Stoyko Stoykov

This article analyzes three key dilemmas related to 'sclavinia Berzitia' in the context of the events of 773/774: the reasons behind the Bulgarian campaign; the motives of Constantine Kopronimus to prevent it; and the relationship between Berzitia and the Byzantine Empire (an independent, allied, friendly, dependent or subordinate sclavinia?) The events are reassessed in the wider context of the continuing confrontations between Byzantium and the Bulgars (756 - 775), and in particular the departure of 208 000 Slavs from the Bulgar-dependent territory in 763. The main thesis elaborated in the essay is that in the considered historical period 'sclavinia Berzitia' was independent from the Byzantine Empire and that its independency was the motive to be chosen for resettlement of its population in Bulgaria. Consequently, authors suggest that Constantine V's motive was not to protect Berzitia, but to prevent the attempt by khan Telerig to regenerate the power of the we...

In 1018 the state of the Comitopules capitulates to Basil II, presenting him with an even greater challenge than its subjugation. The necessity to reintegrate Balkan territories, which were outside the Byzantine borders for 4 centuries and a population, which was not only culturally, economically and socially different, but also showed a great degree of hostility towards Byzantium in the last half century. Basil II created in the Balkans a "zone with a special regime" consisting of the subject of Bulgarian Catepanat and the Ohrid archdiocese. Such a zone was created not on an ethnic basis, but for the population with the highest degree of disloyalty to Byzantium and loyalty to the state of the Comitopules. There were also serious motives of a geostrategic nature for its creation, especially the relations with the Pope and Germany, which influenced many aspects of this process, especially the resolution of the church question and the new reality that all these measures created. The reasons for its creation, maintenance and development, its scope, as well as its consequences in the field of representations, terminology and categorization of the subjugated as "others" in Byzantine society, are the focus of this research.

Во 1018 г. државата на комитопулите капитулира пред Василиј II поставувајќи го пред дури поголем предизвик отколку што било нејзиното покорување. Неопходноста да реинтегрира балкански те-
ритории, кои 4 века биле надвор од византиските граници и население, кое не само културно, економски и социјално било многу различно, но и покажало голема степен на непријателство спрема Византија во последниот половина век. Василиј создава на Балканот „зона со посебен режим“ сочинета од темата Бугарија и Охридската архиепископија. Таквата зона била создадена не на етнички принцип, туку за населението со највисока степен на нелојалност спрема Византија и на лојалност спрема државата на комитопулите. Имало и сериозни мотиви од геостратегиски карактер за нејзиното создавање особено односите со папата и Германија кои влијаеле врз многу аспекти од овој процес особено на решавањето на црковното прашање и новата реалност што сите овие мерки ја создале. Причините за нејзиното создавање, одржување и развој, нејзиниот опфат, како и последиците од тоа во областа на претставите, терминологијата и категоризацијата на покорените како
„други“ во византиското општество, се во фокусот на ова истражување.

The Others with Many Names: Macedonia as an Intersection Point of Otherness in the Medieval Balkans
This paper examines the phenomenon of Otherness in the Medieval Balkan region of Macedonia. We analyze the terms used to designate and label ‘otherness’ in respect of their origin, character, use, and their (non)acceptance by the population categorized as the Other. Оtherness is a key aspect in understanding the ethnicities of the past: which populations were regarded as their Other and by whom. Today, by the combination of these data from various (often opposed) political and cultural centers, we may identify the ‘zones of Otherness’, which often remained undefined and even unidentified in the sources. We may determine that certain geographical areas did not have their own elites to legitimize their separate identity, yet, that identity differed and refused to be identified with the imposed identity structures. Their Otherness could refer to a specific ethnicity, but not necessarily. The population in these zones did not necessarily have to be unified (by self-awareness, language, name, etc.), but they could. These zones were variable and often changed in both time and space.
However, some of the labeling terms used to designate this Otherness in the past are in use even today. More often than not, this use is aimed at different populations and geographical areas that are not related to the ones from the past, usually in a new national sense that does not correspond to their use in the Middle Ages. This phenomenon creates serious confusion in understanding history as it transfers contemporary pretensions and realities to the past (Fine 2006: 9–11).
Thereby, the author calls for careful studying of the terms and zones of Otherness within the context of their time and place. The region of Macedonia was definitely a zone of Otherness in Medieval times.
The Otherness was expressed by different names at different times, but the perception of many people in Macedonia as ‘others’ is constant throughout almost the entire Middle Ages. Those people were seen as ‘other’ and different from the Medieval Balkan centers of power: Constantinople, Pliska, Preslav, Trnovo, Ras. That Otherness was not strictly fixed to the borders of the region of Macedonia: sometimes it was spreading wider, other times it referenced only a part of Macedonia.
In the period between the 7–10th centuries, the Otherness was designating all the Slavs, expressed by the general term Slavs (but also Scythians, barbarians), used for the population of most of the Balkans, but also in Eastern Europe. Later on, between the 11–12th centuries, most of the region of Macedonia (without its southeastern part) was designated to an area of Otherness together with the territory of present-day Serbia, Kosovo, and some neighboring regions (Serdika, Southern Albania, part of Thessaly). This Otherness was designated by the term Vulgars/ Bulgars and was closely related to the Ohrid Archbishopric, its title, and the Slavic language nurtured in the churches of this area. At that time, the Balkan was not the only zone of Otherness in the perceptions of the Romans. There were two more: one in Dalmatia, designated with the terms Slavs, Illyrians, Serbs, and Croats; and another in Moesia, designated by terms such as mixed barbarians, Scythians, and local people. Contemporary Byzantine and other authors do not mix these three Othernesses and define them on different grounds: Dalmatia by its political autonomy, the Ohrid Archbishopric by the distinctiveness of its church and liturgy, and Moesia by multiethnicity, non-Romanism, and barbarism. During this period, in the terminology of some Byzantine authors, equivalence and mutual identification appeared between the terms ‘Bulgaria’ (Ohrid
Archbishopric) and ‘Slavic language/people’ (the liturgical language and the basic population in the archiepiscopate). It was a synonymous equation, not an idea. It meant that there are more Slavic peoples and Bulgarian is one of them, i.e. the Slavs are the Bulgarians and vice versa. In the Slavic sources of this time, this equivalence was not observed.
Between the 13th–14th centuries, Macedonia together with Thracia formed a new group of Otherness in the eyes of the elites of Bulgaria and Serbia, denoted by the terms Romania, Greek lands, and Greeks. At the same time, in Byzantium, a large part of that population was also seen as foreign, expressed in terms such as Myzi (Μυσοί), barbarians, Bulgarians, tribal people. During that time, in Greek sources from the Ohrid Archpiscopate, the term Bulgarianswill be redefined as a collective name for several Slavic nations. While in Bulgaria, the same term will be interpreted as an alternative to Romaioi—a supra-ethnic imperial name for the population in the northern Balkans (north of the line of Stara Planina-Skopje-Dyrrachium)—which includes Slavs, Vlachs (Aromanians), Serbs, and Cumans.
Namely, in this period, the equivalence between the terms Bulgarians and Slavs passes from the Byzantine in some Slavic sources. On the other hand, in other periods, for the Slavic authors in Macedonia, terms like Greeks and Bulgarians are clearly understood as foreign and those that express Otherness.
The author concludes that the region of Macedonia constantly belonged to some zone of Otherness during the Middle Ages: in a ‘vertical zone’, together with the region of today’s Serbia (11–12th century); or in a ‘horizontal zone’, together with Thracia (13–14th century). This territorial variability means that the Otherness was not assigned to known ethnically formed communities. Rather, the terms were being used to express the meaning of disloyalty, peripherality, marginality, cultural difference, cultural inferiority, and/or unknown foreign language. Most of these terms—Slavs, Bulgars/Bulgarians, barbarians, Myzi, Greeks, Scythians, and others—were used for designating the population in these zones, not as self-designation. Of all the names that were used to denote Otherness in Macedonia, only the term Slavs was used by the population itself as their own name and in an ethnic sense. After some time, the people who were designated as Others also developed terms for their Othernesses.

KEYWORDS: Otherness, zones of Otherness, ethnicity, Macedonia, Medieval
Balkans, Slavs, barbarians, Scythians, Moesians, Bulgars, Bulgarians.

This article attempts to shed light on the emergence of Sclavinia as a term in the medieval sources. In the old Slavic written tradition Sclavinia never appeared, which shows that it was an external name. In majority of cases, Sclavinia was a term used by imperial elites and on courts in Byzantium and in the West. Is seems to have appeared simultaneously in the East and in the West in 780th when many Slavic tribes were included in the Frankish and Byzantine sphere of influence and dominance. Despite some differences, in general the term was used in the same way in Byzantium and in the West: for Slavic entities put in the process of subjugation to the empires. The reason for this similarity could be found in intentionally followed imperial examples and terminology in the West.
Sclavinia was the official “imperial” border-zone term, for the area between the Slavic word and Christian empires, and was bound with the existence of these contact zones. It was not usually used for the territory deeply behind these borders, for non-imperial Slavic neighbours or for independent powerful Slavic states. As a term, Sclavinia lost its relevance with the disappearance of the small Slavic formations in imperial border zones, when they were assimilated into empires or evolved into larger independent state formations established under their own well-known names.
Created from the demonym in a way very common in the Middle Ages, Sclavinia was still relatively rarely used. Although a suitable collective term, its weakness was its too general and uncertain meaning. In the West it was used far more and longer than in Byzantium, and there it could be find outside of the imperial court, which was not the case in the Eastern empire. It was used with some differences – only in singular in the West, and usually in plural in Constantinople.

Key words: Sclavinia, term, border zone, Byzantine, West, East, ethnonym, sources, middle age, Christian empires.

This article deals with the terms Sclavinia and Sclavoarchontia, which are used in historiography in different and even contradictory ways, and it aims to clarify a highly complicated topic, investigating the ways these terms were used by contemporaries, trying to define differences between them and connecting their use with the political changes of the time. The discussed topics include the chronology of using these terms, different ways in which they were used, relations of Sclavinias and Sclavoarchontias with the Empire, their appearance and disappearance and the political processes connected with it, as well as an analysis the existing interpretations in science. Part I discuss mostly chronology and some existing hypothesises. The main part II analyses the way these terms were used and tray to define them.
The presented hypothesis connects these terms with the re-establishing of imperial authority in the Balkans marked  in the sources by replacing the term “Slavic nations” which was used to the end of the 8th century for the independent Slavic societies and their lands in the Balkan. The empire lacked capacity for direct subordination of the independent Slavic communities and was forced to relate on complicated measures including colonization and ensuring Slav cooperation in the process. Where the Empire had enough power, Slavic communities were organized inside themes as Sclavoarchontias, who received archons from the strategos, paid collective tribute and served as simahoi, but kept some inner autonomy. The Empire also tended to ensure the cooperation of Slavic communities around themes by granting titles and subsidies to some powerful Slavic leaders, which led to the creation of client states known as Sclavinias. They were not part of the thematic system, they had their native and hereditary leaders recognized and affirmed by the emperor by titles and seals and act as imperial allies. A prototype of both appeared at the end of the 7th c. but only when the relations of the type Sclavinia and Sclavoarchontia multiplied after Stauracius’ expedition in 783 corresponding generic terms appeared and became regular.
Key words:
Sclavinia, Sclavoarchontia, Slavic archontia, Slavic nations, Byzantium, imperial administrative system, subjugation, conquest of the Balkans.

This article deals with the terms ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’, which are used in historiography in different and even contradictory ways, and aims to clarify a highly complicated topic, investigating the ways these terms were used by contemporaries, trying to define differences between them and connecting their use with the political changes of the time. Topics discussed include the chronology of the terms’ usage, different ways in which they were being used, relations of ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’ with the Empire, their appearance and disappearance and the political processes connected with it, as well as the analysis of the existing interpretations. The first part mostly discusses chronology and some existing hypotheses. The second (and the main) part analyses the way these terms were used and tries to define them.
The hypothesis presented connects these terms with the re-establishing of imperial authority in the Balkans, marked in the sources by replacing the term ‘Slavic nations’, which had been used until the late 8th century to denote the independent Balkan Slavic societies and their lands. The Empire lacked the capacity for direct subjugation of the independent Slavic communities and was forced to rely on complicated measures including colonization and ensuring Slav cooperation in the process. In the themes where the Empire had enough power, Slavic communities were organized as ‘Sclavoarchontias’, who received archons from the strategos, paid collective tribute and served as symahoi, but kept some inner autonomy. The Empire also tended to ensure the cooperation of Slavic communities around themes by granting titles and subsidies to some powerful Slavic leaders, which led to the creation of client states known as ‘Sclavinias’. They were not part of the thematic system, they had their native and hereditary leaders recognized and affirmed by the emperor by titles and seals and act as imperial allies. A prototype of both had appeared at the end of the 7th century, but only when relations of such types had multiplied after Stauracius’ expedition in 783, corresponding generic terms appeared and became regular.
Keywords
Sclavinia, Sclavoarchontia, Slavic archontia, Slavic nations, Byzantium, imperial administrative system, subjugation, conquest of the Balkans

Abstract. – This paper examines two neighboring historiographies - Macedonian and Bulgarian in their interpretations of the idea of ‘ethnogenesis’ in the Middle Ages. Both meet there as competitors and rivals. Comparison is done between them in quantitative and qualitative terms, not in order to determine the right or wrong, but to address the reasons which led to promotion or dismissal of some or other positions. It traces the impact of political change on the interpretation of historical processes.
The conclusion is that the political realities play a crucial role in creating ethnogenetic and national historical interpretations. No changes in scientific knowledge led to changes in the positions of both historiography identity issues. It is noted that in disputes between two historiographies Bulgarian appears active and aggressive, but not the actual initiator of the conflict. Contrary to widespread in science opinion that Macedonian historiography occurs as provocateur causing the conflict between them, I present proofs that the real initiator was Bulgarian political leadership. In the 1960s, Bulgarian Communist leadership made series of secret decisions which instructed the Bulgarian historiography to begin aggressively denial of Macedonian identity through history and provided her with all needed resources. Thesis of "Macedonian historical provocation" offered the only justification for this attack. The real initial motive was to block any Macedonian territorial claims against Pirin Macedonia and actually historiographical war happened in parallel of the process of the campaign of denial and assimilation of Macedonians in Bulgaria. The political and national conflict is seen here as a motivator in the process of building positions in both historiographies. The article traces the ethno-genetic highlights in both countries and their relation to current events in the Balkans. It is noted that relations between the two historiographies remain blocked in pseudo-scientific debating, and for its unblocking may contribute only serious political change.

The main goal in this article is to clarify the chronology of use and geographical frame of the term Sclavinia in Byzantine sources. The thesis argumented there is that term Sclavinia was not in regular or common use in 6 – 8 centuries. The question of the only case of appearing of word Sclavinia in Theophylact History is discussed in light of later debate of it as noon or adjective in the science. The third  possibility is also suggested that it can be later interventions in the oldest 10th century manuscript from each all other depend. Special attention is paid to  the way Sclavinia was used in Theophanes Chronography. By its comparison with Nicephorus Breve History and other sources conclusion is proposed that the term appeared after Nicephorus work was finished. In same time the names similar to Sclavinia also appeared in sources (Velzitia, Verzitia). Term was used intensively and as contemporary and current for territory of Central Balkan before 850, and in middle 10th for Slavic counties in Dalmatia. The last time term was used in 12th century, but already with different meaning.
Key words: Sclavinia, Byzantine source, Slavic regions, terminology, Theophylact Simocatta, Theophanes Confessor

This paper analyzes the key texts written by Macedonians, appearing in the period before 1944, that treat and argue upon the idea of a Macedonian nation, its appearance and development from an ethno-national position. In other words, it elaborates upon the idea of the ethnogenesis of the Macedonian people and nation. The paper analyzes the context and conditions in which this idea and the related concepts were developed and presented, emphasizing the absence of external support, domestic and supportive national institutions and the conditions of aggressive expansionism of the neighboring nationalisms. The authors focus their attention no particular texts, such as: the essay on the Macedonian question, written by Slavejkov, Pulevski's History, Misirkov's 'On Macedonian Affairs', and two texts written by Vasil Ivanovski. The fate and fortunes of these works: being unpublished, attempts to be destroyed, written in prison or published in distant foreign countries are analyzed as symptoms, which are indicating the conditions of the development of the Macedonian nation in the century before the creation of the Macedonian state.

Subject of this article is the chronology and the way Samuil has been crowned and the impact of that fact on the terminology of the contemporary sources about the rebels and the state. There have been observed the different theories and their reasoning. Subject of  discussion are the theories about the rule of the eunuch Roman and the interpretation of The Samuil Inscription and certain contradictions in the sources concerning the subject /question. The standing theory is that Samuil has been crowned between 986 and 989 after the Veliki Preslav has been taken and the assasination of Aron.

The theme of this article is part of the broader issue about the influence of the modern time in the interpretation of the past. The nationalistic ideology was dominant for a long time, and even today it has strong positions in the Balkan historiography.All those who have studied the medieval Balkan history know how difficult it is to divide the history into Macedonian, Bulgarian, Serbian etc. It is due not only to the mixing of the traditions and influences. The specific object for observation in this short article is only one of the many national myths. The theory about the creation of the Slavic-Bulgarian ethnic entity in the 9th-10th century is a classic national myth, circulus vitiosus[27] launched in the scientific form. Unfortunately, if one strives for objectivity, one has to conclude that the ethnic problems on the Balkan, are poorly investigated. The ethno-genetic processes are studied from national(istic) and not from scientific position. Their scientific investigation is probably left for the future.

This article investigates titles given to Saint Clement of Ochrid in different sources as Slavic bishop or bishop of Bulgaria – genesis, circle of use and meaning of these titles. In the Slavic texts Saint Clement is named only Slavic bishop. This title is older and original in connection of existing od Slavic ethnic bishops in the end of 9th – beginning of 10th century. The title  bishop of Bulgaria was developed in byzantine Greek literature tradition in Ohrid archdiocese. It appeared together with aim of Ochrid archbishops to find (equal to) apostolic foundation of their church. As part of this processes Saint Clement was reinterpreted as a patron and protector of Ochrid archbishopric “of all Bulgaria” and therefore the main meaning of this title was “bishop of Ochrid archbishopric”. As part of this processes the terms Slavs and Bulgarians become equivalent in part of byzantine sources in the second part of XI century and forward which led to  translation of original Slavic bishop into bishop of Bulgaria.
The title bishop of Bulgaria will not appear in the Slavic texts in the middle age except in translations of original byzantine works (as Short Live of Saint Clement). According to this bishop of Bulgaria was “invented” and promoted by byzantine Ochrid archbishops and have purely institutional meaning, without ethnic connotations which would differ from the original title Slavic bishop.

The article is dedicated to the ways the Byzantine authors in X century sow Bulgaria and its people from the point of view of ethnicity. According to them Bulgaria was a multiethnic state in which easily differ two ethnicities – Slavs and Bulgars and the second until the end of the century are defined as Turkic people similar to the Hazars, Cumans, Avars and Huns. The term Bulgar(ian)s is used as a general term for the whole population of the state and at the same time as an ethnic term for the population on the territory of nowadays Dobrudzha.  It is followed the evolution in the way in which Bulgaria and its population is seen from the moment of the Christianization till the growth into Empire. During this time, the state is seen in a way similar to the way in which the Byzantines are perceived, and the two up-ethnic formations – Byzantines and Bulgarians started to be accepted as the two parts of the God’s people – Israel and Judea.  In all moments, parallels are given with the Slavic, Latin and Arab sources.
Keywords: Byzantine source, Bulgarians, Slavs, ethnicity, ethnonym, politonym, multiethnicity, up-ethnicity, Empire, laos, koinon.

The aim of this article is to proceed the term ѩнзыкъ словѣньскый (in both meanings: Slavic people and Slavic language) within the frame of Slavic sources during the period of Middle Ages. It is a common impression that until the end of XIII century, , the term “Slavs” meant one people with one language, living in different states, but starting from XIV century,a new tendency can be noticed. Namely the Old-Slavic language been called with the names of states in which it was used: Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian and etc. This new names were used like synonyms of the Slavic language, which was still understood as one; actually there was no idea of existence of separate Slavic languages. There is some changes by the late Middle Ages, when the idea of existing of more than one Slavic peoples appeared.

BITOLA PLATE - DILEMMAS AND INTERPRETATIONS
The subject of this article is the Bitola plate, but not as a new attempt for reconstruction of the strongly damaged text, but as an analysis of the disputable moments and of some of its scarcely searched aspects. Among the key topic here would be the dating, the original size, the titles of the rulers, the
specific way of invoking the saints’ help, the topic of authenticity, the notion Bulgarians as an ethnicity or etatism etc. Besides, an attempt is made to offer at least a hypothetic interpretation of its contents which would further help
explain a great number of original features of the inscription.

This paper analyzes the key texts written by Macedonians, appearing in the period before 1944, that treat and argue upon the idea of a Macedonian nation, its appearance and development from an ethno-national position. In other words, it elaborates upon the idea of the ethnogenesis of the Macedonian people and nation. The paper analyzes the context and conditions in which this idea and the related concepts were developed and presented, emphasizing the absence of external support, domestic and supportive national institutions and the conditions of aggressive expansionism of the neighboring nationalisms. The authors focus their attention no particular texts, such as: the essay on the Macedonian question, written by Slavejkov, Pulevski's History, Misirkov's 'On Macedonian Affairs', and two texts written by Vasil Ivanovski. The fate and fortunes of these works: being unpublished, attempts to be destroyed, written in prison or published in distant foreign countries are ana...

The topic of this article is the most controversial moments from the
dispute (already century old) about the character and the origin of the Tsardom (Empire) of Tsar Samuel. As main problems are addressed the connection of the question with the XIX – XX century territorial pretentions, its inclusion in several national mythologies on the Balkans and the examination of the question in the past in the frame of the national paradigm which is already outgrown in science. It is drawn a critics of the basic until now given answers, namely that the Kingdom is Slavic, Bulgarian or Macedonian; also in this issue have been analyzed the theories about the formation of the Bulgarian and the Macedonian ethnie (nations) in the Middle Age. It has been made an analysis of the character and the role of the tzardoms on the Balkans in the Middle age and their up-ethnic character. It’s made an attempt the Samuil Tsardom to be studied regardless of the modern nationalistic disputes and pretentions. It is been concluded that there is no basis to believe that the Samuil Empire or any other kingdoms on the Balkans could be interpreted as ethnic formations or as predecessors
of the modern nations and states.

The subject of this research are the ideas of the ethnogenesis of the Macedonian people presented in Macedonian historiography during communistic period. The evolution of basic ideas and arguments has been explored in the context of the challenges of the time: ideological aggression by neighboring nationalisms and historiographies, the denial of the existence of the Macedonian nation, the need to defend the right of existing as the separate nation and finally, the aspiration through manipulation of the myth of origin Macedonian national state to be put in function and service of one or another Balkan state and national policy. This paper is the first part of the text. Key words: Macedonian people, Macedonian nation, ethnogenesis, historiography, Macedonia

The subject of this research are the ideas of the ethnogenesis of the Macedonian people presented in Macedonian historiography during communistic period. The evolution of basic ideas and arguments has been explored in the context of the challenges of the time: ideological aggression by neighboring nationalisms and historiographies, the denial of the existence of the Macedonian nation, the need to defend the right of existing as the separate nation and finally, the aspiration through manipulation of the myth of origin Macedonian national state to be put in function and service of one or another Balkan state and national policy. This paper is the second part of the text. Key words: Macedonian people, Macedonian nation, ethnogenesis, historiography, Macedonia

In his article “Sklavenia” (“Σκλαυινια”) revisited”, Andreas
Gkoutzioukostas included me in the debate on the question whether
“Sclavinia” at Theophylact Simokatta’s History was an adjective or a
noun, counting me among historians who support the second thesis.
He did this through a free interpretation of my presentation at the
Byzantine Congress in Belgrade in 2016: "The term Sclavinia – Byzantine
invention or Western influence?" in which I did not take clear position
on whether Theophylact’s “Sclavinia” is a noun or adjective.
This article aims, not just to clarify my position on the raised question,
but also to add some additional arguments through examination
of terminology Theophylact used for Slavs.
The conclusion is that both interpretation of word “Sclavinia”
as adjective and noon have their week points. Therefore, alternative
possibility is presented: that “Sclavinia” did not exist at all in the original
of the History, but rather was a modification occurring in the
10th century in a similar way as in the case of The Miracles of Saint
Demetrius. This is considered as only way to be defended interpretation
of ‘Sclavinia” in Theophylact’s texts we possessed as a noun, but it
also means that there was not “Sclavinia” in the original text at all.
The possibility of existing of noon “Sclavinia” in the original of Theophylact’s History is considered as unlikely.

SAINT CLEMENT AS OURS AND WHAT ELSE
This article deal with ways of use of category “ours” from saint Clement and about him. In first place its analyze which people the saint calls “our” in his writings, and second – the groups of peoples who called him “our”. Furthermore, it analyzes attribute, adjectives and epithets with which the saint was associated, and the ways his person was interpreted. Both dimensions are investigated simultaneously for the Medieval Age and modern times.
Key words: Saint, Teacher, Bishop, Christian, Church, Slavs, Enlightener.

This article is dedicated to the situation of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria, neglecting the right of self-determination in a member state of the European union and the weakness, and the ineffectiveness of the international mechanisms for defending human rights.
Key words: Macedonian, minority, Bulgaria, rights of the minorities, international mechanisms, European union, self-determination
http://clprmk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/PROCEEDINGS-Voronezh-2015.pdf

FICTION OF OBJECTIVE CRITERIA AGAINST THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION: THE EXAMPLE OF THE MACEDONIAN MINORITY IN BULGARIA Abstract This article deals with the issue of suspending the right of self-determination and denial of minorities and ethnicities in some modern states dominated by ethno-national ideology. By leveraging the absence of generally accepted international definition of national minority and manipulation of "objective criteria" minorities are discriminated, actually in the name of defense of national myths. States seek to preserve for themselves the right to decide on the identity of the man using lack of definition and insisting on objective criteria. Such an approach reduces the self-determination of the person, to the possibility only to accept or reject the governmental decision even at the risk of being accused of disloyalty. The main generator of the problem occurs ethno-national definition of state, in which identity and loyalty become the same. Respecting the will of the person, and leaving the ethno-national definition of state have been seen as a possible solution. Keywords: right to self-determination, national minority identity, ethnicity, objective criteria, ethno nationalism, Macedonian minority, Macedonian language, history, Bulgaria.

The article deals with different concepts for solving the Macedonian question after
The second World war, which were represented among the Macedonians in Bulgaria and Bulgarian society. It is made through published materials in the only regional newspaper in Pirin Macedonia “Pirinsko delo” (“Pirin cause”). Materials in newspaper are qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed. Attention is paid to used terminology, changes in it, amplitude and frequency of publishing of text about Macedonian question. This article explores the evolution of conceptions, ideas and opinions, their connection with the events in the Balkans, and try to define the different groups that stood behind each concept. Keywords: Macedonians, Macedonian minority in Bulgaria, Pirin Macedonia unification of Macedonia.

Во овој труд претставен на меѓународна науна конференција посветена на Неофит Рилски и одржана во Мелник во 2011 г. се поставува прашањето за самосвеста на населението во Македонија пред појавата на национализмите, се констатира нивната новост и увезеност во Македонија и се акцентира на преднационалната самосвест базирана на христијанската религија и приврзаноста кон родниот крај.

Во овој труд се поставува прашањето за самосвеста на населението во Македонија пред појавата на национализмите, се констатира нивната новост и увезеност во Македонија и се акцентира на преднационалната самосвест базирана на христијанската религија и приврзаноста кон родниот крај. Pретставен e на меѓународна науна конференција посветена на Неофит Рилски и одржана во Мелник во 2011 г. на два јазика - бугарски и грчки.

Статијата е посветена на доживувањето на Македонија како национална татковина со свои интереси, народ и свети особини меѓу голем број македонски активисти во крајот на 19 и почетокот на 20 в. Претставена е на научниот собир Македонскиот идентитет низ историјата одржан во Скопје во 2008 г., а објавена во под наслов: Стојко Стојков, Македонија како татковина и националните колебања на Мисирков, во Македонскиот идентитет низ историјата, Скопје, 2010, с. 215 – 244.

MACEDONIAN MINORITY IN BULGARIA –
FROM RECOGNITION TO DENYING 1948 – 1989
This article is devoted to the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria in the period from 1948 – 1989. From infamous resolution of Inform-bureau against Yugoslavia to the fall of communism in Bulgaria. Special attention is paid to the processes that led to the end of an already given recognition and minority rights and the imposition of opposite policy. Started by stopping the process of unification of Pirin Macedonia with the People’s Republic of Macedonia and the abolition of cultural autonomy of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria and shortening of minority rights, process later evolved in an attempt to instrumentalize the minority for territorial expansion in the Balkans. The failure of this project followed complete denial of the existence of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria and its treatment as a threat to the territorial integrity of the state. As an inevitable consequence of shortening of rights and especially the denial of existing of minority occurred long string of repression and persecution of those who were not willing to give up their identity, and increased assimilation of the Macedonian minority. The text also traced the relations between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia and the impact they have had on the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria.
Key words: Macedonian identity, self-determination, Pirin Macedonia,
discrimination, assimilation, repression.

THE STUDY OF MACEDONIAN NATIONAL HISTORY IN BULGARIAN SCHOOLS
The article deals with the struggles for implementing the teaching of Macedonian history in Bulgarian schools as a separate subject and as the history of separate nation. Various complications, forms in which it was studied, and its abolishment are reviewed. The background of political events which had a direct impact on the subject is also included.
Keywords: history, education, Bulgaria.

Through the prism of “subjective” and “objective” criteria, the paper analyzes the actual theoretical and practical problems associated with the self-identification of the Macedonians and the non-recognition of the Macedonian minority by the Bulgarian state. Realization of the fundamental natural subjective human right to independent and free national self-identification is extremely difficult in the absence of objective conditions: state guarantees aimed at the development of specific national minorities. The Bulgarian state not only does not provide any guarantees for the development of the Macedonian minority, but for many decades has denied the very fact of its existence in Bulgaria, which is consistently implemented in the lawmaking and enforcement activities of this state. The authors of the  paper  critically assess the Bulgarian state national ideology and politics, devoid of any signs of tolerance and not based on real, internationally recognized objective facts confirming the centuries-old existence of the Macedonian minority, the Macedonian language and culture on the territory of modern Bulgaria. Also, the official state myths that the citizens of Bulgaria, who identify themselves with the Macedonian national minority, are enemies of the Bulgarian people and the state, and they oppose against the unity of the Bulgarian nation, have no objective basis. The importance of international legal protection for the restoration of historical justice for the Macedonian minority and for the protection of its rights is emphasized. However, the authors regretfully note its insufficient effectiveness (in particular, none of the 14 decisions of the ECHR in favor of the Macedonian minority by Bulgaria has been implemented), and also formulate proposals aimed at increasing the effectiveness of international legal protection of the rights of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria as an important objective condition for changing the Bulgarian national policy.
Key words: subjective and objective criteria, national self-identification, human rights, Macedonian national minority, Bulgarian national ideology and politics, international legal protection.

This article deals with the Bulgarian denial of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria, which is a key moment in the Bulgarian veto against Macedonia's EU integration. The Bulgarian position that the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria does not exist directly contradicts the fact that this minority was previously officially recognized in Bulgaria and that in almost all censuses in the last 80 years thousands of Bulgarian citizens identified themselves as Macedonians. Refusing to face the reality and contrary to the recommendations of various international organizations and institutions in the last 20 years, the Bulgarian government refuses to start a dialogue with the minority and ascribes the actions of the Bulgarian citizens with Macedonian self-awareness to the R. Macedonia. However, initiatives in the international organizations and institutions in support of the Macedonian minority are not initiated by the Republic of Macedonia, but, quite the opposite, by Bulgarian citizens and organizations; such forums include not only the Council of Europe's system in Strasbourg and the UN, but also the institutions of the European Union, where in fact Macedonia is not a member. Formulated back in 1963, the policy of denial of the Macedonian minority was the first in a series of "revival processes" aimed at assimilating minorities into a "unified Bulgarian socialist nation", but at the same time it is the last process to remain not condemned in Bulgaria and that continues to be implemented even today. During the communist era, this policy resulted in the deportation of a few thousand people to prisons, camps, or internments, as well as in the implementation of many other forms of repression. After the fall of communism, it resulted in exactly 14 judgments against Bulgaria ruled by the Strasbourg based European Court of Human Rights. The policy of the Bulgarian state today, which in essence follows the line created by the late dictator Todor Zhivkov, is the last totalitarian communist policy in the European Union.

The term “Macedonization” was created by the communist regime in Bulgaria at the beginning of the conflict with Yugoslavia in April 1948 and first referred only to the alleged aspiration that the Bulgarian minority in Pirin Macedonia be made Macedonian. On 29 July 1948, after Yugoslavia used the fact that the majority of the population in Pirin Macedonia was registered as being Macedonian in the 1946 census as an argument for asking for the autonomy of Pirin Macedonia, the Bulgarian communist party retroactively proclaimed the results of the said census to be not the result of free self-determination of the population but a product of administrative measures. After the census in 1956 confirmed, to the surprise of the authorities, the result of the 1946 census and showed that 63.6% of the population in Pirin Macedonia was Macedonian, the politics of recognition of the Macedonian minority was abandoned and replaced with Bulgarization of the population by force, which resulted in sending a few thousand Macedonians to jail or in exile. In parallel, the myth of “forceful Macedonization” was created to “explain” the results of the 1946 and 1956 censuses. Despite the fact that, to this moment, no corpus delicti has been presented to corraborate the violence or force-fullness of the so-called “Macedonization”, this myth has become the core of the position of both the Bulgarian official state and Bulgarian historiography, and the main excuse for continuing with the politics of discrimination and assimilation of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria to this day.

The article publishes and provides commentary upon two documents from a British Foreign Offices and a related public proclamation in the newspaper "Political freedom", containing important information related to the early ideas of the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. The documents, that I presented, on this occasion, in original (in English) and in translation in Macedonian, containing information about a Manifestо of the "Secret Macedonian Revolutionary Committee". In this article I focus my discussion on the questions of authorships and ideas of the Manifesto and their connection with Macedonian revolutionary organization (MRO). Placing them in the wider context, I provide argument in favor of a conclusion that this Manifesto is published by one of the numerous satellite "Secret Revolutionary committees" created by MRO in the period 1896-1898 in Bulgaria, and thus it reflects strongly upon the ideas of the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization.

NOTICE - this is not the text published in Peter Lang, but Macedonian version presented on the conference in Lerin 2015. Full text in English: https://www.peterlang.com/view/title/73583
Abstract: This paper is devoted to a discussion of the repressive measures implemented against Macedonians in Bulgaria on account of their choice of national identity and political persuasion. Various epochs and the conditions specific to those epochs will outlined, along with mention of the various motives for the persecution of different groups. The nature of the persecuted groups, their modes of resistance, and the forms of discrimination will also be touched upon. The intention is to present a case study which may contribute to a general discussion devoted to a comparison of the treatment of minority groups in European modernity.

This article attempts to shed light on the emergence of the term Sclavinia. It calls in question the thesis that term appeared in Constantinople in the VI or VII century. In addition, it argues that Theophilact Simokatta was not the first author who used it. The oldest manuscript of Theophylact’s History is from X c., when the term was already well affirmed - all other Theophylact’s manuscripts depend on this one. Theophylact used the term Sclavinia in only one place in his History, and in the way which made it unclear for his contemporary readers. None of his contemporary writers used it, and there is not any sign that anybody borrowed it from him. Patriarch Nicephorus, who wrote his history as a continuation of Theophylact’s in the second half of VIII c., did not know the term Sclavinia at all. Theophane the Confessor, who widely used the term Sclavinia at the beginning of IX c., and who incorporated a big amount from Theophylact’s History in his Chronicle, did not use the term in the sections based on Theophylact. Therefore, it is very possible that Sclavinia did not exist in the original of Theophilact’s History but actually was an interpolation from X c.
If Theophylact is not the first author who used Sclavinia, then the oldest source in which we find is not byzantine but western one: Life of Willibald, written in 778, in northern Italy. The term was used in it for part of Peloponnese, indicating that in year 723 the Saint passed nearby by boat. Nothing supports the suggestion that he learned it in Byzantium. It is remarkable that it is not in a byzantine form – Sclavinia, but Slawinia.
This article proposes two possible explanations of emergence of the term. First, the alternative hypothesis that the term appeared in the region of the Adriatic Sea where Latin, Greek and Slavonic languages met each other, and was invented and used first by the Slavic neighbors. From Adriatic shores, it has expanded during the conflict between Franks and Romeos for Istra and Dalmatia in late VIII - early IX century. The second explanation is that the term Sclavinia was not invented in one place but it appeared spontaneously in many different places and authors often without connection between them. It was a very common way of making toponyms from ethnonyms in the middle ages, and it was easy to create Sclavinia form Sclavi(ni), so we do not need to explain it through inventions and borrowing.
Sclavinia failed to take a permanent place in the official terminology of Byzantine or western imperial court. The first official use in Byzantium we find in a letter of Emperor Michael II to Emperor Luis the Pious, and in the west - in letter of Louis II to Basil I in 871. In general, the use of this term in Latin and Byzantine sources was very limited. In the old Slavic written tradition, it was never used, which suggests that Sclavinia was an external name.
Its use has spread at the time of inclusion of independent Slavic communities in Central Europe and the Balkans, in the sphere of influence and domination of the great empires form the end of VIII c. A suitable collective term, its weakness was its too general and uncertain meaning.  With the disappearance of small Slavic tribes or their evolution in larger independent state formations established under their own well-known names, it loses its relevance.

SAINT CLEMENT AS OURS AND WHAT ELSE
International Scientific Conference ST. KLIMENT’S LIFEWORK (Language, Literature, Education, Culture)
23 June 2016, Stip, Republic of Macedonia

This article deal with ways of use of category “ours” from saint Clement and about him. In first place its analyze which people the saint calls “our” in his writings, and second – the groups of peoples who called him “our”. Furthermore, it analyzes attribute, adjectives and epithets with which the saint was associated, and the ways his person was interpreted. Both dimensions are investigated simultaneously for the Medieval Age and modern times.
Key words: Saint, Teacher, Bishop, Christian, Church, Slavs, Enlightener.

Во овој текст се анализира раната поезија на Никола Вапцаров, која обично е надвор од вниманието на јавноста и истражувачите. Се заклучува дека македонската национална самсовест кај поетот постои рано и далеку пред неговото поврзување со комунизмот и појавата на Македонскиот литературен кружок.

Материјалот е посветен на мешањето на стуктурите на државна безбедност во историските истражувања во Бугарија и поспецијално во правец на негирање на македонскиот идентитет. Објавен и е документ на истата служба која содржи план за нејзина работа.

Contents
Introduction
Denial of the Existence of a Macedonian Minority, Nation and Identity
Hate Speech
Violation of the Right of Association
Organized Harassment
Absence of Legal Protection
Refusal of the Authorities to Engage in Dialogue
Conclusion

Увод Основните проблеми на македонското малцинство в България: неговото отричане, недаване на правата предвидени в Rамковата конвенция за защита на националните малцинства, отказа на властите да водят диалог с малцинството, отказите да се регистрират македонски организации, отсъствието на регистрирана партия, която да защитава правата на македонското малцинство и да го представлява, словото на омраза и т.н. остават същите и през тази година. 1 Отричане на македонската нация и малцинство. Макар да няма нови официални изявления в тази насока, все пак настояването на България в договора за добросъседство с Македония да влезе клауза, която забранява на Македония да се застъпва за правата на български граждани с небългарско самосъзнание (забележително е и старанието да се избегне споменаването на македонско малцинство) ясно говори, че отричането продължва да бъде официална политика. Това е видно и от обстоятелството, че и тази година в Националният съвет за сътрудничество по етническите и интеграционните въпроси към Министерския съвет пак няма представител на македонското малцинство. Отричането се върши често на по-ниско ниво в медиите и не се схваща като слово на омраза или нещо, залслужаващо порицание, а като нормална защита на историческата истина и проява на патриотизъм. 2 В нито един подобен случай никоя държавна институция не е реагирала.

Prepared from numerous Macedonian human right organisations in Bulgaria this report analyse manipulations done in the census in Bulgaria in 2011, who decimate Macedonian minority and leave 10 % of population without ethnic self determination.

Report of Macedonian minority in Bulgaria presented in 2009 and supported from numerous Macedonian organisations in Bulgaria. It is the first report concerning Macedonian minority in Bulgaria prepared from Macedonian human movement in Bulgaria.

Сборник спомени, документи и материали за репресиите срещу хората с македонско самосъзнание в България от комунистическия режим. 550 страници формат А 4, с множество факсимилета и фотографии, включително и от досиета и присъди. Издадена в Благоевград през 2014 г.

Спомени и документи за Вангел Стоев Тиков, македонски патриот и страдалник от гр. Сандански лежал пет години в българския затвор и изкарал пет години на заточение заради македонските си убеждения. (От книгата Табу, време на страх и страдание, Благоевград 2014)

Сборник проза и поезия от Никола Вапцаров свързана с темата Македония и неговото македонско национално самосъзнание. Включва младежки стихове и недовършени стихотворения, както и документи от Македонския литературен кръжок. Публикуват се и спомени от хора които са го познавали.

“RIHA” is the journal of the Institute of History and Archaeology at Goce Delcev University (FacultyES) in Shtip, Macedonia. The International Editorial Board of the journal wishes to announce an open call for original articles for the upcoming issues in the fields of (but not limited to) history, archaeology, anthropology and ancillary disciplines.

Повик за трудови "Преглед на Институтот за историја и археологија-РИХА" е научно списание на Институтот за историја и археологија на Факултетот за општествени науки, Универзитет Гоце Делчев-Штип. Меѓународниот уредувачки одбор на списанието го објавува отворениот повик за оригинални авторски трудови за своето ново издание. Трудовите се очекува да бидат во областите: историја, археологија, антропологија и со нив поврзаните научни дисциплини.

„Преглед на Институтот за историја и археологија - РИХА“ е научно списание на Институтот за историја и археологија на Факултетот за општествени науки, Универзитет Гоце Делчев – Штип. Меѓународниот уредувачки одбор на списанието го објавува отворениот повик за оригинални авторски трудови за своето ново издание. Трудовите се очекува да бидат во областите: историја, археологија, антропологија и со нив поврзаните научни дисциплини.