Talk:Bitola inscription

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bulgaria Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Bulgaria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bulgaria-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!

Stub

This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Bitola inscription:

edit · history · watch · refresh

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

THE TEXT 1. This is the text translated in Bulgarian from the fake stone in Voden: 1. V samodurjavnia grad Voden Az Samuil, veren v Hrista 2. Car na Bulgarite i Romeite, ot boga izpraten samodurjec 3. na vsichki strani ot Rashka do Makedonia, Tesalia 4. i Gurcia , vnuk na staria Shishman, koito beshe Han na 5. jitelite na Turnovo, postroih tozi molitven dom, za da sushtestvuva v vechnostta. Osnovite biaha polojeni v epohata na Ieremia, koito beshe pruv hristianin ot Melnik. 6. Postroen be (tozi hram) za grehovete i spasenieto na bulgarite 7. ot prokletia Satana, koito proizhojda ot Konstantinopol. 8. Tozi hram be zavurshen prez 14-tata godina ot caruvaneto mi s pomoshtta na sveshtennika Gavril, koito e duhoven pastirna jitelite na Muglen. 9. Napisano prez godina 6497 ot suzdavaneto na sveta (989 g.)5-ti Indiktion.

Rough translation into English: In the city of Voden, I Samuil, faithul to Christ, Emperor of the Bulgars and Romans, Godsent emperor of all lands from Raska to Macedonia, Thessaly and Greece, nephew of the old Shishman who was Khan of the inhabitants of Trnovo, built this prayer home, to exist forever. The foundation were laid in the epoch of Jeremiah, who was the first Christian in Melnik. This tample was built for the sins and saving of the Bulgars from damned Satan, who comes from Constantinople. This tample was finished during the 14th year of my rule with the help of monk Gavril, who is the spiritial shepherd of the inhabitants of Meglen. Written during year 6497 from the foundation of the world (989 A.D), 5th Indiction.

2. This is the text translated in Bulgarian from the stone in Bitola: "Prez godina 6523 (1015-1016) ot sutvorenieto na sveta obnovi se tazi krepost, zidana i pravena ot Ioan, samodurjec bulgarski, s pomoshtta i s molitvite na presvetata vladichica nasha Bogorodica i chrez zastupnichestvoto na dvanadesette i na vurhovnite apostoli. Tazi krepost be napravena za ubejishte i za spasenie i za jivota na bulgarite. Zapochnata beshe krepostta Bitolia prez mesec oktomvri v 20-i den, a se zavurshi v mesec... kraia. Tozi samodurjec beshe bulgarin po rod, vnuk na Nikola i na Ripsimia blagovernite, sin na Aaron, koito e brat na Samuil, caria samodurjaven, i koiito dvamata razbiha v Shtipon (Ihtiman) gruckata voiska na car Vasilii, kudeto be vzeto zlato... , a tozi v.. . car razbit bide ot car Vasilii v godina 6522 (1014) ot sutvorenieto na sveta v Kliuch i pochina v kraia na liatoto."

Rough translation into English: During the year 6523 (1015-1016) from the beggining of the world this fortress is being renewed, built and made by Ioan, Bulgarian autocrator, with the help and prayers of our Virgin Mary and through the representation of the twelve and supreme apostles. This fortress was made as haven and deliverance of the lives of the Bulgarians. The fortress Bitolia was started during the month of October 20th and was completed in the month of... ending. This autocrator was Bulgarian by birth, nephew of Nikola and Ripsimia, son of Aaron, who is brother to Samuil, the tsar autocrator, with whom they smashed in Shtipon (Ihtiman) the Greek army of tsar Vasili, where they took gold..., and this tsar was destroyed by tsar Vasili in the year of 6522 (1014) from the beginning of the world in Kliuch and died at the end of the summer

3. The Story During September 1997 a Greek national with "Bulgarian identity" from Voden named Stoidis appeared in Sofia at the National Historical Museum and declared to the Director Bozidar Dimitrov that he has in his possession a stone inscription found in Voden (Edessa) during the reconstruction of a local church. The Director declared the inscription a fake made by Bulgarian nationalists in the 19th Century. Apparently the whole story was published in the Bulgarian daily Kontinent on "02.10.1997."

The "Bitola inscription" was discovered during the demolition of a mosque in Bitola during the 1950's and so far nobody doubted its veracity. Considering the Voden case the Bitola stone has to be viewed in new light. Chances that it was written by the same authors are indeed very high. We have also to ask about other products from the same authors as well as regard the whole Bulgarian historiography concerning Macedonia with great suspicion.

There have been another falsification with stone inscription found or made from Stamen Vasilev from Sandanski in Bulgaria.Commision from state institutions have found that newest inscription is falsificat. It is obvious that nathional-romantisam is in production busines long time in Bulgaria

Еxcuse me, but what are you prove with the information about the other inscriptions. If you know some scientist who think that Bitola inscription is a fake, please be honest, poit him - his exact thesis, title, page. I assert that there is not scientists (not journalists) that assert openly that the Bitola inscription is a fake. Even in Macedonia (or Serbia). It is not true the information in the article that the term „Блъгарїнь“ (bl'garin') or bulgarians as „Блъгаромь„ (bl'garom') is a 19th century pronounciation of bulgarian/s. This is the term from ІХ centurу. I reccomend to all who understand Bulgarian language to see in disscussion page of Bulgarian articleq where I pointed many evidences about the term bl'garin in IX-XIII centuries (bg:Беседа:Битолски надпис). Regards, --AKeckarov 21:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

To Keckarovo: Horace Lunt in Slavic Review ( Vol. 31, No. 2. (Jun., 1972), p. 499.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanjak (talk • contribs)

1 To Bomac
2 Criticism
3 Contra Criticism
4 Whoaaa...
5 Added some text

[edit] To Bomac

The Bitola Inscription was officially recognised as authentic in former Yugoslavia (although late as its existence was concealed for obvious reasons for nearly a decade) and is the subject of a number of research books there. Trying to include in the article tabloid theories questioning its authenticity when even your own country has acknowledged the authenticity has nothing to do with NPOV and in wiki language is called "trolling". As for the discrepancy in the names, check again your sources: Bulgarian in old Bulgarian (Preslav Literary School) is and has always been "блъгарин", "болгарин" is Church Slavonic, dear. Please, don't occupy us with popular myths circulating in nationalistic circles in the Republic of Macedonia. VMORO 13:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The so called Bitola inscription is a product of mutual imagination of Vladimir Moshin and Jordan Zaimov. There is no date visible on the inscription and half of the text is conjured by Moshin and Zaimov which DOES NOT exist on the original inscription - as Horace Lunt and Ihor Shevcenko, two prominent scholars from the Dumbarton Oaks and Harvard Department of Slavic studies, had informed scientific community. For more info I would advise those interested in the objective and true scholarly research to refer to the following commentary of Horace Lunt in Slavic Review ( Vol. 31, No. 2. (Jun., 1972), p. 499.)

Additional point: Greek archeologist Nikos Moutsopoulos who had uncovered grave of emperor Samuel (St Achilleos, Mala Prespa), commenting on the results of his excavations, stated the following: "„The graffiti in Greek on the walls of the basilic ,the Greek inscriptions on the several layers of wall painting inside the church, the tombs in the narthex in which the custom of providing the deceased with a coin to pay his passage across the Styx had been observed, together with evidence of the presence, especially in various parts of Western and Upper Macedonia, of Romans, Vlachs, Albanians and Slavs after Samuel's short-lived kingdom had fallen to Emperor Basil II (1014-1018), it may be concluded that the language of this state was indeed Greek.” (N Moutsopoulos, Vasilike...Thessalonike, 1999, p331)

So, if the language of this state was indeed Greek, where, then, the Bitola inscription, written supposedly in "ancient Bulgarian", fits the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanjak (talk • contribs)

Not a single word of what you've written is true. Sorry.--Laveol 08:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Битолската плоча е пронадејна во 1956 г. во битолската Чауш-џамија. За првпат нејзиното постоење во јавноста е соопштено 1959 г. Според Радмила Угринова - Скаловска, Битолската плоча: „помлада е за околу 25 годни од Самуиловата плоча...[ок. 1018 г.] Направена е по заповед на Јоан Владислав, еден од наследниците на Самуила. …Истакнувањето на бугарското потекло од страна на Јоан Владислав е во согласност со настојувањето на Самуиловиот род да се поврзе со државноправната традиција на Симеоновото царство. Од друга страна, и западни и византиски писатели и хроничари, сите жители на царството на Петар [бугарски цар, владее од 927 до 969 г.], наследникот на бугарскиот цар Симеон, ги наречувале Бугари.“ Дел од содрината на плочата, според преводот на Скаловска:„Овој град [Битола] се соѕида и се направи од Јоан самодржец [цар] на бугарското (блъгарьскаго) цраство... Овој град (крепост) беше направен за цврсто засолниште и спасение на животот на Бугарите (Блъгаромь)... Овој цар и самодржец беше родум Бугарин (Блъгарїнь), тоест внук на благоверните Никола и Рипсимија, син на Арона, постариот брат на самодржавниот цар Самуил...“ (Р.У. - Скаловска, Записи и летописи. Скопје 1975. 43-44.)Jingby 07:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To Jingby:

Skalovska regretfully didn't do her homework. The very first thing any serious researcher could do is to check photos or/and original inscription before writing anything in a paper. I do have original photographs of the inscription (published by Moshin and Zaimov) and from analyzing it it's obvious - DATE is MISSING. The objective, scientific truth is not a matter of consensus, prevailing opinion or out-voting the "other side".

...Меѓутоа, бидејки за време на владеењето на Самуил... Македонија била споена со дел од денешна Бугарија... тоа била една од причината што тогаш и подоцна преовладувало името „Бугари“, иако одделни византиски писатели во текот на вековите точно ги разликувале едни од другите.“ (Стјепан Антолјак, Средновековна Македонија. Скопје 1980. 175-178)Jingby 16:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To Jingby:

During excavations near Mala Prespa, Greek archeologist, N Moutsopoulos discovered inscriptions on the walls of St Achilleos church which represent a list of episcopal thrones during Samuel's reign. This list, again, shows that Danube Bulgaria with its centers in Preslav and Dorostol was NOT part of Samuel's state.

[edit] Criticism

Firstly, before editing, prove that you are really into the matter. The name of the Bulgarian Tsar is Samuil (with "i"). The topic is controversial, but in The Republic of Macedonia alone. The criticism section is too long - please try to summarize what you're trying to say. And sign your posts. --Laveol 17:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Accordingly the text is as follows:

Translation from Old Bulgarian: “ In year 6723 (1234) since the creation of the world, this fortress, built and made by Ivan, Tsar of Bulgaria, was renewed with the help and the prayers of Our Most Holy Lady and through the intercession of her twelve supreme apostles. The fortress was built as a haven and for the salvation of the lives of the Bulgarians. The work on the fortress of Bitola commenced on the twentieth day of October and ended on the …unreadable text… and died at the end of the summer. ”

In conclusion, Robert Mathiesen (Department of Slavic languages, Brown University) summarized opinions of the scientific community as to the value of so-called "Bitola inscription": "As long as its true age remains in doubt. the evidence of the Bitolja inscription will have to be used with great caution; but this does not lessen the special importance for cyrillic palaeography which it will have as the work of two stonecutters-whatever the outcome if and when doubts are ever finally laid to rest." (The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1. (Spring, 1977), pp. 1-2.)

I've added this text here. You cannot build an article just by citing statements. If you want a part of it in the article, rewrite it. And what's this with the text - isn't the whole argument just about the year? And if it is, why did you put the text of the inscription again? And with a different text even? --Laveol 17:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To Laveol:

"Firstly, before editing, prove that you are really into the matter. The name of the Bulgarian Tsar is Samuil (with "i")."

Well, my friend, we can call SAMUEL any name! The reason? Well, aside Greek sources there is no mention of his name in any local, contemporary source of the time and when I say local and contemporary, I mean SLAVIC ONLY and not the Greek, Armenian (Stephan of Taron) or Arabic (Jahja). Unfortunately, Prespa and Bitola inscriptions are not what their "manufacturers" wanted them to be - those are tampered artifacts and not from the time their "discoverers" claimed them to be. Furthermore, most of the Greek transcriptions of at the time were wrong. Ana Komnena, for example, calls Serbian ruler Vlkan - Volcanos?! Unfortunately, we can only "rely" on Greek chronicles which are, aside being " reliable historical source", big propaganda pieces, as well. All Samuel's children had Slavic names: Miroslava, Radomir, Kosara, so, what makes you believe his name wasn't Slavic? Are you sure his name was Samuil? Samuel/Samoil/Samuil could easily be SAMOVIL - name of one of the serbian-slavic deities from pre-christian era.

By trying to hide facts by erasing my editions you will accomplish nothing, simply, because everything I had presented is in the facts and these facts speak for themselves: photos, expertise of the real specialists in the field (Lunt, Sevchenko, Mathiesen). The "majority" of scientists that you "claim" recognize validity of the "Bitola inscription" ARE NOT philologists but HISTORIANS, and they know nothing or very little about early Slavic orthography and epigraphy. Razbra?

Yes, we know this, cause his name is biblical as are those of his brothers - David, Aaron, and Moses. And, no, I can never be sure of something if I haven't seen it with my eyes. That's why I'm trying to put a part of your claims in the article. Neither you, nor the other Bulgarian users co-operate for now though. Yes, he was Bulgarian and yes, he was called Bulgarian and nothing else. As well as Samuil himself. I really find the way your fellows try to fill the gap of some 2000 or 3000 years in history in which the name Macedonia is used only in its geographical sense entertaining. But this is an encyclopedia, not science fiction. --Laveol 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Laveol:"Yes, he was Bulgarian and yes, he was called Bulgarian and nothing else. As well as Samuil himself. I really find the way your fellows try to fill the gap of some 2000 or 3000 years in history in which the name Macedonia is used only in its geographical sense entertaining. But this is an encyclopedia, not science fiction. --Laveol 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)"

No, he was not Bulgarian. Again, there is no slavic contemporary source which would support such a WILD claim, therefore, 'Samuil' could not call himself Bulgarian. At least, theories regarding his Areminian ancestry should be known to you. Also, my posting on Bitola inscription has nothing to do with theories of Macedonian scholars regarding Alexander the Great and Ancient Greece "controversy". I am not Macedonian.

Ok, so I was fooled by the "Rabra?" in your previous post. And you could still look at the Samuil article before throwing such statements. And sign your posts, please. --Laveol 17:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contra Criticism

Horace Lunt from Harvard said:

"In 1956 a marble block serving as part of the threshold of a sixteenth-century mosque in Bitola was discovered to contain a badly worn Slavonic inscription. The text clearly must have spilled over to a lost block on the left, and to one or more blocks at the top. Yet the twelve preserved lines refer to ”John, autocrat of the bulgars„ and, later, ”son of Aron.„

It is not posible to be ”son of Aron„ and not to be Ivan Vladislav! Enough Macedonism!Jingby 19:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To Jingby: Yes, it is possible to be son of Aaron and not to be Ioan Vladislav, especially if inscription is work of two stonecutters, lines 1-6 being from one and 7-12 from comletely different stonecutter. (R Mathiesen, The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1. (Spring, 1977), pp. 1-2.)

Yes, but in your "scientific translation" is no word about Aaron!?!213.130.72.22 07:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

“ In year 6723 (1234) since the creation of the world, this fortress, built and made by Ivan, Tsar of Bulgaria, was renewed with the help and the prayers of Our Most Holy Lady and through the intercession of her twelve supreme apostles. The fortress was built as a haven and for the salvation of the lives of the Bulgarians. The work on the fortress of Bitola commenced on the twentieth day of October and ended on the …unreadable text… and died at the end of the summer. ”

This is pure macedonism!213.130.72.22

The way some people are removing references from Harvard, Brown U, Dumbarton Oaks etc is a disgrace. What is next, will Berkley, Stanford, Princeton also be outlets of macedonism (whatever that is) if somebody doesn’t like the context? If the criticism is indeed propaganda, than it was probably refuted with easiness before and you can probably reference that. Otherwise both views should stay. Undue weights argument should also be explained by REFERENCES, not by . And references from Bulgaria and/or Macedonia have secondary value because of heavy bias.

Stop reverting FYROM forged documents.There are not such a conclusions from Harvard or somewhere! The second date on the original stone is good visible as the name of comitopul Aaron. Only blind macedonist is able to do such a forgery!Jingby 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying? 1) That the quotes from those articles are not correct? 2) The quotes are there, but the conclusions are different? 3) The articles do not exists?

If you have access you can check them on Internet. If you don’t, any graduate student in US (and probably other countries as well) can check it for you. I am sure someone in Wikipedia can volunteer for that, if needed.

The links provided are not convincingly authentic. Mr. Neutron 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whoaaa...

This article was in bad shape. I've stubbed it back to something readable and reduced the chaos of the unused and poorly cited references. I strongly urge everyone involved:

Don't re-introduce material whose sole interest is the modern political/ideological dispute between Macedonians and Bulgarians. The world doesn't care about those.
Don't re-introduce material regarding the scholarly dispute about dating and transcription, if your aim in doing so is only to illustrate a point about the modern political/ideological dispute... (see above).
Don't re-introduce any more scholarly quotes unless you're sure you actually understand what they are about.
Don't re-introduce scholarly quotes you have only from second hand out of some unreliable websites. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)