Зад Карпати

So zamonuvanjeto na turcite od Makedonija i nejzinata trojna podelba i osobeno vo periodot na t.n. socijalozam, vo istoriskote krugovi se raznese glas deka juzhnite sloveni poteknuvaat od zad karpatite. Ovaa teorija normalno ja prepishavme od srpskata i bugarskata literatura koja pak tie ja prepishaa od ruskata. Za zhal na balkanskite prostori se se prepishuva bukvalno. Ako e prepishano os ruska literatura deka slovenite poteknuvaat od zad karpatite, razmislete kade se naogaat zad karpatite gledano od Rusija.

Што се тоа Словени?

Jas mislam deka Slovenite kako ime-nacija na eden ist narod NE POSTOELA vo vremeto na Alexandar i pred toa.  Toa MOZEBI bile grupi na luge od ISTO poteklo - megutoa SIGURNO ne se vikale TAKA VO ANTICHKO VREME, tuku e Romansko-Grcka KREACIJA, sto PODOCNA IM ODGOVARALA I NA RUSITE, za da bidat GLAVNI "proizvoditeli" na TAA "NACIJA". 

Tie postoele pod DRUGI iminja - kako pleminja vo skoro CELIOT bivshi Jugoslovenski PROSTOR a nie Makedoncite, podolu i poshiroko.  Nesto slicno mozebi so nash*te Pajonci, Pelasgijci i Pelagonci. 

Eve edno nauchno gledishte, sto MENE mi ima golema smisla i vernost:

By Dr. Florin Curta, Associate Professor, Areas of expertise: Medieval History and Archaeology from University of Florida. email:fcurta@history.ufl.edu
The publisher: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, England and New York).

This book offers a new approach to the problem of Slavic ethnicity in south-eastern Europe between c. 500 and c. 700, from the perspective of current anthropological theories. The conceptual emphasis here is on the relation between material culture and ethnicity. The author demonstrates that the history of the Sclavenes and the Antes begins only at around 500 AD. He also points to the significance of the archaeological evidence, which suggests that specific artifacts may have been used as identity markers. This evidence also indicates the role of local leaders in building group boundaries and in leading successful raids across the Danube. Because of these military and political developments, Byzantine authors began employing names such as Sclavines and Antes in order to make sense of the process of group identification that was taking place north of the Danube frontier. Slavic ethnicity is therefore shown to be a Byzantine invention.

"Our present day knowledge of the origin of the Slavs is, to a large extent, a legacy of the 19th century. A scholarly endeavor inextricably linked with forging national identities...." (Page 6, Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500 - 700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

"Instead of a great flood of Slavs coming out of the Pripet marshes, I envisage a form of group identity which could arguably be called ethnicity and emerged in response to Justinian's implementation of a building project on the Danube frontier and in the Balkans. The Slavs, in other words, did not come from the north, but became Slavs only in contact with the Roman frontier." (Page 3, Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs, History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500 - 700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

Since both reviewers before me made a detailed review, I would like to interpret the content of this scientificaly very well supported scholar work in a larger context. First of all, I would like to inform/remind future readers that the concept of "Slavic migrations" is a residue of the 19-th century scholarship whose conclusions were "firmly based" on the scarcity of the archaeological material and the "prima facie" interpretation of the mediveal Byzantine texts. Curta uses: much more material artefacts, his common sense and analytical approach to the written material. Consequently, it is no surprise that he comes to the conclusion that there was no "arrival of the Slavs" and there were no "massive Slavic migrations" on the Balkans in the early middle ages. The reader will find it difficult to draw a different conclusion on the basis of the presented evidence in the book.
However, the conclusions of Dr. Curta concerning the Slavic ethnogenesis are supported by at least two more independent streams of scholar work.

The first one comes in a form of recent breakthroughs in the field of genetics. The analyses of genetic founder linages on the populations in the Balkans (and eastern Europe) showed that only 10% of the extant mt DNA genetic pool (maternal ancestry) is of recent date (recent = starting from Metal ages onwards). The rest (90%) of the lineages are from Paleo-Mezo-Neolithic migrations that ceased some 5000 -6000 years before present. Similar results were found for the Y-chromosome lineages (paternal ancestry).

The second stream of scholar work that discards the idea of massive Slavic migrations in the early Middle Ages is the Theory of continuity of Professor Mario Alinei. This theory (which is strongly corroborated by the above mentioned genetic findings) claims that the populations and languages in Europe are more or less geographically autohtonous. On several places in his two volume study ( Il Mulino editions 1996 & 2000) he points out that the idea of recent Slavic migrations is inconsistent and unsupported either by archaeological or linguistic evidence.
(I hope that this extremely important and up to date study will be published in English soon).

Those strong correlations between Curta's and Alinei's evidence and conclusions, on the one side, and the genetic evidence on the other, make a really strong case against the concept of Slavic migrations and offers a much more supported model of the prehistory and history of Balkans.

Seen in this larger context, the content of Dr. Curta's book represents a basic component of the new paradigm that emerges in the scholar work.

We cordially hope that time has come to make significant changes in the elementary school and high school history textbooks which are still based on the interpretations of the 19-th century scholar work.

http://www.amazon.ca/Making-Slavs-History-Archaeology-500-700/dp/0521802024/sr=1-4/qid=1168426121/ref=sr_1_4/701-0374439-9607544?ie=UTF8&s=books

Borec, konechno da slushnam logichno razmisluvanje. Se slozhuvam so tvoite zakluchoci.
Imeto ,,Sloveni,, ako ne se lazham poteknuva od slovo (ili slava) i najverojatno doaga so Kiril i Metodij.
Se sekavam od osnovno koga brakata gi uchele ,,reckarite,, (onie koi pishuvale so cretki i recki) da pishuvaat so slova (bukvi). Ako ja vrzeme logikata, denes kamenot od rozeta e deshjifriran (srednoto pismo, demotika), pa zarem toa ne se onie recki i crtki.