text:
Talk:Bogomilism

Bosnia olso had major followers of Bogumilism during 10th c. until 1463 following Ottoman conquest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.245.22 (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Relation to Paulician ideas debatable
There seems to be a good deal of academic debate on the relation between the Bogomils and the Paulicians. For example, Michael Angold in Church and Society in Byzantium states the following: "There may have been contact with Paulician ideas, though Paulicians were not moved in large numbers into the Balkans - they were settled around Philippopolis - until c. 975, which was after the appearance of the Bogomil heresy." (p471) So I think it is misleading to state categorically that Bogomilism is "the synthesis of /Armenian Paulicianism/ and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church reform movement..." (emphasis mine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanonthemove (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Differentiated perspective on Dualism needed
stop the -ismism At least be careful of signifying groups or people under the emblematic the suffix -ism make. I think the term Bogomilism gives a misleading notion. It seems that the attempts at signifying people, and groups as belonging to an -ism are reductionistic (cf. positivism). A trap linked with reductionism is that one makes the object of study fit the simplifying category. another point in regard of the irritating isms is that 9t has become a negative contagious association in regard of them, as in "muslims are ok, but not islamists". It is important to remember that these categories do not exist for those who are labeled by them. Neither have islamists, and definetively not bogomilists referred to themselves as such.

'absolute difference and absolute unity The understanding of the dualisms of especially christian gnostic heresies needs to be revised. For instant, the dualism of the Bogomils are not absolute. The prince of Darkness, Satanael, and the prince of Light, Michael are both sons of the One Father-Mother. Both the Bogomils and the Albigensians, the cathars, were esoteric in its structure, meaning here that the teachings came in successions of initiation rites, or induced mystic states of consciousness, or atonement with the allencompassing God, where also the fundamental duality of everything is overcome. I have not the sources available to bring this knowledge to the article itself, but hope some will reflect on it and, in time, apply the proper well-founded enlightenment for the people. The part on the doctrine is painful to read. First I doubt any bogomil would have recognised it. Secondly it is full of statements without sources or reference to theory. I've learned that it is ok to be opinionate and even argumentative in academic discourse, when so is outlined and explained. But it is never ok to tell what others believe or mean, without quotations. It is legal to interpret if one explains that what is expressed is an interpretation, but never mix an interpretation for the actual reference. Please!

== Historical link between contemporary Bosnian muslims and the bogomil heresy of the middle ages

I have come across this information through conversations about Bogomils. Im curious if someone can substansiate it?

--Xact (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Broaden the discourse!
This article isn't well written and lacks citation. There is a lot of scholarly debate about whether Bogomil doctrines can or cannot be traced to the Paulicians, Massalians, Gnostics, Manichaeism, even Buddhism, so for the sake of neutrality I do not believe this article should state they are "Gnostics" or "Manicheans" as a fact, but rather have a section outlining the different theories by different scholars.

I think this entry would also benefit by addressing the debate around to what degree Bogomilism can be viewed as a social/political resistance movement rather than as a purely religous one.

Likewise, is one of the fascinating legacies of Bogomilism is the way in which in modern times various groups have attempted to interept its legacy to its own benefit...communists, Bulgarian and Macedonian nationalists, Bosniaks, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martins79 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the Bogomils can be accurately termed gnostic at all: dualist certainly, but can any continuity really be claimed between this sect and the early mystical heresies of the first three centuries CE? --User:Ben Parsons 10:58 GMT, 11 Aug 2005

The page Bosnian Church, which is not from EB1911, indicates that the main heretic religion in Bosnia at this time was not Bogomil gnostic, but mainstream early protestant. Someone should probably verify if Rački's and Ollinger's (or is it Dollinger's? Bad OCR...) 19th century conclusions are still considered canonical. --Shallot 11:34, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know of an association between Bogomilism and the Phoundagiagitai? Euthymios, in a reference I didn't save from Google books, apparently thought the two sects were similar, perhaps the same. From http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chrono11.htm

1034: In around this year a certain Euthymios produced an account of a heretical group known as the Phoundagiagitai. In around the year 1000, the supposed founder of the group, John Tzourillas, was charged with rape. John had preached near Smyrna with considerable success. The Phoundagiagitai were fond of breaking up church services on the grounds that prayer should be private (Matthew 6.6). Initiation into the group involved a ceremony in which the Apocalypse of St. Peter was recited over the intiate’s head. They held that the devil had been expelled from heaven for stealing the sun and the soul. Euthymios added: “They teach not to expect the resurrection of the dead, nor the second coming, nor the Last Judgment, but that all power over earthly things with hell and paradise belongs to the lord of this world, that is to say, the devil, and that he puts his friends in paradise and his enemies in hell, and that he has nothing in common with God, but that God reigns in the heavens and the lord of the world on earth.”

I'm infrequent for this site; please email me with your responses at winwinsit@hotmail.com.

DrYattz 09:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Name and origin
I am Bulgarian. My name is Konstantin Velev. The origin and history of bogomils are a well known part of the well known history of Bulgaria. The ‘Bulgars’ (old Bulgarians or proto-Bulgarians) - in spite of the wide spread mistake, ware not Turkic nor yet nomadic. They ware pamirian. In other words they spoke Indo-European language. All this in no way contradicts here. See: Old Church Slavonic – please. It is the western name of the Slavic langrage spoken in Bulgaria at that time. I have no idea who this Dmitri Obolensky is and I do not care. "Bogu mili" ("those who are dear to God") is literally in Bulgarian (also in modern Bulgarian)! “Bog” is god and “mil”,“mili” (in plural) is dear to someone (also in modern Bulgarian)! Instead of “finding” anything “unconvincing” – please check the historical documents.

The name 'Messalian' comes from a Syriac root meaning 'Those who pray' (look up "cly" in the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon: http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/). So also 'Euchite' in Greek. No apparent relationship with 'Bogu Mili' --BobGriffin-Nukraya 23:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Then the fact that the name Bogomil is a literral translation of 'Messalian' should be reexamined. Not only in Bulgarian, but Bogomil means "dear to god" in most of the Slavic languages (by the way, note I'm not of bulgarian origin). Also, I've studied back in primary school that they were also known as Babuni, because they were pretty widespread around the mountain and river Babuna near the town of Veles in modern Republic of Macedonia. Does anyone know something about this? Zaebangad 19:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm Vladimir and I'm Macedonian, and I think I know something about this, because I'm from Bogomila (village in the center of Macedonia by the river Babuna. Here everybody knows that Bogomilism begins with the Macedonian priest Bogomil from this village Bogomila and his people - Babuni. It was not connected by any way with Bulgarians. In fact this was first anti Bulgarian and anti Greek movement in Macedonia and on the base of this movement Tsar Samoil liberated Macedonia and created the first free and independent Macedonian kingdom. So, Konstantin please throw away your bulgarian "history books" and come in Bogomila and ask everybody about Bulgarian atrocities in Bogomila and surrounding starting right after this Bogomilism movement until the Second World War.

It was a BULGARIAN Empire

Samuel NEVER said about "Macedonians"..

SIMEON STATE'S MAP

SAMUIL STATE'S MAP

BULGARIA THEME IN SKOPJE AND OHRID  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The implication that the word Bogomil and the word Bulgar are cognate strikes me as unfounded as well. I removed the following section, which appeared under the heading Name:

The name of the movement was bulgarus'' in Latin (meaning "Bulgarian"), which included Paulicians, Cathars, Patarenes and Albigenses. It became boulgre, later bougre in Old French meaning "heretic, traitor". It entered German as Buger meaning "peasant, blockhead" (and went on to English as bugger) and the French term also entered old Italian as buggero and Spanish as bujarrón, both in the meaning of "sodomite", since it was supposed that heretics would approach sex (just like everything else) in an "inverse" way. The word went on towards Venetian Italian as buzerar, meaning "to do sodomy" (the sexual acts performed by homosexuals). This word entered German again (see reborrowing) as Buserant and went on to Hungarian as buzeráns, becoming buzi around the 1900s, a form still in use as a sexual slur for male homosexuals. The word also entered Swedish, through the mediation of August Strindberg, as bög, meaning male homosexual.''

This seems to be a good etymology of the word bugger, but doesn't specifically have anything to do with the word Bogomil, which is earlier defined as "dear to God." If Bogomils themselves were called bulgarus, and not just the other heretics mentioned, then the passage is probably relevant, but this needs to be supported by a reference before it goes back into the article. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Fact Falsification
The origin of the population of these towns is Armenian Paulicians. The presentation of the Armenian Paulicians as Bogomils is a falsification.

The term "Ruthenia" everywhere in the article is meaningless, especially in reference to Molokani and Dukhobory, who were 18-19th century Russian old-believer sects, and have nothing to do with Austrian province "Ruthenia" of that time. I replaced "Ruthenia" with "Russia", "Medieval Russia" or "Kievan Rus".

Gnostic
Evidence needs to be provided in the article that the Bogomils were Gnostic. Dualism is not enough as that position belong to non-Gnostics as well.

I am surprized that this point might be discussed, as the bogomils were obviously gnostics !--Alexandre Rongellion (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

More to the point is that not all gnostics must be dualists. All that gnosticism implies, as I  understand it, is a secret knowledge (the gnosis that is possessed only by an inner core of elect believers.  Lexikonoklast 05:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Lexikonoklast

Perhaps, most ironic, are all the alleged history of Bogomil. Where as, in Modern America. the Ancient Order of Bogomil. thru its Archbishop, J.L.Meiers, has brought the Ancient practices, into Modern Concepts of Practice(s). it is No longer Known as the "Secret Order of Bogomil", as it had been for centuries. due to misrepresentations. the followers and church leaders felt, it was needed, to practice in secret, as governments, and other church religious officials, had sought to discredit, and win over the followers, to their belief systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.81.115 (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Doctrine Section
I have read quite a bit about the Bogomils, but that thing about Satanail and Michael being God's sons I have never seen and I do not see any resources stated!! evangeline.a (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

'From the imperfect and conflicting data which are available one positive result can be gathered: that the Bogomils were both Adoptionists and Manichaeans.'

To my mind, the word Manichaean only has meaning when it refers to a group of people who actually, intentionally, knowingly, and in a self-identifying way consider themselves to follow the teachings of Mani.

Many medieval theologians used the word to mean little more than 'Dualist' (much in the lower-case way that it is used by modern writers). It is a shame that they wrote this way, but their knowledge of Mani and his teachings was pretty much restricted to the writings of St. Augustine, so you can't really blame them.

But we no longer suffer from this historical ignorance, so unless the Bogomils actually considered themselves the successors of Mani's religious movement, it is highly inappropriate to call them Manichaeans. I don't know enough about them to make this change on my own (the reason why I came to this article was to learn about them), but I just wanted to put this out there so that a) someone who knows more about this than I can think about it and make any appropriate changes, and b) whoever put this passage in there in the first place is warned that I am planning on coming through and changing it at some later date (after I get a book on the Bogomils).

I think you have it right here. My knowledge is more limited when it comes to Bogomilism than when it comes to western heretics. Lexikonoklast 05:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Lexikonoklast

Bosnia, again
Uncited, and highly controversial, references to Bosnian Bogomilism have been spread out again (likely as a WP:POVFORK from Bosnian Church). I will tag them with fact and remove them soon unless someone can prove the Bulgarian-Bosnian link with relevant sources (Bosniak popular mythology doesn't count). Duja 11:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So-called
"the so-called heretical sects of the East and those of the West" I'm just curious why the article says "so-called" in this place but not in others. I consider it a heresy, but I'm not sure whether such a term is considered pejorative and therefore POV by non-traditional Christians. Either way, we should be consistent. Nyttend 16:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality + weasel words
The History part is based on Bosniak popular myths and not on historical facts which is presented with lots of weasel words and no sources. --Noirceuil 12:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

To the anon user
Do not mechanically replace Bulgarian with Macedonian. This article is well sourced. If you have something to add, please do so incorporating it into the existing text. Mr. Neutron 22:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Official language of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Quoted from the article: The forced Christianization of the Slavs and proto-Bulgarians by Tsar Boris I in 863 and the fact that the religion was practised in Greek, which only the ‘elite’ knew, resulted in a very superficial level of understanding of the religion, if any understanding at all.

Well, that is exactly not true. Confusion regading Christianity also arised due to the Bulgarian population was first Christianised by Greek Orthodox priests, then by Latin Catholics, because of Boris' political machinations to achieve an autonomous church. Yet, while the statemant of "superficial understanding", it is not valid for the late IXth century and onwards. As for the Greek language, one of the main goal of Boris I and his son Simeon I was to create a Slavic alphabeth and to remove the Greek language from the Bulgarian church (which became the first truly Slavonic church). By the late 920's when Bogomilism started spreding most, if not all priests would have spoken Slavonic in liturgies and such. This should be corrected in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.252.168 (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Letter from Heaven
Which Letter from Heaven is the article talking about? The Himmelsbrief tradition has gone across centuries and continents. --84.20.17.84 (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Check Presbyter Cosmas
He says something like, not quite accurate translation, the newly appeared heresy, started by the priest Bogomil (dear to God) or should I say Bogunemil (Not dear to God), which means that Cosmas thought that Bogomil started this heresy (Bogomilism) which was named after him. Also check, mountain and river Babuna for name Babuni, (Babunas) was also used for the Bogomils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.1.242 (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

heresy? NPOV
Is it just me or is using the phrase "heresy" to describe a religion introducing a POV to the article? It may be technically correct inasmuch Bogomilism was definitely a deviation from mainstream Christianity at the time... but maybe distancing the article from any xenophobic flavor could improve the objectivity of the content. brain (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire article violates NPOV and needs to be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the NPOV problem, it should be noticed that the term heresy can be used in its factual sense. For example: "The council of Nicea in 325 declared Arius to be a heretic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.118.207 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Fasting on Monday
This article claims that the Bogomils refused to fast on Monday and Friday. I think this should say "Wednesday and Friday." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.118.207 (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Bogomils in Bosnia
Other than beginning in Bulgaria, Macedonia and Serbia whom also ruled Macedonia along with the Bulgarians, Bogomils were the alleged pre-Islamic era Slavs of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 9th century AD to the mid 1500's. It is thought Bogomils were descendants of non-Romanized Celts whom mixed with the indigenousIllyrians and later the newly arrived Slavs. Bosnian Bogomils were pushed out by the invading Ottoman Turks first to Croatia, Hungary, Romania, the Ukraine and Belarus before they ended up in Poland, Russia and the former Czechoslovakia in the 16th to 19th centuries. Bogomils are well concentrated in Carpathian Ruthenia which was under Russian rule and later annexed by Poland after WWI to be annexed by the then Soviet Union in WWII, is in the present-day western half of Ukraine and eastern Slovakia. The majority of Bogomils still reside in Bulgaria, Romania and to a lesser extent Hungary. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Rewriting, Organisation and Citing
I am planing to organize, and encyclopedize this article. There are a lot of information that need to be sorted.

I think that there too many sources mentioned in the article that should be omitted. The sentences should be rewritten so they would fit an encyclopedia and then properly cited.

Please do not revert, as I am not edit warring. If you have sources and ideas, please contribute. Svrznik (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Intro edits
This version of the intro is rather unacceptable. I feel that it purposefully attempts to cover up the origins of the movement, which were in Bulgaria.

 * There is no scholarly evidence that priest Bogomil preached in Veles and Prilep (in fact, he is only mentioned in Cosmas the Priest's treatise, and as far as I know it says nothing of these regions, it discusses the movement as it if is popular in entire Bulgaria).

 * Referring to Bogomil as preaching "in the Republic of Macedonia" is a blatant anachronism, and, bearing in mind my previous point, is also wrong.

 * Bogomilism didn't spread only among the South Slavs: most of its Byzantine followers were perhaps not at all Slavic.

 * The oldest record of Bogomilism is Bulgarian writer Cosmas the Priest's treatise, not some documents of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.  — Toдor Boжinov — 11:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

 * You've completely misunderstood. I'll get back to your points later. But as far as translations are concerned, Old Church Slavonic was the language of the period. Perhaps you can try find an OCS text which uses that name. :) --124.169.164.103 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

At that time Macedonia was Byzantyne theme in today Thrace, and Republic of Macedonia did not exist. There was a First Bulgarian empire, a Province of Kutmichevitsa. All intro now is blatant nationalism and sketchy anachroninism. Jingby (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC).

Wiping out text
Sorry, I had to revert, but a large portion of the article got deleted with the explanation "Removing OR". I think a good explanation is due for such a move. I acknowledge the fact that most of the removed text had missing citations or OR tags, but yet it was removed selectively (some of the paragraphs with tags were preserved). -- L a v e o l  T 06:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes neglected articles need a good original research/patently false material purge. Had I known you were watching the article to question things I would have inquired first.

Now, must we go section by section? NJMauthor (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

For your information, I have deleted this paragraph from "Connections to the Royal Court" sub-section:

"Some sources claim the originator was the brother of tsar Petar, the fourth of the sons of Simeon I – Beneamin-Boyan, known in Bulgaria under the name Boyan the Magus. According to these sources (Roman clergy documents in Constantinople) Beneamin was heavily influenced by "strange Syrean visitors" who visited him on several occasions during his studies at the imperial Magnaur University in Constantinople. Upon returning to Bulgaria Beneamin-Boyan used his position to receive a monastery from the state which he used to convert a large portion of the aristocracy and clergy into Bogomil followers."

because there are absolutely no sources about it, except for some Bulgarian historical novels, written with more with imagination and romanticism than relying to the facts. Veneamin (or Boyan "The Magician"), brother to tsar Peter I of Bulgaria, was mentioned in Byzantine sources for wearing the Bulgar traditional costumes in the royal court (together with his brother John) in times when Byzantine clothing became popular within Bulgarian aristocracy. In 968 he appears in the writings of Liutprand of Cremona for practicing magic and being able to shapeshift as a wolf and other animals. This is usually seen as keeping to the Protobulgarian shamanism long after the conversion of the state to Christianity and has notning to do with the Bogomils.

85.196.168.81 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Roxy

Proper explanation of etymology of bugger is needed.
Please,some more knowledgeable to revise etymology and facts in bugger section because there is a mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.192.146 (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Addition of Sandžak to the list
I added Sandžak to the list of countries where Bogomils used to live, as it is the land where Stefan Nemanja fought with Bogomils. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batokanda (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

contradiction
There are contradictions in the page. For example the Paulicians chapter says they «led perfectly normal lives ... and were renowned as good fighting men» but the Opposition to institutions and materialism chapter says «Its followers refused to pay taxes, to work in serfdom, or to fight in conquering wars.»

Is there a contradiction ? Is it not normal to live your life without paying taxes ? As I understand that period of transition to a feudal organisation, it implied the force of land lords used to establish rules (meaning taxes, serfdom, etc). Did I get it wrong ? Was not Bogomilism about that ? Challenging authority (of land lords and church) to restore the freedom of people (the original Christianity) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbuftea (talk • contribs) 15:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bogomilism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150910072258/http://www.cartileonline.eu/carte/1025738/dragan-brujia-vodia-kroz-svet-vizantijeDragan to http://www.cartileonline.eu/carte/1025738/dragan-brujia-vodia-kroz-svet-vizantijeDragan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bogomilism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130309010252/http://www.rastko.org.rs/rastko-bl/istorija/bogumili/lbrockett-bogomils.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/rastko-bl/istorija/bogumili/lbrockett-bogomils.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Bosnians
Bosnians (this is not an ethnic name but a regional one - the only ethnic names known from the contemporary sources in medieval Bosnia were "Serbs and Vlachs" The source is only book of John V. A. Fine, Jr "The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century" without a page or quote. I can't find this information in the book so I guess it doesn't exist. I suggest deleting this information which has no evidence in RS (this is not an ethnic name but a regional one - the only ethnic names known from the contemporary sources in medieval Bosnia were "Serbs and Vlachs). Mikola22 (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is erroneous quote, delete is in order. When I catch time to grab the book I will try searching it. Mhare (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you do not find this information feel free to delete this information. Mikola22 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A slightly different perspective on the Bogomils.
Historian Hans Grimn has a different perspective on the Bogomils. He says that they were not Dualists or Manichaens, but that they mixed with them, and became associated with them. http://www.netbiblestudy.net/history/new_page_4.htm He says: Old Slavic belief in the gods and Finnish-Ugrian Schamanism of the Bulgarian lordly rank merge in many parts of the eastern Balkans with Gnostic-Manichean conceptions which non-Christian groups of heretics had brought with them, groups that had been deported at the same time as the Christians. In numerous discussions the brethren and sisters tried to protect themselves against the reproach that they had had anything at all to do with these dualistic groups of ascetics; it was all without avail. He has sources, but they are in foreign languages, so I cannot read any of them.

Would he be considered a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnpaulÞ (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Disturbingly biased article
The view that the Bogomils were gnostic is not a consensus. The view that the paulicians were gnostics is mostly dismissed, yet this article makes out that both were hardline dualists. Desperately needs a rewrite. 20thJune (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bogomilism


text:
Rocky Point

Rocky Point may refer to:

Antarctica

 * Rocky Point (Antarctica), Ross Island

Australia

 * Rocky Point, New South Wales
 * Rocky Point, Queensland (Douglas Shire)
 * Rocky Point, Queensland (Weipa Town)
 * High Rocky Point in Tasmania
 * Low Rocky Point in Tasmania
 * Rocky Cape, Tasmania, a locality in Tasmania, Australia
 * Rocky Cape National Park, a national park in Tasmania

Canada

 * Rocky Point, in Metchosin, Greater Victoria, British Columbia
 * Rocky Point, Prince Edward Island
 * Rocky Point Park, in Port Moody, British Columbia

Jamaica

 * Rocky Point, Jamaica

Mexico

 * Puerto Peñasco, Sonora, a beach resort which erroneously translates as Rocky Point in English

South Africa

 * Rocky Point, South Africa

United States

 * Rocky Point, California (disambiguation), several places
 * Rocky Point (Tampa), a neighborhood within the city of Tampa, Florida
 * Rocky Point (Massachusetts), a peninsula in Plymouth, Massachusetts
 * Rocky Point, Montana
 * Rocky Point, Montana (ghost town)
 * Olive, Montana, also called Rocky Point
 * Rocky Point, New York
 * Rocky Point, Oregon
 * Rocky Point, Cowlitz County, Washington
 * Rocky Point, Kitsap County, Washington
 * Rocky Point Amusement Park, a former amusement park in Warwick, Rhode Island
 * Rocky Point State Park, a state park in Warwick, Rhode Island
 * Rocky Point Park and Beach, a state park in Essex, Maryland

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Rocky Point


text:
Balto-Slavic languages

The Balto-Slavic languages form a branch of the Indo-European family of languages, traditionally comprising the Baltic and Slavic languages. Baltic and Slavic languages share several linguistic traits not found in any other Indo-European branch, which points to a period of common development and origin.

A Proto-Balto-Slavic language is reconstructable by the comparative method, descending from Proto-Indo-European by means of well-defined sound laws, and from which modern Slavic and Baltic languages descended. One particularly innovative dialect separated from the Balto-Slavic dialect continuum and became ancestral to the Proto-Slavic language, from which all Slavic languages descended.

While the notion of a Balto-Slavic unity was previously contested largely due to political controversies, there is now a general consensus among academic specialists in Indo-European linguistics that Baltic and Slavic languages comprise a single branch of the Indo-European language family, with only some minor details of the nature of their relationship remaining in contention.

Historical dispute
The nature of the relationship of the Balto-Slavic languages has been the subject of much discussion from the very beginning of historical Indo-European linguistics as a scientific discipline. A few are more intent on explaining the similarities between the two groups not in terms of a linguistically "genetic" relationship, but by language contact and dialectal closeness in the Proto-Indo-European period.

Baltic and Slavic share many close phonological, lexical, morphosyntactic and accentological similarities (listed below). The early Indo-Europeanists Rasmus Rask and August Schleicher (1861) proposed a simple solution: From Proto-Indo-European descended Balto-German-Slavonic language, out of which Proto-Balto-Slavic (later split into Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic) and Germanic emerged. Schleicher's proposal was taken up and refined by Karl Brugmann, who listed eight innovations as evidence for a Balto-Slavic branch in the Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen ("Outline of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages"). The Latvian linguist Jānis Endzelīns thought, however, that any similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages resulted from intensive language contact, i.e. that they were not genetically more closely related and that there was no common Proto-Balto-Slavic language. Antoine Meillet (1905, 1908, 1922, 1925, 1934), a French linguist, in reaction to Brugmann's hypothesis, propounded a view according to which all similarities of Baltic and Slavic occurred accidentally, by independent parallel development, and that there was no Proto-Balto-Slavic language. In turn, the Polish linguist Rozwadowski suggests that the similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages are a result of both a genetic relationship and later language contact. Thomas Olander corroborates the claim of genetic relationship in his research in the field of comparative Balto-Slavic accentology.

Even though some linguists still reject a genetic relationship, most scholars accept that Baltic and Slavic languages experienced a period of common development. This view is also reflected in most modern standard textbooks on Indo-European linguistics. Gray and Atkinson's (2003) application of language-tree divergence analysis supports a genetic relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages, dating the split of the family to about 1400 BCE.

Internal classification
The traditional division into two distinct sub-branches (i.e. Slavic and Baltic) is mostly upheld by scholars who accept Balto-Slavic as a genetic branch of Indo-European. There is a general consensus that the Baltic languages can be divided into East Baltic (Lithuanian, Latvian) and West Baltic (Old Prussian). The internal diversity of Baltic points at a much greater time-depth for the breakup of the Baltic languages in comparison to the Slavic languages.

"Traditional" Balto-Slavic tree model

This bipartite division into Baltic and Slavic was first challenged in the 1960s, when Vladimir Toporov and Vyacheslav Ivanov observed that the apparent difference between the "structural models" of the Baltic languages and the Slavic languages is the result of the innovative nature of Proto-Slavic, and that the latter had evolved from an earlier stage which conformed to the more archaic "structural model" of the Proto-Baltic dialect continuum. Frederik Kortlandt (1977, 2018) has proposed that West Baltic and East Baltic are in fact not more closely related to each other than either of them is related to Slavic, and Balto-Slavic therefore can be split into three equidistant branches: East Baltic, West Baltic and Slavic.

Alternative Balto-Slavic tree model

Although supported by a number of scholars, Kortlandt's hypothesis is still a minority view. Some scholars accept Kortlandt's division into three branches as the default assumption, but nevertheless believe that there is sufficient evidence to unite East Baltic and West Baltic in an intermediate Baltic node.

The tripartite split is supported by glottochronologic studies by V. V. Kromer, whereas two computer-generated family trees (from the early 2000s) that include Old Prussian have a Baltic node parallel to the Slavic node.

Historical expansion
The sudden expansion of Proto-Slavic in the sixth and the seventh century (around 600 CE, uniform Proto-Slavic with no detectable dialectal differentiation was spoken from Thessaloniki in Greece to Novgorod in Russia) is, according to some, connected to the hypothesis that Proto-Slavic was in fact a koiné of the Avar state, i.e. the language of the administration and military rule of the Avar Khaganate in Eastern Europe. In 626, the Slavs, Persians and Avars jointly attacked the Byzantine Empire and participated in the Siege of Constantinople. In that campaign, the Slavs fought under Avar officers. There is an ongoing controversy over whether the Slavs might then have been a military caste under the khaganate rather than an ethnicity. Their language—at first possibly only one local speech—once koinéized, became a lingua franca of the Avar state. This might explain how Proto-Slavic spread to the Balkans and the areas of the Danube basin, and would also explain why the Avars were assimilated so fast, leaving practically no linguistic traces, and that Proto-Slavic was so unusually uniform. However, such a theory fails to explain how Slavic spread to Eastern Europe, an area that had no historical links with the Avar Khanate. That said, the Avar state was later replaced by the definitively Slavic state of Great Moravia, which could have played the same role.

It is also likely that the expansion of Slavic occurred with the assimilation of Iranic-speaking groups such as the Sarmatians, who quickly adopted Proto-Slavic due to speaking related Indo-European satem languages, in much the same way Latin expanded by assimilating the Celtic speakers in continental Western Europe and the Dacians.

That sudden expansion of Proto-Slavic erased most of the idioms of the Balto-Slavic dialect continuum, which left us today with only two groups, Baltic and Slavic (or East Baltic, West Baltic, and Slavic in the minority view). This secession of the Balto-Slavic dialect ancestral to Proto-Slavic is estimated on archaeological and glottochronological criteria to have occurred sometime in the period 1500–1000 BCE. Hydronymic evidence suggests that Baltic languages were once spoken in much wider territory than the one they cover today, all the way to Moscow, and were later replaced by Slavic.

Shared features of the Balto-Slavic languages
The degree of relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages is indicated by a series of common innovations not shared with other Indo-European languages, and by the relative chronology of these innovations which can be established. The Baltic and Slavic languages also share some inherited words. These are either not found at all in other Indo-European languages (except when borrowed) or are inherited from Proto-Indo-European but have undergone identical changes in meaning when compared to other Indo-European languages. This indicates that the Baltic and Slavic languages share a period of common development, the Proto-Balto-Slavic language.

Common sound changes

 * Winter's law: lengthening of vowels before Proto-Indo-European (PIE) non-breathy voiced consonants (*b, *d, *g).
 * PIE breathy-voiced consonants (*bʰ, *dʰ, *gʰ, *ǵʰ) merge into plain voiced consonants (*b, *d, *g, *ǵ). This also occurred in several other Indo-European branches, but as Winter's law was sensitive to the difference between the two types of consonants, the merger must have happened after it and so is a specific Balto-Slavic innovation.
 * Hirt's law: retraction of the PIE accent to the preceding syllable, if that syllable ended in a laryngeal (*h₁, *h₂, *h₃, see Laryngeal theory).
 * A high vowel is inserted before PIE syllabic sonorants (*l̥, *r̥, *m̥, *n̥). This vowel is usually *i (giving *il, *ir, *im, *in) but in some occasions also *u (*ul, *ur, *um, *un). Proto-Germanic is the only other Indo-European language that inserts a high vowel (*u in all cases), all others insert mid or low vowels instead.
 * Emergence of a register distinction on long syllables, between acute (probably glottalized) and circumflex. The acute arose primarily when the syllable ended in a PIE voiced consonant (as in Winter's law) or when it ended in a laryngeal. The distinction is reflected in most Balto-Slavic languages, including Proto-Slavic, as an opposition between rising and falling tone on accented syllables. Some Baltic languages directly reflect the acute register in the form of a so-called "broken tone".
 * Shortening of vowels before word-final *m.
 * Word-final *-mi > *-m after a long vowel. This followed the preceding change, as the preceding long vowel is retained.
 * Raising of stressed *o to *u in a final syllable.
 * Merging of PIE short *o and *a into *a. This change also occurred in several other Indo-European branches, but here too it must have happened after Winter's law: Winter's law lengthens *o to *ō and *a to *ā, and must therefore have occurred before the two sounds merged. It also followed the raising of *o to *u above. In the Slavic languages, *a is later rounded to *o, while the Baltic languages keep *a:
 * Lithuanian ašìs Old Church Slavonic ось (from PIE *a: Latin axis, Ancient Greek áxōn)
 * Lithuanian avìs, Old Church Slavonic овьца (from PIE *o: Latin ovis, Greece óis)

Common Balto-Slavic innovations include several other changes, which are also shared by several other Indo-European branches. These are therefore not direct evidence for the existence of a common Balto-Slavic family, but they do corroborate it.

 * Satemization: The PIE palatovelar consonants *ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ become palatal sibilants *ś, *ź, *ź, while the PIE labiovelar consonants *kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ lose their labialization and merge with the plain velar *k, *g, *gʰ. The palatal sibilants later become plain sibilants *s, *z in all Balto-Slavic languages except Lithuanian.
 * Ruki sound law: *s becomes *š when preceded by *r, *u, *k or *i. In Slavic, this *š later becomes *x (variously spelled $⟨ch⟩$, $⟨h⟩$ or $⟨х⟩$ in the Slavic languages) when followed by a back vowel.

Common grammatical innovations

 * Replacement of the original PIE genitive singular ending of thematic (o-stem) nouns, which is reconstructed as , with the ablative ending *-ād (Proto-Slavic *vьlka, Lithuanian vil̃ko, Latvian vilka). Old Prussian, however, has another ending, perhaps stemming from the original PIE genitive: deiwas "god's", tawas "father's".
 * Use of the ending *-ān (from earlier *-āmi) of the instrumental singular in ā-stem nouns and adjectives. This contrasts with Sanskrit -ayā, archaic Vedic -ā. Lithuanian rankà is ambiguous and could have originated from either ending, but the correspondence with East Lithuanian runku and Latvian rùoku point to Balto-Slavic *-ān.
 * Use of the ending *-mis in the instrumental plural, e.g. Lithuanian sūnumìs, Old Church Slavonic synъmi "with sons". This ending is also found in Germanic, while the other Indo-European languages have an ending with -bʰ-, as in Sanskrit -bhis.
 * Creation of a distinction between definite (meaning similar to "the") and indefinite adjectives (meaning similar to "a"). The definite forms were formed by attaching the corresponding form of the relative/demonstrative pronoun *jas to the end of the adjective. For example, Lithuanian geràsis 'the good' as opposed to gẽras 'good', Old Church Slavonic dobrъjь 'the good' as opposed to dobrъ 'good'. These forms in Lithuanian, however, seem to have developed after the split, since in older Lithuanian literature (16th century and onwards) they had not yet merged (e. g. naujamę́jame ʽin the new one' from *naujamén + *jamén). In Lithuanian, the pronoun merged with the adjective having a modern (secondary) pronominal inflection; in Slavic, the pronoun merged with an adjective, having an ancient (primary) nominal inflection.
 * Usage of the genitive case for the direct object of a negative verb. For example, Russian кни́ги (я) не читал, Lith. knygos neskaičiau 'I haven't read the book'.

Shared vocabulary
Some examples of words shared among most or all Balto-Slavic languages:

 * *léiˀpāˀ 'tilia' (linden tree): Lithuanian líepa, Old Prussian līpa, Latvian liẽpa, Latgalian līpa, Common Slavic *lipa (Old Church Slavonic липа, Russian ли́па, Polish lipa, Czech lípa)
 * *ránkāˀ 'hand': Lithuanian rankà, Old Prussian rānkan (acc. sg.), Latvian rùoka, Latgalian rūka, Common Slavic *rǭkà (Old Church Slavonic рѫка, Russian рука́, Polish ręka, Czech ruka)
 * *galˀwā́ˀ 'head': Lithuanian galvà, Old Prussian galwo, Latvian gal̂va, Latgalian golva; Common Slavic *golvà (Old Church Slavonic глава, Russian голова́, Polish głowa, Czech hlava, Slavic Triglav 'three-headed/three-faced' god).

Despite lexical developments exclusive to Balto-Slavic and otherwise showing evidence for a stage of common development, there are considerable differences between the vocabularies of Baltic and Slavic. Rozwadowski noted that every semantic field contains core vocabulary that is etymologically different between the two branches. Andersen prefers a dialect continuum model where the northernmost dialects developed into Baltic and the southernmost dialects into Slavic (with Slavic later absorbing any intermediate idioms during its expansion). Andersen thinks that different neighboring and substratum languages might have contributed to the differences in basic vocabulary.

Phonetics and phonology
Lithuanian linguist and scholar Antanas Klimas has criticized Oswald Szemerényi's arguments, which are in favour of the Balto-Slavic theory. His counterarguments regarding the plausible phonetic, phonological and morphological similarities between the Baltic and Slavic languages had scrutinized the arguments of O. Szemerényi and concluded the following:

He had also noted that:
 * Phonetic palatalization only exists in Latvian and not Lithuanian or Old Prussian. This means phonetic palatalization could not have existed in the Proto-Balto-Slavic language.
 * The changes of *ṛ, *ḷ, *ṃ, *ṇ liquid consonants also apply to Germanic languages, so these changes are not unique to Baltic or Slavic languages.
 * The idea of the Proto-Slavic language being an offshoot of the West Baltic language group cannot be true due to the fact that *s reflexes present in Lithuanian, Latvian, and Old Prussian that come after *r, *u, *k, *i and become *š began to merge with satem consonants, thus leading to the strengthening of consonants *k and *g. The complete opposite had happened in Slavic, Albanian as well as Armenian languages.
 * The consonant *s turning into *č after *r, *u, *k, and *i is a tendency that can be observed in Indo-Iranian languages, Armenian and Albanian.
 * In terms of similarity the vowel system of German is almost identical to Old Prussian. Therefore, it is baseless to discuss exclusive similarities between the Proto-Slavic and Old Prussian.
 * One could argue that Winter's law is not a phonetic law but merely a characteristic of long vowels, which differ between the Baltic and Slavic languages.

Vyacheslav Ivanov noted that syllabic sonants in Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages have changed to an equal degree. According to Vladimir I. Georgiev, similar changes in Indo-European liquids and nasals, as in the case of Baltic and Slavic languages, can also be found in Tocharian and Indo-Iranian, with Vedic Sanskrit possessing compounds ir and ur, for instance. In addition, Walter Porzig argued that the aforementioned changes in syllabic sonants cannot be applied when classifying any Indo-European languages since they only indicate mutual interaction between them. Tadeusz Milewski, who rejected the Balto-Slavic grouping, believed that mixed diphthongs in Proto-Slavic can be directly derived from the Indo-European syllabic sonants. Roman Sukač noted that the Winter’s law applies to the Albanian language as well.
 * In the Baltic languages short vowels *a, *o coincided into a, while in Slavic languages they coincided into o; the differences of long vowels of *ā and *ō in the Baltic languages were maintained, in Slavic languages they ceased to exist.
 * Unlike the Proto-Slavic language, which remained conservative, the vowel gradation in the Proto-Baltic language had been developed extensively.
 * The law of open syllables applies to the Proto-Slavic language that cannot be found in the Proto-Baltic language or in the Baltic languages in general.

Regarding the systemic changes of suffixes in Baltic and Slavic languages, Russian linguist Anzhelika Dubasova notices that in both cases the following happened: aspirated voiced consonants turned into generic voiced consonants (e.g., *gʰ > *g), iotation (e.g., *d > *di̯ > *dj), palatalization, and later on—the assimilation, dissimilation, metathesis as well as the fallout of some consonants in some instances. According to Dubasova, the aforementioned sequence of common changes in both language groups can be an indication of a special relationship between Baltic and Slavic languages but before making such conclusions it is crucial to scrutinize the basis, consequences and intensity of these processes.

For instance, Dubasova emphasizes that there are core differences when it comes to iotation in Baltic and Slavic languages, which is something other scientists had noticed in the past. In fact, there are differences in iotation between Baltic languages themselves, which probably means that this process began after the split of Proto-Baltic while Proto-Slavic is already known to have iotation. With regard to palatalization, Dubasova notices that it is a trivial phonetic change and it cannot be seen as evidence of a genetic link between Baltic and Slavic languages, especially when taking the core palatalization differences in both language groups. She also concludes that researchers face great difficulties when reconstructing the phonological system of the Proto-Baltic mostly due to the problematic nature of examining Old Prussian and contrasting views of researchers.

In terms of palatalization similarities between Latvian and Slavic languages, Dubasova notes that the reasons behind the changes of consonants before certain vowels or the lack of them are different. In her work on the assimilation of voiced and voiceless consonants, she states that such assimilation already happened in the Proto-Slavic language, which was caused by the fallout of reduced vowels, while in the Proto-Baltic language vowel reduction is not being reconstructed. This shows the different nature of assimilation in Baltic languages.

When analyzing the dropping of consonants at the end of a word, she claims that in Proto-Slavic this process was a consequence of a general tendency but in Baltic languages, the endings of consonants were not dropped at all. According to the linguist, metathesis in the Proto-Baltic was an independent phenomenon that, unlike in the case of Proto-Slavic, is not connected with the open syllable principle (in the Baltic languages such a principle did not and does not exist to this day). When evaluating the gemination (the fadeaway of consonant lengthening) Dubasova emphasizes that linguists do not have a consensus on this: some interpret this as an independent process while some believe it to be a common genetic deviation. Dubasova presents the opinions of other specialists about the system of consonants and even though she notes that there is no common ground regarding this, the linguist draws attention to the alveolar and dental consonant differences that Baltic and Slavic languages possess. In conclusion, Dubasova states:"The examples of previously discussed factors reveal that Slavic and Baltic languages 'had put an emphasis' on different ways of reorganization, and used various [linguistic] tools irregularly; all changes despite their similarities in Baltic and Slavic languages are independent processes, which have a different basis and consequences. So, it is more logical to talk about the independent evolution from the very beginning rather than 'separation' without postulating the idea of a common Proto-Balto-Slavic language."

Morphology and syntax
The opponents of the Balto-Slavic theory had presented morphological properties that, according to them, suggest that the Proto-Balto-Slavic language did not exist:

 * In the Baltic languages, ordinal numeral first (Lithuanian: pirmas, Latvian: pirmais) is created with a suffix -mo-, whereas in the Slavic languages it is done with a suffix -wo-, as in the Indo-Iranian languages and Tocharian languages.
 * In Hittite language as well as the Proto-Slavic language the suffix -es- was used to create names for parts of the body. That is not the case with the Baltic languages.
 * The Slavic perfect of the word know *vĕdĕ comes from *u̯oi̯da(i̯), an archaism that has no equivalent in the Baltic languages.
 * The Slavic imperative form of the verb go *jьdi is the continuation of *i-dhí, something that cannot be found in the Baltic languages.
 * The Slavic suffix of the verb noun -telь- is related to -talla found in the Hittite language and is not used in the Baltic languages.
 * The equivalents of the Slavic participle with the suffix -lъ can be found in Armenian and Tocharian languages but not in the Baltic ones.
 * The Baltic first person singular verb ending -mai does not exist in the Slavic languages.
 * The common Baltic verb suffix -sto- does not exist in the Slavic languages.
 * The common Baltic adjective suffix -ing- does not exist in the Slavic languages.
 * The Baltic diminutive suffix -l- is not used in the Slavic languages.
 * The Proto-Baltic language did not have separate singular and plural third person verb forms. Proto-Slavic had retained this property.
 * The Slavic languages reflect well the thematic verbs of the 3rd person formants -t: -nt, something that cannot be found in the Baltic languages.
 * Unlike the Slavic languages, the Baltic languages use the suffix -no- to form participles.
 * Unlike the Baltic languages, the Proto-Slavic language had a sigmatic aorist with the suffix -s-.
 * Unlike the Slavic languages, the Baltic languages use the sigmatic future tense.
 * The Proto-Slavic language uses suffix -tь with plural quantitative numericals (e.g.,*pę-tь 5, *šes-tь 6, *devę-tь 9), something that cannot be found in the Baltic languages.

Genetic relationship
Critics have noted that many linguistic innovations commonly presented as evidence for exclusive genetic ties between Baltic and Slavic languages can be observed in other language groups, apply to only several languages in question, or might be cases of anachronism:

 * Pronominal adjectives in Baltic and Slavic languages were formed independently because unlike in the Proto-Baltic, the Proto-Slavic pronoun *jь was attached to the stem ending without including the final consonant. In addition, pronominal adjectives may not have existed yet in the Proto-Baltic language, the Baltic languages have very diverse and free constructions of adjectives and pronouns. The deictic use of this pronoun is also a characteristic of Indo-Iranian languages (e.g., Old literary Lithuanian: nujamliūdusiam (DAT) ‘the saddened one, one who is saddened’, dangujęjis (NOM) ‘heavenly, one who is in heaven’; Avestan: Daēūm yim Apaošɚm (ACC) ‘Daev Apaosh’).
 * There are still traces of consonantal participle declension in the Lithuanian language, so it is highly unlikely that consonantal declension had passed into the i̯o stem during the Proto-Baltic period — this is a phenomenon of a later epoch, merely showing a similar trend of development in Baltic and Slavic languages. In addition, this phenomenon can be observed in the West Germanic languages.
 * Linguistic traits, such as the o-stem genitive ending -*ā(t), the comparative degree formation, the pronouns tos/tā instead of the Indo-European so/sā and the Lithuanian -áuj- / Old Slavonic -uj- verb suffixes do not apply to all Baltic languages: the comparative degree formation and verb suffixes -áuj- common to Lithuanian and Old Prussian are not found in Latvian whereas the o-stem genitive ending -*ā(t) and the pronouns *tos/*tā are not found in Old Prussian. Moreover, the Dacian and Thracian languages also had the genitive ending -*ā(t). Therefore, these innovations may indicate parallel development or borrowing, but cannot serve as evidence for any exclusive Baltic and Slavic ties.
 * The use of *tos/*tā instead of Indo-European *so/*sā can also be observed in Germanic languages, thus it cannot be considered an exclusive innovation shared by Baltic and Slavic languages.
 * Unlike in the Baltic languages, of all the Proto-Slavic oblique cases of the first person singular pronoun, only the accusative-genitive case has the stem *men-. The stems of other oblique cases are *mьn- < *min- / *mъn- < *mun-, which are foreign to the Baltic languages. The stem *nō- /*no- of the oblique cases of the first person plural pronoun is also known in the Italic languages, so this is not an exclusive feature of the Baltic and Slavic languages.
 * The Italic languages also have past tense stems with -ē- and -ā-, so this feature is not exclusive to the Baltic and Slavic languages.
 * The use of the instrumental case in a predicative (e.g., Lithuanian: jis buvo mokytoju ‘he was a teacher’) is usually explained by the influence of the Finnic languages. Therefore, this construction, being a syntactic borrowing, cannot be used as an argument in favour of a common Proto-Balto-Slavic language.

Lexicon and semantics
Samuil Bernstein claimed that when examining the lexicon of both language groups, it is important to separate the common heritage and vocabulary innovations of the Proto-Indo-European language from the ones that formed during the contact of Baltic and Slavic languages, which is something Reinhold Trautmann had failed to do. In his Balto-Slavic Dictionary (German: Baltisch–slavisches Wörterbuch), published in 1923, Trautmann presents 1,700 common words but more than 75% of the given vocabulary is not unique to Baltic and Slavic languages as these words can be found in other Indo-European languages, they unite only some of the Baltic or Slavic languages or only belong to one specific language.

The opposing linguists of the genetic relationship between Baltic and Slavic languages like Oleg Trubachyov also note that there are notable lexicon and semantic differences that date back to very old times. They emphasize that the most fundamental concepts such as egg, to beat, suffering, girl, oak, chop, pigeon, god, guest, or forger are named differently in Baltic and Slavic languages. According to Zigmas Zinkevičius, the Baltic and Slavic dictionary of differences would be far more impressive than a dictionary of commonalities. Professor Antanas Salys argued that the Proto-Balto-Slavic or Balto-Slavic groupings are not plausible since there are no known traces of any intermediate dialects that should have emerged once Baltic and Slavic languages began splitting from one another.

In 1908, Antoine Meillet published a book called Indo-European Dialects (French: Les dialectes indo-europeens) where he criticised the arguments made by Karl Brugman regarding the existence of the Proto-Balto-Slavic by presenting eight counterarguments and formulating a conception on independent Baltic and Slavic linguistic development.

title: Balto-Slavic languages


text:
Akira Ifukube

Akira Ifukube (伊福部 昭) was a Japanese composer. He is best known for composing several entries in the Godzilla franchise as well as developing the titular monster's roar.

Early years in Hokkaido
Akira Ifukube was born on 31 May 1914, in Kushiro, Japan as the third son of a police officer Toshimitsu Ifukube. The origins of this family can be traced back to at least the 7th century with the birth of Ifukibe-no-Tokotarihime. He was strongly influenced by the Ainu music as he spent his childhood (from age of 9 to 12) in Otofuke near Obihiro, where was with a mixed population of Ainu and Japanese. His first encounter with classical music occurred when attending secondary school in Sapporo city. Ifukube decided to become a composer at the age of 14 after hearing a radio performance of Igor Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring, and also cited the music of Manuel de Falla as a major influence.

Ifukube studied forestry at Hokkaido Imperial University in Sapporo and composed in his spare time, which prefigured a line of self-taught Japanese composers. His first piece was the piano solo, Piano Suite (later the title was changed to Japan Suite, arranged for orchestra), dedicated to George Copeland who was living in Spain. Atsushi Miura, Ifukube's friend at the university, sent a letter to Copeland. Copeland replied, "It is wonderful that you listen my disc in spite of you living in Japan, the opposite side of the earth. I imagine you may compose music. Send me some piano pieces." Then Miura, who was not a composer, presented Ifukube and this piece to Copeland. Copeland promised to interpret it, but the correspondence was unfortunately stopped because of the Spanish Civil War. Ifukube's big break came in 1935, when his first orchestral piece Japanese Rhapsody won the first prize in an competition for Japanese composers promoted by Alexander Tcherepnin. The judges of that contest—Albert Roussel, Jacques Ibert, Arthur Honegger, Alexandre Tansman, Tibor Harsányi, Pierre-Octave Ferroud, and Henri Gil-Marchex were unanimous in their selection of Ifukube as the winner. Ifukube studied modern Western composition while Tcherepnin was visiting Japan, and his Piano Suite received an honourable mention at the I.C.S.M. festival in Venice in 1938. Japanese Rhapsody was performed in Europe on a number of occasions in the late 1930s.

On completing University, he worked as a forestry officer and lumber processor in Akkeshi, and towards the end of the Second World War was appointed by the Imperial Japanese Army to study the elasticity and vibratory strength of wood. He suffered radiation exposure after carrying out x-rays without protection, a consequence of the wartime lead shortage. Thus, he had to abandon forestry work and became a professional composer and teacher. Ifukube spent some time in hospital due to the radiation exposure, and was startled one day to hear one of his own marches being played over the radio when General Douglas MacArthur arrived to formalize the Japanese surrender.

From 1946 to 2006 in Tokyo
He taught at the Tokyo University of the Arts (formerly Tokyo Music School), during which period he composed his first film score for Snow Trail, released in 1947. Over the next fifty years, he would compose more than 250 film scores, the high point of which was his 1954 music for Ishirō Honda's Toho movie, Godzilla. Ifukube also created Godzilla's trademark roar – produced by rubbing a resin-covered leather glove along the loosened strings of a double bass – and its footsteps, created by striking an amplifier box.

Despite his financial success as a film composer, Ifukube's first love had always been his general classical work as a composer. In fact his compositions for the two genres cross-fertilized each other. For example, he was to recycle his 1953 music for the ballet Shaka, about how the young Siddhartha Gautama eventually became the Buddha, for Kenji Misumi's 1961 film Buddha. Then in 1988 he reworked the film music to create his three-movement symphonic ode Gotama the Buddha. Meanwhile, he had returned to teaching at the Tokyo College of Music, becoming president of the college the following year, and in 1987 retired to become head of the College's ethnomusicology department.

He trained younger generation composers such as Toshiro Mayuzumi, Yasushi Akutagawa, Akio Yashiro, Teizo Matsumura, Sei Ikeno, Minoru Miki, Maki Ishii, Riichirō Manabe, Hajime Okumura, Reiko Arima, Taichiro Kosugi, Kaoru Wada, Motoji Ishimaru, Shigeyuki Imai, and Satoshi Imai. He also published Orchestration, a 1,000-page book on theory, widely used among Japanese composers.

He died in Tokyo at Meguro-ku Hospital of multiple organ dysfunction on 8 February in 2006, at the age of 91 and buried at the Ube shrine in Tottori.

Honors
The Japanese government awarded Ifukube the Order of Culture. Subsequently, he was awarded the Order of the Sacred Treasure, Third Class.

Tribute
On May 31, 2021, Google celebrated the 107th anniversary of his birth with a Google Doodle.

Orchestral/chamber

 * Japanese Rhapsody (1935)
 * Triptyque Aborigène: trois tableaux pour orchestre de chambre  (1937); dedicated to Alexander Tcherepnin.
 * Ballet symphonique après Etenraku (1940)
 * Symphony Concertante for piano and orchestra (1941)
 * Ballata Sinfonica (1943)
 * Overture to the Nation of Philippines (1944)
 * Arctic Forest (1944)
 * Rapsodia Concertante for violin and orchestra (Violin Concerto No. 1) (1948, revised 1951/59/71)
 * Salome, ballet (1948, score revised and expanded 1987 for Suite) based on Oscar Wilde's play
 * Fire of Prometheus, ballet (1950)
 * Drumming of Japan, ballet (1951, revised 1984)
 * Sinfonia Tapkaara (1954, revised 1979)
 * Ritmica Ostinata for piano and orchestra (1961, revised 1971)
 * Ronde in Burlesque for wind orchestra (1972, arranged to orchestra in 1983)
 * Violin Concerto No. 2 (1978)
 * Lauda concertata for marimba and orchestra (1979)
 * Eglogue symphonique for 20-strings koto and orchestra (1982)
 * Symphonic Fantasia No. 1 (1983); arrangement from the film scores
 * Symphonic Fantasia No. 2 (1983); arrangement from the film scores
 * Symphonic Fantasia No. 3 (1983); arrangement from the film scores
 * Gotama the Buddha, symphonic ode for mixed chorus and orchestra (1989)
 * Japanese Suite for orchestra (1991); arrangement from the piano suite
 * Japanese Suite for string orchestra (1998); arrangement from the piano suite

Instrumental

 * Piano Suite (1933)
 * Toka: Cantilena ballabile sul mode antico de Giappone, for guitar (1967)
 * Kugoka for guitar (1969)
 * Toccata for guitar (1970)
 * Fantasia for baroque lute (1980)
 * Sonata for violin and piano (1985)
 * Ballata sinfonica for duo-treble and bass 25-stringed koto (2001)

Vocal

 * Ancient Minstrelsies of Gilyak Tribes, for soprano and piano (1946)
 * Three Lullabies among the Native Tribes on the Island of Sakhalin, for soprano and piano (1949)
 * Eclogues after Epos among Aino Races, for soprano and timpani (1950)
 * A Shanty of the Shiretoko Peninsula (1961)
 * The Sea of Okhotsk for soprano, bassoon, piano (or harp) and double bass (1988)
 * Tomo no oto for traditional ensemble and orchestra (1990)
 * Lake Kimtaankamuito (Lake Mashū) (摩周湖) for soprano, viola and harp or piano (1992)
 * Five Poems after Inaba Manyo (1994); text by Ōtomo no Yakamochi
 * La Fontaine sacrée for soprano, viola, bassoon and harp (1964, 2000); arrangement by the composer from the 1964 film score Mothra vs. Godzilla
 * Ao Saghi (Grey heron) for soprano, oboe, double bass and piano (2000); text by Genzō Sarashina

Awards and honours
Ifukube obtained the Medal with Purple Ribbon in 1980, the 3rd class Order of the Sacred Treasure in 1987, and was honoured as a Person of Cultural Merit in 2003.

title: Akira Ifukube


text:
Battle of Largs

The Battle of Largs (2 October 1263) was a battle between the kingdoms of Norway and Scotland, on the Firth of Clyde near Largs, Scotland. The conflict formed part of the Norwegian expedition against Scotland in 1263, in which Haakon Haakonsson, King of Norway attempted to reassert Norwegian sovereignty over the western seaboard of Scotland. Victory was achieved by the Scots with a crafty three-tiered strategy on the part of the young Scottish king, Alexander III: plodding diplomacy forced the campaign to bad weather months and a ferocious storm ravaged the Norwegian fleet, stripping it of many vessels and supplies and making the forces on the Scottish coast vulnerable to an attack that forced the Norwegians into a hasty retreat that was to end their 500-year history of invasion, and leaving Scotland to consolidate its resources into building the nation.

Since the beginning of the 12th century, the Largs/Ayrshire region of Scotland had lain at the periphery of the Norwegian realm, ruled by magnates who recognised the overlordship of the kings of Norway. In the mid-13th century, two Scottish kings, Alexander II and his son Alexander III, attempted to incorporate the region into their own realm. Following Alexander III's early, failed attempts to purchase the islands from the Norwegian king, the Scots launched military operations to end the issue altogether by asserting royal sovereignty over all of western Scotland. Haakon responded to the Scottish aggression by leading a massive Norwegian fleet, thought to number in the thousands of vessels, that reached the Hebrides in the summer of 1263. Realizing that the Scots were tremendously outnumbered by an experienced and mobile enemy, Alexander III sought a protracted diplomatic intervention that would buy time to acquire more troops and possibly force the Norwegians into the stormy autumn and winter months where an invasion could be stalled due to weather. By late September, Haakon's fleet occupied the Firth of Clyde and the temperate days — such as they are on the western coast of Scotland — was almost at an end. When negotiations between the kingdoms broke down, Haakon brought the bulk of his fleet to anchor off the Cumbraes, poised to invade Scotland at a site of his choosing.

On the night of 1 October, during a bout of stormy weather, several Norwegian vessels were driven aground on the Ayrshire coast, near present-day Largs. On 2 October, while the Norwegians were salvaging their vessels, the main Scottish army arrived on the scene. Composed of infantry and cavalry, the Scottish force was commanded by Alexander of Dundonald, Steward of Scotland. The Norwegians were gathered in two groups: the larger main force on the beach and a small contingent atop a nearby mound. The advance of the Scots threatened to divide the Norwegian forces, so the contingent on the mound ran to rejoin their comrades on the beach below. Seeing them running from the mound, the Norwegians on the beach believed they were retreating and fled back towards the ships. There was fierce fighting on the beach, and the Scots took up a position on the mound formerly held by the Norwegians. Late in the day, the Norwegians recaptured the mound after several hours of skirmishing. The Scots withdrew from the scene and the Norwegians reboarded their ships. They returned the next morning to collect their dead. With the weather deteriorating, Haakon's fleet sailed to Orkney to overwinter.

As a result of the battle, Scotland achieved the end of 500 years of Norse Viking depredations and invasions despite being tremendously outnumbered, without a one-sided military victory in the ensuing battle. The victory caused the complete retreat of Norwegian forces from western Scotland and the realm entered a period of prosperity for almost 40 years. The tactical decision at Largs thus led to a sweeping strategic victory that ended in Scotland purchasing the Hebrides Islands and the Isle of Man in the Treaty of Perth, 1266.

The battle is commemorated in Largs by an early 20th-century monument, and festivities held there annually since the 1980s.

Context

Viking depredations have been recorded in the British Isles since the late 8th century, and Scandinavian settlement on Scotland's western-seaboard may have begun before the turn of the 9th century. Claims to this region by Norwegian kings date to the turn of the 12th century, when Magnus Olafsson, King of Norway (d. 1103) established himself in the Hebrides and the Isle of Man (Mann). Direct Norwegian control ended with Magnus' death, after which the Hebrides and Mann, known to the Norwegians as the "Southern Isles", were controlled by local dynasties for over a century and a half. In the first half of the 13th century, the seaboard was controlled by two main power blocks: one consisting of the Mann, Lewis and Harris, and Skye—controlled by the patrilineal descendants of Godred Crovan (d. 1095); the other consisting of mainland territories in Argyll, and the islands of Islay, Jura, Mull, and possibly Uist—controlled by the descendants of Somerled (d. 1164). As part of the far-flung, early 13th century Norwegian realm, these island rulers recognised the overlordship of Haakon Haakonarson, King of Norway (d. 1263).

The first half of the 13th century was a period of consolidation for both Scottish and Norwegian kings. The Norwegians, under Haakon, overcame a period of internal strife, from 1161 to 1208, and oversaw the submission of the Faroe Islands, the Greenland settlements, and Iceland, in the mid 13th century. The Scots, under Alexander II, King of Scots (d. 1249), extended royal authority into the northern Highlands, Argyll, and Galloway. The king also wanted to incorporate the western seaboard into the Scottish realm. In 1230, Scottish aggression against the Isles and interference forced the Norwegian king to pacify the region. In 1249, after attempting to purchase the Isles from Haakon, Alexander II launched a campaign of his own, deep into Argyll and into the Hebrides. Unfortunately for the Scots, their king died suddenly on the verge of conquest. Since his son and successor, Alexander III (d. 1286), was only a boy at the time, the Scottish realm suffered through a lengthy and troubled minority. In consequence, it wasn't until the 1260s that the king looked west and attempted to finish what his father had so nearly accomplished.

In 1262, a year after another unsuccessful attempt to purchase the Isles, Scottish forces launched an attack upon Skye. Haakon's response to the invasion was to mastermind a massive military expedition of his own. Described by the Icelandic Annals as the largest force to have ever set sail from Norway, the fleet reached the Isles in the summer of 1263. After receiving only a lukewarm reception from his vassals in the region, Haakon's forces reached the Firth of Clyde, after his men had secured several castles, and undertook raids into the surrounding mainland. With the Norwegian fleet anchored off Arran, the Norwegians and Scottish embassies fiercely debated the sovereignty of the Islands of the Clyde. When talks broke down, Haakon dispatched a fleet of Islesmen to raid into Loch Lomond, and to ravage Lennox. Meanwhile, the main Norwegian fleet repositioned itself between the Cumbraes and the Ayrshire coast.

Actions

The main Norwegian source for the battle is Hakonar saga Hakonarsonar, a contemporary account of the life of Hakon Haakonarson, King of Norway (d. 1263), composed by the Icelandic historian Sturla Thordarson (d. 1284). Although the saga describes the events purely from the Norwegian perspective, its narrative of the battle appears to have been drawn from eyewitness accounts, and it is the most detailed source available for the Scottish–Norwegian conflict, given that many contemporary Scottish archival holdings are lost to history. A contemporary Scottish perspective of the events is preserved in a brief entry in the Chronicle of Melrose. First penned at Melrose Abbey in the last quarter of the 12th century, the chronicle was further extended and supplemented from time to time into the late 13th century. It is an important historical source for the mediaeval Scottish realm. Clan and remaining royal records of property and titles subsequent to the event are also informative.

While lying off the Cumbraes, on the night of 30 September, Haakon's fleet was battered by stormy weather. During the night, the saga records that a merchantman dragged its anchor and was driven aground. The following morning, it and four other vessels were floated off by the rising tide but carried by the current towards the Scottish mainland where they ran aground again. The crews of the beached vessels were soon harassed by a small force of Scots armed with bows. After the Norwegians had suffered some casualties, Haakon sent reinforcements ashore, and the Scots fled the area. Haakon's reinforcements remained ashore for the night, and the Norwegian king himself came ashore to oversee the salvage operation the next morning.

According to the saga, the main Scottish force, consisting of heavily armoured cavalry and infantry, arrived on 2 October. The saga numbers the mounted troops at about 500 and states that they rode high-quality horses protected by mail. The use of a substantial force of mounted knights or sergeants appears to be corroborated in contemporary records of payments made to troops. For example, Walter Stewart, Earl of Menteith had to maintain 120 sergeants—which could include knights, mounted men-at-arms, archers, or other footsoldiers—at Ayr Castle for three weeks. Although surviving records fail to mention the number of knights assembled at Ayr, the record of wages suggests that it was "more than a mere handful". According to the saga, the Scottish infantry were armed with bows and "Irish axes", and since at one point the Scots are said to have thrown stones at the Norwegians, the Scottish army must have also included slingers. The Latin Chronicle of Melrose simply describes the Scottish infantry as pedisequi patrie (the "foot-sloggers of the locality"). If this description refers to the men of the surrounding countryside, the Scottish infantry would have been made up of men from the 'common army', drawn only from Strathgryffe, Cunninghame and Kyle. These levies would have been mustered by the Sheriff of Ayr, the Sheriff of Lanark, and the local magnates. At the time of Largs, the Scottish king thus had at his disposal men from the 'common army' (lesser men who owed service to their king), the feudal host (greater men who owed military service for their lands), and also paid troops.

The evidence suggests that the main Scottish force arrived from the south, rather than from the east or the north. For example, Alexander III is recorded to have been south at Ayr in September, and the power centre of Alexander of Dundonald, Steward of Scotland (d. 1282), who is thought to have commanded the Scottish forces at the battle, was also located to the south. Furthermore, at the time of the battle, the Sheriff of Ayr was probably a member of the steward's family —probably his younger brother, the Earl of Menteith. If the Scots had indeed arrived from the south, then they would have also assembled at a mustering site to the south, possibly somewhere near Ayr. The saga indicates that the Norwegians were divided into two groups. The smaller force numbered 200 men, was stationed on a mound, somewhat inland from the beach, under the command of a Norwegian nobleman Ogmund Crouchdance. The main Norwegian force, numbering about 700 to 800 men (including Haakon himself), was stationed on the beach below. These two detachments were likely only a fraction of the total number of forces at Haakon's disposal. The numbers that the saga allows for either side may be exaggerated. A more likely number may be only about one hundred or several hundred men per side with the number of knights present may have been closer to 50 than the saga's 500. The forces which Haakon had mustered in Norway formed part of his realm's leidang, a naval levy in which districts contributed men, ships, and provisions for military service. As the Scots advanced towards the Norwegians, the saga indicates that Ogmund withdrew his troops from the mound to avoid being cut off from his comrades on the beach below. If the Scots had indeed marched northwards, their advance would have threatened to drive a wedge between the Norwegians on the mound and those on the beach. Once the Scottish vanguard came into contact with Ogmund's men, the saga indicates that his orderly withdrawal disintegrated into a chaotic scramble. On the beach below, Haakon followed the advice of his men and retired to the safety of his ships. To the men on the beach, the rapid descent of Ogmund's men towards them looked like an all-out retreat; they turned and fled. The Norwegian army was thus routed, and in the mad dash back to their ships they suffered substantial casualties. Some of the Norwegians may have used the beached vessels as makeshift fortifications, since the saga notes that a group of them made a bold stand by their ships, out-numbered ten to one, in a fierce engagement in which a particularly valiant Scottish knight was slain. This entry confirms that at least some of the Scottish knights present were able to engage their foes on horseback. The supplies and usable ships lost on the beach were consequential in Haakom's decision to retreat from the area.

According to the saga, the Scots then withdrew from the beach and consolidated atop the mound abandoned by Ogmund's men, who had been beaten back by a detachment of men under Sir Robert Boyd (father of William Wallace's second in command). Minor skirmishing followed in which both sides attacked each other with arrows and stones. Before nightfall, the saga maintains that the Norwegians made one last determined assault, and forced the Scots from the mound, before making an orderly withdrawal to their ships. On the morning of 3 October, the Norwegians returned ashore to collect their dead and burn their beached vessels. For several days, Haakon's forces laid off the coast of Arran. After rendezvousing with the returning fleet that had plundered Lennox, Haakon's entire forces made for the Hebrides. At Mull he rewarded a number of his Norse-Gaelic vassals with grants of lands. By the end of October, the Norwegian fleet reached Orkney. In mid December, the Norwegian king fell ill and died at the Bishop's Palace, and was temporarily buried in nearby St Magnus Cathedral.

Aftermath

The saga described the Norwegian campaign as a triumph. In reality, it had not achieved anything, though the expedition was not lost at Largs. Haakon simply sailed to Orkney to overwinter with his forces. He unexpectedly fell ill and died there before he had the chance to resume operations. The campaign had started too late, and the Scottish king had successfully prolonged negotiations to his own advantage. As the summer turned to autumn, and the royal envoys parleyed back and forth, Alexander III had further strengthened his forces in the defence of his realm and left Haakon's fleet to the mercy of the deteriorating weather. In the end, the Scottish realm had successfully defended itself from Norwegian might, and many of Haakon's Norse-Gaelic vassals had been reluctant to support the Norwegian cause. Within months of the abortive campaign, embassies were sent from Norway to discuss terms of peace. Meanwhile, Alexander III seized the initiative and made ready to punish the magnates who had supported Haakon. By the end of the year the Hebrideans and Manx were forced to submit to the Scots. In 1266, almost three years after the battle, terms of peace were finally agreed upon between the Scottish and Norwegian kings. On 2 July 1266, with the conclusion of the Treaty of Perth, the Hebrides and Mann were leased to the King of Scots, in return for an annual payment. As it happened, Norwegian rule over the Hebrides would never return, with the Kingdom of Scotland eventually discontinuing their payments to the Norwegian crown. The treaty also entailed Scottish acceptance of Norwegian rule over Orkney and Shetland.

Ramifications
The battle of Largs has been characterized by later historians as a great Scottish victory, but its strategic ramifications far outstripped its tactical cost as it involved only a small part of the Norwegian fleet. With his fleet and forces strewn about the Hebrides, Haakon fully intended to continue to campaign after spending the winter in Orkney and reconcentrating his forces, but he was taken ill in the dismal climate and died there. His illness is thought to have been caused in part by the stresses he endured in the long campaign and the difficult, damp environment of the Orkney Islands. The protracted diplomacy that had slowed his invasion had ultimately helped seal his own fate as well. With Haakon's death, his successor, Magnus Haakonarson, King of Norway, signed the Treaty of Perth three years after the battle, leasing Scotland's western seaboard to Alexander III in return for a yearly payment. This lease became permanent, but the Kingdom of Scotland eventually stopped paying the Norwegian crown for the islands when Norway became distracted by civil wars.

Although the Battle of Largs' contemporary records were largely lost to history with the loss of the Scottish archives in the wars of independence, it is for historians today to judge it by its ultimate, easily understood consequence: the end of a multi-century era of Norse invasion. The Battle greatly influenced clan history, especially that of the Boyds, Cunninghams, and Muirs, all of which point directly to participation in this battle as key to the grant of lands in Ayrshire. In the case of the Boyd family, its motto "Confido" (I Trust) was a direct quote from Alexander III at Largs. Alexander III depended on Boyd's detachment to keep the Norwegians off Gold Berry Hill and enveloped on the beach. The name "Gold Berry" was placed under their early heraldic devices.

Historiography
The significance of the Battle was understood in Scotland at the time as it led to years of consolidation of royal authority. Unfortunately, many original sources and manuscripts were lost during the many years of fighting with the English, especially Edward I (see Jonathan Donald: 2019, Scotland, LE School of History, University of St Andrews, Alexander III, 1249–1286: First Among Equals). See also Acts of Alexander III King of Scots 1249 -1286 See also: The Chronicle of Melrose offers only a brief description, and does not record its location. It ascribes the campaign's failure more to the power of God than to that of the Scots. The battle is not recorded at all within the Chronicle of Mann, or any Irish source, and English sources show a similar lack of interest. But by the 14th and 15th centuries, the battle was being portrayed as part of an epic struggle between an invading force of Norwegians and an idealised Scottish king defending his realm. By the 17th century, the battle had lost its attributed significance, but in the 19th century it was rediscovered by antiquarians and historians who transformed it into a conflict of international importance. Although the battle's upsurge in popularity at this time may be due to the tapping of Largs' tourism potential, it was also influenced by the general heightening of interest in Scotland's history and culture. The battle became associated with Scotland's proud military past and linked to the great mediaeval victories of national heroes such as Wallace and Bruce. Most modern academics do not subscribe to such a view, though they regard the battle as a significant part of the failed Norwegian campaign. But even today, to the locals of Largs, the battle represents a glorious Scottish victory over invading Vikings.

Commemoration

On 12 July 1912, the battle was commemorated at Largs with the unveiling of a newly built stone tower. Popularly known as "The Pencil", this 70 ft tall, pencil-shaped, conical-roofed tower is built out of ashlar blocks of whinstone. Constructed by architect James Sandyford Kay at the cost of nearly GB£300, the tower was modelled after mediaeval round towers at Abernethy and Brechin, which were thought (erroneously) to have been built as redoubts against Viking marauders. The Pencil has been protected as a listed building since 1971, and stands about 1 mi south of Largs, at, overlooking the local marina.

Although the monument marks the traditional battle site, it stands nowhere near the probable battle site. Its erroneous placement appears to be due to the discovery of prehistoric burials, consisting of both chambered tombs and cist burials. Nearby Bronze Age standing stones may have been interpreted as memorials to slain warriors, as was a nearby Neolithic tomb. The location of this tomb has led to the erroneous association between the battle and the two parks situated at and. The Ordnance Survey also locates the battle too far south, at.

The probable site of the mound upon which the Norwegians and Scots fought is not commemorated at all. Located at ., and surrounded by a housing development, the mound is crowned by a 19th-century monument known as "The Three Sisters", which may have been erected by astronomer Thomas Brisbane. In recent years the battle site has been one of fifty battlefields researched by the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology and Historic Scotland for inclusion in the Inventory of Scottish Battlefields. The inventory, established in 2009, is intended to protect, preserve, and promote Scotland's most significant battlefields under the Scottish Historical Environment Policy. The site of the Battle of Largs was one of eleven investigated sites that did not meet the criteria for inclusion.

Each autumn since 1981, the village of Largs has hosted the Largs Viking Festival, founded to celebrate the battle and to encourage tourism. A re-enactment of the battle, held onsite at The Pencil, forms part of the festivities. The battle is the subject of John Galt's (d. 1839) The Battle of Largs: a Gothic Poem, written about 1804. Not regarded as one of Galt's better literary works, this poem was almost certainly based on James Johnstone's (d. 1798) The Norwegian Account of Haco's Expedition Against Scotland A.D. MCCLXIII, published in 1782. The battle is also commemorated within one of William Hole's (d. 1917) massive murals, which can be viewed in the foyer of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery.

title: Battle of Largs


text:
No. 29 Squadron RAF

No. 29 Squadron of the Royal Air Force was first raised as a unit of the Royal Flying Corps in 1915, and is one of the world's oldest fighter squadrons. The second British squadron to receive the Eurofighter Typhoon, it is currently the operational conversion unit (OCU) for the Typhoon.

First World War
This unit was first raised as a reserve squadron, initially equipped with the Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2c, in November 1915. In early 1916 however No. 29 became the fourth squadron to receive the Airco DH.2 "pusher" fighter, and arrived in France on 25 March 1916 – helping to end the Fokker Scourge and establish Allied air superiority in time for the Battle of the Somme.

By late 1916 the DH.2 was outclassed by new German fighters, but No. 29 kept its pushers until March 1917, when it was re-equipped with Nieuport 17s. These were replaced with later Nieuport types, such as the Nieuport 24bis, as these became available. Due to a shortage of the Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5a the squadron retained its Nieuports until April 1918. At this time the squadron finally received the S.E.5a, which it retained for the rest of the war.

The award of a Victoria Cross – the highest award for valour "in the face of the enemy" in the British Empire – to Captain James McCudden of 29 Squadron was gazetted on 2 April 1918, for McCudden's "conspicuous bravery, exceptional perseverance and a high devotion to duty", between August 1917 and March 1918.

October 1918 was a bitter month for the squadron; an American volunteer, Lieutenant Joseph Patrick Murphy was the first to fall on 8 October and become a prisoner of war. British Ace Claude Melnot Wilson was next to fall, on 14 October and Guy Wareing was shot down on the 27 October.

After a short period with the army of occupation in Germany, the Squadron returned to the UK in August 1919 and was disbanded on 31 December 1919. The squadron ended the war having claimed 385 victories. Apart from those already mentioned, the 26 aces who served with the squadron included:

 * Edgar O. Amm
 * Norman Brearley
 * Sydney Brown
 * Edgar G. Davies
 * Francis James Davies
 * Thomas Sinclair Harrison
 * D'Arcy Fowlis Hilton
 * Ernest Charles Hoy
 * Arthur G. Jones-Williams
 * Camille Lagesse
 * William Molesworth
 * James Dennis Payne
 * Arthur Reed
 * Charles G. Ross
 * Reginald H. Rusby
 * Alfred Shepherd
 * Christoffel Venter
 * Walter Bertram Wood

Inter-war years
The squadron was reformed on 1 April 1923, initially equipped with Sopwith Snipes. These were replaced by Gloster Grebes in January 1925, In turn, these were replaced by the Armstrong Whitworth Siskin IIIA in March 1928 and Bristol Bulldogs in June 1932. In March 1935, nearly twenty years after it was first raised as a single-seat fighter squadron, the squadron received two-seater Hawker Demons, which it operated until 1938. This included service in Egypt from October 1935 to 1936, during the Abyssinian crisis. As part of the Royal Air Force’s modernisation and expansion in the late 1930s, No. 29 received Bristol Blenheim IF heavy fighters in December 1938.

Second World War
No 29 began the Second World War with its Blenheims, which at the period operated as day fighters – especially on convoy protection patrols. From June 1940 it became a night fighter squadron, receiving some of the first Beaufighters in November, though it was February 1941 before the squadron was fully equipped with the new fighter. Various marks of the de Havilland Mosquito were flown by the squadron from May 1943 culminating in the Mosquito NF30.

Post-war
During the immediate post-war years the squadron remained a night/all weather fighter unit. The Mosquitoes continued to serve until replaced by Gloster Meteor NF11s in August 1951. In November 1957 the squadron moved to RAF Acklington in Northumberland where it was re-equipped with Gloster Javelins. In July 1958 to RAF Leuchars in Scotland. In February 1963 No 29 moved to Cyprus and in December 1965 went to Ndola in Zambia for nine months on detachment during the Rhodesian crisis. A single aircraft was written off when all undercarriage legs failed to come down on 2 June 1966.

From May 1967 the squadron operated the English Electric Lightning F.3 based at RAF Wattisham near Stowmarket in Suffolk until December 1974 when they re-equipped with the McDonnell F-4 Phantom and moved to RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire. In May 1982, a detachment of 3 Phantom FGR2’s were deployed at Wideawake airstrip on Ascension Island during the Falklands War. On completion of repairs to the runway at Stanley in August 1982, the squadron deployed 10 aircraft south to the islands, the first arriving on 17 October 1982 flown by the then officer commanding Wing Commander Ian Macfadyen.

In 1987, 29 Squadron was one of the first RAF units to receive the Tornado F3, deploying to Saudi Arabia after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 and participating in Operation Desert Storm. No. 29 flew the Tornado until disbanding in 1998, as part of the Strategic Defence Review. The squadron was reformed in 2003, this time as the Typhoon operational conversion unit (OCU).

Badge
The badge of the squadron shows an eagle in flight preying on a buzzard, symbolising air combat. The motto in Latin is Impiger et acer - 'Energetic and keen'.

Squadron markings and the "misspelled Roman numeral" tradition
Since the late 1920s, the squadron marking has been three (red) Xs (XXX). Since this closely resembles the Roman numeral for "29" (XXIX) there is a belief among current squadron personnel that this originated as a "misspelling" of the Roman numeral. Although various versions of the tradition are put forward, the most common explanation is that a mis-understood instruction to ground crew to paint "2 X's in front of the roundel and IX behind it" meaning "X,X,(roundel), and 'IX' or 'one-X'" resulted in "XX(roundel)'one times' X". In fact, the marking was always applied as "XXX(roundel)XXX" or as "XXX(roundel)" on smaller types, such as Siskins. Another version is that the original adoption of "XXX" for the 1930s squadron marking was nothing to do with Roman numerals, but was a reference to the brewers' mark for "extra strong", frequently applied to kegs of beer, and that it is only a coincidence that this resembles the numeral for "29" (XXIX).

However, as the original squadron markings on the Gloster Grebe consisted of FOUR Xs, it is likely both versions above are apocryphal, and the four Xs were just a suitable geometric shape that were shortened to three to fit the smaller space on the Armstrong Whitworth Siskin.

Summary of aircraft operated

 * Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2c 1915–1916
 * Airco DH.2 1916–1917
 * Nieuport 17/24bis 1917–1918
 * Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5a 1918–1919
 * Sopwith Snipe 1923–1925
 * Gloster Grebe 1925–1928
 * Armstrong Whitworth Siskin III a 1928–1932
 * Bristol Bulldog 1932–1935
 * Hawker Demon 1935–1938
 * Bristol Blenheim 1939–1940
 * Bristol Beaufighter 1940–1943
 * De Havilland Mosquito 1943–1951
 * Gloster Meteor NF11 1951–1958
 * Gloster Javelin FAW.9 1957–1967
 * English Electric Lightning F3 1967–1974
 * McDonnell Douglas Phantom FGR2 1974–1987
 * Panavia Tornado F3 1987–1998
 * Eurofighter Typhoon F2 2003–present
 * Eurofighter Typhoon FGR 4 2007–present

title: No. 29 Squadron RAF