helmet, the plastic small scale sarrisa ridding on the poor old donkey they call it Bucephalus!!!! And image to laugh or to cry! The sorry outcome of defrosting a product badly put on ice decades ago preserved with the flawed recipe Made by Tito in merry Yugoslavia!
    No we will not grant them all their wishes! We know that rotten frozen foods can still be dangerous! We handle it with care!!! But believe me! We feel for them! That’s why we do everything in our capacity to help them to come in terms with the real world! If it wasn’t for us most of them would had been unemployed and will find it impossible to make ends meet on a daily basis! We give them the daily survival and not false wishes or false promises as you doing Richard to do the dirty work for you. They are Slavs NOT Slaves! If it wasn’t for us they would been almost none left there!
    And yes we will sting! But not the sorry of these Ex-Eastern Block frozen ultra nationalistic mentalities! But we sting you the puppet-masters. And on these you can imagine the smirk on my face when I see here your arguments torn to pieces from more directions than one. Your ideas and thesis are dead in the water and numb Richard! I am sure you will not admit it! It’s the British tough upper leap or your Belgian sense of Humour!! Hahhahahhahah
    How can you allow these ‘Greek peasants’ and their supporters to dent such an illustrious spinning professional career of yours! You the author, the expert unable to level their arguments adopting as it seem the most coarse profound lies and idiotic historical revisionism. Adopting the defence of a Western style Stagecoach caravan trapped by the Indians! Curl in a circle praying for the end! Where your credibility now lies! Deep down the bottom of the lake Richard! Is this the Ohrid Lake??? Hahhahahahah
    What is your next ‘recreational’ project Richard? Proving the Pope is not a Catholic or proving that he is die hard Protestant instead!! Mind you this may be a bit easier!

    Dear oh Dear!

  38. Hey Todor, welcome back to the show for fools, the front row is reserved for you, enjoy it!

    Let`s start with the “one million dumbheads” question: Who´s the “nice” guy in the middle of the picture you linked in your comment #28 and what is the meaning of “Axis Powers”?

    If your answer is correct, you`ll win the “Beginners Guide for Racists”, but only the download version and maybe i´ll send you a few jokes about b´lgarian “heroes”

  39. Read my blog again – all you Greeks and FYROMers – and you will see I am talking about mistaken identity and not about the rights and wrongs of this dispute. No one can be sure what happened in the intervening centuries, but there is plenty of evidence that few of Greece’s present-day inhabitants are directly descended from the Ancient Greeks, let alone Alexander. Content yourselves with the fact that my own people, the English who are so proud of their Anglo-Saxon heritage, have just learned that they are genetically related to the Basques.

    The Nazis and their racist theories are behind us and genetic research is solving a lot of life’s mysteries, for example the origins of the Cypriot Greeks. Walter Bodmer, a geneticist, set out to investigate the incidence of an inherited blood disorder, thalassaemia, and demonstrated that the disorder was shared equally by both ‘races’, a conclusion that has disturbing socio-political implications for the people concerned. He announced the results to some Cypriot Greek Orthodox monks in a conversation which, in synthesis, went something like this:

    Walter Bodmer: “There’s one type of thalassaemia common to Cyprus.”

    First Cypriot: “It’s different from other types in the world?”

    Walter Bodmer: “Yes, it’s commoner than it is in Greece or Turkey.”

    Second Cypriot: “Couldn’t you prove we descended from ancient Greeks?”

    Walter Bodmer: “You’re a little different, an older population…”

    Second Cypriot (confused): “So you think we just feel Greek culturally?”

    Walter Bodmer: “You’re all Cypriots, Greek or Turkish, one people.”

    First Cypriot (even more confused): “It’s very surprising to hear it.”

    Walter Bodmer: “It is.”

    Nobody likes the truth, particularly when it challenges myths.

  40. Hey Richard, the next time you visit FTPH (Former Turkish Province Hellass) don`t forget to come to Lerin. We´ll sing and dance some traditional macedonian songs and never talk about history (it´s forbidden). Our coffee is turkish, our ouzo is greek, but who cares?

    Cheers!

  41. Ok Todor obviosly you understand the word but do you understand question.Since nobody hasn’t answered that exept that “macedonian” fighters joined independence war in 1821 is that the final answer?Have you any more evidence about starting point since when Macedonia is greek land?Let me help you ciganos
    If Macedonia was greek land why is not libereted in independence war?Because there was no reason for that.There was no greeks to fight for independence there.If you have any objections on this you are very welcome to prove that I’m wrong(whith original ottoman documents)not greek.About map of United Macedonia that is Ottoman map of province of Macedonia and If that is proof for our expansion that probably meens we have aspirations against all Balkan countries not Greece alone.Probably there is interest of “civilised person” Todor(prity much simular name to khans Kuber Omurtag Asparuh or king Ferdinand if you preffere)to answer.Let’s try to rationaly answer your “graphicly questions”. You said that you understand “old” bulgarian language is that meens Gagauz-turkce is you native language?I’t steel exist in Bulgaria.Why you unerstand “new” bulgarian written by Kiril from Solun 10 centuries ago you should knew by now.About you modern day heroes(I gues Ivan Mihajlov)declaring themselfs anything else meens death almost instantly(Todor Pop Rusevwas killed two weeks after declaring himself something else than you want to hear(Do not mension Delcev Gruev Sandanski)All of them was assasined after declaring themself Macedonians.RIGHT?You said your flag is white-green-red RIGHT?Can you find any Ilinden flag with above description?We also haven’t forgot “happy times”.For your information there was two “happy times” in both world wars.When your armies “libereted” brainwashed Macedonians they qadruple police forces just in case if those brainwashed want to be something else than you want(pritty mach like with your modern heroes).Those”libertadores”was on Hitler side if history doesn’t lie and now we are FACIST?LOL stupidity .I belive it will be wise for you do not replly before you get some better explanation how b’lgarians become slavs.I’m not saying to”stay-away” that is not haw civlised people talk but also civilised people knew what they discuse in this blog.I’m sorry Richard but this guy look like allien in this blog.

  42. Richard first of all I’m NOT FIROMer I’m MACEDONIAN.I have right to call myself with that name like greeks can call themself Greek even if they don’t have dirrect ancestry of Ancent Greek people.Isn’t that all about?They can be Greeks even you saying some genetical reserchges proof that true and we can’t be Macedonians even if same genetical reaerches proof that ther is comection between Ancent Macedonians and us.If i’m not contesting their right on naming themself Greek WHAT RIGHT they have to contest my name to be Macedonian

  43. Lazo

    Nice question! But come on! Dont be shy I am sure you know the answer after all your lot were arround too! For your help at the centre top is the picture of United Macedonia!

    Cope

    Obviously you are in panic! A FACIST caught red handed! LOL
    Not fobviously for you but for the rest of the audience Here is the Bulgarian flag:

    http://www.appliedlanguage.com/flags_of_the_world/large_flag_of_bulgaria.gif

    And here is the Ohrid Ilinden Banner:
    http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/2/2a/180px-Ohrid_Banner1.jpg

    You all see Cope is a plain liar! The same applies for the rest he says.

    Richard

    I am sure Genetics can solve medical problems! I am sure is a great and very promising part of science! But the problems we have here are far from these! And these are political!

  44. Well Richard if there is plenty of evidence that few present-day inhabitants are directly descended from the Ancient Greeks then I am sure you will agree that there is no evidence whatsoever that present day FYROMers have any relation with the Macedonians and that the vast evidence that the latter were part of the Hellenic World! Hence all this hot air about connecting FYROMers with Ancient Macedonians is cheap low level charlatanism for the village idiots! Of course we don’t know the DNA structure of Ancient Greece to decide, and even if we had it you will see that the Ancient Greeks throughout the Classical Period were not as pure as we assume so asking the same for the modern is damn redundant! Nor the relation of AngloSaxon with the Basques will make the latter claiming Shakespeare or Henry Elisabeth and Nelson. Nor this implies that the present Day English are less English than the older! So here you have it! We are all Humans after all and we all relate one another somehow sometimes! Genetic research is largely irrelevant in judging Cultural and Political matters. The last time the issue was raised in the present day context was in the days of the Nazi-Aryans! The only one can claim purity in racial terms (the same you ask for present day Greeks) are few Horses in the Stables. Even Royal Houses are mixed and many bastards there exist too! The issue here is Civilisation and we have to be content that present Day Greeks are as Greeks as it can be! And in the same context FYROMers are basically Slavs without any connection nor any rights for their childish Macedonism as this somehow been part of their cultural inheritance even though they appear 1000 years after this Classical Period! I thought we had moved a bit from the Dark Ages and we can see white from the black!
    My thesis is that all these I say are fairly trivial and the only validity in this context is that FYROMers deploy all these spurious historical or genetic arguments because fundamentally they think that the whole Macedonia is their exclusive domain! This is as historically unfounded as it is dangerous and needs to be addressed. Also their Human Right cries are entirely chaff as the case they are advancing is fundamentally baseless and flawed and their own Human Rights record back home is plainly appalling even though they have only 20 years of lifetime as a sovereign country!
    Hence once again I feel that the Greeks are entirely right to act the way they are! As far as I am concerned they have my full support and I am sure that others feel this way once we understood the case and the arguments involved a bit better!
    End of story.

  45. Well, this has certainly been an interesting experience. Let me just say this:

    1. Rob: your theory is intriguing, but weren’t the Slavs on the other side of the Danube at the time?

    2. Dejan: re your second posting on April 10 in the middle of the night (oh, my!), I assume you were quoting from someone who witnessed what happened in Greek Macedonia in the early 1900s. It rings true.

    3. Is Pope a Catholic (please leave the Pope out of this): do you really think I was trying to make judgements about the Macedonian issue? I was talking about the Greeks.

    4. Cope: yes, I too wonder why Todor was getting involved in this demonstration of Greek posturing and FYROMania (apologies everyone!).

    5. Stig: again, I wasn’t trying to validate the credentials of the FYROMers. This blog has gone on for so long that I think everyone, including myself, is losing sight of the original purpose.

    Richard

  46. Because it affect us directly and the Balkans as a whole!!

    My thoughts might have derailed and prove invalid abd exposed many of the FYROMites lies and comment as well as yours but here you had it!

    Its fairly obvious Ricahrd! Dont pretend you dont understand

  47. Todor
    Did you found any evidence when and haw B’lgars become slavs?
    Wery first moment when ciganos will find some firm proof about their Ancent Greek roots they will notify you.Like they show you haw to import Royal dinasty but they didn’t get GAY for king RIGHT?

  48. vow!!! RichArd!! U have been to Thessaloniki and u realised how oppressed the macedonians are? In what language did u speeak to them? And most importantly where did you find them cos there arent many left after the atrocities they commited towards the Greeks in the second WW. Those NAZI informers should have all been executed for treason back then. BIG MISTAKE! Anyway, to prove how democratic the Greek society is nowadays, these leftovers have formed a political party (Rainbow) which in 2004 electons got less than 3000 votes all over Greece.
    No matter how unpleasant this might be for u Richard, there is a direct link between the ancient Greek Macedonians and the Modern Greeks and that is the language. Being able to read what is written on the scriptures of ancient Macedonia pleases me to a great extent. It is a feeling that a citizen of FYROM and YOU will never get. As Oscar Wilde said the true meaning of thiw world is the visible not the invisible. And in this case, the visible is the thousands of ancient scriptures, ancient coins etc in the Greek language.
    To put it more simply to u… it is the same as in Northern Ireland…there is a direct link between the Irish people and the gaelic language and monuments found there.. with which the english people who invaded Ireland thousands years later have no connection whatsoever.
    The same story in the so called FYROM…u see history repeats itself…
    COPE,
    Modern Greek macedonia was liberated by the Turks and Bulgarians during the Balkan wars. The modern Greek state has been formed and liberated gradually. Do you know the word CONTINUITY? Macedones have been living in this area and speaking the Greek language for thousans of years whether you like it or not. They have been occupied by the Romans initially, Ottomans later, Bulgarians, Germans etc. But in all circumnstances, they managed to keep their language their customs, traditions, heritage,monuments(except of some like the Pathenon marbles which were stolen by some pathetic english criminals).
    The area I live if full of ancient Macedonian inscriptions written in Greek. The name of the toww is mentioned by Thucydides. What a coincidence COPE!!!…VERGI the name of my home village was inhabited by people who spoke the Greek language during Thucidides years is still inhabited by the same people who speak the same language… What an annoyning miracle for u COPE!!!
    talk soon

  49. Richard

    Of course validating the credentials of the FYROMers would have been a Bridge Too Far! I am sure everyone who knows elementary History could easily agree that they have none!
    As for the Greeks I have to agree with Georgios that Modern and Old in Greece are indeed intimately linked even though as I have many times the genetical base is not always directly relevant! From the cultural and heritage point of view there is indeed this DIRECT connection of Ancient and Modern Greeks. I know that some in Europe have problems with this concept and ironically this has nothing to do with the Greeks but to some peculiar kind of nationalism especially in Germany and Britain! The fact that in the eyes of some Modern Greeks are somehow underachievers should not be a reference to judde! Success is never the outcome of surnames! And if we have to accept the genetical link then I can assure you there is nothing British in modern Britain and nothing European in Europe as a whole! Take a look at Camden for instance and you will see what I mean. I am sure that everyone can understand now how fundamentally flawed is this consideration you are advancing.
    But again I have to reiterate that Ancient History and Genetics are spurious arguments in the present context, hiding clearly an idiotic and anachronistic nationalism as well as the absence of any forward looking plans to establish a modern FYROM state as a stable and peaceful entity! This should worry us much as at the moment FYROMers are behaving in the most foolish way and need to be told so in the most uncertain terms We will be guilty ourselves if we turn the blind eye and allow them to wreck the area!

    Regards

    PS I will agree with you that religious arguments should better left out!

  50. and something else Richard… it really amazes me how biased a person can be in order to convey his misleading messages… I quote from your article ” the author Nicholas Gage, a Greek despite his name…” well I should inform u that his name is NIkolaos Gatzoyiannis…so you are referring to a person you dont know even his real name let alone the books he has written….
    it is obvious that you loathe anything that comes from Greece

  51. Hey Richard,

    just for the record,
    having lived in Ireland for five years I must tell youI I love England as much as you love Greece!!!

    visit http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6149/bulgarian125ip9.jpg
    to really admire some svavophones in Greece posing with the Nazis during 2nd world war.

    HOORAY!!!

    PS as far as official records show some the Greek army had around 600000 casualties fighting the fascists with the along English
    troops
    keep that in mind Richard
    the Greeks since the ancient times fought for their ideals no matter the death tool they have always suffered
    kind regards

  52. sorry for the syntax errors

    let me rephrase… OFFICIAL RECORDS SHOW THAT THE GREEK ARMY HAD AROUND 600000 CASUALTIES IN THE WAR AGAINST NAZIs …
    and the big question is how many did the FYROMERS have?

    bye bye!!!

    always keep that in mind richard!!!

  53. Richard

    We are all Europeans and the identity of all of us is constantly evolving! And this is a healthy thing I feel! It doesn’t mean that the cultural background to all of us is up for grabs from anyone not it is scientifically sound to isolate the evolutionary process of Greeks alone and interpret this cycle as somehow attesting to a distortion or even worse uncertainty of their Hellenic roots and heritage! And this evolutionary historical process at no point would had permitted the mainly Bulgarian stock of FYROM to somehow claim monopoly of Macedonia either in terms of lands, history heritage or even more ludicrously language and ethnicity!
    We need to be very clear in this as I believe respecting all our history and heritage will help all Europeans in our transition path towards our common future!
    I am a Macedonian so naturally a Greek and I do myself adore Europe as a whole. I am fascinated by the plethora of people, cultures heritages and lands! I do particularly like the British Isles were you seem to come from and I spending a good time nowadays over there! But above my love is my respect to them! And this respect extends towards some of whom that have been bitter enemies of Greece in the past! I do like also FYROMites and sincerely look towards a point in the not too distant future where we look and behave to each others as true friends! I am sure most of them will understand that their current nationalistic stubbornness phase was a waste of time!

  54. ciganOS:”Modern Greek macedonia was liberated by the Turks and Bulgarians during the Balkan wars”What in a god name this meens?Bulgarians never lived in Agean Macedonia.Did you meen Macedonians?
    Finaly we found starting point since when Macedonia(southern part)become greek land RIGHT?It tooks 2weeks until somebody got enough currige to spit that out.Now- any other exact dates please I’m steel awaiting.GRADUALLY forming MODERN greek state was long and prity much painful proces in part of Macedonia that was “libereted”in 1913.It start with 350000 refugies(for bigining)After you lost War with Turky it was additional 600000(Carnegy commision numbers)replaced with 1.6 CHRISTIANS (not greeks only)from Turky.And that is more than enough to CONTINUALY building modern greek state on Macedonian grounds. You start with curch(by the way Greek orthodox curch STEEL doesn’t have jurisdiction there RIGHT?1923 you replaced all Macedonian toponims with greeks and what a MIRACLE evrybody was live happily ever after….EXEPT language.You forgot that in Ottoman Macedonia there was prity much different nationalities live there so you decided to teach all of them -greek .You FORBID any other language to be spoken in greece(that count for your imported king too)and GRADUALLY start build modern greece.In this way you become only Europian country without minorities!That’s another MIRACLE especially in the Balkans.
    “We need to be very clear in this as I believe respecting all our history and heritage will help all Europeans in our transition path towards our common future!”
    Indeed that truth and truth only.RESPECT somebody else history and heritage is two-way highway.If you feel Macedonian you can call youself with that name but WHAT RIGHT you have to tell ME do not call myself MACEDONIAN ?Because I’m NOT greek RIGHT?You alredy got a spare name(Ellada)is that meens that I need to have one too?Well NO thanks.

  55. Cope,

    if you ignore basic chapters in history it is not my fault. How did Bulgarians come to Macedonia? I have more interesting things to do than teaching uneducated scopjans history.
    However, U should know that in 680 AD Kuber founded the 1st Bulgarian empire in the area of Keramisian plain, which extends from Bitola to Florina . It is also known as Danubian Bulgarian state. In 1913 some Bulgarians lived in the area of greek macedonia and the area of thessaloniki,serres, etc was under bulgarian occupation. Then the Greek macedonian population rebelled against them and the place was liberated in 1913 living many casualties from both sides.
    Cope,
    ALL THESE EVENTS HAPPENED BEFORE the exhange of population with Turkey and before the other Slavophones were deported as traitors from Greek macedonia… which clearly shows that the Greek macedonians living in the area always felt Greek. Thats why they fought both Bulgarians and Turks. The fact that thousands of immigrants settled in Macedonia and Thraki after 1922 disaster of Asia Minor it does not prove that the area was not inhabited by Greek people. Quite the opposite!! Actually, it is an argument of yours that makes people laugh -here in Macedonia-, and prove once more how shallow your arguments are!
    I never claimed you are not macedonians! You are macedonians once you were born in the greater area of macedonia. We just want u to admit your slavic origin once you speak a language which is linguistically classified as a lavic language by linguists all over the world.
    Cope come on it is not a difficult thing to do…it speaks for itself…Kiro Gligorof -your former president- admitted your slavic origin…Lupco -your former prime minister is nowadays a Bulgarian citizen! why not YOU COPE…
    what are u Ciganos and you are ahamed of your origin?

    regards

  56. O,Georgios,Georgios!
    There is no Greek Macedonia.
    Macedonia is Macedonia, Greece is Greece. The fact that Greece grabbed big part of Macedonia in 1913 is different story.
    The fact that greece assimilated most of the Macedonian population after, that is another story, the fact that large numbers of the Macedonians left the country because they wanted to be Macedonians another story.
    The fact that Mexico is not Spain but they speak Spanish another story. When Slavs populated the Balkans was Balkan empty, they all died??
    Well, I dont think so. This is not stone age, this is 21 century. Lets face it, We are Macedonians, our ancestors were, our future generations will be, forever. Be more civilized and let everybody be happy!
    Where is your democracy?
    Maybe democracy was born in Greece, but I think it died right there.

  57. falsified Makedonka,

    I have no time for you… just talk to your former governors Gligorof and Lupco to explain to u what u really are!! It’s amazing what 45 years of communist brain washing can do to people!!

    take care and keep dreaming!

  58. Cope saya :

    ciganOs et etc

    For all those Europoeans this means Gipsy! And is used as a slur!!!!

    Take a look at this unspeacable racism of these wanabees ‘macedonians’….

    Try to imagine what takes place in FYROM!!!!

  59. Richared
    ARE YOU STEEL THERE?
    “I never claimed you are not macedonians! You are macedonians once you were born in the greater area of macedonia. We just want u to admit your slavic origin once you speak a language which is linguistically classified as a lavic language by linguists all over the world. ” SOTIROS( falsified greek)
    I can’t belive in this actually some guy admitted that I’m MACEDONIAN RIGHT?We just discover what is real problem here:MY NATIONALITY ,MY LANGUAGE,MY IDENTITY.Those guys(ciganOS)actually doesn’t have nothing against my name it’s my IDENTITY .They are against existing Macedonian NATION and they call us RACISTS?
    P.S Appologies(in english style)if a offened somebody with ciganOS but a want you to now filling when somebody doesn’t call you by YOUR PROPER NAME .georgiOS I’ll forgive you about placing Danubian kingdom between Bitola and Lerin but I personally think Todor will not.Ha ha ha You placed Danube in Macedonia

  60. Cope

    u pretend not to understand you are an idiotis I think as Alexander the Great would say to u. Once you are a descendant of Alexander i bet you know the word idiotis haha!!
    Of course, the problem is your falsified nationality. You may be called new macedonians.. you may be called northern macedonians.. you may even better be called slavomacedonians etc all
    these are accepted by the Greek government. Thats why we ask UN for a geographical composite name…You are Macedonians because you were born in Macedonia…even Richard would be a macedonian if he had been born in the greater area of macedonia… ONE thing IS NEVER GOING TO BE ACCEPTED ,and that is your link to the ANCIENT MACEDONES because they spoke GREEK
    and you speak a slavic idiom linguistically very very very close to the BULGARIAN language!!!
    At least you understood when Bulgarians came to Macedonia!! I hope one day you will understand when your race came to macedonia!!
    OR BETTER ask KIRO GLIGOROF YOUR EX PRESIDENT to explain it to u…Mr Gligorov declared: “We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That’s who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia …; Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century” (Toronto Star, March 15, 1992).
    On 22 January 1999, AMBASSADOR of the FYROM to USA, Ljubica Achevska gave a speech on the present situation in the Balkans. In answering questions at the end of her speech Mrs. Acevshka said: “We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great …; Greece is Macedonia’;s second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nemitz.” In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that “we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language.”;
    enjoy yourself COPE AND IF YOU WANT MORE OFFICIAL STATEMENTS OF YOUR PEOPLE JUST ASK ME!!!

    AND NOW TODAY’S HISTORY LESSON FOR U COPE!!!

    PS The First Bulgarian Empire (Bulgarian: ????o ????????? ???????, P?rvo B?lgarsko Tsarstvo) was a medieval Bulgarian state founded in AD 632 in the lands near the Danube Delta and disintegrated in AD 1018 after its annexation to the Byzantine Empire. At the height of its power it spread between Budapest and the Black Sea and from the Dnieper river in modern Ukraine to the Adriatic. It was succeeded by the Second Bulgarian Empire, established in 1185. The official name of the country since its very foundation was Bulgaria. [1]

  61. HEY COPE,

    READ CAREFULLY IT WILL HELP U UNDERSTAND WHO YOU REALLY ARE!!!

    SECOND LESSON BULGARIANS IN MACEDONIA!!
    The Bulgarian Empire played a major role in European politics was one of the strongest military powers of its time. In 717-718 the coalition of Byzantines and Bulgarians decisively defeated the Arabs in the siege of Constantinople thus saving Eastern Europe from the Muslim threat and later destroyed the Avar Khanate expanding its territory to the Pannonian Plain and the Tatra Mountains. Bulgaria served as an effective shield against the constant invasions of nomadic peoples from the east in the so called second wave of the Great Migration. Pechenegs andCumans were stopped in north-eastern Bulgaria and after a decisive victory over the Magyars in 896 they were forced to retreate to an permanently settle down in Pannonia.

    To the south in course of the Byzantine-Bulgarian Wars the Bulgarians incorporated most of Slavic-populated region of Thrace and Macedonia. After the annihilation of the Byzantine army in the battle of Anchialus in 917 the Byzantine Empire was on the edge of destruction.

    YOU SEE COPE THAT U IGNORE BASIC HISTORICAL FACTS?
    PS. Anyway, I have nothing personal about you or your country. we are obliged to find a way to solve the name dispute and we should be given the chance to live peacefully in the area of Macedonia.
    Take care

  62. COPE,
    i repeat in order to digest it properly…

    To the south in course of the Byzantine-Bulgarian Wars the Bulgarians incorporated most of Slavic-populated region of Thrace and Macedonia. After the annihilation of the Byzantine army in the battle of Anchialus in 917 the Byzantine Empire was on the edge of destruction.

    source: WIKIPEDIA world’s electronic encyclopaedia

  63. There is absolutely NO truth that Macedonians were something created in the 1940’s by Stalin or Tito, as held out by the Greek government.

    Please see the link below to the Time Magazine article published in 1925 and the U.S. Gov’t Handbook published in 1918. Both are nearly 20 years prior to Stalin or Tito coming into power.

    Please circulate or publish at your discretion to focus on seldom reported current discrimination and struggles of Greek citizens of Macedonian national origin living in Greece today (see: http://www.florina.org).

    Thank you in advance for your time and assistance.

    (See also: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,719711,00.html)

    GREEK NATO VETO A CIVIL RIGHTS PROBLEM FOR EU SINCE 1913!
    In 1918, the U.S. National Board for Historical Service published its “Handbook for the Diplomatic History: Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1879-1914” under the auspice of the Government Printing Office in Washington, D.C.

    The U.S. Handbook of 1918 notes that a sizable portion of the territory known as “Macedonia” was seized by Greece in 1913 under the Treaty of Bucharest. Specifically, this important territorial concession of 1913 split Macedonia and “increased the area of Greece from 25,014 to 41,933 square miles and her population from 2,660,000 to 4,363,000.”

    Presently, this annexed territory and population of Greek citizens who are of ethnic Macedonian descent are revealing their “diachronic” reason behind a Greek veto against the Republic of Macedonia at the last NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania.

    U.S. President George W. Bush made it clear that Washington wants Macedonia, along with Croatia and Albania, to join NATO, but American foreign policy interest in the Balkan region was not fully realized in large part due to the Greek veto denying Macedonia NATO accession.

    Instead, Greek Foreign Minister, Ms. Dora Bakoyanni, noted that E.U. member Greece shall preclude Macedonia from joining NATO because the name “Republic of Macedonia” implies territorial ambitions towards Greece’s own northern province, also named Macedonia and annexed under the 1913 treaty.

    Conversely, the real problem with recognizing Macedonia in NATO, or any other international arena, is the systematic state sponsored civil rights discrimination by the Greek government, according to the “Political Party of the Ethnic Macedonians in Greece,” known as “Rainbow European Free Alliance.” The Rainbow E.F.A. party in Greece says there is specific “unwillingness of the [Greek] government to allow any private groups or associations to use associational names that include the appellation …Macedonian, based upon the state party’s assertion that there are no ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities in Greece…” who are in fact of Macedonian national origin or ethnicity.

    The following excerpts and attestations are directly from an April 26, 2005 letter drafted by Greek citizens currently discriminated against because of their Macedonian ethnicity, national origin, or their Macedonian religion. The letter was delivered to the President of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, to the Commissioner on EU Enlargement, and to 25 Ministers of EU countries, as well.

    “As Greek and European citizens we are obliged to point out that today the key to this so-called Macedonian issue lies elsewhere, and not in the conceptual and linguistic objections of the Greek government. The problem that the Greek government diligently conceals is its refusal to recognize the existence and to respect the rights of the Macedonian nation… [and] the existence and the rights of the Macedonian minority in Greece. The problem as the Greek government presents it has nothing to do with the so called ‘cultural heritage of ancient Macedonia,’ or that a portion of the Greek territory bears the administrative name of the District of Macedonia and the neighbor state calls itself also Macedonia or the Republic of Macedonia.

    What the Greek government stubbornly refuses to admit is that it does not agree with the ethnic use of the terms ‘Macedonia,’ or ‘Macedonian’ because of the existence of the Macedonian minority in Greece. Greek politicians maintain that the Macedonian minority in Greece is likely in the future to rise up with separatist demands. This – and not the name of the Republic of Macedonia – is the real and diachronic problem for every Greek government. However, if the Greek government admits this, then it must also proceed with corresponding measures to recognize and respect the rights of the minority – which, unfortunately, it does not currently do…”

    In light of the Greek NATO veto, the Macedonian Foreign Minister, Antonio Milososki, described the Greek state discrimination against people of Macedonian national origin as follows: “It is very regretful for the principles of democracy that Macedonia’s bid for NATO membership was punished, not because of what we have done but because of who we are. We are Macedonians and our country is the Republic of Macedonia. And it will remain so forever.”
    California minority rights attorneys, Lenny Bush and Michael Rollins, agree that the Macedonia and Greece name dispute “…is nothing more than government sponsored discrimination based on race or ethnicity.” Both conclude “the E.U. and NATO can learn from U.S. federal law when it comes to resolving race-based or ethnic discrimination among member states.”

  64. All of you need to get off your nationalistic EGO’s. Be proud, by all means but seriously, come on!!! I am Macedonian but FIRST and FOREMOST I am an orthodox Christian. For the sake of God…

    Greeks need to accept the Republic of Macedonian…bottom line!

    The line that seperates us all is our faith…and that is what we can all technically all prove!

    There is no Greek…Macedonian …or Serbian, Bulgarian (etc, you get the point)HEAVEN!
    We have great problems to worry about in the Balkans. Economy, Muslim Terrorists (KLA/UCK/KFOR), Jobs, etc. etc.

  65. WOW “GLIGOROV”!!!!

    before talking about minority rights in Greece go and have a long chat with the Bulgarians, Albanians, Gipsies, Serbs, and Vlachs who at the moment are living in what nowadays is called FYROM. Iam sure they have a lot to tell u!!!
    Greece is a EU member and all its citizens fully enjoy their democratic rights.

    NOW “GLIGOROV” ,
    I am afraid I will have to give u some HISTORY LESSONS too.
    You like twisting things I see…
    No, of course the problem didnt start by Tito or Stalin… the problem dates back to 1st Balcan war. Tito and Stalin later just tried to revive the idea of Aegean Macedonia -using the slavophones in Greece- in order to have access in the Aegean sea.
    You should not forget that during the 1st Balcan war, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro were allies against the Turks.
    The problem started in 1913 when the Turks were defeated and the Bulgarians and serbs started to have territorial claims in the liberated land of Macedonia. Naturally,Greece resisted, fought a war against Bulgaria and then the Bucharest treaty splitted Macedonia in its present borders.
    Surely, there were minorities of Greek macedonians , Bulgarian macedonians, slavophone macedonians who were left behind the borders. Thats why there are vlachs of greek origin in Fyrom and Bulgaria, some Bulgarians and slavophones in Greek macedonia and some Bulgarians in FYROM and the other way around respectively.
    A well documented historical fact is that during the 2nd WW the vast majority of slavophones in Greek macedonia sided with the Nazis and that is why they were deported after the war.
    In my opinion, they SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXECUTED DUE TO THE ATROCITIES THEY COMMITTED against the Greeks during the German occupation. It is also a well known fact, that many Greek communists resorted to some communist countries such as Bulgaria, Serbia, Chech republic,USSR etc. after the civil war in Greece.

    Dear “Gligorov”
    the real problem lies with your falsified identity!!
    As ‘YOU’ have admitted you ARE SLAVS WHO CAME IN MACEDONIA IN THE SIXTH CENTURY AD AND U SPEAK A SLAVIC LANGUAGE!!
    LET ME REMIND YOU SOME OF YOUR STATEMENTS ONCE MORE
    . The former President of The FYROM, Kiro Gligorov said: “;We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century … we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians” (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).

    b. Also, Mr Gligorov declared: “We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That’s who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia …; Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century” (Toronto Star, March 15, 1992).

    c. On 22 January 1999, Ambassador of the FYROM to USA, Ljubica Achevska gave a speech on the present situation in the Balkans. In answering questions at the end of her speech Mrs. Acevshka said: “We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great …; Greece is Macedonia’;s second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nemitz.” In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that “we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language.”;

    d. On 24 February 1999, in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM’S Ambassador to Canada, admitted, “We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian.” He also commented, “;There is some confusion about the identity of the people of my country.”

    e. Moreover, the Foreign Minister of the FYROM, Slobodan Casule, in an interview to Utrinski Vesnik of Skopje on December 29, 2001, said that he mentioned to the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, Solomon Pasi, that they “belong to the same Slav people.”;

    take care of yourselves

  66. and something I forgot and dedicate it to COPE!!!(who is always looking for exact dates)
    Greeks tried -unfortunately without success- to liberate Macedonia in 1871 but they were defeated by the Turks!

    with all my love and devotion to FYROMERS
    Georgios

  67. THANKS, ITWAS GREEK ALL ALONG,

    I didnt know the document. All our FYROM’s friends should carefully read it.

    http://bp3.blogger.com/_2oeLbEhyIs8/R_p7eu-VYkI/AAAAAAAACO0/OBcAhm5Cbbs/s1600-h/Stettimus%2BCircular.jpg

    THEY SHOULD ALSO KNOW THAT IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THERE ARE NOT ETERNAL FRIENDS OR ETERNAL ENEMIES… NATIONAL INTEREST IS ETERNAL!

    DEDICATED TO ALL FYROMERS AND THEIR GOOD FRIEND US STATE DEPARTMENT…
    THE SOONER U REALISE IT THE BETTER!

  68. Georgios, if that’s what you really think, and if that represents the opinion of younger-generation Greeks, than God help the future European Union and all of us. It atavism weren’t a Latin word, it should be Greek. Richard

  69. yes Richard,

    I understand it is very painful for you to see your good friend US state department to support the Greek position! But such is life and the times are changing as B. Dylan says… Any first year student of international relations will learn thatIN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THERE ARE NOT ETERNAL FRIENDS OR ETERNAL ENEMIES… NATIONAL INTEREST IS ETERNAL! That is the Doctrine of your country and your good friend the US state department or otherwise the global policemen who intervene in the name of “democracy” (their national interests)
    I strongly advise you to read your fellow’s author Hans Morgentau book “in defence of the national interest” it will surely help you understand where the foreign policy of your country is based!!

    Defending their national interest is what your good friends in the US state department have been practising for many years and have committed the cruelest crimes on human history in the name of Democracy( call it THEIR NATIONAL INTEREST!!) see ((Afganistan,Iraq, Cyprus etc.)
    they first armed Iraq and later annihilated it,
    they first supported Bin Laden and later invaded Afganistan etc.
    God help the poor people and children in Iraq, Afganistan, Serbia, Palestine who suffer due to your games in the area Richard.

    And dont worry about the european union it will be ok you are safe in your comfortable armchair talking shit while others suffer. As far as Iam concerned Iam out of this forum it actually smells bad!

  70. Richard

    I am looking and speaking to you as a friend and fellow European! I respect your views even though you may see I disagree vertically with many of them! But you initiated a dialogue and this bound to be only positive and nothing else! I have not offended with some adverse comments of yours firstly because I believe you have not intended to be offensive to us and secondly because you gave us the opportunity to offer our perspective and put the record straight!
    I was a very interesting initiative of yours! I feel that after almost 100 contributions this circle must be close to its end.
    In conclusion it was yet another one attempt to reopen a subject some 60 years old and I feel it will end in exactly the same way as during the late 40s when it was firstly put forward in its contemporary dimension. Complete vindication of the Greek position. Complete bankruptcy of the Slavoskopjan ones!
    It’s not true that Greece denies the right for this group of people for their Statehood, the clearly and well visible mixed Albanian-Slavoskopjan ethnic identity or their Bulgarian like language. There is nothing wrong with all these! None of these should be a hindrance whatsoever of a well, prosperous and respectful EuroAtlantic future of theirs! But as many Greek and non-Greek contributors clearly proved beyond reasonable their hijacking of a false Macedonian identity is a baseless rhetoric (at least at this point in time) of expansion towards alien to them areas of land and culture!
    You have also been common place to deny the cultural continuity of the Hellenic Nation. You are not the first! Unfortunately for you this issue was raised (with absolute similarity to many of your statesmen’s and connotations) by the Austrian politician Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer in the late 1800s! A person who was doing so out of blatant political motivation supporting the Metternichian Austro-Hungarians hell bent refusal of the Greek nation then! A person with ideas thesis and concepts, similar to those implicated in the creation of the Aryan myth of the 3rd Reich!!! So a note of warning for you that in putting forward your clearly sallow assertions you are well embarked on a route I am sure you were not intended in the first instant. Again many contributors convincingly refute your arguments with technical but also common sense concepts and arguments both direct and lateral! So I am sure you have got out of this more that you bargained for and with this I mean some good education on the subject!
    Clearly Macedonia is a land and heritage is intimately linked to the historic Hellenism and as such we Hellenes fully justified defending it with all of our nation’s resources no matter what the political cost might be!

    With our Best Regards and Friendship

  71. Sadly, Hellen (Hellenist?), I have not got anything out of this 75-postings exchange other than the confirmation that present-day Greeks are as uncertain of their origins as everyone else in Europe except, perhaps, the Basques.

    I was not trying to address the rights and wrongs of the Greece/FYROM issue, I was talking about Greek attitudes to the past and the present. As I said, “unlike their ancient homonyms, with whom they have little in common, today’s Greeks lack a sufficiently coherent identity to feel secure (maybe they should be told that none of us Europeans have a really coherent identity). So they claim, with great vehemence and against all the evidence, direct lineage with the ancient Greeks. This overlooks the fact that – according to many people, including a number of properly informed Greeks – they are more Slav than Greek. To be more precise, Slav on the east side of the peninsula, Albanian on the other…”

    Your comparison of Fallmerayer’s assertions to the Aryan myth of the Third Reich could be applied just as well to the mythmaking that has reinforced Greek identity. There is nothing wrong with the fact that we are uncertain of our own or our community’s origins: that is a fate common to almost all Europeans and that is why we create these myths – not just Greek ones, but French ones, German ones, English ones, Serbian ones and, for all I know, FYROM ones.

    That was the only point I wanted to make. And I agree with you it is time to consider this issue closed.

  72. German myths, English myths, French myths, Italian myths! Not just Greek ones! How accurate Richard you are! But then again there is a vast difference between a myth a legend and a damn outright full lie! And the latter point has been the pivotal point of this discussion! You cannot possibly level this accusation to German, the French the English and the Greeks! Neither will you accept as a dogmatic truth the Slav or the Albanian think you mention! There is vast mythology there! There is vast uncertainty there too and this solid ground you may imply or accept as ‘truth’ believe me is shifting sand! Who they really were and why some chose to die for Greece while others thought that were different all along?
    Has the influx of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indians, and Chinese broken the direct historical linage of modern UK from Great Britain! Is the history of Elisabeth and Shakespeare up for grabs by anyone who can conveniently argue that this ‘British’ thing is purely a myth? Neither is there an all out relativism in all these! Most national ‘myths’ if you like have a nucleus of plain truth! There are shades and specific weights of truth too! And you cannot get away from this Richard! In case of Greeks there is not just a nucleous but a boulder Richard! Neither should you confuse ‘certainty’ with Aryan ‘purity’ Richard! Apparently you know little of Fallmerayer and his thoughts! I can judge this! You see your ‘direct lineage’ aka purity in your mind is a concept only associated with the barren, the unsophisticated the primitive, the sterile the barbaric the uncivilised! And no matter what you can accuse Hellenes Ancient and Modern alike have been anything but! Beauty and Civilisation acts like a magnet! And are you going to accuse those who share these goods as un-pure and uncertain! Are you going to accuse those who hold these goods that they broke their linage with the past if they dare share these fruits of theirs with others? And for the record the same processes that you seem now to think the Hellenic ‘uncertainty’ may lie, were ever present in the old times too! So your reference point of Hellenic purity never existed and is a mirage and a utopia! Nevertheless they have been Hellenes in no uncertain way as the Moderns too are and the two directly linked together! By the DIRECT continuity of identity culture and history and not blood! Blood is the same to all humans! This is how transfusion works!
    Indeed the subject is closed! For good…

    Farewell Richard

  73. you r just wasting your time Hellenist! The man (RICHARD) has some hidden innate antihellenic sentiments…

    GOOD RIDDANCE RICHIE!!

  74. yooo ciganOS:

    The only direct historic linkage that you can provide is withouth doubt your African heritage(get mirror for god sake).If we are “mixed Albanian-Slavoskopjanethnic identity with Bulgarian like language” that meens we are Balkan
    people who lived with their neibours for centuryes.How come that you(CIGANOS)doesn’t have any mixture at all? Simply you are aliens here in the Balkans RIGHT?You call youself” fellow Europians”but you gona need to PROOF that you have right to call youself Europians on a first place.With this kind of statesments: “ONE thing IS NEVER GOING TO BE ACCEPTED ,and that is your link to the ANCIENT MACEDONES”,” ETERNAL ENEMIES… NATIONAL INTEREST IS ETERNAL!” “SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXECUTED DUE TO THE ATROCITIES THEY COMMITTED” “SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXECUTED DUE TO THE ATROCITIES THEY COMMITTED ” you just show what kind of “cultural”heritage you adherited from your african ancestors.For 450 years Turks call you Yuninistan(Gipsistan is closest English translation)and now you sudenlly discover “Aryan purity”and claim dicendants to Ancent greeks WITHOUTH any evidence.Sorry Richard but they are more Turks than Greeks.They are only nation in human history who after nearly 2500 years under sombady else rule(Macedonian,Roman,Ottoman)emerged ARYAN PURE nation.Nonsens.
    P.S to my history “PROFESSOR” “source: WIKIPEDIA world’s electronic encyclopaedia ”
    ciganOS have you ever heard for LIBRARY?Try not to reply before you go there.Otherwise beside geography you are CHAMPION in history too.And one more thing,AFTER we find way to resolve your right to call youself greeks than we will resolve”name”
    dispute and we will live peacefully in country of MACEDONIA and country of Greece(Ellada if you preffere)Is that much simple even IDIOT can understan that like Aleksandar the great would say.

  75. cope,

    of course u mean the “libraries” of your Tito’s communist regime with which you were brought up because no respectable European History book talks of the nonsense you r talking about!!
    I will let u live in your ignorance…your english is very poor to study foreign scholars in Cambridge such as Hammond for instance… so you are forgiven!!!
    Of course traitors, NAZI collaborators, should have been executed for treason. Greek macedones fought against the Nazis and your slavophone bastards were openly helping them. In macedonia, my dear friend, there are villages which were totally burnt and the manhood disappeared in one night because of the Nazis and their friends slavomacedonians.
    As this is the last time I visit this site (the chapter is closed as Richard says) Iam glad because finally u learned when Bulgarians came to Macedonia. Mind u, your ancectors might be one of them! As regards your “link” to ancient macedonia I will let Kiro Gligorof teach u one more lesson…
    Mr Gligorov declared: “We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That’s who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia …; Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century” (Toronto Star, March 15, 1992).
    . The former President of The FYROM, Kiro Gligorov said: “;We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century … we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians” (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).

    THE TRUTH IS SIMPLE YOU ARE SLAVOMACEDONIAN AND WE ARE GREEK MACEDONIANS, THERERORE you are never going to be a genuine macedonian because you are not GREEK, and I Iam afraid if your country goes on like that you are never going to be a european union citizen! In Europe my dear friend you should learn to respect and not to steal or distort other country’s History, Heritage tradition etc, your Comitern old communist practises should be given up for good!

    tace care

  76. Hi Richard and all you commentators,

    I read the article and I read some of the comments, not all, since they seem to repeat everywhere and I’m truly sick of them. I think I can have a debate with myself representing both Greek and Macedonian views at this point very very thoroughly. Aside from that I feel like I need to comment for the sake of it. Maybe someone will find it intriguing what I have to say. If not, oh well.

    I am unable to comprehend that in this age (XXI century) we’re still as petty as we were 2000 years back. But, I guess its human nature, we need to compete and be right and the best to get the females in order to propagate our genes further. Basically I have to to accept this as a fact. Bickering is a must. Having said that, lets do some bickering.

    As Richard pointed out a direct link cannot be established to either the ancient Greeks or the ancient Macedonians. Now, if you weren’t swayed by your “patriotism” you would’ve read that right and noticed that I say “direct” link cannot be established. An indirect link, sure. Through culture, language, traditions, even genes. Having said that one must accept that neither modern Greeks nor moderns Macedonians cannot call a direct link to either the ancient Greeks or Macedonians (be they Greek or distinct at the time). If you happen to think that you are the true descendant of Alexander the Great or the Macedonians or the Greeks that I consider you an idiot, whether your modern Greek or Macedonian.

    Regarding the connection between the ancient Macedonians and Greeks, an objective person must say that a connection cannot be established. Nor can it be said that they are completely distinct. When I speak of connection or distinction being made, I’m talking of an absolute one, or rather not an absolute one, but rather a convincing one. I say this because there is contradicting evidence and as such one can only be subjective in making a conclusion. The facts are there, I’m sure you all know them whether you like to admit it or not. Alexander called himself a Hellene and yet had a native language different than the Greek. He is called a Greek by some historians and non-Greek by others. Now, to those who like to claim that because he spoke Greek and believed in Greek gods he is therefore Greek, I consider you a person that laughs at a joke before the punch line and a slight hypocrite. Just imagine 2000 years from today, someone somehow gets a hold of this blog and all their comments and knows the language that they’re reading is English. Are they to conclude that you are just that, English? And what about your religion? I am going to presume that you either believe in one god or you are an atheist. Well which god would that be? Jesus, Allah? You would be concluding with an assumption, which is flawed. I have a feeling that you’re going to disagree with me, but it would be a scary world if everybody thought the same.

    Now comes the question, or rather the (my) answer to the issue at hand.

    I don’t quite know where to start as I have a lot of points to make and yet I wish to say them coherently. I don’t think I want to talk about the “underlying” issue here which will only force me to talk about history in depth and that can take forever and to tell you the truth we all know what that is (or if you don’t then, well, read a couple of books, not magazines). Nonetheless, the issue is there. The Republic of Macedonia is asked (and I say this term very loosely) to change the name for the sake of confusion between the people who call themselves Macedonian both in the country and in the province. I keep hearing that the people in the province feel Macedonian and want to refer to themselves as Macedonian and there is always the very ironic and self-explanatory question “Well how are the Greek Macedonians supposed to call themselves?” They can call THEMSELVES anything they want. The question you want to ask is “How is everybody else supposed to call the Greek Macedonians?” Well, there are 2 answers to that. 1) The answer is in the question (I won’t tell you, I’ll make you work for it) 2) Greek/Greeks.
    Now regarding option 2 you’re going to say well yeah but they are Macedonians. Yes, they might be, in the sense that they live in a province called Macedonian, but when it comes their nationality and ethnicity, they are Greek. The population of Greece, as far as I know from official records, is 99% Greek (and then you ask why some refer to you as fascists or Nazis or connect you to Hitler. You are the Aryan race he wanted to create. Had he been alive today he would be as proud as possible).

    Next come the people the country Macedonia that you keep referring to as Bulgarians, Slavomakedonians, Slavs, Slavomonkeys, FYROMonkies, Monekydonians, and FYROMians. First of all, ALL of these are insulting (yes Richard, even FYROMians as you referred to us as, so I would ask you not to) and should not be used, unless you wish to insult us. If that is so, then you can do so as freedom of speech allows you to speak your mind, however bear in mind that there is such a thing as hate speech which is frowned upon. (Try supporting antisemitism and see what happens) This is a question of ethnicity and self-determination. When I say ethnicity I’m not talking about genetics. If we were to declare our ethnicity according to our DNA, then we would have no choice but to list ourselves as human (oh how I wait for this day). Ethnicity, being the character or the people, their traditions, their culture, their language, the something that connects them all and at the same time differentiates them all from others. The thing that unites the people. Now, some will say that it was Tito who “artificially created” Macedonia. I would reply with a question, what is the “natural” way of the creation of a country and especially to the Greeks (notice how I say Greeks and not use an offending word) I would like to ask about the creation of their kingdom in 1832 and when answering, try not to avoid the UK.
    Others will say the Macedonians, as an ethnic group did not exist prior to Tito. Well, that is simply not correct, and if you really believe that then I truly feel sorry for you and will not stoop down to your lever and even attempt to respond.
    The only claim as to the “artificial” creation of the Macedonian people would be to the ones that say that self-declaring Macedonians were not present prior to the 1870. 1) There might not be many documents that would support the claim that there were self-declaring (I stress the self-declaring, the intelligent people will know what I mean) Macedonians prior to that, but that doesn’t make it false. I on the other hand, have records that single out Macedonians as separate from Bulgarians, Albanians, Serbs and Greeks, as far back as the 14th century, but we’ll leave that aside. 2) I’m going to assume that Macedonians as an ethnic group did not exists prior to 1870s. Now, lets also assume that the people living in the Macedonia region (I mean the whole region) were Albanians, Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians. They developed a sense of unity during that period where they all felt equal. Not wanting to distinguish between themselves and wanting to liberate themselves from the Ottoman rule, lets say that they chose a name for themselves. That name was Macedonia and they became Macedonian. This sense of unity is what gave them the ethnicity that we talk of today. Now, if that is true I for one would be proud to be from a society that is homogeneous and yet decided to work together and be equal in each other’s eyes. If that is what the name Macedonia stands for, then it truly is something to fight and something to die for and I would have even stronger feelings towards not changing it.

    I’ll briefly mention the always mentioned “irredentist” claims with the maps and the naming of the airport and I don’t know what not else.
    Regarding the maps. The maps are a fact. Macedonia as a region was and still is that. The Macedonians of the late XIX century fought for a free Macedonia which encompassed the whole region. Not teaching children this would be denying them a part of history, which would classify as censorship and would in its way be propaganda. Now, having maps of the region and teaching children this is in no way making claims to Greek Macedonia. You might feel that Macedonians seem like they are asking for that part back, or that they want to take it, but those are nothing but romantic feelings to the fight of the Macedonian freedom fighters from the late XIX and XX century.
    Regarding the airport. I am tempted not to answer this seeing how stupid a claim it is, but I somehow feel the need to justify it. Alexander the Great, be he Greek or not, lived and thrived and was born on the region of Macedonia which encompasses both the province and the country. The name of the airport is simply a tribute to a seemingly great leader that lived on this region and strived for unity of the people (which goes back to what I was saying about the Macedonians in the XIX century). I will again remind you that neither modern Macedonians nor Greeks can claim Alexander as their own.

    The legal perspective of the name issue is as simple as it can be. 1) People have the right to self-determination. 2) The name of a province cannot be an issue as to the naming of a nation/country/republic. 3) The name issue is unprecedented and illegal as it infringes on point 1)
    Have the international courts deal with the question the outcome is going to be as pure as day. The Republic of Macedonia has a right and it will be called Republic of Macedonia.

    In the end, I would like to apologize for the length of my words and conclude by saying that the Greek arguments regarding the issue are hilarious under law, but I guess we don’t live in a world govern by law but rather a world govern by politics. I mean money. I mean politics. Oh it’s pretty much the same. Politics is a whore.

    There, I gave you my 2 cents although it is not everything I have to say, but it will have to suffice. Feel free to continue bickering while I try and get my hands on one of those flash thingies from Men in Black and try to flash the whole world regarding simple minded issues such as this. And we dare to call ourselves superior or even the most advanced or intelligent being on this planet and so far, the universe. (sidenote: look into ants, we can learn a lot. I’m serious!)

    I bid you all farewell. (Unless someone pisses me off with a reply and I get hooked and come back and reply. I’m betting it’s gonna happen. Either way, goodbye.)

    Bojan

  77. I also forgot to mention the “monopolization” of the name. If a change is to happen for the sake of anybody monopolizing the name Macedonia, Greece will have to compromise and change the name of the province as it does not really include all of the Macedonian region. I propose Lower Macedonia, maybe Halfamacedonia, Southern Macedonia, Other Macedonia, as well as New Macedonia (since the old one encompassed much more). I mean, we don’t want to monopolize, do we?

    =)

  78. After reading what I wrote I must correct myself. The part where I talk about the ethnicity of the Macedonian people and I mention the various people that live in the Balkans and the region, I meant to say heterogeneous rather than homogeneous. That’s all. Enjoy

  79. Bojan

    The reheated FYROMian soup is as incoherent baseless and irrelevant now as it has alwasy been!
    Do you think is about time to stop hidding behaind your thumb? It has recently proved that this is not the perfect hidding place for all of you there!

  80. It’s so crazy, I’m from a little place called New Zealand, and to be completely honest I can’t even comprehend “what” identity is. If this Blog taught me anything it was to fear the very concept of identity.

  81. Hellenist,

    First of all, I asked you not to use the term FYROMian unless you wish to insult. Since you have read what I had to say, you must have read that part, thus I must conclude your intent is to insult. But then again, what else do you have to cling on if not insults? So I’ll just see that as a desperate man’s attempt at keeping whatever is left hanging of his pride (ironically by insulting you loose the rest, but for the sake of argument, let’s say you still have some)
    After reading what I wrote that is the only thing you have to say? That we, or rather I, are hiding behind our thumb? What is it that we are hiding from? Isn’t it convenient for you to just say we’re hiding without even replying to anything I say and not saying specifically what you mean. Does that mean that you have nothing more to say? Does it mean that you need time to figure out what you need to say and for the time being leave a message that would imply: I got the last word? So be it, but please don’t consider me an idiot because that I am not.
    Since I fear you are not going to reply to any of my points I had mentioned, then why don’t you present your legal argument as to why Macedonia should change the name of the country? I would really like to hear your thoughts on this. Don’t bullsh*t me with historical propaganda material because it has no merit with me. I am the most objective person you’re going meet and I even find myself doubting things I had a preconceived notion about when I find new material. I am a skeptic by nature. So I don’t buy either the Macedonian nor the Greek propaganda and I do my own research. Feel free to present me with things you may think may change my mind, but I would appreciate it if you can reference your claims.

    Thank you again my Greek friend,

    Bojan, Your Macedonian and Balkan neighbor.

  82. If I was intended to insult I wouldn’t called by the name FYROMian! This is as much an international approved and agreed name as it gets at present! This is the way you referred at the UN and all other International organisations and fora! Then again calling yourself ‘ethnic’ Macedonian is sounding like a heavy insult to me! Haven’t you thought of this I can assume!
    Look many things have been said already on this and it is waste of time to repeat! One thing you should know. Legally you don’t owe the term! Unless you come with a legally biding contract or other legal document that you prove speaking of legality is hot air at best! When I said that you are hiding behind your thumb I was speaking politely! Nor an idea of a Slav ‘ethnic’ Macedonian has any mean either legal or ethnological! Nor you can provide any other valid moral or historical credential to prove you legally owe the term! Especially when the vast majority of Macedonia’s inhabitants are identifying themselves as Macedonians and Greeks! Nor the present day FYROM contain any significant parts of Historical Macedonia either! The vast majority of which is part of the Hellenic Republic! And though the idea of direct descendency in a DNA sense is simply irrelevant (don’t know even what the DNA of the Ancients was in the first place!!!) the cultural descendency and historical continuity of the Hellenic Nation and with it the Macedonian branch is beyond reasonable doubt! Very few Historians doubt the Ancient Kingdom of Macedonian was of Hellenic nature and no serious historians doubts that the Modern Greek state is the historical evolution outcome of the Ancient Hellenic past! And I use my words carefully and unambiguously!
    The idea of self determination has never in it the idea of clashing with existing notions of identities so you cannot claim this concept as arbitrarily as you may imply! So all you left to claim is Macedonian is a mere Geographical association! With it a differentiation identified will be required! So grab the chance that Greece offers you with all the very judicious caveats it comes with and don’t waste even more time in an issue that in the end will drive you nowhere and in between you will miss on real chances of progress and fruitful regional cooperation!

  83. Again, you prove to me that you are no less clueless than any other “patriotic” Greek. Therefore, I would like to explain the reference used for my country’s name in the UN. The reference is the “former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. Notice how the “f” is not capitalized. Again, nowhere in the document in the UN does it mention FYROM. The use of FYROM is done (started by Greeks and further applied by others thinking it is correct) simply to incorrectly abbreviate the reference and by doing so to avoid having to mention Macedonia within the reference. This is too obvious. Another thing. The reference is just that, a reference to be used when referring to the country WITHIN the UN. So that reference is to be applied only in the UN. That is the reason why there are over 120 countries which refer to the country by it’s NAME, which is the Republic of Macedonia. Hope that clarified it for you, although I bet you will continue to use it incorrectly, simply because you do not want to utter the word Macedonia/Macedonian when it is not referred to you (Greeks).

    You then mention that legally we don’t own the term. That is debatable, but let’s say that we do not. You do not own the term as well and that being so, it does not give you the exclusive right to use it and forbid other to do so as well. So you are incorrect when you assume that you are legally the sole user of that name.

    As to the legal use of the term Macedonia (and I’m not talking about historical use), we’ve been using it since the mid 1940s and please do not imply that it was “forced” upon us, nor that it was done to advance Tito’s plans to occupy Solun and thus have an exit to the Aegean. If that was truly the plan, he would not have massacred Macedonian soldiers who were ready to advance south and “liberate” the southern part of Macedonia. What he did was he advanced north and therefore his “ultimate plan” to occupy your precious “Greek” Macedonia (which at the time you had for approximately 30 years since the Bucharest Treaty) never came about. How does that fit with your theory? And I’m having a hard time finding official Greek documents that refer to that region as Macedonia prior to 1988.

    You also mention that most of the inhabitants of Macedonia identify themselves as Macedonians AND Greeks. Well, one needs to look at the circumstances surrounding this in order to get a true picture of why that is and not solely look at the face value of things. I am not sure if you are aware (you probably are since you seem active regarding this issue) of the Bucharest Treaty which split the Macedonian region which the Macedonians were trying to liberate as autonomous from since the occupation of the Ottomans, but more noticeably from 1870s. Since that split awarded you with the largest (51%) of Macedonia it is ok for you to say that you have the largest part. Yes, you do. But do you see why trying to keep a name of a region (that you received not 100 years ago, which you did not have prior) exclusively can be flawed.
    Also, you say most of the people there identify as Greeks as well. Of course they do. Need I remind you of the great population exchange in 1923, when more than 1.2 million people were moved from Turkey in the then “newly occupied territories”?

    So yes, that gives you the right to say that most of the people call themselves Greek (I hear they don’t have a choice since they are labeled as such before they have a chance to identify themselves. Is it true there are no minorities in Greece?) But does that suffice as an argument, knowing the circumstances, to say that it is for that reason that no other on that region is to use the name and should therefore be exclusively kept for those who identify themselves as both Greeks and Macedonians?

    Modern day Greece is far from the nearly perfect society that ancient Greece was which Alexander the Great managed to ruin. No wonder you praise Alexander’s kingdom.

    Hellenes have always until the late 1900s have been proud to be Hellenes and nothing else (like Macedonians).

    Grab the chance that Greece offers us? Is that a threat? Is that a take it or leave it argument? That is what I mean. Exerting pressure to get something you want through us, because legally you cannot in any, ANY circumstance force a nation to change its name. You threaten progress meaning you have the key to the door that leads to NATO and EU? Many nations survive and progress while seemingly isolated from the “elite”. You also mention regional cooperation? Funny to hear that from a person, who’s country is supposed to be this ultimate democracy (like the ancient Greeks right?), while having extremely bad relationships with all their neighbors, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria and , of course, Turkey. The reason why you are not in our position is because you are of a good strategic location and, well, you’re Europe’s spoiled baby. I just wonder how long they’ll keep up with your whining?

    Hope you learned something.

  84. Which predictably bring us back to where my previous points were:

    ‘The reheated FYROMian soup is as incoherent baseless and irrelevant now as it has alwasy been!
    Do you think is about time to stop hidding behaind your thumb? It has recently proved that this is not the perfect hidding place for all of you there!’

    What a suprise!!!!!!

  85. As for you Bojan.

    I am under no illusions! You cannot learn anything! Nor I am spending any serious effort to teach you any!
    As you may gather …I am rather experienced by the lots of you!

  86. Again, you bring no argument besides the “I say it is so” argument or the always present “everybody knows” argument.

    I presented you with legal arguments and yet you say my arguments are baseless? What else CAN you say?

  87. You presented me with plenty of chaff and hot air and quite rightly dismissed it as such! I am not going to waste any more time explaining you the obvious and the basic! I dont think you are ready yet for this lesson. I suppose real life is about to teach you all these in practice! In the end you may understand all I said! Perhaps?

  88. DEDICATED TO BOJAN

    as History is a Greek word, and Thucydides- known as the father of all Historians- was Greek unless fYROMians doubt this as well I submit the following text hoping that it might be of some assistance to u Bojan….

    28/03/2008
    The Academy of Athens’ public position on the Macedonian Issue

    The Academy of Athens, conscious of its scholarly mission, considers that a viable solution to the problem of the name of FYROM is possible only on the basis of an accurate evaluation of the facts. The Academy, therefore, is making public its own well-documented views. It also considers it a felicitous circumstance that scientific truth is consistent with reality and ensures the stability and peacefulness of a region that has suffered grievously both in the remote and in the recent past.

    1. Today, Macedonia forms a geographic zone whose borders extend to more than one of the states of Southeastern Europe. A specific region of modern Greece bears the ancient Greek name “Macedonia”. One of the federal states that constituted the former Republic of Yugoslavia functioned under the name “Socialist Republic of Macedonia” (SRM). However, for many centuries in Antiquity, the name Macedonia designated an area about 90% of which is coincident with the modern Greek region of Macedonia. If this name were given to an independent state, without further specification that would clearly reflect these geographic and historical realities, it would entail the danger that the state in question might claim, and even claim exclusively, the use of the term “Macedonia” or its derivatives to describe its history, civilization, everyday political and social life, etc.
    2. Specifically, the ancient Macedonian state of Philip and Alexander the Great extended in the north to the lands of the modern Greek Macedonia, as well as a few kilometers into both the modern FYROM and Bulgaria. Every kind of historical source as well as archaeological finds proves that at the time the ancient Macedonians included their state among the other Greek lands. The first Slavic peoples which, obviously, had no relation whatsoever with the previous inhabitants of the region, entered the Balkans ten centuries later, in the seventh century A.D. Their presence in the area from that point on contributed to the gradual formation of various Slavic ethnicities. During the creation and the first development of the Slavic states of the area in the 19th century (Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria), there was no reference to a “Macedonian” nation. It is telling that even in the aftermath of the First World War, neither the representatives of the Balkan states, nor those-Woodrow Wilson being primary among them – who constructed the peace, men who, precisely, held the vision of an international community consisting of nation-states, ever hinted at a “Macedonian” nation. The effort to establish the existence of such a nation dates to the time of Marshal Tito, when he was engaged in creating the new federal republic of Yugoslavia in the aftermath of the Second World War. Indeed, the success of the daring endeavor undertaken since that time, that is, the transformation of the ethnicity of the Slav inhabitants of that particular geographic area, would have been impossible without the propaganda disseminated for almost half a century by a totalitarian regime.
    3. The geographic unit of Macedonia is a reality that is independent of any ethnological, political, or administrative division in the Southern Balkans. During the centuries-long Ottoman rule, the geographic area of “Macedonia” included the vilayets of Thessalonike and Monastir, and part of the vilayet of Kossovo to which belonged the sanjak of Skopje. The extension of the geographic borders of “historic” Macedonia towards the north is connected to the mapping of the region by the first European cartographers, after the Renaissance. These maps were composed on the basis of views that had prevailed in Roman times. However, neither then nor in modern times until the Second World War was there an ethnic content to the characterization of the inhabitants as Macedonian. The fact that, in the second half of the 19th century, Serbs and Bulgarians raised claims upon the lands that were inhabited by a majority of Slavic people is doubtless connected to the ethnic make-up of these specific geographic areas. By the same token, it is obvious that the same principle is also applicable to the larger areas of southern Macedonia that are inhabited by Greeks.
    4. The lessons one can draw from the authoritative analysis of the historical past are congruent with the necessity to achieve a solution that promotes peace and stability in the region. The artificial creation of one single “Macedonia” would necessarily be linked to the revival of outdated expansionist designs. To the contrary, scholarly analysis suggests the adoption of a compound name with a geographic content, and with respect for the distinction between ancient Macedonia and the state of FYROM. That would serve both the truth and the present-day needs of the geographic region and of the larger area surrounding it. The profound interest of the Greeks in the matter does not indicate any desire to contest the rights of their northern neighbors, even those rights that were but recently acquired. The position of the government and of the vast majority of the political forces in Greece is clear on this issue. The Greek interest does indicate the concern of public opinion in the face of intransigent provocations on the part of Skopje that tend-as is evident even in the school textbooks-not only to appropriate but even to monopolise the history, the cultural achievements, the symbols–including the ancient ones–, the monuments, and the personalities that were active in the Macedonian area in the past. It is self-evident that the expression of good will on the part of any Greek government is not sufficient to overcome the fact or the effects of nationalist excesses similar to those that were artfully cultivated during the post-war period.

    The findings mentioned above argue for a solution to the problem that should not be unilateral. Greece holds firmly a position that leads to the consolidation of peaceful coexistence and cooperation among the peoples of the southern Balkans. On the contrary, the option to protract the impasse surrounding the name of FYROM not only nourishes designs that continue to be expansionist, but also perpetuates or even exacerbates the more general instability on a broader or narrower regional scale. Thus, privileging the current geographic realities, although it does not always satisfy the demands of history, especially the history of Antiquity, does nevertheless provide the basis for an honorable, final, and henceforth uncontested

  89. Bojan

    homogeneous!!.. heterogeneous!!!
    I like slavmacs using Greek words trying to support their groundless arguments… it signifies how strong Greek culture is! only they get mixed up sometimes which I greatly enjoy!!
    you know there r some greek words in the language u speak karpoloi for instance!

    only joking!
    take care

  90. Georgia:

    Derived from Persian Gurj,[5][6] probably derived from a PIE term meaning “mountainous”. In classical times Greeks referring to the region used the names of Colchis (the coastal region along the Black Sea) and Iberia (further inland to the east). Some also believed that Georgia was so named by the Greeks on account of its agricultural resources, since “georgia” (???????) means “farming” in Greek.

    Ethiopia:

    From the Greek word ???????? (Æthiopia), from ?????? (Æthiops) “an Ethiopian” — sometimes parsed by Westerners as a purely Greek term meaning “of burnt (???-) visage (??)”; however, some (i.e., the 16–17th c. Book of Aksum [Matshafa Aksum])

    Estonia:

    From the Latin version of the Germanic word Estland, which could originate from the Germanic word for “eastern (way)”, or from the name Aestia, first mentioned in ancient Greek texts.

    Eritrea:

    Named by Italian colonizers, from the Latin name for the Red Sea, Mare Erythraeum (“Erythraean Sea”), which in turn derived from the ancient Greek name for the Red Sea: Erythrea Thalassa

    Egypt:

    From ancient Greek (attested in Mycenean) ????????, or Aígyptos, which according to Strabo, derived from ??????? ?????? (Aigaiou hyptios — “the land below the Aegean sea”).

    Azerbaijan:

    Native spelling Az?rbaycan (from surface fires on ancient oil pools; its ancient name, (Media) Atropatene (in Greek and Latin) or Atrpatakan (in Armenian), actually referring to the present-day Azerbaijan region of Iran

    Are all of these countries Greek because their names are? Are they stealing Greek history?

  91. Georgia:

    Derived from Persian Gurj,[5][6] probably derived from a PIE term meaning “mountainous”. In classical times Greeks referring to the region used the names of Colchis (the coastal region along the Black Sea) and Iberia (further inland to the east). Some also believed that Georgia was so named by the Greeks on account of its agricultural resources, since “georgia” (???????) means “farming” in Greek.

    Ethiopia:

    From the Greek word ???????? (Æthiopia), from ?????? (Æthiops) “an Ethiopian” — sometimes parsed by Westerners as a purely Greek term meaning “of burnt (???-) visage (??)”; however, some (i.e., the 16–17th c. Book of Aksum [Matshafa Aksum])

    Estonia:

    From the Latin version of the Germanic word Estland, which could originate from the Germanic word for “eastern (way)”, or from the name Aestia, first mentioned in ancient Greek texts.

    Eritrea:

    Named by Italian colonizers, from the Latin name for the Red Sea, Mare Erythraeum (“Erythraean Sea”), which in turn derived from the ancient Greek name for the Red Sea: Erythrea Thalassa

    Egypt:

    From ancient Greek (attested in Mycenean) ????????, or Aígyptos, which according to Strabo, derived from ??????? ?????? (Aigaiou hyptios — “the land below the Aegean sea”).

    Azerbaijan:

    Native spelling Az?rbaycan (from surface fires on ancient oil pools; its ancient name, (Media) Atropatene (in Greek and Latin) or Atrpatakan (in Armenian), actually referring to the present-day Azerbaijan region of Iran

    Are all of these countries Greek because their names are? Are they stealing Greek history?

  92. Georgia:

    Derived from Persian Gurj,[5][6] probably derived from a PIE term meaning “mountainous”. In classical times Greeks referring to the region used the names of Colchis (the coastal region along the Black Sea) and Iberia (further inland to the east). Some also believed that Georgia was so named by the Greeks on account of its agricultural resources, since “georgia” (???????) means “farming” in Greek.

    Ethiopia:

    From the Greek word ???????? (Æthiopia), from ?????? (Æthiops) “an Ethiopian” — sometimes parsed by Westerners as a purely Greek term meaning “of burnt (???-) visage (??)”; however, some (i.e., the 16–17th c. Book of Aksum [Matshafa Aksum])

    Estonia:

    From the Latin version of the Germanic word Estland, which could originate from the Germanic word for “eastern (way)”, or from the name Aestia, first mentioned in ancient Greek texts.

    Eritrea:

    Named by Italian colonizers, from the Latin name for the Red Sea, Mare Erythraeum (“Erythraean Sea”), which in turn derived from the ancient Greek name for the Red Sea: Erythrea Thalassa

    Egypt:

    From ancient Greek (attested in Mycenean) ????????, or Aígyptos, which according to Strabo, derived from ??????? ?????? (Aigaiou hyptios — “the land below the Aegean sea”).

    Azerbaijan:

    Native spelling from surface fires on ancient oil pools; its ancient name, (Media) Atropatene (in Greek and Latin) or Atrpatakan (in Armenian), actually referring to the present-day Azerbaijan region of Iran

    Are all of these countries Greek because their names are? Are they stealing Greek history?

  93. Georgia:

    Derived from Persian Gurj,[5][6] probably derived from a PIE term meaning “mountainous”. In classical times Greeks referring to the region used the names of Colchis (the coastal region along the Black Sea) and Iberia (further inland to the east). Some also believed that Georgia was so named by the Greeks on account of its agricultural resources, since “georgia” means “farming” in Greek.

    Ethiopia:

    From the Greek word meaning “of burnt visage”

    Estonia:

    From the Latin version of the Germanic word Estland, which could originate from the Germanic word for “eastern (way)”, or from the name Aestia, first mentioned in ancient Greek texts.

    Eritrea:

    Named by Italian colonizers, from the Latin name for the Red Sea, Mare Erythraeum (“Erythraean Sea”), which in turn derived from the ancient Greek name for the Red Sea: Erythrea Thalassa

    Egypt:

    From ancient Greek — “the land below the Aegean sea”.

    Azerbaijan:

    Native spelling from surface fires on ancient oil pools; its ancient name, (Media) Atropatene (in Greek and Latin) or Atrpatakan (in Armenian), actually referring to the present-day Azerbaijan region of Iran

    Are all of these countries Greek because their names are? Are they stealing Greek history?

  94. No! They dont claim anything its not theirs! They are proud for what they really are! They dont need to steal a herritage and History that its not theirs! They are proud and confident for what they have done! For the history they have created! They dont need to hide behind their thumb!!!!
    …So much different for the case of FYROM!!! Worlds apart!!!!!!!!!

  95. sorry for the multiple posts. I kept getting errors thinking it was because of the use of the Greek alphabet, but i guess i was wrong. eitherway… there they are

  96. to BOJAN…. oh.. Bojan

    you forgot the most important word my dear Bojan… ALEXANDROS the purest Greek word in the world meaning ALEX:protect, protector, ANDROS: man,men. ALEXANDROS: protector of men, you see it speaks for itslef that Alexander the Great was Greek!!
    Other modern Greek words derived from the prefix alex… Alexisfero: bulletproof, alexikeravno…etc.
    If u are inerested I will send u the names of 70 Macedonians who took part in Ancient olympics(the inscription is found in ancient Vergina) strangely enough for you they all had Greek names!!

    tace care Bojan

    PS. once you seem to be interested in Greek culture you should know that in the ancient olympics only the Greeks were allowed to take part.Thats why the macedonians participated.

  97. Richard,

    your ridiculous argument of Demosthenes quotation has been refuted by scholars in Cambridge and other respecful institutions around the world. You proved to be highly biased and hostile to anything that comes from Greece.
    When dealing with history you better be more careful or you will always make the fool of yoursel as it happened in this case.
    Here are some elements of history that you -an otherwise respectable man- seem to ignore devaluating your so far “bright” career!

    Argument:”Dimosthenis said that the Macedonians were not Greek”

    Answer:
    This argument refers to the following quote from the Athenian statesman Dimosthenis (Dimosthenis, Third Philippic, 31)

    “… not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave”
    This quote appears to accuse king Philippos of Macedonia as a non-Greek. However the majority of today’s historians ascribe these claims to the political differences between Dimosthenis and King Philippos. It is well known that Dimosthenis as a passionate supporter of the Athenian democracy was very concerned about the rise of the Macedonan kingdom.

    “Demosthenes’ allegations were lent an appearance of credibility by the fact apparent to every observer, that the lifestyle of the Macedonians was different from that of a Greek city state. This alien way of life was however, common to the western Greeks in Epeiros, Akarnania and Aitolia, as well as to the Macedonians, and their fundenmental Greek nationality was never doubted. Only as a consequencce of the political disagreement with Macedonia was the question ever raised at all.”
    [Proffesor M.Errington, “A History of Macedonia”, University of California Press, Los Angeles, 1990]

    “The speeches of Demosthenes, that deal with Philip as the enemy,should not be interpreted as an indication of the barbarian origins of Macedonians, but as an expression of conflict between two different political systems: the democratic system of the city-state (e.g.Athens) versus the monarchy (Kingdom of Macedonia). Personally, I believe that it is the common language, which gives one the opportunity to share a common civilization. Thus the language is the main factor that forms a national identity.”
    [Proffesor Nicholas Hammond, “Macedonian Echo” magazine, February 1993]

    Also note that the quote does not suggest that the “Macedonians were not Greek” as the Slavs themselves wrongly assert, it only refers to king Philippos.

    • Macedonians had Greek names
    All the ancient Macedonian names mentioned in history or found on tombs are Greek. All the kings of Ancient Macedonia had Greek names. Nobody discovered ancient Macedonian names ending to -ov or -ovski or whatever.

    Alexander’s name is Greek. The word “Alexandros” is produced from the prefix alex(=protector) and the word andros(=man) meaning “he who protects men”. The prefix “alex” can be found in many Greek words today (alexiptoto=parachute, alexisfairo=bulletproof – all these words have the meaning of protetion).

    Philip’s name is also Greek. It is produced from the prefix Philo(=friendly to something) and the word ippos(=horse) meaning the man who is friendly to horses. The prefix “philo” and the word “ippos” are also found in many words of Greek origin today (philosophy,philology, hippodrome,hippocampus).
    On the origin of the Macedonians

    The Greek origin of the Macedonians is proven by the vast majority of the ancient historians.
    Diodoros of Sicily talks about the links of Alexander to the Greek mythology (Diodoros, Historical Library 17.1.5):

    “On his father’s side Alexander was a descendant of Heracles and on his mother’s he could claim the blood of the Aeacids, so that from his ancestors on both sides he inherited the physical and moral qualities of greatness.”
    Herodotus confirms that the Macedonians were people of Greek origin (Histories of Herodotus Book 5, paragraph 22.1)

    “Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know and will prove it in the later part of my history.That they are so has been already adjudged by those who manage the Pan-Hellenic contest at Olympia. ”
    And later on (Book 8, paragraph 137.1) he verifies it:

    “This Alexander was seventh in descent from Perdiccas, who got for himself the tyranny of Macedonia in the way that I will show. Three brothers of the lineage of Temenus came as banished men from Argos to Illyria, Gauanes and Aeropus and Perdiccas; and from Illyria they crossed over into the highlands of Macedonia till they came to the town Lebaea.”
    Also in the very first book of his “Histories” (paragraph 56.3 ) Herodotus states about the origin of the the Greek people :

    “For in the days of king Deucalion it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian.”
    Thoukididis also verifies that the Macedonian kings’ origin was from the Greek town of Argos (Book 2, 99.3):

    “The country on the sea coast, now called Macedonia, was first acquired by Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his ancestors, originally Temenids from Argos.”
    Aristotelis, the teacher of Alexander the Great says about the rivers in Macedonia (Meteorologika, Book I, Par. 13):

    “Of the rivers in the Greek world, the Achelous flows from Pindus, the Inachus from the same mountain; the Strymon, the Nestus, and the Hebrus all three from Scombrus; many rivers, too, flow from Rhodope.”
    Finally Isocratis states (To Philip, paragraph 32):

    “Argos is the land of your fathers, and is entitled to as much consideration at your hands as are your own ancestors;”

    On the language of the Macedonians

    The Macedonians spoke the Greek language as the ancient authors verify. The Roman writer Titus Livius says : (from “The Foundation of the City”, Paragraph 31)

    “The Aitolians, the Akarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same language, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time; with aliens, with barbarians, all Greeks wage and will wage eternal war; for they are enemies by the will of nature, which is eternal, and not from reasons that change from day to day.”
    Didorus of Sicily (17.67.1) says:

    “After this Alexander left Dareius’s mother, his daughters, and his son in Susa, providing them with persons to teach them the Greek language, and marching on with his army on the fourth day reached the Tigris River. ”

    On the religion of the Macedonians

    The Macedonians had the same religion as the rest of the Greeks, they worshiped the twelve Olympian Gods.

    Two quotes from Plutarch’s “Alexander”

    “Philip, after this vision, sent Chaeron of Megalopolis to consult the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, by which he was commanded to perform sacrifice, and henceforth pay particular honour, above all other gods, to Zeus;”

    “He [Alexander he Great] erected altars, also, to the gods, which the kings of the Praesians even in our time do honour to when they pass the river, and offer sacrifice upon them after the Greek manner.”
    Diodoros of Sicily also makes clear that the Macedonnians worshiped the twelve Greek Gods:

    Histories, Chapter 16, 95.2

    “Along with lavish display of every sort, Philip included in the procession statues of the twelve Gods brought with great artistry and adorned with a dazzling show of wealth to strike awe to the beholder, and along with these was conducted a thirteenth statue, suitable for a god, that of Philip himself, so that the king exhibited himself enthroned among the twelve Gods.”
    Histories, Chapter 16, 91.5-6

    “He (King Philip) wanted as many Greeks as possible to take part in the festivities in honour of the gods, and so planned brilliant musical contests and lavish banquets for his friends and guests. Out of all Greece he summoned his personal guest-friends and ordered the members of his court to bring along as many as they could of their acquaintances from abroad.”

    On the culture of the Macedonians

    “Alexandros observed that his soldiers were exhausted with their constant campaigns. … The hooves of the horses had been worn thin by steady marching. The arms and armour were wearing out, and the Hellenic clothing was quite gone. They had to clothe themselves in materials of the barbarians,…”
    (Diodoros of Sicily 17.94.1-2)

    On the geography of Macedonian

    The great philosopher Aristotelis (Aristotle) considers the rivers in Macedonias as “rivers in the Greek world”

    “Of the rivers in the Greek world, the Achelous flows from Pindus, the Inachus from the same mountain; the Strymon, the Nestus, and the Hebrus all three from Scombrus; many rivers, too, flow from Rhodope. …”
    (Aristotelis, Meteorology, Book 1, Par. 13)
    and later on he says:

    “The deluge in the time of Deucalion, for instance, took place chiefly in the Greek world and in it especially about ancient Hellas, the country about Dodona and the Achelous, a river which has often changed its course. Here the Selli dwelt and those who were formerly called Graeci and now Hellenes…”
    (Aristotelis, Meteorology, Book 1, Par. 13)

    What did the Macedonians think of themselves?

    It is very clear from the surviving ancient sources that the Macedonians considered themselves to be Greeks.

    In Herodotus (Book 9, paragraph 45.2) Alexander I , king of Macedonia says:

    “… I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery …”
    Alexander III (the Great) talking to the king of the Persians says: (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander II,14,4)

    “Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury […] I have been appointed hegemon of the Greeks […] ”
    Arrian (“Alexander the Great” 1,16,7) describes the following incident: After winning an important battle in Asia …
    “He [Alexander the Great] sent to Athens three hundred Persian panoplies to be set up to Athena in the acropolis; he ordered this inscription to be attached: Alexander son of Philip and the Hellenes, except the Lacedaemonians, set up these spoils from the barbarians dwelling in Asia”
    (Diodoros of Sicily 16.93.1)
    “Every seat in the theater was taken when Philip appeared wearing a white cloak and by his express orders his bodyguard held away from him and followed only at a distance, since he wanted to show publicly that he was protected by the goodwill of all the Hellenes, and had no need of a guard of spearmen.”

    And from Flavious Josephus (11.8.5) we have the following incident where Alexander clearly considers himself a Greek:

    “And when the book of Daniel was showed to him (Alexander the Great) wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended”

    What did the rest of the Greeks think?

    The ancient Greek people alwayws considered the Macedonians to be Greek as well. This can be easily proved because the Macedonians were members of all the Greek institutions, such as the Delphic amphictiony:

    Pausanias writes in his book “Description of Greece” (10.3.3):

    “The Phocians were deprived of their share in the Delphic sanctuary and in the Greek assembly, and their votes were given by the Amphictyons to the Macedonians.”
    and also in his book “Phokis” (8,2 & 4):
    “They say that these were the tribes collected by Amphiktyon himself in the Hellenic Assembly: […] the Macedonians joined and the entire Phocian race […] In my day there were thirty members: six from each of Nikopolis, Macedonia and Thessaly […] ”
    Aeschines (On the Embassy 2.32) gives evidence of the Macedonian king Amyntas taking part at the congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks:

    “For at a congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was absolutely under his control, he joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted”.
    Isocratis, one of the most impotant orators of ancient Greece says in his speach “To Philip” addressed to King Philip II of Macedonia (Paragaraph 127):

    “Therefore, since the others are so lacking in spirit, I think it is opportune for you to head the war against the King; and, while it is only natural for the other descendants of Heracles, and for men who are under the bonds of their polities and laws, to cleave fondly to that state in which they happen to dwell, it is your privilege, as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom, to consider all Greece your fatherland, as did the founder of your race, and to be as ready to brave perils for her sake as for the things about which you are personally most concerned.”
    The Sicilian historian Diodoros says in his history about King Philip of Macedonia (Diodoros, Historical Library 16.95.1-2)
    “Such was the end of Philip, who had made himself the greatest of the kings in Europe in his time, and because of the extent of his kingdom had made himself a throned companion of the twelve gods. He had ruled twenty-four years. He is known to fame as one who with but the slenderest resources to support his claim to a throne won for himself the greatest empire in the Greek world, while the growth of his position was not due so much to his prowess in arms as to his adroitness and cordiality in diplomacy.
    Even the Persians considerd Macedonia a part of Greece! The Persian king Mardonius says : (From the Histories of Herodotus Book 7, Paragraph 9.1-2).

    “We know the manner of their battle- we know how weak their power is; already have we subdued their children who dwell in our country, the Ionians, Aeolians, and Dorians. I myself have had experience of these men when I marched against them by the orders of thy father; and though I went as far as Macedonia, and came but a little short of reaching Athens itself, yet not a soul ventured to come out against me to battle. […] Yet the Greeks are accustomed to wage wars, as I learn, and they do it most senselessly in their wrongheadedness and folly […]. Since they speak the same language, they should end their disputes by means of heralds or messengers, or by any way rather than fighting; if they must make war upon each other, they should each discover where they are in the strongest position and make the attempt there. The Greek custom, then, is not good; and when I marched as far as the land of Macedonia, it had not come into their minds to fight.”
    Mardonius marched against the Greeks and he “went as far as Macedonia, and came but a little short of reaching Athens itself”. Obviously he considers Macedonia a part of Greece!

    • Distortion of the ancient history
    The Slavic propaganda is often based on quotes from ancient historians (mainly Greek) who seem to suggest that Macedonia was a different nation. However:

    These quotes usualy consist of one or two isolated lines which is misleading. Reading the whole document the meaning is completely different.
    The translation is not accurate or some words have been carefully altered to change the meaning.

    In this page we will present a number of “mis-interpreted” ancient quotes to prove how the Slavs exploit the ancient sources to dispute the Greek identity of the ancient Macedonians.

    Argument: “Herodotus (7.130) speaks of the Thessalians as the first Greeks to come under Persian submission (although the Persians entered Macedonia first), and here using his own words, he clearly exclude the Macedonians from the Greeks. We are therefore, left with the conclusion that Herodotus did not consider the Macedonians as Greeks.”

    Answer:
    The text is wrongly translated. What Herodotus actually says in 7.130.3 is:
    “This he said with regard in particular to the sons of Aleues, the Thessalians who were the first Greeks to surrender themselves to the king. Xerxes supposed that when they offered him friendship they spoke for the whole of their nation….”

    The Thessalians were the first Greeks to surrender to the Persians NOT to come under Persian submission. This does not exclude the Macedonians from the Greeks as the Macedonians did not surrender to the Persians.

    This is what the original Greek document says:

    “oti protoi Hellenwn eontes Thessaloi edosan euoutous basilei” (= the first of the Greeks who gave up themselves to the king.)
    Argument:”The Philotas trial – Alexander urges Philotas to speak in his native Macedonian language”

    Answer:
    Another argument they frequently use to prove that the Maceonian were speaking a different language is the so called ‘Philotas incident’ described by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus in the “The History of Alexander”

    Alexander the Great speaks in front of the Macedones of his army: “The Macedonians are going to judge your case,” he said. “Please state whether you will use your native language before them.”
    Philotas: “Besides the Macedonians, there are many present who, I think, will find what I am going to say easier to understand if I use the language you yourself have been using, your purpose, I believe, being only to enable more people to understand you.”
    Then the king said: “Do you see how offensive Philotas find even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases – only remember he as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language”.
    The Slavic propaganda claims that when Philotas started to speak in Greek Alexander asked him to use his “native Macedonian language”. Even if we assume that this episode took place exactly like this, it is still very unclear. Curtius does not make any reference to any specific language. He doesn’t refer to a “Macedonian language” at all. This is only an assumption made by the Slavs. There is absolutely no evidence to support this assumption – that Philotas’ native language was the “Macedonian language” .
    It would be more logical to suggest that Philotas started to speak in Persian (since they were in Persia and it would enable more people to understand… ) and Alexander asked him to speak in Greek – his native language.

    Argument:”The ancient historians refer to the Macedonian language as a separate language from the Greek”

    Answer: This is typical example of ignorance about the Greek history. In fact there is no ancient document refering explicity to a “Macedonian language”. All the ancient documents they quote referring to the “Macedonian language” use the term “Makedonisti” which of course does not mean a different language. It refers to the form of the Greek langauge spoken in Macedonia. Similarly there are ancient documents referring to the Greek dialect of Athens as “Attikisti” or the Greek dialect of Peloponisos as “Peloponisti” etc. Should we assume that there was an Athenian language from that, or that the Athenians were not Greek?

    Argument:”Not only that the Macedonians did not worshiped the Greek gods, but also there is not a single temple discovered on the territory of Macedonia which resembles the temples in Greece.”

    Answer:
    Here we have two lies in one sentence!

    1. The Macedonians did worship the Greek Gods and there are numerous quotes from the ancient historians which clearly prove that. On the other hand there is absolutely no historical evidence to support that the Macedonians worshiped different Gods than the rest of the Greeks.

    2. Several temples in Maceonia were dedicated to the Greek Gods. Here are a few examples:

    The temple of Afrodite in Dion
    The temple of Eukleia in Vergina
    The temple of Zeus in Dodoni

    Argument:”The Macedonians did not take part in the Peloponesean war, therefore they were not Greek”

    Answer:
    The Peloponesean war was a war between two sides Athens and Sparti. A few of their allies took part as well but the vast majority of the Greek states did not participate. The fact that the Macedonians were absent from the Peloponesean war can not be used as an argument against the Greek identity of Macedonia.

    Argument:”Pausanias (1.1.3) talks about a war between Greeks and Macedonians: ‘Leosthenes at the head of the Athenians and the united Greeks defeated the Macedonians in Boeotia and again outside Thermopylae forced them into Lamia’ ”

    Answer:
    This is one of the most audacious attempts by the Slavs to twist the Greek history. A war between two ancient Greek states was a very common phenomenon and it certainly did NOT mean that one of the states was not Greek. The war between Athens and Sparti (known as the Peloponesean war) which lasted for 27 years is well known. Should we assume that either the Athenians or the Spartans were not Greek because tey fought agaist each other?

    More examles of wars betwwen the Greek states:

    395-386 bc : the Corinthian War: Corinth, Boeotia, Argos and Athens backed by Persia against Sparta.

    369 bc : Second invasion of the Peloponnese by Thebes under Epaminondas.

    364 bc : Battle of Cynoscephalae. Thebes destroyed Orchomenus.

    362 bc : The battle of Mantinea. Thebes under Epaminondas defeated a force of Spartans, Athenians and Mantineans.

    356-346 bc : Phocis seized Delphi and provoked the Third Sacred War (Phocis against Thebes, Locris and Thessaly).

    It is obvious that a war between the ancient Greek states was a very common phenomenon so a battle between Macedon and Athens can not be used as proof that the Macedonians were not Greek.

    tace care Richard,

  98. hi all,

    Iam going to give u some simple answers to some simple questions-arguments of our northern neighbours fyromians…
    hope you all enjoy them
    “Greece officially denied the use of the name Macedonia after the Balkan wars.”
    This is a very inaccurate argument. There are several examples of state institutions and private businesses using the name Macedonia which operate in Greece since the early 1900s. These are just a few of them:

    The “Macedonia” newspaper (1912)
    The Society for Macedonian Studies (1939) [web site]
    The museum of ancient Macedonia (1961) [web site]
    The museum of the Macedonian struggle (1979) [web site]
    Greece has been actively using the name Macedonia since its liberation from the Ottoman empire. If Greece’s official position was to “deny the existence of Macedonia” how would it be possible for hundreds of private companies to be named after Macedonia?

    “Greece has changed the “Macedonian” names of locations in the Macedonia region.”
    The Greek names are older than the Slavic ones and most of them have their roots in ancient Greece. The Greek names of the towns in Macedonia are also mentioned in the Bible. A characteristic example is Thessaloniki. This city was founded in 315 bc by the Macedonian king Kasssandros and it was named after Alexanders’ half sister – Thessaloniki. How could the Greeks change the name from Solun (as the Slavs claim) to Thessaloniki in 1912 if that was the original name? The name Thessaloniki is even mentioned in the bible by St Paul. Why did he address his letters (epistoles) to the people of Thessaloniki and not the to the people of Solun?
    What about the Greek names of towns inside FYROM used during the Ottoman times? Did Greece change them as well?

    “Today’s ‘Greeks’ and ancient ‘Hellenes have no relation between them.”
    How is it possible for the people who live in the same region, speak the same language and have the same names and culture not to be descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the region? Similarly we could say that today’s Egyptians are not descendants of ancient Egyptians and today’s Chinese people are not descedants of ancient Chinese.
    The name ‘Greek’ is in fact ancient as well as the famous philosopher Aristotelis verifies:
    “…and she was not there forever, but after the cataclysm of Defkalion, which occurred in the Hellenic area, in fact, in the ancient Hellas, which was around Dodoni, and it changed many times the flow of Acheloos river. In that area live the Selloi and the ones that were once called Graecoi and are now called Hellenes…” [Aristotelis Meteorologika, I, 14]

    “There is a large Macedonian minority in Greece”
    There is no “Macedonian minority” in Greece because there is no such nationality. There is a small group of people who speak a Slavic dialect which is in fact different from what is claimed to be the “Macedonian language” These people are not a “Macedonian minority” as they consider themselves Greeks. There is also an even smaller group of Slav propagandists who are trying to create a Macedonian minority in Greece. Anyone who didn’t consider him/herself Greek could and should have left Greece during the exchange of populations in 1919.

    “One million people in Greece consider themselves Macedonians”
    In the 1996 parliament elections in Greece the political party of the people who claim to be a “Macedonian minority” gained 3.485 votes (official result). In the 2000 parliament elections they didn’t take up part at all. Of course there is no doubt of the integrity of the election procedures since Greece is a member of the European Union. If there was such a large number of “Macedonians” in Greece (1/10th) wouldn’t be easy for them to stand up against the “Greek occupation”?

    “Greece acquired illegally Aegean Macedonia in 1913”
    Greece acquired 51% of Macedonia in 1913 as a result of the treaty of Bucharest. International treaties are not illegal. Furthermore Greece in 1913 was not a powerful country to acquire any land it desired. This land was “given” to Greece because it historically belonged to Greece and its residents were Greek.

    “What gives Greece the right to name another country? This issue is straightforward, every country has the right to call itself whatever it wishes.”
    This is a misleading statement. The author knows very well why Greece is objecting to the use of the name Macedonia. In fact every country has the right to chose its own name as far as it does not belong to another country’s history. The name Macedonia belongs to the Greek history. Greece has the right to protect its history and heritage.

    “Saints Cyril and Methdje (or Kirl and Metodi) were not Greeks but Macedonians.”
    Saints Cyrilos and Methodios were Greeks born in Thessaloniki and this is well known to all Christians. Pope John Paul the B’ in an official apostolic homily to the entire Catholic Church proclaimed that Methodius and Cyril “Greek brethren born in Thessaloniki” are consecrated as “heavenly protectors of Europe”. John Paul B’ repeated this statement in a speech delivered in the church of Saint Clements, in Rome. You can see the original document here.

    “Greece stole the Macedonian history”
    Greece does not ‘steal’ history. It has its own lengthy and respected history. It is the only thing that Greece has plenty of it. The Greek history and culture is respected by all the countries in the world. People who don’t have their own history need to ‘steal’ someone else’s…

    “Linguistic science has at its disposal a very limited quantity of Macedonian words. A very limited quantity in this case is a quantity indeed, that Greeks cannot ignore.”
    This argument proves the Greek point that the “Macedonian language” was a Greek a dialect. There only exists “a limited quantity of Macedonian words” because the Macedonian dialect had “limited” differences from the Greek language.
    How could it be possible for a separate “ancient Macedonian language” to disappeared after what Alexander had achieved?

    “If Philip united and not conquered the Greeks why did Alexander leave 25.000 men of his army in Macedonia when he is about to face the strongest and most numerous army in the world?”
    No sensible leader would go on a quest taking ALL his army with him and leaving his homeland unprotected!
    And of course he did not leave 25.000 men in Macedonia because he was afraid of the other Greeks. Macedonia had lots of real enemies at its northern border (Illyrians, Dardanians,Paionians etc).

    “If Macedonians were Greek then why only 30% of Alexander’s army were Greek?”
    The right question to ask is ‘why as many as 30% of Alexander’s army were from the rest of Greece?’ After all Macedonians and Greeks were supposed to be enemies! The Macedonians ‘conquered’ the Greeks according to the Slavic version of the Macedonian history. The fact that a very significant part of Alexander’s army were non-Macedonian Greeks shows the truth.

    “Ancient Macedonians did not take part in the Olympic Games”
    This is another false statement. It can be easily proved that people from Macedonia took part in the Olympic Games. For a list Macedonians who won the Olympic Games the click here.

    “Ancient Macedonians fought against Greece.”
    This is another misleading statement. It is well known that the ancient Greek states were largely independed of each other and that often led to wars between them. Some well-known examples are the Peolloponisian was between Athens and Sparti, the Athenians quest in the island of Mitilini, the brutal war between Sparti and Thebes and many more. A war between two ancient Greek regions did not mean that one of them was not Greek.

    “There are no ancient monuments written in the Macedonian language because Greek archaeologists destroy them when they are recovered.”
    Even if we accept that this is true it still doesn’t explain why aren’t there any monuments in the rest of Macedonia!
    What about the ancient monuments in FYROM and Bulgaria?
    What about the ancient monuments on Alexander’s route in Asia?
    Why aren’t there any “non Greek Macedonian monuments” ?
    Oh, I know why! The Greek archaeologists must have destroyed them as well !!!

    “If in fact, “Macedonia is Greece”, how come they feel the need to emphasize, to shout, and to proclaim over and over again? After all, we never hear them proclaiming that ‘Thebes is Greece’, or ‘Sparta is Greece’ “.
    If the Salvs wanted to name heir country “Republic of Thebes” or “Republic of Sparta” who would shout out “Thebes and Sparta are Greek”. But they are claiming to be Macedonians so we shout that
    “MACEDONIA WAS GREEK”
    “MACEDONIA IS GREEK”
    “MACEDONIA WILL BE FOREVER GREEK”

  99. This article is full of antigreek empathy and inaccuracies.

    First of all, Alexander the Great participated in the Olympic Games which were only for Greek.

    Second of all Talmud, Bible (Daniel’s Prophecies)Herodotus, Hesiodos, all encyclopedias and ancient sources of the world, mention Macedonia as North Greece.

    Third Philip means friend of Horses, and Alexander He who defeats strong men.

    Fourth Macedonia means ”Highland in Greek” and Makedonian ”tall man”. (Macedonian, Cretan, Thracian, Pelloponesian.)

    Fifth, the land that fyrom has today and belonged to the ancient kingdom of Macedonia is no more than 10km, the rest has always been part of Bulgaria and Serbia.

    Sixth: Fyromians were Nazi collaborators that worked with Nazis in order Hitler to provide them the lands of Northern Greece. Fyrom always had imperialistic targets against Greece, by using the name dispute.

    Be careful what you write next time….

  100. yooooooo ciganosss!!!!!!!!! seven:greece also had NAZI governments led by Georgios Tsolakogly(`41-`42)succeded by Konstantinos Logothetopoulos (’42-43) and Ioannis Rallis (’43-44). The third guy organised the etnic Greek pro-nazi military formations called Tagmata Asfalias (Security Batalions) which terrorised both the ethnic Macedonians and antifascist Greeks.
    eight:Land of Macedonia NEVER belonged to greece proir 1913.ANY OBJECTIONS?
    nine:Macedonia meens nothing in greek but”motherland” in Macedonian.
    ten:Philip meens conqeror for greeks.RIGHT?
    eleven:Bible mention Macedonia but nowere north greece.
    twelve:Aleksandar NEVER participate in the Olimpic Games.Those was held in peace.He was in war most of his life.
    Thirteen:There is NOT large Macedonian in greece.Not any more,they were cleansed(most of them)1923.
    fourtheen:Sts. Kiril and Metodij were greeks but they invented slavic alphabet?????
    fiveteen:“One million people in Greece consider themselves Macedonians” One month ago were 2.5 million including your prime minister born in Atica disendant of turky refugies.
    sixteen:“Ancient Macedonians fought against Greece.” NO there was NOT greece then only Ancent sity states.But anyway they conqered them.
    seventeen:”Greece acquired illegally Aegean Macedonia in 1913″No it wasn’t illegally.It was with war.In that time that was legal.If Macedonia was greek land why you didn’t includ it in your Ellada in 1830`s.
    eighteen:?“Today’s ‘Greeks’ and ancient ‘Hellenes have no relation between them.”
    Right’ get mirror.All of you are Tall and blond.Like your gods.he he he
    ninetheen:“Greece officially denied the use of the name Macedonia after the Balkan wars.”WRONG
    greece officially FORBIDE use of name Macedonia after Balkan wars and till 1989.Check YOUR schoolbooks.
    twenty:“What gives Greece the right to name another country? Yes ,indeed tell us what make you so sure that we gona change OUR name?
    twenty one:We are NOT claming,we ARE MACEDONIANS.
    You claming that since 1989.RIGHT?
    MACEDONIA IS MACEDONIAN RIGHT CIGANOS?
    you need some more?

  101. yooooooo ciganosss!!!!!!!!! seven:greece also had NAZI governments led by Georgios Tsolakogly(`41-`42)succeded by Konstantinos Logothetopoulos (’42-43) and Ioannis Rallis (’43-44). The third guy organised the etnic Greek pro-nazi military formations called Tagmata Asfalias (Security Batalions) which terrorised both the ethnic Macedonians and antifascist Greeks.
    eight:Land of Macedonia NEVER belonged to greece proir 1913.ANY OBJECTIONS?
    nine:Macedonia meens nothing in greek but”motherland” in Macedonian.
    ten:Philip meens conqeror for greeks.RIGHT?
    eleven:Bible mention Macedonia but nowere north greece.
    twelve:Aleksandar NEVER participate in the Olimpic Games.Those was held in peace.He was in war most of his life.
    Thirteen:There is NOT large Macedonian in greece.Not any more,they were cleansed(most of them)1923.
    fourtheen:Sts. Kiril and Metodij were greeks but they invented slavic alphabet?????
    fiveteen:“One million people in Greece consider themselves Macedonians” One month ago were 2.5 million including your prime minister born in Atica disendant of turky refugies.
    sixteen:“Ancient Macedonians fought against Greece.” NO there was NOT greece then only Ancent sity states.But anyway they conqered them.
    seventeen:”Greece acquired illegally Aegean Macedonia in 1913″No it wasn’t illegally.It was with war.In that time that was legal.If Macedonia was greek land why you didn’t includ it in your Ellada in 1830`s.
    eighteen:?“Today’s ‘Greeks’ and ancient ‘Hellenes have no relation between them.”
    Right’ get mirror.All of you are Tall and blond.Like your gods.he he he
    ninetheen:“Greece officially denied the use of the name Macedonia after the Balkan wars.”WRONG
    greece officially FORBIDE use of name Macedonia after Balkan wars and till 1989.Check YOUR schoolbooks.
    twenty:“What gives Greece the right to name another country? Yes ,indeed tell us what make you so sure that we gona change OUR name?
    twenty one:We are NOT claming,we ARE MACEDONIANS.
    You claming that since 1989.RIGHT?
    MACEDONIA IS MACEDONIAN RIGHT CIGANOS?
    you need some more?

  102. yooooooo ciganosss!!!!!!!!! seven:greece also had NAZI governments led by Georgios Tsolakogly(`41-`42)succeded by Konstantinos Logothetopoulos (’42-43) and Ioannis Rallis (’43-44). The third guy organised the etnic Greek pro-nazi military formations called Tagmata Asfalias (Security Batalions) which terrorised both the ethnic Macedonians and antifascist Greeks.
    eight:Land of Macedonia NEVER belonged to greece proir 1913.ANY OBJECTIONS?
    nine:Macedonia meens nothing in greek but”motherland” in Macedonian.
    ten:Philip meens conqeror for greeks.RIGHT?
    eleven:Bible mention Macedonia but nowere north greece.
    twelve:Aleksandar NEVER participate in the Olimpic Games.Those was held in peace.He was in war most of his life.
    Thirteen:There is NOT large Macedonian in greece.Not any more,they were cleansed(most of them)1923.
    fourtheen:Sts. Kiril and Metodij were greeks but they invented slavic alphabet?????
    fiveteen:“One million people in Greece consider themselves Macedonians” One month ago were 2.5 million including your prime minister born in Atica disendant of turky refugies.
    sixteen:“Ancient Macedonians fought against Greece.” NO there was NOT greece then only Ancent sity states.But anyway they conqered them.
    seventeen:”Greece acquired illegally Aegean Macedonia in 1913″No it wasn’t illegally.It was with war.In that time that was legal.If Macedonia was greek land why you didn’t includ it in your Ellada in 1830`s.
    eighteen:?“Today’s ‘Greeks’ and ancient ‘Hellenes have no relation between them.”
    Right’ get mirror.All of you are Tall and blond.Like your gods.he he he
    ninetheen:“Greece officially denied the use of the name Macedonia after the Balkan wars.”WRONG
    greece officially FORBIDE use of name Macedonia after Balkan wars and till 1989.Check YOUR schoolbooks.
    twenty:“What gives Greece the right to name another country? Yes ,indeed tell us what make you so sure that we gona change OUR name?
    twenty one:We are NOT claming,we ARE MACEDONIANS.
    You claming that since 1989.RIGHT?
    MACEDONIA IS MACEDONIAN RIGHT CIGANOS?
    you need some more?

  103. yooooooo ciganosss!!!!!!!!! seven:greece also had NAZI governments led by Georgios Tsolakogly(`41-`42)succeded by Konstantinos Logothetopoulos (’42-43) and Ioannis Rallis (’43-44). The third guy organised the etnic Greek pro-nazi military formations called Tagmata Asfalias (Security Batalions) which terrorised both the ethnic Macedonians and antifascist Greeks.
    eight:Land of Macedonia NEVER belonged to greece proir 1913.ANY OBJECTIONS?
    nine:Macedonia meens nothing in greek but”motherland” in Macedonian.
    ten:Philip meens conqeror for greeks.RIGHT?
    eleven:Bible mention Macedonia but nowere north greece.
    twelve:Aleksandar NEVER participate in the Olimpic Games.Those was held in peace.He was in war most of his life.
    Thirteen:There is NOT large Macedonian in greece.Not any more,they were cleansed(most of them)1923.
    fourtheen:Sts. Kiril and Metodij were greeks but they invented slavic alphabet?????
    fiveteen:“One million people in Greece consider themselves Macedonians” One month ago were 2.5 million including your prime minister born in Atica disendant of turky refugies.
    sixteen:“Ancient Macedonians fought against Greece.” NO there was NOT greece then only Ancent sity states.But anyway they conqered them.
    seventeen:”Greece acquired illegally Aegean Macedonia in 1913″No it wasn’t illegally.It was with war.In that time that was legal.If Macedonia was greek land why you didn’t includ it in your Ellada in 1830`s.
    eighteen:?“Today’s ‘Greeks’ and ancient ‘Hellenes have no relation between them.”
    Right’ get mirror.All of you are Tall and blond.Like your gods.he he he
    ninetheen:“Greece officially denied the use of the name Macedonia after the Balkan wars.”WRONG
    greece officially FORBIDE use of name Macedonia after Balkan wars and till 1989.Check YOUR schoolbooks.
    twenty:“What gives Greece the right to name another country? Yes ,indeed tell us what make you so sure that we gona change OUR name?
    twenty one:We are NOT claming,we ARE MACEDONIANS.
    You claming that since 1989.RIGHT?
    MACEDONIA IS MACEDONIAN RIGHT CIGANOS?
    you need some more?

  104. yooooooo ciganosss!!!!!!!!! seven:greece also had NAZI governments led by Georgios Tsolakogly(`41-`42)succeded by Konstantinos Logothetopoulos (’42-43) and Ioannis Rallis (’43-44). The third guy organised the etnic Greek pro-nazi military formations called Tagmata Asfalias (Security Batalions) which terrorised both the ethnic Macedonians and antifascist Greeks.
    eight:Land of Macedonia NEVER belonged to greece proir 1913.ANY OBJECTIONS?
    nine:Macedonia meens nothing in greek but”motherland” in Macedonian.
    ten:Philip meens conqeror for greeks.RIGHT?
    eleven:Bible mention Macedonia but nowere north greece.
    twelve:Aleksandar NEVER participate in the Olimpic Games.Those was held in peace.He was in war most of his life.
    Thirteen:There is NOT large Macedonian in greece.Not any more,they were cleansed(most of them)1923.
    fourtheen:Sts. Kiril and Metodij were greeks but they invented slavic alphabet?????
    fiveteen:“One million people in Greece consider themselves Macedonians” One month ago were 2.5 million including your prime minister born in Atica disendant of turky refugies.
    sixteen:“Ancient Macedonians fought against Greece.” NO there was NOT greece then only Ancent sity states.But anyway they conqered them.
    seventeen:”Greece acquired illegally Aegean Macedonia in 1913″No it wasn’t illegally.It was with war.In that time that was legal.If Macedonia was greek land why you didn’t includ it in your Ellada in 1830`s.
    eighteen:?“Today’s ‘Greeks’ and ancient ‘Hellenes have no relation between them.”
    Right’ get mirror.All of you are Tall and blond.Like your gods.he he he
    ninetheen:“Greece officially denied the use of the name Macedonia after the Balkan wars.”WRONG
    greece officially FORBIDE use of name Macedonia after Balkan wars and till 1989.Check YOUR schoolbooks.
    twenty:“What gives Greece the right to name another country? Yes ,indeed tell us what make you so sure that we gona change OUR name?
    twenty one:We are NOT claming,we ARE MACEDONIANS.
    You claming that since 1989.RIGHT?
    MACEDONIA IS MACEDONIAN RIGHT CIGANOS?
    you need some more?

  105. yooooooo ciganosss!!!!!!!!! seven:greece also had NAZI governments led by Georgios Tsolakogly(`41-`42)succeded by Konstantinos Logothetopoulos (’42-43) and Ioannis Rallis (’43-44). The third guy organised the etnic Greek pro-nazi military formations called Tagmata Asfalias (Security Batalions) which terrorised both the ethnic Macedonians and antifascist Greeks.
    eight:Land of Macedonia NEVER belonged to greece proir 1913.ANY OBJECTIONS?
    nine:Macedonia meens nothing in greek but”motherland” in Macedonian.
    ten:Philip meens conqeror for greeks.RIGHT?
    eleven:Bible mention Macedonia but nowere north greece.
    twelve:Aleksandar NEVER participate in the Olimpic Games.Those was held in peace.He was in war most of his life.
    Thirteen:There is NOT large Macedonian in greece.Not any more,they were cleansed(most of them)1923.
    fourtheen:Sts. Kiril and Metodij were greeks but they invented slavic alphabet?????
    fiveteen:“One million people in Greece consider themselves Macedonians” One month ago were 2.5 million including your prime minister born in Atica disendant of turky refugies.
    sixteen:“Ancient Macedonians fought against Greece.” NO there was NOT greece then only Ancent sity states.But anyway they conqered them.
    seventeen:”Greece acquired illegally Aegean Macedonia in 1913″No it wasn’t illegally.It was with war.In that time that was legal.If Macedonia was greek land why you didn’t includ it in your Ellada in 1830`s.
    eighteen:?“Today’s ‘Greeks’ and ancient ‘Hellenes have no relation between them.”
    Right’ get mirror.All of you are Tall and blond.Like your gods.he he he
    ninetheen:“Greece officially denied the use of the name Macedonia after the Balkan wars.”WRONG
    greece officially FORBIDE use of name Macedonia after Balkan wars and till 1989.Check YOUR schoolbooks.
    twenty:“What gives Greece the right to name another country? Yes ,indeed tell us what make you so sure that we gona change OUR name?
    twenty one:We are NOT claming,we ARE MACEDONIANS.
    You claming that since 1989.RIGHT?
    MACEDONIA IS MACEDONIAN RIGHT CIGANOS?
    you need some more?

  106. yooooooo ciganosss !!!!!!!!! seven:greece also had NAZI governments led by Georgios Tsolakogly(`41-`42)succeded by Konstantinos Logothetopoulos (42-43) and Ioannis Rallis (43-44). The third guy organised the etnic Greek pro-nazi military formations called Tagmata Asfalias (Security Batalions) which terrorised both the ethnic Macedonians and antifascist Greeks.
    eight:Land of Macedonia NEVER belonged to greece proir 1913.ANY OBJECTIONS?
    nine:Macedonia meens nothing in greek but”motherland” in Macedonian.
    ten:Philip meens conqeror for greeks.RIGHT?
    eleven:Bible mention Macedonia but nowere north greece.
    twelve:Aleksandar NEVER participate in the Olimpic Games.Those was held in peace.He was in war most of his life.
    Thirteen:There is NOT large Macedonian in greece.Not any more,they were cleansed(most of them)1923.
    fourtheen:Sts. Kiril and Metodij were greeks but they invented slavic alphabet?????
    fiveteen:“One million people in Greece consider themselves Macedonians” One month ago were 2.5 million including your prime minister born in Atica disendant of turky refugies.
    sixteen:“Ancient Macedonians fought against Greece.” NO there was NOT greece then only Ancent sity states.But anyway they conqered them.
    seventeen:”Greece acquired illegally Aegean Macedonia in 1913″No it wasn’t illegally.It was with war.In that time that was legal.If Macedonia was greek land why you didn’t includ it in your Ellada in 1830`s.
    eighteen:?“Today’s ‘Greeks’ and ancient ‘Hellenes have no relation between them.”
    Right’ get mirror.All of you are Tall and blond.Like your gods.he he he
    ninetheen:“Greece officially denied the use of the name Macedonia after the Balkan wars.”WRONG
    greece officially FORBIDE use of name Macedonia after Balkan wars and till 1989.Check YOUR schoolbooks.
    twenty:“What gives Greece the right to name another country? Yes ,indeed tell us what make you so sure that we gona change OUR name?
    twenty one:We are NOT claming,we ARE MACEDONIANS.
    You claming that since 1989.RIGHT?
    MACEDONIA IS MACEDONIAN RIGHT CIGANOS?
    you need some more?

  107. COPE
    here are some more answers to your stupidity!
    hope you all enjoy them
    “Greece officially denied the use of the name Macedonia after the Balkan wars.”
    This is a very inaccurate argument. There are several examples of state institutions and private businesses using the name Macedonia which operate in Greece since the early 1900s. These are just a few of them:

    The “Macedonia” newspaper (1912)
    The Society for Macedonian Studies (1939) [web site]
    The museum of ancient Macedonia (1961) [web site]
    The museum of the Macedonian struggle (1979) [web site]
    Greece has been actively using the name Macedonia since its liberation from the Ottoman empire. If Greece’s official position was to “deny the existence of Macedonia” how would it be possible for hundreds of private companies to be named after Macedonia?

    “Greece has changed the “Macedonian” names of locations in the Macedonia region.”
    The Greek names are older than the Slavic ones and most of them have their roots in ancient Greece. The Greek names of the towns in Macedonia are also mentioned in the Bible. A characteristic example is Thessaloniki. This city was founded in 315 bc by the Macedonian king Kasssandros and it was named after Alexanders’ half sister – Thessaloniki. How could the Greeks change the name from Solun (as the Slavs claim) to Thessaloniki in 1912 if that was the original name? The name Thessaloniki is even mentioned in the bible by St Paul. Why did he address his letters (epistoles) to the people of Thessaloniki and not the to the people of Solun?
    What about the Greek names of towns inside FYROM used during the Ottoman times? Did Greece change them as well?

    “Today’s ‘Greeks’ and ancient ‘Hellenes have no relation between them.”
    How is it possible for the people who live in the same region, speak the same language and have the same names and culture not to be descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the region? Similarly we could say that today’s Egyptians are not descendants of ancient Egyptians and today’s Chinese people are not descedants of ancient Chinese.
    The name ‘Greek’ is in fact ancient as well as the famous philosopher Aristotelis verifies:
    “…and she was not there forever, but after the cataclysm of Defkalion, which occurred in the Hellenic area, in fact, in the ancient Hellas, which was around Dodoni, and it changed many times the flow of Acheloos river. In that area live the Selloi and the ones that were once called Graecoi and are now called Hellenes…” [Aristotelis Meteorologika, I, 14]

    “There is a large Macedonian minority in Greece”
    There is no “Macedonian minority” in Greece because there is no such nationality. There is a small group of people who speak a Slavic dialect which is in fact different from what is claimed to be the “Macedonian language” These people are not a “Macedonian minority” as they consider themselves Greeks. There is also an even smaller group of Slav propagandists who are trying to create a Macedonian minority in Greece. Anyone who didn’t consider him/herself Greek could and should have left Greece during the exchange of populations in 1919.

    “One million people in Greece consider themselves Macedonians”
    In the 1996 parliament elections in Greece the political party of the people who claim to be a “Macedonian minority” gained 3.485 votes (official result). In the 2000 parliament elections they didn’t take up part at all. Of course there is no doubt of the integrity of the election procedures since Greece is a member of the European Union. If there was such a large number of “Macedonians” in Greece (1/10th) wouldn’t be easy for them to stand up against the “Greek occupation”?

    “Greece acquired illegally Aegean Macedonia in 1913?
    Greece acquired 51% of Macedonia in 1913 as a result of the treaty of Bucharest. International treaties are not illegal. Furthermore Greece in 1913 was not a powerful country to acquire any land it desired. This land was “given” to Greece because it historically belonged to Greece and its residents were Greek.

    “What gives Greece the right to name another country? This issue is straightforward, every country has the right to call itself whatever it wishes.”
    This is a misleading statement. The author knows very well why Greece is objecting to the use of the name Macedonia. In fact every country has the right to chose its own name as far as it does not belong to another country’s history. The name Macedonia belongs to the Greek history. Greece has the right to protect its history and heritage.

    “Saints Cyril and Methdje (or Kirl and Metodi) were not Greeks but Macedonians.”
    Saints Cyrilos and Methodios were Greeks born in Thessaloniki and this is well known to all Christians. Pope John Paul the B’ in an official apostolic homily to the entire Catholic Church proclaimed that Methodius and Cyril “Greek brethren born in Thessaloniki” are consecrated as “heavenly protectors of Europe”. John Paul B’ repeated this statement in a speech delivered in the church of Saint Clements, in Rome. You can see the original document here.

    “Greece stole the Macedonian history”
    Greece does not ’steal’ history. It has its own lengthy and respected history. It is the only thing that Greece has plenty of it. The Greek history and culture is respected by all the countries in the world. People who don’t have their own history need to ’steal’ someone else’s…

    “Linguistic science has at its disposal a very limited quantity of Macedonian words. A very limited quantity in this case is a quantity indeed, that Greeks cannot ignore.”
    This argument proves the Greek point that the “Macedonian language” was a Greek a dialect. There only exists “a limited quantity of Macedonian words” because the Macedonian dialect had “limited” differences from the Greek language.
    How could it be possible for a separate “ancient Macedonian language” to disappeared after what Alexander had achieved?

    “If Philip united and not conquered the Greeks why did Alexander leave 25.000 men of his army in Macedonia when he is about to face the strongest and most numerous army in the world?”
    No sensible leader would go on a quest taking ALL his army with him and leaving his homeland unprotected!
    And of course he did not leave 25.000 men in Macedonia because he was afraid of the other Greeks. Macedonia had lots of real enemies at its northern border (Illyrians, Dardanians,Paionians etc).

    “If Macedonians were Greek then why only 30% of Alexander’s army were Greek?”
    The right question to ask is ‘why as many as 30% of Alexander’s army were from the rest of Greece?’ After all Macedonians and Greeks were supposed to be enemies! The Macedonians ‘conquered’ the Greeks according to the Slavic version of the Macedonian history. The fact that a very significant part of Alexander’s army were non-Macedonian Greeks shows the truth.

    “Ancient Macedonians did not take part in the Olympic Games”
    This is another false statement. It can be easily proved that people from Macedonia took part in the Olympic Games. For a list Macedonians who won the Olympic Games the click here.

    “Ancient Macedonians fought against Greece.”
    This is another misleading statement. It is well known that the ancient Greek states were largely independed of each other and that often led to wars between them. Some well-known examples are the Peolloponisian was between Athens and Sparti, the Athenians quest in the island of Mitilini, the brutal war between Sparti and Thebes and many more. A war between two ancient Greek regions did not mean that one of them was not Greek.

    “There are no ancient monuments written in the Macedonian language because Greek archaeologists destroy them when they are recovered.”
    Even if we accept that this is true it still doesn’t explain why aren’t there any monuments in the rest of Macedonia!
    What about the ancient monuments in FYROM and Bulgaria?
    What about the ancient monuments on Alexander’s route in Asia?
    Why aren’t there any “non Greek Macedonian monuments” ?
    Oh, I know why! The Greek archaeologists must have destroyed them as well !!!

    “If in fact, “Macedonia is Greece”, how come they feel the need to emphasize, to shout, and to proclaim over and over again? After all, we never hear them proclaiming that ‘Thebes is Greece’, or ‘Sparta is Greece’ “.
    If the Salvs wanted to name heir country “Republic of Thebes” or “Republic of Sparta” who would shout out “Thebes and Sparta are Greek”. But they are claiming to be Macedonians so we shout that
    “MACEDONIA WAS GREEK”
    “MACEDONIA IS GREEK”
    “MACEDONIA WILL BE FOREVER GREEK”

  108. A GIFT TO THE FYROMIANS ALL OVER THE WORLD!!!

    sources proving that MAKEDONIA IS GREECE

    Richard,

    your ridiculous argument of Demosthenes quotation has been refuted by scholars in Cambridge and other respecful institutions around the world. You proved to be highly biased and hostile to anything that comes from Greece.
    When dealing with history you better be more careful or you will always make the fool of yoursel as it happened in this case.
    Here are some elements of history that you -an otherwise respectable man- seem to ignore devaluating your so far “bright” career!

    Argument:”Dimosthenis said that the Macedonians were not Greek”

    Answer:
    This argument refers to the following quote from the Athenian statesman Dimosthenis (Dimosthenis, Third Philippic, 31)

    “… not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave”
    This quote appears to accuse king Philippos of Macedonia as a non-Greek. However the majority of today’s historians ascribe these claims to the political differences between Dimosthenis and King Philippos. It is well known that Dimosthenis as a passionate supporter of the Athenian democracy was very concerned about the rise of the Macedonan kingdom.

    “Demosthenes’ allegations were lent an appearance of credibility by the fact apparent to every observer, that the lifestyle of the Macedonians was different from that of a Greek city state. This alien way of life was however, common to the western Greeks in Epeiros, Akarnania and Aitolia, as well as to the Macedonians, and their fundenmental Greek nationality was never doubted. Only as a consequencce of the political disagreement with Macedonia was the question ever raised at all.”
    [Proffesor M.Errington, “A History of Macedonia”, University of California Press, Los Angeles, 1990]

    “The speeches of Demosthenes, that deal with Philip as the enemy,should not be interpreted as an indication of the barbarian origins of Macedonians, but as an expression of conflict between two different political systems: the democratic system of the city-state (e.g.Athens) versus the monarchy (Kingdom of Macedonia). Personally, I believe that it is the common language, which gives one the opportunity to share a common civilization. Thus the language is the main factor that forms a national identity.”
    [Proffesor Nicholas Hammond, “Macedonian Echo” magazine, February 1993]

    Also note that the quote does not suggest that the “Macedonians were not Greek” as the Slavs themselves wrongly assert, it only refers to king Philippos.

    • Macedonians had Greek names
    All the ancient Macedonian names mentioned in history or found on tombs are Greek. All the kings of Ancient Macedonia had Greek names. Nobody discovered ancient Macedonian names ending to -ov or -ovski or whatever.

    Alexander’s name is Greek. The word “Alexandros” is produced from the prefix alex(=protector) and the word andros(=man) meaning “he who protects men”. The prefix “alex” can be found in many Greek words today (alexiptoto=parachute, alexisfairo=bulletproof – all these words have the meaning of protetion).

    Philip’s name is also Greek. It is produced from the prefix Philo(=friendly to something) and the word ippos(=horse) meaning the man who is friendly to horses. The prefix “philo” and the word “ippos” are also found in many words of Greek origin today (philosophy,philology, hippodrome,hippocampus).
    On the origin of the Macedonians

    The Greek origin of the Macedonians is proven by the vast majority of the ancient historians.
    Diodoros of Sicily talks about the links of Alexander to the Greek mythology (Diodoros, Historical Library 17.1.5):

    “On his father’s side Alexander was a descendant of Heracles and on his mother’s he could claim the blood of the Aeacids, so that from his ancestors on both sides he inherited the physical and moral qualities of greatness.”
    Herodotus confirms that the Macedonians were people of Greek origin (Histories of Herodotus Book 5, paragraph 22.1)

    “Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know and will prove it in the later part of my history.That they are so has been already adjudged by those who manage the Pan-Hellenic contest at Olympia. ”
    And later on (Book 8, paragraph 137.1) he verifies it:

    “This Alexander was seventh in descent from Perdiccas, who got for himself the tyranny of Macedonia in the way that I will show. Three brothers of the lineage of Temenus came as banished men from Argos to Illyria, Gauanes and Aeropus and Perdiccas; and from Illyria they crossed over into the highlands of Macedonia till they came to the town Lebaea.”
    Also in the very first book of his “Histories” (paragraph 56.3 ) Herodotus states about the origin of the the Greek people :

    “For in the days of king Deucalion it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian.”
    Thoukididis also verifies that the Macedonian kings’ origin was from the Greek town of Argos (Book 2, 99.3):

    “The country on the sea coast, now called Macedonia, was first acquired by Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his ancestors, originally Temenids from Argos.”
    Aristotelis, the teacher of Alexander the Great says about the rivers in Macedonia (Meteorologika, Book I, Par. 13):

    “Of the rivers in the Greek world, the Achelous flows from Pindus, the Inachus from the same mountain; the Strymon, the Nestus, and the Hebrus all three from Scombrus; many rivers, too, flow from Rhodope.”
    Finally Isocratis states (To Philip, paragraph 32):

    “Argos is the land of your fathers, and is entitled to as much consideration at your hands as are your own ancestors;”

    On the language of the Macedonians

    The Macedonians spoke the Greek language as the ancient authors verify. The Roman writer Titus Livius says : (from “The Foundation of the City”, Paragraph 31)

    “The Aitolians, the Akarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same language, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time; with aliens, with barbarians, all Greeks wage and will wage eternal war; for they are enemies by the will of nature, which is eternal, and not from reasons that change from day to day.”
    Didorus of Sicily (17.67.1) says:

    “After this Alexander left Dareius’s mother, his daughters, and his son in Susa, providing them with persons to teach them the Greek language, and marching on with his army on the fourth day reached the Tigris River. ”

    On the religion of the Macedonians

    The Macedonians had the same religion as the rest of the Greeks, they worshiped the twelve Olympian Gods.

    Two quotes from Plutarch’s “Alexander”

    “Philip, after this vision, sent Chaeron of Megalopolis to consult the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, by which he was commanded to perform sacrifice, and henceforth pay particular honour, above all other gods, to Zeus;”

    “He [Alexander he Great] erected altars, also, to the gods, which the kings of the Praesians even in our time do honour to when they pass the river, and offer sacrifice upon them after the Greek manner.”
    Diodoros of Sicily also makes clear that the Macedonnians worshiped the twelve Greek Gods:

    Histories, Chapter 16, 95.2

    “Along with lavish display of every sort, Philip included in the procession statues of the twelve Gods brought with great artistry and adorned with a dazzling show of wealth to strike awe to the beholder, and along with these was conducted a thirteenth statue, suitable for a god, that of Philip himself, so that the king exhibited himself enthroned among the twelve Gods.”
    Histories, Chapter 16, 91.5-6

    “He (King Philip) wanted as many Greeks as possible to take part in the festivities in honour of the gods, and so planned brilliant musical contests and lavish banquets for his friends and guests. Out of all Greece he summoned his personal guest-friends and ordered the members of his court to bring along as many as they could of their acquaintances from abroad.”

    On the culture of the Macedonians

    “Alexandros observed that his soldiers were exhausted with their constant campaigns. … The hooves of the horses had been worn thin by steady marching. The arms and armour were wearing out, and the Hellenic clothing was quite gone. They had to clothe themselves in materials of the barbarians,…”
    (Diodoros of Sicily 17.94.1-2)

    On the geography of Macedonian

    The great philosopher Aristotelis (Aristotle) considers the rivers in Macedonias as “rivers in the Greek world”

    “Of the rivers in the Greek world, the Achelous flows from Pindus, the Inachus from the same mountain; the Strymon, the Nestus, and the Hebrus all three from Scombrus; many rivers, too, flow from Rhodope. …”
    (Aristotelis, Meteorology, Book 1, Par. 13)
    and later on he says:

    “The deluge in the time of Deucalion, for instance, took place chiefly in the Greek world and in it especially about ancient Hellas, the country about Dodona and the Achelous, a river which has often changed its course. Here the Selli dwelt and those who were formerly called Graeci and now Hellenes…”
    (Aristotelis, Meteorology, Book 1, Par. 13)

    What did the Macedonians think of themselves?

    It is very clear from the surviving ancient sources that the Macedonians considered themselves to be Greeks.

    In Herodotus (Book 9, paragraph 45.2) Alexander I , king of Macedonia says:

    “… I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery …”
    Alexander III (the Great) talking to the king of the Persians says: (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander II,14,4)

    “Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury […] I have been appointed hegemon of the Greeks […] ”
    Arrian (”Alexander the Great” 1,16,7) describes the following incident: After winning an important battle in Asia …
    “He [Alexander the Great] sent to Athens three hundred Persian panoplies to be set up to Athena in the acropolis; he ordered this inscription to be attached: Alexander son of Philip and the Hellenes, except the Lacedaemonians, set up these spoils from the barbarians dwelling in Asia”
    (Diodoros of Sicily 16.93.1)
    “Every seat in the theater was taken when Philip appeared wearing a white cloak and by his express orders his bodyguard held away from him and followed only at a distance, since he wanted to show publicly that he was protected by the goodwill of all the Hellenes, and had no need of a guard of spearmen.”

    And from Flavious Josephus (11.8.5) we have the following incident where Alexander clearly considers himself a Greek:

    “And when the book of Daniel was showed to him (Alexander the Great) wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended”

    What did the rest of the Greeks think?

    The ancient Greek people alwayws considered the Macedonians to be Greek as well. This can be easily proved because the Macedonians were members of all the Greek institutions, such as the Delphic amphictiony:

    Pausanias writes in his book “Description of Greece” (10.3.3):

    “The Phocians were deprived of their share in the Delphic sanctuary and in the Greek assembly, and their votes were given by the Amphictyons to the Macedonians.”
    and also in his book “Phokis” (8,2 & 4):
    “They say that these were the tribes collected by Amphiktyon himself in the Hellenic Assembly: […] the Macedonians joined and the entire Phocian race […] In my day there were thirty members: six from each of Nikopolis, Macedonia and Thessaly […] ”
    Aeschines (On the Embassy 2.32) gives evidence of the Macedonian king Amyntas taking part at the congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks:

    “For at a congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was absolutely under his control, he joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted”.
    Isocratis, one of the most impotant orators of ancient Greece says in his speach “To Philip” addressed to King Philip II of Macedonia (Paragaraph 127):

    “Therefore, since the others are so lacking in spirit, I think it is opportune for you to head the war against the King; and, while it is only natural for the other descendants of Heracles, and for men who are under the bonds of their polities and laws, to cleave fondly to that state in which they happen to dwell, it is your privilege, as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom, to consider all Greece your fatherland, as did the founder of your race, and to be as ready to brave perils for her sake as for the things about which you are personally most concerned.”
    The Sicilian historian Diodoros says in his history about King Philip of Macedonia (Diodoros, Historical Library 16.95.1-2)
    “Such was the end of Philip, who had made himself the greatest of the kings in Europe in his time, and because of the extent of his kingdom had made himself a throned companion of the twelve gods. He had ruled twenty-four years. He is known to fame as one who with but the slenderest resources to support his claim to a throne won for himself the greatest empire in the Greek world, while the growth of his position was not due so much to his prowess in arms as to his adroitness and cordiality in diplomacy.
    Even the Persians considerd Macedonia a part of Greece! The Persian king Mardonius says : (From the Histories of Herodotus Book 7, Paragraph 9.1-2).

    “We know the manner of their battle- we know how weak their power is; already have we subdued their children who dwell in our country, the Ionians, Aeolians, and Dorians. I myself have had experience of these men when I marched against them by the orders of thy father; and though I went as far as Macedonia, and came but a little short of reaching Athens itself, yet not a soul ventured to come out against me to battle. […] Yet the Greeks are accustomed to wage wars, as I learn, and they do it most senselessly in their wrongheadedness and folly […]. Since they speak the same language, they should end their disputes by means of heralds or messengers, or by any way rather than fighting; if they must make war upon each other, they should each discover where they are in the strongest position and make the attempt there. The Greek custom, then, is not good; and when I marched as far as the land of Macedonia, it had not come into their minds to fight.”
    Mardonius marched against the Greeks and he “went as far as Macedonia, and came but a little short of reaching Athens itself”. Obviously he considers Macedonia a part of Greece!

    • Distortion of the ancient history
    The Slavic propaganda is often based on quotes from ancient historians (mainly Greek) who seem to suggest that Macedonia was a different nation. However:

    These quotes usualy consist of one or two isolated lines which is misleading. Reading the whole document the meaning is completely different.
    The translation is not accurate or some words have been carefully altered to change the meaning.

    In this page we will present a number of “mis-interpreted” ancient quotes to prove how the Slavs exploit the ancient sources to dispute the Greek identity of the ancient Macedonians.

    Argument: “Herodotus (7.130) speaks of the Thessalians as the first Greeks to come under Persian submission (although the Persians entered Macedonia first), and here using his own words, he clearly exclude the Macedonians from the Greeks. We are therefore, left with the conclusion that Herodotus did not consider the Macedonians as Greeks.”

    Answer:
    The text is wrongly translated. What Herodotus actually says in 7.130.3 is:
    “This he said with regard in particular to the sons of Aleues, the Thessalians who were the first Greeks to surrender themselves to the king. Xerxes supposed that when they offered him friendship they spoke for the whole of their nation….”

    The Thessalians were the first Greeks to surrender to the Persians NOT to come under Persian submission. This does not exclude the Macedonians from the Greeks as the Macedonians did not surrender to the Persians.

    This is what the original Greek document says:

    “oti protoi Hellenwn eontes Thessaloi edosan euoutous basilei” (= the first of the Greeks who gave up themselves to the king.)
    Argument:”The Philotas trial – Alexander urges Philotas to speak in his native Macedonian language”

    Answer:
    Another argument they frequently use to prove that the Maceonian were speaking a different language is the so called ‘Philotas incident’ described by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus in the “The History of Alexander”

    Alexander the Great speaks in front of the Macedones of his army: “The Macedonians are going to judge your case,” he said. “Please state whether you will use your native language before them.”
    Philotas: “Besides the Macedonians, there are many present who, I think, will find what I am going to say easier to understand if I use the language you yourself have been using, your purpose, I believe, being only to enable more people to understand you.”
    Then the king said: “Do you see how offensive Philotas find even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases – only remember he as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language”.
    The Slavic propaganda claims that when Philotas started to speak in Greek Alexander asked him to use his “native Macedonian language”. Even if we assume that this episode took place exactly like this, it is still very unclear. Curtius does not make any reference to any specific language. He doesn’t refer to a “Macedonian language” at all. This is only an assumption made by the Slavs. There is absolutely no evidence to support this assumption – that Philotas’ native language was the “Macedonian language” .
    It would be more logical to suggest that Philotas started to speak in Persian (since they were in Persia and it would enable more people to understand… ) and Alexander asked him to speak in Greek – his native language.

    Argument:”The ancient historians refer to the Macedonian language as a separate language from the Greek”

    Answer: This is typical example of ignorance about the Greek history. In fact there is no ancient document refering explicity to a “Macedonian language”. All the ancient documents they quote referring to the “Macedonian language” use the term “Makedonisti” which of course does not mean a different language. It refers to the form of the Greek langauge spoken in Macedonia. Similarly there are ancient documents referring to the Greek dialect of Athens as “Attikisti” or the Greek dialect of Peloponisos as “Peloponisti” etc. Should we assume that there was an Athenian language from that, or that the Athenians were not Greek?

    Argument:”Not only that the Macedonians did not worshiped the Greek gods, but also there is not a single temple discovered on the territory of Macedonia which resembles the temples in Greece.”

    Answer:
    Here we have two lies in one sentence!

    1. The Macedonians did worship the Greek Gods and there are numerous quotes from the ancient historians which clearly prove that. On the other hand there is absolutely no historical evidence to support that the Macedonians worshiped different Gods than the rest of the Greeks.

    2. Several temples in Maceonia were dedicated to the Greek Gods. Here are a few examples:

    The temple of Afrodite in Dion
    The temple of Eukleia in Vergina
    The temple of Zeus in Dodoni

    Argument:”The Macedonians did not take part in the Peloponesean war, therefore they were not Greek”

    Answer:
    The Peloponesean war was a war between two sides Athens and Sparti. A few of their allies took part as well but the vast majority of the Greek states did not participate. The fact that the Macedonians were absent from the Peloponesean war can not be used as an argument against the Greek identity of Macedonia.

    Argument:”Pausanias (1.1.3) talks about a war between Greeks and Macedonians: ‘Leosthenes at the head of the Athenians and the united Greeks defeated the Macedonians in Boeotia and again outside Thermopylae forced them into Lamia’ ”

    Answer:
    This is one of the most audacious attempts by the Slavs to twist the Greek history. A war between two ancient Greek states was a very common phenomenon and it certainly did NOT mean that one of the states was not Greek. The war between Athens and Sparti (known as the Peloponesean war) which lasted for 27 years is well known. Should we assume that either the Athenians or the Spartans were not Greek because tey fought agaist each other?

    More examles of wars betwwen the Greek states:

    395-386 bc : the Corinthian War: Corinth, Boeotia, Argos and Athens backed by Persia against Sparta.

    369 bc : Second invasion of the Peloponnese by Thebes under Epaminondas.

    364 bc : Battle of Cynoscephalae. Thebes destroyed Orchomenus.

    362 bc : The battle of Mantinea. Thebes under Epaminondas defeated a force of Spartans, Athenians and Mantineans.

    356-346 bc : Phocis seized Delphi and provoked the Third Sacred War (Phocis against Thebes, Locris and Thessaly).

    It is obvious that a war between the ancient Greek states was a very common phenomenon so a battle between Macedon and Athens can not be used as proof that the Macedonians were

  109. to ciganos calling himself hokapontas:
    DID I SAY SOMEWERE THAT YOU ARE STUPID?Now I`m saying that you are VERY STUPID.Explain(if you can)how is possible Kiril and Merodij to be greeks and to write down SLAVIC alphabet.How is possible every historical FACT that says MACEDONIANS conqered Ancent greece to be WRONGLY
    translated?Explain why Agean Macedonia is NOT under jurisdiction of your church but under Constantinopole?Tell us something about mass murders of Macedonians after Balkan wars.Try to find some dates WHEN in history Macedonia was greek.NEVER.But above evrything else explain how dicendants of Ethiopian tribes GOT right to call themself greeks?

  110. Cope,
    you fool! you fool! you fool!

    your idiotic approach to history is unique! you deserve a prize in stupidity!!
    After all the documentation me and Phillipos presented to you I would expect you to provide some historical documents proving your nonsense.
    Obviously, there arent any!
    YOU idiot… EXPLAIN HOW CAN ALEXANDROS HAVE A GREEK NAME MEANING: ALEX:PROTECT, ANDROS:MAN, MEN
    so Alexandros means:protector of men AND NOT BE GREEK?
    (Other modern greek words with the prefix alex…alexisfairo, alexikeravno etc.)
    Macedonians you fool UNITED all the Greek speaking tribes and spread the hellenistic culture all over the world!!!
    Byzantine empire you FOOL was the continuation of the ancient Greek and Roman civilisations and Constantinoupolis was the capital of the Hellenized Byzantine empire. In Byzantine years people officially spoke Greek you idiot! The Patriarch in Konstantipoupoli is Greek.. you idiot and greek macedonians are proud to belong there… a fact that proves the continuity of the Greekness of the area of Macedonia which belonged in the
    patriarchate of Constantinoupolis since the first years of Christianity. That means you idiot… that the Greek macedonians were always Christians, unlike your slavic race had to be christianized by the Greeks Cyril and Methodious hundreds of years later.. you fool!

    Particular dates of Macedonia being GREEK? since anient times… never stopped to be Greek you idot… 6000 six thousand ancient inscriptions in the greek language have been found all over Macedonia you idiot…
    you fool.., you fool …you fool…

  111. hello everybody,

    here follows some information about who the fyrom citizens really are…

    THE ETHNICITY OF THE FYROM

    The Yugoslavian Military Encyclopedia lists the ancestors of the present FYROM inhabitants as Slavs, people of the first Slavic tribes of Brsjaci, Dragudati, Smoljani, Rinhini, Velegiziti and others, that arrived in the area in the 6th century AD.

    But who are these people? The history of the Slav inhabitants of The FYROM goes hand to hand with the history of the Bulgarian people up to 1913, for they started together by fate and they were forced to separate by politics. The present day Slavic population of The FYROM has nothing in common with the ancient Macedonians. They are simply put Slavs.

    The southern Slavs used to be called Venedi, but the Byzantines changed their name when they migrated to the south part of the Balkans to Sklavini because the Slavs established alliances, or unions among themselves called ‘sklavinije’ with a regular hierarchy of princes like Hatson, Akamir, Prvud as their high commanders. In the middle of the 5th century AD the southern Slavs crossed the Carpathian Mountains and settled in the former Roman provinces of Panonia (modern day Hungary) and Dacia (modern day Romania). It seems that the first Slavic and the Hunnic (Turkish) tribes of the Bulgars started attacking the Balkan areas together in the 5th century AD. In the beginning they robbed the Byzantine population, devastating the countryside and then returning to their bases.

    Lasting settlements of Slavs in Macedonia began at the end of sixth century. Up to the middle of the seventh century seven Slavic tribes, such as Draguviti, Brsjaci or Bereziti, Sagudati, Rinhini, Strumljani or Strimonci, Smoljani, Velegeziti united in tribal unions, thus turning into an important political and ethnic factor in the history of the Balkans. They are the ancestors of the present day Slavic population of the FYROM and originally they inhabited the territory from the river Nestos to Thessaly, and from Thessaloniki to the Mountains Shar, Rila, and Osogovska.

    Smoljani and one part of Draguviti settled on the Rodopi Mountain Range; Sagudati and the other part of Draguviti inhabited the area north of Thessaloniki; Strumljani / Strimonci preferred the lowlands of Strymon; whereas Rinhini went down to Chalkidiki and some of them even to Mt. Athos. On the other hand Brsjaci / Bereziti along with the Velegeziti settled the areas of Ohrid and Prespa. There were a few other tribes of Timocani, Abodrini, and Moravjani, which inhabited the south part of the present day Serbia and later they were incorporated to the Serbia Nation. The Timocani lived in the lowlands of the river Timok, the Abodrini inhabited the west lowlands of Timok and the Moravijani populated the area of the river Morava in the heart of present day Serbia, called Sumadija. As time passed the trapped Thraco-ilirian population was either pushed to the mountain regions, or at a later time assimilated by the Slavs.

    Because of their strong culture and population the Greeks could not be assimilated, but stayed intact. So that areas with strong Greek presence remained Greek. Thus even if Slavic and Bulgarian elements were living in Macedonia and Thrace the main bulk of the populace was Greek. The Illyrian lands that form today’s Albania and its neighboring areas were out of the Slavic and Bulgarian reach.

    So, these are the Slav inhabitants of the FYROM. What is interesting about the whole matter is that very few of them know their own history and even those who know it don’t want to say anything afraid for their safety or the stigma of being a “traitor.” What is more interesting is the fact that notable citizens of The FYROM, like the following, have acknowledged publicly that they are descendants of the first Slavic tribes.

    February 26, 1992: The FYROM’s President Kirov Gligorov, at an interview by the Foreign Information Service daily report, Eastern Europe, stated: “We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians.

    January 22, 1999: The FYROM’s Ambassador in Washington D.C., Mrs. Ljubica Acevska, gave a speech on the present situation in the Balkans, she stated: “We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great. We are Slavs and we speak a Slavic language. Greece is The FYROM’s second largest trading partner and its number one “investor.”

    February 24, 1999: The FYROM.’s Ambassador to Canada, Gyordan Veselinov, in an interview with the “Ottawa Citizen”, he admitted: “We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are Slavs and our language is closely related to Bulgarian. There is some confusion about our identity.”

    December 29, 2001: Even recently, in an interview to Utrinski Vesnik of Skopje, the Foreign Minister of The FYROM Slobodan Casule said that he mentioned to the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria Solomon Pasi that they “belong to the same Slav people.”

    And yet nobody neither internally nor externally has asked “then what’s with the name Macedonia?” The only ones who believe they are descendants of the ancient Macedonians, are the ones who received their high degree of education from the “Titoic School of History” under the auspices of communist Yugoslavia.

  112. hi there people…

    to give you a clear insight of who the real Makedonians are it must be noted that:

    Our ancestors are the original Macedonians, the Macedonian Hellenes, who arrived in the area around 2000 BC. The Macedonian Hellenes were descendants of the Heracleides. As such the ancient Macedonians were part of a larger and the last group of Hellenes, which reached the area of present day Kastoria (ORESTIS) along with the Dorians, Acarnanians and Aetolians around 2000 BC. Herodotus, the father of history, very carefully describes the 800- year wanderings of that large group, which eventually split into three smaller groups. Just after the Trojan War, the first group under the leadership of Dorus inhabited Peloponnesus and the second group, the Acarnanians and Aetolians, went south. The third group marched east and by pushing the Phrygians, established the Kingdom of Macedonia on a loop of the River Aliakmon. The first king of Macedonia was Karanos who reigned between 813 and 786 BC. More recent archeological discoveries of the tomb of King Philip II (father of Alexander the Great) at Vergina, in 1985 and lately at nearby Aiani, the discovery of remnants from the 600 BC Mycenean civilization (southern Greece) add to the tangible evidence that Macedonia is Greek.

    Alexander was as much a Hellene as the southern Hellenes, speaking the same language, worshipping the same gods, uniting the Hellenes against the common enemy, spreading the Hellenic language and civilization throughout his vast empire and leaving nothing but Hellenic footprints everywhere he went in his short life.

    Alexander’s own words are quoted as: “Men of Athens… Had I not greatly AT HEART the common welfare of GREECE I should not have come to tell you; BUT I AM MYSELF GREEK BY DESCENT, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery…. If you prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the GREEK CAUSE, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am ALEXANDER of MACEDON.”
    [Herodotus, The Histories, 9.45, translated by G.Rawlinson]

    “…consider all Hellas your fatherland, as did the founder of your race,…”
    [Isokrates, To Philip 127]

    In 324BC, after the establishment of his state, Alexander the Great gave an oath to the officers and soldiers of his state. The oath was also addressed to all the races that lived in the territories of his empire, it was given near Babylon (in Opis) and the philosopher Eratosthenes passes it to us. By the reading the oath one can quickly realize how much Greek Alexander felt, and how proud he was of his Greek origin:
    “I wish all of you, now that the wars are coming to an end, to live happily, in peace. All mortals from now on will live like one people, united, and peacefully working towards a common prosperity. You should regard the whole world as your country, a country where the best govern, with common laws, and no racial distinctions. I do not separate people, as many narrow minded others do, into Greeks and barbarians. I am not interested in the origin or race of citizens. I only distinguish them on the basis of their virtue. For me each foreigner is a Greek and each bad Greek is a barbarian. If ever there appear differences among you, then you must not resolve them by taking to arms, you should resolve them in peace. If need be, I will act as your negotiator.
    You must not think of God as an authoritarian ruler, but you should consider him as a common father, so that your conduct resembles the uniform behavior of brothers who belong to the same family. For my part, I consider all, whether they be white or black, equal. And I would like you to be not only subject of my common-wealth, but also participants and partners. You should regard the Oath we have taken tonight as a Symbol of Love.”
    Alexander I – Opis (324 BC)
    There is no doubt that particular area endured many conquests by various conquerors. But even during the Roman Conquest, which continued into the Byzantine Era – a period of about one thousand years – that Roman territory, with Constantinople as its capital and Thessaloniki (in Macedonia) as a cultural and commercial center of the Empire, remained fully Hellenic. Furthermore, during Justinian’s time it adopted the Hellenic language as the formal and official Language of the Byzantine State. Although the Romans came as conquerors they were instead conquered by the Hellenic spirit, education and culture.

    Throughout the Ottoman Empire the geographical area of Macedonia was divided in three administrative areas called vilayets. Each vilayet was further divided in smaller areas called sandzaks and each sandzak was further divided in kazas. Thus during the period of the Ottoman Empire there were three vilayets that included, but not limited the area of geographic Macedonia. One vilayet was Manastir with its capital the city of Manastir (present day Bitola, the FYROM). The other one Kosova, with capital Prizren (present day Kosovo), which included parts of present day Kosovo and the northern part of the FYROM). The third one was the vilayet of Selanik with its capital Selanik (present day Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece). This included parts of the Greek Macedonia, parts of the south-eastern FYROM and parts of southwestern Bulgaria.

    After the demise of the Ottoman Turkey the terms of the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913 Greece was awarded the south geographical part of Macedonia, Serbia the north geographical part, and Bulgaria was awarded a small northeastern geographical part of Macedonia. The Serbs called their part South Serbia and later Vardarska Banovina, which included the whole territory of the FYROM, Kosovo and part of present-day south-eastern Serbia.

    During the Ottoman Occupation of Greece, which lasted about four hundred years, the Greeks, including those in the Macedonian area, never lost their Hellenic identity. Through about twenty generations during that era they were able to preserve their language, religion and most importantly their Hellenic conscience under the most difficult circumstances of an enslaved nation. Southern Greece was liberated in 1821 and during the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 Greece liberated its province of Macedonia from the Ottoman rulers.

  113. cope,

    HERE IS SOME USEFUL MATERIAL FOR YOU TO READ!!

    There have been certain fallacies circulating for the past few years due to ignorance on the “Macedonian Issue”. It is exacerbated by systematic propaganda emanating from AVNOJ, or communist Yugoslavia and present-day FYROM, and their intransigent ultra-nationalist Diaspora.
    Fallacy #1
    The inhabitants of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (The FYROM) are ethnic Macedonians, direct descendants of, or related to the ancient Macedonians.

    Fact #1
    The inhabitants of The FYROM are mostly Slavs, Bulgarians and Albanians. They have nothing in common with the ancient Macedonians. Here are some testimonies from The FYROM’s officials:

    a. The former President of The FYROM, Kiro Gligorov said: “We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century … we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians” (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).

    b. Also, Mr Gligorov declared: “We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That’s who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia… Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century” (Toronto Star, March 15, 1992).

    c. On 22 January 1999, Ambassador of the FYROM to USA, Ljubica Achevska gave a speech on the present situation in the Balkans. In answering questions at the end of her speech Mrs. Acevshka said: “We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great … Greece is Macedonia’s second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nemitz.” In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that “we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language”.

    d. On 24 February 1999, in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM’S Ambassador to Canada, admitted, “We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian.” He also commented, “There is some confusion about the identity of the people of my country”.

    e. Moreover, the Foreign Minister of the FYROM, Slobodan Casule, in an interview to Utrinski Vesnik of Skopje on December 29, 2001, said that he mentioned to the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, Solomon Pasi, that they “belong to the same Slav people.”

    Fallacy #2
    The Macedonian Greeks are of the same ethnic group as the “Macedonians” of The FYROM.

    Fact #2
    The Macedonian Greeks are NOT of the same ethnic group as the Macedonian Slavs of The FYROM. The Macedonian Greeks are just that, Greeks who live in or originate from the geographic area of Macedonia. They are the only people, that by inheritance, can be called Macedonians.

    Fallacy #3
    Ancient Macedonians were a tribe similar to the Greeks, but not Greek themselves.

    Fact #3
    Ancient Macedonians were one of more than the 230 Hellenic tribes, sub-tribes, and families of the Hellenic Nation that spoke more than 200 dialects. For more information see Herodotus, Thucydides, Titus Livius, Strabo, Nevi’im, Ketuvim, Apocrypha (Macabees I, 1-2). It was not until 1945 that their Hellenism has been challenged by the Slavs for expansionistic reasons.

    Fallacy #4
    Ancient Greece was a country, a legal entity, as we understand it today.

    Fact #4
    No. Hellas (Greece) was first recognized as a nation state or legal entity as we understand it today in 1830. From the beginning until that time, the term Hellas was only a geographic term or an administrative area whose borders were changing depending on the needs of the Roman, Byzantine, or Ottoman Empires.

    Fallacy #5
    There was one ancient Greek language and the ancient Macedonians spoke Macedonian, not Greek.

    Fact #5
    Linguistically, there is no real distinction between a dialect and a language without a specific factor. People usually consider the political factor to determine whether a certain kind of speech is a language or a dialect. Since the Pan-Hellenic area consisted of many small city- states (Attica, Lacedaemon, Corinth, etc.), and larger states (Molossia, Thesprotia, Macedonia, Acarnania, Aetolia, etc.), it was common knowledge at the time that the people of all those states were speaking different languages, when in fact they were all variations of the same language, Hellenic or Greek. The most advanced of all Hellenic dialects was the dialect of Attica (Athens) or Attic. When people state “ancient Greek language” they mean the Attic dialect and any comparison of the Macedonian dialect to ancient Greek is actually a comparison to the Attic dialect. The difference between Macedonian and Attic was like the difference between Low and High German. Nobody doubts that both are Germanic languages, although they differ from one another. Another good example of a multi-dialectal linguistic regime is present-day Italy. The official language of Italy is the Florentine, but common people still speak their own dialects. Two people from different areas of Italy cannot communicate if both speak their respective dialect, and yet they both speak Italian. Why should the Hellenic language be treated differently?

    At that time, Greeks spoke more than 200 Hellenic dialects or languages, as the ancient Greeks used to call them. Some of the well-known dialects were Ionic, Attic, Doric, Aeolic, Cypriot, Arcadic, Aetolic, Acarnanic, Macedonian and Locric. Moreover, we know that the Romans considered the Macedonians as Hellenic speaking peoples. Livy wrote, “…The Aetolians, the Acarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same speech, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time …” (Livy, History of Rome, b. XXXI par. XXIX). The Aetolians and Acarnanians were definitely Hellenic tribes. On another occasion Livy writes “…[General Paulus] took his official seat surrounded by the whole crowd of Macedonians … his announcement was translated into Greek and repeated by Gnaeus Octavius the praetor…”. If the crowd of Macedonians were not Greek speaking, why then did the Romans need to translate Paulus’ speech into Greek? (Livy, History of Rome, b. XLV, para XXIX).

    The Macedonian dialect was an Aeolic dialect of the Western Greek language group (Hammond, The Macedonian State, p. 193). All those dialects differ from each other, but never in a way that one person could not understand the other. The Military Yugoslavian Encyclopedia of the 1974 edition (Letter M, page 219), a very anti-Hellenic biased publication, states, “… u doba rimske invazije, njihov jezik bio gr?ki, ali se dva veka ranije dosta razlikovao od njega, mada ne toliko da se ta dva naroda nisu mogla sporazumevati.” (… at the time of the Roman invasion their language was Hellenic, but two centuries before it was different enough, but not as much as the two peoples could not understand one another).

    After the death of Alexander the Great, the situation changed in the vast empire into a new reality. Ptolemy II, Philadelphos (308-246 BC) the Pharaoh (king) of Egypt realized that the physical unification of the Greeks and the almost limitless expansion of the Empire required the standardization of the already widely used common language or Koin?. Greek was already the lingua franca of the vast Hellenistic world in all four kingdoms of the Diadochi (Alexander’s Successors). It was already spoken, but neither an official alphabet nor grammar had yet been devised.

    Alexandria, Egypt was already the Cultural Center of the Empire in about 280 BC. Ptolemy II assigned Aristeas, an Athenian scholar, to create the grammar of the new language, one that not only all Greeks, but all inhabitants of the Empire would be able to speak. Thus, Aristeas used the Attic dialect as basis for the new language. Aristeas and the scholars who were assisting him trimmed the language a little, eliminated the Attic idiosyncrasies and added words as well as grammatical and syntactical rules mainly from the Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic dialects. The Spartan Doric, however, was excluded from it (see Tsakonian further down). So, they standardized THE Hellenic language, called Koine or Common.

    The language was far from perfect. Non-Greeks encountered difficulties reading it since there was no way to separate words, sentences and paragraphs. In addition, they were unable to express their feelings and the right intonation. During that time, Greek was a melodic language, even more melodic than Italian is today.

    The system of paragraphs, sentences, and some symbols like ~. ;`’! , were the result of continuous improvement and enhancement of the language with the contribution of many Greek scholars from all over the World.

    There were a few alphabets employed by various Hellenic cities or states, and these alphabets included letters specific to the sounds of their particular dialect. There were two main categories, the Eastern and the Western alphabets. The first official alphabet omitted all letters not in use any longer ( sampi, qoppa, digamma also known as stigma in Greek numbering) and it presented a 24-letter alphabet for the new Koin? language. However, the inclusion and use of small letters took place over a period of many centuries after the standardization of Koin?.

    After the new language was completed with its symbols, the Jews of Egypt felt that it was an opportunity for them to translate their sacred books into Greek since it was the language that the Jews of Diaspora spoke. So on the island of Pharos, by Alexandria’s seaport, 72 Jewish rabbis were secluded and isolated as they translated their sacred books (Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim, etc.) from Aramaic and Hebrew to the Koin? Greek, the newly created language. This is known as the Septuagint translation. The Koin? evolved and in about two to three centuries it became the language that Biblical scholars call Biblical Greek. In fact, only those who have studied the Attic dialect can understand the difference between the Septuagint Greek and the Greek of the New Testament.

    Although the Koin? was officially in use, common folk in general continued to speak their own dialect and here and there one can sense the insertion of elements of the Attic dialect in various documents such as the New Testament. The Gospel according to St. John and the Revelation are written in perfect Attic. The other three Synoptic Gospels were written in Koin? with the insertion of some Semitic grammatical concepts (i.e. the Hebrew genitive) and invented words (i.e. epiousios).

    The outcome is that today in Greece there are many variations in speech; of course not to the point of people not understanding each other, but still there is divergence in the Greek spoken tongue. Today the Hellenic language accepts only one dialect, the Tsakonian, which is a direct development of the ancient Doric dialect of Sparta. The Demotic is a development of mostly the Doric sound system, whereas the Katharevousa is a made-up language based on the Classical Attic. Presently, the speech in various areas of Greece somehow differs from each other and sometimes an untrained ear might have difficulty understanding the local speech. Pontic and Cypriot Greek are very good examples to the unacquainted ear. Tsakonian dialect, the descendant of the Spartan Doric, is almost impossible to understand if one is not familiar with it.

    Over the years, Macedonia had several names. At first the Macedonians gave the land the name, Emathia, after their leader Emathion. It derives from the word amathos, amathoeis meaning sand or sandy. From now on, all of its names are Greek. Later it was called Maketia or Makessa and finally Makedonia (Macedonia). The latter names are derived from the Doric/Aeolic word “makos,” (in Attic “m?kos) meaning length (see Homer, Odyssey, VII, 106), thus Makednos means long or tall, but also a highlander or mountaineer. (cf. Orestae, Hellenes).

    In Opis, during the mutiny of the Macedonian Army, Alexander the Great spoke to the whole Macedonian Army addressing them in Greek (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII, 9,10). The Macedonian soldiers listened to him and they were dumbfounded by what they heard from their Commander-in-Chief. They were upset. Immediately after Alexander left for the Palace, they demanded that Alexander allow them to enter the palace so that they could talk to him.

    When this was reported to Alexander, he quickly came out and saw their restrained disposition; he heard the majority of his soldiers crying and lamenting, and was moved to tears. He came forward to speak, but they remained there imploring him. One of them, named Callines, whose age and command of the Companion cavalry made him preeminent spoke as follows: “Sire, what grieves the Macedonians is that you have already made some Persians your ‘kinsmen’, and the Persians are called ‘kinsmen’ of Alexander and are allowed to kiss you, while not one of the Macedonians has been granted this honor” (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII, 8-11).

    The previous story clearly reveals that the Macedonians were speaking Greek since they could understand their leader. There were thousands of them, not just some selected few who happened to speak Greek. It would be unrealistic for Alexander the Great to speak to them in a language they supposedly did not speak. It would be impossible to believe that the Macedonian soldiers were emotionally moved to the point that all of them were lamenting after listening to a language they did not understand. There is no way for the Macedonians to have taken a crash course in Greek in 20 minutes so that they would be able to understand the speech simultaneously as Alexander was delivering it.

    Furthermore, the Macedonians wore a distinctive hat, the “kausia” (??????) (Polybius IV 4,5; Eustathius 1398; Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII 22; cf. Sturz, Macedonian Dialect, 41) from the Greek word for heat that separated them from the rest of the Greeks. That is why the Persians called them “yauna takabara,” which meant “Greeks wearing the hat”. The Macedonian hat was very distinctive from the hats of the other Greeks, but the Persians did not distinguished the Macedonians, because the Macedonian speech was also Greek (Hammond, The Macedonian State p. 13 cf. J.M. Balcer, Historia, 37 [1988] 7).

    On the mountainsides of the Himalayas and the Indian Caucasus and under Pakistani and Afghanistan jurisdiction lives a tribe whose people call themselves Kalash. They claim to be the descendants of Alexander the Great’s soldiers who for various reasons were left behind in the depths of Asia and could not follow the Great General in his new conquests. Having no contact with the outside world for almost 23 centuries, they are quite different from any other neighboring nations. Light complexioned, and blue eyed in the midst of dark skinned neighbors, their language, even though it has been affected and influenced by the many Muslim languages of nations that surround the Kalash tribe, still incorporates vocabulary and has many elements of the ancient Greek language. They greet their visitors with “ispanta” from the Greek verb “?????????” (greetings) and they warn them about “heman” from the ancient Greek noun “??????” (winter). These indigenous people still believe in the twelve Olympian gods and their architecture resembles very much the Macedonian architecture (National Herald, “A School in the Tribe of Kalash by Greeks”, October 11, 1996).

    Michael Wood, the British scholar in his In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great (p.8), quotes the following statement made by a Kalash named Kazi Khushnawaz:

    Long long ago, before the days of Islam, Sikander e Aazem came to India. The Two Horned one whom you British people call Alexander the Great. (sic) He conquered the world, and was a very great man, brave and dauntless and generous to his followers. When he left to go back to Greece, some of his men did not wish to go back with him but preferred to stay here. Their leader was a general called Shalakash [Seleucus]. With some of his officers and men, he came to these valleys and they settled here and took local women, and here they stayed. We, the Kalash, the Black Kafir of the Hindu Kush, are the descendants of their children. Still some of our words are the same as theirs, our music and our dances, too; we worship the same gods. This is why we believe the Greeks are our first ancestors…

    (Seleucus was one of the Generals of Alexander the Great. He was born in 358 or 354 BC in the town of Europos, Macedonia and died in August/September 281 BC near Lysimathia, Thrace.)

    The Kalash today worship the ancient Greek gods and especially Di Zau [Dias Zeus], the great sky god. Unfortunately, their language died out only in Muslim times. This is further evidence that Macedonians and Greeks spoke the same language, had the same religion and the same customs.

    Accusations of Macedonians being barbarians started in Athens and they were the result of political fabrications based on the Macedonian way of life and not on their ethnicity or language. (Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, p158, Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 4). Demosthenes traveled to Macedonia twice for a total of nine months. He knew very well what language the Macedonians were speaking. We encountered similar behavior with Thrasyboulos. He states that the Acarnanians were barbarians only when the Athenians encountered a conflict of political interest from the Acarnanians. The Macedonian way of life differed in many ways from the southern Greek way of life, but that was very common among the Western Greeks such as Chaones, Molossians, Thesprotians, Acarnanians, Aetolians and Macedonians (Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 4). Macedonian state institutions were similar to those of the Mycenean and Spartan (Wilcken, Alexander the Great, p 23). Regarding Demosthenes addressing Philip as “barbarian” even Badian an opponent of the Greekness of Macedonians states “It may have nothing to do with historical fact, any more than the orators’ tirades against their personal enemies usually have.” (E. Badian, Studies in the History of Art Vol 10: Macedonia And Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, Greeks and Macedonians).

    Fallacy #6
    Ancient Macedonia was a nation state.

    Fact #6
    Before Phillip II, Macedonia was divided into small typical city-states having adopted the same concept of internal civic structure as the southern Greek city-states. Each Macedonian city-state or area had its own main city and government. Philip II united the Macedonian city-states by instituting and establishing a Homeric style of a Kingdom, maintaining the infrastructure of the smaller city-states with the various kings paying tribute to the king of all Macedonia. We know this from the fact that at one time the king of Lyncestis (present day Bitola – Florina) was Alexander. The point that has to be made clear is that a man’s first loyalty was to his city, not to the King of Macedonia (Hammond, The Macedonian State, p. 9).

    Fallacy #7
    Over the years the ancient Macedonians disappeared.

    Fact #7
    The ancient Macedonians, under the influence of the new common language, the Koine, as developed over the years, were amalgamated with the rest of the Hellenes, or Greeks.

    Fallacy #8
    If the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, why then was Alexander I, the king of Macedonia, named Philhellene (lover of Greece)? This title is bestowed only to foreigners.

    Fact #8
    The king of Macedonia, Alexander I, was named Philhellene by the Theban poet Pindaros for the same reason Jason of Pherrai and Euagoras of Cyprus were called Philhellenes (Isocrates 107A, 199A). The title Philhellene in ancient times meant Philopatris (lover of the homeland) or simply put “a patriot” (Plato, Politics, 470E; Xenophon, Agesilaus, 7, 4), which is why Alexander the Great did not touch the traditional house of Pindaros when he ordered his soldiers to burn Thebes.

    Fallacy #9
    The ancient Greeks had a Greek or Hellenic national conscience and the Macedonians, by destroying Greek cities, proved that they were not Greeks.

    Fact #9
    Greece is an area which lacking geographic continuity fostered alienation of individual tribes not only in the general sense, but also in a narrower sense. That explains why the ancient Greeks did not have a common national conscience which is why they were warring against each other. The Macedonians destroyed or burned cities belonging to other Greek City States for the same reason the Athenians, the Thebans, and the Spartans battled one another.

    They knew that somehow they were related, but local conscience was much stronger than a Pan- Hellenic one. Ancient Greeks, of the Hellenic mainland, were united before an enemy attack that could endanger the common freedom and welfare. This fact was displayed anytime the Persians attacked the Hellenic lands. Greeks from Ionia and Aeolia (present day Aegean shores of Turkey), however, were mostly Persian allies in opposition to the Mainland Greeks.

    It was common practice for various Hellenic states to form political/military alliances with each other and against each other, but they did not develop ethnic partnerships. There are plenty of such alliances in the ancient Hellenic world.

    A few centuries went by until the Greeks began developing a national conscience. The Greeks definitely achieved the completion of a national conscience by the time Justinian was crowned the Emperor of Byzantium. Very few ancient Greeks, such as Pericles, Demosthenes and Phillip II of Macedonia had the vision of a united country, but each one wanted to see his own state as the leading force of such a union. Pericles dreamed of it, Demosthenes advocated it, but Phillip II materialized it. Also, the Macedonians had common religious practices and customs as the Spartans.

    Fallacy #10
    The ancient Macedonians were one of the Illyrian tribes.

    Fact #10
    Although there is a lot of evidence (mostly indirect) regarding the language of the ancient Macedonians, there is one piece of evidence offered by Polybius in book XXVIII, paragraphs 8 and 9, where it states that the Macedonians were using translators when they were communicating with the Illyrians. This means the Macedonians and the Illyrians did not speak the same language. For instance, Perseus, the Macedonian king, sent Adaeus of Berroia (who spoke only Greek) and Pleuratus the Illyrian, as a translator (because he spoke the Illyrian language) on a mission to the Illyrian king Genthius (169 BC). Pleuratus was an exile living in Perseus’ court. Moreover there is evidence that the Illyrians and the Macedonians were vicious enemies.

    Fallacy #11
    Many of the Greeks living in Greek Macedonia are actually refugees that came to Macedonia during the First World War and especially during the 1920’s and 1930′ from Turkey, the Middle East, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine and Bulgaria.

    Fact #11
    It is very true that a good number of the Greeks living in Greek Macedonia are refugees from various Middle Eastern countries. However, it is also true that these Greeks are descendants of those ancient Greeks, including ancient Macedonians, who either colonized various areas of what presently are Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Bulgaria, Turkey, the Middle East, or followed the greatest General of all times, Alexander the Great. These Greeks simply came home after at least two and one half millennia of spreading the Greek spirit, culture, language and civilization. Mother Greece made her lands available to her returning and thought to be lost offspring. It was the least she could do. After all they had every right to come home, just as the Jews did and they are still going home to Israel.

    Fallacy #12
    Sts. Cyril and Methodius were Slavs and that is the rationale why they are called “the Apostles of the Slavs” and also “the Slav Apostles.”

    Fact #12
    The term “Slav Apostles” or the “Apostles of the Slavs” does not mean that the two brothers were Slavs. St. Thomas is called “the Indian Apostle,” but we all know that he was not an Indian. He simply taught Christianity to the Indians. The Greek brothers from Thessaloniki taught Christianity to the Slavs, they gave them the alphabet (presently called Cyrillic), and they translated the sacred and liturgical books of Christianity into the Old Church Slavonic, otherwise known as Old Bulgarian.

    Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Epistles of December 31, 1980, and June 2, 1985, while he was commemorating the two brothers, affirmed the fact that both were Greeks from Thessaloniki.

    Professors Ivan Lazaroff, Plamen Pavloff, Ivan Tyutyundzijeff and Milko Palangurski of the Faculty of History of Sts. Cyril and Methodius University in Veliko T?rnovo, Bulgaria in their book, Kratka istoriya na b?lgarskiya narod (Short History of the Bulgarian Nation, pp 36-38), state very explicitly that the two brothers were Greeks from Thessaloniki. The late Oscar Halecki, Professor of Eastern European History, in his book Borderlands of Western Civilization, A History of East Central Europe (chapter Moravian State and the Apostles of the Slavs) agrees with the authors of Kratka istoriya na b?lgarskiya narod.

    Fallacy #13
    The present day Emblem of the FYROM is the lion. This lion is the same lion that Alexander the Great is depicted wearing above his head imprinted on some old coins.

    Fact #13
    There is nothing in common between The FYROM’s lion and the lion’s skin that Alexander the Great wears in some coins. The FYROM’s lion is actually the Bulgarian lion, which is depicted in the Bulgarian Coat of Arms.

    Alexander’s lion is the lion’s skin that Heracles killed in Nemea, which is one of the 12 deeds executed by the mythological hero. The lion skin that Alexander the Great wears signifies his ancestral relationship to Heracles (Hercules). There is an unpublished inscription from Xanthos dating from the third century BC (cf. Robert, Amyzon, 1,162, n 31) where the Ptolemies refer to their Ancestors as “Herakleidas Argeadas” (Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 265, n 6).

    Fallacy #14
    In other coins we see Alexander the Great having two horns on his head and this signifies that he was a very bad man.

    Fact #14
    In the Middle Eastern tradition a horned man meant that he was powerful. Darius in his letters to Alexander the Great called him, Zul-Al-Kurnain or Double Horned one. Thus the horns on Alexander’s head means that he was recognized as most powerful.

    Fallacy #15
    After the battle of Granicus, Alexander sent the Athenians 300 full suits of Persian armor as a present, with the following inscription: “Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians, dedicate these spoils, taken from the Persian who dwell in Asia.” J.R. Hamilton in a note on this event states, “In view of the small part, which the Greeks had played in the battle the inscription [with the omission of any mention of the Macedonians] must be regarded as propaganda designed for his Greek allies. Alexander does not fail to stress the absence of the Spartans.”

    Fact #15
    J.R. Hamilton’s assumption is unconvincing. Alexander the Great had no reason to please anyone because the troops from South Greece were only 9,400, and as he admits, they only played a small part in the battle. Being the master of the expeditionary force and ignoring his Macedonians while exalting the “foreign Greeks”, Alexander would have faced the same angry Macedonians that he was confronted with in Opis when he appointed foreigners (Persians and Medes) to high ranks and offices in his Army and administration. However, none of the Macedonians complained about the inscription after the battle of Granicus because they considered themselves included in it.

    The fact is that Alexander the Great considered himself and his Macedonians, Greek. He claimed ancestry on his mother’s side from Achilles and on his father’s side from Hercules (Heracles). His ancestor, Alexander I, stated that he was Greek (Herodotus, Histories, V, 20, 22; VIII, 137; IX, 45).

    The Macedonians themselves were Greek speaking peoples

    (see: Papazoglu, Makedonski Gradovi, p 333 and Central Balkan Tribes, p 135; Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, pp157-162; NGL Hammond, The Macedonian State, pp 12-15 and 193; Cavaignac, Histoire de l’ antiquité, i, p 67; Hoffman, Die Makedonen, p. 259; Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 3; Yugoslavian Military Encyclopedia 1974 “Anti?ka Makedonija”; Hogarth, Philip and Alexander, p.5, n 4), Urlich Wilcken, Alexander the Great, II pp 23 and 24, Botsford, Hellenic History, p 237).

    Some of the scholars mentioned above initially were not sure about the Greekness of the Macedonians (i.e. NGL Hammod). Newly discovered artifacts and monuments that were excavated indicating the Macedonians were actually Greek made them admit their previous error. NGL Hammond explains the reason why scholars like Badian do not consider the Macedonians Greeks in his book, The Macedonian State (page 13, note 29). Hammond states that most recently E. Badian in Barr-Sharrar (pp 33-51) disregarded the evidence as explained in A History of Macedonia (NGL Hammond and G. T. Griffith, 1979 pp 39-54). In Barr-Sharrar, Badian holds the view that the Macedonians (whom he does not define) spoke a language other than Greek. Badian keeps ignoring evidence that is against his beliefs and convictions choosing only certain proof and ignoring other relevant proof. That is exactly the pattern others, like E. Borza, P. Green, etc. have chosen to follow.

    All names, whether members of the royal family or not, including names of other simple Macedonian citizens, i.e. Kallinis (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII par 11), Limnos from Chalastra (Plutarch, Parallel Lives of Famous Greeks and Romans, chap. Alexander) and all toponymies in the area of the Macedonian homeland were Greek. The Macedonian homeland included the city-states of Imathia, Pieria, Bottiea, Mygdonia, Crestonia, Bisaltia, Sintiki, Odomantis, Edonis, Elimea, Orestis, Eordea, Almopia, Lyncestis, Pelagonia and Macedonian Paeonia. Macedonian Paeonia is the part of Paeonia which lies south of the narrow pass at the area of Demir Kapija (The FYROM).

    Fanula Papazoglu indirectly agrees with the concept of the above borderlines stating, “… it is often forgotten that ancient Macedonia occupied only a relatively small part of the Yugoslav Macedonia” (Papazoglu, Central Balkan Tribes, p. 268). Papazoglu’s two maps at the end of her doctoral dissertation (Makedonski gradovi u rimsko doba, Skoplje, 1957) portray only Macedonian territories under Roman rule.

    Macedonia conquered the already Hellenized Paeonia in 217 BC under King Philip V, 106 years after the death of Alexander the Great. Any map that incorporates Paeonia into Macedonia before that year is absolutely false.

    All inscriptions and artifacts excavated, including those in Trebenište and Oleveni near Bitola, are in pure Greek. With a few exceptions, the only time one sees non-Greek names and toponymies is in areas that constituted the expansion of Macedonia, i.e. Paeonia, Thrace, etc. Any non-Greek names, words or toponymies found in the Macedonian homeland are remnant of Thracians, Phrygians or Paeonians that used to live there before their expulsion by the Macedonians.

    Participation in the Olympic Games was unequivocally and definitely a function that only athletes of strictly Hellenic origin could partake. Archelaus had won in the Olympic and Pythian Games (Solinus 9, 16) and Alexander I had also won in the Olympic Games (Herodotus, Histories, V, 22).

    It is stated by Herodotus (Histories VIII, 43) that a number of Peloponnesian cities inhabited by Lacedaemonians, Corinthians, Sicyonians, Epidaurians, Troezinians, and Hermionians and that with the exception of Hermionians all others were of Dorian and Macedonian blood. The above people were living in cities located in Peloponnesus, which makes the Macedonians as Greek as the Dorians.

    The answer as to why Alexander sent the 300 full suits of Persian armor to goddess Athena, goes back to the battle of Thermopylae and all events that followed. But in order for one to understand it better, one has to know the story of the battle of Thermopylae.

    The Persian Army and Navy, headed by Xerxes, won the battle against the 1300 Greeks (1000 from Phocis) lead by the 300 Spartans whose commander was Leonidas. It is important for one to note that the Persians were victorious only when a local Greek, Ephialtes, betrayed a secret passage to the enemy who came from behind and thus surrounded the few Greeks. It is also important to know that according to Lycourgos’ laws, Spartans were not allowed to leave the battlefield for any reason, nor they were allowed to follow anyone in the battle. That’s why the Spartans did not follow Alexander against the Persians.

    Herodotus (Histories b. VIII, 114) tells us:
    … the Spartans upon the urging of the Oracle of Delphi sent a messenger to Xerxes demanding reparations for the death of Leonidas. The man who obtained an interview with Xerxes said to him: ‘My lord, King of the Medes, the Lacedaemonians and the house of Heracles in Sparta demand satisfaction for blood, because you killed their king while he was fighting in defense of Greece.’ Xerxes laughed, and for a time did not answer…

    The royal house of Sparta (Herodotus VII, 204), and the royal house of Macedonia (cf. Fact #13) both claimed descent from Heracles (Hercules).

    Taking into consideration all of the above, we come to the conclusion that Alexander the Great, being victorious at the battle of Granicus, sent 300 full armor uniforms to goddess Athena who was also the goddess of war, and in this way he AVENGED the 300 Spartans who died defending Greece.

    Conclusion:

    An abundance of information regarding the ancient Greek past comes to us from the Greek Mythology. Unfortunately, Mythology cannot be a dependable source since it cannot furnish trustworthy information which would help us reconstruct the Hellenic past. However, it does not mean it is completely useless either. It elucidates through symbolism truths leading us to the right path while searching for historical facts through written or unwritten monuments. Such monuments are the only ones accepted by historians in their attempt to unlock hidden elements that hold the key to the reconstruction of the past of all Hellenic group of nations.

    Countries are products of historical events, which is why they are born and die. Nations do not. Nations are entities that take a very arduous time to evolve. The same thing is true for their appellation. Nations cannot be given birth and receive names whenever politicians wish by legislation, as it is the case of the FYROM.

    The present-day Hellenic nation is the result of social, civic and linguistic amalgamation of more than 230 tribes speaking more than 200 dialects that claimed descent from Hellen, son of Deukalion. The Hellenic nation is blessed to espouse in its lengthy life great personalities such as politicians, educators, soldiers, philosophers and authors. They have all contributed in their own way to the molding of their nation. They are the result of natural maturity and a consequence of historical, social, civic, linguistic and political developments that have taken place in the last 4,000 years.

    “When we take into account the political conditions, religion and morals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were a Greek race and akin to the Dorians. Having stayed behind in the extreme north, they were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further south…” (Wilcken, Alexander the Great, p 22). Most historians have assessed the Macedonian state of affairs in a similar fashion. The Macedonians were a Hellenic group of tribes belonging to the Western Greek ethnic group.

    The Macedonians incorporated the territory of the native people into Macedonia and forced the Pieres, a Thracian tribe, out of the area to Mt. Pangaeum and the Bottiaiei from Bottiaia. They further expelled the Eordi from Eordaia and the Almopes from Almopia and they similarly expelled all tribes (Thracian, Paeonian, Illyrian) they found in areas of Anthemus, Crestonia, Bysaltia and other lands. The Macedonians absorbed the few inhabitants of the above tribes that stayed behind. They established their suzerainty over the land of Macedonia without losing their ethnicity, language, or religion (Thucydides, II, 99). They also incorporated the lands of the Elimeiotae, Orestae, Lyncestae, Pelagones, and Deriopes all tribes living in Upper Macedonia who were Greek speakers, but of a different (Molossian) dialect from that spoken by the Macedonians (Hammond, The Macedonian State, p. 390). Then, living with savage northern neighbors such as Illyrians, Thracians, Paeonians and later Dardanians, the Macedonians physically deflected their neighbors’ hordes forming an impenetrable fence denying them the opportunity to attack the Greek city-states of the south, which is why they are considered the bastion of Hellenism.

    N. G. L. Hammond states:
    What language did these `Macedones’ speak? The name itself is Greek in root and in ethnic termination. It probably means `highlanders’, and it is comparable to Greek tribal names such as `Orestai’ and `Oreitai’, meaning ‘mountain-men’. A reputedly earlier variant, `Maketai’, has the same root, which means `high’, as in the Greek adjective makednos or the noun mekos. The genealogy of eponymous ancestors which Hesiod recorded […] has a bearing on the question of Greek speech. First, Hesiod made Macedon a brother of Magnes; as we know from inscriptions that the Magnetes spoke the Aeolic dialect of the Greek language, we have a predisposition to suppose that the Macedones spoke the Aeolic dialect. Secondly, Hesiod made Macedon and Magnes first cousins of Hellen’s three sons – Dorus, Xouthus, and Aeolus-who were the founders of three dialects of Greek speech, namely Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic. Hesiod would not have recorded this relationship, unless he had believed, probably in the seventh century, that the Macedones were a Greek speaking people. The next evidence comes from Persia. At the turn of the sixth century the Persians described the tribute-paying peoples of their province in Europe, and one of them was the `yauna takabara’, which meant `Greeks wearing the hat’. There were Greeks in Greek city-states here and there in the province, but they were of various origins and not distinguished by a common hat. However, the Macedonians wore a distinctive hat, the kausia. We conclude that the Persians believed the Macedonians to be speakers of Greek. Finally, in the latter part of the fifth century a Greek historian, Hellanicus, visited Macedonia and modified Hesiod’s genealogy by making Macedon not a cousin, but a son of Aeolus, thus bringing Macedon and his descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking family. Hesiod, Persia, and Hellanicus had no motive for making a false statement about the language of the Macedonians, who were then an obscure and not a powerful people. Their independent testimonies should be accepted as conclusive (N.G.L. Hammond, The Macedonian State, p.12-13).

    The evidence above shows that the ancient Macedonians were one of the Hellenic groups of tribes speaking a Greek dialect and having the same institutions as the Spartans and especially the Greeks of the Western group of nations. Thus, the fallacies emanated from the FYROM and its diaspora are strongly repudiated.

    Marcus A. Templar

    Bibliography:

    ???????, ?., ?????????????, ??????? ??? ????????, ?? ?????????????, ??????
    ????????, ?????????? ????????, ?. ?. ?., ?/???? ???????????? ????????, ??????, 1971
    Auty, R., Handbook of Old Slavonic, University of London, 1977
    Botsford, G. W., Hellenic History, New York, 1956
    Casson, S., Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, Westport, CT, 1971
    Cohen, E., The Athenian Nation, 2003
    Crampton, R. J., A Concise History of Bulgaria, 2000
    ??????????, A., ? ?????????? ??? ??????? ??????????, ??????, 1960
    ??????????, ?. ?., ? ???????? ??? ???????, 1995
    Dvornik, F., Byzantine Missions Among the Slavs: Ss. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius, 1970
    Errington, R. M., A History of Macedonia, 1990
    Ferluga, J., Byzantium on the Balkans, Amsterdam 1976
    Halecki, O., Borderlands of Western Civilization, A History of East Central Europe, 2001
    Hammond, N. G. L., A History of Greece, 1959
    Hammond, N. G. L., The Macedonian State, 1989
    Hammond, N. G. L., The Genius of Alexander the Great, 1997
    ????????, ????????, ?. ?. ?., ?/???? ???????????? ????????, ??????, 1971
    Jardé, A., The Formation of the Greek People, New York, 1970
    ???????, ?., ??????., ?. ??????????, ???????????, ?., ?????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ?????, ?????, 1993
    Liddell, H. G., and Scott, R., The Great Lexicon of the Hellenic Language, Athens, 2001
    ???????, ?. ?., ???????? ? ???????, ?????? ??? ???????, ???????????, 1970
    Obolensky, O., The Byzantine Commonwealth, London, 2000
    O’Brien, J. M. Alexander the Great, London, 1994
    ????????????, A. ?., ? ?????? ????????, ???????????, 1988
    Papazoglu, F., The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times, Amsterdam, 1978, English Edition.
    ?????????, ?., ?????????? ??????? ? ?????? ????, ???? ??????, ??????, 1957
    Mario Pei, The Story of Language, Scarborough, Ontario, 1966
    Rufus, Q. C., Alexander the Great, Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Wauconda, Il 1991
    Schuster, M. L., A Treasury of the World’s Great Letters, New York, NY 1968
    Smith, ?., S. J., Biblical Greek, Rome, 1990, English Edition.
    ????????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? V??? ?????????, ?’ ?.?./3?? ?.?., ??????,1965
    ??????????, ??????? ??? ?????????????? ???????, ?. ?. ?., ?/???? ???????????? ????????, 1971
    Vasiliev, ?. ?., History of the Byzantine Empire, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1980
    Wilcken, U., Alexander the Great, New York, 1967
    Warren, P., The Aegean Civilizations, New York, 1989
    Wood, M., In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great, 1997

  114. You fool COPE,
    here r some more answers to your stupidity
    Fallacy #12
    Sts. Cyril and Methodius were Slavs and that is the rationale why they are called “the Apostles of the Slavs” and also “the Slav Apostles.”

    Fact #12
    The term “Slav Apostles” or the “Apostles of the Slavs” does not mean that the two brothers were Slavs. St. Thomas is called “the Indian Apostle,” but we all know that he was not an Indian. He simply taught Christianity to the Indians. The Greek brothers from Thessaloniki taught Christianity to the Slavs, they gave them the alphabet (presently called Cyrillic), and they translated the sacred and liturgical books of Christianity into the Old Church Slavonic, otherwise known as Old Bulgarian.

    Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Epistles of December 31, 1980, and June 2, 1985, while he was commemorating the two brothers, affirmed the fact that both were Greeks from Thessaloniki.

    Professors Ivan Lazaroff, Plamen Pavloff, Ivan Tyutyundzijeff and Milko Palangurski of the Faculty of History of Sts. Cyril and Methodius University in Veliko T?rnovo, Bulgaria in their book, Kratka istoriya na b?lgarskiya narod (Short History of the Bulgarian Nation, pp 36-38), state very explicitly that the two brothers were Greeks from Thessaloniki. The late Oscar Halecki, Professor of Eastern European History, in his book Borderlands of Western Civilization, A History of East Central Europe (chapter Moravian State and the Apostles of the Slavs) agrees with the authors of Kratka istoriya na b?lgarskiya narod

    Fallacy #11
    Many of the Greeks living in Greek Macedonia are actually refugees that came to Macedonia during the First World War and especially during the 1920’s and 1930? from Turkey, the Middle East, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine and Bulgaria.

    Fact #11
    It is very true that a good number of the Greeks living in Greek Macedonia are refugees from various Middle Eastern countries. However, it is also true that these Greeks are descendants of those ancient Greeks, including ancient Macedonians, who either colonized various areas of what presently are Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Bulgaria, Turkey, the Middle East, or followed the greatest General of all times, Alexander the Great. These Greeks simply came home after at least two and one half millennia of spreading the Greek spirit, culture, language and civilization. Mother Greece made her lands available to her returning and thought to be lost offspring. It was the least she could do. After all they had every right to come home, just as the Jews did and they are still going home to Israel.

  115. Here you have it Richard

    Slavoskopjan Propaganda and Co in tatters and shreds!

    Enjoy!

  116. Hellenist,

    he (Richard) vanished into a thin air!
    Never mind, distorting or even worse ignoring history surely doesnt make him a wise man …

    lets hope he is more educated now!

  117. Hi Hellenist and Georgios, believe it or not, I’m still here and following your interchanges with your northerly friends with growing amazement.

    I regret I haven’t learned much from these interchanges. My original blog (123 postings ago!) was not about the finer points of the Greece/Macedonia issue, but about the extraordinary facility of Greek society, from the government to the Greek-in-the-street, to view itself as a ‘chosen race’, with a distinguished and undiluted heritage and lineage going back more than 2000 years.

    Life simply isn’t like that. All Europeans have myths and pretensions (consider the English, the French and the Serbs) but, over time, we generally achieve some kind of balance. As I said at the beginning, this ‘Greekitude’ may be a side-effect of living under the Ottomans – but Greeks should also remember that much of the scientific riches of Classical Greece came to us by courtesy of the Arabs. There’s a big world out there!

  118. A word to the Greeks.

    I have a few key words for you to research. These are part of your history and hopefully they will point you to the direction of your “true” identity.
    1) Bavarian King Otto
    2) Arvanite Albanians in Athens (beginning of 19th century)
    3) Romaic/modern Greek
    4) Romans/Greeks
    5) Romania/Greece
    6) Arvinite language

    To point you to the direction where I’m going with this, or what it is that you are to look for is basically to “try” to find information where you can prove to yourselves that you are not Arvanites or Turks or Arvanovlachs on who the modern Greek or as it was debated to be called Romaic. “Try” to find information that will show you that the inhabitants of modern day Greece did not call themselves Romans. “Try” to find a connection between the people that lived in modern day Greece and the ancient Greeks. And last but not least, try to find information that one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, population exchanges known to man, between Greece and Turkey, where approximately 1.5 million people were moved to northern Greece or rather the Newly Occupied Territories as you liked to call them back then.

    You are proud of a culture and language which was imposed on your ancestors which were no more Greek than the modern Americans are Navajo.

  119. “on who the modern Greek or as it was debated to be called Romaic”… was imposed.

  120. Dont regret for not learning much! Quite frankly maost of us Greeks didnt have this expectation!

    Enjoy!

  121. Don’t regret for not learning much! Quite frankly most of us Greeks didn’t have this expectation!

    It may be futile to point out some more of your mistakes but I am a hopeless naïve and romantic and I try:

    To proclaim our undeniable Greenness and our cultural continuity from the ancient times does not equate to proclaim that we the ‘chosen ones’ in any shape of form! If this is what you understand about us this is your inner reflection that somehow you have not been the chosen ones! But blame this on you not us!

    And our heritage and our undisputed direct cultural lineage to the ancient times has not been diluted by the passage of millennia but enhanced by all these historical phases we have been under through the passage of some 4 millennia!

    And something else! Arabs did a great job passing some of the richness of the Classical times. This is true! And the world particularly the Western one should point this to your compatriot Kilroy Silk! And pay this due respect to the Arabs. But this was not the only path not perhaps the most important ones! The main sources were the Greeks themselves when the fled the Byzantine Empire when this fell to the Ottomans! The Catholic church also was well aware of the marvels of our Classical achievements as itself a by-product of the Greco-Roman times! In any case the Byzantine time was the point were the Arabs find out about the Greek Civilisation in the first instance! And by saying this I have already touched upon the parts of the transit route of Hellenism from the ancient times to the modern!

    Will you learn anything? Probably not! But at least we tried!

    As for you Bojan! I am not going to try! My Romanticism and naivety I suppose has its limits!

    Enjoy

  122. Indeed, it is futile to even bother addressing you anymore Richard!
    The easiness with which you adopted (on purpose in my opinion) some, long time ago, refuted theories, shows you are (for some reason) highly prejudiced against Greece and Greeks. I quote some of the insulting for Greeks comments in your article…

    “No less than Demosthenes spoke of “Philip – a man who not only is no Greek, and in no way akin to the Greeks, but is not even a barbarian from a respectable country – no, a pestilent fellow of Macedon, a country from which we never even get a decent slave.”…” This overlooks the fact that – according to many people, including a number of properly informed Greeks – they are more Slav than Greek. To be more precise, Slav on the east side of the peninsula, Albanian on the other…”

    You are jumping to conclusions which are not only insulting for a nation but also lacking any historical proof and base. And thank God, there is plenty of historical proof which makes your claims ridiculous and laughable!! Iam sure that Philippos, Xenofontas,Pavlos, myself and others in this forum look forward to your answering to what is carefully presented and substantiated in their views.
    Now it is your turn Richard…you wil have to prove your claims (that the Greeks r more slavs…and more albanians on the other side..)
    and you will have to do it convicingly presenting your historical sources or even better to use another greek word your bibliography to the public…
    Otherwise, you know u r going to be re- baptised …Charlatan of history would be an ideal name for you I think…how does this sound to you?

    Bojan,
    thats a turning point for you… instead of answering the hot debated issue of the origin of macedonians, after all the documentation presented before your eyes, you chose to change the subject!!
    Weak fyromian arguments which r blowing in the wind… maybe…
    here I copy from Pavlos
    THE ETHNICITY OF THE FYROM

    The Yugoslavian Military Encyclopedia lists the ancestors of the present FYROM inhabitants as Slavs, people of the first Slavic tribes of Brsjaci, Dragudati, Smoljani, Rinhini, Velegiziti and others, that arrived in the area in the 6th century AD.

    But who are these people? The history of the Slav inhabitants of The FYROM goes hand to hand with the history of the Bulgarian people up to 1913, for they started together by fate and they were forced to separate by politics. The present day Slavic population of The FYROM has nothing in common with the ancient Macedonians. They are simply put Slavs.

    The southern Slavs used to be called Venedi, but the Byzantines changed their name when they migrated to the south part of the Balkans to Sklavini because the Slavs established alliances, or unions among themselves called ‘sklavinije’ with a regular hierarchy of princes like Hatson, Akamir, Prvud as their high commanders. In the middle of the 5th century AD the southern Slavs crossed the Carpathian Mountains and settled in the former Roman provinces of Panonia (modern day Hungary) and Dacia (modern day Romania). It seems that the first Slavic and the Hunnic (Turkish) tribes of the Bulgars started attacking the Balkan areas together in the 5th century AD. In the beginning they robbed the Byzantine population, devastating the countryside and then returning to their bases.

    Lasting settlements of Slavs in Macedonia began at the end of sixth century. Up to the middle of the seventh century seven Slavic tribes, such as Draguviti, Brsjaci or Bereziti, Sagudati, Rinhini, Strumljani or Strimonci, Smoljani, Velegeziti united in tribal unions, thus turning into an important political and ethnic factor in the history of the Balkans. They are the ancestors of the present day Slavic population of the FYROM and originally they inhabited the territory from the river Nestos to Thessaly, and from Thessaloniki to the Mountains Shar, Rila, and Osogovska.

    Smoljani and one part of Draguviti settled on the Rodopi Mountain Range; Sagudati and the other part of Draguviti inhabited the area north of Thessaloniki; Strumljani / Strimonci preferred the lowlands of Strymon; whereas Rinhini went down to Chalkidiki and some of them even to Mt. Athos. On the other hand Brsjaci / Bereziti along with the Velegeziti settled the areas of Ohrid and Prespa. There were a few other tribes of Timocani, Abodrini, and Moravjani, which inhabited the south part of the present day Serbia and later they were incorporated to the Serbia Nation. The Timocani lived in the lowlands of the river Timok, the Abodrini inhabited the west lowlands of Timok and the Moravijani populated the area of the river Morava in the heart of present day Serbia, called Sumadija. As time passed the trapped Thraco-ilirian population was either pushed to the mountain regions, or at a later time assimilated by the Slavs.

    Because of their strong culture and population the Greeks could not be assimilated, but stayed intact. So that areas with strong Greek presence remained Greek. Thus even if Slavic and Bulgarian elements were living in Macedonia and Thrace the main bulk of the populace was Greek. The Illyrian lands that form today’s Albania and its neighboring areas were out of the Slavic and Bulgarian reach.

    So, these are the Slav inhabitants of the FYROM. What is interesting about the whole matter is that very few of them know their own history and even those who know it don’t want to say anything afraid for their safety or the stigma of being a “traitor.” What is more interesting is the fact that notable citizens of The FYROM, like the following, have acknowledged publicly that they are descendants of the first Slavic tribes.

    February 26, 1992: The FYROM’s President Kirov Gligorov, at an interview by the Foreign Information Service daily report, Eastern Europe, stated: “We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians.

    January 22, 1999: The FYROM’s Ambassador in Washington D.C., Mrs. Ljubica Acevska, gave a speech on the present situation in the Balkans, she stated: “We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great. We are Slavs and we speak a Slavic language. Greece is The FYROM’s second largest trading partner and its number one “investor.”

    February 24, 1999: The FYROM.’s Ambassador to Canada, Gyordan Veselinov, in an interview with the “Ottawa Citizen”, he admitted: “We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are Slavs and our language is closely related to Bulgarian. There is some confusion about our identity.”

    December 29, 2001: Even recently, in an interview to Utrinski Vesnik of Skopje, the Foreign Minister of The FYROM Slobodan Casule said that he mentioned to the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria Solomon Pasi that they “belong to the same Slav people.”

    And yet nobody neither internally nor externally has asked “then what’s with the name Macedonia?” The only ones who believe they are descendants of the ancient Macedonians, are the ones who received their high degree of education from the “Titoic School of History” under the auspices of communist Yugoslavia.

  123. WAITING HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS FROM RICHARD,

    in the meantime as revision is the best way to learn a lesson….allow me to present accurate historical facts!There have been certain fallacies circulating for the past few years due to ignorance on the “Macedonian Issue”. It is exacerbated by systematic propaganda emanating from AVNOJ, or communist Yugoslavia and present-day FYROM, and their intransigent ultra-nationalist Diaspora.
    Fallacy #1
    The inhabitants of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (The FYROM) are ethnic Macedonians, direct descendants of, or related to the ancient Macedonians.

    Fact #1
    The inhabitants of The FYROM are mostly Slavs, Bulgarians and Albanians. They have nothing in common with the ancient Macedonians. Here are some testimonies from The FYROM’s officials:

    a. The former President of The FYROM, Kiro Gligorov said: “We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century … we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians” (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).

    b. Also, Mr Gligorov declared: “We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That’s who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia… Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century” (Toronto Star, March 15, 1992).

    c. On 22 January 1999, Ambassador of the FYROM to USA, Ljubica Achevska gave a speech on the present situation in the Balkans. In answering questions at the end of her speech Mrs. Acevshka said: “We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great … Greece is Macedonia’s second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nemitz.” In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that “we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language”.

    d. On 24 February 1999, in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM’S Ambassador to Canada, admitted, “We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian.” He also commented, “There is some confusion about the identity of the people of my country”.

    e. Moreover, the Foreign Minister of the FYROM, Slobodan Casule, in an interview to Utrinski Vesnik of Skopje on December 29, 2001, said that he mentioned to the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, Solomon Pasi, that they “belong to the same Slav people.”

    Fallacy #2
    The Macedonian Greeks are of the same ethnic group as the “Macedonians” of The FYROM.

    Fact #2
    The Macedonian Greeks are NOT of the same ethnic group as the Macedonian Slavs of The FYROM. The Macedonian Greeks are just that, Greeks who live in or originate from the geographic area of Macedonia. They are the only people, that by inheritance, can be called Macedonians.

    Fallacy #3
    Ancient Macedonians were a tribe similar to the Greeks, but not Greek themselves.

    Fact #3
    Ancient Macedonians were one of more than the 230 Hellenic tribes, sub-tribes, and families of the Hellenic Nation that spoke more than 200 dialects. For more information see Herodotus, Thucydides, Titus Livius, Strabo, Nevi’im, Ketuvim, Apocrypha (Macabees I, 1-2). It was not until 1945 that their Hellenism has been challenged by the Slavs for expansionistic reasons.

    Fallacy #4
    Ancient Greece was a country, a legal entity, as we understand it today.

    Fact #4
    No. Hellas (Greece) was first recognized as a nation state or legal entity as we understand it today in 1830. From the beginning until that time, the term Hellas was only a geographic term or an administrative area whose borders were changing depending on the needs of the Roman, Byzantine, or Ottoman Empires.

    Fallacy #5
    There was one ancient Greek language and the ancient Macedonians spoke Macedonian, not Greek.

    Fact #5
    Linguistically, there is no real distinction between a dialect and a language without a specific factor. People usually consider the political factor to determine whether a certain kind of speech is a language or a dialect. Since the Pan-Hellenic area consisted of many small city- states (Attica, Lacedaemon, Corinth, etc.), and larger states (Molossia, Thesprotia, Macedonia, Acarnania, Aetolia, etc.), it was common knowledge at the time that the people of all those states were speaking different languages, when in fact they were all variations of the same language, Hellenic or Greek. The most advanced of all Hellenic dialects was the dialect of Attica (Athens) or Attic. When people state “ancient Greek language” they mean the Attic dialect and any comparison of the Macedonian dialect to ancient Greek is actually a comparison to the Attic dialect. The difference between Macedonian and Attic was like the difference between Low and High German. Nobody doubts that both are Germanic languages, although they differ from one another. Another good example of a multi-dialectal linguistic regime is present-day Italy. The official language of Italy is the Florentine, but common people still speak their own dialects. Two people from different areas of Italy cannot communicate if both speak their respective dialect, and yet they both speak Italian. Why should the Hellenic language be treated differently?

    At that time, Greeks spoke more than 200 Hellenic dialects or languages, as the ancient Greeks used to call them. Some of the well-known dialects were Ionic, Attic, Doric, Aeolic, Cypriot, Arcadic, Aetolic, Acarnanic, Macedonian and Locric. Moreover, we know that the Romans considered the Macedonians as Hellenic speaking peoples. Livy wrote, “…The Aetolians, the Acarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same speech, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time …” (Livy, History of Rome, b. XXXI par. XXIX). The Aetolians and Acarnanians were definitely Hellenic tribes. On another occasion Livy writes “…[General Paulus] took his official seat surrounded by the whole crowd of Macedonians … his announcement was translated into Greek and repeated by Gnaeus Octavius the praetor…”. If the crowd of Macedonians were not Greek speaking, why then did the Romans need to translate Paulus’ speech into Greek? (Livy, History of Rome, b. XLV, para XXIX).

    The Macedonian dialect was an Aeolic dialect of the Western Greek language group (Hammond, The Macedonian State, p. 193). All those dialects differ from each other, but never in a way that one person could not understand the other. The Military Yugoslavian Encyclopedia of the 1974 edition (Letter M, page 219), a very anti-Hellenic biased publication, states, “… u doba rimske invazije, njihov jezik bio gr?ki, ali se dva veka ranije dosta razlikovao od njega, mada ne toliko da se ta dva naroda nisu mogla sporazumevati.” (… at the time of the Roman invasion their language was Hellenic, but two centuries before it was different enough, but not as much as the two peoples could not understand one another).

    After the death of Alexander the Great, the situation changed in the vast empire into a new reality. Ptolemy II, Philadelphos (308-246 BC) the Pharaoh (king) of Egypt realized that the physical unification of the Greeks and the almost limitless expansion of the Empire required the standardization of the already widely used common language or Koin?. Greek was already the lingua franca of the vast Hellenistic world in all four kingdoms of the Diadochi (Alexander’s Successors). It was already spoken, but neither an official alphabet nor grammar had yet been devised.

    Alexandria, Egypt was already the Cultural Center of the Empire in about 280 BC. Ptolemy II assigned Aristeas, an Athenian scholar, to create the grammar of the new language, one that not only all Greeks, but all inhabitants of the Empire would be able to speak. Thus, Aristeas used the Attic dialect as basis for the new language. Aristeas and the scholars who were assisting him trimmed the language a little, eliminated the Attic idiosyncrasies and added words as well as grammatical and syntactical rules mainly from the Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic dialects. The Spartan Doric, however, was excluded from it (see Tsakonian further down). So, they standardized THE Hellenic language, called Koine or Common.

    The language was far from perfect. Non-Greeks encountered difficulties reading it since there was no way to separate words, sentences and paragraphs. In addition, they were unable to express their feelings and the right intonation. During that time, Greek was a melodic language, even more melodic than Italian is today.

    The system of paragraphs, sentences, and some symbols like ~. ;`’! , were the result of continuous improvement and enhancement of the language with the contribution of many Greek scholars from all over the World.

    There were a few alphabets employed by various Hellenic cities or states, and these alphabets included letters specific to the sounds of their particular dialect. There were two main categories, the Eastern and the Western alphabets. The first official alphabet omitted all letters not in use any longer ( sampi, qoppa, digamma also known as stigma in Greek numbering) and it presented a 24-letter alphabet for the new Koin? language. However, the inclusion and use of small letters took place over a period of many centuries after the standardization of Koin?.

    After the new language was completed with its symbols, the Jews of Egypt felt that it was an opportunity for them to translate their sacred books into Greek since it was the language that the Jews of Diaspora spoke. So on the island of Pharos, by Alexandria’s seaport, 72 Jewish rabbis were secluded and isolated as they translated their sacred books (Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim, etc.) from Aramaic and Hebrew to the Koin? Greek, the newly created language. This is known as the Septuagint translation. The Koin? evolved and in about two to three centuries it became the language that Biblical scholars call Biblical Greek. In fact, only those who have studied the Attic dialect can understand the difference between the Septuagint Greek and the Greek of the New Testament.

    Although the Koin? was officially in use, common folk in general continued to speak their own dialect and here and there one can sense the insertion of elements of the Attic dialect in various documents such as the New Testament. The Gospel according to St. John and the Revelation are written in perfect Attic. The other three Synoptic Gospels were written in Koin? with the insertion of some Semitic grammatical concepts (i.e. the Hebrew genitive) and invented words (i.e. epiousios).

    The outcome is that today in Greece there are many variations in speech; of course not to the point of people not understanding each other, but still there is divergence in the Greek spoken tongue. Today the Hellenic language accepts only one dialect, the Tsakonian, which is a direct development of the ancient Doric dialect of Sparta. The Demotic is a development of mostly the Doric sound system, whereas the Katharevousa is a made-up language based on the Classical Attic. Presently, the speech in various areas of Greece somehow differs from each other and sometimes an untrained ear might have difficulty understanding the local speech. Pontic and Cypriot Greek are very good examples to the unacquainted ear. Tsakonian dialect, the descendant of the Spartan Doric, is almost impossible to understand if one is not familiar with it.

    Over the years, Macedonia had several names. At first the Macedonians gave the land the name, Emathia, after their leader Emathion. It derives from the word amathos, amathoeis meaning sand or sandy. From now on, all of its names are Greek. Later it was called Maketia or Makessa and finally Makedonia (Macedonia). The latter names are derived from the Doric/Aeolic word “makos,” (in Attic “m?kos) meaning length (see Homer, Odyssey, VII, 106), thus Makednos means long or tall, but also a highlander or mountaineer. (cf. Orestae, Hellenes).

    In Opis, during the mutiny of the Macedonian Army, Alexander the Great spoke to the whole Macedonian Army addressing them in Greek (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII, 9,10). The Macedonian soldiers listened to him and they were dumbfounded by what they heard from their Commander-in-Chief. They were upset. Immediately after Alexander left for the Palace, they demanded that Alexander allow them to enter the palace so that they could talk to him.

    When this was reported to Alexander, he quickly came out and saw their restrained disposition; he heard the majority of his soldiers crying and lamenting, and was moved to tears. He came forward to speak, but they remained there imploring him. One of them, named Callines, whose age and command of the Companion cavalry made him preeminent spoke as follows: “Sire, what grieves the Macedonians is that you have already made some Persians your ‘kinsmen’, and the Persians are called ‘kinsmen’ of Alexander and are allowed to kiss you, while not one of the Macedonians has been granted this honor” (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII, 8-11).

    The previous story clearly reveals that the Macedonians were speaking Greek since they could understand their leader. There were thousands of them, not just some selected few who happened to speak Greek. It would be unrealistic for Alexander the Great to speak to them in a language they supposedly did not speak. It would be impossible to believe that the Macedonian soldiers were emotionally moved to the point that all of them were lamenting after listening to a language they did not understand. There is no way for the Macedonians to have taken a crash course in Greek in 20 minutes so that they would be able to understand the speech simultaneously as Alexander was delivering it.

    Furthermore, the Macedonians wore a distinctive hat, the “kausia” (??????) (Polybius IV 4,5; Eustathius 1398; Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII 22; cf. Sturz, Macedonian Dialect, 41) from the Greek word for heat that separated them from the rest of the Greeks. That is why the Persians called them “yauna takabara,” which meant “Greeks wearing the hat”. The Macedonian hat was very distinctive from the hats of the other Greeks, but the Persians did not distinguished the Macedonians, because the Macedonian speech was also Greek (Hammond, The Macedonian State p. 13 cf. J.M. Balcer, Historia, 37 [1988] 7).

    On the mountainsides of the Himalayas and the Indian Caucasus and under Pakistani and Afghanistan jurisdiction lives a tribe whose people call themselves Kalash. They claim to be the descendants of Alexander the Great’s soldiers who for various reasons were left behind in the depths of Asia and could not follow the Great General in his new conquests. Having no contact with the outside world for almost 23 centuries, they are quite different from any other neighboring nations. Light complexioned, and blue eyed in the midst of dark skinned neighbors, their language, even though it has been affected and influenced by the many Muslim languages of nations that surround the Kalash tribe, still incorporates vocabulary and has many elements of the ancient Greek language. They greet their visitors with “ispanta” from the Greek verb “?????????” (greetings) and they warn them about “heman” from the ancient Greek noun “??????” (winter). These indigenous people still believe in the twelve Olympian gods and their architecture resembles very much the Macedonian architecture (National Herald, “A School in the Tribe of Kalash by Greeks”, October 11, 1996).

    Michael Wood, the British scholar in his In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great (p.8), quotes the following statement made by a Kalash named Kazi Khushnawaz:

    Long long ago, before the days of Islam, Sikander e Aazem came to India. The Two Horned one whom you British people call Alexander the Great. (sic) He conquered the world, and was a very great man, brave and dauntless and generous to his followers. When he left to go back to Greece, some of his men did not wish to go back with him but preferred to stay here. Their leader was a general called Shalakash [Seleucus]. With some of his officers and men, he came to these valleys and they settled here and took local women, and here they stayed. We, the Kalash, the Black Kafir of the Hindu Kush, are the descendants of their children. Still some of our words are the same as theirs, our music and our dances, too; we worship the same gods. This is why we believe the Greeks are our first ancestors…

    (Seleucus was one of the Generals of Alexander the Great. He was born in 358 or 354 BC in the town of Europos, Macedonia and died in August/September 281 BC near Lysimathia, Thrace.)

    The Kalash today worship the ancient Greek gods and especially Di Zau [Dias Zeus], the great sky god. Unfortunately, their language died out only in Muslim times. This is further evidence that Macedonians and Greeks spoke the same language, had the same religion and the same customs.

    Accusations of Macedonians being barbarians started in Athens and they were the result of political fabrications based on the Macedonian way of life and not on their ethnicity or language. (Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, p158, Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 4). Demosthenes traveled to Macedonia twice for a total of nine months. He knew very well what language the Macedonians were speaking. We encountered similar behavior with Thrasyboulos. He states that the Acarnanians were barbarians only when the Athenians encountered a conflict of political interest from the Acarnanians. The Macedonian way of life differed in many ways from the southern Greek way of life, but that was very common among the Western Greeks such as Chaones, Molossians, Thesprotians, Acarnanians, Aetolians and Macedonians (Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 4). Macedonian state institutions were similar to those of the Mycenean and Spartan (Wilcken, Alexander the Great, p 23). Regarding Demosthenes addressing Philip as “barbarian” even Badian an opponent of the Greekness of Macedonians states “It may have nothing to do with historical fact, any more than the orators’ tirades against their personal enemies usually have.” (E. Badian, Studies in the History of Art Vol 10: Macedonia And Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, Greeks and Macedonians).

    Fallacy #6
    Ancient Macedonia was a nation state.

    Fact #6
    Before Phillip II, Macedonia was divided into small typical city-states having adopted the same concept of internal civic structure as the southern Greek city-states. Each Macedonian city-state or area had its own main city and government. Philip II united the Macedonian city-states by instituting and establishing a Homeric style of a Kingdom, maintaining the infrastructure of the smaller city-states with the various kings paying tribute to the king of all Macedonia. We know this from the fact that at one time the king of Lyncestis (present day Bitola – Florina) was Alexander. The point that has to be made clear is that a man’s first loyalty was to his city, not to the King of Macedonia (Hammond, The Macedonian State, p. 9).

    Fallacy #7
    Over the years the ancient Macedonians disappeared.

    Fact #7
    The ancient Macedonians, under the influence of the new common language, the Koine, as developed over the years, were amalgamated with the rest of the Hellenes, or Greeks.

    Fallacy #8
    If the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, why then was Alexander I, the king of Macedonia, named Philhellene (lover of Greece)? This title is bestowed only to foreigners.

    Fact #8
    The king of Macedonia, Alexander I, was named Philhellene by the Theban poet Pindaros for the same reason Jason of Pherrai and Euagoras of Cyprus were called Philhellenes (Isocrates 107A, 199A). The title Philhellene in ancient times meant Philopatris (lover of the homeland) or simply put “a patriot” (Plato, Politics, 470E; Xenophon, Agesilaus, 7, 4), which is why Alexander the Great did not touch the traditional house of Pindaros when he ordered his soldiers to burn Thebes.

    Fallacy #9
    The ancient Greeks had a Greek or Hellenic national conscience and the Macedonians, by destroying Greek cities, proved that they were not Greeks.

    Fact #9
    Greece is an area which lacking geographic continuity fostered alienation of individual tribes not only in the general sense, but also in a narrower sense. That explains why the ancient Greeks did not have a common national conscience which is why they were warring against each other. The Macedonians destroyed or burned cities belonging to other Greek City States for the same reason the Athenians, the Thebans, and the Spartans battled one another.

    They knew that somehow they were related, but local conscience was much stronger than a Pan- Hellenic one. Ancient Greeks, of the Hellenic mainland, were united before an enemy attack that could endanger the common freedom and welfare. This fact was displayed anytime the Persians attacked the Hellenic lands. Greeks from Ionia and Aeolia (present day Aegean shores of Turkey), however, were mostly Persian allies in opposition to the Mainland Greeks.

    It was common practice for various Hellenic states to form political/military alliances with each other and against each other, but they did not develop ethnic partnerships. There are plenty of such alliances in the ancient Hellenic world.

    A few centuries went by until the Greeks began developing a national conscience. The Greeks definitely achieved the completion of a national conscience by the time Justinian was crowned the Emperor of Byzantium. Very few ancient Greeks, such as Pericles, Demosthenes and Phillip II of Macedonia had the vision of a united country, but each one wanted to see his own state as the leading force of such a union. Pericles dreamed of it, Demosthenes advocated it, but Phillip II materialized it. Also, the Macedonians had common religious practices and customs as the Spartans.

    Fallacy #10
    The ancient Macedonians were one of the Illyrian tribes.

    Fact #10
    Although there is a lot of evidence (mostly indirect) regarding the language of the ancient Macedonians, there is one piece of evidence offered by Polybius in book XXVIII, paragraphs 8 and 9, where it states that the Macedonians were using translators when they were communicating with the Illyrians. This means the Macedonians and the Illyrians did not speak the same language. For instance, Perseus, the Macedonian king, sent Adaeus of Berroia (who spoke only Greek) and Pleuratus the Illyrian, as a translator (because he spoke the Illyrian language) on a mission to the Illyrian king Genthius (169 BC). Pleuratus was an exile living in Perseus’ court. Moreover there is evidence that the Illyrians and the Macedonians were vicious enemies.

    Fallacy #11
    Many of the Greeks living in Greek Macedonia are actually refugees that came to Macedonia during the First World War and especially during the 1920’s and 1930? from Turkey, the Middle East, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine and Bulgaria.

    Fact #11
    It is very true that a good number of the Greeks living in Greek Macedonia are refugees from various Middle Eastern countries. However, it is also true that these Greeks are descendants of those ancient Greeks, including ancient Macedonians, who either colonized various areas of what presently are Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Bulgaria, Turkey, the Middle East, or followed the greatest General of all times, Alexander the Great. These Greeks simply came home after at least two and one half millennia of spreading the Greek spirit, culture, language and civilization. Mother Greece made her lands available to her returning and thought to be lost offspring. It was the least she could do. After all they had every right to come home, just as the Jews did and they are still going home to Israel.

    Fallacy #12
    Sts. Cyril and Methodius were Slavs and that is the rationale why they are called “the Apostles of the Slavs” and also “the Slav Apostles.”

    Fact #12
    The term “Slav Apostles” or the “Apostles of the Slavs” does not mean that the two brothers were Slavs. St. Thomas is called “the Indian Apostle,” but we all know that he was not an Indian. He simply taught Christianity to the Indians. The Greek brothers from Thessaloniki taught Christianity to the Slavs, they gave them the alphabet (presently called Cyrillic), and they translated the sacred and liturgical books of Christianity into the Old Church Slavonic, otherwise known as Old Bulgarian.

    Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Epistles of December 31, 1980, and June 2, 1985, while he was commemorating the two brothers, affirmed the fact that both were Greeks from Thessaloniki.

    Professors Ivan Lazaroff, Plamen Pavloff, Ivan Tyutyundzijeff and Milko Palangurski of the Faculty of History of Sts. Cyril and Methodius University in Veliko T?rnovo, Bulgaria in their book, Kratka istoriya na b?lgarskiya narod (Short History of the Bulgarian Nation, pp 36-38), state very explicitly that the two brothers were Greeks from Thessaloniki. The late Oscar Halecki, Professor of Eastern European History, in his book Borderlands of Western Civilization, A History of East Central Europe (chapter Moravian State and the Apostles of the Slavs) agrees with the authors of Kratka istoriya na b?lgarskiya narod.

    Fallacy #13
    The present day Emblem of the FYROM is the lion. This lion is the same lion that Alexander the Great is depicted wearing above his head imprinted on some old coins.

    Fact #13
    There is nothing in common between The FYROM’s lion and the lion’s skin that Alexander the Great wears in some coins. The FYROM’s lion is actually the Bulgarian lion, which is depicted in the Bulgarian Coat of Arms.

    Alexander’s lion is the lion’s skin that Heracles killed in Nemea, which is one of the 12 deeds executed by the mythological hero. The lion skin that Alexander the Great wears signifies his ancestral relationship to Heracles (Hercules). There is an unpublished inscription from Xanthos dating from the third century BC (cf. Robert, Amyzon, 1,162, n 31) where the Ptolemies refer to their Ancestors as “Herakleidas Argeadas” (Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 265, n 6).

    Fallacy #14
    In other coins we see Alexander the Great having two horns on his head and this signifies that he was a very bad man.

    Fact #14
    In the Middle Eastern tradition a horned man meant that he was powerful. Darius in his letters to Alexander the Great called him, Zul-Al-Kurnain or Double Horned one. Thus the horns on Alexander’s head means that he was recognized as most powerful.

    Fallacy #15
    After the battle of Granicus, Alexander sent the Athenians 300 full suits of Persian armor as a present, with the following inscription: “Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians, dedicate these spoils, taken from the Persian who dwell in Asia.” J.R. Hamilton in a note on this event states, “In view of the small part, which the Greeks had played in the battle the inscription [with the omission of any mention of the Macedonians] must be regarded as propaganda designed for his Greek allies. Alexander does not fail to stress the absence of the Spartans.”

    Fact #15
    J.R. Hamilton’s assumption is unconvincing. Alexander the Great had no reason to please anyone because the troops from South Greece were only 9,400, and as he admits, they only played a small part in the battle. Being the master of the expeditionary force and ignoring his Macedonians while exalting the “foreign Greeks”, Alexander would have faced the same angry Macedonians that he was confronted with in Opis when he appointed foreigners (Persians and Medes) to high ranks and offices in his Army and administration. However, none of the Macedonians complained about the inscription after the battle of Granicus because they considered themselves included in it.

    The fact is that Alexander the Great considered himself and his Macedonians, Greek. He claimed ancestry on his mother’s side from Achilles and on his father’s side from Hercules (Heracles). His ancestor, Alexander I, stated that he was Greek (Herodotus, Histories, V, 20, 22; VIII, 137; IX, 45).

    The Macedonians themselves were Greek speaking peoples

    (see: Papazoglu, Makedonski Gradovi, p 333 and Central Balkan Tribes, p 135; Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, pp157-162; NGL Hammond, The Macedonian State, pp 12-15 and 193; Cavaignac, Histoire de l’ antiquité, i, p 67; Hoffman, Die Makedonen, p. 259; Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 3; Yugoslavian Military Encyclopedia 1974 “Anti?ka Makedonija”; Hogarth, Philip and Alexander, p.5, n 4), Urlich Wilcken, Alexander the Great, II pp 23 and 24, Botsford, Hellenic History, p 237).

    Some of the scholars mentioned above initially were not sure about the Greekness of the Macedonians (i.e. NGL Hammod). Newly discovered artifacts and monuments that were excavated indicating the Macedonians were actually Greek made them admit their previous error. NGL Hammond explains the reason why scholars like Badian do not consider the Macedonians Greeks in his book, The Macedonian State (page 13, note 29). Hammond states that most recently E. Badian in Barr-Sharrar (pp 33-51) disregarded the evidence as explained in A History of Macedonia (NGL Hammond and G. T. Griffith, 1979 pp 39-54). In Barr-Sharrar, Badian holds the view that the Macedonians (whom he does not define) spoke a language other than Greek. Badian keeps ignoring evidence that is against his beliefs and convictions choosing only certain proof and ignoring other relevant proof. That is exactly the pattern others, like E. Borza, P. Green, etc. have chosen to follow.

    All names, whether members of the royal family or not, including names of other simple Macedonian citizens, i.e. Kallinis (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII par 11), Limnos from Chalastra (Plutarch, Parallel Lives of Famous Greeks and Romans, chap. Alexander) and all toponymies in the area of the Macedonian homeland were Greek. The Macedonian homeland included the city-states of Imathia, Pieria, Bottiea, Mygdonia, Crestonia, Bisaltia, Sintiki, Odomantis, Edonis, Elimea, Orestis, Eordea, Almopia, Lyncestis, Pelagonia and Macedonian Paeonia. Macedonian Paeonia is the part of Paeonia which lies south of the narrow pass at the area of Demir Kapija (The FYROM).

    Fanula Papazoglu indirectly agrees with the concept of the above borderlines stating, “… it is often forgotten that ancient Macedonia occupied only a relatively small part of the Yugoslav Macedonia” (Papazoglu, Central Balkan Tribes, p. 268). Papazoglu’s two maps at the end of her doctoral dissertation (Makedonski gradovi u rimsko doba, Skoplje, 1957) portray only Macedonian territories under Roman rule.

    Macedonia conquered the already Hellenized Paeonia in 217 BC under King Philip V, 106 years after the death of Alexander the Great. Any map that incorporates Paeonia into Macedonia before that year is absolutely false.

    All inscriptions and artifacts excavated, including those in Trebenište and Oleveni near Bitola, are in pure Greek. With a few exceptions, the only time one sees non-Greek names and toponymies is in areas that constituted the expansion of Macedonia, i.e. Paeonia, Thrace, etc. Any non-Greek names, words or toponymies found in the Macedonian homeland are remnant of Thracians, Phrygians or Paeonians that used to live there before their expulsion by the Macedonians.

    Participation in the Olympic Games was unequivocally and definitely a function that only athletes of strictly Hellenic origin could partake. Archelaus had won in the Olympic and Pythian Games (Solinus 9, 16) and Alexander I had also won in the Olympic Games (Herodotus, Histories, V, 22).

    It is stated by Herodotus (Histories VIII, 43) that a number of Peloponnesian cities inhabited by Lacedaemonians, Corinthians, Sicyonians, Epidaurians, Troezinians, and Hermionians and that with the exception of Hermionians all others were of Dorian and Macedonian blood. The above people were living in cities located in Peloponnesus, which makes the Macedonians as Greek as the Dorians.

    The answer as to why Alexander sent the 300 full suits of Persian armor to goddess Athena, goes back to the battle of Thermopylae and all events that followed. But in order for one to understand it better, one has to know the story of the battle of Thermopylae.

    The Persian Army and Navy, headed by Xerxes, won the battle against the 1300 Greeks (1000 from Phocis) lead by the 300 Spartans whose commander was Leonidas. It is important for one to note that the Persians were victorious only when a local Greek, Ephialtes, betrayed a secret passage to the enemy who came from behind and thus surrounded the few Greeks. It is also important to know that according to Lycourgos’ laws, Spartans were not allowed to leave the battlefield for any reason, nor they were allowed to follow anyone in the battle. That’s why the Spartans did not follow Alexander against the Persians.

    Herodotus (Histories b. VIII, 114) tells us:
    … the Spartans upon the urging of the Oracle of Delphi sent a messenger to Xerxes demanding reparations for the death of Leonidas. The man who obtained an interview with Xerxes said to him: ‘My lord, King of the Medes, the Lacedaemonians and the house of Heracles in Sparta demand satisfaction for blood, because you killed their king while he was fighting in defense of Greece.’ Xerxes laughed, and for a time did not answer…

    The royal house of Sparta (Herodotus VII, 204), and the royal house of Macedonia (cf. Fact #13) both claimed descent from Heracles (Hercules).

    Taking into consideration all of the above, we come to the conclusion that Alexander the Great, being victorious at the battle of Granicus, sent 300 full armor uniforms to goddess Athena who was also the goddess of war, and in this way he AVENGED the 300 Spartans who died defending Greece.

    Conclusion:

    An abundance of information regarding the ancient Greek past comes to us from the Greek Mythology. Unfortunately, Mythology cannot be a dependable source since it cannot furnish trustworthy information which would help us reconstruct the Hellenic past. However, it does not mean it is completely useless either. It elucidates through symbolism truths leading us to the right path while searching for historical facts through written or unwritten monuments. Such monuments are the only ones accepted by historians in their attempt to unlock hidden elements that hold the key to the reconstruction of the past of all Hellenic group of nations.

    Countries are products of historical events, which is why they are born and die. Nations do not. Nations are entities that take a very arduous time to evolve. The same thing is true for their appellation. Nations cannot be given birth and receive names whenever politicians wish by legislation, as it is the case of the FYROM.

    The present-day Hellenic nation is the result of social, civic and linguistic amalgamation of more than 230 tribes speaking more than 200 dialects that claimed descent from Hellen, son of Deukalion. The Hellenic nation is blessed to espouse in its lengthy life great personalities such as politicians, educators, soldiers, philosophers and authors. They have all contributed in their own way to the molding of their nation. They are the result of natural maturity and a consequence of historical, social, civic, linguistic and political developments that have taken place in the last 4,000 years.

    “When we take into account the political conditions, religion and morals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were a Greek race and akin to the Dorians. Having stayed behind in the extreme north, they were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further south…” (Wilcken, Alexander the Great, p 22). Most historians have assessed the Macedonian state of affairs in a similar fashion. The Macedonians were a Hellenic group of tribes belonging to the Western Greek ethnic group.

    The Macedonians incorporated the territory of the native people into Macedonia and forced the Pieres, a Thracian tribe, out of the area to Mt. Pangaeum and the Bottiaiei from Bottiaia. They further expelled the Eordi from Eordaia and the Almopes from Almopia and they similarly expelled all tribes (Thracian, Paeonian, Illyrian) they found in areas of Anthemus, Crestonia, Bysaltia and other lands. The Macedonians absorbed the few inhabitants of the above tribes that stayed behind. They established their suzerainty over the land of Macedonia without losing their ethnicity, language, or religion (Thucydides, II, 99). They also incorporated the lands of the Elimeiotae, Orestae, Lyncestae, Pelagones, and Deriopes all tribes living in Upper Macedonia who were Greek speakers, but of a different (Molossian) dialect from that spoken by the Macedonians (Hammond, The Macedonian State, p. 390). Then, living with savage northern neighbors such as Illyrians, Thracians, Paeonians and later Dardanians, the Macedonians physically deflected their neighbors’ hordes forming an impenetrable fence denying them the opportunity to attack the Greek city-states of the south, which is why they are considered the bastion of Hellenism.

    N. G. L. Hammond states:
    What language did these `Macedones’ speak? The name itself is Greek in root and in ethnic termination. It probably means `highlanders’, and it is comparable to Greek tribal names such as `Orestai’ and `Oreitai’, meaning ‘mountain-men’. A reputedly earlier variant, `Maketai’, has the same root, which means `high’, as in the Greek adjective makednos or the noun mekos. The genealogy of eponymous ancestors which Hesiod recorded […] has a bearing on the question of Greek speech. First, Hesiod made Macedon a brother of Magnes; as we know from inscriptions that the Magnetes spoke the Aeolic dialect of the Greek language, we have a predisposition to suppose that the Macedones spoke the Aeolic dialect. Secondly, Hesiod made Macedon and Magnes first cousins of Hellen’s three sons – Dorus, Xouthus, and Aeolus-who were the founders of three dialects of Greek speech, namely Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic. Hesiod would not have recorded this relationship, unless he had believed, probably in the seventh century, that the Macedones were a Greek speaking people. The next evidence comes from Persia. At the turn of the sixth century the Persians described the tribute-paying peoples of their province in Europe, and one of them was the `yauna takabara’, which meant `Greeks wearing the hat’. There were Greeks in Greek city-states here and there in the province, but they were of various origins and not distinguished by a common hat. However, the Macedonians wore a distinctive hat, the kausia. We conclude that the Persians believed the Macedonians to be speakers of Greek. Finally, in the latter part of the fifth century a Greek historian, Hellanicus, visited Macedonia and modified Hesiod’s genealogy by making Macedon not a cousin, but a son of Aeolus, thus bringing Macedon and his descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking family. Hesiod, Persia, and Hellanicus had no motive for making a false statement about the language of the Macedonians, who were then an obscure and not a powerful people. Their independent testimonies should be accepted as conclusive (N.G.L. Hammond, The Macedonian State, p.12-13).

    The evidence above shows that the ancient Macedonians were one of the Hellenic groups of tribes speaking a Greek dialect and having the same institutions as the Spartans and especially the Greeks of the Western group of nations. Thus, the fallacies emanated from the FYROM and its diaspora are strongly repudiated.

    Marcus A. Templar

    Bibliography:

    ???????, ?., ?????????????, ??????? ??? ????????, ?? ?????????????, ??????
    ????????, ?????????? ????????, ?. ?. ?., ?/???? ???????????? ????????, ??????, 1971
    Auty, R., Handbook of Old Slavonic, University of London, 1977
    Botsford, G. W., Hellenic History, New York, 1956
    Casson, S., Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, Westport, CT, 1971
    Cohen, E., The Athenian Nation, 2003
    Crampton, R. J., A Concise History of Bulgaria, 2000
    ??????????, A., ? ?????????? ??? ??????? ??????????, ??????, 1960
    ??????????, ?. ?., ? ???????? ??? ???????, 1995
    Dvornik, F., Byzantine Missions Among the Slavs: Ss. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius, 1970
    Errington, R. M., A History of Macedonia, 1990
    Ferluga, J., Byzantium on the Balkans, Amsterdam 1976
    Halecki, O., Borderlands of Western Civilization, A History of East Central Europe, 2001
    Hammond, N. G. L., A History of Greece, 1959
    Hammond, N. G. L., The Macedonian State, 1989
    Hammond, N. G. L., The Genius of Alexander the Great, 1997
    ????????, ????????, ?. ?. ?., ?/???? ???????????? ????????, ??????, 1971
    Jardé, A., The Formation of the Greek People, New York, 1970
    ???????, ?., ??????., ?. ??????????, ???????????, ?., ?????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ?????, ?????, 1993
    Liddell, H. G., and Scott, R., The Great Lexicon of the Hellenic Language, Athens, 2001
    ???????, ?. ?., ???????? ? ???????, ?????? ??? ???????, ???????????, 1970
    Obolensky, O., The Byzantine Commonwealth, London, 2000
    O’Brien, J. M. Alexander the Great, London, 1994
    ????????????, A. ?., ? ?????? ????????, ???????????, 1988
    Papazoglu, F., The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times, Amsterdam, 1978, English Edition.
    ?????????, ?., ?????????? ??????? ? ?????? ????, ???? ??????, ??????, 1957
    Mario Pei, The Story of Language, Scarborough, Ontario, 1966
    Rufus, Q. C., Alexander the Great, Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Wauconda, Il 1991
    Schuster, M. L., A Treasury of the World’s Great Letters, New York, NY 1968
    Smith, ?., S. J., Biblical Greek, Rome, 1990, English Edition.
    ????????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? V??? ?????????, ?’ ?.?./3?? ?.?., ??????,1965
    ??????????, ??????? ??? ?????????????? ???????, ?. ?. ?., ?/???? ???????????? ????????, 1971
    Vasiliev, ?. ?., History of the Byzantine Empire, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1980
    Wilcken, U., Alexander the Great, New York, 1967
    Warren, P., The Aegean Civilizations, New York, 1989
    Wood, M., In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great, 1997

  124. yooo ciganOS!!!!
    to MORRON(with BIG M)called hokapontas;
    MORRON(IQ bellow 62)It is idiotic to aproach history with statesments like:”Aleksandar the great was greek,Filip united ancent greeks,Romans(Bizantines) was greek too???”you forgot Ottomans and complete list of those who CONQERED you thry centuries will be there.MORRON add some ETHIOPIAN blood there and you got result:ARYAN PURE MODERN GREEK.Since you are only country in Balkans withouth minorities probably you became pure nation claming desendancy of all conqerers
    MORON add your king scandinavian blood and final result is CIGANOS. This blog is about YOUR etnicity RIGHT? here it is then MORRON.
    P.S MORRON exsact dates starts with 19.. RIGHT MORRON?

  125. Nore racist outburst from yet another one mentally blind and fanatical FYROMite.
    Do you listen Richard??
    Can you read too?
    Are you really proud of the support implicitly
    Are you seriously suggesting that these fanatical lot can be reasoned and base a cooperation with?
    Have you still questions why the Greek VETO was all about?
    you are offering?
    Are all these still Greek to you?

    PS Ciganos = Gypsy! Does this ring any bell Richard?

  126. More racist outburst from yet another one mentally blind and fanatical FYROMite.
    Do you listen Richard??
    Can you read too?
    Are you really proud for the support to them implicitly had offered?
    Are you seriously suggesting that these fanatical lot can be reasoned and base a cooperation with?
    Have you still questions why the Greek VETO was all about?

    Are all these still Greek to you?

    PS Ciganos = Gypsy! Does this ring any bell Richard?

  127. ciganOS !!!!!
    It is not racizam when you call me FIROMan but it is when I call you bu your closest ancestors???? It`s not racizm it`s call reciprocity.Very first moment when you woke up from “Megali idea”dream we will find a way for cooperation.greek VETO was against me ,my nation and if you want against Europe.At least it prove to everyone that your place is not in EU rather in Africa.Any objections ciganOS?

  128. COPE
    u r

    not only racist but illiterate too!!
    Who belongs to Europe and who doesnt has been determined long time ago!
    European history (with Greek history being long part of it) has been written and you should understand that your nation cant rewrite it by distorting or stealing parts of it!
    The sooner u realise it the better! Stick to your nation’s history and traditions as described by your former president Gligorov…admit your slavic origin and the name issue automatically ceases to exist!!
    As regards the ciganos yes there are a few thousands in Greece living peacefully with Greeks for thousands of years having kept their customs and traditions.
    You know very well that there are many of them in Fyrom too…I hope your racist face is not shown on them by your government! That would be very unfortunate as they r more macedonians (geographically speaking) than you are!

    anyway the subject is closed as it is getting tiring…

    PS. nice talking to all of u and Richard thanks for giving the chance to to disagree creatively I hope with you and my friends slavomacedonians

  129. Cope,
    you fool! you fool! you fool!

    your idiotic approach to history is unique! you deserve a prize in stupidity!!
    After all the documentation me and Phillipos presented to you I would expect you to provide some historical documents proving your nonsense.
    Obviously, there arent any!
    YOU idiot… EXPLAIN HOW CAN ALEXANDROS HAVE A GREEK NAME MEANING: ALEX:PROTECT, ANDROS:MAN, MEN
    so Alexandros means:protector of men AND NOT BE GREEK?
    (Other modern greek words with the prefix alex…alexisfairo, alexikeravno etc.)
    Macedonians you fool UNITED all the Greek speaking tribes and spread the hellenistic culture all over the world!!!
    Byzantine empire you FOOL was the continuation of the ancient Greek and Roman civilisations and Constantinoupolis was the capital of the Hellenized Byzantine empire. In Byzantine years people officially spoke Greek you idiot! The Patriarch in Konstantipoupoli is Greek.. you idiot and greek macedonians are proud to belong there… a fact that proves the continuity of the Greekness of the area of Macedonia which belonged in the
    patriarchate of Constantinoupolis since the first years of Christianity. That means you idiot… that the Greek macedonians were always Christians, unlike your slavic race had to be christianized by the Greeks Cyril and Methodious hundreds of years later.. you fool!

    You fool COPE,
    here r some more answers to your stupidity
    Fallacy #12
    Sts. Cyril and Methodius were Slavs and that is the rationale why they are called “the Apostles of the Slavs” and also “the Slav Apostles.”

    Fact #12
    The term “Slav Apostles” or the “Apostles of the Slavs” does not mean that the two brothers were Slavs. St. Thomas is called “the Indian Apostle,” but we all know that he was not an Indian. He simply taught Christianity to the Indians. The Greek brothers from Thessaloniki taught Christianity to the Slavs, they gave them the alphabet (presently called Cyrillic), and they translated the sacred and liturgical books of Christianity into the Old Church Slavonic, otherwise known as Old Bulgarian.

    Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Epistles of December 31, 1980, and June 2, 1985, while he was commemorating the two brothers, affirmed the fact that both were Greeks from Thessaloniki.

    Professors Ivan Lazaroff, Plamen Pavloff, Ivan Tyutyundzijeff and Milko Palangurski of the Faculty of History of Sts. Cyril and Methodius University in Veliko T?rnovo, Bulgaria in their book, Kratka istoriya na b?lgarskiya narod (Short History of the Bulgarian Nation, pp 36-38), state very explicitly that the two brothers were Greeks from Thessaloniki. The late Oscar Halecki, Professor of Eastern European History, in his book Borderlands of Western Civilization, A History of East Central Europe (chapter Moravian State and the Apostles of the Slavs) agrees with the authors of Kratka istoriya na b?lgarskiya narod

    Fallacy #11
    Many of the Greeks living in Greek Macedonia are actually refugees that came to Macedonia during the First World War and especially during the 1920’s and 1930? from Turkey, the Middle East, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine and Bulgaria.

    Fact #11
    It is very true that a good number of the Greeks living in Greek Macedonia are refugees from various Middle Eastern countries. However, it is also true that these Greeks are descendants of those ancient Greeks, including ancient Macedonians, who either colonized various areas of what presently are Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Bulgaria, Turkey, the Middle East, or followed the greatest General of all times, Alexander the Great. These Greeks simply came home after at least two and one half millennia of spreading the Greek spirit, culture, language and civilization. Mother Greece made her lands available to her returning and thought to be lost offspring. It was the least she could do. After all they had every right to come home, just as the Jews did and they are still going home to Israel.

    Particular dates of Macedonia being GREEK? since anient times… never stopped to be Greek you idot… 6000 six thousand ancient inscriptions in the greek language have been found all over Macedonia you idiot…
    you fool.., you fool …you fool…

    During Ottoman empire despite the suffering… you fool… the Greeks managed to keep their religion, customs, traditions,controlled the shpipping industry, and finally managed to rebel aginst the Turks gradually liberating what is nowadays called modern Greece… you fool…
    you fool…

  130. Hey Richard,

    have a good reading of that!!
    Richard:Charlatan of history ? Definitely so!!! still waiting on your remarks….

    to give you a clear insight of who the real Makedonians are it must be noted that:

    Our ancestors are the original Macedonians, the Macedonian Hellenes, who arrived in the area around 2000 BC. The Macedonian Hellenes were descendants of the Heracleides. As such the ancient Macedonians were part of a larger and the last group of Hellenes, which reached the area of present day Kastoria (ORESTIS) along with the Dorians, Acarnanians and Aetolians around 2000 BC. Herodotus, the father of history, very carefully describes the 800- year wanderings of that large group, which eventually split into three smaller groups. Just after the Trojan War, the first group under the leadership of Dorus inhabited Peloponnesus and the second group, the Acarnanians and Aetolians, went south. The third group marched east and by pushing the Phrygians, established the Kingdom of Macedonia on a loop of the River Aliakmon. The first king of Macedonia was Karanos who reigned between 813 and 786 BC. More recent archeological discoveries of the tomb of King Philip II (father of Alexander the Great) at Vergina, in 1985 and lately at nearby Aiani, the discovery of remnants from the 600 BC Mycenean civilization (southern Greece) add to the tangible evidence that Macedonia is Greek.

    Alexander was as much a Hellene as the southern Hellenes, speaking the same language, worshipping the same gods, uniting the Hellenes against the common enemy, spreading the Hellenic language and civilization throughout his vast empire and leaving nothing but Hellenic footprints everywhere he went in his short life.

    Alexander’s own words are quoted as: “Men of Athens… Had I not greatly AT HEART the common welfare of GREECE I should not have come to tell you; BUT I AM MYSELF GREEK BY DESCENT, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery…. If you prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the GREEK CAUSE, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am ALEXANDER of MACEDON.”
    [Herodotus, The Histories, 9.45, translated by G.Rawlinson]

    “…consider all Hellas your fatherland, as did the founder of your race,…”
    [Isokrates, To Philip 127]

    In 324BC, after the establishment of his state, Alexander the Great gave an oath to the officers and soldiers of his state. The oath was also addressed to all the races that lived in the territories of his empire, it was given near Babylon (in Opis) and the philosopher Eratosthenes passes it to us. By the reading the oath one can quickly realize how much Greek Alexander felt, and how proud he was of his Greek origin:
    “I wish all of you, now that the wars are coming to an end, to live happily, in peace. All mortals from now on will live like one people, united, and peacefully working towards a common prosperity. You should regard the whole world as your country, a country where the best govern, with common laws, and no racial distinctions. I do not separate people, as many narrow minded others do, into Greeks and barbarians. I am not interested in the origin or race of citizens. I only distinguish them on the basis of their virtue. For me each foreigner is a Greek and each bad Greek is a barbarian. If ever there appear differences among you, then you must not resolve them by taking to arms, you should resolve them in peace. If need be, I will act as your negotiator.
    You must not think of God as an authoritarian ruler, but you should consider him as a common father, so that your conduct resembles the uniform behavior of brothers who belong to the same family. For my part, I consider all, whether they be white or black, equal. And I would like you to be not only subject of my common-wealth, but also participants and partners. You should regard the Oath we have taken tonight as a Symbol of Love.”
    Alexander I – Opis (324 BC)
    There is no doubt that particular area endured many conquests by various conquerors. But even during the Roman Conquest, which continued into the Byzantine Era – a period of about one thousand years – that Roman territory, with Constantinople as its capital and Thessaloniki (in Macedonia) as a cultural and commercial center of the Empire, remained fully Hellenic. Furthermore, during Justinian’s time it adopted the Hellenic language as the formal and official Language of the Byzantine State. Although the Romans came as conquerors they were instead conquered by the Hellenic spirit, education and culture.

    Throughout the Ottoman Empire the geographical area of Macedonia was divided in three administrative areas called vilayets. Each vilayet was further divided in smaller areas called sandzaks and each sandzak was further divided in kazas. Thus during the period of the Ottoman Empire there were three vilayets that included, but not limited the area of geographic Macedonia. One vilayet was Manastir with its capital the city of Manastir (present day Bitola, the FYROM). The other one Kosova, with capital Prizren (present day Kosovo), which included parts of present day Kosovo and the northern part of the FYROM). The third one was the vilayet of Selanik with its capital Selanik (present day Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece). This included parts of the Greek Macedonia, parts of the south-eastern FYROM and parts of southwestern Bulgaria.

    After the demise of the Ottoman Turkey the terms of the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913 Greece was awarded the south geographical part of Macedonia, Serbia the north geographical part, and Bulgaria was awarded a small northeastern geographical part of Macedonia. The Serbs called their part South Serbia and later Vardarska Banovina, which included the whole territory of the FYROM, Kosovo and part of present-day south-eastern Serbia.

    During the Ottoman Occupation of Greece, which lasted about four hundred years, the Greeks, including those in the Macedonian area, never lost their Hellenic identity. Through about twenty generations during that era they were able to preserve their language, religion and most importantly their Hellenic conscience under the most difficult circumstances of an enslaved nation. Southern Greece was liberated in 1821 and during the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 Greece liberated its province of Macedonia from the Ottoman rulers.

  131. Richard, Charlatan of history? More than likely until we get a convincing answer…well Richie u r not going to get away with it that easy….

    your ridiculous argument of Demosthenes quotation has been refuted by scholars in Cambridge and other respecful institutions around the world. You proved to be highly biased and hostile to anything that comes from Greece.
    When dealing with history you better be more careful or you will always make the fool of yoursel as it happened in this case.
    Here are some elements of history that you -an otherwise respectable man- seem to ignore devaluating your so far “bright” career!

    Argument:”Dimosthenis said that the Macedonians were not Greek”

    Answer:
    This argument refers to the following quote from the Athenian statesman Dimosthenis (Dimosthenis, Third Philippic, 31)

    “… not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave”
    This quote appears to accuse king Philippos of Macedonia as a non-Greek. However the majority of today’s historians ascribe these claims to the political differences between Dimosthenis and King Philippos. It is well known that Dimosthenis as a passionate supporter of the Athenian democracy was very concerned about the rise of the Macedonan kingdom.

    “Demosthenes’ allegations were lent an appearance of credibility by the fact apparent to every observer, that the lifestyle of the Macedonians was different from that of a Greek city state. This alien way of life was however, common to the western Greeks in Epeiros, Akarnania and Aitolia, as well as to the Macedonians, and their fundenmental Greek nationality was never doubted. Only as a consequencce of the political disagreement with Macedonia was the question ever raised at all.”
    [Proffesor M.Errington, “A History of Macedonia”, University of California Press, Los Angeles, 1990]

    “The speeches of Demosthenes, that deal with Philip as the enemy,should not be interpreted as an indication of the barbarian origins of Macedonians, but as an expression of conflict between two different political systems: the democratic system of the city-state (e.g.Athens) versus the monarchy (Kingdom of Macedonia). Personally, I believe that it is the common language, which gives one the opportunity to share a common civilization. Thus the language is the main factor that forms a national identity.”
    [Proffesor Nicholas Hammond, “Macedonian Echo” magazine, February 1993]

    Also note that the quote does not suggest that the “Macedonians were not Greek” as the Slavs themselves wrongly assert, it only refers to king Philippos.

    • Macedonians had Greek names
    All the ancient Macedonian names mentioned in history or found on tombs are Greek. All the kings of Ancient Macedonia had Greek names. Nobody discovered ancient Macedonian names ending to -ov or -ovski or whatever.

    Alexander’s name is Greek. The word “Alexandros” is produced from the prefix alex(=protector) and the word andros(=man) meaning “he who protects men”. The prefix “alex” can be found in many Greek words today (alexiptoto=parachute, alexisfairo=bulletproof – all these words have the meaning of protetion).

    Philip’s name is also Greek. It is produced from the prefix Philo(=friendly to something) and the word ippos(=horse) meaning the man who is friendly to horses. The prefix “philo” and the word “ippos” are also found in many words of Greek origin today (philosophy,philology, hippodrome,hippocampus).
    On the origin of the Macedonians

    The Greek origin of the Macedonians is proven by the vast majority of the ancient historians.
    Diodoros of Sicily talks about the links of Alexander to the Greek mythology (Diodoros, Historical Library 17.1.5):

    “On his father’s side Alexander was a descendant of Heracles and on his mother’s he could claim the blood of the Aeacids, so that from his ancestors on both sides he inherited the physical and moral qualities of greatness.”
    Herodotus confirms that the Macedonians were people of Greek origin (Histories of Herodotus Book 5, paragraph 22.1)

    “Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know and will prove it in the later part of my history.That they are so has been already adjudged by those who manage the Pan-Hellenic contest at Olympia. ”
    And later on (Book 8, paragraph 137.1) he verifies it:

    “This Alexander was seventh in descent from Perdiccas, who got for himself the tyranny of Macedonia in the way that I will show. Three brothers of the lineage of Temenus came as banished men from Argos to Illyria, Gauanes and Aeropus and Perdiccas; and from Illyria they crossed over into the highlands of Macedonia till they came to the town Lebaea.”
    Also in the very first book of his “Histories” (paragraph 56.3 ) Herodotus states about the origin of the the Greek people :

    “For in the days of king Deucalion it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian.”
    Thoukididis also verifies that the Macedonian kings’ origin was from the Greek town of Argos (Book 2, 99.3):

  132. Cope I didnt call you FIROMan but FYROMian from the name of your country as recognised officially by the UN! As your ex President Kiro Gligorov agreed!

    So your accusations are just chaff!

    But my accusations are both fully justifiable and self evident observation that you and your lot are just mindless racists This is a fact beyond reasonable doubt!

    Dont believe me???Read again everything you have wrote!!!!!!

  133. Users Cope, Georgios (alias “Xenophontas”, “Xenofon”, “Philippos”, “Hesiodos”, “Pavlos” and “Alexandros”) and Hellen (alias “Hellenist” and “It’s all Greek to you”): I would like to remind you of Blogactiv’s general blogging guidelines , where it says:

    “Respect your audience

    * respect their right to disagree
    * show proper consideration for others’ privacy;
    * be respectful when covering topics that may be considered objectionable or inflammatory, such as politics and religion
    * don’t pick fights, be the first to correct your own mistakes, and don’t alter previous posts without indicating that you have done so
    * respect copyright, fair use and financial disclosure laws”

    I would also like to remind you that bloggers who disrespect these guidelines will be blocked from the platform.

  134. Wooow!

    When the lies are exposed! When the propaganda lay bare! Whats next?

    Sensoprship!

  135. “It’s all Greek to you” – I am not looking at content, just at etiquette.

  136. well blogmanager (Richard?!)

    Iam talking on behalf of Georgios, Alexandros,Pavlos,Xenophontas , Hesiodos

    as far as we r concerned we feel as Greeks that
    1.Your blog disrespects the audience of 20 million Greeks around the world by publishing an article which describes them as svavs or albanians
    2. we respect the right to disagree, but when dealing with history disagreements should be substantiated by arguments based on historical sources, otherwise charlatanism prevails(as it happened in this case)
    3.we didnt mean any disrespect to anyone, we well-documented our views by referring to our sources respecting copyright.
    4. we dont pick fights and we dont alter previous posts-others are the pioneers of distortion- we have just republished some of our comments once we never got a well documented answer from the author of the main article.
    5.Mr Hill owes an apology to Greeks all over the world for insulting them and for distorting their history. Even more, he owes an apology to Scholars in Cambridge, Oxford etc. as he very easily put them aside drawing his groundless conclusions!
    6.as regards the etiquette we never meant to insult Mr Hill by calling him a CHARLATAN OF HISTORY but how else can you call a man who distorts historical facts deliberately without providing his sources? Give us an alternative article and we will fully comply.

  137. Just to clarify this: I am the moderator for the whole Blogactiv.eu platform. I am not related to the author of this blog. I have no strong views with respect to the questions you are discussing here. It is my job, however, to enforce respectful behaviour among bloggers.

  138. …and to clarify things from my side, I have no intention of apologising to the ‘scholars from Cambridge and Oxford’, as the Greek contributor(s) to this blog think I should. I’m a ‘scholar from Cambridge’ too…

    The focus of works by Hammond (the one scholar referred to by name) was on the Greece of Antiquity, whereas I have been trying to talk about what happened (or appears to have happened) between then and now.

    Since they seem to like quoting people, let me just quote from some of the other scholars:

    Noel Malcolm (historian, Cambridge): The military campaign fought by the Serb King Dusan, who conquered much of northern Greece, “was followed by the migration into Greece of large numbers of Albanians and Albanian Vlachs.“ Since Dusan had already conquered much of northern Greece, this suggests that these people went further south, even into the Peloponnese (NB: the Arvanites of today).

    Peter Trudgill (sociolinguist, Cambridge): “some have estimated that, when the Ottomans conquered the whole Greek territory in the XV century, some 45% of it was populated by Albanians.”

    He also said, elsewhere, that “the Greek linguist Angelopoulos wrote (1979), apparently without any trace of irony, that ‘Greece represents, in Europe, a country with practically ideal ethnic, linguistic and religious homogeneity and unity’.” Well, you have to be Greek to believe that one!

    Norman Davis (historian, Oxford): “Europe – and isn’t it our unique achievement in the end? – is a very funny civilization.”

    Indeed it is.

  139. Mr blogmanager moderator. I quite frankly dont understand the reason for your intervantion other than trying to silence those who with facts prove the fallacies distortions and the ‘post modern’ historical revisionism attempted here!
    I believe in a free world supposedly respecting free speach it is the right of millions of Greeks to voicec their opinion and if needed their oposition too. We never (and I speak on behalf of Greek commentators and those thinking alike) spoke to any derogatory way. Not to the effect of these ‘Gypsy’ slurs directed on many occasion towards us, without as it seems prove tyour reaction!!!!!!!!!
    Richard half knowledge is worse than ignorance!
    I chose respectfully to disagree with you and plainly proving why this is so!
    I see you are still pretend you have not understood anything of what many of us have written and conclusively proven and you just carry on your false tunes!. This is obviously your business! But it is also our business to remind you and everyone else for this matter that we are not intend to be silenced any time soon! The truth for you will be still voiced so better used to it!

  140. well,
    thanks be to god, mr Hill finally revealed his secret sources to the public!!
    His main source is who else? Noel Malcolm! The english gentleman(a journalist basically until a few years ago) who overnight became an expert in balkan studies! The proffesor of albanian myth-making!!! I will deal with N. Malcolm in a little while but let me first make some observations.
    1.As mr Hill likes referring to modern Greece, he should know, that irrespective of what happened in the past, 98% of the modern Greek population speaks greek and is greek orthodox religiously, which makes your claims of being slavs and albanians both ridiculous and laughable! Greeks were were under ottoman occupation for 400 years and yet despite the torture and suffering managed to keep their language and their religion. If greeks were albanians or slavs, they would speak albanian or a slavic language not Greek.

    2.Of course there are some greek citizens of slavic or albanian origin but their numbers are insignificant. It is well known fact that there are about 400000 albanians of greek origin (vorio ipirotes)who managed to preserve their language and religion under the unbearable albanian communist regime of E.Hozza.
    Also, many scholars claim that arvanites were greeks.

    Now Richard, lets have some real academic talk!!
    As regards you source Malcolm Noel, I am well aware of him being a modern day forgerer! So your source is not very reliable Iam afraid!
    I must emphasise that the famous British Historian H.W.V Temperley clearly disagrees with him in his book Kosovo- a short history.

    A. As regards his position on the slavs in Greece I must note that:
    The theory of Noel Malcolm, the observer who prepared the chapter on Greece for the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, is in no less problematic than that of Siesby and Whitman. He seems to accept that race and language determine ethnicity (see pp. 1-2). On these grounds Slavophones in northern Greece (whose “ancestors came to this part of the Balkans in the Slav migrations of the sixth and seventh centuries”) are classified willy-nilly as “Macedonians” (potentially a FYROM national minority in Greece)10.
    Malcolm’s obvious partiality to FYROM on the question of identities is not an exceptional phenomenon in his report. Unlike Siesby and Whitman, he has made clear that he relies more comfortably on FYROM sources regarding figures as well. Thus he considers as the “most careful estimate” of the population in 1912, that furnished by historian Stoyan Kiselinofski11. Malcolm also draws figures from the same author for the inter-war period and the departure of Slav-speakers to the north after the Greek Civil War12. Additional examples also reveal his uncritical handling of data. Dimitris Lithoxoou13, a leading member of the “Rainbow” (claiming to be an “ethnic Macedonian” party in Greece) has calculated that the number of Slav-speakers in a certain region of Greek Macedonia in 1951 was 3.5 times higher than that given by the official census14. Based on that calculation Malcolm went as far as to claim (p. 6) that the total number of Slav-speakers in the whole of Greek Macedonia was 3.5 higher, that is 140,000 instead of the official 41,000. Even Mr Lithoxoou, however, has been more cautious in dealing with figures. As far as the present size of the minority is concerned his verdict is that it must be ranging between 40,000 and 100,000. These figures are based on two social anthropologists: The former is an anonymous one, which, according to Malcolm, mentions a core of 40-70,000 “ethnic Macedonians” and an associated circle of roughly 100,000. The latter is A. Karakasidou, who wrote that 80% of the population of the Florina region are either Slav-speakers or descendants of Slav-speakers15. Two points must be made here: why are anthropologists considered by Malcolm a reliable source for figures? In fact Karakasidou mentioned explicitly that this percentage is not official and used the conditional form (“I would estimate”) probably to express some doubt. But even if her figure wa s right, to move to the second point, descending from Slav-speakers does not make one necessarily an “ethnic Macedonian”.

    B. Now in connection with M. NOEL’s FORGERIES I must quote the following so people will understand of what we are talking about!!

    Old Serbia in the Eyes of the “Merciful Angel”: The Phenomenon of the Historian as a Destructionist
    By Prof. Slavenko Terzi?, Ph.D, Institute of History of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts

    Our main attention in this text will be focused on the views presented in Noel Malcolm’s “Introduction” to his book, and also on those contained in the section of his book dealing with the period 1817-1918, and, quite summarily, on some of his concluding remarks towards the end of the book. Noel Malcolm has written this book for political ends, or as he says at one point, to cater “to the practical needs of English readers”.[1] The history of the Serb province is presented as the history of the Albanian national minority in Serbia. The aim of Malcolm’s book is to demonstrate that Kosovo and Metohija are “the Albanian land”, and that they should stay that way. The design of everything in the book serves to satisfy the needs of the day, and that spirit permeates even the sections of the book dealing with the early Middle Ages or the Ottoman period. Malcolm’s methodology, his general propositions, his usage of place or historical names or concepts, his usage of sources and, finally, his interpretations are there only in order to prove a pre-set thesis.
    An Unsurpassed Genius or a Cunning Falsifier: Malcolm, a Non-Balcanologist, Masters 11 Languages and Digests All European Historical Archives in Two Years
    Noel Malcolm is not a naive forger. To the public at large, not to a more limited circle of experts in the field, the book does meet a set of formal criteria of alleged thoroughness and scholarship. His notes are extensive, taking up 70 pages of his book. According to the listing appended to the text of the book, he has consulted manuscript materials contained in some fifteen archives and research centres, including the Archives du Ministère des Affaires Étrangéres in Paris, the Archivio della Sacra Congregazione della Propaganda Fide in Rome, the Archivio Segreto Vaticano in Vatican City, the Haus-, Hof and Staatsarchiv in Vienna, the Kriegsarchive in Vienna, the National Archives in Washington, the archives in London (Public Record Office) as well as manuscript holdings in the libraries of Paris, Venice, Oxford, Bologna, the Vatican, including even the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. His Bibliography contains over 870 entries – in English, German, French, Italian, Turkish, Serb, Albanian, Macedonian, Russian, Bulgarian and Rumanian. The bibliographical entries in Serb and Albanian are substantial in number. The entire conception of the book is illustrated with historical maps, which also serve the general idea of the author.
    For a scholar who is neither versed in Slav studies nor a balcanologist, and who, judging by his scholarly credentials, until 4-5 years ago never had anything whatsoever to do with the history of the Balkans, it strikes one as unconvincing, even in sheer physical terms, that he could have managed to digest and synthesize, within 2-3 years, such a huge quantity of archives and archival holdings in so many languages, consulted such a massive literature in eleven European languages – a quite heterogeneous literature at that.
    Greater Albanian Ideologists are Malcolm’s Main Source: What Rexhep Qosja Wrote in Albanian, Noel Malcolm Published in English
    But, even if he has managed to do so, even to superficial students of South-East European history it is obvious that scientifically dependable references to those allegedly massive materials are absent from his book! Even where a quotation is given, it is evident that it is there rather to prove the author’s pre-set political thesis, and not to illustrate a complex picture of the past of this part of Europe. It is stunning that Malcolm, in spite of his alleged insight into such extensive archival materials and literature, has not advanced a step further than the many times repeated great-Albanian theses launched by national ideologists from Tirana and Priština. All Malcolm’s key theses are found in the 1995 Memorandum of the Forum of Albanian Intellectuals, signed by Rexhep Qosja.[2] The only difference is that Malcolm’s book appeared in English, in London.
    Concealing his Mission as an Advocate of the Albanian Separatist Movement
    The essential, methodological and professional failure of this book, however, is in its usage of sources and its interpretation of events. To be precise, the author selects from historical evidence only what corroborates his thesis. For instance, he refers to almost all works by Mary Edith Durham, but he ignores her first serious work, Through the Lands of the Serb, in which she touches on Metohija.[3] Everything leads to the conclusion that by referring to such a mass of sources and literature in general, Noel Malcolm in fact wanted to conceal his real motifs while doing his best to conceal his mission as an advocate of the separatist movement of the Albanian minority in Serbia by an aura of alleged scholarship and thoroughness.
    There are few instances of violation of historical facts and historical truth comparable to that committed by Noel Malcolm against the history of the Serbs and the entire area of Old Serbia, currently the southern province of the Republic of Serbia. Malcolm does not discuss Kosovo and Metohija within the history of the Serbs, or the history of Serbia, but within the history of the “Albanian lands”. Throughout the book Kosovo. A Short History, he applies the term “Kosovo” as the only name for the area of Kosovo and Metohija, picturing it as a separate historical, political, cultural an even geographical entity from times immemorial, always in isolation from Serbia and the history of the Serbs. And, practically from the beginning to the end, Malcolm challenges the theses of “Serb nationalists” and “Serb myths”, as a rule trying to picture this area as a tragic prey of “the Serb conquerors”.
    In the very “Introduction” to his book, Malcolm rejects what he calls the “confused usage of the term Kosovo and Metohija”. Parallel to already common terms such as the “Croatian Serbs”, the “Bosnian Serbs”, Malcolm is often happy to use the term the “Kosovo Serbs”. The Albanians are for him the “Kosovars”, and a part of a homogeneous whole of the Albanian people, whereas the “Kosovo Serbs” are defined only by that regional attribute (Kosovo) and as isolated from Serbia.
    Ignorance of the Balkans’ History Combined with Dilettante Simplifications
    The introductory section of Malcolm’s book reveals, on one hand, his undeniably partial and undoubtedly clear political stance, and on the other hand his complete unawareness of the history of the Balkans, as well as his dilettante simplification of its subtle historical processes and problems. Malcolm says that there had never been ethnic wars in the history of this region, that Kosovo and Metohija are “the area with the worst human rights abuses in the whole of Europe”, and that in fact primarily political leaders are to blame for the events taking place there.[4] The aforementioned Mary Durham wrote down in 1903, during her trip through Metohija: “The story of Old Servia is one of uninterrupted misery. The suffering of the Christian peoples in the Balkans is no new thing. It began with the advent of the Turk, and will continue while he remains. As long ago as 1690 the intolerable lot of the Serbs of Old Servia induced no less than 37,000 stem families (zadruge) to emigrate to Hungary. The Albanians then spread over the vacated lands, which they have been permitted to harry with impunity ever since.”[5]
    Famous British Historian H. W. V. Temperley Clearly Disagrees with the Albanian Hireling Malcolm
    In contrast to many well known historians stressing the important role of the religious factor in history, Malcolm is of the opinion that religion had no role among the Albanians, but that it does play an important role in the formation of Serb attitudes. Religion, he says, “has played almost no role at all” in the political mobilization of the Albanians, adding that “there is no Islamic political movement among the Albanians”. However, the well-known British historian Harold W. V. Temperley has perceptively observed that “the Mussulmanised Serbs known as Arnauts are the bitterest foes of the Serb”.[6] Temperley was professor at Harvard and Cambridge and in 1921 he a represented Britain in the Commission for the Albanian borders. The unabashed intolerance of the Arbanasi (Arbanenses) in relation to the Serbs and Slavs and the gradual expulsion of the latter from the area settled by the Arbanasi are also convincingly described by H. N. Brailsford in his book Macedonia, published in 1905. Brailsford emphasizes that the Albanians “manifest a semi-feudal terrorism” in relation to the Slav people.[7]
    Even if we ignore the views of reputable Europeans, it takes no more than a superficial knowledge of the provisions of the 1878 Prizren League Statute or of later links of the Muslim Albanians with radical Muslim political movements to our day, including the former’s training in well known religious centres of the kind, to conclude that Malcolm is either an ignoramus or, simply, that he intentionally ignores the facts. The Croatian historian Bernard Stuli underlines precisely the pan-Islamic character of the League: in all sixteen articles of its Statute the political subjects of the League are simply Muslims. They refer to the “sublime religious law” ?eriat), advocating alliance with “believers of the same religious affiliation in the Balkans”, whereas desertion of the alliance is qualified, by Article 16, as disloyalty to Islam.[8] That we are dealing with unprecedented partiality blind to the facts is shown by Malcolm’s claim that the Orthodox Serbs, the “Orthodox side”, in contrast to the Albanians, “constantly employs religious rhetoric to justify the defense of ‘sacred’ Serb interests”, this being, in his opinion, “a classic example of religion being mobilized and manipulated for ideological purposes”.[9] According to Malcolm, the Albanians are not only tolerant –they are also guardians of Orthodox religious sites. What that tolerance looked like in the past is best shown today by some eighty Orthodox churches and monasteries, most of them medieval, torn down in Kosovo and Metohija since June 1999, in the presence and under the auspices of NATO forces at that!
    A Prejudiced, Serbophobic Propagandist at Best
    That Noel Malcolm is not really a researcher by any truly scientific standards and that his interpretation is firmly rooted in political prejudices is demonstrated by his total acceptance of a set of recognizable stereotypes. Resembling, on one hand, the Marxist theses assuming that the harmony among peoples as a whole is disturbed only by their social elites or leaderships, and, on the other hand, the “Golden Age” of the English struggle, waged throughout the nineteenth century, against anything Slav, and particularly that which is Orthodox Slav and capable of establishing links with Russia. At times he uses the language of the nineteenth century, and the reader might rather picture him lounging in a Bosphorus palace at the time of the preparations for the Berlin Congress (1878) than as a calm scholar doing his best to understand and explain the history of a part of Europe. But even so, he is imbued with more one-sidedness and partiality than any English consul in the nineteenth century Balkans. Instead of elucidating, he obscures things and causes confusion.
    Malcolm intentionally discusses the relations between the Serbs and the Albanians within the framework of “Kosovo”, trying through his regionalist prism to cut off all ties between the Serbs of this area and other Serbs. These acrobatics of his serve to promote the Albanian national minority in a part of Serbia into the rank of the pivotal and state-oriented factor, whereas the Serb people in that part of their own country is allotted, by Malcolm and some other current interpretations, the “status” of a national minority. The reader can only imagine what the history of Spain or France or Germany or any other country would look like if the history of their respective regions inhabited by national minorities were interpreted in relation to Spaniards, Frenchmen, Germans or any other majority people of any country. In order to minimize the importance of the historical evidence pertaining to the relations between the Serbs and the Albanians, that is to the processes brought about by the beginning of an increasingly massive migration of the Arbanasi into Old Serbia since the late 17th century (the relics of the celebration of a family’s patron saint day – the slava of the Serbs – among the Arbanasi, as well as of cutting a special Yule-log at Christmas – the badnjak of the Serbs), Malcolm gives very general sociological definitions of the problem through phrases such as “ethnic-linguistic assimilation in both directions”, and “folk-religious syncretism” in the Balkans. “The slava”, he writes, “which has pre-Christian origins, was popular among Catholics and Muslims in northern Albania as well as Catholics in Dalmatia, Bosnia and Slavonia…”[10] Of course, Malcolm does not happen to conclude that the Arbanasi could be the Serbs converted to Islam or Catholicism. One should consult the ethnographical map of Serbia published in 1909 in London by Alfred Stead showing that the numbers of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija were very small in size and that they were mostly “Albanized Serbs”.[11] In order to deepen the regionalist dimension of the Serb presence in Old Serbia and minimize the proportions of Islamization and the turning the Serbs into Arnauts, Malcolm even claims that in Kosovo and Metohija “over many centuries” there was no clear-cut ethnic division between Serbs and Albanians. The Serbian colonists in the 1920s, he says, felt the “local Serbs” as foreign as “the alien Albanians”.[12]
    Disseminating Albanian Nationalist Myths Without a Single Shred of Evidence
    Malcolm interprets the life of the Serbs in Old Serbia, that is in Kosovo and Metohija, as the centre of their political, spiritual and cultural life, by concealing decades-long ethnic cleansing of the Serbs with phrases about the harmonious and almost idyllic life before 1912. The Serbs and the Albanians fought, says he, “as allies” at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, and they (“including even Muslim ones [Albanians]”) rose up towards the end of the seventeenth century “to throw off Ottoman rule”.[13] All this has been repeated many times by Albanian historians without a single shred of evidence to support the claim. Typical of Malcolm’s “history of Kosovo” is that he interprets the past of this area in isolation not only from the history of Serbia and the Serbs, as we have already said, but also from the general currents of European history. By his magic wand, Malcolm has placed the history of this area under a bell jar, probably intending to make such pseudo-scientific interpretations as his “history” of Bosnia and now of Kosovo and Metohija serve as models for the writing of a presumably radically new history of Europe.
    For one thing, it is widely known that from the late seventeenth century down to 1912 a bitter struggle was fought between Christian Europe and the Ottoman Empire as the champion of the spirit of Islam in Europe, the spirit of the militant Islam at that, embodied by the advancing Ottomans. Beginning with the siege of Vienna in 1683 and all the way to 1912, that struggle was both long-lasting and bloody, and its main victims were particularly the Christian peoples of the Balkans – notably the Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians. Nowhere were those bitter conflicts of the European Christian world on one hand, and the Ottoman-Islamic world on the other hand being so intensely refracted as then in Old Serbia and in Kosovo and Metohija in particular. Among a host of authors writing to that effect one can point to the former State Secretary of the USA Henry Kissinger, who has in recent years repeatedly stated that this conflict of two civilizations and social models was most intense precisely in this relatively small area. Malcolm confidently concludes relying on no serious analysis of the events and processes in question: “What really turned the division between Orthodox Serb and Muslim Albanians into a more general and systematic conflict was the politicization of the issue in the nineteenth century, which arose during the growth and expansion of the Slav Christian states in the Balkans.” In reality, from the first moment of the “conquest” – as Malcolm calls it –of Kosovo and Metohija by Serbia and Montenegro in 1912 hostility and hatred was created “on a scale that the region had never seen before.[14] Thus we come to the key claim revealing the essence of Noel Malcolm’s approach – the idea that all problems in Kosovo and Metohija started with the liberation of these areas from Turkish rule in 1912. On the contrary, the truth is that their liberation, as well as the liberation of other areas that had been under Turkish rule was a prerequisite for their social and cultural modernization and re-integration into the European Christian civilization.
    Series of Factual Errors
    Malcom announces the format of his book at its very beginning, by his challenging the claims presented in the memorandum of the Serbian government early in 1913. In his attempt to invalidate the civilizational, historical and ethnic evidence he, in addition to his lame interpretation, makes a series of factual errors. The latter range from his claim that the Serbian Patriarchate as an institution has had no continuous history, to the claim borrowed from Albanian historiography that the Great Migration (Velika Seoba) of the Serbs from Kosovo is largely “mythology”, that it is “invented”, and to crown it all, to the claim that Kosovo was not a part of Serbia for several hundred years prior to 1912 “because there was no Serbia of which it could be a part”. Had he looked at any 17th or 18th century map of Europe, for instance the map of the humanist and cartographer Giacomo Cantelli da Vignola published in 1689 in Rome under the title Il Regno della Serbia detta altrimenti Rascia he would have learned that Kosovo and Metohija represented the centre of Serbia and that the southern borders of Serbia ran along the river Drina in what is today northern Albania.”[15] In the reports of the 17th century missionaries from Rome Prizren was described as “the principal town of Serbia” and “the most beautiful place in Serbia”. In his report of 1633, Petar Masarek even points out that many Serbs live in Albania – in the bishoprics of Skadar, Lješ and Zadrimje.[16]
    According to Malcolm, Christian Europe Should Not Have Been Liberated from Ottoman Rule
    In his book Kosovo. A Short History Noel Malcom displays a very unusual, one can say even anti-European approach, presumably following in the footsteps of old Turkophile politics of nineteenth century British cabinets. In essence, he sharply criticizes the European Christian liberation movement of the last few centuries. But when discussing expulsions of Muslims, he does not as much as mention Austria, or Hungary, or Croatia, or Polish troops, but sees only the Serbian army and its crimes. It is known that in the early decades and the mid-nineteenth century Turkey, under the pressure of the great powers, resorted to internal reforms meant to alleviate the position of its Christian subjects. The toughest opponents to those reforms were Bosnian and Albanian beys, whose resistance Malcolm sees as an expression of nationally conscious liberation and state-oriented aspirations. When Muslims, for instance, flee Bosnia and Hercegovina after the Austro-Hungarian occupation, then it is not an act of expulsion of muhaxhirs, but “because they did not want to live under ‘infidel’ administration”; yet when they flee from the territory liberated by Serbia in 1878, then it is solely on account of “ethnic cleansing”, which was a means of “Serbian state policy to create an ethnically ‘clean’ territory”.[17]
    On the other hand, the expulsion of the Serbs into Central Serbia and ethnic cleansing of Old Serbia is explained by Malcolm from quite a different standpoint. Then it is a consequence of “local hostilities”, “the general stagnation” and “poor administration of the vilayet”, as well as the “attractions of life in Serbia (a fully independent country from 1878)”. When the fate of the Serbs is at stake, Malcolm speaks of “migration”. When the fate of the Albanians is at stake, he speaks of “uprooting”. Here is an example of his interpretation of the ethnic cleansing of Old Serbia: “There was no Ottoman state policy of expelling Serbs, and therefore no symmetry in principle between these migrations of Serbs and the uprooting of the Albanians in Serbia.”[18] Niko Župani?’s claim that some 150,000 Serbs left Kosovo between 1876 and 1912 is, in Malcolm’s opinion, an exaggeration, yet he ignores the identical claim voiced by the well-known historian Konstantin Jirecek at the University of Vienna in 1913.[19] Though his list of sources includes many quite marginal entries, Malcolm, in accordance with his determination to ignore any evidence not fitting his thesis, does not as much as mention the book The Lament of Old Serbia (Pla? Stare Srbije) published in Zemun in 1864 and dedicated to an English defender of Christians – William Denton. As a matter of course, Malcolm does not as much as mention the diplomatic documents describing the crimes of the Arbanasi in Old Serbia in the period 1898-1899 published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Serbia.[20] One is even more amazed by the fact that he does not mention English diplomatic papers, for instance those published in London in 1904. A few pieces of evidence from those papers follow. Sir George Bonham writes to the Marquess of Lansdowne on 7 May 1901 that forty Serb families were compelled to escape to the Kingdom of Serbia owing to Albanian terror.[21] Another English diplomat, Mr. Young, also writes to The Marquess of Lansdowne on 9 September 1901 as follows: “Old Serbia is still an area of disturbance owing to the lawlessness, vendettas and racial jealousies of the Albanians.”[22] In the same report, Young goes on to say that oppression of the Serb population continues and that 600 Albanians, helped by 50 Turkish soldiers, “quartered on a village of sixty households, reducing it to destitution”.[23] Young’s report of December 1901 testifies that between the spring and December of that year 250 families were driven by Albanian terror into the Kingdom of Serbia.[24] These are only some obvious instances of Malcolm’s ignoring of the historical facts which do not support his thesis.
    Forging the Demographic Data
    Malcolm’s picture of the ethnic and religious structure of Kosovo and Metohija is even more drastic. At one point, Malcolm claims that in the 1830s in the area of “West Kosovo” – which is in fact Metohija – the proportion between the Muslims and the Christians was circa 58% : 42%. When he finds it fitting, Malcolm sticks to general evidence, evading exact data offered by historical sources. The ethnic, political and religious circumstances in the 19th century are reflected in numerous documents by foreign authors, such as Ami Bue, Joseph Müller, Johan Georg von Hahn, Ivan Stepanovich Yastrebov, Alexander Gillferding, Victor Berard, Gaston Gravier and others. In 1838 Joseph Müller published the data about the population of the Pe?, ?akovica and Prizren districts in Metohija. He states that in the towns of Pe?, ?akovica and Prizren there lived 31,650 Orthodox and Muslim Serbs, as compared to 23,650 Muslim and Catholic Arbanasi.[25]
    An even more telling instance is Malcolm’s handling of the sources contained in the book A Detailed Description of the Plevlje Sancak and the Kosovo Vilayet published in Vienna in 1899. Quoting from this work, he writes that, according to Austrian statistics, in the 1890s, the population of the “regions” of Kosovo (including neighbouring areas such as Ljuma), consisted of 72% Muslims and 28% non-Muslims. “We can assume”, he says, “that most of the non-Muslims were Serbs.”[26] If we look up the pages 80-81 of this book, we will see what Malcolm failed to note. First of all, the Austro-Hungarian statistical reports have precise headings: “Serbs – Orthodox, Catholic, Muslims”, and “Albanians – Catholics – Muslims”. Secondly, if we want to see the structure of the population of Kosovo and Metohija, we need not add to it the statistics relating to the neighbouring towns of Gostivar, Tetovo, Ljuma, Rožaje and Berane. When speaking only of the area of Kosovo and Metohija, that is of the towns of Mitrovica, Vu?itrn, Priština, Gnjilane, Preševo, Pe?, ?akovica and Prizren sandzak including the nahiye of Rahovce, the statistics read as follows: Serbs – Orthodox, Muslam and Catholics – 166,700; Albanians – Muslims and Catholics – 182,650. In terms of percentage, these numbers amount to 43.70% Serbs, 47.88% Albanians, whereas the remaining 8.42% cover the population consisting of Orthodox Tsintsars, Ottoman Turks, Cherkesses, Romanies and a small number of Jews.[27]
    Noel Malcolm’s Book, an Unprecedented Moral and Professional Degradation
    In short, the book before us is not a history of Kosovo and Metohija. Noel Malcolm produced an inadmissible forgery and discredited himself as a serious scholar and history researcher of any format. From fragments of the reality of that area he has put together a construction that has nothing at all to do with the real life of that area. That is the destructive essence of the “Malcolm” phenomenon. The only surprising thing is that this unprecedented moral and professional degradation could befall a historiography rich in great names and traditions such as the English. So Malcolm’s book amounts to a political pamphlet supporting the Albanian cause, concocted in anticipation of an international conference designed to pave the way for the “solution” of the so-called “Albanian issue”, in fact for the establishment of Great Albania.
    Footnotes
    * The expression “Merciful Angel” in the title of this paper is synonym for violence, since that was the official name of NATO’s punitive expedition against Serbia and FR Yugoslavia. In this case that stylistic figure, stands for the violation of the past of the Old Serbia, and in the first place of its central part – Kosovo and Metohija.

  141. Based on myth maker M.Noel Richard?

    his myths on Cosovo didnt last long…!!!!
    here are some Historical facts ignored or distorted by the pro-albanian journalist MALCOLM NOEL…
    Not very reliable indeed Philippos the man is based on some modern nationalist albanians!!

    Prof. Djordje Jankovi?, Ph.D
    Archaeological department. Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade University
    MIDDLE AGES IN NOEL MALCOLM’S
    “KOSOVO. A SHORT HISTORY”
    AND REAL FACTS
    “Response to Noel Malcolm`s book ?osovo. A Short History”, Scientific Discussion on Noel Malcolm`s book “?osovo. A Short History”(Macmillan, London 1998, 492) 8th October 1999, Institute of History of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
    Before presenting the interpretations of the mediaeval past of Kosovo and Metohija in Noel Malcolm’s work, one should be aware of the tasks set by the author before writing the book. That way, the acrobatic handling of the evidence which he uses or does not use will become clearer. In the introductory text, ten pages long, he clearly presents his political and ideological position. They are as follows (p. XXXIV-XXXV): “Kosovo” is one of the cultural crossroads of Europe – which is wrong; “Kosovo” is probably the central area to the survival of the Albanian and genesis of the Rumanian languages – which is a fabrication; “Kosovo” became the geographical centre of an important mediaeval state (meaning Serbia) – which is only partly true, because Kosovo was, in addition, its administrative, cultural, and spiritual centre; “Kosovo” was one of the most peculiar idiosyncratic parts of Turkey in Europe – which is a fabrication; modern Albanian movement was born in Kosovo – which is wrong, because the part played by foreign intelligence sources in its formation has been widely known. In the early chapters of the book, Malcolm argues that the Albanians are the autochthonous population of “Kosovo”, and that the Serbs temporarily expelled them from there, during the 250 years of “Serbian occupation”, in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth century.
    What is more, Malcolm advocates distorted principles of liberty, complying with the ideology pursued by the “powers that be” since the days of the Roman Empire. Malcolm’s claims that the struggle of the Balkan peoples to liberate themselves from the Turks was not justified (p. XXXV), as well as that the idea that behind the Albanians has been Islam, which in fact belongs to the Balkans (XXXVI) – is groundless. Malcolm’s undisguised hatred toward Orthodox Christians and the Serbs not willing to accept the establishment of a new world order, points to the ideological and racist motives of the author of the book.
    For the sake of truth, I must point out that among Serb intellectuals the opinion has gained currency that the Kosovo legend, the legends of Saint Prince Lazar and Miloš Obili?, even of Saint Sava, were products of the Serbian nineteenth century elite, notably the church elite, intended to generate conditions for the awakening and liberation of the nation as prerequisites for the unification of the nation and the country. In addition, people’s memory had to give up more ancient history in order to invest the Nemanjid dynasty with the corresponding authority. However, as the following discussion is about to show at least to an extent, that claim is wrong, because the roots of present-day Serbs are really in Metohija and Kosovo. In the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, no archeological studies were undertaken in mediaeval Kosovo and Metohija so as to make possible the writing of such books as Malcolm’s Kosovo. A Short History. Luckily enough, in spite of the lag in the archeological studies in Kosovo and Metohija lasting for decades, a few yet very firm material and archeological facts, which are easy to verify, are available testifying to the culture and continuity of the Serbs. Some more substantial archeological excavations conducted in Albania are quite complementary, showing that the ancestors of the Albanians settled between the Drin and the Adriatic coast in the Middle Ages.
    As we go along, we are going to point only to some of the most striking fabrications relating to the times before the Nemanjids, following the arrangement of Malcolm’s chapters. Some of those fabrications are result of Malcolm’s ignorance, of his insufficient knowledge of scholarly sources and research methodology, whereas others result from his intention, serving the interests of the Shqiptars, to misinform the reader and antagonize him towards the Serbs.
    The chapter “Orientation: places, names and peoples”
    The intention behind this chapter is to prove the geographical compactness of “Kosovo”, that is of Kosovo including the areas of both the Kosovo Field (Kosovo Polje) and Metohija, in order to justify the name “Kosovo” and make it possible to place the original homeland of the Sqiptars within such an artificially created area with seemingly logical explanations. However, Kosovo and Metohija are, historically, two geographically distinct areas. In prehistory, geographical location used to determine the expansion of certain cultures, that is of various ethnic entities. For instance, it is conspicuous that tombs and tumuli dating from the Bronze and Iron Ages are not to be found in Kosovo but only in Metohija.[1] There are two views of the borderlines between the subsequent Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Moesia. According to the older one, Metohija was a part of Dalmatia and, later, of the province of Praevalis, whereas Kosovo was a part of Moesia and the subsequent province of Dardania,[2] and this view is corroborated by the distribution of the tumuli. According to the more recent view, Metohija was a part of Moesia, then of Dardania.[3] In this respect, the evidence offered by the parallel existence of neighbouring archbishoprics is sufficiently telling. At the time of Emperor Basileus II (976-1025), Kosovo was a part of the Ulpiana bishopric, Bina?ka Morava of the Skoplje bishopric, and Metohija of the Prizren bishopric.[4] During the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries, in Metohija (Hvosno) the Studenica Eparchy was also functioning in addition to that in Prizren, whereas in Kosovo, in addition to the Skoplje and Gra?anica Eparchies (the latter succeeded the Ulpiana Eparchy), a bishopric at Zve?an functioned for some time.[5] In other words, from time immemorial, the predetermined administrative borderline ran between the basins of the Drin and Morava rivers, so that the common name for Kosovo and Metohija cannot be accounted for on historical-geographical grounds. The cultural homogeneousness of such distinct geographical areas as Kosovo and Metohija is reached only if they are inhabited by the same people within the boundaries of one and the same state.
    The chapter: “Origins: Serbs, Albanians and Vlachs”
    Writing this chapter, Malcolm does not use fundamental historical sources: he is not aware of Byzantine manuscript sources, not even of the works by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, let alone the Arab or Armenian texts. He does not use a single history of the Serb people or any work of the kind, not even most recent Western books pretending to present the early history of the Slavs and of South-Eastern Europe, whereas for him the precious Russian sources simply do not exist. The power belongs to the West, and so does all knowledge and the truth! According to Malcolm, the Serbs, originally living in the areas north and north-east of the Black Sea, lived in the fifth and sixth centuries in Bohemia and Saxony, and they came to the Balkans following the Croats; then the Serbs settled in the area of Rascia (Raška), where initially they had no social set-up resembling a state, but only a few tribal territories ruled by župans, etc. (pp. 23-24) Yet, even if long known manuscript sources and even more recent archeological findings are ignored, common sense and logic still remain commanding the conclusion that no people with a historical role like the one played the Serbs could have been shaped.
    Concealing the early history of the mediaeval Serb Principality, and thereby reducing the population of this people, which at the time was second in number in the South East after the Greeks, to a few županijas in Rascia (and it is known that later, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Rascia was a border region of Serbia), the author populates so obtained legal, historical and geographical areas. Malcolm claims that the area was inhabited by a large population speaking a Romance language, that it was gradually slavicized, and that the Serbs were spreading out to Kosovo not earlier than towards the end of the twelfth century (pp. 25-26). Malcolm grounds his claim that Kosovo and Metohija were not inhibited by the Serbs and Slavs by his own interpretation of the differences between the Serbo-Croat (in fact Serb) language and the Bulgarian-Macedonian (in fact the South-Slav) language. He goes on to argue that the area from the Morava river through Kosovo and Metohija and as far as the Adriatic coast, amounting to an area substantially larger then the few Rascian županijas, was inhabited by a native population, as allegedly ancient toponyms demonstrate. Malcolm illustrates this by giving instances of the names of major towns Naissus – Niš, and Scupi – Skoplje. In addition, he mentions the name of Lipljan, allegedly the Latin Lypenion, a name of which there is no record in ancient times but which was mentioned for the first time in Greek, in 1018, as “Lipenion”.[6] He cites the place name Puku, allegedly deriving from via publica (26-27). This is neither speculation nor guesswork, but a fabrication serving to promote a definite purpose. Malcolm does not ethimologize using place-names recorded in the documents of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, such as the already mentioned Lipljan, Prizren or Zve?an, let alone the toponyms recorded in the documents in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Many of those toponyms, preserved down to our day, point to the Serb population there in the times substantially preceding the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, for example: Balvan’; Igriš?e – S’bor’sko – Zborce – Gumni?te; Kobila glava – Kobilja glava; Rosulje – Rosulja, etc.[7]
    Stating his views of the origin of the population of Kosovo and Metohija, Malcolm goes on to say that the Slavs, namely the Bulgarian Slavs (p. 27), are present there only since the beginning of the eleventh century and down to the Byzantine occupation of 1018. Not a word about the Bulgarian raids on Serbia!
    Then he attempts to demonstrate, relying solely on philological evidence, that the Albanians are the autochthonous population of Kosovo and Metohija (p. 30). He tries to establish the links between the Albanian and Illyrian languages, in spite of the fact that the Illyrian language has not survived in its written form, as well as between the Albanian and the Thracian language. He demonstrates those links with a forced interpretation of hydronyms, toponyms and ethnonyms from pre-Roman times, and does that using contemporary Albanian words, which is unlicensed to such an extent that his interpretations become absurd. He links the name of the river Mat with the Albanian word for “river-bank” – “mat” – though it is a nonsense to call a river a “bank”. The place-name “Ulcinj” he translates with the Albanian word for “wolf” – “ujk”, “ulk”, though it’s a nonsense to name a sea coast town after a forest beast. Finally, he links the name of “Dardania” to the Albanian “dardhe” – “pear” (p. 32), though a few pages later he links it to a cheese perculiar for Dardania (p. 40), which calls for no comment. Further on, he argues, once again on the basis of linguistics, that the Albanians originally did not live at the sea side (what about Ulcinj?), and points to the areas in the hinterland, that is to say to Kosovo and Metohija (p. 34). His speculations needlessly include the Bessi (pp. 35-37), whom he excludes as the possible ancestors of the Albanians, one can assume in order to support the illusion that his approach is objective. At length he draws the conclusion that after a “Slav invasion” into the Upper Morava basin, in northern Macedonia, in “Kosovo” (and in Metohija), as well as in a part of Montenegro, a population of Latin speech continued to live from which the Albanians and the Vlachs originated, who were later driven out by the Slavs and Serbs (pp. 39-40).
    Let us discuss, in a quite cursory manner afforded by available space, the archeological data corroborating the possible origin of the Sqiptars namely Albanians. Right away it can said that there are no essential links between the fifth and seventh centuries population of Kosovo and Metohija with the Sqiptars. The necropolises dating from those times are characterized by an absence of inventory, or they contain findings characteristic of the Roman provinces as far as the Danube border (Ulpiana, Bela Crkva).[8] The seventh, eighth and ninth centuries natives or the population of predominantly Latin, Hellenic or Illyrian origins, can be identified only on the basis of the graves in littoral towns such as Dra?, Lješ and Sva?.[9] In other words, precisely in the areas alien to the Albanian language, due to the absence of originally Albanian expressions characteristic of the littoral. Those necropolises contained Byzantine women’s jewelry, belt-buckles, a few clay jugs, and seldom objects of other cultures such as the Slav clasps.
    To this period also belongs the Koman culture, an interesting culture identifiable by its graves containing distinct objects, which was situated between Lake Ohrid and Lake Skadar, that is in the mountainous areas between the littoral and the fertile areas of Zeta, Metohija, Kosovo and the Vardar Valley.[10] This culture is identified as a distinct culture by its jewelry – its earrings with flat pendants ending with stars, stiff necklaces, large arch-shaped buckles with their pins bent down and shaping a horned head; in warriors’ equipment it is distinguished by shoulder strap loops, sometimes bearing human images, then by axes, etc. In jewelry there are pieces of Byzantine origin – rings, ear-rings, belt buckles. Here and there late Slav clasps are also encountered. The cultural and geographical origin of these objects is varied. The axes and stiff necklaces are similar to the findings from chronologically close or contemporaneous graves of the Croats, or from those of the Bulgarian Danube basin and the area extending as far as the Caucasus regions; the strap loops were used by various nomadic tribes of Asiatic origin in the area extending from Pannonia as far as the Ural Mountains and Caucasus; the clasps are closest in shape to those used by the Romans from the Danube basin inhabiting the steppes in the Black Sea littoral; the Byzantine jewelry was procured at the coast, but some of its pieces are Pannonian in origin.[11] Everything points to a mixture of peoples originating in the East, concentrating in Pannonia which, led by Kuver, came down to the South towards the end of the seventh century and settled in New Epirus.[12] Their settling in a mountainous area shows that they came from the mountains, perhaps from the northern slopes of the Caucasus. Apart from the disagreements in the interpretations of the Koman culture, it is essential that the necropolises of that culture differ from contemporaneous necropolises in the littoral. That testifies that there existed two different populations – that the population in the littoral was autochthonous, whereas that in the mountainous hinterland was made up of newcomers.
    Proceeding with his discussion of the origin of the people which he calls the Albanians, Malcolm finds that they never in the past described themselves using that name but, as an exception, in the fifteenth century Italy, described themselves as Arbëresch (p. 29). In passing, in a note, he mentions the hypothesis concerning the Albania in the Balkans and the Albania in the Caucasus, but dismisses it because allegedly there are no connections between the two areas. This claim is unfounded, because both Albanias were close to the borders of one and the same state, Byzantium. The Albania situated within present-day Azerbaijan, mentioned by that name by Ptolemy, was referred to during the middle and latter Middle Ages as “Albania”, “Agwank”, “Aluank”, “Arran”, ar-Ran”.[13] A Latin map from 1482 shows an “Albania” in the territory of Azerbaijan. It is assumed that long ago it was inhabited by the Gargarians, but it is on record that in the Caucasus also lived wild warlike tribes and that some of them moved with their cattle down to lower areas. In addition, in the Vaspurkan province of Armenia there is a district called Arberani. On the border of Armenia, Byzantium and Persia, there was a fortress called Marde, Mardis, and that brings us closer to the Mardaits, warlike mountain tribesmen who used to change their masters, so that they were often displaced.[14] The late Jovan Kova?evi? connected this tribe with the Mardits.[15] The Arbanes in New Epirus were first mentioned in the eleventh century.[16] Soon after, the Turks invaded the areas east of the Caucasus and settled in Agvank, the present-day Azerbaijan, causing recorded and on recorded migration of various tribes. It is quite possible that the Arberans then escaped to Byzantium, which allowed them to settle in the areas north of the Salonika-Dra? road, reinforcing Byzantium’s border with Serbia. It is a matter of time when individual archeological findings from Albania will be linked to those late comers from Asia.[17]
    It is evident that the ancestors of the Albanians, a nation formed in our time, are various tribes of Asian extraction who, arriving between the seventh and eleventh century in the mountainous areas of the present-day Albania, were mixed with the Slavs inhabiting that undulating strip and with the population of Latin and partly Greek speech living in the coastal towns. Hence the philologically based claim that modern Albanians are autochthonous in origin is not grounded.
    The chapter: “Medieval Kosovo before Prince Lazar: 850s-1380s”
    Noel Malcolm possesses no real knowledge of Kosovo and Metohija between 850. and 1166: there was no Serbian state there, but there were a Bulgarian and Byzantine state; that area is the soil of the Greek Church, but the Albanians stick to the Roman Latin Church; king Stefan the First-Crowned regains Prizren, so the Serbs are the conquerors of Kosovo and Metohija from the end of the twelfth century to the early thirteenth century (pp. 41-44).
    As shown by Aleksandar Loma and others, the Kosovo Battle was not just a battle but a predetermined battle, one of those battles deciding the fate of a people for many centuries to come.[18] The very place where the battle took place was not chosen at random. The central divide and at once the primaeval crossroads and centre of the Balkan Peninsula is situated at the south end of the Kosovo Field. From the mountain saddles between Štimlje and Suva Reka the waters flow down westwards to Metohija and further on to the Adriatic Sea, and eastwards to the Kosovo Field, where they, coming from the same springs, flow both towards the Aegean and Black Seas. That bifurcation, in the outskirts of Uroševac, was a result of man-made dams and river beds; a branch of the Nerodimka river flows northwards emptying its waters into Svr?in Lake and then by way of the Sitnica river into the Ibar and then Morava rivers, whereas its other branch flows to the south discharging itself, by way of the Lepenac river, into the Vardar river. It is there that the royal palaces of the Serbs are concentrated: Svr?in, Pauni, Nerodimlje and Štimlje, and, not very far from them, Priština, and Ribnik near Prizren.[19] Let my remind that the Serbs did not have particular cities as their capitals, but that their capitals were where the sovereign had his residence or where annual communal assemblies (sabors) were held. Why did the Serbs choose for their palaces and sabors the south of the Kosovo Field and its central divide becomes clear in the light of the fact that the country from which the Serbs had come to the Balkan Peninsula,[20] Bojka, was situated along a similar divide and crossroads. The Bojkis even today live in Galicia, at the devide between the Black Sea in the east (with the Danube basin in the south, the basins of the Siret, Southern Bug and Dniester in the east, and that of the Dnieper in the north) and the Baltic Sea (the basin of the Vistula, San and Western Bug). That is why Kosovo could serve as the communal annual assemblies (saborna) area of the Serbs since their settling there in the 7th century and in the latter Middle Ages, under the Nemanji? dynasty and Prince Lazar. In other words, in 1389 the Turks attacked the heart and crossroads of the Serbian state, the area of its capitals.
    According to the record by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, it is assumed that the town of Destinik, the first in his list of the Serb towns, was located somewhere in Metohija.[21] A comparison with the list of Croatian towns contained in the same record, in which the first mentioned town, Nin, was the seat of the bishop,[22] one can assume that the most important Serb town in the 10th century was Destinik in Metohija. The Nemanjid period shrines of the Pe? Patriarchate are grouped round a modest, earlier church, that of St. Apostles. It must be evident to the lover of the truth that this church must have been of particular significance for the Serbs since the seat of the Archbishop was precisely there and not in some more monumental monastery selected by the Nemanjids. Long ago in the foundations of the Patriarchate of Pe? temples the remnants of a large church were found which have not been archeologically examined but are dated two construction stages before the Nemanjids, that goes as far back as the period between seventh and tenth and eleventh and twelfth centuries.[23] The Serbian bishopric seat was probably there prior to the Bulgarian and Byzantine conquests. That accounts for the wish of Serbian aristocracy to spend the last days of their lives as monks in metohs founded by themselves in the vicinity. Is it possible that a people of such a developed ancestral cult as the Serbs would move their spiritual centre to an allegedly occupied territory as Malcolm would have it? There is no historical precedent for such an act, and Metohija and Kosovo are really the seminal areas of the Serbs.
    One-day archeological excavations in the mountain of Ostrovica between Prizren and Sirini?ka Župa unveiled gromile, or characteristic Serb medieval monuments to honour the dead dating from the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries approximately,[24] along with the church in the foundations of the Patriarchate of Pe?. To the period of Bulgarian and Samuilo’s raids on Serbia in the ninth and tenth centuries belongs the pottery collection found in bordering fortresses at the border and in destroyed monasteries. The most important in it is a fragment of a tenth century jug found in ?e?an. It bears the sign of its volume in the Glagolitsa – number six; that jug served for wine tax payment.[25] The record being in the Glagolitsa and not in the Cyrillic alphabet, the area of Kosovo must have been a part of Kosovo, since at that time the Cyrillic alphabet was already the official writing. Archeological excavations, establishing that the ancient fortresses in ?e?an and Veletin were re-vitalized, revealed identifiable findings intended to ward off the ivasionas coming from the East.[26] The existence of a stratum containing contemporaneous pottery at the sites of the Studenica of Hvostno (Studenica Hvostanska) and the Prizren Church of the Archangels (Arhandjeli Prizrenski) shows that the monasteries in Metohija were devastated at the same time.[27]
    It is the general view that Serbia fell to Byzantium after 1018, though this claim is not backed up by reliable evidence. Malcolm and some other authors think that the Kosovo Field and Metohija were conquered by Byzantium at that time, but according to written sources, that it is true only for the area of Lipljan, that is for Kosovo.[28] It is possible that the only known Byzantine commander of “Serbia” of that time in fact governed only Kosovo and some neighbouring areas.[29]
    There is definite historical and geographical evidence of Kosovo and Metohija in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. After the town of Destinik, which was referred to in the mid-tenth century, in the early eleventh century Lipljan and Prizren are mentioned. It is to Prizren that later, in 1072, Slav representatives came from the conquered Bulgaria and Serb eastern areas, to attend the coronation of the Serbian prince Bodin.[30] After that, towards the end of the twelfth century, Anna Comnina, counting the entire Kosovo as Serbia, establishes the border towards Byzantium along the mountain range east of the Kosovo Field.[31]
    The presence of the Serbian population in Kosovo and Metohija is demonstrated even more reliably by archeological findings, though they are scarce. Serb pottery from the eleventh century was found on many sites, mainly in Kosovo, in Gra?anica, Ulpiana, Zaskok, Banjska, etc.[32] In Mati?ani near Priština an eleventh century graveyard was examined displaying some older findings.[33] Several graves near Badovci and Gra?anica that were studied belong to the same period.[34] However, it happens that another examined grave, that in Pr?evo in Metohija, established at approximately the same time, was continually used until the twelfth, and perhaps even in the thirteenth century.[35] This reveals a different fate of Metohija. In Metohija there were no displacements of necropolises during the Serbo-Byzantine wars towards the end of the eleventh centuries. The jewelry found in the mentioned graves is Slav in origin. It is wrought in the Byzantine technique of filigree, has the shapes distinct from those of Bulgaria or the Morava basin, and it is to be found on various sites as far as Knin (primarily the earrings with four blackberries and conic cherries), which points to its use by the Serbs.
    Judging by jewelry findings, a series of necropolises was established under Byzantine rule during the twelfth century. They are Vrbnica and Djonaj near Prizren, Široko near Suva Reka, Vlaštica and Velikince near Gnjilane, So?anica, but no contemporaneous necropolises have been found in Kosovo. The use of these cemeteries ceased around the middle of the thirteenth century. As the jewelry shows, the necropolises were used by the Serb or Slav population during Byzantine rule, but one is struck by the absence of Byzantine coins found in contemporaneous necropolises extending from our Danube areas as far as Macedonia.[36] Since it is on record that in the twelfth century Constantinople appointed a number of Serb župani administrators of westernmost areas of Byzantium, it is possible that that was the case with the areas of Metohija and Kosovo too.[37] The jewelry from these necropolises in Metohija and Kosovo alike, is characteristic both of central and eastern areas of the Balkan Peninsula (earrings with biconic strawberries, bracelets made of interwoven wire, etc.),[38] and of its western areas (earrings with one or more granular joints).[39] All eleventh and twelfth centuries archeological findings point to Serb and generally Slav population.
    During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Nemanyides reconstruct old temples, those built during Byzantine occupation (Gra?anica, Lipljan, etc.) as well as older ones functioning in the ninth and tenth centuries (the Studenica of Hvosto, the Pe? Patriarchate, probably the temple in Prizren, Banjska), which also proves the continuity of the Serb population.[40]
    Conclusion
    The gromile and toponyms such as “Igrište” seem to indicate that Metohija and Kosovo, as well as the areas farther to the east and south, were integrated into the Serb lands not later than the seventh century. It is possible that there lived other Slavs or autochthonous population, but this has not been supported by convincing evidence. The Field of Kosovo attracted the Serbs by its situation at a divide, its fitness for cattle-breeding, for summer settlements and agriculture. It was then that Christianization of the Serbs was completed, which accounts for the continual existence of some Hellenic temples since ancient times down to the time of the Nemanyides. It seems certain that one of the most significant centres of Serb evangelization was Metohija, thanks to Dra?. Owing to natural and geographical circumstances, this area, situated south-east of Serb lands, became the core of the Serb state. That is why it the largest Serb churches and their greatest number are to be found there, including the seat of the Serb bishopric, the centre of the Glagolitic writing, places of assembly (zborišta) and the palaces between seventh and tenth centuries. The uncontroversial conquest by tzar Simeon and tzar Samuilo has not archeologically shown any population change yet. Byzantium under Basil II takes Kosovo, and under Alexius I Metohija and Kosovo once again; though a displacement of necropolises ensues, including displacement of their settlements, the population remains unchanged. After the liberation of those areas from Byzantium, no changes in the situation of the necropolises or settlements and sanctuaries were found, which demonstrates the continuity of the population. On the other hand, archeological and written records prove that the ancestors of the Albanians, coming from Asia, settle in the mountainous areas between the Drin river and the Adriatic littoral between the seventh and eleventh centuries.
    In other words, the early chapters of Malcolm’s book, dealing with the pre-Nemanjid past of Kosovo and Metohija, are totally untrustworthy; all his speculations are wrong, like those of his models, as shown by all available evidence. Even if the propositions presented in this paper are discarded (though they are not grounded on fictions but on available archeological findings), it becomes crystal clear that, among the tens of archeological sites and hundreds of artifacts in the area of Kosovo and Metohija dating from the age before the Nemanjids, identified positively as expressing Serb or generally Slav characteristics, there is not a single finding that can be attributed to ancestors of medieval Albanians.
    FOOTNOTES
    1. About the Bronze and Iron Age cultures see K. Ljuci, Bronzano doba, 116-146, and N. Tasi?, Gvozdeno doba, 148-225, in Arheološko blago Kosova i Metodije od neolita do ranog srednjeg veka, Galerija SANU 90, Beograd, 1998. (Arheološko blago).
    2. Istorija Jugoslavije III, Beograd 1953, 37, the map is on page 40.
    3. Istorija srpskog naroda I, Beograd 1981, 93, as held by E. ?erškov, Rimljani na Kosovu i Metohiji, Beograd 1969, 28, note 64.
    4. H. Gelzer, Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistumerverzeichnisse, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2, 1983, 43-45; S. Novakovi?, Ohridska arhiepiskopija u po?etku XI veka, Glas SKA 76, Beograd, 1908, 33-58.

    5. M. Jankovi?, Episkopije i mitropolije Srpske crkve u srednjem veku, Beograd 1985, 17-100.
    6. Jovan Skilica, Kratka istorija, Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije (VIINJ) III, 124, ed. by J. Ferluga.
    7. Toponyms like these are concentrated particularly between the mountain of Šar and Drenica; cf. D. Jankovi?, Srpske gromile, Beograd 1998, 21, 124-126.
    8. M. Parovi?-Pešikan, Anti?ka Ulpijana prema dosadašnjim istraživanjima, Starinar XXXII 1981 (1982), 67-71; J. Kova?evi?, Bela Crkva u Metohiji – Arhitektonski objekti VI veka i nekropola sa kraja XII veka, Arheološki pregled 8, Beograd 1966, 150-151, presents a report on VI century and more recent tombs, including 120 graves that had been examined (some of them marked by stone tablets) and dated only by a coin of Isaac Angel, some of them without findings probably belonging to the VI century.
    9. F. Tartari, Nje varreze e mesjates se hershme ne Durres, Iliria XIV, Tirana 1984, 227-250; F. Prendi, Nje varreze e kultures arberore ne Lesze, Iliria I-X, 1979-1980 (1980), 123-142; E. Ze?evi?, Rezultati istraživanja srednjovekovnog Sva?a, Glasnik SAD 5, Beograd, 1989, 112-115.
    10. B. Babik, Denešnite teritorii na Republika Makedonija i Republika Albanija vo VII i VIII vek, Civilizacii na po?vata na Makedonija, Skopje 1995, 13-184, thinks it is a Slav culture. V. Popovi?, Byzantins, Slaves et autochtones dans les provinces de Prevalitance et Nouvelle Epire, Villes at preuplement dans l’Illyricum protobyzantin, Rome, 214-243, and Albanija u kasnoj antici, Iliri i Albanci, Beograd 1988, 229-245; Popovi? summarizes all previous interpretations and literature and dismisses the thesis of the Albanian experts that the Koman culture served as the mediator between the pre-Roman Illyrians and the Albanians, but is nevertheless of the opinion that it was a Romanized Illyrian population.
    11. V. Popovi? does not refer to the fact that Koman culture clasps developed from those in south Russian steppes and the Dnieper basin (Dj. Jankovi?, Stanovništvo Balkana u VI-VII stole?u – arheološka istraživanja, Ph.D. thesis manuscript, Faculty of Philosophy Beograd, 1986, 274-276), that as jewelry they were used in the area of the Caucasus, as were other kinds of objects found in the graves belonging to Koman culture. Since this is not an occasion fit to discuss the origin of the Koman culture, I am about to refer only to essential sources. On the cemeteries of the Croats see J. Beloševi?, Materijalna kultura Hrvata od VII do IX stole?a, Zagreb 1980; on the cemeteries in Bulgaria see Ž. V”arova, Slavjani i prab”lgari po danni na nekropolite ot VI-IX v. na Bl”garija, Sofija 1976; on the areas between the Caucasus, the Black Sea, the Dnepier and Caspian Sea, Group of authors, Stepi v epohu rannego srednevekov”ja (IV – pervaja polovina X v.), Stepi Evrazii v epohu srednevekov”ja, Moskva 1981, 9-187; I. O. Gavrituhin, A. M. Oblomskij, Gaponovskij sklad i ego kulturno-istori?eskij kontekst, Moskva 1996; A. V. Dmitriev, Rannesrednevekovie fibuli iz mogil’nika na r. DÓrso, Drevnosti epohi velikogo pereselenija narodov V-VIII vekov, Moskva 1982, 69-107.
    12. Miracula S. Demetrii II, 5, according to F. Bariši?. ?uda Dimitrija Solunskog kao istorijski izvori, Beograd 1953, 126-136; the archeological evidence pertaining to the settling of Kuver in what is today Albania according to Vrap see J. Werner, Neue Aspekte zum Awarischen Skatzfund von Vrap, Iliria I, 1983, 191-201.
    13. The question of the history and archeology of Ptolomy’s Albania has not been settled yet. There are ungrounded attempts to connect the ancestors of the Azerbaijanis with the pre-Turkish population: D`. Hamilov, Material”naja kul”tura Kavkazskoj Albanii (ot III v. do n. e. do III v. n. e.), Baku 1985. The reference by Conastantine VII Porphyrogenitus in De ceremoniis, ch. 48, to Albania and small states in the area of the Caucasus and Armenia (cf. J. Ferluga, Lista adresa za strane vladare, Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 12, Beograd 1970, p. 161 ff.) can be compared to the record by Mojsije Kalankatuaci describing wild peoples and cattlebreeding population of the Caucasus – Istorija strani Aluank, Erevan 1984, 94, 167. For the sake of comparison with the location of Albania along the Salonika-Dra? road, it is interesting to note that the Arabs connect the Albania in the Caucasus with the “gate” through which the steppe peoples invaded the areas south of the Caucasus.
    14. Paulys Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertums – Wissensschaft 28, Stuttgart 1930, 1648-1651.
    15. The report by J. Kova?evi? on the Koman culture has not been published: M. Garašanin, Uvod urednika, Iliri i Albanci, Beograd 1988, 1.
    16. B. Ferjan?i?, Albanci u vizantijskim izvorima. Iliri i Albanci, Beograd 1988, 285-289, includes a list of sources and literature.
    17. The pottery and jewelry pieces from the ninth to the eleventh centuries found in Albania are mainly of Slav or Byzantine origin. However, some samples of jewelry differ in a number of respects pointing to the areas in the Caucasus – for instance the earrings brought to light by N. Bodinaku, Kultura e varrezës së hersme mesjetare shqiptare në luginën te vjosës të rrethit të Permetit, Iliria XI, 1983, 16-56, T. II/11, and others.
    18. A. Loma, Prakosovo, poreklo srpskog juna?kog epa u svetlu indoevropske komparativistike, Od mita do Folka, Liceum, Kragujevac 1996, 543-56.
    19. On Serb capitals and popular annual assemblies (sabori) see K. Jire?ek – J. Radoni?, Istorija Srba II, Beograd 1952, 7-10, 29-32; on Serbian royal residences and palaces embracing Svr?in Lake see S. ]irkovi?, Vladarski dvorci oko jezera na Kosovu, Zbornik za likovne umetnosti 20, Matica srpska, Novi Sad 1984, 67-82.
    20. Konstantin Porfirogenit, De administrando imperio, ch. 32, ed. by Gy. Moravcsik, English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins, Budapest 1949, VIINJ II, 1949, 46-47, translated by V. Ferjan?i? (DAI).
    21. DAI ch. 32; B. Ferjan?i?, VIINJ II, 58, gives earlier interpretations; R. Novakovi?, Gde se nalazila Srbija od VII do XII veka, Beograd 1981, 61-63, locates Dostinik in the hinterland of the Pe? Patriarchate.
    22. DAI, ch. 31; VIINJ II, 44; N. Klai?, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku, Zagreb 1975, 232-236.
    23. M. ?anak-Medi?, Arhitektura prve polovine XIII veka II, Beograd 1995, 24-29.
    24. ?. Jankovi?, Ravna gora izme?u Prizrena i Štrpca – najstarije poznato srpsko nalazište na jugu Srbije, Starine Kosova i Metohije 10, Priština 1997, 31-35.
    25. G. Tomovi?, Glagoljski natpis sa ?e?ana, Istorijski ?asopis XXXVII, Beograd 1990, 5-18; on taxes cf. Jovan Skilica, Kratka istorija, VIINJ III, 1966, 151-152.
    26. Pilot excavations on the ?e?an site were carried out by A. Ba?kalov, from the Kosovo and Metohija Museum, to whom I express my indebtedness for the information and documentation. The Veletin site was studied by E. Shukriu, Valetin, Multistrate Settlement, Archaeological Reports 1988, Ljubljana 1990, 104-106, but the authoress did not identify the findings from the 9-10th centuries (pictures 6, 8).
    27. M. Bajalovi?-Hadži Peši?, Keramika, u V. Kora?, Studenica Hvostanska, Beograd 1976, 70-71, interpreting the pottery findings in that monastery, dates some samples, typologically, back to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (pictures 22/3-4 = 153/2-3), which, it is now believed, cannot have been manufactured later than the eleventh century. Such pottery pieces are to be found on the sites of a series of fortresses extending from the Bulgarian border as far as ?a?ak. These last, similar findings, were were first made public by O. Vukadin, Arheološka istraživanja na lokalitetu Kula pod Kablarom, Raška baština 2, Kraljevo 1980, 169.
    28. Jovan Skilica, Kratka istorija, VIINJ III, 123-124.
    29. On the theme of Serbia and the existing interpretations see ISN I, 173-175; in Lj. Maksimovi?’s opinion, the Byzantine thematic system included peripheral areas of Serbia – the Morava basin (including the Field of Kosovo), Belgrade and perhaps the area of Syrmium (ibid, 175).
    30. The main source dealing with the 1072 uprising is Skilica’s successor, Istorija, VIINJ III, 177-186, translation and commentary by J. Ferluga.
    31. Anna Comnina in The Alexiade gives a vague description of the mountain area including the Zigon mountain behind, stating that Dalmatia (= Serbia) is beyond with Lipljan and Zve?an – VIINJ III, 384-389, edited by V. Kreki?.
    32. On the basis of the symposia organized by the Serbian Archeological Society’s – M. Djordjevi? and S. Hadži?, and my own inspection of the sites (made possible by M. Ba?kalov and S. Stojkovi?, to whom I owe my gratitude).
    33. V. Jovanovi? – Lj. Vuksanovi?, Mati?ane, n?cropole sud-slave de Xe et XIe si?cle, Inventaria archaeologica, 25, Priština – Beograd 1981; cf. V. Jovanovi?, Arheološka istraživanja srednjovekovnih spomenika i nalazišta na Kosovu, Zbornik okruglog stola o nau?nom istraživnju Kosova, SANU XLII, Beograd 1988, 23-26.
    34. A Ba?kalov, Rani srednji vek, Arheološko blago, 693-697.
    35. Ibid, 698—704 (Vrbnica), 708-709 (Široko), 716-719 (Vlaštica), 720-724 (Djonaj), 725-728 (Velekince); cf. Also V. Jovanovi?, Op. Cit., 26-28. The findings at the historical site of So?anica were not outstanding – E. ?erškov, Municipium DD kod So?anice, Priština – Beograd 1970, 60-61, Vol. XIX/10-11.
    36. V. Jovanovi?, Prilozi hronologiji srednjovekovnih nekropola Jugoslavije i Bugarske II, Balcanoslavica 6 , Prilep – Beograd 1970, 148-150; only a coin of Issac II Angelus I has been found – in the necropolis near Bela Crkva, and this can date the necropolis in the thirteenth century.
    37. It is on record that the following župans were appointed administrators: Desa – Dendru in the neighbourhood of Niš, apparently 1155-1162; Primislav is given, in 1162, rich pastures fit for cattle-breeding; Nemanja inherited the Dubo?ica area, in 1158 or 1162: ISN I, 206-208, and Jovan Kinam, Istorija, VIINJ IV, 1971, edited by J. Kali?, translated by N. Radoševi? – Maksimovi?, 56-59. One can get a clearer idea of the possessions of some of Serb župans from the datum that during the reign of the Great Župan Stefan Nemanja, his son king Vukan administered, among other areas, the Toplica and Hvosno areas, but not the intervening area, that of Kosovo – G. Tomovi?, Natpis na crkvi Svetog Luke u Kotoru iz 1195, Crkva Svetog Luke kroz vijekove, Srpska pravoslavna crkvena opština Kotor, Kotor 1997, 26-28.
    38. For literature see note 36 and E. Maneva, Srednovekoven nakit od Makedonija, Skopje 1992.
    39. Such earrings occur as far as the Banovina of Croatia – D. Jelovina, Starohrvatske nekropole na podru?ju izmedju rijeka Zrmanje i Cetine, Split, 1976, 96-97, accompanied by a reference list, show that they date from the the nineth, tenth and eleventh centuries, but the earrings found in other areas, which have not been separately studied, as well as more recent excavations in Šipovo, near Kruševac and elsewhere, show that date approximately from the twelth century.
    40. P. Mijovi?, Gra?anica – ranohriš?anska bazilika i srednjovekovni manastir, Arheološki pregled 6, Beograd 1964, 128-133; near the monastery of Gra?anica coats of arms dating from the eleventh and twelth centuries were also found, a report by S. Stojkovi?; cf. P. Ba?kalov’s information, Op. Cit., 373. R. Ljubinkovi? and collaborators, Istraživa?ki i konzervatorski radovi na crkvi Vavedenja u Lipljanu, Zbornik zaštite spomenika kulture X, Beograd 1959, 69-134. Studenica of Hvosno: V. Kora?, Op. Cit., does not single out this stage in the life of the monastery, but in addition to this pottery, other findings point to the period of the Nemanjids; cf. V. Kora?, Op. Cit., 31-32, containing earlier literature.

  142. based on M.Noel’s pro albanian myth theories on Kosovo? Dont make us laugh Richard!!!
    Take my advice…
    You better find something more reliable!!! or you will be laughed at again!!
    Here is an article refuting his totally inaccurate book on albanians in cossovo!
    The man has taken up the role of amusing Europeans!!

    Prof. Djordje Jankovi?, Ph.D
    Archaeological department. Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade University
    MIDDLE AGES IN NOEL MALCOLM’S
    “KOSOVO. A SHORT HISTORY”
    AND REAL FACTS
    “Response to Noel Malcolm`s book ?osovo. A Short History”, Scientific Discussion on Noel Malcolm`s book “?osovo. A Short History”(Macmillan, London 1998, 492) 8th October 1999, Institute of History of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
    Before presenting the interpretations of the mediaeval past of Kosovo and Metohija in Noel Malcolm’s work, one should be aware of the tasks set by the author before writing the book. That way, the acrobatic handling of the evidence which he uses or does not use will become clearer. In the introductory text, ten pages long, he clearly presents his political and ideological position. They are as follows (p. XXXIV-XXXV): “Kosovo” is one of the cultural crossroads of Europe – which is wrong; “Kosovo” is probably the central area to the survival of the Albanian and genesis of the Rumanian languages – which is a fabrication; “Kosovo” became the geographical centre of an important mediaeval state (meaning Serbia) – which is only partly true, because Kosovo was, in addition, its administrative, cultural, and spiritual centre; “Kosovo” was one of the most peculiar idiosyncratic parts of Turkey in Europe – which is a fabrication; modern Albanian movement was born in Kosovo – which is wrong, because the part played by foreign intelligence sources in its formation has been widely known. In the early chapters of the book, Malcolm argues that the Albanians are the autochthonous population of “Kosovo”, and that the Serbs temporarily expelled them from there, during the 250 years of “Serbian occupation”, in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth century.
    What is more, Malcolm advocates distorted principles of liberty, complying with the ideology pursued by the “powers that be” since the days of the Roman Empire. Malcolm’s claims that the struggle of the Balkan peoples to liberate themselves from the Turks was not justified (p. XXXV), as well as that the idea that behind the Albanians has been Islam, which in fact belongs to the Balkans (XXXVI) – is groundless. Malcolm’s undisguised hatred toward Orthodox Christians and the Serbs not willing to accept the establishment of a new world order, points to the ideological and racist motives of the author of the book.
    For the sake of truth, I must point out that among Serb intellectuals the opinion has gained currency that the Kosovo legend, the legends of Saint Prince Lazar and Miloš Obili?, even of Saint Sava, were products of the Serbian nineteenth century elite, notably the church elite, intended to generate conditions for the awakening and liberation of the nation as prerequisites for the unification of the nation and the country. In addition, people’s memory had to give up more ancient history in order to invest the Nemanjid dynasty with the corresponding authority. However, as the following discussion is about to show at least to an extent, that claim is wrong, because the roots of present-day Serbs are really in Metohija and Kosovo. In the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, no archeological studies were undertaken in mediaeval Kosovo and Metohija so as to make possible the writing of such books as Malcolm’s Kosovo. A Short History. Luckily enough, in spite of the lag in the archeological studies in Kosovo and Metohija lasting for decades, a few yet very firm material and archeological facts, which are easy to verify, are available testifying to the culture and continuity of the Serbs. Some more substantial archeological excavations conducted in Albania are quite complementary, showing that the ancestors of the Albanians settled between the Drin and the Adriatic coast in the Middle Ages.
    As we go along, we are going to point only to some of the most striking fabrications relating to the times before the Nemanjids, following the arrangement of Malcolm’s chapters. Some of those fabrications are result of Malcolm’s ignorance, of his insufficient knowledge of scholarly sources and research methodology, whereas others result from his intention, serving the interests of the Shqiptars, to misinform the reader and antagonize him towards the Serbs.
    The chapter “Orientation: places, names and peoples”
    The intention behind this chapter is to prove the geographical compactness of “Kosovo”, that is of Kosovo including the areas of both the Kosovo Field (Kosovo Polje) and Metohija, in order to justify the name “Kosovo” and make it possible to place the original homeland of the Sqiptars within such an artificially created area with seemingly logical explanations. However, Kosovo and Metohija are, historically, two geographically distinct areas. In prehistory, geographical location used to determine the expansion of certain cultures, that is of various ethnic entities. For instance, it is conspicuous that tombs and tumuli dating from the Bronze and Iron Ages are not to be found in Kosovo but only in Metohija.[1] There are two views of the borderlines between the subsequent Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Moesia. According to the older one, Metohija was a part of Dalmatia and, later, of the province of Praevalis, whereas Kosovo was a part of Moesia and the subsequent province of Dardania,[2] and this view is corroborated by the distribution of the tumuli. According to the more recent view, Metohija was a part of Moesia, then of Dardania.[3] In this respect, the evidence offered by the parallel existence of neighbouring archbishoprics is sufficiently telling. At the time of Emperor Basileus II (976-1025), Kosovo was a part of the Ulpiana bishopric, Bina?ka Morava of the Skoplje bishopric, and Metohija of the Prizren bishopric.[4] During the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries, in Metohija (Hvosno) the Studenica Eparchy was also functioning in addition to that in Prizren, whereas in Kosovo, in addition to the Skoplje and Gra?anica Eparchies (the latter succeeded the Ulpiana Eparchy), a bishopric at Zve?an functioned for some time.[5] In other words, from time immemorial, the predetermined administrative borderline ran between the basins of the Drin and Morava rivers, so that the common name for Kosovo and Metohija cannot be accounted for on historical-geographical grounds. The cultural homogeneousness of such distinct geographical areas as Kosovo and Metohija is reached only if they are inhabited by the same people within the boundaries of one and the same state.
    The chapter: “Origins: Serbs, Albanians and Vlachs”
    Writing this chapter, Malcolm does not use fundamental historical sources: he is not aware of Byzantine manuscript sources, not even of the works by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, let alone the Arab or Armenian texts. He does not use a single history of the Serb people or any work of the kind, not even most recent Western books pretending to present the early history of the Slavs and of South-Eastern Europe, whereas for him the precious Russian sources simply do not exist. The power belongs to the West, and so does all knowledge and the truth! According to Malcolm, the Serbs, originally living in the areas north and north-east of the Black Sea, lived in the fifth and sixth centuries in Bohemia and Saxony, and they came to the Balkans following the Croats; then the Serbs settled in the area of Rascia (Raška), where initially they had no social set-up resembling a state, but only a few tribal territories ruled by župans, etc. (pp. 23-24) Yet, even if long known manuscript sources and even more recent archeological findings are ignored, common sense and logic still remain commanding the conclusion that no people with a historical role like the one played the Serbs could have been shaped.
    Concealing the early history of the mediaeval Serb Principality, and thereby reducing the population of this people, which at the time was second in number in the South East after the Greeks, to a few županijas in Rascia (and it is known that later, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Rascia was a border region of Serbia), the author populates so obtained legal, historical and geographical areas. Malcolm claims that the area was inhabited by a large population speaking a Romance language, that it was gradually slavicized, and that the Serbs were spreading out to Kosovo not earlier than towards the end of the twelfth century (pp. 25-26). Malcolm grounds his claim that Kosovo and Metohija were not inhibited by the Serbs and Slavs by his own interpretation of the differences between the Serbo-Croat (in fact Serb) language and the Bulgarian-Macedonian (in fact the South-Slav) language. He goes on to argue that the area from the Morava river through Kosovo and Metohija and as far as the Adriatic coast, amounting to an area substantially larger then the few Rascian županijas, was inhabited by a native population, as allegedly ancient toponyms demonstrate. Malcolm illustrates this by giving instances of the names of major towns Naissus – Niš, and Scupi – Skoplje. In addition, he mentions the name of Lipljan, allegedly the Latin Lypenion, a name of which there is no record in ancient times but which was mentioned for the first time in Greek, in 1018, as “Lipenion”.[6] He cites the place name Puku, allegedly deriving from via publica (26-27). This is neither speculation nor guesswork, but a fabrication serving to promote a definite purpose. Malcolm does not ethimologize using place-names recorded in the documents of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, such as the already mentioned Lipljan, Prizren or Zve?an, let alone the toponyms recorded in the documents in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Many of those toponyms, preserved down to our day, point to the Serb population there in the times substantially preceding the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, for example: Balvan’; Igriš?e – S’bor’sko – Zborce – Gumni?te; Kobila glava – Kobilja glava; Rosulje – Rosulja, etc.[7]
    Stating his views of the origin of the population of Kosovo and Metohija, Malcolm goes on to say that the Slavs, namely the Bulgarian Slavs (p. 27), are present there only since the beginning of the eleventh century and down to the Byzantine occupation of 1018. Not a word about the Bulgarian raids on Serbia!
    Then he attempts to demonstrate, relying solely on philological evidence, that the Albanians are the autochthonous population of Kosovo and Metohija (p. 30). He tries to establish the links between the Albanian and Illyrian languages, in spite of the fact that the Illyrian language has not survived in its written form, as well as between the Albanian and the Thracian language. He demonstrates those links with a forced interpretation of hydronyms, toponyms and ethnonyms from pre-Roman times, and does that using contemporary Albanian words, which is unlicensed to such an extent that his interpretations become absurd. He links the name of the river Mat with the Albanian word for “river-bank” – “mat” – though it is a nonsense to call a river a “bank”. The place-name “Ulcinj” he translates with the Albanian word for “wolf” – “ujk”, “ulk”, though it’s a nonsense to name a sea coast town after a forest beast. Finally, he links the name of “Dardania” to the Albanian “dardhe” – “pear” (p. 32), though a few pages later he links it to a cheese perculiar for Dardania (p. 40), which calls for no comment. Further on, he argues, once again on the basis of linguistics, that the Albanians originally did not live at the sea side (what about Ulcinj?), and points to the areas in the hinterland, that is to say to Kosovo and Metohija (p. 34). His speculations needlessly include the Bessi (pp. 35-37), whom he excludes as the possible ancestors of the Albanians, one can assume in order to support the illusion that his approach is objective. At length he draws the conclusion that after a “Slav invasion” into the Upper Morava basin, in northern Macedonia, in “Kosovo” (and in Metohija), as well as in a part of Montenegro, a population of Latin speech continued to live from which the Albanians and the Vlachs originated, who were later driven out by the Slavs and Serbs (pp. 39-40).
    Let us discuss, in a quite cursory manner afforded by available space, the archeological data corroborating the possible origin of the Sqiptars namely Albanians. Right away it can said that there are no essential links between the fifth and seventh centuries population of Kosovo and Metohija with the Sqiptars. The necropolises dating from those times are characterized by an absence of inventory, or they contain findings characteristic of the Roman provinces as far as the Danube border (Ulpiana, Bela Crkva).[8] The seventh, eighth and ninth centuries natives or the population of predominantly Latin, Hellenic or Illyrian origins, can be identified only on the basis of the graves in littoral towns such as Dra?, Lješ and Sva?.[9] In other words, precisely in the areas alien to the Albanian language, due to the absence of originally Albanian expressions characteristic of the littoral. Those necropolises contained Byzantine women’s jewelry, belt-buckles, a few clay jugs, and seldom objects of other cultures such as the Slav clasps.
    To this period also belongs the Koman culture, an interesting culture identifiable by its graves containing distinct objects, which was situated between Lake Ohrid and Lake Skadar, that is in the mountainous areas between the littoral and the fertile areas of Zeta, Metohija, Kosovo and the Vardar Valley.[10] This culture is identified as a distinct culture by its jewelry – its earrings with flat pendants ending with stars, stiff necklaces, large arch-shaped buckles with their pins bent down and shaping a horned head; in warriors’ equipment it is distinguished by shoulder strap loops, sometimes bearing human images, then by axes, etc. In jewelry there are pieces of Byzantine origin – rings, ear-rings, belt buckles. Here and there late Slav clasps are also encountered. The cultural and geographical origin of these objects is varied. The axes and stiff necklaces are similar to the findings from chronologically close or contemporaneous graves of the Croats, or from those of the Bulgarian Danube basin and the area extending as far as the Caucasus regions; the strap loops were used by various nomadic tribes of Asiatic origin in the area extending from Pannonia as far as the Ural Mountains and Caucasus; the clasps are closest in shape to those used by the Romans from the Danube basin inhabiting the steppes in the Black Sea littoral; the Byzantine jewelry was procured at the coast, but some of its pieces are Pannonian in origin.[11] Everything points to a mixture of peoples originating in the East, concentrating in Pannonia which, led by Kuver, came down to the South towards the end of the seventh century and settled in New Epirus.[12] Their settling in a mountainous area shows that they came from the mountains, perhaps from the northern slopes of the Caucasus. Apart from the disagreements in the interpretations of the Koman culture, it is essential that the necropolises of that culture differ from contemporaneous necropolises in the littoral. That testifies that there existed two different populations – that the population in the littoral was autochthonous, whereas that in the mountainous hinterland was made up of newcomers.
    Proceeding with his discussion of the origin of the people which he calls the Albanians, Malcolm finds that they never in the past described themselves using that name but, as an exception, in the fifteenth century Italy, described themselves as Arbëresch (p. 29). In passing, in a note, he mentions the hypothesis concerning the Albania in the Balkans and the Albania in the Caucasus, but dismisses it because allegedly there are no connections between the two areas. This claim is unfounded, because both Albanias were close to the borders of one and the same state, Byzantium. The Albania situated within present-day Azerbaijan, mentioned by that name by Ptolemy, was referred to during the middle and latter Middle Ages as “Albania”, “Agwank”, “Aluank”, “Arran”, ar-Ran”.[13] A Latin map from 1482 shows an “Albania” in the territory of Azerbaijan. It is assumed that long ago it was inhabited by the Gargarians, but it is on record that in the Caucasus also lived wild warlike tribes and that some of them moved with their cattle down to lower areas. In addition, in the Vaspurkan province of Armenia there is a district called Arberani. On the border of Armenia, Byzantium and Persia, there was a fortress called Marde, Mardis, and that brings us closer to the Mardaits, warlike mountain tribesmen who used to change their masters, so that they were often displaced.[14] The late Jovan Kova?evi? connected this tribe with the Mardits.[15] The Arbanes in New Epirus were first mentioned in the eleventh century.[16] Soon after, the Turks invaded the areas east of the Caucasus and settled in Agvank, the present-day Azerbaijan, causing recorded and on recorded migration of various tribes. It is quite possible that the Arberans then escaped to Byzantium, which allowed them to settle in the areas north of the Salonika-Dra? road, reinforcing Byzantium’s border with Serbia. It is a matter of time when individual archeological findings from Albania will be linked to those late comers from Asia.[17]
    It is evident that the ancestors of the Albanians, a nation formed in our time, are various tribes of Asian extraction who, arriving between the seventh and eleventh century in the mountainous areas of the present-day Albania, were mixed with the Slavs inhabiting that undulating strip and with the population of Latin and partly Greek speech living in the coastal towns. Hence the philologically based claim that modern Albanians are autochthonous in origin is not grounded.
    The chapter: “Medieval Kosovo before Prince Lazar: 850s-1380s”
    Noel Malcolm possesses no real knowledge of Kosovo and Metohija between 850. and 1166: there was no Serbian state there, but there were a Bulgarian and Byzantine state; that area is the soil of the Greek Church, but the Albanians stick to the Roman Latin Church; king Stefan the First-Crowned regains Prizren, so the Serbs are the conquerors of Kosovo and Metohija from the end of the twelfth century to the early thirteenth century (pp. 41-44).
    As shown by Aleksandar Loma and others, the Kosovo Battle was not just a battle but a predetermined battle, one of those battles deciding the fate of a people for many centuries to come.[18] The very place where the battle took place was not chosen at random. The central divide and at once the primaeval crossroads and centre of the Balkan Peninsula is situated at the south end of the Kosovo Field. From the mountain saddles between Štimlje and Suva Reka the waters flow down westwards to Metohija and further on to the Adriatic Sea, and eastwards to the Kosovo Field, where they, coming from the same springs, flow both towards the Aegean and Black Seas. That bifurcation, in the outskirts of Uroševac, was a result of man-made dams and river beds; a branch of the Nerodimka river flows northwards emptying its waters into Svr?in Lake and then by way of the Sitnica river into the Ibar and then Morava rivers, whereas its other branch flows to the south discharging itself, by way of the Lepenac river, into the Vardar river. It is there that the royal palaces of the Serbs are concentrated: Svr?in, Pauni, Nerodimlje and Štimlje, and, not very far from them, Priština, and Ribnik near Prizren.[19] Let my remind that the Serbs did not have particular cities as their capitals, but that their capitals were where the sovereign had his residence or where annual communal assemblies (sabors) were held. Why did the Serbs choose for their palaces and sabors the south of the Kosovo Field and its central divide becomes clear in the light of the fact that the country from which the Serbs had come to the Balkan Peninsula,[20] Bojka, was situated along a similar divide and crossroads. The Bojkis even today live in Galicia, at the devide between the Black Sea in the east (with the Danube basin in the south, the basins of the Siret, Southern Bug and Dniester in the east, and that of the Dnieper in the north) and the Baltic Sea (the basin of the Vistula, San and Western Bug). That is why Kosovo could serve as the communal annual assemblies (saborna) area of the Serbs since their settling there in the 7th century and in the latter Middle Ages, under the Nemanji? dynasty and Prince Lazar. In other words, in 1389 the Turks attacked the heart and crossroads of the Serbian state, the area of its capitals.
    According to the record by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, it is assumed that the town of Destinik, the first in his list of the Serb towns, was located somewhere in Metohija.[21] A comparison with the list of Croatian towns contained in the same record, in which the first mentioned town, Nin, was the seat of the bishop,[22] one can assume that the most important Serb town in the 10th century was Destinik in Metohija. The Nemanjid period shrines of the Pe? Patriarchate are grouped round a modest, earlier church, that of St. Apostles. It must be evident to the lover of the truth that this church must have been of particular significance for the Serbs since the seat of the Archbishop was precisely there and not in some more monumental monastery selected by the Nemanjids. Long ago in the foundations of the Patriarchate of Pe? temples the remnants of a large church were found which have not been archeologically examined but are dated two construction stages before the Nemanjids, that goes as far back as the period between seventh and tenth and eleventh and twelfth centuries.[23] The Serbian bishopric seat was probably there prior to the Bulgarian and Byzantine conquests. That accounts for the wish of Serbian aristocracy to spend the last days of their lives as monks in metohs founded by themselves in the vicinity. Is it possible that a people of such a developed ancestral cult as the Serbs would move their spiritual centre to an allegedly occupied territory as Malcolm would have it? There is no historical precedent for such an act, and Metohija and Kosovo are really the seminal areas of the Serbs.
    One-day archeological excavations in the mountain of Ostrovica between Prizren and Sirini?ka Župa unveiled gromile, or characteristic Serb medieval monuments to honour the dead dating from the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries approximately,[24] along with the church in the foundations of the Patriarchate of Pe?. To the period of Bulgarian and Samuilo’s raids on Serbia in the ninth and tenth centuries belongs the pottery collection found in bordering fortresses at the border and in destroyed monasteries. The most important in it is a fragment of a tenth century jug found in ?e?an. It bears the sign of its volume in the Glagolitsa – number six; that jug served for wine tax payment.[25] The record being in the Glagolitsa and not in the Cyrillic alphabet, the area of Kosovo must have been a part of Kosovo, since at that time the Cyrillic alphabet was already the official writing. Archeological excavations, establishing that the ancient fortresses in ?e?an and Veletin were re-vitalized, revealed identifiable findings intended to ward off the ivasionas coming from the East.[26] The existence of a stratum containing contemporaneous pottery at the sites of the Studenica of Hvostno (Studenica Hvostanska) and the Prizren Church of the Archangels (Arhandjeli Prizrenski) shows that the monasteries in Metohija were devastated at the same time.[27]
    It is the general view that Serbia fell to Byzantium after 1018, though this claim is not backed up by reliable evidence. Malcolm and some other authors think that the Kosovo Field and Metohija were conquered by Byzantium at that time, but according to written sources, that it is true only for the area of Lipljan, that is for Kosovo.[28] It is possible that the only known Byzantine commander of “Serbia” of that time in fact governed only Kosovo and some neighbouring areas.[29]
    There is definite historical and geographical evidence of Kosovo and Metohija in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. After the town of Destinik, which was referred to in the mid-tenth century, in the early eleventh century Lipljan and Prizren are mentioned. It is to Prizren that later, in 1072, Slav representatives came from the conquered Bulgaria and Serb eastern areas, to attend the coronation of the Serbian prince Bodin.[30] After that, towards the end of the twelfth century, Anna Comnina, counting the entire Kosovo as Serbia, establishes the border towards Byzantium along the mountain range east of the Kosovo Field.[31]
    The presence of the Serbian population in Kosovo and Metohija is demonstrated even more reliably by archeological findings, though they are scarce. Serb pottery from the eleventh century was found on many sites, mainly in Kosovo, in Gra?anica, Ulpiana, Zaskok, Banjska, etc.[32] In Mati?ani near Priština an eleventh century graveyard was examined displaying some older findings.[33] Several graves near Badovci and Gra?anica that were studied belong to the same period.[34] However, it happens that another examined grave, that in Pr?evo in Metohija, established at approximately the same time, was continually used until the twelfth, and perhaps even in the thirteenth century.[35] This reveals a different fate of Metohija. In Metohija there were no displacements of necropolises during the Serbo-Byzantine wars towards the end of the eleventh centuries. The jewelry found in the mentioned graves is Slav in origin. It is wrought in the Byzantine technique of filigree, has the shapes distinct from those of Bulgaria or the Morava basin, and it is to be found on various sites as far as Knin (primarily the earrings with four blackberries and conic cherries), which points to its use by the Serbs.
    Judging by jewelry findings, a series of necropolises was established under Byzantine rule during the twelfth century. They are Vrbnica and Djonaj near Prizren, Široko near Suva Reka, Vlaštica and Velikince near Gnjilane, So?anica, but no contemporaneous necropolises have been found in Kosovo. The use of these cemeteries ceased around the middle of the thirteenth century. As the jewelry shows, the necropolises were used by the Serb or Slav population during Byzantine rule, but one is struck by the absence of Byzantine coins found in contemporaneous necropolises extending from our Danube areas as far as Macedonia.[36] Since it is on record that in the twelfth century Constantinople appointed a number of Serb župani administrators of westernmost areas of Byzantium, it is possible that that was the case with the areas of Metohija and Kosovo too.[37] The jewelry from these necropolises in Metohija and Kosovo alike, is characteristic both of central and eastern areas of the Balkan Peninsula (earrings with biconic strawberries, bracelets made of interwoven wire, etc.),[38] and of its western areas (earrings with one or more granular joints).[39] All eleventh and twelfth centuries archeological findings point to Serb and generally Slav population.
    During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Nemanyides reconstruct old temples, those built during Byzantine occupation (Gra?anica, Lipljan, etc.) as well as older ones functioning in the ninth and tenth centuries (the Studenica of Hvosto, the Pe? Patriarchate, probably the temple in Prizren, Banjska), which also proves the continuity of the Serb population.[40]
    Conclusion
    The gromile and toponyms such as “Igrište” seem to indicate that Metohija and Kosovo, as well as the areas farther to the east and south, were integrated into the Serb lands not later than the seventh century. It is possible that there lived other Slavs or autochthonous population, but this has not been supported by convincing evidence. The Field of Kosovo attracted the Serbs by its situation at a divide, its fitness for cattle-breeding, for summer settlements and agriculture. It was then that Christianization of the Serbs was completed, which accounts for the continual existence of some Hellenic temples since ancient times down to the time of the Nemanyides. It seems certain that one of the most significant centres of Serb evangelization was Metohija, thanks to Dra?. Owing to natural and geographical circumstances, this area, situated south-east of Serb lands, became the core of the Serb state. That is why it the largest Serb churches and their greatest number are to be found there, including the seat of the Serb bishopric, the centre of the Glagolitic writing, places of assembly (zborišta) and the palaces between seventh and tenth centuries. The uncontroversial conquest by tzar Simeon and tzar Samuilo has not archeologically shown any population change yet. Byzantium under Basil II takes Kosovo, and under Alexius I Metohija and Kosovo once again; though a displacement of necropolises ensues, including displacement of their settlements, the population remains unchanged. After the liberation of those areas from Byzantium, no changes in the situation of the necropolises or settlements and sanctuaries were found, which demonstrates the continuity of the population. On the other hand, archeological and written records prove that the ancestors of the Albanians, coming from Asia, settle in the mountainous areas between the Drin river and the Adriatic littoral between the seventh and eleventh centuries.
    In other words, the early chapters of Malcolm’s book, dealing with the pre-Nemanjid past of Kosovo and Metohija, are totally untrustworthy; all his speculations are wrong, like those of his models, as shown by all available evidence. Even if the propositions presented in this paper are discarded (though they are not grounded on fictions but on available archeological findings), it becomes crystal clear that, among the tens of archeological sites and hundreds of artifacts in the area of Kosovo and Metohija dating from the age before the Nemanjids, identified positively as expressing Serb or generally Slav characteristics, there is not a single finding that can be attributed to ancestors of medieval Albanians.
    FOOTNOTES
    1. About the Bronze and Iron Age cultures see K. Ljuci, Bronzano doba, 116-146, and N. Tasi?, Gvozdeno doba, 148-225, in Arheološko blago Kosova i Metodije od neolita do ranog srednjeg veka, Galerija SANU 90, Beograd, 1998. (Arheološko blago).
    2. Istorija Jugoslavije III, Beograd 1953, 37, the map is on page 40.
    3. Istorija srpskog naroda I, Beograd 1981, 93, as held by E. ?erškov, Rimljani na Kosovu i Metohiji, Beograd 1969, 28, note 64.
    4. H. Gelzer, Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistumerverzeichnisse, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2, 1983, 43-45; S. Novakovi?, Ohridska arhiepiskopija u po?etku XI veka, Glas SKA 76, Beograd, 1908, 33-58.

    5. M. Jankovi?, Episkopije i mitropolije Srpske crkve u srednjem veku, Beograd 1985, 17-100.
    6. Jovan Skilica, Kratka istorija, Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije (VIINJ) III, 124, ed. by J. Ferluga.
    7. Toponyms like these are concentrated particularly between the mountain of Šar and Drenica; cf. D. Jankovi?, Srpske gromile, Beograd 1998, 21, 124-126.
    8. M. Parovi?-Pešikan, Anti?ka Ulpijana prema dosadašnjim istraživanjima, Starinar XXXII 1981 (1982), 67-71; J. Kova?evi?, Bela Crkva u Metohiji – Arhitektonski objekti VI veka i nekropola sa kraja XII veka, Arheološki pregled 8, Beograd 1966, 150-151, presents a report on VI century and more recent tombs, including 120 graves that had been examined (some of them marked by stone tablets) and dated only by a coin of Isaac Angel, some of them without findings probably belonging to the VI century.
    9. F. Tartari, Nje varreze e mesjates se hershme ne Durres, Iliria XIV, Tirana 1984, 227-250; F. Prendi, Nje varreze e kultures arberore ne Lesze, Iliria I-X, 1979-1980 (1980), 123-142; E. Ze?evi?, Rezultati istraživanja srednjovekovnog Sva?a, Glasnik SAD 5, Beograd, 1989, 112-115.
    10. B. Babik, Denešnite teritorii na Republika Makedonija i Republika Albanija vo VII i VIII vek, Civilizacii na po?vata na Makedonija, Skopje 1995, 13-184, thinks it is a Slav culture. V. Popovi?, Byzantins, Slaves et autochtones dans les provinces de Prevalitance et Nouvelle Epire, Villes at preuplement dans l’Illyricum protobyzantin, Rome, 214-243, and Albanija u kasnoj antici, Iliri i Albanci, Beograd 1988, 229-245; Popovi? summarizes all previous interpretations and literature and dismisses the thesis of the Albanian experts that the Koman culture served as the mediator between the pre-Roman Illyrians and the Albanians, but is nevertheless of the opinion that it was a Romanized Illyrian population.
    11. V. Popovi? does not refer to the fact that Koman culture clasps developed from those in south Russian steppes and the Dnieper basin (Dj. Jankovi?, Stanovništvo Balkana u VI-VII stole?u – arheološka istraživanja, Ph.D. thesis manuscript, Faculty of Philosophy Beograd, 1986, 274-276), that as jewelry they were used in the area of the Caucasus, as were other kinds of objects found in the graves belonging to Koman culture. Since this is not an occasion fit to discuss the origin of the Koman culture, I am about to refer only to essential sources. On the cemeteries of the Croats see J. Beloševi?, Materijalna kultura Hrvata od VII do IX stole?a, Zagreb 1980; on the cemeteries in Bulgaria see Ž. V”arova, Slavjani i prab”lgari po danni na nekropolite ot VI-IX v. na Bl”garija, Sofija 1976; on the areas between the Caucasus, the Black Sea, the Dnepier and Caspian Sea, Group of authors, Stepi v epohu rannego srednevekov”ja (IV – pervaja polovina X v.), Stepi Evrazii v epohu srednevekov”ja, Moskva 1981, 9-187; I. O. Gavrituhin, A. M. Oblomskij, Gaponovskij sklad i ego kulturno-istori?eskij kontekst, Moskva 1996; A. V. Dmitriev, Rannesrednevekovie fibuli iz mogil’nika na r. DÓrso, Drevnosti epohi velikogo pereselenija narodov V-VIII vekov, Moskva 1982, 69-107.
    12. Miracula S. Demetrii II, 5, according to F. Bariši?. ?uda Dimitrija Solunskog kao istorijski izvori, Beograd 1953, 126-136; the archeological evidence pertaining to the settling of Kuver in what is today Albania according to Vrap see J. Werner, Neue Aspekte zum Awarischen Skatzfund von Vrap, Iliria I, 1983, 191-201.
    13. The question of the history and archeology of Ptolomy’s Albania has not been settled yet. There are ungrounded attempts to connect the ancestors of the Azerbaijanis with the pre-Turkish population: D`. Hamilov, Material”naja kul”tura Kavkazskoj Albanii (ot III v. do n. e. do III v. n. e.), Baku 1985. The reference by Conastantine VII Porphyrogenitus in De ceremoniis, ch. 48, to Albania and small states in the area of the Caucasus and Armenia (cf. J. Ferluga, Lista adresa za strane vladare, Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 12, Beograd 1970, p. 161 ff.) can be compared to the record by Mojsije Kalankatuaci describing wild peoples and cattlebreeding population of the Caucasus – Istorija strani Aluank, Erevan 1984, 94, 167. For the sake of comparison with the location of Albania along the Salonika-Dra? road, it is interesting to note that the Arabs connect the Albania in the Caucasus with the “gate” through which the steppe peoples invaded the areas south of the Caucasus.
    14. Paulys Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertums – Wissensschaft 28, Stuttgart 1930, 1648-1651.
    15. The report by J. Kova?evi? on the Koman culture has not been published: M. Garašanin, Uvod urednika, Iliri i Albanci, Beograd 1988, 1.
    16. B. Ferjan?i?, Albanci u vizantijskim izvorima. Iliri i Albanci, Beograd 1988, 285-289, includes a list of sources and literature.
    17. The pottery and jewelry pieces from the ninth to the eleventh centuries found in Albania are mainly of Slav or Byzantine origin. However, some samples of jewelry differ in a number of respects pointing to the areas in the Caucasus – for instance the earrings brought to light by N. Bodinaku, Kultura e varrezës së hersme mesjetare shqiptare në luginën te vjosës të rrethit të Permetit, Iliria XI, 1983, 16-56, T. II/11, and others.
    18. A. Loma, Prakosovo, poreklo srpskog juna?kog epa u svetlu indoevropske komparativistike, Od mita do Folka, Liceum, Kragujevac 1996, 543-56.
    19. On Serb capitals and popular annual assemblies (sabori) see K. Jire?ek – J. Radoni?, Istorija Srba II, Beograd 1952, 7-10, 29-32; on Serbian royal residences and palaces embracing Svr?in Lake see S. ]irkovi?, Vladarski dvorci oko jezera na Kosovu, Zbornik za likovne umetnosti 20, Matica srpska, Novi Sad 1984, 67-82.
    20. Konstantin Porfirogenit, De administrando imperio, ch. 32, ed. by Gy. Moravcsik, English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins, Budapest 1949, VIINJ II, 1949, 46-47, translated by V. Ferjan?i? (DAI).
    21. DAI ch. 32; B. Ferjan?i?, VIINJ II, 58, gives earlier interpretations; R. Novakovi?, Gde se nalazila Srbija od VII do XII veka, Beograd 1981, 61-63, locates Dostinik in the hinterland of the Pe? Patriarchate.
    22. DAI, ch. 31; VIINJ II, 44; N. Klai?, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku, Zagreb 1975, 232-236.
    23. M. ?anak-Medi?, Arhitektura prve polovine XIII veka II, Beograd 1995, 24-29.
    24. ?. Jankovi?, Ravna gora izme?u Prizrena i Štrpca – najstarije poznato srpsko nalazište na jugu Srbije, Starine Kosova i Metohije 10, Priština 1997, 31-35.
    25. G. Tomovi?, Glagoljski natpis sa ?e?ana, Istorijski ?asopis XXXVII, Beograd 1990, 5-18; on taxes cf. Jovan Skilica, Kratka istorija, VIINJ III, 1966, 151-152.
    26. Pilot excavations on the ?e?an site were carried out by A. Ba?kalov, from the Kosovo and Metohija Museum, to whom I express my indebtedness for the information and documentation. The Veletin site was studied by E. Shukriu, Valetin, Multistrate Settlement, Archaeological Reports 1988, Ljubljana 1990, 104-106, but the authoress did not identify the findings from the 9-10th centuries (pictures 6, 8).
    27. M. Bajalovi?-Hadži Peši?, Keramika, u V. Kora?, Studenica Hvostanska, Beograd 1976, 70-71, interpreting the pottery findings in that monastery, dates some samples, typologically, back to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (pictures 22/3-4 = 153/2-3), which, it is now believed, cannot have been manufactured later than the eleventh century. Such pottery pieces are to be found on the sites of a series of fortresses extending from the Bulgarian border as far as ?a?ak. These last, similar findings, were were first made public by O. Vukadin, Arheološka istraživanja na lokalitetu Kula pod Kablarom, Raška baština 2, Kraljevo 1980, 169.
    28. Jovan Skilica, Kratka istorija, VIINJ III, 123-124.
    29. On the theme of Serbia and the existing interpretations see ISN I, 173-175; in Lj. Maksimovi?’s opinion, the Byzantine thematic system included peripheral areas of Serbia – the Morava basin (including the Field of Kosovo), Belgrade and perhaps the area of Syrmium (ibid, 175).
    30. The main source dealing with the 1072 uprising is Skilica’s successor, Istorija, VIINJ III, 177-186, translation and commentary by J. Ferluga.
    31. Anna Comnina in The Alexiade gives a vague description of the mountain area including the Zigon mountain behind, stating that Dalmatia (= Serbia) is beyond with Lipljan and Zve?an – VIINJ III, 384-389, edited by V. Kreki?.
    32. On the basis of the symposia organized by the Serbian Archeological Society’s – M. Djordjevi? and S. Hadži?, and my own inspection of the sites (made possible by M. Ba?kalov and S. Stojkovi?, to whom I owe my gratitude).
    33. V. Jovanovi? – Lj. Vuksanovi?, Mati?ane, n?cropole sud-slave de Xe et XIe si?cle, Inventaria archaeologica, 25, Priština – Beograd 1981; cf. V. Jovanovi?, Arheološka istraživanja srednjovekovnih spomenika i nalazišta na Kosovu, Zbornik okruglog stola o nau?nom istraživnju Kosova, SANU XLII, Beograd 1988, 23-26.
    34. A Ba?kalov, Rani srednji vek, Arheološko blago, 693-697.
    35. Ibid, 698—704 (Vrbnica), 708-709 (Široko), 716-719 (Vlaštica), 720-724 (Djonaj), 725-728 (Velekince); cf. Also V. Jovanovi?, Op. Cit., 26-28. The findings at the historical site of So?anica were not outstanding – E. ?erškov, Municipium DD kod So?anice, Priština – Beograd 1970, 60-61, Vol. XIX/10-11.
    36. V. Jovanovi?, Prilozi hronologiji srednjovekovnih nekropola Jugoslavije i Bugarske II, Balcanoslavica 6 , Prilep – Beograd 1970, 148-150; only a coin of Issac II Angelus I has been found – in the necropolis near Bela Crkva, and this can date the necropolis in the thirteenth century.
    37. It is on record that the following župans were appointed administrators: Desa – Dendru in the neighbourhood of Niš, apparently 1155-1162; Primislav is given, in 1162, rich pastures fit for cattle-breeding; Nemanja inherited the Dubo?ica area, in 1158 or 1162: ISN I, 206-208, and Jovan Kinam, Istorija, VIINJ IV, 1971, edited by J. Kali?, translated by N. Radoševi? – Maksimovi?, 56-59. One can get a clearer idea of the possessions of some of Serb župans from the datum that during the reign of the Great Župan Stefan Nemanja, his son king Vukan administered, among other areas, the Toplica and Hvosno areas, but not the intervening area, that of Kosovo – G. Tomovi?, Natpis na crkvi Svetog Luke u Kotoru iz 1195, Crkva Svetog Luke kroz vijekove, Srpska pravoslavna crkvena opština Kotor, Kotor 1997, 26-28.
    38. For literature see note 36 and E. Maneva, Srednovekoven nakit od Makedonija, Skopje 1992.
    39. Such earrings occur as far as the Banovina of Croatia – D. Jelovina, Starohrvatske nekropole na podru?ju izmedju rijeka Zrmanje i Cetine, Split, 1976, 96-97, accompanied by a reference list, show that they date from the the nineth, tenth and eleventh centuries, but the earrings found in other areas, which have not been separately studied, as well as more recent excavations in Šipovo, near Kruševac and elsewhere, show that date approximately from the twelth century.
    40. P. Mijovi?, Gra?anica – ranohriš?anska bazilika i srednjovekovni manastir, Arheološki pregled 6, Beograd 1964, 128-133; near the monastery of Gra?anica coats of arms dating from the eleventh and twelth centuries were also found, a report by S. Stojkovi?; cf. P. Ba?kalov’s information, Op. Cit., 373. R. Ljubinkovi? and collaborators, Istraživa?ki i konzervatorski radovi na crkvi Vavedenja u Lipljanu, Zbornik zaštite spomenika kulture X, Beograd 1959, 69-134. Studenica of Hvosno: V. Kora?, Op. Cit., does not single out this stage in the life of the monastery, but in addition to this pottery, other findings point to the period of the Nemanjids; cf. V. Kora?, Op. Cit., 31-32, containing earlier literature.

  143. here r some refuted theories of M. Noel!!!

    you better find sth more reliable Richard!!!

    Prof. Djordje Jankovi?, Ph.D
    Archaeological department. Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade University
    MIDDLE AGES IN NOEL MALCOLM’S
    “KOSOVO. A SHORT HISTORY”
    AND REAL FACTS
    “Response to Noel Malcolm`s book ?osovo. A Short History”, Scientific Discussion on Noel Malcolm`s book “?osovo. A Short History”(Macmillan, London 1998, 492) 8th October 1999, Institute of History of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
    Before presenting the interpretations of the mediaeval past of Kosovo and Metohija in Noel Malcolm’s work, one should be aware of the tasks set by the author before writing the book. That way, the acrobatic handling of the evidence which he uses or does not use will become clearer. In the introductory text, ten pages long, he clearly presents his political and ideological position. They are as follows (p. XXXIV-XXXV): “Kosovo” is one of the cultural crossroads of Europe – which is wrong; “Kosovo” is probably the central area to the survival of the Albanian and genesis of the Rumanian languages – which is a fabrication; “Kosovo” became the geographical centre of an important mediaeval state (meaning Serbia) – which is only partly true, because Kosovo was, in addition, its administrative, cultural, and spiritual centre; “Kosovo” was one of the most peculiar idiosyncratic parts of Turkey in Europe – which is a fabrication; modern Albanian movement was born in Kosovo – which is wrong, because the part played by foreign intelligence sources in its formation has been widely known. In the early chapters of the book, Malcolm argues that the Albanians are the autochthonous population of “Kosovo”, and that the Serbs temporarily expelled them from there, during the 250 years of “Serbian occupation”, in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth century.
    What is more, Malcolm advocates distorted principles of liberty, complying with the ideology pursued by the “powers that be” since the days of the Roman Empire. Malcolm’s claims that the struggle of the Balkan peoples to liberate themselves from the Turks was not justified (p. XXXV), as well as that the idea that behind the Albanians has been Islam, which in fact belongs to the Balkans (XXXVI) – is groundless. Malcolm’s undisguised hatred toward Orthodox Christians and the Serbs not willing to accept the establishment of a new world order, points to the ideological and racist motives of the author of the book.
    For the sake of truth, I must point out that among Serb intellectuals the opinion has gained currency that the Kosovo legend, the legends of Saint Prince Lazar and Miloš Obili?, even of Saint Sava, were products of the Serbian nineteenth century elite, notably the church elite, intended to generate conditions for the awakening and liberation of the nation as prerequisites for the unification of the nation and the country. In addition, people’s memory had to give up more ancient history in order to invest the Nemanjid dynasty with the corresponding authority. However, as the following discussion is about to show at least to an extent, that claim is wrong, because the roots of present-day Serbs are really in Metohija and Kosovo. In the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, no archeological studies were undertaken in mediaeval Kosovo and Metohija so as to make possible the writing of such books as Malcolm’s Kosovo. A Short History. Luckily enough, in spite of the lag in the archeological studies in Kosovo and Metohija lasting for decades, a few yet very firm material and archeological facts, which are easy to verify, are available testifying to the culture and continuity of the Serbs. Some more substantial archeological excavations conducted in Albania are quite complementary, showing that the ancestors of the Albanians settled between the Drin and the Adriatic coast in the Middle Ages.
    As we go along, we are going to point only to some of the most striking fabrications relating to the times before the Nemanjids, following the arrangement of Malcolm’s chapters. Some of those fabrications are result of Malcolm’s ignorance, of his insufficient knowledge of scholarly sources and research methodology, whereas others result from his intention, serving the interests of the Shqiptars, to misinform the reader and antagonize him towards the Serbs.
    The chapter “Orientation: places, names and peoples”
    The intention behind this chapter is to prove the geographical compactness of “Kosovo”, that is of Kosovo including the areas of both the Kosovo Field (Kosovo Polje) and Metohija, in order to justify the name “Kosovo” and make it possible to place the original homeland of the Sqiptars within such an artificially created area with seemingly logical explanations. However, Kosovo and Metohija are, historically, two geographically distinct areas. In prehistory, geographical location used to determine the expansion of certain cultures, that is of various ethnic entities. For instance, it is conspicuous that tombs and tumuli dating from the Bronze and Iron Ages are not to be found in Kosovo but only in Metohija.[1] There are two views of the borderlines between the subsequent Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Moesia. According to the older one, Metohija was a part of Dalmatia and, later, of the province of Praevalis, whereas Kosovo was a part of Moesia and the subsequent province of Dardania,[2] and this view is corroborated by the distribution of the tumuli. According to the more recent view, Metohija was a part of Moesia, then of Dardania.[3] In this respect, the evidence offered by the parallel existence of neighbouring archbishoprics is sufficiently telling. At the time of Emperor Basileus II (976-1025), Kosovo was a part of the Ulpiana bishopric, Bina?ka Morava of the Skoplje bishopric, and Metohija of the Prizren bishopric.[4] During the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries, in Metohija (Hvosno) the Studenica Eparchy was also functioning in addition to that in Prizren, whereas in Kosovo, in addition to the Skoplje and Gra?anica Eparchies (the latter succeeded the Ulpiana Eparchy), a bishopric at Zve?an functioned for some time.[5] In other words, from time immemorial, the predetermined administrative borderline ran between the basins of the Drin and Morava rivers, so that the common name for Kosovo and Metohija cannot be accounted for on historical-geographical grounds. The cultural homogeneousness of such distinct geographical areas as Kosovo and Metohija is reached only if they are inhabited by the same people within the boundaries of one and the same state.
    The chapter: “Origins: Serbs, Albanians and Vlachs”
    Writing this chapter, Malcolm does not use fundamental historical sources: he is not aware of Byzantine manuscript sources, not even of the works by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, let alone the Arab or Armenian texts. He does not use a single history of the Serb people or any work of the kind, not even most recent Western books pretending to present the early history of the Slavs and of South-Eastern Europe, whereas for him the precious Russian sources simply do not exist. The power belongs to the West, and so does all knowledge and the truth! According to Malcolm, the Serbs, originally living in the areas north and north-east of the Black Sea, lived in the fifth and sixth centuries in Bohemia and Saxony, and they came to the Balkans following the Croats; then the Serbs settled in the area of Rascia (Raška), where initially they had no social set-up resembling a state, but only a few tribal territories ruled by župans, etc. (pp. 23-24) Yet, even if long known manuscript sources and even more recent archeological findings are ignored, common sense and logic still remain commanding the conclusion that no people with a historical role like the one played the Serbs could have been shaped.
    Concealing the early history of the mediaeval Serb Principality, and thereby reducing the population of this people, which at the time was second in number in the South East after the Greeks, to a few županijas in Rascia (and it is known that later, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Rascia was a border region of Serbia), the author populates so obtained legal, historical and geographical areas. Malcolm claims that the area was inhabited by a large population speaking a Romance language, that it was gradually slavicized, and that the Serbs were spreading out to Kosovo not earlier than towards the end of the twelfth century (pp. 25-26). Malcolm grounds his claim that Kosovo and Metohija were not inhibited by the Serbs and Slavs by his own interpretation of the differences between the Serbo-Croat (in fact Serb) language and the Bulgarian-Macedonian (in fact the South-Slav) language. He goes on to argue that the area from the Morava river through Kosovo and Metohija and as far as the Adriatic coast, amounting to an area substantially larger then the few Rascian županijas, was inhabited by a native population, as allegedly ancient toponyms demonstrate. Malcolm illustrates this by giving instances of the names of major towns Naissus – Niš, and Scupi – Skoplje. In addition, he mentions the name of Lipljan, allegedly the Latin Lypenion, a name of which there is no record in ancient times but which was mentioned for the first time in Greek, in 1018, as “Lipenion”.[6] He cites the place name Puku, allegedly deriving from via publica (26-27). This is neither speculation nor guesswork, but a fabrication serving to promote a definite purpose. Malcolm does not ethimologize using place-names recorded in the documents of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, such as the already mentioned Lipljan, Prizren or Zve?an, let alone the toponyms recorded in the documents in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Many of those toponyms, preserved down to our day, point to the Serb population there in the times substantially preceding the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, for example: Balvan’; Igriš?e – S’bor’sko – Zborce – Gumni?te; Kobila glava – Kobilja glava; Rosulje – Rosulja, etc.[7]
    Stating his views of the origin of the population of Kosovo and Metohija, Malcolm goes on to say that the Slavs, namely the Bulgarian Slavs (p. 27), are present there only since the beginning of the eleventh century and down to the Byzantine occupation of 1018. Not a word about the Bulgarian raids on Serbia!
    Then he attempts to demonstrate, relying solely on philological evidence, that the Albanians are the autochthonous population of Kosovo and Metohija (p. 30). He tries to establish the links between the Albanian and Illyrian languages, in spite of the fact that the Illyrian language has not survived in its written form, as well as between the Albanian and the Thracian language. He demonstrates those links with a forced interpretation of hydronyms, toponyms and ethnonyms from pre-Roman times, and does that using contemporary Albanian words, which is unlicensed to such an extent that his interpretations become absurd. He links the name of the river Mat with the Albanian word for “river-bank” – “mat” – though it is a nonsense to call a river a “bank”. The place-name “Ulcinj” he translates with the Albanian word for “wolf” – “ujk”, “ulk”, though it’s a nonsense to name a sea coast town after a forest beast. Finally, he links the name of “Dardania” to the Albanian “dardhe” – “pear” (p. 32), though a few pages later he links it to a cheese perculiar for Dardania (p. 40), which calls for no comment. Further on, he argues, once again on the basis of linguistics, that the Albanians originally did not live at the sea side (what about Ulcinj?), and points to the areas in the hinterland, that is to say to Kosovo and Metohija (p. 34). His speculations needlessly include the Bessi (pp. 35-37), whom he excludes as the possible ancestors of the Albanians, one can assume in order to support the illusion that his approach is objective. At length he draws the conclusion that after a “Slav invasion” into the Upper Morava basin, in northern Macedonia, in “Kosovo” (and in Metohija), as well as in a part of Montenegro, a population of Latin speech continued to live from which the Albanians and the Vlachs originated, who were later driven out by the Slavs and Serbs (pp. 39-40).
    Let us discuss, in a quite cursory manner afforded by available space, the archeological data corroborating the possible origin of the Sqiptars namely Albanians. Right away it can said that there are no essential links between the fifth and seventh centuries population of Kosovo and Metohija with the Sqiptars. The necropolises dating from those times are characterized by an absence of inventory, or they contain findings characteristic of the Roman provinces as far as the Danube border (Ulpiana, Bela Crkva).[8] The seventh, eighth and ninth centuries natives or the population of predominantly Latin, Hellenic or Illyrian origins, can be identified only on the basis of the graves in littoral towns such as Dra?, Lješ and Sva?.[9] In other words, precisely in the areas alien to the Albanian language, due to the absence of originally Albanian expressions characteristic of the littoral. Those necropolises contained Byzantine women’s jewelry, belt-buckles, a few clay jugs, and seldom objects of other cultures such as the Slav clasps.
    To this period also belongs the Koman culture, an interesting culture identifiable by its graves containing distinct objects, which was situated between Lake Ohrid and Lake Skadar, that is in the mountainous areas between the littoral and the fertile areas of Zeta, Metohija, Kosovo and the Vardar Valley.[10] This culture is identified as a distinct culture by its jewelry – its earrings with flat pendants ending with stars, stiff necklaces, large arch-shaped buckles with their pins bent down and shaping a horned head; in warriors’ equipment it is distinguished by shoulder strap loops, sometimes bearing human images, then by axes, etc. In jewelry there are pieces of Byzantine origin – rings, ear-rings, belt buckles. Here and there late Slav clasps are also encountered. The cultural and geographical origin of these objects is varied. The axes and stiff necklaces are similar to the findings from chronologically close or contemporaneous graves of the Croats, or from those of the Bulgarian Danube basin and the area extending as far as the Caucasus regions; the strap loops were used by various nomadic tribes of Asiatic origin in the area extending from Pannonia as far as the Ural Mountains and Caucasus; the clasps are closest in shape to those used by the Romans from the Danube basin inhabiting the steppes in the Black Sea littoral; the Byzantine jewelry was procured at the coast, but some of its pieces are Pannonian in origin.[11] Everything points to a mixture of peoples originating in the East, concentrating in Pannonia which, led by Kuver, came down to the South towards the end of the seventh century and settled in New Epirus.[12] Their settling in a mountainous area shows that they came from the mountains, perhaps from the northern slopes of the Caucasus. Apart from the disagreements in the interpretations of the Koman culture, it is essential that the necropolises of that culture differ from contemporaneous necropolises in the littoral. That testifies that there existed two different populations – that the population in the littoral was autochthonous, whereas that in the mountainous hinterland was made up of newcomers.
    Proceeding with his discussion of the origin of the people which he calls the Albanians, Malcolm finds that they never in the past described themselves using that name but, as an exception, in the fifteenth century Italy, described themselves as Arbëresch (p. 29). In passing, in a note, he mentions the hypothesis concerning the Albania in the Balkans and the Albania in the Caucasus, but dismisses it because allegedly there are no connections between the two areas. This claim is unfounded, because both Albanias were close to the borders of one and the same state, Byzantium. The Albania situated within present-day Azerbaijan, mentioned by that name by Ptolemy, was referred to during the middle and latter Middle Ages as “Albania”, “Agwank”, “Aluank”, “Arran”, ar-Ran”.[13] A Latin map from 1482 shows an “Albania” in the territory of Azerbaijan. It is assumed that long ago it was inhabited by the Gargarians, but it is on record that in the Caucasus also lived wild warlike tribes and that some of them moved with their cattle down to lower areas. In addition, in the Vaspurkan province of Armenia there is a district called Arberani. On the border of Armenia, Byzantium and Persia, there was a fortress called Marde, Mardis, and that brings us closer to the Mardaits, warlike mountain tribesmen who used to change their masters, so that they were often displaced.[14] The late Jovan Kova?evi? connected this tribe with the Mardits.[15] The Arbanes in New Epirus were first mentioned in the eleventh century.[16] Soon after, the Turks invaded the areas east of the Caucasus and settled in Agvank, the present-day Azerbaijan, causing recorded and on recorded migration of various tribes. It is quite possible that the Arberans then escaped to Byzantium, which allowed them to settle in the areas north of the Salonika-Dra? road, reinforcing Byzantium’s border with Serbia. It is a matter of time when individual archeological findings from Albania will be linked to those late comers from Asia.[17]
    It is evident that the ancestors of the Albanians, a nation formed in our time, are various tribes of Asian extraction who, arriving between the seventh and eleventh century in the mountainous areas of the present-day Albania, were mixed with the Slavs inhabiting that undulating strip and with the population of Latin and partly Greek speech living in the coastal towns. Hence the philologically based claim that modern Albanians are autochthonous in origin is not grounded.
    The chapter: “Medieval Kosovo before Prince Lazar: 850s-1380s”
    Noel Malcolm possesses no real knowledge of Kosovo and Metohija between 850. and 1166: there was no Serbian state there, but there were a Bulgarian and Byzantine state; that area is the soil of the Greek Church, but the Albanians stick to the Roman Latin Church; king Stefan the First-Crowned regains Prizren, so the Serbs are the conquerors of Kosovo and Metohija from the end of the twelfth century to the early thirteenth century (pp. 41-44).
    As shown by Aleksandar Loma and others, the Kosovo Battle was not just a battle but a predetermined battle, one of those battles deciding the fate of a people for many centuries to come.[18] The very place where the battle took place was not chosen at random. The central divide and at once the primaeval crossroads and centre of the Balkan Peninsula is situated at the south end of the Kosovo Field. From the mountain saddles between Štimlje and Suva Reka the waters flow down westwards to Metohija and further on to the Adriatic Sea, and eastwards to the Kosovo Field, where they, coming from the same springs, flow both towards the Aegean and Black Seas. That bifurcation, in the outskirts of Uroševac, was a result of man-made dams and river beds; a branch of the Nerodimka river flows northwards emptying its waters into Svr?in Lake and then by way of the Sitnica river into the Ibar and then Morava rivers, whereas its other branch flows to the south discharging itself, by way of the Lepenac river, into the Vardar river. It is there that the royal palaces of the Serbs are concentrated: Svr?in, Pauni, Nerodimlje and Štimlje, and, not very far from them, Priština, and Ribnik near Prizren.[19] Let my remind that the Serbs did not have particular cities as their capitals, but that their capitals were where the sovereign had his residence or where annual communal assemblies (sabors) were held. Why did the Serbs choose for their palaces and sabors the south of the Kosovo Field and its central divide becomes clear in the light of the fact that the country from which the Serbs had come to the Balkan Peninsula,[20] Bojka, was situated along a similar divide and crossroads. The Bojkis even today live in Galicia, at the devide between the Black Sea in the east (with the Danube basin in the south, the basins of the Siret, Southern Bug and Dniester in the east, and that of the Dnieper in the north) and the Baltic Sea (the basin of the Vistula, San and Western Bug). That is why Kosovo could serve as the communal annual assemblies (saborna) area of the Serbs since their settling there in the 7th century and in the latter Middle Ages, under the Nemanji? dynasty and Prince Lazar. In other words, in 1389 the Turks attacked the heart and crossroads of the Serbian state, the area of its capitals.
    According to the record by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, it is assumed that the town of Destinik, the first in his list of the Serb towns, was located somewhere in Metohija.[21] A comparison with the list of Croatian towns contained in the same record, in which the first mentioned town, Nin, was the seat of the bishop,[22] one can assume that the most important Serb town in the 10th century was Destinik in Metohija. The Nemanjid period shrines of the Pe? Patriarchate are grouped round a modest, earlier church, that of St. Apostles. It must be evident to the lover of the truth that this church must have been of particular significance for the Serbs since the seat of the Archbishop was precisely there and not in some more monumental monastery selected by the Nemanjids. Long ago in the foundations of the Patriarchate of Pe? temples the remnants of a large church were found which have not been archeologically examined but are dated two construction stages before the Nemanjids, that goes as far back as the period between seventh and tenth and eleventh and twelfth centuries.[23] The Serbian bishopric seat was probably there prior to the Bulgarian and Byzantine conquests. That accounts for the wish of Serbian aristocracy to spend the last days of their lives as monks in metohs founded by themselves in the vicinity. Is it possible that a people of such a developed ancestral cult as the Serbs would move their spiritual centre to an allegedly occupied territory as Malcolm would have it? There is no historical precedent for such an act, and Metohija and Kosovo are really the seminal areas of the Serbs.
    One-day archeological excavations in the mountain of Ostrovica between Prizren and Sirini?ka Župa unveiled gromile, or characteristic Serb medieval monuments to honour the dead dating from the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries approximately,[24] along with the church in the foundations of the Patriarchate of Pe?. To the period of Bulgarian and Samuilo’s raids on Serbia in the ninth and tenth centuries belongs the pottery collection found in bordering fortresses at the border and in destroyed monasteries. The most important in it is a fragment of a tenth century jug found in ?e?an. It bears the sign of its volume in the Glagolitsa – number six; that jug served for wine tax payment.[25] The record being in the Glagolitsa and not in the Cyrillic alphabet, the area of Kosovo must have been a part of Kosovo, since at that time the Cyrillic alphabet was already the official writing. Archeological excavations, establishing that the ancient fortresses in ?e?an and Veletin were re-vitalized, revealed identifiable findings intended to ward off the ivasionas coming from the East.[26] The existence of a stratum containing contemporaneous pottery at the sites of the Studenica of Hvostno (Studenica Hvostanska) and the Prizren Church of the Archangels (Arhandjeli Prizrenski) shows that the monasteries in Metohija were devastated at the same time.[27]
    It is the general view that Serbia fell to Byzantium after 1018, though this claim is not backed up by reliable evidence. Malcolm and some other authors think that the Kosovo Field and Metohija were conquered by Byzantium at that time, but according to written sources, that it is true only for the area of Lipljan, that is for Kosovo.[28] It is possible that the only known Byzantine commander of “Serbia” of that time in fact governed only Kosovo and some neighbouring areas.[29]
    There is definite historical and geographical evidence of Kosovo and Metohija in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. After the town of Destinik, which was referred to in the mid-tenth century, in the early eleventh century Lipljan and Prizren are mentioned. It is to Prizren that later, in 1072, Slav representatives came from the conquered Bulgaria and Serb eastern areas, to attend the coronation of the Serbian prince Bodin.[30] After that, towards the end of the twelfth century, Anna Comnina, counting the entire Kosovo as Serbia, establishes the border towards Byzantium along the mountain range east of the Kosovo Field.[31]
    The presence of the Serbian population in Kosovo and Metohija is demonstrated even more reliably by archeological findings, though they are scarce. Serb pottery from the eleventh century was found on many sites, mainly in Kosovo, in Gra?anica, Ulpiana, Zaskok, Banjska, etc.[32] In Mati?ani near Priština an eleventh century graveyard was examined displaying some older findings.[33] Several graves near Badovci and Gra?anica that were studied belong to the same period.[34] However, it happens that another examined grave, that in Pr?evo in Metohija, established at approximately the same time, was continually used until the twelfth, and perhaps even in the thirteenth century.[35] This reveals a different fate of Metohija. In Metohija there were no displacements of necropolises during the Serbo-Byzantine wars towards the end of the eleventh centuries. The jewelry found in the mentioned graves is Slav in origin. It is wrought in the Byzantine technique of filigree, has the shapes distinct from those of Bulgaria or the Morava basin, and it is to be found on various sites as far as Knin (primarily the earrings with four blackberries and conic cherries), which points to its use by the Serbs.
    Judging by jewelry findings, a series of necropolises was established under Byzantine rule during the twelfth century. They are Vrbnica and Djonaj near Prizren, Široko near Suva Reka, Vlaštica and Velikince near Gnjilane, So?anica, but no contemporaneous necropolises have been found in Kosovo. The use of these cemeteries ceased around the middle of the thirteenth century. As the jewelry shows, the necropolises were used by the Serb or Slav population during Byzantine rule, but one is struck by the absence of Byzantine coins found in contemporaneous necropolises extending from our Danube areas as far as Macedonia.[36] Since it is on record that in the twelfth century Constantinople appointed a number of Serb župani administrators of westernmost areas of Byzantium, it is possible that that was the case with the areas of Metohija and Kosovo too.[37] The jewelry from these necropolises in Metohija and Kosovo alike, is characteristic both of central and eastern areas of the Balkan Peninsula (earrings with biconic strawberries, bracelets made of interwoven wire, etc.),[38] and of its western areas (earrings with one or more granular joints).[39] All eleventh and twelfth centuries archeological findings point to Serb and generally Slav population.
    During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Nemanyides reconstruct old temples, those built during Byzantine occupation (Gra?anica, Lipljan, etc.) as well as older ones functioning in the ninth and tenth centuries (the Studenica of Hvosto, the Pe? Patriarchate, probably the temple in Prizren, Banjska), which also proves the continuity of the Serb population.[40]
    Conclusion
    The gromile and toponyms such as “Igrište” seem to indicate that Metohija and Kosovo, as well as the areas farther to the east and south, were integrated into the Serb lands not later than the seventh century. It is possible that there lived other Slavs or autochthonous population, but this has not been supported by convincing evidence. The Field of Kosovo attracted the Serbs by its situation at a divide, its fitness for cattle-breeding, for summer settlements and agriculture. It was then that Christianization of the Serbs was completed, which accounts for the continual existence of some Hellenic temples since ancient times down to the time of the Nemanyides. It seems certain that one of the most significant centres of Serb evangelization was Metohija, thanks to Dra?. Owing to natural and geographical circumstances, this area, situated south-east of Serb lands, became the core of the Serb state. That is why it the largest Serb churches and their greatest number are to be found there, including the seat of the Serb bishopric, the centre of the Glagolitic writing, places of assembly (zborišta) and the palaces between seventh and tenth centuries. The uncontroversial conquest by tzar Simeon and tzar Samuilo has not archeologically shown any population change yet. Byzantium under Basil II takes Kosovo, and under Alexius I Metohija and Kosovo once again; though a displacement of necropolises ensues, including displacement of their settlements, the population remains unchanged. After the liberation of those areas from Byzantium, no changes in the situation of the necropolises or settlements and sanctuaries were found, which demonstrates the continuity of the population. On the other hand, archeological and written records prove that the ancestors of the Albanians, coming from Asia, settle in the mountainous areas between the Drin river and the Adriatic littoral between the seventh and eleventh centuries.
    In other words, the early chapters of Malcolm’s book, dealing with the pre-Nemanjid past of Kosovo and Metohija, are totally untrustworthy; all his speculations are wrong, like those of his models, as shown by all available evidence. Even if the propositions presented in this paper are discarded (though they are not grounded on fictions but on available archeological findings), it becomes crystal clear that, among the tens of archeological sites and hundreds of artifacts in the area of Kosovo and Metohija dating from the age before the Nemanjids, identified positively as expressing Serb or generally Slav characteristics, there is not a single finding that can be attributed to ancestors of medieval Albanians.
    FOOTNOTES
    1. About the Bronze and Iron Age cultures see K. Ljuci, Bronzano doba, 116-146, and N. Tasi?, Gvozdeno doba, 148-225, in Arheološko blago Kosova i Metodije od neolita do ranog srednjeg veka, Galerija SANU 90, Beograd, 1998. (Arheološko blago).
    2. Istorija Jugoslavije III, Beograd 1953, 37, the map is on page 40.
    3. Istorija srpskog naroda I, Beograd 1981, 93, as held by E. ?erškov, Rimljani na Kosovu i Metohiji, Beograd 1969, 28, note 64.
    4. H. Gelzer, Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistumerverzeichnisse, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2, 1983, 43-45; S. Novakovi?, Ohridska arhiepiskopija u po?etku XI veka, Glas SKA 76, Beograd, 1908, 33-58.

    5. M. Jankovi?, Episkopije i mitropolije Srpske crkve u srednjem veku, Beograd 1985, 17-100.
    6. Jovan Skilica, Kratka istorija, Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije (VIINJ) III, 124, ed. by J. Ferluga.
    7. Toponyms like these are concentrated particularly between the mountain of Šar and Drenica; cf. D. Jankovi?, Srpske gromile, Beograd 1998, 21, 124-126.
    8. M. Parovi?-Pešikan, Anti?ka Ulpijana prema dosadašnjim istraživanjima, Starinar XXXII 1981 (1982), 67-71; J. Kova?evi?, Bela Crkva u Metohiji – Arhitektonski objekti VI veka i nekropola sa kraja XII veka, Arheološki pregled 8, Beograd 1966, 150-151, presents a report on VI century and more recent tombs, including 120 graves that had been examined (some of them marked by stone tablets) and dated only by a coin of Isaac Angel, some of them without findings probably belonging to the VI century.
    9. F. Tartari, Nje varreze e mesjates se hershme ne Durres, Iliria XIV, Tirana 1984, 227-250; F. Prendi, Nje varreze e kultures arberore ne Lesze, Iliria I-X, 1979-1980 (1980), 123-142; E. Ze?evi?, Rezultati istraživanja srednjovekovnog Sva?a, Glasnik SAD 5, Beograd, 1989, 112-115.
    10. B. Babik, Denešnite teritorii na Republika Makedonija i Republika Albanija vo VII i VIII vek, Civilizacii na po?vata na Makedonija, Skopje 1995, 13-184, thinks it is a Slav culture. V. Popovi?, Byzantins, Slaves et autochtones dans les provinces de Prevalitance et Nouvelle Epire, Villes at preuplement dans l’Illyricum protobyzantin, Rome, 214-243, and Albanija u kasnoj antici, Iliri i Albanci, Beograd 1988, 229-245; Popovi? summarizes all previous interpretations and literature and dismisses the thesis of the Albanian experts that the Koman culture served as the mediator between the pre-Roman Illyrians and the Albanians, but is nevertheless of the opinion that it was a Romanized Illyrian population.
    11. V. Popovi? does not refer to the fact that Koman culture clasps developed from those in south Russian steppes and the Dnieper basin (Dj. Jankovi?, Stanovništvo Balkana u VI-VII stole?u – arheološka istraživanja, Ph.D. thesis manuscript, Faculty of Philosophy Beograd, 1986, 274-276), that as jewelry they were used in the area of the Caucasus, as were other kinds of objects found in the graves belonging to Koman culture. Since this is not an occasion fit to discuss the origin of the Koman culture, I am about to refer only to essential sources. On the cemeteries of the Croats see J. Beloševi?, Materijalna kultura Hrvata od VII do IX stole?a, Zagreb 1980; on the cemeteries in Bulgaria see Ž. V”arova, Slavjani i prab”lgari po danni na nekropolite ot VI-IX v. na Bl”garija, Sofija 1976; on the areas between the Caucasus, the Black Sea, the Dnepier and Caspian Sea, Group of authors, Stepi v epohu rannego srednevekov”ja (IV – pervaja polovina X v.), Stepi Evrazii v epohu srednevekov”ja, Moskva 1981, 9-187; I. O. Gavrituhin, A. M. Oblomskij, Gaponovskij sklad i ego kulturno-istori?eskij kontekst, Moskva 1996; A. V. Dmitriev, Rannesrednevekovie fibuli iz mogil’nika na r. DÓrso, Drevnosti epohi velikogo pereselenija narodov V-VIII vekov, Moskva 1982, 69-107.
    12. Miracula S. Demetrii II, 5, according to F. Bariši?. ?uda Dimitrija Solunskog kao istorijski izvori, Beograd 1953, 126-136; the archeological evidence pertaining to the settling of Kuver in what is today Albania according to Vrap see J. Werner, Neue Aspekte zum Awarischen Skatzfund von Vrap, Iliria I, 1983, 191-201.
    13. The question of the history and archeology of Ptolomy’s Albania has not been settled yet. There are ungrounded attempts to connect the ancestors of the Azerbaijanis with the pre-Turkish population: D`. Hamilov, Material”naja kul”tura Kavkazskoj Albanii (ot III v. do n. e. do III v. n. e.), Baku 1985. The reference by Conastantine VII Porphyrogenitus in De ceremoniis, ch. 48, to Albania and small states in the area of the Caucasus and Armenia (cf. J. Ferluga, Lista adresa za strane vladare, Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 12, Beograd 1970, p. 161 ff.) can be compared to the record by Mojsije Kalankatuaci describing wild peoples and cattlebreeding population of the Caucasus – Istorija strani Aluank, Erevan 1984, 94, 167. For the sake of comparison with the location of Albania along the Salonika-Dra? road, it is interesting to note that the Arabs connect the Albania in the Caucasus with the “gate” through which the steppe peoples invaded the areas south of the Caucasus.
    14. Paulys Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertums – Wissensschaft 28, Stuttgart 1930, 1648-1651.
    15. The report by J. Kova?evi? on the Koman culture has not been published: M. Garašanin, Uvod urednika, Iliri i Albanci, Beograd 1988, 1.
    16. B. Ferjan?i?, Albanci u vizantijskim izvorima. Iliri i Albanci, Beograd 1988, 285-289, includes a list of sources and literature.
    17. The pottery and jewelry pieces from the ninth to the eleventh centuries found in Albania are mainly of Slav or Byzantine origin. However, some samples of jewelry differ in a number of respects pointing to the areas in the Caucasus – for instance the earrings brought to light by N. Bodinaku, Kultura e varrezës së hersme mesjetare shqiptare në luginën te vjosës të rrethit të Permetit, Iliria XI, 1983, 16-56, T. II/11, and others.
    18. A. Loma, Prakosovo, poreklo srpskog juna?kog epa u svetlu indoevropske komparativistike, Od mita do Folka, Liceum, Kragujevac 1996, 543-56.
    19. On Serb capitals and popular annual assemblies (sabori) see K. Jire?ek – J. Radoni?, Istorija Srba II, Beograd 1952, 7-10, 29-32; on Serbian royal residences and palaces embracing Svr?in Lake see S. ]irkovi?, Vladarski dvorci oko jezera na Kosovu, Zbornik za likovne umetnosti 20, Matica srpska, Novi Sad 1984, 67-82.
    20. Konstantin Porfirogenit, De administrando imperio, ch. 32, ed. by Gy. Moravcsik, English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins, Budapest 1949, VIINJ II, 1949, 46-47, translated by V. Ferjan?i? (DAI).
    21. DAI ch. 32; B. Ferjan?i?, VIINJ II, 58, gives earlier interpretations; R. Novakovi?, Gde se nalazila Srbija od VII do XII veka, Beograd 1981, 61-63, locates Dostinik in the hinterland of the Pe? Patriarchate.
    22. DAI, ch. 31; VIINJ II, 44; N. Klai?, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku, Zagreb 1975, 232-236.
    23. M. ?anak-Medi?, Arhitektura prve polovine XIII veka II, Beograd 1995, 24-29.
    24. ?. Jankovi?, Ravna gora izme?u Prizrena i Štrpca – najstarije poznato srpsko nalazište na jugu Srbije, Starine Kosova i Metohije 10, Priština 1997, 31-35.
    25. G. Tomovi?, Glagoljski natpis sa ?e?ana, Istorijski ?asopis XXXVII, Beograd 1990, 5-18; on taxes cf. Jovan Skilica, Kratka istorija, VIINJ III, 1966, 151-152.
    26. Pilot excavations on the ?e?an site were carried out by A. Ba?kalov, from the Kosovo and Metohija Museum, to whom I express my indebtedness for the information and documentation. The Veletin site was studied by E. Shukriu, Valetin, Multistrate Settlement, Archaeological Reports 1988, Ljubljana 1990, 104-106, but the authoress did not identify the findings from the 9-10th centuries (pictures 6, 8).
    27. M. Bajalovi?-Hadži Peši?, Keramika, u V. Kora?, Studenica Hvostanska, Beograd 1976, 70-71, interpreting the pottery findings in that monastery, dates some samples, typologically, back to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (pictures 22/3-4 = 153/2-3), which, it is now believed, cannot have been manufactured later than the eleventh century. Such pottery pieces are to be found on the sites of a series of fortresses extending from the Bulgarian border as far as ?a?ak. These last, similar findings, were were first made public by O. Vukadin, Arheološka istraživanja na lokalitetu Kula pod Kablarom, Raška baština 2, Kraljevo 1980, 169.
    28. Jovan Skilica, Kratka istorija, VIINJ III, 123-124.
    29. On the theme of Serbia and the existing interpretations see ISN I, 173-175; in Lj. Maksimovi?’s opinion, the Byzantine thematic system included peripheral areas of Serbia – the Morava basin (including the Field of Kosovo), Belgrade and perhaps the area of Syrmium (ibid, 175).
    30. The main source dealing with the 1072 uprising is Skilica’s successor, Istorija, VIINJ III, 177-186, translation and commentary by J. Ferluga.
    31. Anna Comnina in The Alexiade gives a vague description of the mountain area including the Zigon mountain behind, stating that Dalmatia (= Serbia) is beyond with Lipljan and Zve?an – VIINJ III, 384-389, edited by V. Kreki?.
    32. On the basis of the symposia organized by the Serbian Archeological Society’s – M. Djordjevi? and S. Hadži?, and my own inspection of the sites (made possible by M. Ba?kalov and S. Stojkovi?, to whom I owe my gratitude).
    33. V. Jovanovi? – Lj. Vuksanovi?, Mati?ane, n?cropole sud-slave de Xe et XIe si?cle, Inventaria archaeologica, 25, Priština – Beograd 1981; cf. V. Jovanovi?, Arheološka istraživanja srednjovekovnih spomenika i nalazišta na Kosovu, Zbornik okruglog stola o nau?nom istraživnju Kosova, SANU XLII, Beograd 1988, 23-26.
    34. A Ba?kalov, Rani srednji vek, Arheološko blago, 693-697.
    35. Ibid, 698—704 (Vrbnica), 708-709 (Široko), 716-719 (Vlaštica), 720-724 (Djonaj), 725-728 (Velekince); cf. Also V. Jovanovi?, Op. Cit., 26-28. The findings at the historical site of So?anica were not outstanding – E. ?erškov, Municipium DD kod So?anice, Priština – Beograd 1970, 60-61, Vol. XIX/10-11.
    36. V. Jovanovi?, Prilozi hronologiji srednjovekovnih nekropola Jugoslavije i Bugarske II, Balcanoslavica 6 , Prilep – Beograd 1970, 148-150; only a coin of Issac II Angelus I has been found – in the necropolis near Bela Crkva, and this can date the necropolis in the thirteenth century.
    37. It is on record that the following župans were appointed administrators: Desa – Dendru in the neighbourhood of Niš, apparently 1155-1162; Primislav is given, in 1162, rich pastures fit for cattle-breeding; Nemanja inherited the Dubo?ica area, in 1158 or 1162: ISN I, 206-208, and Jovan Kinam, Istorija, VIINJ IV, 1971, edited by J. Kali?, translated by N. Radoševi? – Maksimovi?, 56-59. One can get a clearer idea of the possessions of some of Serb župans from the datum that during the reign of the Great Župan Stefan Nemanja, his son king Vukan administered, among other areas, the Toplica and Hvosno areas, but not the intervening area, that of Kosovo – G. Tomovi?, Natpis na crkvi Svetog Luke u Kotoru iz 1195, Crkva Svetog Luke kroz vijekove, Srpska pravoslavna crkvena opština Kotor, Kotor 1997, 26-28.
    38. For literature see note 36 and E. Maneva, Srednovekoven nakit od Makedonija, Skopje 1992.
    39. Such earrings occur as far as the Banovina of Croatia – D. Jelovina, Starohrvatske nekropole na podru?ju izmedju rijeka Zrmanje i Cetine, Split, 1976, 96-97, accompanied by a reference list, show that they date from the the nineth, tenth and eleventh centuries, but the earrings found in other areas, which have not been separately studied, as well as more recent excavations in Šipovo, near Kruševac and elsewhere, show that date approximately from the twelth century.
    40. P. Mijovi?, Gra?anica – ranohriš?anska bazilika i srednjovekovni manastir, Arheološki pregled 6, Beograd 1964, 128-133; near the monastery of Gra?anica coats of arms dating from the eleventh and twelth centuries were also found, a report by S. Stojkovi?; cf. P. Ba?kalov’s information, Op. Cit., 373. R. Ljubinkovi? and collaborators, Istraživa?ki i konzervatorski radovi na crkvi Vavedenja u Lipljanu, Zbornik zaštite spomenika kulture X, Beograd 1959, 69-134. Studenica of Hvosno: V. Kora?, Op. Cit., does not single out this stage in the life of the monastery, but in addition to this pottery, other findings point to the period of the Nemanjids; cf. V. Kora?, Op. Cit., 31-32, containing earlier literature.

  144. and some more refuted theories of pro-albanian journalist M. NOEL!
    Prof. Djordje Jankovi?, Ph.D
    Archaeological department. Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade University
    MIDDLE AGES IN NOEL MALCOLM’S
    “KOSOVO. A SHORT HISTORY”
    AND REAL FACTS
    “Response to Noel Malcolm`s book ?osovo. A Short History”, Scientific Discussion on Noel Malcolm`s book “?osovo. A Short History”(Macmillan, London 1998, 492) 8th October 1999, Institute of History of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
    Before presenting the interpretations of the mediaeval past of Kosovo and Metohija in Noel Malcolm’s work, one should be aware of the tasks set by the author before writing the book. That way, the acrobatic handling of the evidence which he uses or does not use will become clearer. In the introductory text, ten pages long, he clearly presents his political and ideological position. They are as follows (p. XXXIV-XXXV): “Kosovo” is one of the cultural crossroads of Europe – which is wrong; “Kosovo” is probably the central area to the survival of the Albanian and genesis of the Rumanian languages – which is a fabrication; “Kosovo” became the geographical centre of an important mediaeval state (meaning Serbia) – which is only partly true, because Kosovo was, in addition, its administrative, cultural, and spiritual centre; “Kosovo” was one of the most peculiar idiosyncratic parts of Turkey in Europe – which is a fabrication; modern Albanian movement was born in Kosovo – which is wrong, because the part played by foreign intelligence sources in its formation has been widely known. In the early chapters of the book, Malcolm argues that the Albanians are the autochthonous population of “Kosovo”, and that the Serbs temporarily expelled them from there, during the 250 years of “Serbian occupation”, in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth century.
    What is more, Malcolm advocates distorted principles of liberty, complying with the ideology pursued by the “powers that be” since the days of the Roman Empire. Malcolm’s claims that the struggle of the Balkan peoples to liberate themselves from the Turks was not justified (p. XXXV), as well as that the idea that behind the Albanians has been Islam, which in fact belongs to the Balkans (XXXVI) – is groundless. Malcolm’s undisguised hatred toward Orthodox Christians and the Serbs not willing to accept the establishment of a new world order, points to the ideological and racist motives of the author of the book.
    For the sake of truth, I must point out that among Serb intellectuals the opinion has gained currency that the Kosovo legend, the legends of Saint Prince Lazar and Miloš Obili?, even of Saint Sava, were products of the Serbian nineteenth century elite, notably the church elite, intended to generate conditions for the awakening and liberation of the nation as prerequisites for the unification of the nation and the country. In addition, people’s memory had to give up more ancient history in order to invest the Nemanjid dynasty with the corresponding authority. However, as the following discussion is about to show at least to an extent, that claim is wrong, because the roots of present-day Serbs are really in Metohija and Kosovo. In the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, no archeological studies were undertaken in mediaeval Kosovo and Metohija so as to make possible the writing of such books as Malcolm’s Kosovo. A Short History. Luckily enough, in spite of the lag in the archeological studies in Kosovo and Metohija lasting for decades, a few yet very firm material and archeological facts, which are easy to verify, are available testifying to the culture and continuity of the Serbs. Some more substantial archeological excavations conducted in Albania are quite complementary, showing that the ancestors of the Albanians settled between the Drin and the Adriatic coast in the Middle Ages.
    As we go along, we are going to point only to some of the most striking fabrications relating to the times before the Nemanjids, following the arrangement of Malcolm’s chapters. Some of those fabrications are result of Malcolm’s ignorance, of his insufficient knowledge of scholarly sources and research methodology, whereas others result from his intention, serving the interests of the Shqiptars, to misinform the reader and antagonize him towards the Serbs.
    The chapter “Orientation: places, names and peoples”
    The intention behind this chapter is to prove the geographical compactness of “Kosovo”, that is of Kosovo including the areas of both the Kosovo Field (Kosovo Polje) and Metohija, in order to justify the name “Kosovo” and make it possible to place the original homeland of the Sqiptars within such an artificially created area with seemingly logical explanations. However, Kosovo and Metohija are, historically, two geographically distinct areas. In prehistory, geographical location used to determine the expansion of certain cultures, that is of various ethnic entities. For instance, it is conspicuous that tombs and tumuli dating from the Bronze and Iron Ages are not to be found in Kosovo but only in Metohija.[1] There are two views of the borderlines between the subsequent Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Moesia. According to the older one, Metohija was a part of Dalmatia and, later, of the province of Praevalis, whereas Kosovo was a part of Moesia and the subsequent province of Dardania,[2] and this view is corroborated by the distribution of the tumuli. According to the more recent view, Metohija was a part of Moesia, then of Dardania.[3] In this respect, the evidence offered by the parallel existence of neighbouring archbishoprics is sufficiently telling. At the time of Emperor Basileus II (976-1025), Kosovo was a part of the Ulpiana bishopric, Bina?ka Morava of the Skoplje bishopric, and Metohija of the Prizren bishopric.[4] During the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries, in Metohija (Hvosno) the Studenica Eparchy was also functioning in addition to that in Prizren, whereas in Kosovo, in addition to the Skoplje and Gra?anica Eparchies (the latter succeeded the Ulpiana Eparchy), a bishopric at Zve?an functioned for some time.[5] In other words, from time immemorial, the predetermined administrative borderline ran between the basins of the Drin and Morava rivers, so that the common name for Kosovo and Metohija cannot be accounted for on historical-geographical grounds. The cultural homogeneousness of such distinct geographical areas as Kosovo and Metohija is reached only if they are inhabited by the same people within the boundaries of one and the same state.
    The chapter: “Origins: Serbs, Albanians and Vlachs”
    Writing this chapter, Malcolm does not use fundamental historical sources: he is not aware of Byzantine manuscript sources, not even of the works by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, let alone the Arab or Armenian texts. He does not use a single history of the Serb people or any work of the kind, not even most recent Western books pretending to present the early history of the Slavs and of South-Eastern Europe, whereas for him the precious Russian sources simply do not exist. The power belongs to the West, and so does all knowledge and the truth! According to Malcolm, the Serbs, originally living in the areas north and north-east of the Black Sea, lived in the fifth and sixth centuries in Bohemia and Saxony, and they came to the Balkans following the Croats; then the Serbs settled in the area of Rascia (Raška), where initially they had no social set-up resembling a state, but only a few tribal territories ruled by župans, etc. (pp. 23-24) Yet, even if long known manuscript sources and even more recent archeological findings are ignored, common sense and logic still remain commanding the conclusion that no people with a historical role like the one played the Serbs could have been shaped.
    Concealing the early history of the mediaeval Serb Principality, and thereby reducing the population of this people, which at the time was second in number in the South East after the Greeks, to a few županijas in Rascia (and it is known that later, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Rascia was a border region of Serbia), the author populates so obtained legal, historical and geographical areas. Malcolm claims that the area was inhabited by a large population speaking a Romance language, that it was gradually slavicized, and that the Serbs were spreading out to Kosovo not earlier than towards the end of the twelfth century (pp. 25-26). Malcolm grounds his claim that Kosovo and Metohija were not inhibited by the Serbs and Slavs by his own interpretation of the differences between the Serbo-Croat (in fact Serb) language and the Bulgarian-Macedonian (in fact the South-Slav) language. He goes on to argue that the area from the Morava river through Kosovo and Metohija and as far as the Adriatic coast, amounting to an area substantially larger then the few Rascian županijas, was inhabited by a native population, as allegedly ancient toponyms demonstrate. Malcolm illustrates this by giving instances of the names of major towns Naissus – Niš, and Scupi – Skoplje. In addition, he mentions the name of Lipljan, allegedly the Latin Lypenion, a name of which there is no record in ancient times but which was mentioned for the first time in Greek, in 1018, as “Lipenion”.[6] He cites the place name Puku, allegedly deriving from via publica (26-27). This is neither speculation nor guesswork, but a fabrication serving to promote a definite purpose. Malcolm does not ethimologize using place-names recorded in the documents of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, such as the already mentioned Lipljan, Prizren or Zve?an, let alone the toponyms recorded in the documents in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Many of those toponyms, preserved down to our day, point to the Serb population there in the times substantially preceding the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, for example: Balvan’; Igriš?e – S’bor’sko – Zborce – Gumni?te; Kobila glava – Kobilja glava; Rosulje – Rosulja, etc.[7]
    Stating his views of the origin of the population of Kosovo and Metohija, Malcolm goes on to say that the Slavs, namely the Bulgarian Slavs (p. 27), are present there only since the beginning of the eleventh century and down to the Byzantine occupation of 1018. Not a word about the Bulgarian raids on Serbia!
    Then he attempts to demonstrate, relying solely on philological evidence, that the Albanians are the autochthonous population of Kosovo and Metohija (p. 30). He tries to establish the links between the Albanian and Illyrian languages, in spite of the fact that the Illyrian language has not survived in its written form, as well as between the Albanian and the Thracian language. He demonstrates those links with a forced interpretation of hydronyms, toponyms and ethnonyms from pre-Roman times, and does that using contemporary Albanian words, which is unlicensed to such an extent that his interpretations become absurd. He links the name of the river Mat with the Albanian word for “river-bank” – “mat” – though it is a nonsense to call a river a “bank”. The place-name “Ulcinj” he translates with the Albanian word for “wolf” – “ujk”, “ulk”, though it’s a nonsense to name a sea coast town after a forest beast. Finally, he links the name of “Dardania” to the Albanian “dardhe” – “pear” (p. 32), though a few pages later he links it to a cheese perculiar for Dardania (p. 40), which calls for no comment. Further on, he argues, once again on the basis of linguistics, that the Albanians originally did not live at the sea side (what about Ulcinj?), and points to the areas in the hinterland, that is to say to Kosovo and Metohija (p. 34). His speculations needlessly include the Bessi (pp. 35-37), whom he excludes as the possible ancestors of the Albanians, one can assume in order to support the illusion that his approach is objective. At length he draws the conclusion that after a “Slav invasion” into the Upper Morava basin, in northern Macedonia, in “Kosovo” (and in Metohija), as well as in a part of Montenegro, a population of Latin speech continued to live from which the Albanians and the Vlachs originated, who were later driven out by the Slavs and Serbs (pp. 39-40).
    Let us discuss, in a quite cursory manner afforded by available space, the archeological data corroborating the possible origin of the Sqiptars namely Albanians. Right away it can said that there are no essential links between the fifth and seventh centuries population of Kosovo and Metohija with the Sqiptars. The necropolises dating from those times are characterized by an absence of inventory, or they contain findings characteristic of the Roman provinces as far as the Danube border (Ulpiana, Bela Crkva).[8] The seventh, eighth and ninth centuries natives or the population of predominantly Latin, Hellenic or Illyrian origins, can be identified only on the basis of the graves in littoral towns such as Dra?, Lješ and Sva?.[9] In other words, precisely in the areas alien to the Albanian language, due to the absence of originally Albanian expressions characteristic of the littoral. Those necropolises contained Byzantine women’s jewelry, belt-buckles, a few clay jugs, and seldom objects of other cultures such as the Slav clasps.
    To this period also belongs the Koman culture, an interesting culture identifiable by its graves containing distinct objects, which was situated between Lake Ohrid and Lake Skadar, that is in the mountainous areas between the littoral and the fertile areas of Zeta, Metohija, Kosovo and the Vardar Valley.[10] This culture is identified as a distinct culture by its jewelry – its earrings with flat pendants ending with stars, stiff necklaces, large arch-shaped buckles with their pins bent down and shaping a horned head; in warriors’ equipment it is distinguished by shoulder strap loops, sometimes bearing human images, then by axes, etc. In jewelry there are pieces of Byzantine origin – rings, ear-rings, belt buckles. Here and there late Slav clasps are also encountered. The cultural and geographical origin of these objects is varied. The axes and stiff necklaces are similar to the findings from chronologically close or contemporaneous graves of the Croats, or from those of the Bulgarian Danube basin and the area extending as far as the Caucasus regions; the strap loops were used by various nomadic tribes of Asiatic origin in the area extending from Pannonia as far as the Ural Mountains and Caucasus; the clasps are closest in shape to those used by the Romans from the Danube basin inhabiting the steppes in the Black Sea littoral; the Byzantine jewelry was procured at the coast, but some of its pieces are Pannonian in origin.[11] Everything points to a mixture of peoples originating in the East, concentrating in Pannonia which, led by Kuver, came down to the South towards the end of the seventh century and settled in New Epirus.[12] Their settling in a mountainous area shows that they came from the mountains, perhaps from the northern slopes of the Caucasus. Apart from the disagreements in the interpretations of the Koman culture, it is essential that the necropolises of that culture differ from contemporaneous necropolises in the littoral. That testifies that there existed two different populations – that the population in the littoral was autochthonous, whereas that in the mountainous hinterland was made up of newcomers.
    Proceeding with his discussion of the origin of the people which he calls the Albanians, Malcolm finds that they never in the past described themselves using that name but, as an exception, in the fifteenth century Italy, described themselves as Arbëresch (p. 29). In passing, in a note, he mentions the hypothesis concerning the Albania in the Balkans and the Albania in the Caucasus, but dismisses it because allegedly there are no connections between the two areas. This claim is unfounded, because both Albanias were close to the borders of one and the same state, Byzantium. The Albania situated within present-day Azerbaijan, mentioned by that name by Ptolemy, was referred to during the middle and latter Middle Ages as “Albania”, “Agwank”, “Aluank”, “Arran”, ar-Ran”.[13] A Latin map from 1482 shows an “Albania” in the territory of Azerbaijan. It is assumed that long ago it was inhabited by the Gargarians, but it is on record that in the Caucasus also lived wild warlike tribes and that some of them moved with their cattle down to lower areas. In addition, in the Vaspurkan province of Armenia there is a district called Arberani. On the border of Armenia, Byzantium and Persia, there was a fortress called Marde, Mardis, and that brings us closer to the Mardaits, warlike mountain tribesmen who used to change their masters, so that they were often displaced.[14] The late Jovan Kova?evi? connected this tribe with the Mardits.[15] The Arbanes in New Epirus were first mentioned in the eleventh century.[16] Soon after, the Turks invaded the areas east of the Caucasus and settled in Agvank, the present-day Azerbaijan, causing recorded and on recorded migration of various tribes. It is quite possible that the Arberans then escaped to Byzantium, which allowed them to settle in the areas north of the Salonika-Dra? road, reinforcing Byzantium’s border with Serbia. It is a matter of time when individual archeological findings from Albania will be linked to those late comers from Asia.[17]
    It is evident that the ancestors of the Albanians, a nation formed in our time, are various tribes of Asian extraction who, arriving between the seventh and eleventh century in the mountainous areas of the present-day Albania, were mixed with the Slavs inhabiting that undulating strip and with the population of Latin and partly Greek speech living in the coastal towns. Hence the philologically based claim that modern Albanians are autochthonous in origin is not grounded.
    The chapter: “Medieval Kosovo before Prince Lazar: 850s-1380s”
    Noel Malcolm possesses no real knowledge of Kosovo and Metohija between 850. and 1166: there was no Serbian state there, but there were a Bulgarian and Byzantine state; that area is the soil of the Greek Church, but the Albanians stick to the Roman Latin Church; king Stefan the First-Crowned regains Prizren, so the Serbs are the conquerors of Kosovo and Metohija from the end of the twelfth century to the early thirteenth century (pp. 41-44).
    As shown by Aleksandar Loma and others, the Kosovo Battle was not just a battle but a predetermined battle, one of those battles deciding the fate of a people for many centuries to come.[18] The very place where the battle took place was not chosen at random. The central divide and at once the primaeval crossroads and centre of the Balkan Peninsula is situated at the south end of the Kosovo Field. From the mountain saddles between Štimlje and Suva Reka the waters flow down westwards to Metohija and further on to the Adriatic Sea, and eastwards to the Kosovo Field, where they, coming from the same springs, flow both towards the Aegean and Black Seas. That bifurcation, in the outskirts of Uroševac, was a result of man-made dams and river beds; a branch of the Nerodimka river flows northwards emptying its waters into Svr?in Lake and then by way of the Sitnica river into the Ibar and then Morava rivers, whereas its other branch flows to the south discharging itself, by way of the Lepenac river, into the Vardar river. It is there that the royal palaces of the Serbs are concentrated: Svr?in, Pauni, Nerodimlje and Štimlje, and, not very far from them, Priština, and Ribnik near Prizren.[19] Let my remind that the Serbs did not have particular cities as their capitals, but that their capitals were where the sovereign had his residence or where annual communal assemblies (sabors) were held. Why did the Serbs choose for their palaces and sabors the south of the Kosovo Field and its central divide becomes clear in the light of the fact that the country from which the Serbs had come to the Balkan Peninsula,[20] Bojka, was situated along a similar divide and crossroads. The Bojkis even today live in Galicia, at the devide between the Black Sea in the east (with the Danube basin in the south, the basins of the Siret, Southern Bug and Dniester in the east, and that of the Dnieper in the north) and the Baltic Sea (the basin of the Vistula, San and Western Bug). That is why Kosovo could serve as the communal annual assemblies (saborna) area of the Serbs since their settling there in the 7th century and in the latter Middle Ages, under the Nemanji? dynasty and Prince Lazar. In other words, in 1389 the Turks attacked the heart and crossroads of the Serbian state, the area of its capitals.
    According to the record by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, it is assumed that the town of Destinik, the first in his list of the Serb towns, was located somewhere in Metohija.[21] A comparison with the list of Croatian towns contained in the same record, in which the first mentioned town, Nin, was the seat of the bishop,[22] one can assume that the most important Serb town in the 10th century was Destinik in Metohija. The Nemanjid period shrines of the Pe? Patriarchate are grouped round a modest, earlier church, that of St. Apostles. It must be evident to the lover of the truth that this church must have been of particular significance for the Serbs since the seat of the Archbishop was precisely there and not in some more monumental monastery selected by the Nemanjids. Long ago in the foundations of the Patriarchate of Pe? temples the remnants of a large church were found which have not been archeologically examined but are dated two construction stages before the Nemanjids, that goes as far back as the period between seventh and tenth and eleventh and twelfth centuries.[23] The Serbian bishopric seat was probably there prior to the Bulgarian and Byzantine conquests. That accounts for the wish of Serbian aristocracy to spend the last days of their lives as monks in metohs founded by themselves in the vicinity. Is it possible that a people of such a developed ancestral cult as the Serbs would move their spiritual centre to an allegedly occupied territory as Malcolm would have it? There is no historical precedent for such an act, and Metohija and Kosovo are really the seminal areas of the Serbs.
    One-day archeological excavations in the mountain of Ostrovica between Prizren and Sirini?ka Župa unveiled gromile, or characteristic Serb medieval monuments to honour the dead dating from the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries approximately,[24] along with the church in the foundations of the Patriarchate of Pe?. To the period of Bulgarian and Samuilo’s raids on Serbia in the ninth and tenth centuries belongs the pottery collection found in bordering fortresses at the border and in destroyed monasteries. The most important in it is a fragment of a tenth century jug found in ?e?an. It bears the sign of its volume in the Glagolitsa – number six; that jug served for wine tax payment.[25] The record being in the Glagolitsa and not in the Cyrillic alphabet, the area of Kosovo must have been a part of Kosovo, since at that time the Cyrillic alphabet was already the official writing. Archeological excavations, establishing that the ancient fortresses in ?e?an and Veletin were re-vitalized, revealed identifiable findings intended to ward off the ivasionas coming from the East.[26] The existence of a stratum containing contemporaneous pottery at the sites of the Studenica of Hvostno (Studenica Hvostanska) and the Prizren Church of the Archangels (Arhandjeli Prizrenski) shows that the monasteries in Metohija were devastated at the same time.[27]
    It is the general view that Serbia fell to Byzantium after 1018, though this claim is not backed up by reliable evidence. Malcolm and some other authors think that the Kosovo Field and Metohija were conquered by Byzantium at that time, but according to written sources, that it is true only for the area of Lipljan, that is for Kosovo.[28] It is possible that the only known Byzantine commander of “Serbia” of that time in fact governed only Kosovo and some neighbouring areas.[29]
    There is definite historical and geographical evidence of Kosovo and Metohija in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. After the town of Destinik, which was referred to in the mid-tenth century, in the early eleventh century Lipljan and Prizren are mentioned. It is to Prizren that later, in 1072, Slav representatives came from the conquered Bulgaria and Serb eastern areas, to attend the coronation of the Serbian prince Bodin.[30] After that, towards the end of the twelfth century, Anna Comnina, counting the entire Kosovo as Serbia, establishes the border towards Byzantium along the mountain range east of the Kosovo Field.[31]
    The presence of the Serbian population in Kosovo and Metohija is demonstrated even more reliably by archeological findings, though they are scarce. Serb pottery from the eleventh century was found on many sites, mainly in Kosovo, in Gra?anica, Ulpiana, Zaskok, Banjska, etc.[32] In Mati?ani near Priština an eleventh century graveyard was examined displaying some older findings.[33] Several graves near Badovci and Gra?anica that were studied belong to the same period.[34] However, it happens that another examined grave, that in Pr?evo in Metohija, established at approximately the same time, was continually used until the twelfth, and perhaps even in the thirteenth century.[35] This reveals a different fate of Metohija. In Metohija there were no displacements of necropolises during the Serbo-Byzantine wars towards the end of the eleventh centuries. The jewelry found in the mentioned graves is Slav in origin. It is wrought in the Byzantine technique of filigree, has the shapes distinct from those of Bulgaria or the Morava basin, and it is to be found on various sites as far as Knin (primarily the earrings with four blackberries and conic cherries), which points to its use by the Serbs.
    Judging by jewelry findings, a series of necropolises was established under Byzantine rule during the twelfth century. They are Vrbnica and Djonaj near Prizren, Široko near Suva Reka, Vlaštica and Velikince near Gnjilane, So?anica, but no contemporaneous necropolises have been found in Kosovo. The use of these cemeteries ceased around the middle of the thirteenth century. As the jewelry shows, the necropolises were used by the Serb or Slav population during Byzantine rule, but one is struck by the absence of Byzantine coins found in contemporaneous necropolises extending from our Danube areas as far as Macedonia.[36] Since it is on record that in the twelfth century Constantinople appointed a number of Serb župani administrators of westernmost areas of Byzantium, it is possible that that was the case with the areas of Metohija and Kosovo too.[37] The jewelry from these necropolises in Metohija and Kosovo alike, is characteristic both of central and eastern areas of the Balkan Peninsula (earrings with biconic strawberries, bracelets made of interwoven wire, etc.),[38] and of its western areas (earrings with one or more granular joints).[39] All eleventh and twelfth centuries archeological findings point to Serb and generally Slav population.
    During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Nemanyides reconstruct old temples, those built during Byzantine occupation (Gra?anica, Lipljan, etc.) as well as older ones functioning in the ninth and tenth centuries (the Studenica of Hvosto, the Pe? Patriarchate, probably the temple in Prizren, Banjska), which also proves the continuity of the Serb population.[40]
    Conclusion
    The gromile and toponyms such as “Igrište” seem to indicate that Metohija and Kosovo, as well as the areas farther to the east and south, were integrated into the Serb lands not later than the seventh century. It is possible that there lived other Slavs or autochthonous population, but this has not been supported by convincing evidence. The Field of Kosovo attracted the Serbs by its situation at a divide, its fitness for cattle-breeding, for summer settlements and agriculture. It was then that Christianization of the Serbs was completed, which accounts for the continual existence of some Hellenic temples since ancient times down to the time of the Nemanyides. It seems certain that one of the most significant centres of Serb evangelization was Metohija, thanks to Dra?. Owing to natural and geographical circumstances, this area, situated south-east of Serb lands, became the core of the Serb state. That is why it the largest Serb churches and their greatest number are to be found there, including the seat of the Serb bishopric, the centre of the Glagolitic writing, places of assembly (zborišta) and the palaces between seventh and tenth centuries. The uncontroversial conquest by tzar Simeon and tzar Samuilo has not archeologically shown any population change yet. Byzantium under Basil II takes Kosovo, and under Alexius I Metohija and Kosovo once again; though a displacement of necropolises ensues, including displacement of their settlements, the population remains unchanged. After the liberation of those areas from Byzantium, no changes in the situation of the necropolises or settlements and sanctuaries were found, which demonstrates the continuity of the population. On the other hand, archeological and written records prove that the ancestors of the Albanians, coming from Asia, settle in the mountainous areas between the Drin river and the Adriatic littoral between the seventh and eleventh centuries.
    In other words, the early chapters of Malcolm’s book, dealing with the pre-Nemanjid past of Kosovo and Metohija, are totally untrustworthy; all his speculations are wrong, like those of his models, as shown by all available evidence. Even if the propositions presented in this paper are discarded (though they are not grounded on fictions but on available archeological findings), it becomes crystal clear that, among the tens of archeological sites and hundreds of artifacts in the area of Kosovo and Metohija dating from the age before the Nemanjids, identified positively as expressing Serb or generally Slav characteristics, there is not a single finding that can be attributed to ancestors of medieval Albanians.
    FOOTNOTES
    1. About the Bronze and Iron Age cultures see K. Ljuci, Bronzano doba, 116-146, and N. Tasi?, Gvozdeno doba, 148-225, in Arheološko blago Kosova i Metodije od neolita do ranog srednjeg veka, Galerija SANU 90, Beograd, 1998. (Arheološko blago).
    2. Istorija Jugoslavije III, Beograd 1953, 37, the map is on page 40.
    3. Istorija srpskog naroda I, Beograd 1981, 93, as held by E. ?erškov, Rimljani na Kosovu i Metohiji, Beograd 1969, 28, note 64.
    4. H. Gelzer, Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistumerverzeichnisse, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2, 1983, 43-45; S. Novakovi?, Ohridska arhiepiskopija u po?etku XI veka, Glas SKA 76, Beograd, 1908, 33-58.

    5. M. Jankovi?, Episkopije i mitropolije Srpske crkve u srednjem veku, Beograd 1985, 17-100.
    6. Jovan Skilica, Kratka istorija, Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije (VIINJ) III, 124, ed. by J. Ferluga.
    7. Toponyms like these are concentrated particularly between the mountain of Šar and Drenica; cf. D. Jankovi?, Srpske gromile, Beograd 1998, 21, 124-126.
    8. M. Parovi?-Pešikan, Anti?ka Ulpijana prema dosadašnjim istraživanjima, Starinar XXXII 1981 (1982), 67-71; J. Kova?evi?, Bela Crkva u Metohiji – Arhitektonski objekti VI veka i nekropola sa kraja XII veka, Arheološki pregled 8, Beograd 1966, 150-151, presents a report on VI century and more recent tombs, including 120 graves that had been examined (some of them marked by stone tablets) and dated only by a coin of Isaac Angel, some of them without findings probably belonging to the VI century.
    9. F. Tartari, Nje varreze e mesjates se hershme ne Durres, Iliria XIV, Tirana 1984, 227-250; F. Prendi, Nje varreze e kultures arberore ne Lesze, Iliria I-X, 1979-1980 (1980), 123-142; E. Ze?evi?, Rezultati istraživanja srednjovekovnog Sva?a, Glasnik SAD 5, Beograd, 1989, 112-115.
    10. B. Babik, Denešnite teritorii na Republika Makedonija i Republika Albanija vo VII i VIII vek, Civilizacii na po?vata na Makedonija, Skopje 1995, 13-184, thinks it is a Slav culture. V. Popovi?, Byzantins, Slaves et autochtones dans les provinces de Prevalitance et Nouvelle Epire, Villes at preuplement dans l’Illyricum protobyzantin, Rome, 214-243, and Albanija u kasnoj antici, Iliri i Albanci, Beograd 1988, 229-245; Popovi? summarizes all previous interpretations and literature and dismisses the thesis of the Albanian experts that the Koman culture served as the mediator between the pre-Roman Illyrians and the Albanians, but is nevertheless of the opinion that it was a Romanized Illyrian population.
    11. V. Popovi? does not refer to the fact that Koman culture clasps developed from those in south Russian steppes and the Dnieper basin (Dj. Jankovi?, Stanovništvo Balkana u VI-VII stole?u – arheološka istraživanja, Ph.D. thesis manuscript, Faculty of Philosophy Beograd, 1986, 274-276), that as jewelry they were used in the area of the Caucasus, as were other kinds of objects found in the graves belonging to Koman culture. Since this is not an occasion fit to discuss the origin of the Koman culture, I am about to refer only to essential sources. On the cemeteries of the Croats see J. Beloševi?, Materijalna kultura Hrvata od VII do IX stole?a, Zagreb 1980; on the cemeteries in Bulgaria see Ž. V”arova, Slavjani i prab”lgari po danni na nekropolite ot VI-IX v. na Bl”garija, Sofija 1976; on the areas between the Caucasus, the Black Sea, the Dnepier and Caspian Sea, Group of authors, Stepi v epohu rannego srednevekov”ja (IV – pervaja polovina X v.), Stepi Evrazii v epohu srednevekov”ja, Moskva 1981, 9-187; I. O. Gavrituhin, A. M. Oblomskij, Gaponovskij sklad i ego kulturno-istori?eskij kontekst, Moskva 1996; A. V. Dmitriev, Rannesrednevekovie fibuli iz mogil’nika na r. DÓrso, Drevnosti epohi velikogo pereselenija narodov V-VIII vekov, Moskva 1982, 69-107.
    12. Miracula S. Demetrii II, 5, according to F. Bariši?. ?uda Dimitrija Solunskog kao istorijski izvori, Beograd 1953, 126-136; the archeological evidence pertaining to the settling of Kuver in what is today Albania according to Vrap see J. Werner, Neue Aspekte zum Awarischen Skatzfund von Vrap, Iliria I, 1983, 191-201.
    13. The question of the history and archeology of Ptolomy’s Albania has not been settled yet. There are ungrounded attempts to connect the ancestors of the Azerbaijanis with the pre-Turkish population: D`. Hamilov, Material”naja kul”tura Kavkazskoj Albanii (ot III v. do n. e. do III v. n. e.), Baku 1985. The reference by Conastantine VII Porphyrogenitus in De ceremoniis, ch. 48, to Albania and small states in the area of the Caucasus and Armenia (cf. J. Ferluga, Lista adresa za strane vladare, Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 12, Beograd 1970, p. 161 ff.) can be compared to the record by Mojsije Kalankatuaci describing wild peoples and cattlebreeding population of the Caucasus – Istorija strani Aluank, Erevan 1984, 94, 167. For the sake of comparison with the location of Albania along the Salonika-Dra? road, it is interesting to note that the Arabs connect the Albania in the Caucasus with the “gate” through which the steppe peoples invaded the areas south of the Caucasus.
    14. Paulys Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertums – Wissensschaft 28, Stuttgart 1930, 1648-1651.
    15. The report by J. Kova?evi? on the Koman culture has not been published: M. Garašanin, Uvod urednika, Iliri i Albanci, Beograd 1988, 1.
    16. B. Ferjan?i?, Albanci u vizantijskim izvorima. Iliri i Albanci, Beograd 1988, 285-289, includes a list of sources and literature.
    17. The pottery and jewelry pieces from the ninth to the eleventh centuries found in Albania are mainly of Slav or Byzantine origin. However, some samples of jewelry differ in a number of respects pointing to the areas in the Caucasus – for instance the earrings brought to light by N. Bodinaku, Kultura e varrezës së hersme mesjetare shqiptare në luginën te vjosës të rrethit të Permetit, Iliria XI, 1983, 16-56, T. II/11, and others.
    18. A. Loma, Prakosovo, poreklo srpskog juna?kog epa u svetlu indoevropske komparativistike, Od mita do Folka, Liceum, Kragujevac 1996, 543-56.
    19. On Serb capitals and popular annual assemblies (sabori) see K. Jire?ek – J. Radoni?, Istorija Srba II, Beograd 1952, 7-10, 29-32; on Serbian royal residences and palaces embracing Svr?in Lake see S. ]irkovi?, Vladarski dvorci oko jezera na Kosovu, Zbornik za likovne umetnosti 20, Matica srpska, Novi Sad 1984, 67-82.
    20. Konstantin Porfirogenit, De administrando imperio, ch. 32, ed. by Gy. Moravcsik, English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins, Budapest 1949, VIINJ II, 1949, 46-47, translated by V. Ferjan?i? (DAI).
    21. DAI ch. 32; B. Ferjan?i?, VIINJ II, 58, gives earlier interpretations; R. Novakovi?, Gde se nalazila Srbija od VII do XII veka, Beograd 1981, 61-63, locates Dostinik in the hinterland of the Pe? Patriarchate.
    22. DAI, ch. 31; VIINJ II, 44; N. Klai?, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku, Zagreb 1975, 232-236.
    23. M. ?anak-Medi?, Arhitektura prve polovine XIII veka II, Beograd 1995, 24-29.
    24. ?. Jankovi?, Ravna gora izme?u Prizrena i Štrpca – najstarije poznato srpsko nalazište na jugu Srbije, Starine Kosova i Metohije 10, Priština 1997, 31-35.
    25. G. Tomovi?, Glagoljski natpis sa ?e?ana, Istorijski ?asopis XXXVII, Beograd 1990, 5-18; on taxes cf. Jovan Skilica, Kratka istorija, VIINJ III, 1966, 151-152.
    26. Pilot excavations on the ?e?an site were carried out by A. Ba?kalov, from the Kosovo and Metohija Museum, to whom I express my indebtedness for the information and documentation. The Veletin site was studied by E. Shukriu, Valetin, Multistrate Settlement, Archaeological Reports 1988, Ljubljana 1990, 104-106, but the authoress did not identify the findings from the 9-10th centuries (pictures 6, 8).
    27. M. Bajalovi?-Hadži Peši?, Keramika, u V. Kora?, Studenica Hvostanska, Beograd 1976, 70-71, interpreting the pottery findings in that monastery, dates some samples, typologically, back to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (pictures 22/3-4 = 153/2-3), which, it is now believed, cannot have been manufactured later than the eleventh century. Such pottery pieces are to be found on the sites of a series of fortresses extending from the Bulgarian border as far as ?a?ak. These last, similar findings, were were first made public by O. Vukadin, Arheološka istraživanja na lokalitetu Kula pod Kablarom, Raška baština 2, Kraljevo 1980, 169.
    28. Jovan Skilica, Kratka istorija, VIINJ III, 123-124.
    29. On the theme of Serbia and the existing interpretations see ISN I, 173-175; in Lj. Maksimovi?’s opinion, the Byzantine thematic system included peripheral areas of Serbia – the Morava basin (including the Field of Kosovo), Belgrade and perhaps the area of Syrmium (ibid, 175).
    30. The main source dealing with the 1072 uprising is Skilica’s successor, Istorija, VIINJ III, 177-186, translation and commentary by J. Ferluga.
    31. Anna Comnina in The Alexiade gives a vague description of the mountain area including the Zigon mountain behind, stating that Dalmatia (= Serbia) is beyond with Lipljan and Zve?an – VIINJ III, 384-389, edited by V. Kreki?.
    32. On the basis of the symposia organized by the Serbian Archeological Society’s – M. Djordjevi? and S. Hadži?, and my own inspection of the sites (made possible by M. Ba?kalov and S. Stojkovi?, to whom I owe my gratitude).
    33. V. Jovanovi? – Lj. Vuksanovi?, Mati?ane, n?cropole sud-slave de Xe et XIe si?cle, Inventaria archaeologica, 25, Priština – Beograd 1981; cf. V. Jovanovi?, Arheološka istraživanja srednjovekovnih spomenika i nalazišta na Kosovu, Zbornik okruglog stola o nau?nom istraživnju Kosova, SANU XLII, Beograd 1988, 23-26.
    34. A Ba?kalov, Rani srednji vek, Arheološko blago, 693-697.
    35. Ibid, 698—704 (Vrbnica), 708-709 (Široko), 716-719 (Vlaštica), 720-724 (Djonaj), 725-728 (Velekince); cf. Also V. Jovanovi?, Op. Cit., 26-28. The findings at the historical site of So?anica were not outstanding – E. ?erškov, Municipium DD kod So?anice, Priština – Beograd 1970, 60-61, Vol. XIX/10-11.
    36. V. Jovanovi?, Prilozi hronologiji srednjovekovnih nekropola Jugoslavije i Bugarske II, Balcanoslavica 6 , Prilep – Beograd 1970, 148-150; only a coin of Issac II Angelus I has been found – in the necropolis near Bela Crkva, and this can date the necropolis in the thirteenth century.
    37. It is on record that the following župans were appointed administrators: Desa – Dendru in the neighbourhood of Niš, apparently 1155-1162; Primislav is given, in 1162, rich pastures fit for cattle-breeding; Nemanja inherited the Dubo?ica area, in 1158 or 1162: ISN I, 206-208, and Jovan Kinam, Istorija, VIINJ IV, 1971, edited by J. Kali?, translated by N. Radoševi? – Maksimovi?, 56-59. One can get a clearer idea of the possessions of some of Serb župans from the datum that during the reign of the Great Župan Stefan Nemanja, his son king Vukan administered, among other areas, the Toplica and Hvosno areas, but not the intervening area, that of Kosovo – G. Tomovi?, Natpis na crkvi Svetog Luke u Kotoru iz 1195, Crkva Svetog Luke kroz vijekove, Srpska pravoslavna crkvena opština Kotor, Kotor 1997, 26-28.
    38. For literature see note 36 and E. Maneva, Srednovekoven nakit od Makedonija, Skopje 1992.
    39. Such earrings occur as far as the Banovina of Croatia – D. Jelovina, Starohrvatske nekropole na podru?ju izmedju rijeka Zrmanje i Cetine, Split, 1976, 96-97, accompanied by a reference list, show that they date from the the nineth, tenth and eleventh centuries, but the earrings found in other areas, which have not been separately studied, as well as more recent excavations in Šipovo, near Kruševac and elsewhere, show that date approximately from the twelth century.
    40. P. Mijovi?, Gra?anica – ranohriš?anska bazilika i srednjovekovni manastir, Arheološki pregled 6, Beograd 1964, 128-133; near the monastery of Gra?anica coats of arms dating from the eleventh and twelth centuries were also found, a report by S. Stojkovi?; cf. P. Ba?kalov’s information, Op. Cit., 373. R. Ljubinkovi? and collaborators, Istraživa?ki i konzervatorski radovi na crkvi Vavedenja u Lipljanu, Zbornik zaštite spomenika kulture X, Beograd 1959, 69-134. Studenica of Hvosno: V. Kora?, Op. Cit., does not single out this stage in the life of the monastery, but in addition to this pottery, other findings point to the period of the Nemanjids; cf. V. Kora?, Op. Cit., 31-32, containing earlier literature.

  145. Richard,
    here is another article proving how unreliable your source M.Noel is!!
    Prof. Djordje Jankovi?, Ph.D
    Archaeological department. Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade University
    MIDDLE AGES IN NOEL MALCOLM’S
    “KOSOVO. A SHORT HISTORY”
    AND REAL FACTS
    “Response to Noel Malcolm`s book ?osovo. A Short History”, Scientific Discussion on Noel Malcolm`s book “?osovo. A Short History”(Macmillan, London 1998, 492) 8th October 1999, Institute of History of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
    Before presenting the interpretations of the mediaeval past of Kosovo and Metohija in Noel Malcolm’s work, one should be aware of the tasks set by the author before writing the book. That way, the acrobatic handling of the evidence which he uses or does not use will become clearer. In the introductory text, ten pages long, he clearly presents his political and ideological position. They are as follows (p. XXXIV-XXXV): “Kosovo” is one of the cultural crossroads of Europe – which is wrong; “Kosovo” is probably the central area to the survival of the Albanian and genesis of the Rumanian languages – which is a fabrication; “Kosovo” became the geographical centre of an important mediaeval state (meaning Serbia) – which is only partly true, because Kosovo was, in addition, its administrative, cultural, and spiritual centre; “Kosovo” was one of the most peculiar idiosyncratic parts of Turkey in Europe – which is a fabrication; modern Albanian movement was born in Kosovo – which is wrong, because the part played by foreign intelligence sources in its formation has been widely known. In the early chapters of the book, Malcolm argues that the Albanians are the autochthonous population of “Kosovo”, and that the Serbs temporarily expelled them from there, during the 250 years of “Serbian occupation”, in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth century.
    What is more, Malcolm advocates distorted principles of liberty, complying with the ideology pursued by the “powers that be” since the days of the Roman Empire. Malcolm’s claims that the struggle of the Balkan peoples to liberate themselves from the Turks was not justified (p. XXXV), as well as that the idea that behind the Albanians has been Islam, which in fact belongs to the Balkans (XXXVI) – is groundless. Malcolm’s undisguised hatred toward Orthodox Christians and the Serbs not willing to accept the establishment of a new world order, points to the ideological and racist motives of the author of the book.
    For the sake of truth, I must point out that among Serb intellectuals the opinion has gained currency that the Kosovo legend, the legends of Saint Prince Lazar and Miloš Obili?, even of Saint Sava, were products of the Serbian nineteenth century elite, notably the church elite, intended to generate conditions for the awakening and liberation of the nation as prerequisites for the unification of the nation and the country. In addition, people’s memory had to give up more ancient history in order to invest the Nemanjid dynasty with the corresponding authority. However, as the following discussion is about to show at least to an extent, that claim is wrong, because the roots of present-day Serbs are really in Metohija and Kosovo. In the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, no archeological studies were undertaken in mediaeval Kosovo and Metohija so as to make possible the writing of such books as Malcolm’s Kosovo. A Short History. Luckily enough, in spite of the lag in the archeological studies in Kosovo and Metohija lasting for decades, a few yet very firm material and archeological facts, which are easy to verify, are available testifying to the culture and continuity of the Serbs. Some more substantial archeological excavations conducted in Albania are quite complementary, showing that the ancestors of the Albanians settled between the Drin and the Adriatic coast in the Middle Ages.
    As we go along, we are going to point only to some of the most striking fabrications relating to the times before the Nemanjids, following the arrangement of Malcolm’s chapters. Some of those fabrications are result of Malcolm’s ignorance, of his insufficient knowledge of scholarly sources and research methodology, whereas others result from his intention, serving the interests of the Shqiptars, to misinform the reader and antagonize him towards the Serbs.
    The chapter “Orientation: places, names and peoples”
    The intention behind this chapter is to prove the geographical compactness of “Kosovo”, that is of Kosovo including the areas of both the Kosovo Field (Kosovo Polje) and Metohija, in order to justify the name “Kosovo” and make it possible to place the original homeland of the Sqiptars within such an artificially created area with seemingly logical explanations. However, Kosovo and Metohija are, historically, two geographically distinct areas. In prehistory, geographical location used to determine the expansion of certain cultures, that is of various ethnic entities. For instance, it is conspicuous that tombs and tumuli dating from the Bronze and Iron Ages are not to be found in Kosovo but only in Metohija.[1] There are two views of the borderlines between the subsequent Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Moesia. According to the older one, Metohija was a part of Dalmatia and, later, of the province of Praevalis, whereas Kosovo was a part of Moesia and the subsequent province of Dardania,[2] and this view is corroborated by the distribution of the tumuli. According to the more recent view, Metohija was a part of Moesia, then of Dardania.[3] In this respect, the evidence offered by the parallel existence of neighbouring archbishoprics is sufficiently telling. At the time of Emperor Basileus II (976-1025), Kosovo was a part of the Ulpiana bishopric, Bina?ka Morava of the Skoplje bishopric, and Metohija of the Prizren bishopric.[4] During the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries, in Metohija (Hvosno) the Studenica Eparchy was also functioning in addition to that in Prizren, whereas in Kosovo, in addition to the Skoplje and Gra?anica Eparchies (the latter succeeded the Ulpiana Eparchy), a bishopric at Zve?an functioned for some time.[5] In other words, from time immemorial, the predetermined administrative borderline ran between the basins of the Drin and Morava rivers, so that the common name for Kosovo and Metohija cannot be accounted for on historical-geographical grounds. The cultural homogeneousness of such distinct geographical areas as Kosovo and Metohija is reached only if they are inhabited by the same people within the boundaries of one and the same state.
    The chapter: “Origins: Serbs, Albanians and Vlachs”
    Writing this chapter, Malcolm does not use fundamental historical sources: he is not aware of Byzantine manuscript sources, not even of the works by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, let alone the Arab or Armenian texts. He does not use a single history of the Serb people or any work of the kind, not even most recent Western books pretending to present the early history of the Slavs and of South-Eastern Europe, whereas for him the precious Russian sources simply do not exist. The power belongs to the West, and so does all knowledge and the truth! According to Malcolm, the Serbs, originally living in the areas north and north-east of the Black Sea, lived in the fifth and sixth centuries in Bohemia and Saxony, and they came to the Balkans following the Croats; then the Serbs settled in the area of Rascia (Raška), where initially they had no social set-up resembling a state, but only a few tribal territories ruled by župans, etc. (pp. 23-24) Yet, even if long known manuscript sources and even more recent archeological findings are ignored, common sense and logic still remain commanding the conclusion that no people with a historical role like the one played the Serbs could have been shaped.
    Concealing the early history of the mediaeval Serb Principality, and thereby reducing the population of this people, which at the time was second in number in the South East after the Greeks, to a few županijas in Rascia (and it is known that later, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Rascia was a border region of Serbia), the author populates so obtained legal, historical and geographical areas. Malcolm claims that the area was inhabited by a large population speaking a Romance language, that it was gradually slavicized, and that the Serbs were spreading out to Kosovo not earlier than towards the end of the twelfth century (pp. 25-26). Malcolm grounds his claim that Kosovo and Metohija were not inhibited by the Serbs and Slavs by his own interpretation of the differences between the Serbo-Croat (in fact Serb) language and the Bulgarian-Macedonian (in fact the South-Slav) language. He goes on to argue that the area from the Morava river through Kosovo and Metohija and as far as the Adriatic coast, amounting to an area substantially larger then the few Rascian županijas, was inhabited by a native population, as allegedly ancient toponyms demonstrate. Malcolm illustrates this by giving instances of the names of major towns Naissus – Niš, and Scupi – Skoplje. In addition, he mentions the name of Lipljan, allegedly the Latin Lypenion, a name of which there is no record in ancient times but which was mentioned for the first time in Greek, in 1018, as “Lipenion”.[6] He cites the place name Puku, allegedly deriving from via publica (26-27). This is neither speculation nor guesswork, but a fabrication serving to promote a definite purpose. Malcolm does not ethimologize using place-names recorded in the documents of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, such as the already mentioned Lipljan, Prizren or Zve?an, let alone the toponyms recorded in the documents in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Many of those toponyms, preserved down to our day, point to the Serb population there in the times substantially preceding the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, for example: Balvan’; Igriš?e – S’bor’sko – Zborce – Gumni?te; Kobila glava – Kobilja glava; Rosulje – Rosulja, etc.[7]
    Stating his views of the origin of the population of Kosovo and Metohija, Malcolm goes on to say that the Slavs, namely the Bulgarian Slavs (p. 27), are present there only since the beginning of the eleventh century and down to the Byzantine occupation of 1018. Not a word about the Bulgarian raids on Serbia!
    Then he attempts to demonstrate, relying solely on philological evidence, that the Albanians are the autochthonous population of Kosovo and Metohija (p. 30). He tries to establish the links between the Albanian and Illyrian languages, in spite of the fact that the Illyrian language has not survived in its written form, as well as between the Albanian and the Thracian language. He demonstrates those links with a forced interpretation of hydronyms, toponyms and ethnonyms from pre-Roman times, and does that using contemporary Albanian words, which is unlicensed to such an extent that his interpretations become absurd. He links the name of the river Mat with the Albanian word for “river-bank” – “mat” – though it is a nonsense to call a river a “bank”. The place-name “Ulcinj” he translates with the Albanian word for “wolf” – “ujk”, “ulk”, though it’s a nonsense to name a sea coast town after a forest beast. Finally, he links the name of “Dardania” to the Albanian “dardhe” – “pear” (p. 32), though a few pages later he links it to a cheese perculiar for Dardania (p. 40), which calls for no comment. Further on, he argues, once again on the basis of linguistics, that the Albanians originally did not live at the sea side (what about Ulcinj?), and points to the areas in the hinterland, that is to say to Kosovo and Metohija (p. 34). His speculations needlessly include the Bessi (pp. 35-37), whom he excludes as the possible ancestors of the Albanians, one can assume in order to support the illusion that his approach is objective. At length he draws the conclusion that after a “Slav invasion” into the Upper Morava basin, in northern Macedonia, in “Kosovo” (and in Metohija), as well as in a part of Montenegro, a population of Latin speech continued to live from which the Albanians and the Vlachs originated, who were later driven out by the Slavs and Serbs (pp. 39-40).
    Let us discuss, in a quite cursory manner afforded by available space, the archeological data corroborating the possible origin of the Sqiptars namely Albanians. Right away it can said that there are no essential links between the fifth and seventh centuries population of Kosovo and Metohija with the Sqiptars. The necropolises dating from those times are characterized by an absence of inventory, or they contain findings characteristic of the Roman provinces as far as the Danube border (Ulpiana, Bela Crkva).[8] The seventh, eighth and ninth centuries natives or the population of predominantly Latin, Hellenic or Illyrian origins, can be identified only on the basis of the graves in littoral towns such as Dra?, Lješ and Sva?.[9] In other words, precisely in the areas alien to the Albanian language, due to the absence of originally Albanian expressions characteristic of the littoral. Those necropolises contained Byzantine women’s jewelry, belt-buckles, a few clay jugs, and seldom objects of other cultures such as the Slav clasps.
    To this period also belongs the Koman culture, an interesting culture identifiable by its graves containing distinct objects, which was situated between Lake Ohrid and Lake Skadar, that is in the mountainous areas between the littoral and the fertile areas of Zeta, Metohija, Kosovo and the Vardar Valley.[10] This culture is identified as a distinct culture by its jewelry – its earrings with flat pendants ending with stars, stiff necklaces, large arch-shaped buckles with their pins bent down and shaping a horned head; in warriors’ equipment it is distinguished by shoulder strap loops, sometimes bearing human images, then by axes, etc. In jewelry there are pieces of Byzantine origin – rings, ear-rings, belt buckles. Here and there late Slav clasps are also encountered. The cultural and geographical origin of these objects is varied. The axes and stiff necklaces are similar to the findings from chronologically close or contemporaneous graves of the Croats, or from those of the Bulgarian Danube basin and the area extending as far as the Caucasus regions; the strap loops were used by various nomadic tribes of Asiatic origin in the area extending from Pannonia as far as the Ural Mountains and Caucasus; the clasps are closest in shape to those used by the Romans from the Danube basin inhabiting the steppes in the Black Sea littoral; the Byzantine jewelry was procured at the coast, but some of its pieces are Pannonian in origin.[11] Everything points to a mixture of peoples originating in the East, concentrating in Pannonia which, led by Kuver, came down to the South towards the end of the seventh century and settled in New Epirus.[12] Their settling in a mountainous area shows that they came from the mountains, perhaps from the northern slopes of the Caucasus. Apart from the disagreements in the interpretations of the Koman culture, it is essential that the necropolises of that culture differ from contemporaneous necropolises in the littoral. That testifies that there existed two different populations – that the population in the littoral was autochthonous, whereas that in the mountainous hinterland was made up of newcomers.
    Proceeding with his discussion of the origin of the people which he calls the Albanians, Malcolm finds that they never in the past described themselves using that name but, as an exception, in the fifteenth century Italy, described themselves as Arbëresch (p. 29). In passing, in a note, he mentions the hypothesis concerning the Albania in the Balkans and the Albania in the Caucasus, but dismisses it because allegedly there are no connections between the two areas. This claim is unfounded, because both Albanias were close to the borders of one and the same state, Byzantium. The Albania situated within present-day Azerbaijan, mentioned by that name by Ptolemy, was referred to during the middle and latter Middle Ages as “Albania”, “Agwank”, “Aluank”, “Arran”, ar-Ran”.[13] A Latin map from 1482 shows an “Albania” in the territory of Azerbaijan. It is assumed that long ago it was inhabited by the Gargarians, but it is on record that in the Caucasus also lived wild warlike tribes and that some of them moved with their cattle down to lower areas. In addition, in the Vaspurkan province of Armenia there is a district called Arberani. On the border of Armenia, Byzantium and Persia, there was a fortress called Marde, Mardis, and that brings us closer to the Mardaits, warlike mountain tribesmen who used to change their masters, so that they were often displaced.[14] The late Jovan Kova?evi? connected this tribe with the Mardits.[15] The Arbanes in New Epirus were first mentioned in the eleventh century.[16] Soon after, the Turks invaded the areas east of the Caucasus and settled in Agvank, the present-day Azerbaijan, causing recorded and on recorded migration of various tribes. It is quite possible that the Arberans then escaped to Byzantium, which allowed them to settle in the areas north of the Salonika-Dra? road, reinforcing Byzantium’s border with Serbia. It is a matter of time when individual archeological findings from Albania will be linked to those late comers from Asia.[17]
    It is evident that the ancestors of the Albanians, a nation formed in our time, are various tribes of Asian extraction who, arriving between the seventh and eleventh century in the mountainous areas of the present-day Albania, were mixed with the Slavs inhabiting that undulating strip and with the population of Latin and partly Greek speech living in the coastal towns. Hence the philologically based claim that modern Albanians are autochthonous in origin is not grounded.
    The chapter: “Medieval Kosovo before Prince Lazar: 850s-1380s”
    Noel Malcolm possesses no real knowledge of Kosovo and Metohija between 850. and 1166: there was no Serbian state there, but there were a Bulgarian and Byzantine state; that area is the soil of the Greek Church, but the Albanians stick to the Roman Latin Church; king Stefan the First-Crowned regains Prizren, so the Serbs are the conquerors of Kosovo and Metohija from the end of the twelfth century to the early thirteenth century (pp. 41-44).
    As shown by Aleksandar Loma and others, the Kosovo Battle was not just a battle but a predetermined battle, one of those battles deciding the fate of a people for many centuries to come.[18] The very place where the battle took place was not chosen at random. The central divide and at once the primaeval crossroads and centre of the Balkan Peninsula is situated at the south end of the Kosovo Field. From the mountain saddles between Štimlje and Suva Reka the waters flow down westwards to Metohija and further on to the Adriatic Sea, and eastwards to the Kosovo Field, where they, coming from the same springs, flow both towards the Aegean and Black Seas. That bifurcation, in the outskirts of Uroševac, was a result of man-made dams and river beds; a branch of the Nerodimka river flows northwards emptying its waters into Svr?in Lake and then by way of the Sitnica river into the Ibar and then Morava rivers, whereas its other branch flows to the south discharging itself, by way of the Lepenac river, into the Vardar river. It is there that the royal palaces of the Serbs are concentrated: Svr?in, Pauni, Nerodimlje and Štimlje, and, not very far from them, Priština, and Ribnik near Prizren.[19] Let my remind that the Serbs did not have particular cities as their capitals, but that their capitals were where the sovereign had his residence or where annual communal assemblies (sabors) were held. Why did the Serbs choose for their palaces and sabors the south of the Kosovo Field and its central divide becomes clear in the light of the fact that the country from which the Serbs had come to the Balkan Peninsula,[20] Bojka, was situated along a similar divide and crossroads. The Bojkis even today live in Galicia, at the devide between the Black Sea in the east (with the Danube basin in the south, the basins of the Siret, Southern Bug and Dniester in the east, and that of the Dnieper in the north) and the Baltic Sea (the basin of the Vistula, San and Western Bug). That is why Kosovo could serve as the communal annual assemblies (saborna) area of the Serbs since their settling there in the 7th century and in the latter Middle Ages, under the Nemanji? dynasty and Prince Lazar. In other words, in 1389 the Turks attacked the heart and crossroads of the Serbian state, the area of its capitals.
    According to the record by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, it is assumed that the town of Destinik, the first in his list of the Serb towns, was located somewhere in Metohija.[21] A comparison with the list of Croatian towns contained in the same record, in which the first mentioned town, Nin, was the seat of the bishop,[22] one can assume that the most important Serb town in the 10th century was Destinik in Metohija. The Nemanjid period shrines of the Pe? Patriarchate are grouped round a modest, earlier church, that of St. Apostles. It must be evident to the lover of the truth that this church must have been of particular significance for the Serbs since the seat of the Archbishop was precisely there and not in some more monumental monastery selected by the Nemanjids. Long ago in the foundations of the Patriarchate of Pe? temples the remnants of a large church were found which have not been archeologically examined but are dated two construction stages before the Nemanjids, that goes as far back as the period between seventh and tenth and eleventh and twelfth centuries.[23] The Serbian bishopric seat was probably there prior to the Bulgarian and Byzantine conquests. That accounts for the wish of Serbian aristocracy to spend the last days of their lives as monks in metohs founded by themselves in the vicinity. Is it possible that a people of such a developed ancestral cult as the Serbs would move their spiritual centre to an allegedly occupied territory as Malcolm would have it? There is no historical precedent for such an act, and Metohija and Kosovo are really the seminal areas of the Serbs.
    One-day archeological excavations in the mountain of Ostrovica between Prizren and Sirini?ka Župa unveiled gromile, or characteristic Serb medieval monuments to honour the dead dating from the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries approximately,[24] along with the church in the foundations of the Patriarchate of Pe?. To the period of Bulgarian and Samuilo’s raids on Serbia in the ninth and tenth centuries belongs the pottery collection found in bordering fortresses at the border and in destroyed monasteries. The most important in it is a fragment of a tenth century jug found in ?e?an. It bears the sign of its volume in the Glagolitsa – number six; that jug served for wine tax payment.[25] The record being in the Glagolitsa and not in the Cyrillic alphabet, the area of Kosovo must have been a part of Kosovo, since at that time the Cyrillic alphabet was already the official writing. Archeological excavations, establishing that the ancient fortresses in ?e?an and Veletin were re-vitalized, revealed identifiable findings intended to ward off the ivasionas coming from the East.[26] The existence of a stratum containing contemporaneous pottery at the sites of the Studenica of Hvostno (Studenica Hvostanska) and the Prizren Church of the Archangels (Arhandjeli Prizrenski) shows that the monasteries in Metohija were devastated at the same time.[27]
    It is the general view that Serbia fell to Byzantium after 1018, though this claim is not backed up by reliable evidence. Malcolm and some other authors think that the Kosovo Field and Metohija were conquered by Byzantium at that time, but according to written sources, that it is true only for the area of Lipljan, that is for Kosovo.[28] It is possible that the only known Byzantine commander of “Serbia” of that time in fact governed only Kosovo and some neighbouring areas.[29]
    There is definite historical and geographical evidence of Kosovo and Metohija in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. After the town of Destinik, which was referred to in the mid-tenth century, in the early eleventh century Lipljan and Prizren are mentioned. It is to Prizren that later, in 1072, Slav representatives came from the conquered Bulgaria and Serb eastern areas, to attend the coronation of the Serbian prince Bodin.[30] After that, towards the end of the twelfth century, Anna Comnina, counting the entire Kosovo as Serbia, establishes the border towards Byzantium along the mountain range east of the Kosovo Field.[31]
    The presence of the Serbian population in Kosovo and Metohija is demonstrated even more reliably by archeological findings, though they are scarce. Serb pottery from the eleventh century was found on many sites, mainly in Kosovo, in Gra?anica, Ulpiana, Zaskok, Banjska, etc.[32] In Mati?ani near Priština an eleventh century graveyard was examined displaying some older findings.[33] Several graves near Badovci and Gra?anica that were studied belong to the same period.[34] However, it happens that another examined grave, that in Pr?evo in Metohija, established at approximately the same time, was continually used until the twelfth, and perhaps even in the thirteenth century.[35] This reveals a different fate of Metohija. In Metohija there were no displacements of necropolises during the Serbo-Byzantine wars towards the end of the eleventh centuries. The jewelry found in the mentioned graves is Slav in origin. It is wrought in the Byzantine technique of filigree, has the shapes distinct from those of Bulgaria or the Morava basin, and it is to be found on various sites as far as Knin (primarily the earrings with four blackberries and conic cherries), which points to its use by the Serbs.
    Judging by jewelry findings, a series of necropolises was established under Byzantine rule during the twelfth century. They are Vrbnica and Djonaj near Prizren, Široko near Suva Reka, Vlaštica and Velikince near Gnjilane, So?anica, but no contemporaneous necropolises have been found in Kosovo. The use of these cemeteries ceased around the middle of the thirteenth century. As the jewelry shows, the necropolises were used by the Serb or Slav population during Byzantine rule, but one is struck by the absence of Byzantine coins found in contemporaneous necropolises extending from our Danube areas as far as Macedonia.[36] Since it is on record that in the twelfth century Constantinople appointed a number of Serb župani administrators of westernmost areas of Byzantium, it is possible that that was the case with the areas of Metohija and Kosovo too.[37] The jewelry from these necropolises in Metohija and Kosovo alike, is characteristic both of central and eastern areas of the Balkan Peninsula (earrings with biconic strawberries, bracelets made of interwoven wire, etc.),[38] and of its western areas (earrings with one or more granular joints).[39] All eleventh and twelfth centuries archeological findings point to Serb and generally Slav population.
    During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Nemanyides reconstruct old temples, those built during Byzantine occupation (Gra?anica, Lipljan, etc.) as well as older ones functioning in the ninth and tenth centuries (the Studenica of Hvosto, the Pe? Patriarchate, probably the temple in Prizren, Banjska), which also proves the continuity of the Serb population.[40]
    Conclusion
    The gromile and toponyms such as “Igrište” seem to indicate that Metohija and Kosovo, as well as the areas farther to the east and south, were integrated into the Serb lands not later than the seventh century. It is possible that there lived other Slavs or autochthonous population, but this has not been supported by convincing evidence. The Field of Kosovo attracted the Serbs by its situation at a divide, its fitness for cattle-breeding, for summer settlements and agriculture. It was then that Christianization of the Serbs was completed, which accounts for the continual existence of some Hellenic temples since ancient times down to the time of the Nemanyides. It seems certain that one of the most significant centres of Serb evangelization was Metohija, thanks to Dra?. Owing to natural and geographical circumstances, this area, situated south-east of Serb lands, became the core of the Serb state. That is why it the largest Serb churches and their greatest number are to be found there, including the seat of the Serb bishopric, the centre of the Glagolitic writing, places of assembly (zborišta) and the palaces between seventh and tenth centuries. The uncontroversial conquest by tzar Simeon and tzar Samuilo has not archeologically shown any population change yet. Byzantium under Basil II takes Kosovo, and under Alexius I Metohija and Kosovo once again; though a displacement of necropolises ensues, including displacement of their settlements, the population remains unchanged. After the liberation of those areas from Byzantium, no changes in the situation of the necropolises or settlements and sanctuaries were found, which demonstrates the continuity of the population. On the other hand, archeological and written records prove that the ancestors of the Albanians, coming from Asia, settle in the mountainous areas between the Drin river and the Adriatic littoral between the seventh and eleventh centuries.
    In other words, the early chapters of Malcolm’s book, dealing with the pre-Nemanjid past of Kosovo and Metohija, are totally untrustworthy; all his speculations are wrong, like those of his models, as shown by all available evidence. Even if the propositions presented in this paper are discarded (though they are not grounded on fictions but on available archeological findings), it becomes crystal clear that, among the tens of archeological sites and hundreds of artifacts in the area of Kosovo and Metohija dating from the age before the Nemanjids, identified positively as expressing Serb or generally Slav characteristics, there is not a single finding that can be attributed to ancestors of medieval Albanians.
    FOOTNOTES
    1. About the Bronze and Iron Age cultures see K. Ljuci, Bronzano doba, 116-146, and N. Tasi?, Gvozdeno doba, 148-225, in Arheološko blago Kosova i Metodije od neolita do ranog srednjeg veka, Galerija SANU 90, Beograd, 1998. (Arheološko blago).
    2. Istorija Jugoslavije III, Beograd 1953, 37, the map is on page 40.
    3. Istorija srpskog naroda I, Beograd 1981, 93, as held by E. ?erškov, Rimljani na Kosovu i Metohiji, Beograd 1969, 28, note 64.
    4. H. Gelzer, Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistumerverzeichnisse, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2, 1983, 43-45; S. Novakovi?, Ohridska arhiepiskopija u po?etku XI veka, Glas SKA 76, Beograd, 1908, 33-58.

    5. M. Jankovi?, Episkopije i mitropolije Srpske crkve u srednjem veku, Beograd 1985, 17-100.
    6. Jovan Skilica, Kratka istorija, Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije (VIINJ) III, 124, ed. by J. Ferluga.
    7. Toponyms like these are concentrated particularly between the mountain of Šar and Drenica; cf. D. Jankovi?, Srpske gromile, Beograd 1998, 21, 124-126.
    8. M. Parovi?-Pešikan, Anti?ka Ulpijana prema dosadašnjim istraživanjima, Starinar XXXII 1981 (1982), 67-71; J. Kova?evi?, Bela Crkva u Metohiji – Arhitektonski objekti VI veka i nekropola sa kraja XII veka, Arheološki pregled 8, Beograd 1966, 150-151, presents a report on VI century and more recent tombs, including 120 graves that had been examined (some of them marked by stone tablets) and dated only by a coin of Isaac Angel, some of them without findings probably belonging to the VI century.
    9. F. Tartari, Nje varreze e mesjates se hershme ne Durres, Iliria XIV, Tirana 1984, 227-250; F. Prendi, Nje varreze e kultures arberore ne Lesze, Iliria I-X, 1979-1980 (1980), 123-142; E. Ze?evi?, Rezultati istraživanja srednjovekovnog Sva?a, Glasnik SAD 5, Beograd, 1989, 112-115.
    10. B. Babik, Denešnite teritorii na Republika Makedonija i Republika Albanija vo VII i VIII vek, Civilizacii na po?vata na Makedonija, Skopje 1995, 13-184, thinks it is a Slav culture. V. Popovi?, Byzantins, Slaves et autochtones dans les provinces de Prevalitance et Nouvelle Epire, Villes at preuplement dans l’Illyricum protobyzantin, Rome, 214-243, and Albanija u kasnoj antici, Iliri i Albanci, Beograd 1988, 229-245; Popovi? summarizes all previous interpretations and literature and dismisses the thesis of the Albanian experts that the Koman culture served as the mediator between the pre-Roman Illyrians and the Albanians, but is nevertheless of the opinion that it was a Romanized Illyrian population.
    11. V. Popovi? does not refer to the fact that Koman culture clasps developed from those in south Russian steppes and the Dnieper basin (Dj. Jankovi?, Stanovništvo Balkana u VI-VII stole?u – arheološka istraživanja, Ph.D. thesis manuscript, Faculty of Philosophy Beograd, 1986, 274-276), that as jewelry they were used in the area of the Caucasus, as were other kinds of objects found in the graves belonging to Koman culture. Since this is not an occasion fit to discuss the origin of the Koman culture, I am about to refer only to essential sources. On the cemeteries of the Croats see J. Beloševi?, Materijalna kultura Hrvata od VII do IX stole?a, Zagreb 1980; on the cemeteries in Bulgaria see Ž. V”arova, Slavjani i prab”lgari po danni na nekropolite ot VI-IX v. na Bl”garija, Sofija 1976; on the areas between the Caucasus, the Black Sea, the Dnepier and Caspian Sea, Group of authors, Stepi v epohu rannego srednevekov”ja (IV – pervaja polovina X v.), Stepi Evrazii v epohu srednevekov”ja, Moskva 1981, 9-187; I. O. Gavrituhin, A. M. Oblomskij, Gaponovskij sklad i ego kulturno-istori?eskij kontekst, Moskva 1996; A. V. Dmitriev, Rannesrednevekovie fibuli iz mogil’nika na r. DÓrso, Drevnosti epohi velikogo pereselenija narodov V-VIII vekov, Moskva 1982, 69-107.
    12. Miracula S. Demetrii II, 5, according to F. Bariši?. ?uda Dimitrija Solunskog kao istorijski izvori, Beograd 1953, 126-136; the archeological evidence pertaining to the settling of Kuver in what is today Albania according to Vrap see J. Werner, Neue Aspekte zum Awarischen Skatzfund von Vrap, Iliria I, 1983, 191-201.
    13. The question of the history and archeology of Ptolomy’s Albania has not been settled yet. There are ungrounded attempts to connect the ancestors of the Azerbaijanis with the pre-Turkish population: D`. Hamilov, Material”naja kul”tura Kavkazskoj Albanii (ot III v. do n. e. do III v. n. e.), Baku 1985. The reference by Conastantine VII Porphyrogenitus in De ceremoniis, ch. 48, to Albania and small states in the area of the Caucasus and Armenia (cf. J. Ferluga, Lista adresa za strane vladare, Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 12, Beograd 1970, p. 161 ff.) can be compared to the record by Mojsije Kalankatuaci describing wild peoples and cattlebreeding population of the Caucasus – Istorija strani Aluank, Erevan 1984, 94, 167. For the sake of comparison with the location of Albania along the Salonika-Dra? road, it is interesting to note that the Arabs connect the Albania in the Caucasus with the “gate” through which the steppe peoples invaded the areas south of the Caucasus.
    14. Paulys Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertums – Wissensschaft 28, Stuttgart 1930, 1648-1651.
    15. The report by J. Kova?evi? on the Koman culture has not been published: M. Garašanin, Uvod urednika, Iliri i Albanci, Beograd 1988, 1.
    16. B. Ferjan?i?, Albanci u vizantijskim izvorima. Iliri i Albanci, Beograd 1988, 285-289, includes a list of sources and literature.
    17. The pottery and jewelry pieces from the ninth to the eleventh centuries found in Albania are mainly of Slav or Byzantine origin. However, some samples of jewelry differ in a number of respects pointing to the areas in the Caucasus – for instance the earrings brought to light by N. Bodinaku, Kultura e varrezës së hersme mesjetare shqiptare në luginën te vjosës të rrethit të Permetit, Iliria XI, 1983, 16-56, T. II/11, and others.
    18. A. Loma, Prakosovo, poreklo srpskog juna?kog epa u svetlu indoevropske komparativistike, Od mita do Folka, Liceum, Kragujevac 1996, 543-56.
    19. On Serb capitals and popular annual assemblies (sabori) see K. Jire?ek – J. Radoni?, Istorija Srba II, Beograd 1952, 7-10, 29-32; on Serbian royal residences and palaces embracing Svr?in Lake see S. ]irkovi?, Vladarski dvorci oko jezera na Kosovu, Zbornik za likovne umetnosti 20, Matica srpska, Novi Sad 1984, 67-82.
    20. Konstantin Porfirogenit, De administrando imperio, ch. 32, ed. by Gy. Moravcsik, English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins, Budapest 1949, VIINJ II, 1949, 46-47, translated by V. Ferjan?i? (DAI).
    21. DAI ch. 32; B. Ferjan?i?, VIINJ II, 58, gives earlier interpretations; R. Novakovi?, Gde se nalazila Srbija od VII do XII veka, Beograd 1981, 61-63, locates Dostinik in the hinterland of the Pe? Patriarchate.
    22. DAI, ch. 31; VIINJ II, 44; N. Klai?, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku, Zagreb 1975, 232-236.
    23. M. ?anak-Medi?, Arhitektura prve polovine XIII veka II, Beograd 1995, 24-29.
    24. ?. Jankovi?, Ravna gora izme?u Prizrena i Štrpca – najstarije poznato srpsko nalazište na jugu Srbije, Starine Kosova i Metohije 10, Priština 1997, 31-35.
    25. G. Tomovi?, Glagoljski natpis sa ?e?ana, Istorijski ?asopis XXXVII, Beograd 1990, 5-18; on taxes cf. Jovan Skilica, Kratka istorija, VIINJ III, 1966, 151-152.
    26. Pilot excavations on the ?e?an site were carried out by A. Ba?kalov, from the Kosovo and Metohija Museum, to whom I express my indebtedness for the information and documentation. The Veletin site was studied by E. Shukriu, Valetin, Multistrate Settlement, Archaeological Reports 1988, Ljubljana 1990, 104-106, but the authoress did not identify the findings from the 9-10th centuries (pictures 6, 8).
    27. M. Bajalovi?-Hadži Peši?, Keramika, u V. Kora?, Studenica Hvostanska, Beograd 1976, 70-71, interpreting the pottery findings in that monastery, dates some samples, typologically, back to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (pictures 22/3-4 = 153/2-3), which, it is now believed, cannot have been manufactured later than the eleventh century. Such pottery pieces are to be found on the sites of a series of fortresses extending from the Bulgarian border as far as ?a?ak. These last, similar findings, were were first made public by O. Vukadin, Arheološka istraživanja na lokalitetu Kula pod Kablarom, Raška baština 2, Kraljevo 1980, 169.
    28. Jovan Skilica, Kratka istorija, VIINJ III, 123-124.
    29. On the theme of Serbia and the existing interpretations see ISN I, 173-175; in Lj. Maksimovi?’s opinion, the Byzantine thematic system included peripheral areas of Serbia – the Morava basin (including the Field of Kosovo), Belgrade and perhaps the area of Syrmium (ibid, 175).
    30. The main source dealing with the 1072 uprising is Skilica’s successor, Istorija, VIINJ III, 177-186, translation and commentary by J. Ferluga.
    31. Anna Comnina in The Alexiade gives a vague description of the mountain area including the Zigon mountain behind, stating that Dalmatia (= Serbia) is beyond with Lipljan and Zve?an – VIINJ III, 384-389, edited by V. Kreki?.
    32. On the basis of the symposia organized by the Serbian Archeological Society’s – M. Djordjevi? and S. Hadži?, and my own inspection of the sites (made possible by M. Ba?kalov and S. Stojkovi?, to whom I owe my gratitude).
    33. V. Jovanovi? – Lj. Vuksanovi?, Mati?ane, n?cropole sud-slave de Xe et XIe si?cle, Inventaria archaeologica, 25, Priština – Beograd 1981; cf. V. Jovanovi?, Arheološka istraživanja srednjovekovnih spomenika i nalazišta na Kosovu, Zbornik okruglog stola o nau?nom istraživnju Kosova, SANU XLII, Beograd 1988, 23-26.
    34. A Ba?kalov, Rani srednji vek, Arheološko blago, 693-697.
    35. Ibid, 698—704 (Vrbnica), 708-709 (Široko), 716-719 (Vlaštica), 720-724 (Djonaj), 725-728 (Velekince); cf. Also V. Jovanovi?, Op. Cit., 26-28. The findings at the historical site of So?anica were not outstanding – E. ?erškov, Municipium DD kod So?anice, Priština – Beograd 1970, 60-61, Vol. XIX/10-11.
    36. V. Jovanovi?, Prilozi hronologiji srednjovekovnih nekropola Jugoslavije i Bugarske II, Balcanoslavica 6 , Prilep – Beograd 1970, 148-150; only a coin of Issac II Angelus I has been found – in the necropolis near Bela Crkva, and this can date the necropolis in the thirteenth century.
    37. It is on record that the following župans were appointed administrators: Desa – Dendru in the neighbourhood of Niš, apparently 1155-1162; Primislav is given, in 1162, rich pastures fit for cattle-breeding; Nemanja inherited the Dubo?ica area, in 1158 or 1162: ISN I, 206-208, and Jovan Kinam, Istorija, VIINJ IV, 1971, edited by J. Kali?, translated by N. Radoševi? – Maksimovi?, 56-59. One can get a clearer idea of the possessions of some of Serb župans from the datum that during the reign of the Great Župan Stefan Nemanja, his son king Vukan administered, among other areas, the Toplica and Hvosno areas, but not the intervening area, that of Kosovo – G. Tomovi?, Natpis na crkvi Svetog Luke u Kotoru iz 1195, Crkva Svetog Luke kroz vijekove, Srpska pravoslavna crkvena opština Kotor, Kotor 1997, 26-28.
    38. For literature see note 36 and E. Maneva, Srednovekoven nakit od Makedonija, Skopje 1992.
    39. Such earrings occur as far as the Banovina of Croatia – D. Jelovina, Starohrvatske nekropole na podru?ju izmedju rijeka Zrmanje i Cetine, Split, 1976, 96-97, accompanied by a reference list, show that they date from the the nineth, tenth and eleventh centuries, but the earrings found in other areas, which have not been separately studied, as well as more recent excavations in Šipovo, near Kruševac and elsewhere, show that date approximately from the twelth century.
    40. P. Mijovi?, Gra?anica – ranohriš?anska bazilika i srednjovekovni manastir, Arheološki pregled 6, Beograd 1964, 128-133; near the monastery of Gra?anica coats of arms dating from the eleventh and twelth centuries were also found, a report by S. Stojkovi?; cf. P. Ba?kalov’s information, Op. Cit., 373. R. Ljubinkovi? and collaborators, Istraživa?ki i konzervatorski radovi na crkvi Vavedenja u Lipljanu, Zbornik zaštite spomenika kulture X, Beograd 1959, 69-134. Studenica of Hvosno: V. Kora?, Op. Cit., does not single out this stage in the life of the monastery, but in addition to this pottery, other findings point to the period of the Nemanjids; cf. V. Kora?, Op. Cit., 31-32, containing earlier literature.

  146. here is some more refuted theories of M.NOEL.
    DRAW YOYR OWN CONLUSIONS!!!

    Prof. Djordje Jankovi?, Ph.D
    Archaeological department. Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade University
    MIDDLE AGES IN NOEL MALCOLM’S
    “KOSOVO. A SHORT HISTORY”
    AND REAL FACTS

    Before presenting the interpretations of the mediaeval past of Kosovo and Metohija in Noel Malcolm’s work, one should be aware of the tasks set by the author before writing the book. That way, the acrobatic handling of the evidence which he uses or does not use will become clearer. In the introductory text, ten pages long, he clearly presents his political and ideological position. They are as follows (p. XXXIV-XXXV): “Kosovo” is one of the cultural crossroads of Europe – which is wrong; “Kosovo” is probably the central area to the survival of the Albanian and genesis of the Rumanian languages – which is a fabrication; “Kosovo” became the geographical centre of an important mediaeval state (meaning Serbia) – which is only partly true, because Kosovo was, in addition, its administrative, cultural, and spiritual centre; “Kosovo” was one of the most peculiar idiosyncratic parts of Turkey in Europe – which is a fabrication; modern Albanian movement was born in Kosovo – which is wrong, because the part played by foreign intelligence sources in its formation has been widely known. In the early chapters of the book, Malcolm argues that the Albanians are the autochthonous population of “Kosovo”, and that the Serbs temporarily expelled them from there, during the 250 years of “Serbian occupation”, in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth century.
    What is more, Malcolm advocates distorted principles of liberty, complying with the ideology pursued by the “powers that be” since the days of the Roman Empire. Malcolm’s claims that the struggle of the Balkan peoples to liberate themselves from the Turks was not justified (p. XXXV), as well as that the idea that behind the Albanians has been Islam, which in fact belongs to the Balkans (XXXVI) – is groundless. Malcolm’s undisguised hatred toward Orthodox Christians and the Serbs not willing to accept the establishment of a new world order, points to the ideological and racist motives of the author of the book.
    For the sake of truth, I must point out that among Serb intellectuals the opinion has gained currency that the Kosovo legend, the legends of Saint Prince Lazar and Miloš Obili?, even of Saint Sava, were products of the Serbian nineteenth century elite, notably the church elite, intended to generate conditions for the awakening and liberation of the nation as prerequisites for the unification of the nation and the country. In addition, people’s memory had to give up more ancient history in order to invest the Nemanjid dynasty with the corresponding authority. However, as the following discussion is about to show at least to an extent, that claim is wrong, because the roots of present-day Serbs are really in Metohija and Kosovo. In the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, no archeological studies were undertaken in mediaeval Kosovo and Metohija so as to make possible the writing of such books as Malcolm’s Kosovo. A Short History. Luckily enough, in spite of the lag in the archeological studies in Kosovo and Metohija lasting for decades, a few yet very firm material and archeological facts, which are easy to verify, are available testifying to the culture and continuity of the Serbs. Some more substantial archeological excavations conducted in Albania are quite complementary, showing that the ancestors of the Albanians settled between the Drin and the Adriatic coast in the Middle Ages.
    As we go along, we are going to point only to some of the most striking fabrications relating to the times before the Nemanjids, following the arrangement of Malcolm’s chapters. Some of those fabrications are result of Malcolm’s ignorance, of his insufficient knowledge of scholarly sources and research methodology, whereas others result from his intention, serving the interests of the Shqiptars, to misinform the reader and antagonize him towards the Serbs.
    The chapter “Orientation: places, names and peoples”
    The intention behind this chapter is to prove the geographical compactness of “Kosovo”, that is of Kosovo including the areas of both the Kosovo Field (Kosovo Polje) and Metohija, in order to justify the name “Kosovo” and make it possible to place the original homeland of the Sqiptars within such an artificially created area with seemingly logical explanations. However, Kosovo and Metohija are, historically, two geographically distinct areas. In prehistory, geographical location used to determine the expansion of certain cultures, that is of various ethnic entities. For instance, it is conspicuous that tombs and tumuli dating from the Bronze and Iron Ages are not to be found in Kosovo but only in Metohija.[1] There are two views of the borderlines between the subsequent Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Moesia. According to the older one, Metohija was a part of Dalmatia and, later, of the province of Praevalis, whereas Kosovo was a part of Moesia and the subsequent province of Dardania,[2] and this view is corroborated by the distribution of the tumuli. According to the more recent view, Metohija was a part of Moesia, then of Dardania.[3] In this respect, the evidence offered by the parallel existence of neighbouring archbishoprics is sufficiently telling. At the time of Emperor Basileus II (976-1025), Kosovo was a part of the Ulpiana bishopric, Bina?ka Morava of the Skoplje bishopric, and Metohija of the Prizren bishopric.[4] During the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries, in Metohija (Hvosno) the Studenica Eparchy was also functioning in addition to that in Prizren, whereas in Kosovo, in addition to the Skoplje and Gra?anica Eparchies (the latter succeeded the Ulpiana Eparchy), a bishopric at Zve?an functioned for some time.[5] In other words, from time immemorial, the predetermined administrative borderline ran between the basins of the Drin and Morava rivers, so that the common name for Kosovo and Metohija cannot be accounted for on historical-geographical grounds. The cultural homogeneousness of such distinct geographical areas as Kosovo and Metohija is reached only if they are inhabited by the same people within the boundaries of one and the same state.
    The chapter: “Origins: Serbs, Albanians and Vlachs”
    Writing this chapter, Malcolm does not use fundamental historical sources: he is not aware of Byzantine manuscript sources, not even of the works by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, let alone the Arab or Armenian texts. He does not use a single history of the Serb people or any work of the kind, not even most recent Western books pretending to present the early history of the Slavs and of South-Eastern Europe, whereas for him the precious Russian sources simply do not exist. The power belongs to the West, and so does all knowledge and the truth! According to Malcolm, the Serbs, originally living in the areas north and north-east of the Black Sea, lived in the fifth and sixth centuries in Bohemia and Saxony, and they came to the Balkans following the Croats; then the Serbs settled in the area of Rascia (Raška), where initially they had no social set-up resembling a state, but only a few tribal territories ruled by župans, etc. (pp. 23-24) Yet, even if long known manuscript sources and even more recent archeological findings are ignored, common sense and logic still remain commanding the conclusion that no people with a historical role like the one played the Serbs could have been shaped.
    Concealing the early history of the mediaeval Serb Principality, and thereby reducing the population of this people, which at the time was second in number in the South East after the Greeks, to a few županijas in Rascia (and it is known that later, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Rascia was a border region of Serbia), the author populates so obtained legal, historical and geographical areas. Malcolm claims that the area was inhabited by a large population speaking a Romance language, that it was gradually slavicized, and that the Serbs were spreading out to Kosovo not earlier than towards the end of the twelfth century (pp. 25-26). Malcolm grounds his claim that Kosovo and Metohija were not inhibited by the Serbs and Slavs by his own interpretation of the differences between the Serbo-Croat (in fact Serb) language and the Bulgarian-Macedonian (in fact the South-Slav) language. He goes on to argue that the area from the Morava river through Kosovo and Metohija and as far as the Adriatic coast, amounting to an area substantially larger then the few Rascian županijas, was inhabited by a native population, as allegedly ancient toponyms demonstrate. Malcolm illustrates this by giving instances of the names of major towns Naissus – Niš, and Scupi – Skoplje. In addition, he mentions the name of Lipljan, allegedly the Latin Lypenion, a name of which there is no record in ancient times but which was mentioned for the first time in Greek, in 1018, as “Lipenion”.[6] He cites the place name Puku, allegedly deriving from via publica (26-27). This is neither speculation nor guesswork, but a fabrication serving to promote a definite purpose. Malcolm does not ethimologize using place-names recorded in the documents of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, such as the already mentioned Lipljan, Prizren or Zve?an, let alone the toponyms recorded in the documents in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Many of those toponyms, preserved down to our day, point to the Serb population there in the times substantially preceding the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, for example: Balvan’; Igriš?e – S’bor’sko – Zborce – Gumni?te; Kobila glava – Kobilja glava; Rosulje – Rosulja, etc.[7]
    Stating his views of the origin of the population of Kosovo and Metohija, Malcolm goes on to say that the Slavs, namely the Bulgarian Slavs (p. 27), are present there only since the beginning of the eleventh century and down to the Byzantine occupation of 1018. Not a word about the Bulgarian raids on Serbia!
    Then he attempts to demonstrate, relying solely on philological evidence, that the Albanians are the autochthonous population of Kosovo and Metohija (p. 30). He tries to establish the links between the Albanian and Illyrian languages, in spite of the fact that the Illyrian language has not survived in its written form, as well as between the Albanian and the Thracian language. He demonstrates those links with a forced interpretation of hydronyms, toponyms and ethnonyms from pre-Roman times, and does that using contemporary Albanian words, which is unlicensed to such an extent that his interpretations become absurd. He links the name of the river Mat with the Albanian word for “river-bank” – “mat” – though it is a nonsense to call a river a “bank”. The place-name “Ulcinj” he translates with the Albanian word for “wolf” – “ujk”, “ulk”, though it’s a nonsense to name a sea coast town after a forest beast. Finally, he links the name of “Dardania” to the Albanian “dardhe” – “pear” (p. 32), though a few pages later he links it to a cheese perculiar for Dardania (p. 40), which calls for no comment. Further on, he argues, once again on the basis of linguistics, that the Albanians originally did not live at the sea side (what about Ulcinj?), and points to the areas in the hinterland, that is to say to Kosovo and Metohija (p. 34). His speculations needlessly include the Bessi (pp. 35-37), whom he excludes as the possible ancestors of the Albanians, one can assume in order to support the illusion that his approach is objective. At length he draws the conclusion that after a “Slav invasion” into the Upper Morava basin, in northern Macedonia, in “Kosovo” (and in Metohija), as well as in a part of Montenegro, a population of Latin speech continued to live from which the Albanians and the Vlachs originated, who were later driven out by the Slavs and Serbs (pp. 39-40).
    Let us discuss, in a quite cursory manner afforded by available space, the archeological data corroborating the possible origin of the Sqiptars namely Albanians. Right away it can said that there are no essential links between the fifth and seventh centuries population of Kosovo and Metohija with the Sqiptars. The necropolises dating from those times are characterized by an absence of inventory, or they contain findings characteristic of the Roman provinces as far as the Danube border (Ulpiana, Bela Crkva).[8] The seventh, eighth and ninth centuries natives or the population of predominantly Latin, Hellenic or Illyrian origins, can be identified only on the basis of the graves in littoral towns such as Dra?, Lješ and Sva?.[9] In other words, precisely in the areas alien to the Albanian language, due to the absence of originally Albanian expressions characteristic of the littoral. Those necropolises contained Byzantine women’s jewelry, belt-buckles, a few clay jugs, and seldom objects of other cultures such as the Slav clasps.
    To this period also belongs the Koman culture, an interesting culture identifiable by its graves containing distinct objects, which was situated between Lake Ohrid and Lake Skadar, that is in the mountainous areas between the littoral and the fertile areas of Zeta, Metohija, Kosovo and the Vardar Valley.[10] This culture is identified as a distinct culture by its jewelry – its earrings with flat pendants ending with stars, stiff necklaces, large arch-shaped buckles with their pins bent down and shaping a horned head; in warriors’ equipment it is distinguished by shoulder strap loops, sometimes bearing human images, then by axes, etc. In jewelry there are pieces of Byzantine origin – rings, ear-rings, belt buckles. Here and there late Slav clasps are also encountered. The cultural and geographical origin of these objects is varied. The axes and stiff necklaces are similar to the findings from chronologically close or contemporaneous graves of the Croats, or from those of the Bulgarian Danube basin and the area extending as far as the Caucasus regions; the strap loops were used by various nomadic tribes of Asiatic origin in the area extending from Pannonia as far as the Ural Mountains and Caucasus; the clasps are closest in shape to those used by the Romans from the Danube basin inhabiting the steppes in the Black Sea littoral; the Byzantine jewelry was procured at the coast, but some of its pieces are Pannonian in origin.[11] Everything points to a mixture of peoples originating in the East, concentrating in Pannonia which, led by Kuver, came down to the South towards the end of the seventh century and settled in New Epirus.[12] Their settling in a mountainous area shows that they came from the mountains, perhaps from the northern slopes of the Caucasus. Apart from the disagreements in the interpretations of the Koman culture, it is essential that the necropolises of that culture differ from contemporaneous necropolises in the littoral. That testifies that there existed two different populations – that the population in the littoral was autochthonous, whereas that in the mountainous hinterland was made up of newcomers.
    Proceeding with his discussion of the origin of the people which he calls the Albanians, Malcolm finds that they never in the past described themselves using that name but, as an exception, in the fifteenth century Italy, described themselves as Arbëresch (p. 29). In passing, in a note, he mentions the hypothesis concerning the Albania in the Balkans and the Albania in the Caucasus, but dismisses it because allegedly there are no connections between the two areas. This claim is unfounded, because both Albanias were close to the borders of one and the same state, Byzantium. The Albania situated within present-day Azerbaijan, mentioned by that name by Ptolemy, was referred to during the middle and latter Middle Ages as “Albania”, “Agwank”, “Aluank”, “Arran”, ar-Ran”.[13] A Latin map from 1482 shows an “Albania” in the territory of Azerbaijan. It is assumed that long ago it was inhabited by the Gargarians, but it is on record that in the Caucasus also lived wild warlike tribes and that some of them moved with their cattle down to lower areas. In addition, in the Vaspurkan province of Armenia there is a district called Arberani. On the border of Armenia, Byzantium and Persia, there was a fortress called Marde, Mardis, and that brings us closer to the Mardaits, warlike mountain tribesmen who used to change their masters, so that they were often displaced.[14] The late Jovan Kova?evi? connected this tribe with the Mardits.[15] The Arbanes in New Epirus were first mentioned in the eleventh century.[16] Soon after, the Turks invaded the areas east of the Caucasus and settled in Agvank, the present-day Azerbaijan, causing recorded and on recorded migration of various tribes. It is quite possible that the Arberans then escaped to Byzantium, which allowed them to settle in the areas north of the Salonika-Dra? road, reinforcing Byzantium’s border with Serbia. It is a matter of time when individual archeological findings from Albania will be linked to those late comers from Asia.[17]
    It is evident that the ancestors of the Albanians, a nation formed in our time, are various tribes of Asian extraction who, arriving between the seventh and eleventh century in the mountainous areas of the present-day Albania, were mixed with the Slavs inhabiting that undulating strip and with the population of Latin and partly Greek speech living in the coastal towns. Hence the philologically based claim that modern Albanians are autochthonous in origin is not grounded.
    The chapter: “Medieval Kosovo before Prince Lazar: 850s-1380s”
    Noel Malcolm possesses no real knowledge of Kosovo and Metohija between 850. and 1166: there was no Serbian state there, but there were a Bulgarian and Byzantine state; that area is the soil of the Greek Church, but the Albanians stick to the Roman Latin Church; king Stefan the First-Crowned regains Prizren, so the Serbs are the conquerors of Kosovo and Metohija from the end of the twelfth century to the early thirteenth century (pp. 41-44).
    As shown by Aleksandar Loma and others, the Kosovo Battle was not just a battle but a predetermined battle, one of those battles deciding the fate of a people for many centuries to come.[18] The very place where the battle took place was not chosen at random. The central divide and at once the primaeval crossroads and centre of the Balkan Peninsula is situated at the south end of the Kosovo Field. From the mountain saddles between Štimlje and Suva Reka the waters flow down westwards to Metohija and further on to the Adriatic Sea, and eastwards to the Kosovo Field, where they, coming from the same springs, flow both towards the Aegean and Black Seas. That bifurcation, in the outskirts of Uroševac, was a result of man-made dams and river beds; a branch of the Nerodimka river flows northwards emptying its waters into Svr?in Lake and then by way of the Sitnica river into the Ibar and then Morava rivers, whereas its other branch flows to the south discharging itself, by way of the Lepenac river, into the Vardar river. It is there that the royal palaces of the Serbs are concentrated: Svr?in, Pauni, Nerodimlje and Štimlje, and, not very far from them, Priština, and Ribnik near Prizren.[19] Let my remind that the Serbs did not have particular cities as their capitals, but that their capitals were where the sovereign had his residence or where annual communal assemblies (sabors) were held. Why did the Serbs choose for their palaces and sabors the south of the Kosovo Field and its central divide becomes clear in the light of the fact that the country from which the Serbs had come to the Balkan Peninsula,[20] Bojka, was situated along a similar divide and crossroads. The Bojkis even today live in Galicia, at the devide between the Black Sea in the east (with the Danube basin in the south, the basins of the Siret, Southern Bug and Dniester in the east, and that of the Dnieper in the north) and the Baltic Sea (the basin of the Vistula, San and Western Bug). That is why Kosovo could serve as the communal annual assemblies (saborna) area of the Serbs since their settling there in the 7th century and in the latter Middle Ages, under the Nemanji? dynasty and Prince Lazar. In other words, in 1389 the Turks attacked the heart and crossroads of the Serbian state, the area of its capitals.
    According to the record by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, it is assumed that the town of Destinik, the first in his list of the Serb towns, was located somewhere in Metohija.[21] A comparison with the list of Croatian towns contained in the same record, in which the first mentioned town, Nin, was the seat of the bishop,[22] one can assume that the most important Serb town in the 10th century was Destinik in Metohija. The Nemanjid period shrines of the Pe? Patriarchate are grouped round a modest, earlier church, that of St. Apostles. It must be evident to the lover of the truth that this church must have been of particular significance for the Serbs since the seat of the Archbishop was precisely there and not in some more monumental monastery selected by the Nemanjids. Long ago in the foundations of the Patriarchate of Pe? temples the remnants of a large church were found which have not been archeologically examined but are dated two construction stages before the Nemanjids, that goes as far back as the period between seventh and tenth and eleventh and twelfth centuries.[23] The Serbian bishopric seat was probably there prior to the Bulgarian and Byzantine conquests. That accounts for the wish of Serbian aristocracy to spend the last days of their lives as monks in metohs founded by themselves in the vicinity. Is it possible that a people of such a developed ancestral cult as the Serbs would move their spiritual centre to an allegedly occupied territory as Malcolm would have it? There is no historical precedent for such an act, and Metohija and Kosovo are really the seminal areas of the Serbs.
    One-day archeological excavations in the mountain of Ostrovica between Prizren and Sirini?ka Župa unveiled gromile, or characteristic Serb medieval monuments to honour the dead dating from the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries approximately,[24] along with the church in the foundations of the Patriarchate of Pe?. To the period of Bulgarian and Samuilo’s raids on Serbia in the ninth and tenth centuries belongs the pottery collection found in bordering fortresses at the border and in destroyed monasteries. The most important in it is a fragment of a tenth century jug found in ?e?an. It bears the sign of its volume in the Glagolitsa – number six; that jug served for wine tax payment.[25] The record being in the Glagolitsa and not in the Cyrillic alphabet, the area of Kosovo must have been a part of Kosovo, since at that time the Cyrillic alphabet was already the official writing. Archeological excavations, establishing that the ancient fortresses in ?e?an and Veletin were re-vitalized, revealed identifiable findings intended to ward off the ivasionas coming from the East.[26] The existence of a stratum containing contemporaneous pottery at the sites of the Studenica of Hvostno (Studenica Hvostanska) and the Prizren Church of the Archangels (Arhandjeli Prizrenski) shows that the monasteries in Metohija were devastated at the same time.[27]
    It is the general view that Serbia fell to Byzantium after 1018, though this claim is not backed up by reliable evidence. Malcolm and some other authors think that the Kosovo Field and Metohija were conquered by Byzantium at that time, but according to written sources, that it is true only for the area of Lipljan, that is for Kosovo.[28] It is possible that the only known Byzantine commander of “Serbia” of that time in fact governed only Kosovo and some neighbouring areas.[29]
    There is definite historical and geographical evidence of Kosovo and Metohija in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. After the town of Destinik, which was referred to in the mid-tenth century, in the early eleventh century Lipljan and Prizren are mentioned. It is to Prizren that later, in 1072, Slav representatives came from the conquered Bulgaria and Serb eastern areas, to attend the coronation of the Serbian prince Bodin.[30] After that, towards the end of the twelfth century, Anna Comnina, counting the entire Kosovo as Serbia, establishes the border towards Byzantium along the mountain range east of the Kosovo Field.[31]
    The presence of the Serbian population in Kosovo and Metohija is demonstrated even more reliably by archeological findings, though they are scarce. Serb pottery from the eleventh century was found on many sites, mainly in Kosovo, in Gra?anica, Ulpiana, Zaskok, Banjska, etc.[32] In Mati?ani near Priština an eleventh century graveyard was examined displaying some older findings.[33] Several graves near Badovci and Gra?anica that were studied belong to the same period.[34] However, it happens that another examined grave, that in Pr?evo in Metohija, established at approximately the same time, was continually used until the twelfth, and perhaps even in the thirteenth century.[35] This reveals a different fate of Metohija. In Metohija there were no displacements of necropolises during the Serbo-Byzantine wars towards the end of the eleventh centuries. The jewelry found in the mentioned graves is Slav in origin. It is wrought in the Byzantine technique of filigree, has the shapes distinct from those of Bulgaria or the Morava basin, and it is to be found on various sites as far as Knin (primarily the earrings with four blackberries and conic cherries), which points to its use by the Serbs.
    Judging by jewelry findings, a series of necropolises was established under Byzantine rule during the twelfth century. They are Vrbnica and Djonaj near Prizren, Široko near Suva Reka, Vlaštica and Velikince near Gnjilane, So?anica, but no contemporaneous necropolises have been found in Kosovo. The use of these cemeteries ceased around the middle of the thirteenth century. As the jewelry shows, the necropolises were used by the Serb or Slav population during Byzantine rule, but one is struck by the absence of Byzantine coins found in contemporaneous necropolises extending from our Danube areas as far as Macedonia.[36] Since it is on record that in the twelfth century Constantinople appointed a number of Serb župani administrators of westernmost areas of Byzantium, it is possible that that was the case with the areas of Metohija and Kosovo too.[37] The jewelry from these necropolises in Metohija and Kosovo alike, is characteristic both of central and eastern areas of the Balkan Peninsula (earrings with biconic strawberries, bracelets made of interwoven wire, etc.),[38] and of its western areas (earrings with one or more granular joints).[39] All eleventh and twelfth centuries archeological findings point to Serb and generally Slav population.
    During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Nemanyides reconstruct old temples, those built during Byzantine occupation (Gra?anica, Lipljan, etc.) as well as older ones functioning in the ninth and tenth centuries (the Studenica of Hvosto, the Pe? Patriarchate, probably the temple in Prizren, Banjska), which also proves the continuity of the Serb population.[40]
    Conclusion
    The gromile and toponyms such as “Igrište” seem to indicate that Metohija and Kosovo, as well as the areas farther to the east and south, were integrated into the Serb lands not later than the seventh century. It is possible that there lived other Slavs or autochthonous population, but this has not been supported by convincing evidence. The Field of Kosovo attracted the Serbs by its situation at a divide, its fitness for cattle-breeding, for summer settlements and agriculture. It was then that Christianization of the Serbs was completed, which accounts for the continual existence of some Hellenic temples since ancient times down to the time of the Nemanyides. It seems certain that one of the most significant centres of Serb evangelization was Metohija, thanks to Dra?. Owing to natural and geographical circumstances, this area, situated south-east of Serb lands, became the core of the Serb state. That is why it the largest Serb churches and their greatest number are to be found there, including the seat of the Serb bishopric, the centre of the Glagolitic writing, places of assembly (zborišta) and the palaces between seventh and tenth centuries. The uncontroversial conquest by tzar Simeon and tzar Samuilo has not archeologically shown any population change yet. Byzantium under Basil II takes Kosovo, and under Alexius I Metohija and Kosovo once again; though a displacement of necropolises ensues, including displacement of their settlements, the population remains unchanged. After the liberation of those areas from Byzantium, no changes in the situation of the necropolises or settlements and sanctuaries were found, which demonstrates the continuity of the population. On the other hand, archeological and written records prove that the ancestors of the Albanians, coming from Asia, settle in the mountainous areas between the Drin river and the Adriatic littoral between the seventh and eleventh centuries.
    In other words, the early chapters of Malcolm’s book, dealing with the pre-Nemanjid past of Kosovo and Metohija, are totally untrustworthy; all his speculations are wrong, like those of his models, as shown by all available evidence. Even if the propositions presented in this paper are discarded (though they are not grounded on fictions but on available archeological findings), it becomes crystal clear that, among the tens of archeological sites and hundreds of artifacts in the area of Kosovo and Metohija dating from the age before the Nemanjids, identified positively as expressing Serb or generally Slav characteristics, there is not a single finding that can be attributed to ancestors of medieval Albanians.

  147. Prof. Djordje Jankovi?, Ph.D
    Archaeological department. Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade University
    MIDDLE AGES IN NOEL MALCOLM’S
    “KOSOVO. A SHORT HISTORY”
    AND REAL FACTS
    The chapter: “Origins: Serbs, Albanians and Vlachs”
    Writing this chapter, Malcolm does not use fundamental historical sources: he is not aware of Byzantine manuscript sources, not even of the works by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, let alone the Arab or Armenian texts. He does not use a single history of the Serb people or any work of the kind, not even most recent Western books pretending to present the early history of the Slavs and of South-Eastern Europe, whereas for him the precious Russian sources simply do not exist. The power belongs to the West, and so does all knowledge and the truth! According to Malcolm, the Serbs, originally living in the areas north and north-east of the Black Sea, lived in the fifth and sixth centuries in Bohemia and Saxony, and they came to the Balkans following the Croats; then the Serbs settled in the area of Rascia (Raška), where initially they had no social set-up resembling a state, but only a few tribal territories ruled by župans, etc. (pp. 23-24) Yet, even if long known manuscript sources and even more recent archeological findings are ignored, common sense and logic still remain commanding the conclusion that no people with a historical role like the one played the Serbs could have been shaped.
    Concealing the early history of the mediaeval Serb Principality, and thereby reducing the population of this people, which at the time was second in number in the South East after the Greeks, to a few županijas in Rascia (and it is known that later, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Rascia was a border region of Serbia), the author populates so obtained legal, historical and geographical areas. Malcolm claims that the area was inhabited by a large population speaking a Romance language, that it was gradually slavicized, and that the Serbs were spreading out to Kosovo not earlier than towards the end of the twelfth century (pp. 25-26). Malcolm grounds his claim that Kosovo and Metohija were not inhibited by the Serbs and Slavs by his own interpretation of the differences between the Serbo-Croat (in fact Serb) language and the Bulgarian-Macedonian (in fact the South-Slav) language. He goes on to argue that the area from the Morava river through Kosovo and Metohija and as far as the Adriatic coast, amounting to an area substantially larger then the few Rascian županijas, was inhabited by a native population, as allegedly ancient toponyms demonstrate. Malcolm illustrates this by giving instances of the names of major towns Naissus – Niš, and Scupi – Skoplje. In addition, he mentions the name of Lipljan, allegedly the Latin Lypenion, a name of which there is no record in ancient times but which was mentioned for the first time in Greek, in 1018, as “Lipenion”.[6] He cites the place name Puku, allegedly deriving from via publica (26-27). This is neither speculation nor guesswork, but a fabrication serving to promote a definite purpose. Malcolm does not ethimologize using place-names recorded in the documents of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, such as the already mentioned Lipljan, Prizren or Zve?an, let alone the toponyms recorded in the documents in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Many of those toponyms, preserved down to our day, point to the Serb population there in the times substantially preceding the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, for example: Balvan’; Igriš?e – S’bor’sko – Zborce – Gumni?te; Kobila glava – Kobilja glava; Rosulje – Rosulja, etc.[7]
    Stating his views of the origin of the population of Kosovo and Metohija, Malcolm goes on to say that the Slavs, namely the Bulgarian Slavs (p. 27), are present there only since the beginning of the eleventh century and down to the Byzantine occupation of 1018. Not a word about the Bulgarian raids on Serbia!
    Then he attempts to demonstrate, relying solely on philological evidence, that the Albanians are the autochthonous population of Kosovo and Metohija (p. 30). He tries to establish the links between the Albanian and Illyrian languages, in spite of the fact that the Illyrian language has not survived in its written form, as well as between the Albanian and the Thracian language. He demonstrates those links with a forced interpretation of hydronyms, toponyms and ethnonyms from pre-Roman times, and does that using contemporary Albanian words, which is unlicensed to such an extent that his interpretations become absurd. He links the name of the river Mat with the Albanian word for “river-bank” – “mat” – though it is a nonsense to call a river a “bank”. The place-name “Ulcinj” he translates with the Albanian word for “wolf” – “ujk”, “ulk”, though it’s a nonsense to name a sea coast town after a forest beast. Finally, he links the name of “Dardania” to the Albanian “dardhe” – “pear” (p. 32), though a few pages later he links it to a cheese perculiar for Dardania (p. 40), which calls for no comment. Further on, he argues, once again on the basis of linguistics, that the Albanians originally did not live at the sea side (what about Ulcinj?), and points to the areas in the hinterland, that is to say to Kosovo and Metohija (p. 34). His speculations needlessly include the Bessi (pp. 35-37), whom he excludes as the possible ancestors of the Albanians, one can assume in order to support the illusion that his approach is objective. At length he draws the conclusion that after a “Slav invasion” into the Upper Morava basin, in northern Macedonia, in “Kosovo” (and in Metohija), as well as in a part of Montenegro, a population of Latin speech continued to live from which the Albanians and the Vlachs originated, who were later driven out by the Slavs and Serbs (pp. 39-40).
    Let us discuss, in a quite cursory manner afforded by available space, the archeological data corroborating the possible origin of the Sqiptars namely Albanians. Right away it can said that there are no essential links between the fifth and seventh centuries population of Kosovo and Metohija with the Sqiptars. The necropolises dating from those times are characterized by an absence of inventory, or they contain findings characteristic of the Roman provinces as far as the Danube border (Ulpiana, Bela Crkva).[8] The seventh, eighth and ninth centuries natives or the population of predominantly Latin, Hellenic or Illyrian origins, can be identified only on the basis of the graves in littoral towns such as Dra?, Lješ and Sva?.[9] In other words, precisely in the areas alien to the Albanian language, due to the absence of originally Albanian expressions characteristic of the littoral. Those necropolises contained Byzantine women’s jewelry, belt-buckles, a few clay jugs, and seldom objects of other cultures such as the Slav clasps.
    To this period also belongs the Koman culture, an interesting culture identifiable by its graves containing distinct objects, which was situated between Lake Ohrid and Lake Skadar, that is in the mountainous areas between the littoral and the fertile areas of Zeta, Metohija, Kosovo and the Vardar Valley.[10] This culture is identified as a distinct culture by its jewelry – its earrings with flat pendants ending with stars, stiff necklaces, large arch-shaped buckles with their pins bent down and shaping a horned head; in warriors’ equipment it is distinguished by shoulder strap loops, sometimes bearing human images, then by axes, etc. In jewelry there are pieces of Byzantine origin – rings, ear-rings, belt buckles. Here and there late Slav clasps are also encountered. The cultural and geographical origin of these objects is varied. The axes and stiff necklaces are similar to the findings from chronologically close or contemporaneous graves of the Croats, or from those of the Bulgarian Danube basin and the area extending as far as the Caucasus regions; the strap loops were used by various nomadic tribes of Asiatic origin in the area extending from Pannonia as far as the Ural Mountains and Caucasus; the clasps are closest in shape to those used by the Romans from the Danube basin inhabiting the steppes in the Black Sea littoral; the Byzantine jewelry was procured at the coast, but some of its pieces are Pannonian in origin.[11] Everything points to a mixture of peoples originating in the East, concentrating in Pannonia which, led by Kuver, came down to the South towards the end of the seventh century and settled in New Epirus.[12] Their settling in a mountainous area shows that they came from the mountains, perhaps from the northern slopes of the Caucasus. Apart from the disagreements in the interpretations of the Koman culture, it is essential that the necropolises of that culture differ from contemporaneous necropolises in the littoral. That testifies that there existed two different populations – that the population in the littoral was autochthonous, whereas that in the mountainous hinterland was made up of newcomers.
    Proceeding with his discussion of the origin of the people which he calls the Albanians, Malcolm finds that they never in the past described themselves using that name but, as an exception, in the fifteenth century Italy, described themselves as Arbëresch (p. 29). In passing, in a note, he mentions the hypothesis concerning the Albania in the Balkans and the Albania in the Caucasus, but dismisses it because allegedly there are no connections between the two areas. This claim is unfounded, because both Albanias were close to the borders of one and the same state, Byzantium. The Albania situated within present-day Azerbaijan, mentioned by that name by Ptolemy, was referred to during the middle and latter Middle Ages as “Albania”, “Agwank”, “Aluank”, “Arran”, ar-Ran”.[13] A Latin map from 1482 shows an “Albania” in the territory of Azerbaijan. It is assumed that long ago it was inhabited by the Gargarians, but it is on record that in the Caucasus also lived wild warlike tribes and that some of them moved with their cattle down to lower areas. In addition, in the Vaspurkan province of Armenia there is a district called Arberani. On the border of Armenia, Byzantium and Persia, there was a fortress called Marde, Mardis, and that brings us closer to the Mardaits, warlike mountain tribesmen who used to change their masters, so that they were often displaced.[14] The late Jovan Kova?evi? connected this tribe with the Mardits.[15] The Arbanes in New Epirus were first mentioned in the eleventh century.[16] Soon after, the Turks invaded the areas east of the Caucasus and settled in Agvank, the present-day Azerbaijan, causing recorded and on recorded migration of various tribes. It is quite possible that the Arberans then escaped to Byzantium, which allowed them to settle in the areas north of the Salonika-Dra? road, reinforcing Byzantium’s border with Serbia. It is a matter of time when individual archeological findings from Albania will be linked to those late comers from Asia.[17]
    It is evident that the ancestors of the Albanians, a nation formed in our time, are various tribes of Asian extraction who, arriving between the seventh and eleventh century in the mountainous areas of the present-day Albania, were mixed with the Slavs inhabiting that undulating strip and with the population of Latin and partly Greek speech living in the coastal towns. Hence the philologically based claim that modern Albanians are autochthonous in origin is not grounded.

  148. @ “It’s all Greek to you” & “Philippos”:
    You may have seen that I included Cope, who, – at least that’s my understanding – is on the other side.
    Calling other bloggers “fools”, “charlatans”, “idiots”, “illiterates”, “morons with an IQ below 62” and “ciganos” (which is racist slur for the Roma population) is well beyond the limits of what we are ready to tolerate on this platform.
    This is my last comment on this.

  149. @Philippos

    So basically, this guy used archives in Paris, Washington, London, Rome, Vienna (and many other sources) to back up his writing and you are trying to discredit him because he used too many sources and because he is controversial in what he says in a topic that has no relation in what is being discussed here and because you don’t agree with what he says? Anything to say for the other authors Richard mentioned? Or are you still trying to find something controversial (I’m sorry, I mean forged) by those as well.

    And you always seem to discredit Macedonian authors as biased or pure propaganda? Does no Macedonian author/linguist/historian have any credibility in what they say? (Except for Kiro Gligorov who you love to quote at every opportunity)

    Also, I doubt you read the whole thing you managed to copy/paste. Either that or you agree with everything that was said in what you copy/pasted. I think you might have failed to notice the mention of Macedonian language sources there, which surprisingly wasn’t changed to Skopian, Bulgarian dialect or FYROMian. Does that mean you agree with the reference to a Macedonia language and for that matter accept that it exists and is distinct from Bulgarian?

    Well, here is where you begin your journey at nitpicking… again.

    “3.we didnt mean any disrespect to anyone,”

    Referring to Macedonians as Skopians, Slavomacedonias, Bulgarians and/or FYROMians is disrespectful. Here is why.

    Skopians: The capital of the country is Skopje, not Skpopia. So first, you are continuously mis-spelling the capitals name. You are using it to refer to the all inhabitants of the Republic of Macedonia. What of the other Macedonians who do not live in Skopje. You disrespect them by doing this. Applying a name to be used only for the name of the people who come from or live in the capital and using it to refer to the people of the whole country.

    Slavomacedonians: You don’t use Slavoserbians, or Slavobulgarians when you refer to other nations of Slavic culture. Again, you use this term to refer to the whole Macedonian population. What about the Turks, Roma, Serbs, Albanians that live in the country. You are excluding them when you use that term.

    Bulgarians: Well, this is self explanatory. We’re not Bulgarians.

    FYROMians: FYROM is not a word to which you can add -ian and make it an ethnicity or the word for which to refer to the people of Macedonia. FYROM is the incorrect use of the reference for Macedonia within the UN. I’ve explained before why and how, I don’t plan to do so again. Nonetheless, disrespectful.

    And many more such as Slavoskopians, Vardsrskans, Monkeydonians and so on and on.

    Yes, ugly words were used by other users in regards to the Greeks and Greece (not by me), but that doesn’t excuse your use of the same.

  150. Bojan,

    long time non hearing from u…
    you deliberately skipped the first part of what I said in relation to M.Noel and his views on slavs. My reference ( obviously pretty annoying for u!) on his book on Cosovo was just an indication of how unreliable a book can be when is based on inaccurate historical facts…as the two professors I have mentioned clearly demonstrate that M.Noel ignores basic facts in his approach, while he is not taking into account basic historical facts which unavoidably lead into an essential, methodological and professional failure of his book.

    here is what u forgot to comment on…
    admire a man (m.NOEL) who bases his figure conclusions on anthropologists!!!!
    A. As regards his position on the slavs in Greece I must note that:
    The theory of Noel Malcolm, the observer who prepared the chapter on Greece for the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, is in no less problematic than that of Siesby and Whitman. He seems to accept that race and language determine ethnicity (see pp. 1-2). On these grounds Slavophones in northern Greece (whose “ancestors came to this part of the Balkans in the Slav migrations of the sixth and seventh centuries”) are classified willy-nilly as “Macedonians” (potentially a FYROM national minority in Greece)10.
    Malcolm’s obvious partiality to FYROM on the question of identities is not an exceptional phenomenon in his report. Unlike Siesby and Whitman, he has made clear that he relies more comfortably on FYROM sources regarding figures as well. Thus he considers as the “most careful estimate” of the population in 1912, that furnished by historian Stoyan Kiselinofski11. Malcolm also draws figures from the same author for the inter-war period and the departure of Slav-speakers to the north after the Greek Civil War12. Additional examples also reveal his uncritical handling of data. Dimitris Lithoxoou13, a leading member of the “Rainbow” (claiming to be an “ethnic Macedonian” party in Greece) has calculated that the number of Slav-speakers in a certain region of Greek Macedonia in 1951 was 3.5 times higher than that given by the official census14. Based on that calculation Malcolm went as far as to claim (p. 6) that the total number of Slav-speakers in the whole of Greek Macedonia was 3.5 higher, that is 140,000 instead of the official 41,000. Even Mr Lithoxoou, however, has been more cautious in dealing with figures. As far as the present size of the minority is concerned his verdict is that it must be ranging between 40,000 and 100,000. These figures are based on two social anthropologists: The former is an anonymous one, which, according to Malcolm, mentions a core of 40-70,000 “ethnic Macedonians” and an associated circle of roughly 100,000. The latter is A. Karakasidou, who wrote that 80% of the population of the Florina region are either Slav-speakers or descendants of Slav-speakers15. Two points must be made here: why are anthropologists considered by Malcolm a reliable source for figures? In fact Karakasidou mentioned explicitly that this percentage is not official and used the conditional form (”I would estimate”) probably to express some doubt. But even if her figure wa s right, to move to the second point, descending from Slav-speakers does not make one necessarily an “ethnic Macedonian”.

    also Bojan some time ago u forgot to comment on this ….to BOJAN…. oh.. Bojan

    you forgot the most important word my dear Bojan… ALEXANDROS the purest Greek word in the world meaning ALEX:protect, protector, ANDROS: man,men. ALEXANDROS: protector of men, you see it speaks for itslef that Alexander the Great was Greek!!
    Other modern Greek words derived from the prefix alex… Alexisfero: bulletproof, alexikeravno…etc.
    If u are inerested I will send u the names of 70 Macedonians who took part in Ancient olympics(the inscription is found in ancient Vergina) strangely enough for you they all had Greek names!!

    tace care Bojan

    PS. once you seem to be interested in Greek culture you should know that in the ancient olympics only the Greeks were allowed to take part.Thats why the macedonians participated.

  151. as regards your comment on the macedonian language yes , what is nowadays called macedonian language surely exists…it was baptised by Tito’s regime and it is classified as a slavic language with great similarities to the bulgarian language!
    It clearly proves that U R of slavic origin having no connexion whatsoever with ancient macedonians…end of the story!!

  152. to Richard,

    studying economics and modern languages in Cambridge surely doesnt make you neither a scholar nor an expert in history Mr Hill!
    Your arrogant stance towards the scholars of Cambridge and Oxford shows clearly who u really are! Let historians write history! you dont have the credentials in doing so!
    People who have been spending their whole lives doing their Phd’s in classical studies, holding academic posts in top universities are more likely than u to have drawn the right conclusions!!

  153. Blogmaster

    Just before you go. While totally agree that dragging the Roma with slurs as ciganos etc is highly unacceptable and unfair this was not what I have done and on many occasions I have pointed out this racist FYROMian attitude has to stop! So telling this to me is very misplaced to say the least! On the other hand I will continue to strongly oppose ideas and demeaning concepts for us Greeks many of which covertly or overtly included in Richard’s origibal posting without this fact registering on your Radar screen! I have pffer my disagreement and displeasure so in a entirely civilised and I believe friendly manner way too! So My astonishment in including me is thoroughly justified and as yet un-ansered!
    As for the word Charlatan I find your objections wrong. How on Earth one can characterise individuals, supposedly academics and Institutions that seem to have ‘prove’ with Irwin-like arguments beyond ‘reasonable doubt’ that Ancient Macedonians have nothing to do with Greece and Athat lexander the Great was in fact a proto-Slav! How on Earth can someone can characterise those who assume that the Arvanites were a PURE Albanian race when, when they fought and shead their blood fora a Free Greece and not a Free Albania when they had the choice to do just that!!And how on earth one can characterise someone that with this and volumes of other strong evidence can even question the impecable credentials of Greece claiming the unrefutabe CULTURAL continuity and direct linage to Hellenism! And I speak of CULTURAL not RACIAL as the latter is a NON term as many of Richard’s compatriots or Germans or Feench or Spaniard or Italians may understand very well what I mean! You just have to see the many millions influx of North-Africans, Turkish, Indians, Slavs etc to frame it better!
    Not a ficticious RACIAL continuity was ever a pre-requisite for Greece to fully justify its claims and actions as so erroneously Richard implicitly assumes needed!
    And as this maybe my last contribution here (unless heavily provoked!) I have to reiterate once more! Macedonia its history culture and lands were always Greek. They still are and as long as we live we will protect them all!
    IT IS OUR RIGHT!!!!!!
    People better used to it! And as an indiginous Macedonian and an ethnic Greek I will say that no Hellenic goverment will ever have the endoresement the right and the desire for a sell-them out for the subject we discuss!

  154. another professor refuting Noel m. theories…showing how shallow his approach is!!
    Prof. Djordje Borozan, Ph. D
    Institute for Conteporary History
    Belgrade

    Malcolm’s View of Kosovo In the Twentieth Century

    In recent years we have been witnessing the proliferation, in the most influential national historiographies of the world, of a literature dealing with “the Kosovo issue” which, failing to approach the existing historiographic insights critically, and resorting to analogies, stereotypes and blanket statements, obscures the truth, complies with political propositions and displays its obsessive attraction by this topic, blurring the boundaryline between facts and their interpretation. The professional and scientific circles are now faced with Noel Malcolm`s Kosovo. A Short History, a book based on a dubious data in which the author tries, with an “intolerable ease” and scientific pretentiousness to present the history of Kosovo and centuries-old relationships between the Serbs and Albanians. The author’s conception shows a recognizable method of a biased approach to the topic and use of available evidence favouring the Albanian sources and references, and revealing ignorance or disregard of relevant archival evidence and historiographic literature by Serb and Yugoslav historians, particularly that published between 1912 and 1997.

  155. Phillipos,

    You seem to disagree with his assertion that language determines ethnicity and yet you take the same principle of language (Macedonian being a South Slavic language) and apply it to Macedonian ethnicity as in “because they speak Slavic, they are for that reason Slavs”.

    You seem to disagree with his assertion that language determines ethnicity and yet this is the very basis of the Greek claim that because Alexander the Great spoke Greek, he was thus, a Greek.

    You seem to disagree with his assertion that language determines ethnicity and yet you claim that because the whole population in Greece speaks Greek they are therefore, Greek.

    You seem to disagree with his assertions regarding language and yet you claim that because the name Alexander has a Greek origin (just like the very short list of countries I had mentioned above) he is therefore Greek.

    As far as what you mention regarding the Olympics, it is true, only Greeks were allowed to participate. Show me the list of Macedonians that did. No such list exists, because only the victors were mentioned. Now you will say that Alexander I participated because Herodotus mentioned that he did and managed to prove his Greek origin.
    If he participated, he did not win, since his name is not on the victors list. His managing to prove his Greek origin was only mentioned that he did, not how, and yet I could apply the same principle of politics (that you love to use for Demosthenes quote) at the time to say that it was purely a political move. To attest to this, is the fact that he participated as a Philhellen (friend or lover of Greeks) and was called a Barbarian by the crowd at the event. Several questions arise, which I know you would not want to ask yourself, and that is ok because you wouldn’t be you if you did so. Those questions are: why did he participate as a philhellen and not as a pure hellen? why was he called a barbarian by the people? why, despite the high esteem of the Greek scholars at the time, was it not known that this king of Macedonia was of Greek origin and had to prove that he is?

    What is annoying for me regarding what you say is that there are many others like you (whether clones of you on this thread or other Greeks) who are exactly like you. What do I mean by that? You are quick to assert certain things without following through. Example: you are quick to argue that Alexander III was Greek (all this based on language for that matter) without providing a continuity between the ancient Greeks and the modern Greeks, besides the similarity and if I dare say so, continuity of the Greek language (which was only in use as a church language until 1821). I am only annoyed at your person, not at what you say. I apologize if what I had said may have been insulting, I am only trying to convey my feelings to your above mentioned annoyance of mine.

    Oh and one last thing. If you are alright with calling the language that I speak Macedonian (whatever your belief as to the existence or creation of the language) why do you keep referring to the people by something other than the same (Macedonian) but rather you chose words such as FYROMian, Skopian, and so on?

  156. Bojan,

    my first observation is that I never claimed that language does not determine ethnicity quite the opposite actually! so your first points are not valid!!

    As regards the other questions you have set the answers r following… just be patient and take a few moments to read …
    it wasnt only Alexander the first…

    A. MACEDONIANS WHO TOOK PART IN THE OLYMPICS
    Macedonian King Alexander I, lover of Arts and friend of poet Pindar, participated in the 80th Olympiad of 460 BCE.
    He competed in the “Stadion” field event and was placed close second to the first runner.
    His participation marked not only the beginning of the involvement of Macedonians in the Olympics, but it also constituted the foundation of future Macedonian interaction with the other Greeks and, furthermore, had very far reaching effects on the future of Hellenism.

    Macedonians, who participated in the Olympics at Olympia, were as follows:

    · King Alexander I, in the 80th Olympics, in 460 BCE. He run the “Stadion” and was placed very close second.

    · King Arhelaos Perdikas, competed in the 93rd Olympics, in 408 BCE and won at Delphi the race of the four-horse chariot.

    · King Philip II was an Olympic champion three times. In the 106th Olympics, in 356 BCE, he won the race, riding his horse. In the 107th Olympics, in 352 BCE, he won the four-horse chariot race. In the 108th Olympics, in 348 BCE, he was the winner of the two colt chariot.

    · Cliton run the Stadion in the 113rd Olympics, in 328 BCE.

    · Damasias from Amphipolis won in the Stadion in the 115th Olympics, in 320 BCE.

    · Lampos from Philippi, was proclaimed a winner in the four-horse chariot race in the 119th Olympics, in 304 BCE.

    · Antigonos won in the Stadion race, in the 122nd Olympics, in 292 BCE and in the 123rd Olympics in 288 BCE.

    · Seleucos won in the field-sports competition in the 128th Olympics in 268 BCE.

    · During the 128th Olympics, in 268 BCE and in the 129th Olympics, in 264 BCE, a woman from Macedonia won the competition. Pausanias mentions that: “…it is said that the race of the two-colt chariot was won by a woman, named Velestihi from the seashores of Macedonia”.

    Pausanias mentions the Philippeion in Olympia: “In the grove there is the Records Building and an edifice called Phippeion…Philip built it after the battle at Chaeroneia…there are statues of Philip, of Alexander and Amyntas…there are pieces that were made of ivory and gold carved by Leoharus, just like the statues of Olympia and Euridice”. Also Pausanias points out that various statues were made by order as oblations and he mentions that: “representing the Macedonians, the inhabitants of Dion, a city by the Macedonian Pieria mountain range, had a statue made, which portrays Apollo holding a deer”.

    During the Vergina excavation a tripod was found, which is kept at the Museum of Thessaloniki, and carries the inscription: “I come from the Argos athletic competitions, the Heraia”. According to Archeology Professor Andronikos, the tripod belonged to the Macedonian King Alexander I and it was a family heirloom.

    King Arhelaos I (413-399 BC) established in Dion magnificent athletic competitions every two years “the Olympian Dion”, which lasted nine days, as it corresponded to the nine Pierian Muses, originating from the Macedonian mountain range Pieria. During these events ancient tragedies were presented. Arhelaos I organized the Macedonian Army, structured a transportation system and transferred the Capital from Aiges to Pella. In his court lived the tragic poet Agathon, the epic poet Horilos, the dithyramb writer Timotheos, the tragic poet Melanipidis and the doctor and son of Hippocrates Thessalos. Tragedian Euripides composed his tragedies Arhelaos and Bachae right in Arhelaos’s court. Euripides died and was buried in Macedonia.

    Three ancient Theaters were discovered in Macedonia; one is at Dion, dating back to the 5th century BCE; the second is at Vergina (Aegai) – 4th century BCE and the third at Philippi. Ancient plays used to be performed in these Theaters. At the Dion Theater, Euripides’ Bachae and Arhelaos were introduced for the first time.
    Some experts believe that Iphigeneia in Aulis was presented there. The theme of the play Arhelaos is associated with the migration of the Argive Timenidis, Prince of Macedonia and founder of the Royal House of Aegai.
    These tragedies, played in these Theaters, were written in the Greek language, since they were intended for Greek audience, the Macedonians.

    Dion, the sacred place of Macedonians, is one of the largest (about 4 acres) and most archeologically significant districts of Greece, featuring multifarious bath areas, taking up about 1 acre, with tiled floors, marble bathtubs, complete plumbing system (led and clay pipes) and lavish colonnaded tiled halls. A fact that has been overlooked is that Dion was also the center of intellectual competitions and therefore the birth place of the cultural Olympics.

    AND AS U MENTIONED HERODOTUS LETS CLARIFY SOME MORE THINGS… HERE u will find some ancient qoutations and their interpretations by scholars experts in the field of macedonian history!!

    Alexander I of Macedon in Olympics

    Quote:

    XXII. Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, AS THEY THEMSELVES SAY, I MYSELF CHANCE TO KNOW AND WILL PROVE IT in the later part of my history. Furthermore, the Hellenodicae who manage the contest at Olympia determined that it is so, [2] for when Alexander chose to contend and entered the lists for that purpose, the Greeks who were to run against him wanted to bar him from the race, saying that the contest should be for Greeks and not for foreigners. Alexander, however, proving himself to be an Argive, was judged to be a Greek. He accordingly competed in the furlong race and tied step for first place. This, then, is approximately what happened.

    Firstly, we should examine who exactly were the “Hellanodikae” and their responsibilities.

    Hellanodikai had unlimited responsibilities that could be seperated in two parts, administrative and judicial. As Administrative tool, Hellanodikai had also first of all, the responsibility of applying the rules in reference to the athletes, among them to check if an athlete met all the necessary participation requirements like Alexander’s Philhellene case.

    “Distinctively dressed in puprple robes and allowed the priviledge of elevated seating (while others sat on the ground or stood), the Hellanodikai admitted or excluded competitors, assigned them to Age-classes,…”

    [Sport in the Ancient World from A to Z] by Mark Golden

    “the people who shared in the Greek ethnic identity were the people who perceived themselves to be Greeks, and whose self-perception was shared by those who had the dominant role in ‘controlling” the boundaries of Greekness, such as, in the fifth century, the Hellanodikai who controlled participation in the Olympic games“

    [Herodotus and his world, Essays from a conference in memory of George Forrest] By Robert Parker, Peter Derow

    —————————————————————-

    Knowing by now exactly their responsibilities we will try and analyze the above quote of Herodotus.

    1. First thing coming in mind is why didnt Hellanodikae, the ones having the dominant role in ‘controlling” the boundaries of Greekness of an athlete, excluded Alexander in first place?? It is indicative that initialy ONLY the other athletes protested and NOT Hellanodikae. In reality, Hellanodikae – whose judgement was considered sacred – were the ones that should forbid in the first place, participation of Alexander I if they thought he was a Barbarian.

    Evidently that was *not* the case!!! After the incident, Hellanodikae had to simply ‘investigate’ the claim of the other athletes – as its being done even in the modern athletics with judges – and Alexander proved to them he was a Greek and he was accepted by them as a bona fide competitor. So, the head of the games concluded that the lineage presented was reasonable and consistent with their Peloponnesian accounts.

    2. To quote John Whitehorne: “In the race itself, Alexander came in equal first (Herodotus 5.22) making the entire issue even more suspect to the ground that the original protest by his rivals may well have a claim to be regarded as one of the earliest recorded examples of those “dirty tricks” which so beset modern sport.”

    3. Did Athletes in ancient Olympics could employ “dirty tricks” in order to exclude an athlete’s participation in olympic games??

    Answer: Yes! There are a few examples. In one of these, Themistocles urges the exclusion of the tyrant Hieron of Syracuse in Olympic games, accusing him that he neglected to help militarily against Persians. (Lysias also urged the exclusion of Dionysious a century later). Noone can ignore the fact Hieron had the best horses at that time in Greek world and his chariots were the absolute favourite to win again Olympic games as they did 4 years earlier.

    4. It is also indicative the moment Alexander I the Philhellene, announced his Temenid origin to all bystanders. Among Bystanders were certainly Argives and other Peloponessians. On the sound of the names “Temenos” and “Hercules” used by Alexander to trace his descent, they would strongly protest if it was not true. Noone did but contrary we find evidence of the same Alexander taking part in the Argive Heraea together with other Argives. Hence those Argives and Peloponessians were aware of a number of Temenids having indeed migrated to Macedonia and the Argive origin of Macedonian kings is beyond any doubt.

    5. Macedonia at the time being, was isolated from the rest of Greece. Greeks generally regarded it as a primitive backwater, inhabited except from Macedonians, also by semi-savage barbarians, mostly of Thracian stock. These Barbarians were remnants of indigenous populations who had been incorporated into Macedonian kingdom during and after Macedonian expansions. Macedonian political institutions were tribal to say the least and their customs, social values were primitive, to the degree that city-state Greeks thought about isolated Macedonia at all from the perspective of snobbish contempt and not in ethnological sense.

    6. Herodotos who visited them (5th century) said both Macedonian kings and population were Greeks and particularly of Dorian stock.

    BOJAN

    as regards the continuity of between the ancient Greeks and modern Greeks please be patient…to read

    The historians of Skopje commit a grave historical error, as I have already noted, when they present the ethnic composition and the demographic situation of Macedonia as being static and unchanging. This becomes even more evident at the time of the Turkish domination, which lasted almost 500 years, during which major reclassifications and population movements took place. I will refer to them very briefly.
    Immediately after the conquest of Macedonia, towards the end of the 14th c. A.D., Turkish groups, mainly great landowners, farmers and stock-breeders, settled in Macedonia, where they were attracted by the fertile plains.

    At the same time, however, we observe a flight of Greek inhabitants from Macedonia, in two directions. The first wave moved towards the Greek regions which were still free or under Frankish domination, towards Italy and generally to the West. Among them, were many eponymous Macedonian scholars, such as Theodoros Gazis, Andronikos Kallistos, and others, who worked towards the dissemination of Greek literature.
    A second wave headed for the mountainous and secluded parts of the interior, where, far from the control of the conqueror, they would be able to survive. This second wave was larger and more important; thus it caused real uprooting of Christian populations.
    That is why, according to Ottoman documents, the Muslim population outnumbers the Christian in many towns during the first centuries of the Turkish domination. These Greek fugitives inhabited certain villages in Western Macedonia and Chalkidike, where large wooded areas, far from arterial roads, offered a natural refuge. This flight to the interior of the country was of enormous ethnic importance, because it prevented migration, ensured the purity of the Greek people and favoured the growth of the Greek population during the first and most difficult centuries of slavery. Certain of the villages, which were inhabited at the time, such as Siatista, Naousa and Kozani, succeeded in developing into important centres.

    However, from the end of the 16th c. a reverse movement started – a phenomenon which appeared in other regions og Greece as well, for example in Epirus – and which lasted throughout the 17th c. Thus, we have a migration of Greek populations from their remote havens towards several old or new centres of trade. This migration was parallel to the development of trade, the decline of the Ottoman empire and the general development of Hellenism.

    In the 17th c. the general economic and cultural prosperity brought about a second migration of Greeks, this time northwards. Many Macedonians settled in Serbia, Bulgaria and in the Danubian Principalities, as well as in Austria and Hungary, where they formed powerful and flourishing Greek communities and greatly contributed to the development of commerce and the bourgeois class. Especially in the Balkans, the Greeks formed an “inter-Balkan bourgeois class”, which contributed not only to the economic development of these areas, but also to the dissemination of Greek culture. Due to these movements the role of the Macedonians of the diaspora was significant: Almost one and a half million Greeks from Macedonia emigrated to the northern Balkan peninsula and to Central Europe. This number alone is sufficient to refute the assertation of Skopje that the population of Macedonia was not Greek. In their new country these emigrant Macedonians became upholders of Greek cultural heritage; simultaneously, through their own economic development, they contributed substantially to the progress of their homeland from which they had never been cut off.

    While many Greeks headed northwards in search of better living conditions, Slavs of the Balkans, mainly Bulgarians, went in the opposite direction southwards. The natural routes of this migration were the valley of Strymon and Nestos rivers and the narrow passes through the mountains. These Slavs were initially seasonal workers, craftsmen and farmers, who were attracted by the potential for economic development and the comparatively better living conditions in the Greek regions, where they finally settled. This stream of Slavs increased in the 19th c., after the Greek War of Independence of 1821, because the Ottoman empire, in its effort to prevent Macedonia and the other still enslaved Greek regions from uniting with the free Greek State, favoured and, in some cases, incited the settlement of Slav populations, so as to alter the ethnic composition, that is, the Greek character of Macedonia. These Slavs were, as we have already mentioned, mainly Bulgarians who were gradually mixed with the small number of Serbs. According to the Serbian historical geographer J. Cvijic, this mixture created an “amorphous mass” which retained few traces of Serbian traditions, and generally lacked a national consciousness: J. Cvijic states this at a time of intense nationalism (1907, 1918). However, this “amorphous mass” had begun acquiring Bulgarian consciousness by the end of the Turkish domination. For this reason, when the population exchanges took place, they declared that they were Bulgarians and preferred to be united with the defeated Bulgaria and not with the then victorious and developing Yugoslavia. It is noteworthy that according to the Treaty of Neuilly (November 14/27, 1919) 92,000 Bulgarians emigrated emigrated from Greece (Macedonia and Thrace) to Bulgaria (in addition to some thousands who left Macedonia during the period 1912-1918), while 50,000 Greeks came from Bulgaria to Greece.

    From the above, it becomes obvious that during the Turkish domination great mobility and demographic realignment took place. The demographic situation was not stable and immutable during this long period of slavery. The example of Monastir (Bitola) is characteristic; up to the mid-17th c. this town was inhabited by Bulgarians. However, during the 18th c., and especially after the destruction of Moschopolis (1769), many Greeks took refuge there. This influx of Greek populations, mainly from the area of Florina, continued until much later as the Bulgarian population gradually declined the ethnic composition of the town was radically altered. Monastir became a Greek centre, whose brilliance spread to the surrounding towns and villages, where there were Greek communitied (as in Megarovo, Tirnovo, Kroussovo and elsewhere).

    Apart from the Greeks and the Turks who inhabited Macedonia, of course there were also Slav or Slav-speaking populations, Vlachs, that is Vlach-speaking Greeks, and Jews. These Slavic populations spoke a dialect which resulted from the mixture of Slav settlers in different areas and had many elements in common with the two Slavic languages Serbian and Bulgarian, Bulgarian being the most prevalent. It should also be noted, however, that many of these Slav-speaking inhabitants undoubtedly had Greek consciousness; they fought for the freedom of Greece and participated with the Greeks in the Macedonian struggle.

    The existence of other ethnic elements is also natural in a remote area such as Macedonia at a time when there were neither ethnic borders, not ethnic clashes. On the contrary, their common resistance against the conqueror as well as their common religion and faith united Greeks and Slavs. Thus, despite the existence of other ethnic groups the Greek population was the dominant element in Macedonia and a separate Macedonian (Slav) nationality never existed. Such a nationality is beyond historical reality. This is confirmed by the following facts: 1) Travellers who visited Macedonia during the Turkish domination referred to the inhabitants as Greeks, Jews, Bulgarians or Serbs and never as a separate nation, Macedonian. 2) The whole culture and artistic production of the area was purely Greek and greatly influenced SE Europe during the years of the Turkish domination. The brilliance of this civilization would not have been possible, of course, without the existence of a powerful Greek element, which upheld this intellectual tradition. The power and activities of the Church alone – which were undoubtedly great – would not have been sufficient to explain this brilliance, unless they had been supported by a powerful and large Greek population. 3) The role and the activities of the Macedonians of the diaspora are indisputable evidence of their Greek origin. The communities, which they formed in the Balkans and in Eastern Europe, were centres of Greek culture. Since that time the presence and activities of the Greeks have been preserved in the place-names of Austria and Hungary up to the present day. 4) The historical folksong, a product of spontaneous popular creativity, also confirms that the Macedonian land was Greek and its inhabitants Greeks. 5) The argument by the historians of Skopje that, for various historical reasons, the Slav “Macedonians” lost their ethnic consciousness as well as their historical memory during the Turkish domination, cannot be seriously upheld: Peoples do not lose their historical memory. Under the same circumstances, the Serbes retained both their historical memory and their ethnic consciousness, because they constituted a separate nationality with historical traditions an a historical past. For the same reasons, the Bulgarians, despite their intellectual silence in the first centuries of slavery and the total lack of Bulgarian schools, did not lose their national identity.

    Moreover, the Macedonians, in their struggle for freedom, fought hard and made great sacrifices so as to be united with the free Greek State. At no time did they want to be united with a Slav state, i.e. Serbia, which had also won its freedom after a hard struggle. The various claims which were expressed by the revolutionary Committees at the end of the 19th c., were propagated by foreign centres and did not express the will of the majority of the inhabitants of Macedonia.

    In addition, during the Macedonian Struggle (1904-1908) the participation of the indigenous population was widespread; not only teachers, clergy and intellectual leaders generally, but also merchants, craftsmen and farmers contributed substantially and supported the armed fight. The struggle of the Greek armed forces would have been impossible without this participation by the people.

    To sum up, we see that although Slavic populations settled on Greek territory during the Middle Ages and the period of Turkish occupation they were not able to break the historical continuity of Hellenism. The early Slavs who settled in Greece, mainly during the 7th century, were finally assimilated by the indigenous population and most of them were hellinised. And during the period of Turkish occupation (mainly the 17th century) the Greeks remained the predominant national and cultural element despite the settlement of Serbs and mostly Bulgarians on Macedonian land. Moreover it must be emphasized that during the same period the Greeks created significant colonies in neighbouring Balkan countries. As already stated, this mixing of national elements in the Balkans was due to lack of national borders during the Turkish occupation.

    However, apart from the historical dimension of the problem and indisputable historical evidence of Hellenism, in this area, it is essential in order to confront the propaganda of Skopje properly, to take into account the current national composition of both Greek Macedonia and the Republic of Skopje. Such an examination totally confirms the Greek position as to the Greek status of Macedonian, because whatever mixing of national elements existed until World War I this was reduced to a minimum by the exchange of populations.

    In fact, with this exchange of populations (the withdrawal of Bulgarians and the return of Greeks from Bulgaria under the Treaty of Neuilly 1919, the withdrawal of Turks and the settlement of more than 600,000 Greeks from Asia Minor under the Treaty of Lausanne 1923) the Greek element in Macedonia was significantly strengthened while at the same time the foreign national element was decisively reduced. The great predominance of Hellenism over a greatly reduced Slavic population can be ascertained from statistics published by the League of Nations in 1926. Greeks numbered 1,341,000 (88.8%), Bulgarians 77,000 (5.1%), various other nationalities (mainly Jews) 91,000 (6.0%) and Turks 2,000 (0.1%)95. As foreign specialist researchers also confirm, Greece – and of course Macedonia too – has today the greatest national homogeneity in the Balkans. In constrast, in the Republic of Skopje there is no national homogeneity. More than 600,000 Albanians (who, indeed, have recently founded an “autonomous democracy” with the name “Illyrida”), 150,000 Turks and 100,000 Gypsies, as well as Greeks and Greek-Vlachs and, of course, Bulgarians and Serbs live there ,even though the regime has tried, directly or indirectly, to compel nationals particularly of Greek, Serb or Bulgarian origin to declare themselves “Macedonian” and not to refer to their real national origin if they want troublefree lives and careers for themselves and their children. Of course, a very small percentage of Serbs, Bulgarians and even Greeks appear in their censuses to make their falsification of this statistical data appear genuine.

    It is therefore clear that the appropriation of the name Macedonia by Skopje, on which they have based all their propaganda and even their national existence, does not even correspond to their own false national identity since their artificially created state does not have any national homogeneity. This appropriation of the name goes against every principle of justice and conceals other expediencies which directly insult Hellenism as shows the unchanging nature of their continuous propaganda.

    DO U UNDERSTAND NOW WHY YOU R NOT HISTORICALLY entitled to monopolise the name MAKEDONIA? Do you understand why you cant only be called macedonians but you should make a compromise for a composite name including a geographical or ethnical adjective in it?

    PS. for all the aforementioned historical facts there r all the appropriate sources(bibliogrraphy) to support them!! I can publish them one by one If youy wish

  157. Over at Central Europe Activ, Daniel Antal writes:

    Most of Macedonia’s neighbors have a hidden territorial claim over the new state.

    And:

    Although Macedonia has an official EU-path in the Western Balkans enlargement policy, its Southern EU-neighbor was highly successful in destabilizing the country […] through a veto against the country’s NATO membership.

  158. Bojan

    I will take it from there backwards to the middle ages…

    MIDDLE AGES
    The 6th-7th c. A.D. were crucial for this region; at this time the Slavs settled in the Balkan Peninsula changing the national physiognomy of its northern part which became gradually detached from the Byzantine empire. However, in the more southern regions the Slavs were not able to alter the ethnological composition of the Greek regions, despite the permament settlement of Slav groups in the Greek territory. In fact, in the late 6th and early 7th c. A.D., some Slavic groups moved towards the southern areas and settled in the Greek territories, where they formed Slavic enclaves – named “Sklavinies” by Byzantine sources – especially in west Macedonia and Thessaly. Being cultivators and cattle breeders, they settled mainly on mountain slopes, less often in the plains and very rarely near the sea, as can be ascertained from toponymic material.
    But these Slavs did not settle in vacant areas, as has been contended; they came across an indigenous Greek population, who, due to attacks and upheavals, had gathered mainly in city centres. Slav settlers soon came into contact, with that Greek element, much superior culturally and politically, developed relations with them and were strongly influenced by them.

    Prudent and realistic policies by the Byzantine emperors also contributed decisively to the integration of Slav settlers into the Byzantine system, thereby assimilating and hellenising them. To this end, they used various means depending on the circumstances; military, whenever they had to put down a revolt or reinstate imperial authority or put under their control a rebellious Slavic group. Or frequently peaceful: administrative and ecclesiastic, demographic and economic. Sources mention military expeditions by Byzantine emperors against the Slavs in the Greek area, which started from the mid-7th c. Initially, these expeditions were carried out in Northern Greece and resulted in the gradual reestablishment of Byzantine authority.

    Military operations, though, were not the only means of subjugating the new settlers. A basic policy of the Byzantine administration was a demographic measure, the forcible transfer of populations. By transferring Slavic populations to Asia Minor, the Byzantine empire achieved two things: on one hand the Slavic element in the Hellenic area was arithmetically weakened, and on the other hand assimilation was facilitated, since Slavs who were transferred to Asia Minor found themselves amidst a flourishing and numerous Greek population. But this demographic measure was even applied vice-versa, that is, Greek populations from Asia Minor were transplanted into Slavic populations (“epi tas Sklabinias”) in order to reinforce the Greek element in these areas. Thus we learn, for example, that emperor Nicephorus (802-811) established in the northern Greek area populations which he transferred from all administrative districts (“ek pantos thematos”) of Asia Minor.

    Furthermore a new adminstrative organization of themata (i.e. administrative districts with a general at the head) that was generally put into practice during this critical period, reinforced imperial rule and made control of Slavic groups more effective. Between 680 and 685 the “thema of Thrace” was established and in in 695 for the first time the “thema of Hellas” is mentioned. In the 9th c. reorganization was further reinforced by a division into smaller administrative units – a general tendency of the era: the “Thema of Macedonia” with Andrianople as capital (mentioned for the first time in 802); the “thema of Strymon” and the “thema of Thessaloniki” were established at that time.

    We find out, therefore, that the Byzantine state followed a realistic and consistent policy in order to cope with the problem of Slav settlers, a policy that led to the control and integration of Slavic races by the empire. In this way the Byzantine state contributed decisively to their assimilation by the indigenous population and to their Hellenization.

    The almost total lack of remnants of Slavic civilization (burial customs, dwellings, techniques and types of ceramics) testifies to this assimilation, which of course, could never have been achieved without the presence of an indigenous Greek population.

    In the work of assimilation an essential role was also played by the Church, which had, by then, been reorganized and administratively reinforced in order that Slav settlers could be integrated into it. Thus, by the end of 7th c. at the VIth Synod (680/681) and at the Synod in Dome (692) five dioceses are mentioned in Macedonia: those of Thessaloniki, Philippi, Amphipolis, Edessa and Stobi. The number is significant, especially when compared to other areas of the empire, and it must be stressed that the seats of these dioceses are found at vital points in the area. Thus, the establishment of Amphipolis’s diocese at the mouth if the Strymon was apparently aimed at reinforcing the Byzantine presence towards Strymonite Slavs and the reestablishment of Stobi’s diocese in NW Macedonia, at supporting – in cooperation with the diocese of Edessa – the policy of Byzantium towards Slavs Drogoubites and maybe even at achieving their eventual Christianisation.

    The Christianising of Slavs in Hellenic territory took place gradually in different localities even before the official Christianising of the Slavic world outside the Byzantine Empire by Cyril and Methodius.

    Regarding the work of Constantin-Cyril and Methodius, the two Thessalonian brothers, the whole argument of Skopje does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. There is such an extensive bibliography about the two Apostles of the Slavs, their work and their ethnic origin, that any repetition is uprefluous. However I must emphasize that the two brothers were-eminent representatives of the Byzantine spirit, of the Greek and Christian civilization which had been reborn after the Iconoclast period. They had an extraordinary Greek education and were polyglots. Undoubtedly, they expressed Byzantine policy and they were fully conscious that they were Greeks. They had undertaken other missions to the Arabs and the Khazars too apart from that to the Slavic world. Nowadays, even foreign scientists of Slavic descent consider them to be Greek..

    As for the language, on which the Slavic alphabet was based and in which the two brothers preached Christianity, it could certainly not be a “Macedonian” dialect, that is a Slavic dialect of Macedonia. It is noteworthy that the Bulgarians maintain that the two apostles taught the new religion in Bulgarian. Apart from the fact that at that time Slavic “daughter” languages had not yet evolved far enough to form the basis for a new written language, the basic fact that Cyril and Methodius worked in distant Moravia should be stressed. Experienced missionaries as they were, they could not have used a dialect foreign to the Moravians, but a language comprehensible to the people of Moravia otherwise they would not have been so well received, made soon an impact or had the success that they had in their work: they taught the new religion in the Old Slavic mother language, which at that time was common among all Slavs, and for this reason their work spread very rapidly throughout the Slavic world. The first translations of the Holy Scriptures and of legal texts etc. from Greek into the Slavic language were made in this Old Slavic mother language and not in “Macedonian” or another dialect.

    To sum up, we observe that during the Middle Ages Slavs settled in Macedonia, as well as in other Greek regions, but they did not alter the ethnic physiognomy of the region. The “Tactics” of Leon VI the Wise, in the beginning of the 10th c., report characteristically: “My late father and emperor Basil had persuaded the Slavic tribes to change their ancient customs, and hellenised them, and subjected them following the roman system, liberated them from their leaders, honoured them by the baptism and trained them to fight against people at war with the Romans (= the Byzantines)”. As Paul Lemerle writes, “Byzantium christianized, civilized and assimilated these Slavs, making them Greeks. And this is one of the most impressive victories of the Greek genius”.

    It should also be noted that at the time when the Medieval Serbian State was flourishing (mid-13th – mid-14th c.) and especially at the time of Stefan Dusan (1331-1354), the Serbs expanded their domination into Macedonia and in particular into Northern Greek territory. However, no source mentions that the conquered population was Slavic: the Serbian expansion is mentioned in contemporary sources, as a conquest of Greek regions. The Serbian domination was characterized as “illegal and tyrranical” and considered to be alian domination.

    It is also remarkable that a few years later, during the first siege of Thessaloniki by the Turks (1383-1387), King Manuel Palaeologus, in his speech “Admonition to the people of Thessaloniki”, urges the inhabitants to fight to death, fot this is what their historical tradition decrees: “because we are Romans (= Byzantines, Greeks) and our country is the one of Philip and Alexander”. This means that he, as well as the inhabitants, were conscious of the historical continuity of Hellenism and of their Greek origin which had its roots in ancient times.

    ps. I can supply u with the references (bibliography) if necessary

  159. Bojan,

    Iwill take it from there to antiquity so u can have the whole picture…pay attention to that!

    ANTIQUITY
    The Ancient Macedonians were undoubtedly a Greek tribe; either a north-western tribe related to the Dorians and Epirots, or an Aeolic one related to the Aeolians of Thessaly (before the north-western tribe of the Thessalians settled there), as scholars tend to accept today. Nowadays it is not seriously doubted that they were Greeks, although some opposing views have been expressed by certain modern historians and linguists because the evidence of ancient writers has not been interpreted correctly and the relatively limited linguistic material preserved has not been evaluated correctly40.
    The Ancient Macedonians initially settled in NW Macedonia. Later they expanded into the fertile valley of Haliakmon river, where, after having driven back or subjugated the Illyrian and Thracian tribes, they established the Macedonian state. During this time the regions of NW Macedonia remained independent hegemonies. Later on, the kingdom of Macedonia expanded up to the Strymon river. Their relative isolation for centuries, in the country that bears their name, greatly contributed to their developing autonomous unity, both social and political, without being greatly influenced by other Greeks and, therefore, without the cultural development of the southern regions.

    Ancient sources affirm that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, and the linguistic conclusions, which are based on the study of the Macedonian dialect, also attest to this.

    Among the ancient historians, Herodotus is the first who refers to the Macedonians whom he considers, without any hesitation, Greeks: ” ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ???????? ?????????, ???? ??? ????? ???????, ????? ?? ???? ??????? ??????????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ????????…” [= But that the descendants of Perdiccas are, in fact, Greeks (as they themselves say), I happen to know; and I will, moreover, prove that they are Greeks in the latter part of my history]. (V, 22,1). The same historian presents the king of Macedonians Alexander I (ca. 495-450/440 B.C.), a dominant figure of Macedonian history during the 5th c. B.C., saying at the time of the Persian wars: “????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????????, ??? ???? ????????? ???????????? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??????” [= I am myself a Greek of ancient stock, and I would not with my good will see Greece enslaved rather than free]. (IX, 45,1-2). Succeeding generations called Alexander I, and only him among all kings of Macedonia, “Philhellene”, and they did so for a specific reason: he effectively assisted the “Greek” alliance of Corinth against the Persians.

    Thucydides, and later Arrian, Polybious, Titus Livius and others also confirm, directly or indirectly, that the Macedonians were Greeks. In ancient times, the nationality of the Macedonians was never an issue, precisely because they were Greeks. The historians of Skopje have greatly exploited the fact that Demosthenes calls Philip a “barbarian”, and regard this as proof of his non-Greek origin. However, the word “barbarian” meant at that time not only the foreigner, i.e., the person who spoke a different language, but also the person who was uncivilized48. The Athenian Demosthenes considered the king of Macedonia to be culturally inferior. Moreover, we should not forget the fanaticism and Attic nationalism of the orator who was fighting against Philip in the belief that Philip would subjugate the rest of Greece, as well as his own city-state; Demosthenes believed that as a consequence Athens would not be able to play a leading role in the new political scheme which the Macedonians would impose, since this scheme would be quite foreign to the then prevailing of the city-state.

    Certain doubts have been expressed about the Greek character of the Ancient Macedonians’ language, mainly because, up to now, no texts or even complete phrases written in the Macedonian dialect have been found. Today, however, after the comparative study of all known linguistic material, linguists, as well as historians, accept the Greek character of the Macedonian dialect. The following elements prove that Macedonian is a dialect of the Greek Language:

    The name of the Macedonians itself is Greek: the word ???????? [makednos] is already attested to in Homer (Odyssey, ? 106: ??? ?? ????? ???????? ?????????) [= like fluttering leaves of a tall poplar tree] and means “high, tall and slender”. That is, this ethnic name is one of those which denoted the physical characteristics of a people. Also the proper names of the Ancient Macedonians51, the names of gods, months, etc., as well as most place-names are Greek, in Macedonian dialect, and bear no resemblance to Thracean-Illyrian names. If the Macedonians started being hellenized in the 5th c. B.C., as the historians of Skopje clain, how can it be explained that they retained proper names, as well as the names of the months and place-names in Macedonian dialect which are undisputedly Greek? How did the Macedonians of the 5th and 4th c. B.C. acquire these Greek dialectal names, which do not belong to the Attic dialect, if they did not inherit them via a tradition which had always been Greek?

    The same observations apply to lexical material. Relatively few words of the Macedonian dialect have been preserved: about 153 and they are recorded by Athenaeus and in the Lexicon of Hesychios, who drew them mainly from the work of the Macedonian lexicographer Amerias. It should be noted that ancient lexicographers did not record all the words of a language or dialect, but only those that presented a certain peculiarity or difficulty in comprehension. For this reason foreign words and idioms are recorded, and thus the proportion of foreign words is not representative of the total vocabulary of the Macedonian dialect. Many of the words which have been treasured as Macedonian occur in all Greek dialects, but in the Macedonian dialect they had a specific meaning and they were recorded by the ancient lexicographers, for example the word ?????????? (adjutant). These words that were handed down as Macedonian do not bear any resemblance to the Thracian-Illyrian language. The Macedonian linguistic material (proper names, place-names and common nouns) testifies to the Greek character of the Macedonian dialect: The etymology of the words is Greek; the features and vowel changes are common in Greek; so are the inflections and endings. As for the few words which are recorded as Macedonian in the Lexicon of Hesyxhios and which are not considered by some to be Greek, it is most likely that they are loan-words, a phenomenon that is observed in all languages, and one which does not put their origin in doubt.

    The historians of Skopje use the quotation of Plutarch that Alexander ?????? ??????????? ????? ???? ?????????? [= called out in Macedonian speech(makedonisti) a summons to his corps of guards] (Plutarch’s Alexander, 51,4), as proof that the languagewhich the Macedonian soldiers spoke was not Greek. But here the word makedonisti means the local dialect(you see you must speak Greek to understand the meaning and not misinterpret), as the respective terms doristi, attikisti ionisti etc.55 attest, and not a separate non-Greek language. In fact, Alexander and the Macedonians disseminated the Greek language throughout the world they conquered; Alexander gave an order that the inscriptions which were in a foreign language were to be explained in Greek, so that they would be comprehensible to his troops (??? ????????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?????????? ????????? [= After reading the inscription, he ordered it to be repeated below in Greek letters]: Plutarch’s Alexander, 69,2) and he also ordered that the troop of Persians “should learn the Greek language and be trained to use Macedonian weapons” (??????? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??? ???????????? ?????? ??????????? Plutarch’s Alexander, 47,6)55a.

    The fact that no written documents in Macedonian dialect have been preserved does not prove their non-Greek origin, as the historians of Skopje claim. Indeed, no dialectal inscriptions or even a phrase of a dialectal Macedonian text have been found. All the inscriptions found in Macedonia date after the 5th c. B.C., when the Macedonians used, at least in public life, the Attic dialect56. However, in other regions of Greece, undisputedly Greek, no preserved written documents of the 7th or even 6th c. B.C. have been found either. The cultural phenomenon of Athens cannot be regarded as a means of comparison with other regions, especially in order to draw conclusions concerning the national origin of their inhabitants.

    It must be noted that the recent excavations at Vergina, in addition to other very important finds regarding the history of Macedonia, have brought to light, a series of inscribed grave stelai which can be dated with certainty to the second half of the 4th and the beginning of the 3rd c. B.C. These inscriptions as we know from the description of Prof. M. Andronikos present a very significant collection of common Macedonian names, male and female, numbering 75. All these names are Greek, such as Alketas, Alkimos, Drikalos, Xenokratis, etc. – except for one (Amadokos) which is Thracian – and many of them are characteristically Macedonian and unknown to Attica, attesting to their Macedonian origin. These names refute the theory that only the ruling class had become hellenized, because they do not belong to the royal family, or to the nobility, or to the ruling class: they are the names of ordinary citizens and many of them date back to the beginning of the 4th and the end of the 5th c. B.C. Therefore, as Prof. M. Andronikos points out, we have “epigraphic evidence… that at the end of the 5th c. B.C., the Macedonians who lived in the first capital of the Macedonian kingdom [in Aeges]… had Greek names”.

    Consequently, both the evidence of the sources and the study of the linguistic material, lead to the conclusion that the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe. The theory that it was a non-Greek population, whose ruling class became hellinized, has no basis in fact. The people of Macedonia spoke Greek, a local Greek dialect and thus it was easy for them to adopt the Attic dialect. Even after the Roman conquest, the Greek language was still spoken in the region, despite foreign domination and the strong presence of Latin-speaking soldiers and other representatives of Rome. It is of primary importance that the inscriptions of Roman and early Byzantine times, which were found in Macedonia, are in Greek – except, of course, for the regions where there were Roman colonies, for example at Philippi58 -, while the inscriptions which were found in the more northern regions are in Latin. The Greek language was deeply rooted since it was the language of the Macedonian people, not only of the ruling class and the authorities.

    hope you enjoyed yourself Bojan!!!

  160. Mr Hills’s view is an amazing piece of constructivism, probably an apotheosis of relativism based on oversimplifications and above all lack of basic facts. I reckon he did not have a good time during his last holidays in Greece, which is not amazing. Some people are really awful to tourists. On the issue now, we can not seriously talk about security issues in the absence of any knowledge of the setting, actors involved and their motives. No attention has been given to more recent events leading to the creation of the macedonian identity, a political decision above all based on Marxist dreams. If there is such a thing as a “Macedonian national identity” it constitutes a unique identity because our Slav neighbours speak Bulgarian and Greek. I have lived and taught in a Bulgarian university and I know what I am talking about. I have met “Macedonias” whose mother tongue is Greek (Toronto). This way of thinking will lead nowhere only to a dead end and closed doors.

  161. Professor, to put the record straight and unlike a lot of Westerners, I have never been to Greece on holiday, but only on business. It has always been a very pleasurable experience.

    I welcome your intervention as you offer something of a ‘bridge’ between the two sides rather than the ‘dead end’ you mention.

    My original comments, as I keep on repeating, were not aimed at the Macedonian issue, but at something that was evoked by Eric Hobsbawm (another ‘Cambridge scholar’: Georgios, alias “Xenophontas”, “Xenofon”, “Philippos”, “Hesiodos”, “Pavlos” and “Alexandros” please note) in his book ‘Nations and Nationalism since 1780’: “Macedonia did not become a battlefield for Slav philologists until the twentieth century, when the Greeks, who could not compete on this terrain, compensated by stressing an imaginary ethnicity.”

    But Hobsbawm was another Marxist, so I guess that doesn’t count.

  162. Richard,

    Iam surprised you keep telling people that initial your comments were mot aimed at the macedonian issue!(ancient or modern)
    You know, u can fool some people sometimes but you cant fool all the people all the times!!!
    I believe you ‘ve got the proper answers to all the issues you brought up.
    You, first quoted Dimosthenes, misinterpreted and distorted his words not taking into account the views of the most renowned professors on the subject!
    And even worse u went on to draw youn own conclusions on modern Greeks (being albanians and slavs in your opinion)based on the pro- albanian mythologist ( a former journalist)who makes a living in Cosovo out of his lately acquired “experise” on balkan studies.
    Your oversimpifications and problematic if not idiotic(pardon my language!) conclusions are there for the people to judge!
    You are not a historian… your primary degree is in economics and languages, which exlains to a great extent, your evident inability to deal with history by
    1.ignoring basic comparative studies on the subject,
    2. not taking into account basic historical facts and discoveries
    which unavoidably lead into a total, methodological and professional failure of your article!
    Apotheosis of relativism is a mild expression in my opinion!
    Apotheosis of distortion suits you better!

  163. quotation from Oxford Dictionary of the classical world.
    1.” Hesiod considered the “Macedones” to be an outlying branch of the Greek speaking tribes, with a distinctive dialect of their own” page 441, 2005,2007, oxford university press.
    2. After taking into account the views of Hammond,Borza, Griffith, Errington, Fick, Hoffman, Bonfante,Kalleris, Russu etc(DO YOU KNOW THEM RICHARD?) the OXFORD CLASSICAL DICTIONARY says ” we must wait for new discoveries, but we may tentatively conclude that macedonian is a dialect related to north west Greek”

    SO RICHARD, from now on you may write to OXFORD for your objections!!!

  164. the sound of silence.
    the subject is exhausted! especially after the “democratic peaceful elections” held in FYROM recently proving to international community that fyromians have a long way to go before their accession to the EU and NATO!

    Hey Bojan, I expect your answer to the list of macedonians who took part in the Olympics… Iam sure it will be great fun hearing from you!!

  165. claming we Macedonians to be some pure slavic race from 3000 years ago is also crazy as the greek position. the whole balcan region was occupied for 2000 years till now. First it was the Romans for 1500 years, then it was the Turks for additional 500 years. Don’t get into the trap of the greek attitude. We all on balcans are big mixture, a balcan salad.

  166. Yea right!

    the problem is that -unlike the Greek- there were no slavic races in the area 3000 years ago and that is a well documented historical fact!
    Balcan salad yes, but with totally different ingredients Greeks ( original ancient Macedonians), slavs like you( slav macedonians appearing during the 6th century), etc.

  167. Hi Richard, I bet you didn’t think that you would open such a large can of worms.

    For the Greek people out there that want to justify what they have not done to the Minorities in Greece, I can recommend a good book for you:

    Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood
    by Dr Karakasdou a university professor from Thesoloniki and yes she is Greek & Not Popular in Greece, She had a hard time publishing her research.

    The other thing I would like to ask is why there are Greek Cultural Centers (NGO) in Kalash Hindu Kush mountain range Pakistan. I believe that the Greek Government has spent a lot of money in the three villages there. I wonder why?

    The reason I am bringing this up is due the the Hunzas also in Pakistan, they have always stated that they are the direct descendants of Alexander the Great Soldiers left there by him.

    There is a similarity in Culture, food & Language (they use over 1000 similar words) to the Macedonians from the Republic of Macedonia. They also state that they did not write any historical notes etc… as their history & culture was passed down word of mouth generation to generation.

    In all towns & villages in Macedonia the female children are taught to knit certain designs & patterns in the form of pillow cases & covers for chairs, tables & beds etc. which then becomes part of their dowry. The Hunza people Knit & use the same designs.

    They State they are Macedonian & the Prince & Princess have visited the Republic of Macedonia.

    Unlike the Kalash they have not had the honor to be Hellenized & gifted with a Greek cultural center.

    This is the link if anybody wants to watch:

    To the End of the World. Documentary on the Hunza

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8548285775582552899

    I have always stated my Nationality as Macedonian even when it was part of Yugoslavia, I can trace back my ancestors at least five generations & they were all from Monastir now Bitola & they were all Macedonian & spoke Macedonian. Therefore I will always say my Nationality is Macedonian & my country is The Republic of Macedonia.

    The Greeks have the right to self identify & state that their nationality is Macedonian & their country is Greece.

    The Macedonian People are now searching & finding old Maps & population statistics for Macedonia & Greek Macedonia for the period 1800 to 1900 & have found quite a few, funny enough most of them were written by Greeks & show how few Greeks actually lived in that part of Greece during that period.

    I am sick of being told what I am not! I am not Greek & certainly not Bulgarian & do not like the term Slavomacedonian or Slavophone. Do they have a Greekaphone in Greece as well.

    I am proud to be Macedonian. Long live The Republic of Macedonia & its people no matter where in the world they are.

  168. to Monastir ?bitola

    you r not macedonian you have no relation to ancient macedonians… you are a slav, speaking a slavic language- appearing in the area after the sixth century. Ancient macedonians spoke greek and took part in the olympics at a time your ancectors didnt know what macedonia means!
    Your mickey mouse afgan farse was well laughed even by your president!! keep amusing the international community!

  169. i will address to cope the salvogypsie

    i would like to remind to that slavoskopian gypsie
    that the biggest ROMA (GYPSIE )comunity is based in SHUTKA a town in fyrom
    hehehehehehehe
    so fyromian slavogypsies dont speak about cigan
    because you are all shutkacigans
    hahahahahahahah
    stop shooting your own foot FYROMIAN SHUTKA GYPSIES

  170. A 1996 FYROM law that forbids and scientific research on the cultural and ethnical identity of FYROMians:
    In slavic
    Služben vesnik na RM 13/96 od 15 mart 1996 god
    ?len 16
    Odobrenieto može da se dade za site oblasti opredeleni kako javen interes vo nau?no-istražuva?kata dejnost, osven za nau?nite istražuvanja vo oblasta na istoriskiot i kulturniot identitet na makedonskiot narod i nacionalnostite koi živeat vo Republika Makedonija, odbranata i bezbednosta.
    In Greek
    ????? 16
    ? ??????? (???? ??? -??? ??? ???????? ??? ???????? ????????????? ???????? ) ?????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ??? ??? ????????????? ??? ????????????? ???????, ?? ???????? ??? ???????????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ???????????? ?????????? ??? «??????????? ????» ??? ??? ??????????? ??? ???? ??? “?????????? ??? ??????????”, ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?????????.
    In English
    Article 16
    Approval for can be awarded for all areas of public interest in scientific research, EXCEPT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE FIELDs OF HISTORIC AND CULTURAL IDENTITY OF MACEDONIAN PEOPLE AND OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS THAT RESIDE IN FYROM, of defense and security

    weird? NO THE FYROM leaders know that real history and do not want to educate the FYROMians – it is that simple

  171. It seems from Dimitris’ message that this blog cannot properly present the greek letters, so I will have to innovate.
    Well, firstly, is there any doubt that Alexander the Great’s home town, and capital of Macedonia, was Vergina?
    I suppose not. After all, there has been burried Alexander the Great’s , father, Philippos B’.

    Since the Macedonian’ s were slavs, even if they did know enough foreign languages to manage to write
    “???’ ???? ??????? ??? ??? ?????” and “????????, ???????? ?????????” in Vergina, which would be written in Latin Letters (so you can see something more than questionmarks), keeping the correct pronanciation (as much as I can transform it):
    “Par’ Iras Argeias emi ton Athlon” and “Philippos, Vasilefs Makedonon”
    Which in English means:
    “From Hera’s sports games of Argos, I am” and “Philippos, King of Macedonians”

    Please explain to me:
    Hera, was or was not a Greek Goddess?
    Argos is or is not a Greek City?
    So, why the hell, the non-Greek (as you say) Macedonians, would:
    use Greek Language,
    refer to Greek Gods,
    participate in Greek Sports Events
    if they weren’t Greeks?

    In any case, Alexander, was calling himself as
    “?????????? ?????? ???????”
    again, on Latin Letters, “Alexandros Igemon Ellinon” and translation
    “Alexander Chief of Hellenes” (we all know, that Hellenes are us, nowadays Greeks. – and before anyone says the opposite I should inform everyone that the Official name of Greece is Hellenic Republic or Hellas).

    For what’s more, in Vergina there were found 75 names apart from the names of Alexander and Philippos:

    “???????, ???????, ?????????, ????????, ????????, ????????, ?????????, ????????, ??????????, ?????????, ????????, ????????, ?????????, ???????????, ??????????, ?????????, ????????, ???????, ????????, ???????.”

    “Alketas, Alkimos, Antigonos, Vereniki, Drykalos, Efxinos, Theokritos, Theodoros, Herakleides, Kleagoras, Leandros, Lysanias, Menandros, Nikostratos, Xenokrates, Pefkolaos, Proxenos, Pierion, Filistos, Filotas”

    Why are all these names Greek?

    But, what am I talking about? Does Alex-Andros makes any sense when in Slabic? Also, any English should know, that English words with -ph- mean that they come from Greek! Don’t they? So, what about Philippos?

    And, finally, I am pleased to see, that people start to understand, the whole point, like mr. Stig Torben Johansen.

    Because, mr Hill, I don’t know about you, but we do have a solid national identity and it is at least ridiculous to say, that Philip was no Greek when you, yourself write the word with Ph!!! Except, if your English aren’t that good..!!

  172. Is there anyone else except FYROM people that believes that macedonia is not greek? i really doubt..Let them sing…

  173. I am a Macedonian (Makedonas in Greek) and I live in Makedonia (Macedonia for the barbarians) since ever!
    I am Greek and my ancesters were Greeks Macedonians…
    I speak Greek as my ancesters did! As Alexander and Fillip did!
    I am identifing myself as Macedonian (Makedonas) and Greek! by Culture and Spirit and secondly by blood! cause this is of less importance than my own feelings!
    Who are they Slavs who want to steal my Identity and Land?
    What language do they speak? who want to be called ”macedonian”?
    If I speak Macedonian how can they speak a diferent slavic language with the same name?
    Is well known in the european University Classical Studies that ‘macedonian’ is a greek regional spell…
    How can we be 2 Macedonian ethnicities with nothing in COMMON?
    Is it so a geografical carateristic with no cultural connection of 2 completely different populations? Slavs and Greeks?
    If it is so, why YOU have to call these (slavmacs) ‘macedonians’ and not ME?
    The thematic of this article is SO FULL OF HATE! against the Greek Culture that shows an Author who is stimulated by inferiority against the Greek existence!
    It’s also a typical supercial approach of the issue, with not historical basement, (Demosthenes? Why not Aristoteles?) as it is well known that Greeks always fought each other, and they used to refer to other Greeks as barbarians… many times… having the complexity (as You do here in the article!) of being inferior of the other State Cities!!!
    Get A Life! and be more serious when you want to take a side instead of another!

  174. Dear Mr. Hill,

    With all respect, but I have to tell you that, after several months and a sea of comments, I’m still unable to understand the essence of your post and I can’t help but pointing out the logical gap of your reasoning.

    You accuse Greeks for believing in the historical continuity of their nation, while at the same time, you admit that “none of us Europeans have a really coherent identity”. So why Greeks are more guilty than the rest for something that everybody is doing anyway? British people do not assume that british history is their own, while they know that none of them is 100% British?

    Regards

    GV

  175. Thank you, GV, for your sensible and good-humoured response. You’re right, we’re all in the same boat to one degree or another. In fact I am working on a book where I give three examples of national mythmaking: one of them is Greece and the others are France and my own country, Britain. It is remarkable what truths are now emerging with advances in genetic research. A recent study suggests that the dominant gene in the UK and Ireland is… Basque! So we can forget our idea of a dominant Anglo-Saxon heritage.

    Just today, another study throws up the probability that some 20% of the current population of the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal) have Jewish ancestry and 11% have Moorish genes. We have all managed to deform reality over the centuries, but now science is catching up with us!

    As for the other recent postings:

    Alexandros Makedonas, there wasn’t a vestige of HATE in what I wrote (go back to the original blog), I don’t have a sense of inferiority and I was certainly not taking sides.

    Aglogamias, no I’m not gay, as far as I know. But, since you claim descendence from a civilisation that raised homosexuality to an art form, you’re on dangerous ground.

    No, Giorgios, the subject is not exhausted!

    To return to the real theme of this blog (not the quarrel over the use of the Star of Vergina!), an American anthropologist J L Angel calculated that, during the Classical period (650-150 BC), 27% of the Greek population was predominantly Nordic in type. None of us are what we think we are. And, in this day and age, perpetuating nationalistic myths is ridiculous.

    It would be a real sign of human progress if other contributors to this blog could be as reasonable as GV and Monastir/Bitola. As the latter said: “Richard, I bet you didn’t think that you would open such a large can of worms.” (actually I was prepared for this, from the time I spent in Thessaloniki). I would prefer to say “a large can of leeches”, since phlebotomy (another Greek word!) is good for everybody’s health.

  176. This is quite a discussion – lively, long lasting and interesting. It is by far the most active conversation EVER on Blogactiv.

    It isn’t my intention to get in the way of this debate, but could I please ask that everyone refrains from personal attacks? That isn’t the point of this thread or platform – and whilst our moderation policy is very ‘light touch’, we would rather not have to edit or remove comments.

    Thank you.

    Stuart Langridge
    Director of Blogactiv

  177. Dear Mr. Hill,

    Thank you for your response. Personally, I am very reserved towards the use of genetic studies in history and ethnology. How is it possible to draw such exact percentages as those that you mention, I don’t know. They might show some traces about the movements of tribes, but for me, the glue that connects the history of a nation is culture, not genes.

    It is definitely foolish to talk about genetic purity of any nation in the world, but the fact that there is a greek language that survived through the ages from the ancient to our time (and yes, it is fundamentally the same language, I am Greek and I can easily read and understand the ancient greek language from inscriptions and texts) is a clear sign that there really exists a continuity of the Greek nation and culture. No sense of superiority here, the same applies for other nations as well; after all, all nations, older and younger, have a culture that has to be respected.

    Also mythology is something that exists in every culture, nobody would ever seriously expect that folk stories is accurate historical truth. Apart from presenting their natural, naive charm, I don’t think that there is a reason to confront mythmaking, it is obviously not the real history.

    Most importantly, what I want to tell you is this: I don’t agree that there isn’t a dominant Anglo-Saxon heritage in Britain and Ireland. No matter what the genes of your ancestors were, they did create their own national culture that is still alive and evolving, they made their own language, they wrote their own books and songs, they formed their own habits, and this is a good reason to claim that (regardless the genetical mixture) there is a distinct nation that is called British, Irish etc.

    I know, our points of view are different, and I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I just thought it would be interesting to share my opinion with you.

    Good luck with your book!

    GV

  178. Dear Mr. Hill,

    I have a question, ultimately,
    Hypothetical:

    If the FYROM their country Macenonia would call what the name would have a meaning for the country. I am speaking now from the main word Macedonia.

    And now we turn the thing around times, which has a meaning for the word in Greek Macedonia. Highland, yes.

    To Macedonia word remain significantly FYROM demanding something on his southern neighbor has created.

    They really believe the world is so supple, you certainly know the limitless freedom, less where it hurts others.

    Best regards

  179. Hallo Mr.

    whta do you wrote here?

    One Greek
    Unified Greek City States to a single Country
    Greek Cultur, Greek Politiks, Greek Law an Greek Art.

    History Channel
    http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=D1j4U79eBMo&eurl=

    it is their opinion, good luck with the nonsense.
    Lech is certainly what they write

    On the stand at your genes? Really cheap.

    On seeing and cons! I try to be respectful.

    PS It’s an anti Hellen to be, was not.

  180. Their report is not her seriously, right?
    “Because they know not what they do”

    Too good, I must keep them you no clue about this subject,
    But an opinion. Certainly everyone should have one.

    We still live under Greek tradition,
    And therefore, everyone has the obligation to defend an opinion, you simply confirm your

    Ignorance!
    Or your anti-Hellenism!

    Times we read the arguments from the FYROM are posted here. (But elsewhere)
    All of us confused pointless, as your report, the only argument why we FYROM name should admit is probably from human found. Let us do to solve hunger in Africa.
    That would be far more important than this silly your help!
    (Sorry, ignorant)

    Oh, just as information
    http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/2725/gruevski1zb2.jpg

    ????? ???? (Molon Lave)
    Greeks like to say. 😉

  181. Their report is not her seriously, right?
    “Because they know not what they do”

    Too good, I must keep them you no clue about this subject,
    But an opinion. Certainly everyone should have one.

    We still live under Greek tradition,
    And therefore, everyone has the obligation to defend an opinion, you simply confirm your

    Ignorance!
    Or your anti-Hellenism!

    Times we read the arguments from the FYROM are posted here. (But elsewhere)
    All of us confused pointless, as your report, the only argument why we FYROM name should admit is probably from human found. Let us do to solve hunger in Africa.
    That would be far more important than this silly your help!
    (Sorry, ignorant)

    Oh, just as information
    http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/2725/gruevski1zb2.jpg

    Molon Lave
    Greeks like to say. 😉

  182. You’re right, Adamantios. Hunger in Africa is a much bigger problem then conflict over a name. You’re also right that I’m against Hellenism, the silly romanticism of some of my fellow-countrymen. But, curiously, I happen to be a great fan of the Greeks, particularly the rational ones.

    I include you in this category, GV. Of course, the percentages derived from genetic studies should be taken with a large dose of salt: after all, I did say ‘suggest’ and talked about probability. But I don’t agree that culture necessarily takes precedence over genes, though I wish it did. The fact is that both are important and are, in many ways, incompatible. They are parallel realities and both need to be taken into account.

    As you say, “the glue that connects the history of a nation is culture, not genes.” Culture is more important because it is around us all the time in our daily lives, whereas the genetic reality is most often hidden (and irrelevant to the study of individuals).

    But, as history tells us, cultures can change whereas genes do not. A good example is how the rough seafaring Vikings who settled in Normandy evolved in the course of little more than a century into the finest civilisation of western Europe at the time. Their culture changed completely, their genes did not.

    Thank you for your good wishes!

  183. Adamantios, its your That, Bas!

    Wow, you are a racist and an anti-Hellenists!
    Very clearly written words from you.

    I would like to join with a man of such an attitude to human has not continue talking.

    You are one of the Hollocaust to deny, is not it?

    Now I do not come with explanations, your post says everything a rational thinking person needs to know.

    PS. About the Hellenism is far more than you suspect you would have without this today, no blog!

    — But whom do I say this! ——

    Good night and good luck in their lives without Greek culture!

    PPS. FYROMs are Slavs and show this from a FYROM Source
    http://www.interkont.com.mk/en/12.htm

  184. Marxism is a political/economical theory and not a cultural/historical one. This means you cannot interpret history and cultural issues by Marxism. For example Marxism failed to explain the neo-turk uprising in Turkey, a major nationalist movement that led to millions of people dead or misplaced.

    These simple facts ought to be provided by english university education.

  185. In addition, you cannot talk about racial continuity/acontinuity within a given population without providing known and published genetic/anthropological studies to support your arguements.

  186. Progress, here is (some of ) the evidence:

    1. Great Britain: the English, Welsh, Scots and Irish derive most of their current gene pool from an early Basque source (+ 5,000 BC). This refutes the idea that the English are basically Anglo-Saxon.

    Source: Professor Stephen Oppenheimer: the Oppenheimer Clan DNA Test (the phylogeographic method using a DNA test of the Y chromosome),2006.

    2. Ireland: 78.1% of all Irish men have the ‘haplotype 1’ gene (98.3% in County Connaught, North-West Ireland), descended from pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherers from the European continent. This refutes the idea that the Irish are essentially Celtic.

    Source: Dr Emmeline Hill, Department of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, 2000.

    3. Spain/Portugal: 20% of the current population of the Iberian Peninsula has a Jewish DNA signature and 11% has a Moorish one.

    Source: Professor Francesc Calafell of the Pomeu Fabra University, Barcelona, and Professor Mark Jobling of the University of Leicester, from an analysis of Y chromosomes, 2008.

    4. Cyprus: Greek and Turkish Cypriots (except recent immigrants) are (1) genetically related and (2) have no direct genetic link with mainland Greeks.

    Source: Sir Walter Bodmer, European Human Genome Diversity Project, on the incidence of the inherited blood disorder thalassaemia on the island of Cyprus, 1993.

  187. quote:
    “Marxism? Where did that come from? None of us ever mentioned it!”

    see – Comment by richard hill | 2008/05/18 at 12:29:12

    quote:
    “My original comments, as I keep on repeating, were not aimed at the Macedonian issue, but at something that was evoked by Eric Hobsbawm … in his book ‘Nations and Nationalism since 1780?: “Macedonia did not become a battlefield for Slav philologists until the twentieth century, when the Greeks, who could not compete on this terrain, compensated by stressing an imaginary ethnicity.””

    Hobsbawm could not be more irrelevant a source when it comes to history and ethnology in the balkans. Imagine one who’s quoting him.

  188. quote:
    “4. Cyprus: Greek and Turkish Cypriots (except recent immigrants) are (1) genetically related and (2) have no direct genetic link with mainland Greeks.

    Source: Sir Walter Bodmer, European Human Genome Diversity Project, on the incidence of the inherited blood disorder thalassaemia on the island of Cyprus, 1993.”

    I could not find this study. Can you provide a link? Where is it published?

    “Genes mirror geography within Europe”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7218/abs/nature07331.html
    You should know this recent (2008) publish in ‘Nature’ places Cypriots well within Greek genetic influence and generaly controverses your ‘typicaly british’ view of European peoples.

  189. The Cyprus thalassaemia case was described by Sir Walter Bodmer in a ‘BBC Horizon’ programme, of which you may be able to get a transcript via one of the following sites:

    http://www.bbcactive.com/BroadCastLearning/asp/catalogue/productdetail.asp?productcode=21649
    http://www.biab.ac.uk/online/results1.asp?ItemID=33189

    It is also described in a book, The Race Gallery, by Marek Cohn. Look for ‘Sir Walter’s Journey’ in the following:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/marek.kohn/seacoast.html

  190. No, Progress, I said that it was featured on a ‘BBC Horizon’ programme.

    To get details of the study, you need to contact Sir Walter Bodmer who headed the project. His address is:

    Head, Cancer and Immunogenetics Laboratory
    Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine
    University of Oxford
    (walter.bodmer@hertford.ox.ac.uk)

  191. to Mr Hill , ( for the proper information of the bloggers)

    the following comments clearly refute Mr Hill’s highly biased opinion in connection with the origin of Greeks!

    Slavmacedonian nationalists want Greece back, or at least its northern provinces. Earliest weapon are some obscure genetic studies, which claims that while Slavmacedonians belong to the older Mediterranean substratum of peoples, Greeks do not. Consequently, the study concludes, the Slavmacedonians predate even the earliest Greek civilization.

    Among Slavmacedonian ultranationalists who believe that Greece “has held Macedonian territory illegally for…95 years” and who dream of the re-unification of historical ethnic Macedonia,(among them and the FYROM PM) there is considerable excitement at the prospect of their view that Slavmacedonians “are the oldest people living in the Balkans” being genetically corroborated. Most of today’s Slavmacedonian are in fact citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), carved out of the remains of Yugoslavia in 1991, with many others living in northern Greece.

    Slavmacedonians speak a Slavic language, very close to the Bulgarian; part of a family of language, brought to the Balkans by Slavic tribes in the sixth and seventh centuries, and first began to develop a unique national identity at the turn of the twentieth century. Nonetheless, some of these citizens believe that they are in fact the descendants of Alexander the Great of Macedon, and as such “are not Slavs, but have a direct descent from the ancient Macedonians.” Consequently, they claim territorial rights to Greece’s Northern Historical and admistrative Province, also called Macedonia and part of the site of the ancient Macedon kingdom, a Greek ruler kingship.

    Genetic Studies of Greeks

    Modern studies have constructed Greek genetic trees revealing a strong degree of homogeneity between Greeks from different geographical locations. Median networks revealed that most of the Greek haplotypes are clustered to the five known haplogroups and that a number of haplotypes are shared among Greeks and other European and Near Eastern populations. Within the loci studied, the genetic composition of the Greeks indicates a significantly low level of heterogeneity compared with other European populations.[1][2] The levels of the R1a1 haplotype, associated by some with Slavic migrations, [3] have been found to be less than 12% (by way of comparison the relevant percentage for Syria is 10% and Poland 60%). [4]This confirms other studies that disprove the thesis that the Greeks have mingled substantially with Slavic people.[5][6] A 7%–22% contribution of Y chromosomes by Greeks to Southern Italy was estimated by admixture analysis in the same study.[5] Yet other studies point out the significant frequency drop of the R1a marker over the short geographic distance between Greece and its Slavic northern neighbours. [7]

    Modern scholars and scientists have supported the notion that there is a racial connection to the ancient Greeks. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza, have found evidence of a genetic connection between the ancient and modern Greeks. [8] Recent genetic analyses of Greek populations have provided evidence of statistically significant continuity between ancient and modern Greeks (low admixture attributed to genetic isolation due to physical barriers). [9][10][11][12]

    Modern and ancient Greeks

    Some authors in the West and Turkey [13] have posited that the Greeks of today are not culturally or demographically related to the Greeks of classical antiquity. Notable among them was the 19th century Austrian historian Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer. Fallmerayer, in his work Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea während des Mittelalters, averred that demographic continuity in Greece was interrupted brutally by successive waves of invasion and migration between the 6th and 8th century by Slavs, and later, in the second half of the 14th century by Albanians [14]who occupied and settled mainly in the Peloponnese. [15]According to this narrative, the centre of gravity of the ancient Greek ethnos was shifted outside the boundaries of modern Greece, and so the “demographic evidence is at best tenuous, at worst non-existent”. [15] The traditional view is that the Fallmerayer thesis, rooted in 19th century racialism, [16]provoked an “outraged” Greek response, of which Constantine Paparrigopoulos was the spearhead;[88] however, modern scholarly opinion tends to see both Fallmerayer and Paparrigopoulos as taking positions influenced by and intelligible only within the political and intellectual decline of Western philhellenism. [17]

    Fallmerayer’s controversial and racist [16][17] views were later incorporated in Nazi theoretician Alfred Rosenberg’s Der Mythus des 20es Jahrhunderts and found adherents in the Third Reich who echoed them in their writings. [18][19][20] They were also actively promoted by the Axis occupation authorities in Greece who hoped to extinguish any sympathy their troops might feel for the Greeks. [18] Other Western authors say that it is Westerners who are the “true heirs” of Greece, since Greeks today, whom they label “modern Greeks”, are the product of “genetic dissonance” and “mingling with slaves”. [21] While the point of demographic continuity has been contested by several authors in the West and Greece, ideas of race have never been such a prominent feature in the Greek world, either ancient, [22] or later. The medieval Greek mythological hero Digenis Acritas was so named because of his dual, Greek and Syrian, parentage. [23]

    The most obvious link between modern and ancient Greeks is their language, which has a documented tradition from at least the 14th century BC to the present day, albeit with a break during the Greek Dark Ages. The Byzantinist Robert Browning, compares its continuity of tradition to Chinese alone.[25] At its inception, Hellenism was a matter of common culture[26] and the national continuity of the Greek world is more certain than its demographic. [15]Even during the Slavic migrations, in Ionia and Constantinople there was a Hellenic revival in language, philosophy and literature and on classical models of thought and scholarship. Such revivals would manifest again in the 10th and 14th century providing a powerful impetus to the sense of cultural affinity with ancient Greece and its classical heritage. [15] The cultural changes undergone by the Greeks are, despite a surviving common sense of ethnicity, undeniable.At the same time the Greeks have retained their language and alphabet, certain values, a sense of religious and cultural difference and exclusion, (the word barbarian was used by 12th century historian Anna Komnene to describe non-Greek speakers), [24] a sense of Greek identity and common sense of ethnicity despite the many political and social changes of the past two millennia.

    The Arnaiz-Villena controversy

    An often-cited study from 2001 by the Spanish lab of the Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al. (among them were and Slavamcedonian genetists from FYROM-SkopjeUniversity) [27] which maps 28 world population based on the HLA DRB1 locus, concluded that “the reason why Greeks did not show a close relatedness with all the other Mediterraneans analyzed was their genetic relationship with sub-Saharan ethnic groups now residing in Ethiopia, Sudan, and West Africa (Burkina Faso).” Later that year, the same data was used in another study by the same author published in a different journal. [28] This second paper dealt specifically with the relatedness of Palestinians and Israelis and was subsequently “deleted from the scientific literature” because, according to the editor-in-chief Nicole Suciu-Foca, it “confounded the elegant analysis of the historic basis of the people of the Mediterranean Basin with a political viewpoint representing only one side of a complex political and historical issue”. [29]

    Erica Klarreich’s report on the controversy further quotes Suciu-Foca as saying that the reaction against the paper was so severe that “We would have had mass resignations and the journal would have been destroyed if this paper were allowed to remain.” [30] The controversy was further reported on in numerous locations including The Observer. [31]

    Shortly after this, three respected geneticists, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Alberto Piazza and Neil Risch, argued that the scientific limitations of Arnaiz-Villena’s methodology. [32] They stated that “Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.”, making specific allusion to the findings on Greeks (among others) as “anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups.”

    No multiple-marker analysis has ever duplicated Arnaiz-Villena’s results. In The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton, 1994), Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza grouped Greeks with other European and Mediterranean populations based on 120 loci (view MDS plot [33]). Then, Ayub et al. 2003[ [34] did the same thing using 182 loci (view dendrogram [35]).

    Another study was conducted in 2004 at Skopje’s University of Ss. Kiril and Metodij, using high-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 according to Arnaiz-Villena’s methodology. Contrary to his earlier conclusion, however, no sub-Saharan admixture was detected in the Greek sample. [36]

    A 2006 study by Tunisian scientists again asserted the relatedness of the Greeks to sub-Saharans by calculating genetic distances at the DRB1 locus, [37] the same marker used in the controversial Arnaiz-Villena paper. Both papers interpreted those results as suggesting an admixture occurred due to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopic people during the Pharaonic period. However, the Tunisian scientists failed to analyze any new Greek genetic material, relying solely on the data contained in the earlier Arnaiz-Villena paper, and no Greek laboratory contributed to their research. [37]

    The credibility of Arnaiz-Villena was seriously damaged after he was suspended without pay from the Hospital Doce de Octubre in Madrid, where he heads the department of immunology and molecular biology, after being charged with embezzlement of funds. [38] In addition to this charge, Dr Arnaiz-Villena is facing allegations of “moral harassment” at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, where he chairs a research and teaching immunology unit. All charges against Prof Arnaiz-Villena were proven to be fabricated and false and he was reinstated in his post(see Wikipedia ,link to “Antonio Arnaiz-Villena”) [39]

    Epilogue

    The disputed data continues to be cited all over the internet, mostly by white supremacists, afrocentrists and Slavmacedonians nationalists (usually VMRO fans and Diaspora Centers like maknews.com) who have political motivations to relate modern and/or ancient Greeks to black Africans. However, it’s no longer referenced by population geneticists in contemporary research, mainly due to the criticism of Cavalli-Sforza et al.

    The genetics, with its appearance of scientific objectivity, holds obvious—albeit illusory—appeal. As Appelbaums remarked for nations with strong claims to territorial sovereignty, genetic data will be irrelevant; for nations with weak claims, such data will always be inadequate. Advocates who look to genetics for a decisive victory are certain to be disappointed. [40]
    Nationality is a matter of culture and education and not genetic (mixtures) issue. Who is the person that put blood standards as about the nationality (race)?
    The racist and the “white arryan”supremacist that think the colour of the skin and eye or the blood markers are the definition of the race.

    Modern Greeks are the descendants of all the peoples who have adopted and retained that language and that civilization from classical times to the present. I am not claim that genetic purity is an ideal for the Greek people and the others racist thinks.Asa I said even Sforza put two others factors except the clusters and these are the language and the history. Modern Greek nation is not an entirely modern formation, for it is based on much older cultural groups (ethnies). Greek ethnies (like Arvanites, Vlachs, Slavophones etc.) present “permanent cultural attributes” such as memory, value, myths and symbolisms. Greek ethnies present a common cultural origin descending from ancient Greece and Byzantium.Thus, as Smith points out, “the challenge for scholars is to represent more accurately and convincingly the relationship of ethnic, cultural (Greek) past to modern (Greek) nation”. [41]

  192. Giorgios, I have also seen the article ‘FYR Macedonia genetic propaganda against Greek Nation’ published in the American Chronicle two months ago. I never questioned the possibility that your people today have “a racial connection to the ancient Greeks”. The issue is to what extent is this a reality, and to what extent is it a process of mythmaking? I prefer to think that the latter is an important element.

    I never believed in Fallmerayer, but I have seen plenty of evidence suggesting that there was a substantial influx of Albanian peoples into the Peloponnese in the late-14th century. A compatriot of yours also recently said in ‘Yahoo! Answers’ that Greeks have “picked up a lot of Arab and Berber Y chromosomes in Greece from the Moorish invasions”. That’s an aspect of Greek diversification I wasn’t aware of, unless it is a reference to the discredited research of Arnaiz-Villena (I think not).

    My thesis (a Greek word, thank you!) is that what many people suspect is a bit of a racial fudge is confirmed by the antics of the Greek Government since the annexation of Greek Macedonia in 1913, leading up to the fascist behaviour of the Metaxas regime in the late-1930s which sponsored a policy of enforced hellenisation. Speakers of Slav and other minority languages were ‘assimilated’, suppressed or evicted. In fact the Greek constitution does not even recognize the existence of national (i.e. ethnic) minorities on its territory, and Greek society tends to show a general lack of tolerance towards the ‘other’. This is definitely not in accordance with the principles of Athenian democracy.

    As I said in my original blog, “the Greeks’ relaxed attitude to ethnic identification is demonstrated by the cavalier description of the Macedonians they acquired in 1913 as ’slavophone Greeks’.” But as you will see if you read my blog again, I was not taking issue on the relative rights of the Greek Macedonians versus the good people of FYROM, so much of this argument has really gone over my head. Go on firing at one another if you want to, but please don’t be abusive.

  193. Dear Richard,

    The Greek government has never doubted the existence of slavophone Greek citizens in Macedonia. Thats why they have been counted in a cencus(around 50000) at the beginning of the century by the Greek government.
    Many of those people fought along with the Greeks against the Ottomans during the Balkan wars. Many of them identified themselves as Bulgarians, others as native slavo macedonians speaking a slavomacedonian idiom (similar to the bulgarian language) while some others as Greeks who were slavonised over the centuries. They definitely speak a language which belongs to the slavic group of languages according to linguistic research.
    Greece does not object to the existence of these people. What we do object to is their connection to ancient macedonians.If they want to be recognised as slavomacedonians that is fine with us. But you see that is not enough for them! The communist propaganda brainwashed them over the years and made them believe that they are the authentic ancient macedonians paradoxically speaking a slavic language though! They try to steal and distort our history , heritage, culture etc. Those people, have formed a political party (rainbow) in Greece and in the national elections in 2004 counted around 3000 votes including some extreme left voters who support them. This is definitely in accordance with the principles of the Athenian democracy I think. Also the leaders of the rainbow party hold priviliged civil service jobs proving that the Greek state does not discriminate against them. They are free to say their opinion but they are not free to insult and distort oyr history. That is why cannot be named macedonians only because smply they are not only macedonians they are slavomacedonians.
    Mr Gruevski (their PM) is the grandson of Nikolaos Gruios a Greek who fought and died against the Germans during the 2nd WW. His name appears on a memorial to the dead erected in the macedonian village Ahlada. Janissary Gruevski ? Or brainwashed Gruevski? that is the question to be answered!

  194. Just as Macedonia and other Balkan states were invaded by Slavs and other peoples from the north and from within the Balkans themselves, so were the lands that eventually were to become modern Greece.

    Modern greek writers give a great deal of emphasis to the idea of Greek racial purity. Macedonia has been represented as a buffer protecting Hellenism from the waves of the barbarians throughout the centuries. Thus it is argued by modern Greeks that the area of the present-day Republic of Macedonia was affected by these barbarian invasions, but the lands that are now Greece were largely unaffected.

    Greek nationalists do not wish to examine evidence concerning the present state within Greece that may reflect on this question about the reality of ethnic purity. The editor of The Times wrote in August 1993: “Since 1961, no Greek census has carried details of minorities. This is because successive Greek governments, ‘a la mode japonaise,’ subscribe to a myth of homogeneity. Today, the historical refusal to acknowledge ethnic or cultural plurality has transmogrified into a refusal to accept political dissent in relation to these ethnic or cultural questions.”

    Simon Mcllwaine writes, “Modern Greek identity is based on an unshakable conviction that the Greek State is ethnically homogenous. This belief … has entailed repeated and official denial of the existence of minorities which are not of ‘pure’ Hellenic origin. The obsession with Greek racial identity involves the distortion of the history of the thousands of years when there was no such thing as a Greek nation state.”

    Many of the views that follow explain that, whether the Greeks feel comfortable with the idea or not, their peoples are of diverse ethnic background, a great mix of the peoples of the Balkans, and have been for the past several thousand years. If all of the peoples of the Balkans were subjected to mixture of varying degrees with the invaders, as was certainly the case, then the argument might readily be made that modern-day Greeks are no more ethnically related to early Greeks than present-day Macedonians are to ancient Macedonians.

  195. Lazaro,

    you might be right… but you seem to forget a minor??? for you detail… that ancient macedonians spoke Greek (spoke makedonisti like the athenians spoke attikisti etc. which are different dialects of Greek!)
    Modern Greeks also speak Greek which itself determines their ethnology!
    Modern slavomacedonians speak a slavic idiom, which also determines your slavomacedonian ethnicity!
    Even your PM Gruevski has greek blood running in his veins whether he likes it or not he is a Greek- slav macedonian due to intermarriage of his father. His grand father from his father side was pure Greek dying while fighting for Greece against the nazis!

    we can only live in peace if you give up your ex- communist -present day- nationalistic aspirations for a great macedonia and at the same time acknoledge your slavic origin as your former president Gligorov did!
    Greeks have been living peacefully with foreign nationalities for hundreds of years
    there are over 1.5 million immigrants at the moment in Greece and as regards the muslim or slalvophone Greek citizens enjoy all the rights of a european citizen over the last 30 years! And a final question… can a citizen of FYROM identify himself as a Bulgarophone today? And if he does will he ever be appointed in the civil service? or even get a decent job? Who violates basic human rights is easy to be proved. The Leaders of the slavophone Greek political party Rainbow hold priviliged civil service jobs…

  196. Richard,

    for your own information pay a visit to http://WWW.vardaraxios.info …. very interesting stuff from the philhellenic slavic network! However Vasko Gligorijevic was arrested… jailed…hospitalised as mentally sick??? Nobody knows yet… only his majesty N. Gruevski might know what has happened to him only because he spoke the truth!
    They talk about human rights and national identity in Fyrom? What a joke!

    freedom to Vasko Gligorijevic!!

  197. More than 250 prestigious scholars from all over the world, in a letter to president Obama about a month ago, dismiss FYR Macedonia claims as “silliness”! But for you the greeks are wrong!!! What is this complex you have with them?

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘1055386704 which is not a hashcash value.

  198. Georgios and George, You Greeks seem to be missing the point: read my blog again. I was not talking about the rights and wrongs of the Macedonia issue, I was talking about the Greek phenomenon of mythmaking.

    I fact, we other European are largely to blame. A feature on the new Parthenon museum in the International Herald Tribune of 24 June (a few days ago) quotes a Greek writer, Nikos Dimou,as saying: “We used to speak Albanian and call ourselves Romans, but then Winkelmann [the German art historian], Goethe, Victor Hugo, Delacroix, they all told us: ‘No, you are Hellenes, direct descendants of Plato and Socrates’, and that did it. If a small, poor nation has such a burden put on its shoulders, it will never recover.”

    And thanks to other Greek so-called historians, the country’s politicians and the late lamented Melina Mercouri, the mythmaking is still going on…

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘1055386704 which is not a hashcash value.