History of the Romanians and Vlachs (271-1310)
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12810
Printed Date: 14-May-2024 at 03:56
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: History of the Romanians and Vlachs (271-1310)
Posted By: Decebal
Subject: History of the Romanians and Vlachs (271-1310)
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 20:36
In view of the various topics which have been hijacked (no offense to my Romanian compatriotes) by discussions concerning the history of the Romanians and the Vlachs in the middle Ages, I decided to open a separate topic on the subject. Here, scholars of Romanian history can argue at their heart's content with Hungarians about medieval Transylvania, and with Bulgarians about the Second Vlach , oops I mean Bulgarian Empire... Migration vs continuity theory, the Vlachs in Bulgaria, Greece and Herzegovina... All these interesting topics which hopefully won't degenerate into flame wars. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 14:57
|
A friend of mine is Vlach from southern Albania. He speaks vlach, he feels vlach-romanian (ethnically), and he would be very interested in this story (me too).
In my opinion the Vlachs of southern balkans are a very interesting community (culturally talking). They probably originate from the empire mentioned by Decebal (early colons probably). As far as I know that empire occupied also southern and western Albania, and that should be the origin of the Vlachs. ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 18:39
|
I remember reading in the accounts of the Fourth Crusade the primary
sources of Robert of Clari and Geoffrey de Villehardouin. In it they
make mention of Ioanitza, who they refer to as a Vlach leading a nation
of Vlachs to the north of Byzantine Thrace. What exactly made Ioanitza
and his empire Vlach instead of Bulgarian? What exactly made one a
Vlach as distinct from other peoples (apart from language)?
------------- |
Posted By: NikeBG
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 08:02
|
Oh, this is a definitely unsure and disputable topic! Much has been written about the Vlachs and/in the Second Bulgarian Tsardom. Although I remember one excerpt of a contemporary chronicler, who says that the Vlachs had called themselves before Moesians (term used many times for the Bulgarians). But I dare not make any claims on this matter, on which I know so little! Edit: Although, in an unofficial hypothesis, this could mean that actually Vlachs and Bulgarians are kin and are really descendants of the Hellenized and Romanized Thracians. This would explain those strange genetics... Hey, if I make a fantasy-history book, I should include it! ------------- |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 09:52
|
Byzantine sources mention that not only Ioanita, but also Peter, Asen and Kaloian were Vlachs. During the Middle Ages, and indeed to the present day, there were large population of Vlachs living throughout the Balkans. They were a pastoral people, speaking a latin language, who usually occupied the mountainous regions of the BAlkans. Aside from Romania, where they were majoritary (this is one commonly held view, that we can revisit later), Vlachs have been documented to have lived in areas that are located in modern day Bulgaria, FYROM, Greece, Serbia (near the Timok valley), Herzegovina (medieval Hum) and Albania. In some areas such as Hum, they wer assimilated eventually in the local Slavic population (in the case of Hum by the 16th century). In other areas, they continue to live to this day. Thus, one can find today the Aromanians and Meglenoromanians in Bulgaria and Greece. At one point around the 12th century, the Vlachs in Thessaly were so numerous, that the region was actually called Valachia, or Great Valachia.
------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 14:10
All explanations of this kind are just opinions of that medieval people. We cann't accord credit to such opinions because they were not based on documentary sources, they were just suppositions or legends. I mean when a man from that epochs is talking about periods before him. But even when he is talking about events contemporary to him, many times the information is eronated.
We can speak only in percentages. The Romanic population of Balkans should be the descendants of Thracians and Illyrians. Many people think that the romanized population from Dacia couldn't survived and that the Romanians are the descendants of some Balkanic groups migrated at a later time in Carpathians. This is contradicted by archaeological discoveries, by the fact that Romanian language is most less resembling with the Balkanic (Romanic, Albanian, Greek) languages. There are many linguistic, archaeological and documentary proves that the Romanians are the descendants of the romanized Dacians. For the Romanian member(s) I reccomend this forum were such problems are disscused for several months: http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?showtopic=80323&st=2340 Resuming the result of archaeological researches, there are hundreds of sites for the "dark" period history of the proto-Romanians. The romanization of the Dacians inside the Roman province, before and after the abandonment by the imperial adminstration and army is clearly proved. The gradual romanization of the Dacians outside the Carpathic basin too (the last forms of Dacian pottery dissapeared in 7-8th century). The Dacian and Roman tradition is clearly observable. There is a clear distinction between the material culture of the Daco-Roman population and Germanic, Slavic and other migratory population cultures. The exception is that of Gothic culture (called Sântana de Mures or Chernyakhov) which is of Roman and Dacian tradition, even if it's a creation of Goths. That's because Goths pretended they are federates of the Roman Empire and that's why they adopted forms of Roman culture, especialy in pottery. They also adopted Dacian pottery in an early period, when they were being in contact with the Costobocs, a northern Dacian tribe (extended as far as today Slovakia). The Gothic confederation included populations of Gothic, Sarmatic and Daican ethnicity. The analysis of the Romanian language shows characteristics which make it impossible to be of Southern origin. The spreading of Latin terms is from Transylvania (the interior Carpathic basin) to Moldavia (region East of the Carpathians). In Transylvania there are Latin origin terms which are not present in Moldavia (but there is not any Latin origin word in Moldavia not to be found in Transylvania) or Wallachia (the Southern Romania, between Carpathians and Danube). In Wallachia also there are linguistic forms which are not present in Transylvania. In Banat (the region shared between Romania and Serbia) there are words of Latin origin which are not to be found in any other Romanian region, nor Transylvania. Romanian language is the most closed to ancient Latin among all the Romanic languages in Europe, except the Italian. In the last 8 centuries it developed in all three historical regions of Romania (Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia) without changing almost at all, so it's the same language in all these territories, with small differencies of vocabulary or accent, even these provinces had a different history. This is a proof that the unity of the Romanian language (which for some scholars is an evidence of a pretended recent spread of this language from a migratory nucleus of population) is a result of a social process which was the same in the centuries before the year 1000 as in the last 8 centuries. And I make the specification that the Romanian language was not suported by a writen culture like in the Western countries, its unity developed naturaly. We should not make the confussion between the Balkan Vlachs and the Romanians, which in the medieval epoch were also called Vlachs, Wallachians etc. Even in the Balkans, the people called Vlachs are not the same. The genetic researches showed that Aromanians are the people less related with other people in Balkans. Romanians too are far from the Balkanic people. The resemblance between Romanian, Aromanian and other Romanic language groups in this European area is explainable: all these languages derive from the Latin adopted by Dacians, Thracians (which have had almost identical languages) and Illyrians, which probably were related with Thracians. So, adopting the Latin by people related linguisticaly lead to resemblant (not identical) languages. I spcifify for the people not knowing these languages that Romanian cann't be understand and speak by an Aromanian and viceversa, the differencies are big. -------------  |
Posted By: Lyngos
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 14:14
|
How come you missed the fact that the origins of the Vlachs and their History are identical with that of the Hellenes?
------------- Regards to all.........L George sofoklis Tsapanos Visalia,Ca "{Vlachs, the autochthonous of the Hellenic peninsula". |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 15:08
|
The answer at this question is that the Balkanic Vlachs (which are three groups strongly differenciated one of antoher) have all very few Greek language influences.
Also, geneticaly they are more distanced from Greeks even than the Albanians.  ------------- |
Posted By: Lyngos
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 22:27
|
Really? Define "Greeks" as well as Greece please. ------------- Regards to all.........L George sofoklis Tsapanos Visalia,Ca "{Vlachs, the autochthonous of the Hellenic peninsula". |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 00:55
|
I just took the information from
http://www.upf.es/cexs/recerca/bioevo/2004Jaume/JB2004-Comas-AnnHumanGenetics.pdf - here ------------- |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 02:27
|
Well, you can find here a good summary of the general Hungarian view about the question of the origin of the Romanians.
http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/chk/ - Gábor Vékony: Dacians-Romans-Romanians
|
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 05:21
|
I really want some answer on this: during the period mentioned,where there a latin speaking population i n the area of modern romania?-this was a crossroad for several nomad tribes. could a latin speaking population be preserved there?if yes was it so silent?(are there any evidence of such existence) And..can we speak for a migration towards the southern Balcans?And migration from where? I m not sure for common ancestry of all the vlachs of the balcans and those of romania.Linguistic and cultural differences are obvious. ------------- |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 08:19
|
well Digenis, the traditional answer given to your question, is that a latin population survived as pastoralists in today's Romania and parts of Serbia. They lived in the mountains and high hills that would have been avoided by horse nomads such as the avars, cumans and the pechenegs. In today's Romania, mountains (over 800m or so), occupy about 80 thousand square km, with the hills another 85 thousand. Also, if you look at a map, these mountains almost completely surround the Transylvania region, which would have been a heavily forrested area, with many cultivable oases scattered throughout, which would have supported an agrarian population. The question of migration is quite complicated. Based on a lingustic analysis, it has been established that the modern day Romanians must have had their genesis north of the Jirecek line, which runs approximately from Varna down the middle of today's Bulgaria, right along the border of today's Serbia and FYROM, and through northern Albania to the Adriatic. So the Greek Vlachs and the Romanians would have had a separate origin; their linguistic similarities being explained by the common origin of the language and somewhat similar lingustic influences from Slavic populations. If we accept that a migration has taken place (which most Romanians don't), then we run into the question of where and also of when this could have happened. You can refer to the discussion on Medieval Transylvania for more on this. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: Lyngos
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 09:24
|
Didn't you notice that the study was conducted by the University of SKOPJE?
It was open propaganda in order to differenciate Southern Greeks from the Slavs, since most of the population in Skopje are of Slav and Albanian origins. ------------- Regards to all.........L George sofoklis Tsapanos Visalia,Ca "{Vlachs, the autochthonous of the Hellenic peninsula". |
Posted By: Herschel
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 11:24
|
Here's the link to the discussion of Medieval Transylvania, by the way: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5700 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5700 ------------- |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 12:51
I understand that you want to complete this topic in a friendly way with a Hungarian point of view but I think the site of mr. Gabor Vékony is totaly unmatching. This kind of websites are just personal views, with not scientific evidences and not any authority. I think this kind of sites are not made by specialists but by passionate and amator people who only have read few books and started to imagine some theories. Myself, I have read true scientific materials writen by Hungarian archaeologists and are very different from such materials on this site, which I think is pure propaganda from a personal initiative.
The existence of romanized Dacians in the roman province of Dacia is atested in 90 arhcaeological sites by the presence of Dacian type of pottery. After the withdrawal of the Roman administration, the former province was invaded by Dacians from Moldavia, called Carpians. But the forms of Romanic culture were preserved, as pottery discovered atests. There are not strong documentary mentions of the Romanic speaking population in Carpathians but some remarks conduct to such a conclusion. Jordanes is describing the Roman withdrawal from Dacia (basing himself on the documents he had read) but, not like the source he uses, he is not saying that the Romans emptied the province, he says they only removed the troups. Such a deliberate modification is explained by that he was knowing that in Dacia there is a Romanic population (he lived in 6th century). Another accounts are these from Wikipedia ("Origin of Romanians"): "-In 545, Procopius mention "the trick played by an Ant (a Slav or Alan from present-day Moldavia) who is supposed to have passed himself off as a Byzantine General by speaking a form of Latin which he had learned in these regions. -An ancient letter from one Emmerich of Elwangen to Grimaldus, abbot of St.Gall, written about 860 mention Vlachs living north of Danube together with Germans, Sarmatians, and Alans. -The Weltchronik of 1277, referring to the ninth century," calls those Dacians for "Wallachen". -The Weltchronik of Jansen Enikel, written in Vienna in 1277, mentions Charlemagne going on a campaign in the east (around 8th century) and met with Wallachians. -Nestor's Chronicle, (Kiev, 1097-1110), relating events from 862 to 1110, mention Wallachians attacking and subduing the Slavs north of Danube and settling among them. -The Anonymous Notary of King Bela II (1131-1141) or Bela III also mention the presence of Vlachs in Pannonia and them mixing with Slavs, but retaining their language and culture." I make the specification that the name Vlachs and its derivates was designing a Latin speaking population. The presence of a Romanic population is proved too by other facts, not documentary. There are hundreds of archaeological sites which prove the continuity of the Dacian people in the former Roman province and in the rest of Dacia (only a part of Dacia was incorporated in the Roman empire). Also these sites show the process of Romanization of the Dacians in Moldavia by the contacts with the Romanic population from today Transylvania. This coresponds exactly with the spreading of Latin words from Transylvania to Moldavia. The existence of some Latin words only in some parts of the Romania is another proof that the Romanians are not the result of a migration but the successors of the Romanized habitants of the former Roman Dacia. Also, if the Romanians would have came from South of Danube their language should be resembling at least one Romanic language from Balkans, but its characteristics shows that it constituted separately from the Balkan languages.
The nomads were not as numerous as we use to think. They were tens thousands each group or even smaller. Their passage and temporary settlings were made only in small area of the land. They were not violent to the poor people. They attacked especialy the cities and rich people. The silence of Dacia in the first millenium AD is due to the total absence of a civic, organized social life. The entire population was rural and backwarded.
The opinion that such a migration could existed belongs to the people who not studied the realities in Roman and Byzantine empire and in the Balkans and Dacia in the period we study. For the inhabitants of the Roman Dacia, leaving their lands for going South of Danube was preferably only for the rich and townspeople. For others, the Barbarians was not such a threat. Also, for the Southern Latin speaking people, there were not reason for migrating in a savage teritory.
The syntax of the Romanian language is much different from the Romanic languages in Balkans which constitute a group with some resemblances one to another. You can dowload and read this study made by a reputated specialist: http://www.savefile.com/files.php?fid=9541929 - Romanian and the Balkans: some Comparative Perspectives This difference betweeen the Romanian and the Romanic languages in Balkans could be explained only by that Romanian was formed separately from the Balkanic languages.
This is a presumption, not a scientifical theory. The archaeological researches have showed that the proto-Romanians were agricultors firstly, then animal breeders and then handicraftsmen. Ofcourse, it's possible that communities of pastoralists existed, but they didn't left archaeological traces. Also, the proto-Romanians didn't lived in the mountains but in all forms of relief, plains, hills. I posted several weeks ago (on another topic) images from archaeological sites of the proto-Romanians (there are several cultures for different periods and zones), I could do this again if somebody wishes. ------------- |
Posted By: Lyngos
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 17:53
|
Very simple, your Latin speaking population was the remnant of the Makedonian-Aetolian-Illyrian-Eurytanean Roman legions with wich the Romans conquered Dacia. Add to it the fact that the Church of Rome with her Latin was the official representative of God till Patriarch Fotios' schism, add to it the fact that the *entire* Empire (Western-Eastern) was speaking *officially* the Latin till the times of Heraclius (the Western one much longer), and "voila" your "partially" Latin speaking populations all over the Balkans. ------------- Regards to all.........L George sofoklis Tsapanos Visalia,Ca "{Vlachs, the autochthonous of the Hellenic peninsula". |
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 21:11
If the Vlachs are Hellenes, if the slavophonic Greeks from Macedonia region (not FYROM) are Hellenes, if the arvanites are hellenes, if the orthodoxe albanians are hellenes, if the pontian grecophonic muslim community is hellene etc etc, what is not hellene? And who are the real descendants of the old hellenes? ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 02:45
2. The late Gábor Vékony was a noted Hungarian historian, archeologist and linguist and this work of his heavily influenced Hungarian academic opinions. (Though it was published in 1989 so it is possible that in some parts outdated.)
I am really courious what true scientific materials have you read. Can you give me some title?
Speaking of reliable sources do you think wikipedia is reliable? I think not. In my opinion It is a good starting point not more.
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 02:50
|
I studied some archaeological reviews and a book:
"Avar finds in the Hungarian National Museum" ------------- |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 06:09
So, you have a big problem with anything hellenic, that's what we see... It's obvious...
 The Greek Vlachs claim to be indigenous latinized Hellenes of Mt Pindus...
Most of the Slavophone Greeks claim to be slavicised Hellenes...
The Arvanite Greeks claim to be of greek origin...
All the orthodox Albanians are not Greeks. But the great majority of the the orthodox albanian population consists of Albanians of greek origin (the so called Vorio-Epirotes).
The pontians are undoubtedly Greeks... What do you mean by saying the grecophonic muslim Pontians? The Pontians of Turkey? They have greek origin, but they are now Turks.
All these populations claim to be Greeks and they are more fanatic about their greekness than the Greeks who don't have any relatioship with the above linguistic groups. Maybe because their origin was always disputable.
And who are the descendants of Ancient Greeks? Who else than modern Greeks? Which other people could have their genes? Who were the ancient Greeks? A people of brave and proud peasants who brought some great personalities in all the fields. Just like the modern Greeks.
What is not hellen? It's easy to answer it. ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: perbund
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 07:04
|
Despite the fact that the Aromanian dialects and the Romanian language are different,there are some common features which imply a common linguistic substratum,probably that of the thracians and the geto-dacians.The birth of the proto-language should have been in the northern Balkans,somewhere in Serbia and northern Bulgaria.But the ancestry of the romanic speaking people can't be common,because there were hundred of barbarian tribes in the Balkans that were romanised.On the other hand I can't really see the reason why a Greek would learn Latin in Greece or generally in the east and even more why would a Greek forget the ancestral language which was a very prestigious language at that time.It would be more natural to have been billingual Greeks,but then we should have expected the vlachs(at least these of Greece) to have been able to speak Greek in the medieval era and later. What i tend to believe is that whatever the obscure origin of the Balkan romanic-speaking people is,what it really matters is that the local communities in every country were peacefully assimilated by the surrounding people and acquired their national consciousness.This is why the vlachs of Serbia contributed in the past to the progress of their country,the vlachs of Greece did the same in their country and the vlachs of Bulgaria(even since the medieval era) did what they did in the name of Bulgaria.The contribution of the vlach people to the progress of the countries in which they lived is someting that can be proved by facts,whereas about their ancestry only assumptions can be made.
The romanic people north of the Danube that were later united under the Romanian nationality are probably related to the ancient Geto-dacian population but they are not genetically just that,since hundreds of tribes were assimilated into the Romanian people.
If a Greek person in antiquity had adopted the Latin language and forgot the Greek language,this could have only been done in a latin speaking enviroment,in Italy for example in the western provinces or in the northern Balkans.But again it is not sure if one would forget the Greek mother tongue.If we assume that the Greek language during the Roman era was like the French language and the Latin like the English today,I don't really see many French people from Quebec forgetting their French language.Both English and French are prestigious languages today just like Greek and Latin in antiquity.
On the other hand it could be possible for the vlachs of Greece to have Greek origin only if we bear in mind that there were semi-barbarian greek tribes living in northtern Greece,whose Greek dialects was not the standard greek spoken at that time but a mixture of Greek with illyrian or thracian elements.Since these people were conscripts in the Roman army they learned the vulgar latin in the army and when they left the army at the age of 40-50, they settled at the area around their legion camp if they had married to a local girl.If not they went back to the ancestral lands of their tribes,where they spoke a mixture of vulgar latin with greek,thracian or illyrian elements.Possibly these people as veterani were now used as a way of romanising the semi-barbarian greek fellow tribesmen.Such tribes could have been the Aetolians or the rural greco-macedonian population.
The vlachs of Moglena who also live in Greece are considered to have been latinised slavic-pecheneg population.Their language resembles more the language of the Romanians that that of the Aromanians.
Please keep the flame wars out of this thread.We all have things to learn from each other
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 08:45
|
The Romanic peoples in Balkans should not descend only from Thracians but also from Illyrians.
Perhaps the Aromanians are the descendents of romanized Illyrians and the Meglenoromanians are the descendents of romanized Thracians. In the area between the Danube and Haemus mountains (Northern Bulgaria) the language should have been similar with that in Carpathians. Even today in the area of Serbia close to Romanian border, not in Banat but in the Timoc valley region, there are hundreds of thousands of Romanians. Their language is pure Romanian. Interesting is that in Banat the vocabulary of Romanian language includes arhcaic Latin origin forms which are not to be found in any other region of Romania. In Transylvania too, there are terms of Latin origin not to be found in other regions. The syntax in Wallachia has some particularities which are not to be found in Northern Romania. The red and blue areas are indicating the two varieties of Romanian language. There are some differences of accent and some lexical elements which are missing for each zone, but the language is identical in all Romanian regions. 
You can find more at Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language - Romanian language ------------- |
Posted By: Desperado
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 11:18
|
Guys, how would you comment this article:
- http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm I've always asked myself questions such as: Why the province that was held by the romans for only 160 years now wears the name ROMAnia? Compared to the other provinces it's very short time. Why it was so heavy latinised that the population there still speaks some kind of latin language. During the short time of roman rule it was a dangerous border land, a buffer that had been constantly invaded by various barbarian tribes, some of whom settled there as foederati. Compared even to the closest roman provinces such as Moesia, Ilyria, Noricum (guarded by the natural barrier of the Danube) it's looks quite wild, more similar to Germania and Panonia. An interesting point of view on the topic is shown by the autor of the article. |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 12:17
|
It's in 229 BC when the first Vlachs appeared in the greek area. This area was Epirus, were the Greeks were secluded from the rest of Greeks and they lived together with Illyrian tribes. That's why most of them spoke illyrian dialects along with their greek dialect (ancestors of Arvanites), and they adopted the latin language when the Romans made the first roman protectorate after they were called by the Greeks to protect them from the Illyrians. From that time the Greek Vlachs were always bilingual. In the 1st century some Greeks started to take latin names.
The grecophone Greeks were called Romioi, the bilingual Vlach Greeks were called Romanoi and Greece was called Romania. The Vlachs called themselves "Armanoi".
------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 14:08
And where do you see such an obvious problem, dear Dorian?
I have greek friends, and admire some of the modern hellenic artists, as well as the ancients. I have met beautiful girls in Athens, and also boys worth of friendship. And I guess, it is not so obvious....
Are any greeks who actually speak only greek? Or they are all bilingual (I hope you get the joke in here
 ).You should understand that if large communities of your country speak another language (that of your neighbours for example) in their families, there should be a reason. Of course most of them claim to be greek, how can a greek citizen claim to be other (look at the stereotypes thread)
Do not tell me that you believe to the genes???This has nothing to do with history, in a cultural and social sense. If we are disscusing the biological phenomena here, I guess that we will not explain nothing... ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 14:25
|
Arber 600.000 Albanians that live and work in Greece make them as Greeks because are billinguals? Just a joke Propably you forget that the borders at the Balkan until WW I was inapprehensible and this is the reason that we had a lot of billinguals.Vlachs, Arvanites e.t.c. have Greek counsience and the most important feel Greek .And as we see still remaining cloudy the Balkan borders.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 15:52
Nice joke. But fortunately, everybody knows their origin. It is funny how some of tha albanians are naturalized as greeks and are partecipating in the olympic games with hellenized names. Sabanis, Tzelilis, Magnanis, Mitrou etc. I am not mentioning Dimas, he probably has also greek origin, other than albanian.
I totally agree with this, they have hellenic consience and they feel greek, but we are disscussing their cultural origin. Anyway, you already answered, there are no clear borders between ethnicities in the balkans. Anyway, I just wanted to stress something out, I dont want to offend nobody. Probably the vlachs of greece are different from the vlachs of albania (even though most of them have familiar relations between each other). ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 16:13
|
Yeap all these athletes born in South Albania (North Epirus) . One other common point except of course their Hellenic origin. -------------
|
Posted By: Antioxos
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 16:46
|
The historical elements about Vlahs (Armani) are scattered in Byzantine collumnists. Their historical presence is dated about 2000 years ago from the Roman years and the Latinization of the Balkans (Porfyrogennitos, J.Lidos). As the first written evidence of the Vlah' s language we have that of the Byzantine collumnists, Theophanis is and Theophylactus (579 A.D.) while the word Vlahs (Armani) was mentioned for the first time in 976 A.D. from Kedrinos. He talks about Vlahs travellers in the region of Kastoria-Prespa. However Vlahs (Armani) with a few exceptions were not known with this name but with the world "Armani". This world derives from the "Romanus lives" and it is related to the decree of Karakala (Edictum Antonianium), 212 A.D. According to this decree, the right of the Roman citizen was passed on to all the residents of the whole Roman province. The word Vlah according to recent research-originated from the German language whereby Latin speakers are called Wolhrolc and it derives from the words valon, valia, Wales etc.Besides the general name Vlahs (Armani), the Latin speakers of South Balkans are called with other names too, (Farsiarotes, Tsipani, Miglianiats=Moglenites, Grammoustiani, Mouzikiari or Tsimoureani, Sarmaniotes etc.) The term Koutsovlahs that is used by scholars since the past century and which very often has a humiliating character, is related to "Kioutsouk Vlahia" as the Turks call Etoloakarnania. This is an area with many (Vlah speakers) until the years of Kosmas Etolos (Epigram of Evgeniou Etolou). After this first evidence of Kedrinos, Vlahs (Armani) are repeatedly mentioned indicatively: Sigilia Vassiliou B, Kekavmenos, Anna Komnini, Choniatis Kinnamos, Halkokondilis, Frantzis, Latin sources, files of Venice, Chanson de Roland, a German epic, Nibelougen, chronical of Moreas, Erotokritos. Furthermore, the historical presence of Vlahs (Armani) is intense. There are no foreign sightseers -during the years of the Turkish domination- there is no mention of them. We indicatively mention the names of Pouqueville (Voyage en Grece) Leak (Travels in Northern Greece), Heuzey (1858) Kouzinery (Voyages en Macedoine) Berard (Turkish domination and Hellenism), Wace- Thomson (Nomads of Balkans)etc. In the 18th century, under specific circumstances like the fall of the empire, successive tension of pashas, Orlophika, internal conflicts, big cities of Vlahs (Armani) like Moshopoli, Nikolitsa, Linotopi, Grammousta and many more were totally destroyed and the inhabitants were scattered towards every direction: Vienna, Budapest, Belgrad, Boukourest, Thessaloniki, Veria, Naousa, Serres, Philippoupoli, Konstantinopolis etc. The Serb Academic, Dousan Popovic in his work "O Cincarina" mentions that Serbian markets were in undated by Vlahs (Armani) in the 18th century and all the import and export trade was in their hands and they created the bourgeois class of Serbia. Moreover, the dissemination of Vlahs (Armani) is due to their professional occupations as they were stock-breeders wood-cutters and merchants. They were constantly "on the road" they were conveyors on not only of products but also of ideas. They connected the Greek area with the Balcans and Europe. Their contribution to Hellenism is undoubtly tremendous (armatolism, revolution, benefactors, economy, literature). We indicatively mention a few names Rigas, Georgakis, Olympios, Yiannis Pharmakis, Hatzipetros, Vlahavei, (all the benefactors except Sigron), Zappas, Averof, Sinas, Spiridon, Lambrou, Papagos, Svolos, Kristallis, and all the others who with their strength, good spirit, money and their donations secured financially the newly established Hellenic republic and they founded it. Another aspect of the newly established Hellenic republic that is not well known is that many modern artists are of Vlah Origin just as Koutsomitis, Prokovas, Papatakis, Tsitsanis, Virvos, Kaldaras, Mitropanos, Sgouros etc |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 17:34
The author of the article makes a point of saying that he is not biased, yet quite a few of his assertions are very inaccruate or simply conjecture, or in some cases completely false. At the beginning of the article, I found:
1. The Yazyges are supposedly the earliest Hungarians. The Yazyges were an Iranic tribe which left barely any traces in Pannonia, and had no linguistic, cultural or genetic relationship with the Magyars. This assertion would tell me that the author really wants top establish some sort of precedence of Magyar continuity in Pannonia.
2. Supposedly no Latin toponyms at all were preserved in Dacia. But this is completely inaccurate. Even one of the quotations he gives, from Jordanes in the 6th century, mentions the river Aluta, which is called Olt in Romanian: a clear preservation of a latin toponym.
3. The author says that some historians have ``dared`` to assert that Latin and Dacian may have been related, which he says was definitely untrue. However, our current knowledge of Dacian is so limited, that we have no way of knowing one way or the other. The use of the word ``dared`` should raise some signals though, as to the author`s impartiality.
I haven't read the whole article, but I have seen many of these arguments before, in several Hungarian books. For most of them, there are very strong counter-arguments. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 19:53
Are you sure that Luan Shabani (aka Leonidas Sabanis), which is from a muslim descent, and originary from the town of Elbasan in central albania is hellenic?He still didnt learn greek my dear. And Agim Xhelili (aka Giorgios Tzelilis) who also was from an albanian muslim family from the town of Vlora. Or Mirela Manjani from Durres (she s a muslim also). Or Viktor Mitro?? Now, of course, thousands of years ago this people might have some hellenic descent, but certainly no one in their family remembered that
. Now, you should understand that good athletes from a poor country sometimes have to choose between personal richness and personal identity. They chose the first...Back to the topic, how come this latin speaking hellenes could survive only in the high mountains???I thought that the roman culture was spread mostly in the urban areas. And how come the vlachs language, even though different from romanian, is still very intelligible? Vlachs from albania accept that their culture is originating from vallachia, and most of them have their cousins in greece. ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 20:05
Why secluded? Who separated them culturally from the hellenic world?The Byzance??
So in Epirus there were also Illyrian tribes...
Do you have any reference on Arvanites originating from hellenic epirotes, or regarding the greek vlachs who converted to latin to escape the illyrians? ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 23:07
The name Romania comes from the name of the people, Romanians. It was adopted in 1959, till then the South principality being called "Tzara Rumâneasca" (Land of Romanians), the Central part being called Transylvania or Ardeal, the Western parts being called Banat, Crisana, Maramures and the Eastern principality being called Moldavia. The short period of Roman occupation have the effect of the total romanization of the Dacians in the province, as their 90 archaeological sites (so not Roman) proves. The resistance to romanization in others provinces like Gallia was due to the preservation of the old traditions of that peoples; in all provinces arround the empire, exceptind Dacia, the autochtonous people presrved their old place of living, lived organized in their own system, the civitates. In Dacia situation was different: the Dacians violated the pre-war traties, they were dangerous (only a third of the Dacian teritory was transformed in province) and the geographical position made Dacia extremly vulnerable. This is why the Romans took special measures to ensure that the Dacians in the province will not preserves their identity and traditions. For that they moved them from their original places of lifee. All the Dacian sites are new villages, founded after the conquest. About the article from that address, is full of rude mistakes and hymera. I would like to answer anyway because that preconceived ideas could derute anybody. In that article is afirmed these:
In 160 years the use of the Latin language is very probable to have been adopted by all the Dacians in the province. I have not information about that rebellions so I can't answer for that. I searched with Google and found nothing about rebellions in Dacia.
The Romanics from South of Danube have not been mentioned untill 10th century, too. This was due to the fact that in the documents were mentioned only the rulers.
The Romanics were not ignored but used by these migratory people. Archaeology showed the cohabitation between migrators and autochtonus, as not mixed habitations too.
If that is true why the name Vlachs is of German origin?
The Sarmatians were of Iranian origin, so there is no connection wwith the Hungarians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians
I don't know if the author is refering to the free Dacians or to the ones inside the province. But anyway is wrong, nor the free Dacians nor the occupied ones have built or ihabited fortified places after the conquest. Is true that in a document is mentioned a castelum Carpicum but is a singular exception and was not yet archaeologicaly identified.
This is true for the period of Decebalus and for the Roman-Dacian wars, not later.
In the first century AD the Romans were being seen as an invading element but in 2-3rd century they started to be seen (by the outsiders of the empire, in Europe) as an invidied society. This is why, from now on,the Barbarians wished become Romans and adopted elements of Roman life and culture. The free Dacians were in a process of self-romanization in 2-3rd centuries. The archaeological culture of the Carpians (Dacians of Moldavia) is a mixture of Dacian with Roman elements. At the Dacian sites in Muntenia is proved archaeologicaly the adoption of the Latin language. The Goths who lived for a while together with the Carpians, adopted too the Roman culture. Even if the Goths are a Germanic people, there is nothing German or Barbarian in their material culture, named http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernyakhov_Culture - Chernyakhov_Culture . The Goths' archaeological culture is just Roman and Dacian in its expression. The fact that the Goths adopted from Dacians not only the Roman forms but also the Dacian ones is perhaps because they identified the Dacians, even the free ones, with the Romans, due to the fact that a part of Dacians have been made Roman citizens.
There was not such a blend because the Roman colonists were having not the permission of marrying local women. The Dacians in the province have been completely romanized as the archaeology proves. In their sites was discovered pottery of strong Dacian tradition, also Dacian rites of inhumation, but the Roman elements are dominating. And I'm speaking about the Dacian, not colonists sites.
How I already sayed, not any fortress was built or inhabited after the conquest, nor in the province or in the teritory of free Dacians. About the Roman foundations, there were some cities big enough. Apulum was the stabiliment of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legio_XIII_Gemina - Legio_XIII_Gemina The city and the settlement of the Legion were declared municipality and respectively colony. The capital of the province, Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetusa, have many public buildings: 
Other towns with rang of municipality were Napoca, Potaissa, Porolissum, to speak about the ones in Transsylvania only. Besides these, were many other cities, castres, villages, villas. You could find more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Dacia - Roman Dacia [quotee]Indeed, it was the imperial policy to allow the subdued peoples to keep their own culture and language; Romanization was not an overriding issue.[/quote] This was not appliable in a province like Dacia, so much exposed to invasions.
Is true that most of the Dacians of the province were not having reasons to go South of Danube. For them, the Barbarians were preferable to Romans and the Barbarians were free Dacians, their brothers. The Goths have installed themselves in Moldavia and Muntenia, in Transylvania there are only isolated discoveries. But the invading free Dacians were not having reasons to destroy the Roman civilisation. Themselves wished to become Romans, adopting Roman language and culture.
I never heard till today about archaeological discoveries of Balkan Vlachs. And anyway, the Balkan Vlachs are not Romanians, there are two (in fact three) related people, not the same. The afirmation above are grounding on nothing.
This afirmation is a lie. It's obvious even by the fact that the second phrase contradict the first phrase, where is sayed that a someones were still burried. Actually, the presence of romanized population is clearly proved, especially by the necropolis at Bratei but by other discoveries too.
This again is a big lie. I have put a photocopied book at this address: http://savefile.com/projects.php?pid=736974 - Soporu de Câmpie . It's in Romanian but there are images and you can see clearly how the people from this Dacian village of 2-3rd century mixed Roman and Dacian form of pottery. This is one of the most important sites for this historic aspect, but how I sayed, there are 90 other sites. There is a doctorate writen in Romanian language about the Dacians in the Roman province: http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/damian/cuprins.html - GETO-DACII ÎN CONFIGURATIA DEMOGRAFICA A DACIEI ROMANE
How I sayed, the archaeology showed that the free Dacians adopted the Roman form of culture and even language. Due to the connection with the romanized Dacians and being close to the teritories of the Roman province, their willing of becoming Romans is presumable that oriented them for adopting Latin language in different degrees and at different moments. This is well proved by the archaeology for the period of 5-7th century, when the culture (especially pottery) in the areas once peopled by free Dacians shows the mixture of Roman and Dacian traditions. And I speak about the sites of the Daco-Romans, not Slavians or other ethnic groups, which also are archaeological identified and have a different culture, as archaeologists and historians know.
The author is seeing the romanization some kind like a mechanical process. Actualy, it was about learning a language. Is very presumable that all the colonists in Dacia, also the Dacians, speaked Latin.
Probably most of the colonist families went away, but the Dacian families were not having motives to go. Anyway, the population which moved South of Danube seems to be of unsignifiant size: there is not any new town or village founded in the period and the size of the towns didn't appears to have grown.
Till now the author was saying that these colonists were not romanized.
Actualy Pannonia, Thrace (the Northern, non-Hellenized part) and Illyria have been completely romanized but the Romanic population there disapeared, assimilated by later migratory populations. The Hungarian archaeologists and historians could confirm that for the author of this article.
Actualy, learning a language take even less than an year.
The society of Roman Britain didn't encouraged the adoption of the Latin language by the Britons. The Britons there, like in most of the Roman provinces, preserved their native localities and organizations, called civitates. In Dacia, the situation was different to any other province. You could read about that on the page http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2005/2005-03-12.html - Roman Dacia. The Making of a Provincial Society
The toponimy survived only there where urban and organized life had a continuity. In Dobrogea for example, some ancient toponimes survived. Of them, some arrived to us translated in Slavian language. For example, the ancient documentary atested Petra arrived to us as Kamena (stone in Slavian) and Lycostomo (Wolf's mouth in Greek) as Vilcov (the same). During the ages, the dominant populations imposed their translation of toponyms if the old toponyms were not connected with a strong tradition or a civic life. For a close example, in Transylvania some toponyms arrived only in Hungarian or Slavian forms, used by the today Romanians, but the documents mention Romanian variants (with the same signification) of that toponymes in the early centuries of Hungarian domination in Transylvania.
Actually, the Romans never ceased to consider Dacia lost, they allways thinked to regain it.
The Goths totaly leaved Dacia at their movement in the empire in 376. The archaeology proved that there is not any Gothic inhumation in the sites of the Sântana de Mures culture in the period, remaining only that of the Dacians. In 6th century in Transylvania were the Gepids. I don't know where Procopius is saying that and I dont understand why were being the Byzantines (Greek speaking) interested in spreading the Latin North of Danube and how could they do that as they were not speaking Latin themselves.
There is not prove of any archaeological presence else than the one of the Romanic people in that time in the teritory today colonized by Szekelyans. The colonization of Szekelians and their route from Pannonia to Southeast Transylvania is clearly proved documentary and toponimicaly. This colonization took place in 12-13th century, in the same time with the Saxon colonization in Southern and Northeast Transylvania.
The Avars were a touranic people, not Iranian like the Yaziges.
The Barbarians mentioned were probably Slavs. The image Procopius was having is based not on his visit to the North of Danube, but on what he imagined about that teritory. Because in his books, when he meet a people, he detalied describes it.
The Gepids were located in the central Transylvania. If the Aluta (today Olt) river was separating Yaziges of the Roxolani, were could Gepids lived? It's clear that Jordanes never was himself in Dacia and that he mixed diverse information, from old or contemporary sources, in a totaly wrong way. Look the map of Romania with the Olt river: 
This subject has no more mistery for the historians. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanes - Jordanes
Such afirmation have not any ground. The first vojvodes of Transylvania mentioned in Gesta Hungaronum are Romanians.
The fact that in Balkans the Slav speaking people adopted some toponyms of Latin origin is due to the fact that these toponyms were used in the cancelary of the Byzantine empire or other statal organizations. In the North of Danube such organization appeared later, after the Slav migration.
Documents and archaeology mention Romanians as the main inhabitants.
Actualy, the main Christian vocabulary of Romanian language is of Latin origin. For example the equivalents of priest, eucharisty, church and others.
How that? Brothers are fighting one with another?
And what were the ones which were not predominant? As a curiosity, because such afirmation has not any ground.
That has no relevance. Even in 16th century the Romanian vojvodes and boyars were using the Slav language as oficial language. All the toponyms were translated in the language considered oficial. In 14th century Wallachia, the Cuman language was considered an oficial language and for that toponyms like Cozia arrived to us in such a Cuman translation, even a document mention also the Latin version, Nucet, meaning the same think.
I don't know if that was a beletristic work but the fortresses of the three vojvodes exist at Biharia, Dabâca and Cenad, in localities with names mentioned in Gesta. The fact that those vojvodes have non-Romanian names (in fact Gelou is not a name but a nick gived by the chronicler) doesn't mean they were not Romanian. Anyway, they are mentioned as the leaders of Romanians (and Slavs), not other ethnic groups.
Evidently, this work is based on some traditions and is clearly wrong in many points. But the reality is that it is originated in real historical situations. And I repet that in localities with the same names as in Gesta, fortresses from exactly that period (end of 9th century) and of exact characteristics were discovered. By the way, these fortresses are the most important archaeological sites for that period in Transylvania.
Hmm. No information about the 'mainly Slavic' inhabitants of Transylvania? Where did they disapeared?
The author try to say that the South Danube Vlachs and the North Danube are the same people. Ofcourse this is not true.
There were missionaries, for example there are mentioned for the 4th century, among the Goths in the today Buzau county. Archaeologicaly, the spreading of Christianism is atested in Transylvania for 4th century.
The archaeology proves that migratory people and Romanic people lived together or in different locations, in a variety of situation in different periods and regions.
As I sayed, the proto-Romanians were already (maybe not all of them) Christians.
Because the level of civilization was very low. Look how are objects from a site of proto-Romanians from 5-7th century: 
Actualy there are. This is a church of 11th century: 
Others, even older, were discovered archaeologicaly. All are of stone, perhaps they are exceptions and the most were made of wood and didn't survived traces.
Nonsenses. Churches and monasteries are built only when a strong political organization ensure a stability. The Bulgarians were only politicaly interested.
If the Romanian have came from Balkans, why didn't founded there the monasteries etc.?
I got tired answering at these infantilities. The answer, anyway, is that Roman Catholic has became a 'rite' and a 'religious pole' later than Constantinople.
The domination of the Hungarians in Transylvania was much nominal in the 11-12th century.
So, the Romanians migrated from South to North Danube but remained assigned to the archbishopry of Ochrida. Interesting theory but fake (how such a migration was not mentioned in the documents of the bishopry?). Is more logical that the Balkan Vlachs were assigned to Ochrida and the Romanians, which only later have got organized Church life, were identified with the Balkan Vlachs and put under the same jurisdiction.
That is false, the difference between Romanian and Aromanian are two big that they could originated from a common language. The fact that Romanian constituted separated from Aromanian is proved by the fact that in the last 8 centuries the language remained the same in all three provinces, Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia, even politicaly they were separated. How was possible that before 13th century (or even before earlier centuries) Romanian to have got such a strong evolution and in the last 8 centuries (since the Romanians are atested in these teritories) to have not evoluted at all?
Fake. We understand several words (like in French, Italian), but the phrases, the verbs are totaly different.
The same information is presented in an article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Romanians - Origin of Romanians I think that is from some old books. Recently, a study was published in a collective work. The study proves that in Romanian there are ~70 words of sure Old Germanic (Gothic and Gepidic) origin. I promised on another topic of AE to put photocopies of the article but the book from the library in which I found it is missing momentarly. The book is called "Ethnic contacts and cultural exchanges north and west of the Black Sea" and appeared in 2005 at Iasi, at Trinitas editorial house. The article is "Lexical elements that reflect close contacts between old germanic and autochtonous populations in southeast Europe" by Alexandru Poruciuc (a reputated linguist). This is the list of the words I extracted from the article (it may not be complete): a ateia -barda -bort -brusture -burta -a caina -a cotropi -fara -filma (zâna rea) -grind -rânc -rapan -ruda -scruntar+simcea -stranut -stinghie -stima -tufa -tureac -bordei -buda -gaman -holm -hultui -rânca -rânciog -scrânciob -tala -teafar -plug -punga -rând -scrada -slin -aldan -a banui -a bântui -bernevici -brândusa -bumb -bunda -boarta -cioareci -ciuf -cocon -cotiga -cotingan -gata -gati -ghibort -grindei -grindel -grundet -grunz -hânsar -însaila -julfa -targa -nasture -smalt -smida -sprintar -stean -sturlubatic -troaca And these are some quoted passages: "...In all, we can count on over 70 Romanian words for which Old Germanic origins can be safely assumed..." "...There also is a similarity between the character of the Old Germanics of th Romanian and that of the Ostrogothic elements of Italian..." "...All evidence sustains the idea that old Germanic populations couldd influence pre-Romanians..." "...Words of provable Old Germanic origin (e.g. barda, cioareci, gard, rapan) survive in both Daco/Romanian and Macedo/Romanian (However, it is woth observing that Daco/Romanian - and, implicitly, the standard language of Romana -is by far richer than Macedo/Romanian in temrs of old Germanic origins)..."
Why only non-Latin are common?
So, Romanians got romanized after meeting Albanians?
But the vestiges of Szekelians in Transylvania before 12th century are?
So, this proves that Romanian didn't shared a history with the Balkanic Slavs.
Perhaps the medieval Romanians were good etymologists and chosed a "pure substratum" word for the name of the Capital. Actualy, Bukarest became capital after three other cities, Câmpulung, Curtea de Arges and Târgoviste.
But is not any corespondence between the Latin-origin words in Romanian and Latin-origin words in Albanian.
I never heard about this till now. Please download read this study comparing Romanian and Albanian and other Balkanic languages, made by a reputed scholar: http://www.savefile.com/files.php?fid=9541929 - Romanian and the Balkans: some comparative Perspectives In that study the conclussion is that Romanian is very different from the Balkanic languages. Too different to have constituted in the Balkans, I would add. Among all the Balkanic languages (Albanian, Greek, Romanic, Slavic)are similarities but not with Romanian.
So, when did Romanians learned latin so well? When they were in Balkans? Than why other Romanic groups out there doesnt speak such a good Latin?
Great theory production!
I'm to tired now and I could follow the logic. Maybe later I'll answer these problems. In the end, a funny image: 
(for the ones who dont know, the archaeological discoveries of Gepides are concentrated in the central Transilvania, on the Mures Valley). And a conclussion: with such lies and phantasmagories authors like this one are compromising the image of Hungarian historiography (even he seems to not be a History specialist). ------------- |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 23:37
|
1. I didn't say that Greek Epirotes converted to latin to escape the Illyrians. Just some of them (the inhabitants of Mt Pindus who were away from the rest population) got latinized after the establisment of roman army in Epirus. Btw, the Illyrian ships which came from Illyria caused many troubles to the greek ships in the south that's why the latter call the Romans to help them.
2. The Vlachs, the Arvanites, the slavophone Greeks are not more than 500,000 so the rest of the Greeks speak only greek.
3. I have a friend who is Vlach from Macedonia, she doesn't speak this language, her parents neither. They know no one in their village to be anything else than ethnic Greek. All of the Vlachs there know their history and greek origin which has survived from the parents to the children through the centuries. There is no group of Vlachs in Greece to claim any relationship with Romania.
4. The Greek Epirotes were secluded just like the Macedonians behind the high mountains of Pindus and Olympos respectively that's why they were not civilised. The Epirotes and the Illyrians were neighbours so they affected each other. The Arvanites came from the region of Northern Epirus and they consisted of arvanitophone Greeks, people of Greco-Illyrian origin and some Albanians. Northern Epirus was inhabited mostly by Greeks. So the fact that now belongs to Albania doesn't mean that 8 centuries ago only Albanians lived there. Even now the greek population there is large. If you talk to Arvanite Greeks, they will say about their ancient culture and their greekness. The "Arvinitic Club of Greece" doesn't speak about albanian origin. The Greeks who came to Greece the last decade from Albania along with Albanians, are considered Albanians by the rest of Greeks, some of them have albanian names most of them don't know very good the greek language. This is something like the case of Arvanites. They were disputable coz of their language. So, don't be so sure about the "albanian" origin of Vorioepirotes athletes who came to Greece and their memory..
5. Even if the Arvanites or the Vlachs were not Greeks, after so many centuries what's the..."percentage" of the initial origin of their descendants after the intermarriage with the Greeks and the biologic assimilation into the greek population? You know, the child of a greek and an albanian parent is of greek-albanian origin, not of albanian only. So, even if the Arvanites were Albanians, the Arvanites now are people who have some distant or slight albanian origin, and they are called Arvanites because of the preserved arvanitic language or remembrance of some albanian contribution in their family. All these, suppositively...
------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 04:03
|
Well, Anonymus used toponyms to create characters and stories. And not reversed.
They had also non-Chinese names. So were they Chinese?
About the leaders and their people:
Salan:
a bulgar leader who rules over slavs.
1. "Keanus magnus dux bulgarie auus salani ducis"
2. "Tunc omnes sclaui habitatores terre qui primo erant salani ducis, propter timorem eorum, se sua libera sponte subiugauerunt eis, nullo manum subleuante."
Menumorout:
a bulgar leader rules over kozars (=bulgars)
1. "menumorout qui duci arpad primo per legatos proprios bulgarice corde
superbe mandando"
2. "menumorout, eo quod plures habebat amicas, et terram illam habitarent gentes cozar qui dic**tur."
Zubur: bohemian vassal rules over bohemians and slavs
1. "Et tunc tempore per gratiam ducis boemorum dux nitriensis factus erat zubur."
2. "Sed per tres dies nullomodo hungarij propter inundationem aquarum transitum habuissent, tandem iiii. die boemi et omnes nytrienses sclaui uidentes audatiam hungarorum, et percussiones sagittarum non sufferentes, fuga lapsi sunt. "
Gelou: vlach (blac) leader rules over vlachs (blas) and slavs.
1. "terre ultra siluane, ubi gelou quidam blacus dominium tenebat."
2. "Et ut ibi foderetur sal et salgenia, et habitatores terre illius uiliores homines essent tocius mundi. Quia essent blasij et sclaui, quia alia arma non haberent, nisi arcum et sagittas"
Glad:
bulgar leader from Vidin who rules over an unnamed population, but his army had cuman, bulgar, and vlach (blac) auxiliaries and conquered his land with the help of cumans.
1. "dux nomine glad de bundyn castro egressus adiutorio cumanorum"
2. "dux illius patrie cum magno exercitiu equitum et peditum, adiutorio cumanorum et bulgarorum atque blacorum."
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 04:16
|
Could zou supplz the full passages, to see the context? ------------- |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 04:23
http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum - Anonymus: Gesta Hungarorum
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 04:48
|
Thanks.
I think that this summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum - Gesta Hungarorum is relevant, saying that the people ruled by the three vojvodes were mainly Romanians. What you say? ------------- |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 05:21
"The existence of these three dukedoms mainly inhabited by Vlachs and Slavs is controversial."
not just mainly Romanians.
Although Bulgars might be added. Menumorut rules over cozars, which sometimes confusingly translated as Khazars. (Anonymus used Russian sources, and Russians identified Khazars and Bulgars.)
|
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2006 at 19:36
This does not coincide with the data provided by the League of the Arvanites. I dont know much abot the slavophonic and the vlachs, but check your numbers regarding arvanites
I believe that you have a vlach friend who doesnt speak vlach, this shows that their culture found a hostile ground in modern greece. They are disspearing. Their cousins in albania still speak vlach.
And regarding the relationship with romania, that can be only linguistical. Have you ever been in the country (or small town) of Agrino (near Ioannina)?
Speaking about arvanitophonic greeks coming from epirus??What in the world made them learn albanian?Where (in which schools) did they learn that?And if they were constrained to learn that, how come they preserved it until today, even though they lived in the beloved mother country of Hellas?Some of those fleed to Italy during the ottoman occupation, and still preserve the albanian language even there. They sing a song about "the beautiful morea" in albanian...Of course northern epirus never was completely inhabitated by albanians, and the southern epirus never was inhabitated exclusively by greeks. And you know what distinguished the ones from the others?Not the genes (they intermarried) but the culture. The greeks spoke greek at home, and the albanians albanian. So, this arvanitophonic, even today preserve their ancient language, but no, they are hellenic???!They are loyal greek citizens, but do not deny their culture.
As i already posted before, they were not all from vorioepirus, some of them are Ghegue, northern albanians. And if somebody has no memory, if he does not know a language, how can you tell what is he?Or just because he is a good athlete he should be greek?Nationality means culture, names, language, customs etc.What makes you say that a muslim albanian who has not a clue about greek culture, can be greek?And why others arent?
That percentage is so high to make them stick to their culture and preserve that, even though they had no schools, no books, nothing. The hellenic culture is highly asimilative, but they were never totally asimilated. As you wrote in another thread, lets not talk about genetics
P.S do not edit your posts 4 days later, nobody will notice that ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2006 at 10:48
|
No more attention from my side to racist posts against everything greek.
Regarding the research was proposed by Menumorut, where are the Greek Vlachs in it? And why they are absent? ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2006 at 12:08
|
You mean the Vlachs from Greece?
They are named Aromuns, like the other Balkanic Vlachs. ------------- |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2006 at 08:35
|
If you want to call them "Vlachs of Greece" it's ok. Yeah, where are they? In this research there are Aromuns from Albania, from Romania and from FYROM. Where are the Aromuns from Greece? One of the three hypotheses in this research is that the Vlachs are Romomanophonic Greeks (which is rejected) and they study all the other Vlachs exempt from the Vlachs of Greece who are (probably) the Romanophonic Greeks... ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2006 at 09:16
|
I know nothing more than you.
------------- |
Posted By: GuardOfHistory
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2006 at 14:08
|
Concerning the presence of vlachs in the southern Balkans,south of the river Danube *-976 A.D. vlach road-guards ambushed and murdered David,the brother of the Bulgarian tzar Samuel.
*- 1020 A.D. Emperor Basil II reorganised the church at the theme of Bulgaria.
* During the reign of Manuel Komnenos(1143-1180),vlach soldiers(vlachs from Bulgaria probably) were used against the Hungarians by the Byzantine general Leon Vatatzes(source: kinammos,Byzantine historian) History of Bulgarian vlachs *-1197 After the assasination of Peter and Assan,John became the sole leader of the Bulgarians *-1203 Cardinal Leon of the Catholic church crowned John(Ioannitza) king of the vlachs and Bulgarians. *-1205 Battle of Adrianople.A joint force of Bulgarian vlachs,Bulgarians and Cumans under
*-1236 Michael II Angelos,Despot of Epirus, transfered Greek vlach soldiers from Epirus to Corfu in order *-1258 Michael II Angelos allied with the Frankish kingdoms of Peloponese against the Nicean empire *-Thessaly,in central Greece,was called Great Vlachia in the 13th century and later because of the high density of the vlach population in the *-1271 John I,ruler of the Great Vlachia, faced an invasion of Byzantine imperial troops,consisting mainly of Cuman and Turk mercenaries, *-1295 John I died.His succesor and son,Constantine,started a war against the *-1303 Constantine dies.Ruler of Great Vlachia becomes his son, John II. *-1304 The epirotans invaded the principality of Thessaly.They retrieted,afraid of the *-1318 After the death of John II,the Catalans invaded Thessaly and destroyed the principality.
This was the end of the semi-independent state of Thessaly. *-1399 Esau Buondelmonte,Despot of Epirus,recruited local Greek vlach soldiers against the raiding albanian clans.
------------- Vlachs and Arvanites,THE GUARDS of Hellenism |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 10:04
|
I was always interested what are these talks about Vlach origin of Asenides are based on? Can you point me to some of the arguments?
Thank you.
|
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 10:20
So, you can see how accurate it is... But regarding the rest of Vlachs, they don't have any specific genetical relationship to each other nor to the Romanians. That's what this study says. They are not Romanians... ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 12:18
The main one is that they are specifically referred to as Vlachs by their contemporary Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates.
For an introductory discussion, see below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Peter_of_Bulgaria - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Peter_of_Bulgaria ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 12:38
| Thank you Decebal! |
Posted By: Lyngos
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 13:31
Arber Z wrote:
The Vlachs are first in line as the TRUE descendants of the ancient Hellenes.
The other people mentioned above were also of Hellenic origins or Hellenized.
If they were something else, why not CREATE something else?
Why fight and die for the creation of a modern-state that was named as "Hellas" ?
The true is, that only later, once the western pro-liberal movements arrived in europe and ultimately in the Balkans and Greece, various "autonomous" movements were created.
Why not fight for an Albania away from the Ottomans in 1800?
Or for a free "Macedonia" ?
What about a free "Muslim State" within Hellas?
But then...........the question is: What were the ancenstors of today's Muslims asking for the above new Muslim State?
Maybe indigenous local Christian Hellenic populations, that under the Ottoman sword they were forced to become Muslims?
Would that make them ETHNIC Turks?
Would or should such FORCED Muslim changing of religion count?
Should we judge people by their DNA or by their will to be what they want, belong where they want and believe freely without State and/or other Religious interventions?
And if they want to be something that ALREADY exists, then..what? ------------- Regards to all.........L George sofoklis Tsapanos Visalia,Ca "{Vlachs, the autochthonous of the Hellenic peninsula". |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 13:46
|
I really cannot understand the agony of some compatriots of mine,to prove thay Vlachs are genetically 100% greek. ------------- |
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 13:58
|
The Vlachs are first in line as the TRUE descendants of the ancient Hellenes.
Really?Why that (please do not mention genetics). Why would hellenes speak a latin language, whilst living in the middle of grecophonic hellenes? And if this vlachs were just a romance people, totally differing from today romanians, how do you explain that they are highly intelligible between each-other? Actually every romanian understands perfectly vlach language, even though, at least for 8 centuries, the languages evoluted in different paths.
The other people mentioned above were also of Hellenic origins or Hellenized.
If they were something else, why not CREATE something else?
Why fight and die for the creation of a modern-state that was named as "Hellas" ?
The true is, that only later, once the western pro-liberal movements arrived in europe and ultimately in the Balkans and Greece, various "autonomous" movements were created.
It is true, the albanians of greece (arvanites) fought for their country (hellas). But if you want to know even more, there were continuous movements for creating a Greco-albanian state (until the 1880s). This movements were suported by albanians from albania (and Kosova), from the arvanites, and also from some greek politicians. But this movement was unsuccesful, as in Greece they built a religious country, which would discriminate the albanians (that as you know belong to three different faiths). When the albanian intellectuals were about to decide about the official alphabet for the albanian language, firstly they thought of the hellenic alphabet, but later, feeling the hostility showed by some politicians of the time (probably orthodox fundamentalists) decided to use latin alphabet (still in use today). You will not find this in the official histories of greece or albania, but I 've had the chance to read original documents, and also contemporary histories (last half of XIX century). If you never heard about the project of a greco-albanian state, then you can ask also Kotsos (member of this forum), who is arvanite himself, or ask information to the League of the Arvanites of Hellas (I can give you the adress. ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 14:16
What????
Did or do you see many arvanites to claim theirs albanian origin?
-------------
|
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 14:22
I also,cannot understand the agony of some Albanians to prove that Arvanites are Albanians (!) -(i am not speaking for genetical nonsense) ------------- |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 19:55
|
Arvanite Greeks some times are even more fanatic for example against an Albanian who killed someone here. I've heared Arvanites to call the Vorioepirotes (who are Greeks) "Albanians" and dispute their "greekness". If we have to believe Arber, then they are the only people who don't want to have any relationship with their... "Albanian compatriots". ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 20:25
Someone who killed somebody deserves to be hated, even by his own family. Now, check the opera of the leaders of the Arvanite League, and you will understand what do they claim. I do not claim they are albanian, they are greek, and they have greek consience. But regarding their origin, and the origin of their culture (I never mentioned genetics), I think it speaks itself. They are not compatriots of me, as they are greek citizens (loyal), but certainly they are not of a hellenic origin (culturally, not genetically).
And Digenis, try to stay calm, you dont have to be agressive. I never showed agony on defending anything. Actually there is nothing to defend, because even if (hypothetically) the arvanites were albanian propper, if the slavophonic were bulgarians, and if the romanophonic were romanian, there would be no risks for modern greece. At least for Albania, there will never be any territorial claims to greece (we are going toward integration hopefully). But what I would like to see is the greek state helping this cultural communities preserve their culture. It is impressive, but Greece is very hostile towards other cultures (languages, religion, origin etc.). Anyway, you and no other, have the right to comment my posts as "agony or passion". At least explain what did you find offensive to yourself or your country. I think that WE dont understand YOU, and your passion or agony as you can read all over the forum. ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 20:44
|
Look, if they were genetically Albanians, now they are mixed with the Greeks through the centuries so we cannot talk about pure albanian origin. That's what happens with every population who enter another country. Regarding my example you know what I mean... I mean the public opinion about a part of Albanians who live in Greece now. They are more fanatic.
But you don't want to talk about genetics... I'm with you..
Let's not discuss about it anymore ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 21:13
|
This is a history forum, it makes sense talking about culture and historical events, but genetics???
Check this
http://courses.washington.edu/lingclas/Sociolinguistics06_posted.ppt - http://courses.washington.edu/lingclas/Sociolinguistics06_posted.ppt
Anyway, just searching on google with this keywords "arvanitis, albanian" you can see that the terms are associated and related closely. Of course they are and they feel greek citizens. Actually I never pretended them to be something else, I was just talking abut their culture. But probably I was just misunderstood.
------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 03:24
|
As usual no answer in my question if there is and statement from Arvaniti from the suppposing Albanian origin. But Botsaris, Makrugiannis,Kolokotronis and many others spoken for Greek Arvanites against the Albanians and the Turkish. The same of course and for the Vlachs.Because as I see try again to connect genetics and ethnicity because their historical argyments are weak.
Some intresting quotes from a known Greek Vlach Asterios Koukoudis
Look, lad, the Greki arent more Greek than we are. We may be Vlachs, they may be Greki, but all together we make up the Greeks.
Greki is the Latin form of the Greek
Apart from the indisputable fact of the Vlachs existence, my main objective is to show how the Vlach-speaking populations have lived with and integrated with their Greek-speaking and non-Greek-speaking fellow-travellers, and also to illustrate their very important contribution to the shaping of Romiosyni (Editors note: Romiosyni is one of the senses of Greek self-identity, especially in the centuries before modern Hellenism took root) and the creation of modern Greece and the modern Greek identity.
http://www.farsarotul.org/nl25_1.htm - http://www.farsarotul.org/nl25_1.htm
-------------
|
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 07:37
|
OK stop talking about Arvanites in this forum please. We understood everybody's opinion about them.
For more information ask them to talk about their origin... ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 07:47
|
This text is from the official page of the Vlachs in Veria, Greece. http://www.vlahoi.gr/vlahs.asp - http://www.vlahoi.gr/vlahs.asp "Veria is a very old town. It is even refered by Thucidides AG1 "and arriving in Veria". Later in the beginning of the Roman domination (146 AD), Veria was the sacred town, the seat of the bishop of the Macedonian public. Its purpose was the worship of the Goddes of Rome and Augustus. Many feasts were held in this town. Many bishops and officers and many people from several regions of Macedonia would meet here. Veria had the right to build a temple of emperors for the practice of their worship. Not surprisingly, Veria saw the settlement of the Roman rules, finance officers, tax reuters and other Roman officials. Taking for granted that all these were speaking formal Latin, it was unavoidable that this language was spread in Veria and thus from the beginning of the Roman Domination Latin speakers appeared in Veria. It is proven that the massive inauguration of Vlahs (Armani) in Veria, from their eternal Pindikes birthplaces, took place in the second decade of the 19th century." ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 10:51
aggresive? 
How?
Do you mean the Greek state in 2006? For ex, muslims in Thrace are being taught turkish,and have a special percentege plus,to enter universities. Organisations of Vlachs are spread all over greece,as well as pontian organizations etc. But 99% of these people would be offended if the Greek state would face them as foreigners.
i was a bit surprized,because i thought u are a moderate member,when u have spoken for "albanians of greece-(arvanites)" I am not feeling any threat at all by Albania  I also - for not being misunderstood-believe that Arvanites were of Albanian ancestry. But today they are just Greek.
My agony for what? ------------- |
Posted By: GuardOfHistory
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 06:24
Concerning The extent of the Latin influence in the Balkans: Ioannis Lydos who lived in the 6th century,and was a contemporary of emperor Justinian, wrote: ------------- Vlachs and Arvanites,THE GUARDS of Hellenism |
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 11:42
It was mostly spoken by state officials, living in the urban areas. But as far as I know, the vlachs, until a century ago were almost exclusively nomadic shepherds, very distant to what is called urban. I could understand your point if we were talking about some coastal city, where latin might survive, due also to the later venetians, catalans or genoese, but latin surviving in the mountains?This state officials, how come they found themeselves surprisingly surrounded by sheep? ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 15:13
|
I dont believe that these could be the ancestors of the Vlachs too. We could take a look at the cities of Greece that were made Roman's colonies as Thessaloniki,Philippoi,Dion,Corinth etc. The first centuries written documents found are most in latin. As the time flows,its obvious that Greek is gaining space,until Latin disappears. This means total assimilations,even of the Roman-Italian colonistsas far as in the 7th century. The most probable is that Vlahic populations are descendants of balcan mountainous tribes (Illyrian or Thracian /even Epirotan/Macedonian with greek idioms),latinized in language. ------------- |
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 22:00
And what are modern romanians???Arent they the descendant of balkan tribes, using a latinized language? Probably, the substratum should have been the same, because the languages that came out (Vlach and Romanian)are 95% identic.
Digenis, excuse me if in some moment I gave you a bad impression on my opinion, I am not saying that the vlachs of greece belong to another nation, and that they should claim this or that. I am just saying that their culture is (at least linguistically, but not only) not hellenic, and this culture should be studied, recorded, and preserved. I am against the assimilation (which is actually happening from years). I never meant to claim something over the greek nation, noway. But I guessed you exagerated a bit, when you tried to pass every element of your modern people as a descendant of ancient hellenes, (or pure hellenic). This sounds nationalistic, not scientific...anyway. ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 17:39
|
First of all the greek state is not against the vlachic language.
Furthermore, the Vlachs were bilingual...
When two populations are latinized in different areas, are they the same?
Whatever the questions are, in the culture of Greek Vlachs there isn't any mention of immigration.
Btw the Vlachs during the winter moved towards the cities. ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 17:52
Off course. But different tribes,which finally had different history ,and different culture.
Well,the definition of hellenic is somehow comlpex. The truth is that these people sooner or later adopted self-willingly the Greek national identity.
agreed 100% 
When ???? Me ?? I am 1/4 Vlah and i dont believe that Vlahs of Greece are 100% genetic descendands of Ancient Greeks. Is this confession enough ? Am i still an evil nationalist? ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 20:31
|
For those who use genetical reasons to prove something regarding Aromuns.
Record 1 of 1
Record 1 of 1 |
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 21:02
|
Well,the definition of hellenic is somehow comlpex. The truth is that these people sooner or later adopted self-willingly the Greek national identity. Yes, it is apparently more than I expected... When ???? Me ?? I am 1/4 Vlah and i dont believe that Vlahs of Greece are 100% genetic descendands of Ancient Greeks. Is this confession enough ? Am i still an evil nationalist? Dont know if this confession is enough, but anywa I am happy, becouse at the end we agreed. This is what I am trying to tell since the beginning, but I was misunderstood. And you are not evil  , but just a bit nationalist------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 05:46
I would prefere arguments rather than accusations and silly labels... Since we agree,u are at least the same nationalist as me ------------- |
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 09:19
And since you use the same "accusations and silly labels"... ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2006 at 06:17
That's the same with the above study which does not include the Vlachs of Greece.
According to this the Vlachs from FYROM, Romania and Albania are not Romanians or Greeks, and they do not form any specific Vlach ethnicity.
But it doesn't answer to the question if the Vlachs of Greece are of Greek origin. ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2006 at 07:34
|
This research clearly answers this question -- they are from mixed origin. Genetically at least. Like all nations in Balcans including greeks. But I agree that to fully unswer the question some samples from greek Aromuns are needed. But I have no doubts that the result will be the same. ------------- . |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2006 at 09:56
|
"Greek Aromuns" are fully assimilated with other Greeks. It would be difficult to find "pure " Vlachs. It would be also ,useless and silly. ------------- |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2006 at 17:20
That's for sure. Even if they were not Greeks, their specific gene pool is fully absorbed into the greek gene pool. ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2006 at 17:37
|
Dorian, could you kindly explain me what do you call "greek genetic pool"? ------------- . |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2006 at 17:54
|
Gene pool is the total of genes in a population (haplogroups etc). Each nation has some unique "genes" that characterizes its distinction from other nations.
Well, this is not the scientific explanation of the term. I think you can find it in the net. ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2006 at 18:49
I would suggest you to know the meanings of the terms you operate.
Gene pool is total of alleles in a population. Genes in humans are represented by 2 alleles. Oversimplifying, every organism gets 1 allele from mother and another from father. They (alleles) will remain in next generations anyway. So, I do not understand what kind of absorbtion you are talking about.
Genetic analysis of population migrations is based on study of Alu insertions. These are, again oversimplifying, are mobile elements that could move from one parts of DNA to another. They are very variable and differs from one population to another. Study of their structure (simple sequencing as far as I know) allows to study mgration of populations in those cases where no historical sources are found. Good thing is that DNA could be extracted and multiplied from bones and this gives a possibility to study not only prsent populations but ancient ones as well. Thus if you have, let say, properties of ancient population A and properties of ancient population B you will find both these properties in population C if it appeared as mixture of these two. Based on this analysis you may invade term "genetic distance between populations" which again gives you some information about development of present nations. Hypotetical situation: if you have common words in two nations, before starting linguistic analysis it is better to ask whether they have common origins. If you find them, or at least suggest possible existance by genetic analysis, then linguistic, cultural anthropology and archeological analyses will be much more precise. And there will be much less place for speculations and manipulations like those that you, Dorian, like that this or another particular language or culture is much more respectable then another :)
Sorry for the off-topic. I thought that it might be interesting to somebody.
But I still do not understand the reason to dispute about Aromans (or whoever else) in terms who they are -- Romanophonic greeks, Romanians or something else. It is actually question of terminology. It mostly depend on their self determination. ------------- . |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2006 at 14:23
|
...Anton the Great! ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 06:28
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 15:10
|
What you think, what happened with the Dacians?
The archaeology proved that the Dacian population continued to exist. The Dacian forms of pottery are present such late as 7th century and it couldn't be a cultural transfer to other populations because is a very clear continuation with the classical Dacian period. The archaeological discoveries shows the steply romanization of the extracarpathic population in 2-7th centuries. I have seen photos of the archaeological cultures from these period and are convincingly enough. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 15:38
|
IMO the relation between pottery and language is little to none. There are mutual influences of Roman and Barbarian (Celtic, Dacian, Germanic) pottery and artwork along the limes. The relative "Romanization" or "Barbarization" of the art or of the techniques does not have as necessary consequence a similar process in the language, or spirituality, or in various other habits that would be also meaningful to characterize a culture, to shape an identity.
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 18:52
|
Is true, but when it's a constant phenomenon in all Romania's provinces and when it has a very good corespondence in the direction of spreading of the latin words in the teritory, you cann't think that all these are coincidences. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 10:46
|
I doubt the invariability you claim, and also the perfect fit of coverages. There's no archaeological culture in the first millenium AD to perfectly cover the later territory where Romanian language was documented. |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2006 at 13:56
It's not a single culture but severals. Their Dacian and roman character is obvious. I have only a Romanian page for that, maybe you could make an impression: http://stirbu.freewebpage.org/1000.html - History of Romanians between 250 and 1250 AD proved archaeologicaly I also want to ask some Bulgarian brothers what is the proportion between the Latin and Greek inscriptions on the teritory of Bulgaria, if they have an idea. ------------- |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2006 at 14:25
Acording to the following map the so called Jireček Line divides Bulgaria in two halves ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jire%C4%8Dek_Line - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jire%C4%8Dek_Line )
 |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2006 at 01:10
I think the idea of assigning unique and bi-univocal connections between an ethnicity and some archaeological features is already obsolote.
Not to mention that some of these cultures cover larger territories than the one inhabited by later Romanic speakers.
Here you have a nice thesis (mostly in Romanian, the summary is also in English) concerning the pottery from Wallachia 5-7th centuries. http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/TTW/index_est.html - http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/TTW/index_est.html
Another interesting material by the same author you can read (also in Romanian) here:
http://egg.mnir.ro/studii/est/mdc_frame.htm - http://egg.mnir.ro/studii/est/mdc_frame.htm
The "Roman" character of the pottery is not a sign of "Romanic speakers" / "Romanization". What is the specific "Dacian" character of Ipotesti-Candesti? Or Costisa-Botosana?
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2006 at 17:29
You are wrong. Ethnic apartnence of arhcaeological cultures can quite precisely be made, in a larger context, not only archaeological.
It's a sign of Roman tradition. In 5-7th century pottery of Roman tradition can belong to some migratory populations? Look how Costisa and Ipotesti pottery look:  
See these images: Poian, Covasna county, 6-7th century 
Dulceanca, Teleorman county, 5-7th century 
If you know how Dacian "classical" pottery looks, you surely would be impressed.
Not true. these cultures, named Brateiu (Transylvania), Costisa (Moldavia), Ipotesti (Wallachia) and others are found only in Romanian teritory. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2006 at 19:51
I'd like to point out that I'm disapointed about this discussion we have. You probably haven't read the material I linked (you haven't even addressed it) and to me these are the symptoms I'm facing someone exposing his unchangeable ideas. However, I don't want to guide only by first impressions (though bitterly they are many times true), and attempt a real discussion.
On this topic, please start your documentation from here:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/ETHNICITY.html - http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/ETHNICITY.html
http://egg.mnir.ro/studii/florin/Bra_frame.htm - http://egg.mnir.ro/studii/florin/Bra_frame.htm (this review encompasses several names and trends in the "ethnical archaeology" field, so you can enlarge your searches from them).
... and if I'm to mention Florin Curta you may want to read his book: The making of the Slavs (translated also in Romanian, but unavailable in local bookstores AFAIK, you may try a research/education center). You can read the first 28 pages here: http://assets.cambridge.org/052180/2024/sample/0521802024ws.pdf - http://assets.cambridge.org/052180/2024/sample/0521802024ws.pdf
This book, though is focused on a different point of view upon Eastern Europe, it has pages related to the archaeological cultures of today Romanian space, and more important, it has recent scholarly considerations about what is findable/unfindable through archaeology regarding ethnicity.
In short, not any particularity of pottery or hut building is an indicator for ethnicity. Some aspects of the material culture can characterize an ethnic group, some not. An the answer is always behind a careful study, not just a premise to feed a wished-to-be-true theory.
"Migratory populations" promotes a misleading dichotomy.
About those images, I fail to understand what you're trying to prove.
Let's take Dulceanca example.
From the links from my previous message:
http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/TTW/Vol_1/v1_s3/6_2Dul.htm - http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/TTW/Vol_1/v1_s3/6_2Dul.htm
http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/TTW/Vol_1/v1_s4/16_1Dulc.htm - http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/TTW/Vol_1/v1_s4/16_1Dulc.htm
Maybe you can identify what is the Dacian specific from these sites, because I honestly fail to see it.
Also, do you know that in one of the huts from Botosana was found a 4th century Chernyakhov-type fibula?
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 00:11
I have read the conclussions of those materials. Not any clear idea, this is why I didnt reffered to it.
Have I met you somewhere else? Menumorut=Ramunc. Are you somwhow Ziper, Diogene or George? It's a prejudice (of some contemporary amateurs for history) that ethnicity has had a low degree of importance for the early medieval man. Read all the documents of that epochs. Read Procopius, the letters addressed by Barbarians to the Emperor and so, all are conscious of their ethnic heritage. I dont want read the philosophic introspection of authors like Curta. Do you somehow think Ipotesti or Costisa cultures belonged to Slavs? Look how true Slav earthwae and metal ware looks: From a Slavic archaeological station in Czech Republic: 
http://www.ckrumlov.cz/uk/region/histor/t_rastos.htm From the book "History of Bulgaria":   
The question is: who made that archaeological cultures?
I'm not so superficial to think that an archaeological set of shapes is an indication for an ethnici group. But how you say, in some cases the things are evident.
Man, the Slavs were there, I dont contest the Slavic influence, the pentidigital fibulas is a clear sign. but that doesnt mean the Dulceanca inhabitans were Slavs. You can easily make a difference between the Dulceanca pottery on one side and Slavic pottery on another side, by the images I put here.
Dridu is not a very particular culture. North of Danube it was made by Romanians and Slavians. At Dabaca fortified settlement there is a good example of pottery from 8th century of that place we surely know was of the Romanians of "Gelu": 
Santana de Mures/Chernyakhov culture was made in the Gothic federation and it illustrate their orientation toward the Roman civilization. As you may know, the pottery of this culture is not only of Roman influence but also of Dacian influence. Check out these burials from the Targsor necropolis:     
Very explainable. Some of the Costisa settlements are continuating Santana de Mures settlements. What's the point? Santana de Mures culture belonged not only to Goths but to the Daco-Roman subjugates. After the movement of the Goths South of Danube in 375 (not any of their trace was found after this date) the Daco-Roman population continued their living. Is very signifiant that in 5-7th centuries Moldavia the pottery has not Dacian character as in Transilvania and Wallachia, but a stronger Roman character. This because the Gothic domination make a cease in the Dacian tradition of the Moldavian Dacians (Carps) and after the movement of the Goths the Moldavian Daco-Romans adopted a Roman-like still of pottery, while the Daco-Romans from Transylvania and Wallachia continued to make pottery in a clear Dacian tradition. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 07:10
"În planul ceramicii, sfârşitul confederaţiei hunice, recte migraţia ostrogoţilor la sudul Dunării, pare a fi sfârşitul ceramicii de calitate, pentru cea mai mare parte a teritoriului. Dispar specii care făcuseră epocă o jumătate de mileniu, respectiv ceramica cenuşie şi toată vesela de masă lucrată la roată, ceea ce accentuează senzaţia de diferit pe care o oferă privitorului civilizaţia Ipoteşti-Cândeşti." (The end of Hunnic confederation, i.e. the migration of the Ostrogoths south of Danube, seems to be the end of quality ceramic works for the most part of the territory. Classical species, as the gray ceramic and the table dishes, disappear, fact which emphasizes the different look offered by Ipotesti-Candesti civilization).
Or in a previous chapter about the context of these conclusion, the same author says:
"Ceea ce am afirmat despre slavi că în împrejurări excepţionale foloseau metode şi mijloace excepţionale de viaţă şi existenţă ar trebui să fie valabil şi pentru comunităţile locale, atâtea câte vor mai fi fost (probabil foarte puţine). Mitul ştiinţic al comunităţilor romanice stabile de agricultori, atât de drag generaţiei profesorilor noştri, a obturat posibilităţile de a înţelege acest aspect al adaptării sociale." (What I said about Slavs - that in exceptional circumstances they had an exceptional life style - should be valid also for the local communities, as many as they still existed - probably not many. The scientific myth of romanic steady agrarian communities so much appreciated by the older generations, eclipsed the possibilities of understanding this aspect of social adaptation.)
Also you don't know what they mean by the so-called ethnonyms (especially that is not a genuine recording, all happens through the intervention of a historian, in this case Procopius). Curta's thesis for Slavs is that Antes and Sclavenes are not some genuine ethnonyms but reflected the political relation of some barbarian groups with the Byzantine Empire. Probably we still have to wait some time until a brave historian would attempt to demolish the nationalist version of proto-Romanian ethnicity from north of Danube.
Before throwing other derogatory labels try at least to read these presentations:
http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521802024 - http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521802024
http://www.seep.ceu.hu/archives/issue51/books51.pdf - http://www.seep.ceu.hu/archives/issue51/books51.pdf
I'm skipping the further "look at these pots" arguments. Refer to my above links and try to point out a meaningful archaeological correlation (to talk in scholarly terms: please point out the identity markers).
As for the pottery analysis, you made no point about the morphology, about the techniques. There are pots worldwide which bear degrees of visual similarities with the ones posted by you.
On one hand you affirm that no trace of the Goths was found after a certain date, on the other hand you affirm their culture was continued partially by Costisa-Botosana. Your thesis seemes to be the that the local "Daco-Romans" continued this culture. Why "Daco-Romans" and not Goths or other populations (Moldavia was weakly Romanized if it was at all, there were not only "Dacians" - read Thracian tribes - but also Iranian, etc.), I don't understand. Probably the arguments must be twisted according to a dogmatic thesis which they must support.
Before attempting further discussion on this topic please read also:
http://www.caorc.org/fellowships/mellon/pubs/Nichulescu.pdf - http://www.caorc.org/fellowships/mellon/pubs/Nichulescu.pdf
as it identifies many of the dogmas I would otherwise have to identify myself.
However, let's note that my initial point about coverage still stands up. You attempted to avoid the cultures which integrated today Romanian territories in larger units, while being unable to create a coherent cultural horizon of the local archaeological cultures which completely covers today Romanian territory.
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 09:19
We should move such discussions on a Non-English topic. I`all answer you on private.
You want say that the author says Ipoesti culture could belong to Slavs? I think not. I have read such an opinion of a Bulgarian author but is totaly ungrounded. Ofcourse, Slavs could have exceptional life style and material expressions, but in any case this could not lead to a culture like Ipotesti. See these links with photos from Vadu Sapat (Budureasca) archaeologicalsite: http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/cronicaCA2003/planse/210/index.htm - 2003 report http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/cronicaCA2004/planse/205/index.html - 2004 report http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/CronicaCA2001/web_cronica_foto/217/index.htm - 2001 report http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/CronicaCA2001/web_cronica_foto/218/index.htm - 2001 report And some images from the same addresses:  
Man, the people who made those cultures could be Slavs, Avars or something else?
you think, for example, that when Gepids are addressing Emperor about them or about Franks, its possible to be something else than Gepids or Franks? I understand your prejudices, it's a new sort of preconceived ideas. Try to see the things with the eyes of a man of that times.
I think Curta is right in this point. But did Curta sayed the same about Goths or Gepids, for example?
This theory is the only one which explain everything: the non-balkanic character of the Romanian language, the distribution of Latin origin words in the teritory of Romania, the "mistery" of Ciresanu, Costisa, Ipoesti and Brateiu cultures. Do you know that after 400 there is almost not any Latin inscription in Balkans, including today Serbia or the fortresses on the Northern bank of Danube (Sucidava-Corabia)? All are Greek. When do you think have took place that migration of romanic population from South to North of Danube?
Not at all. In the 8-11 century it was an omogenization of the cultural aspects North and South of Danube. The Dacian and Roman expression forms in pottery no more existed due to changes in social and political new realities. But the population was Romanian and in a measure, Slav.
Ididnt afirmed that the Santana de Mures was continued by Costisa. I only afirmed that some settlements have a continuity of inhabitance from Santana period to Costisa. But how Curta sayed, the classical forms of pottery dissapeared with the movement of the Goths. The Roman-like forms of pottery of Costisa had other significaton, I allready sayed.
The Daco-Romans subjugated by Goths have adopted in the time of that domination the Gothic forms of culture. After the Goths left Dacia, they didnt used more that forms. Even the pottery forms in Moldavia were the most Roman-like, Moldavia remained the less latinized region.
Not at all. I allready sayed Dridu was a culture common South and North of Danube, and even more. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 11:37
|
We shouldn't. The Romanian text posted by me in this thread (except the links) has a corresponding English translation/adaptation/summary 
To see with the eyes of a man of those times, means also to judge with his mind, i.e. not having strong and accurate informations. Of course we can add even some rhetorical arguments like what did he care about some historians of 20th-21st centuries arguing over his statements
About what "archaeological misteries" do you talk about?
The movement of settlements is also covered in the above links. At a smaller scale, you can check the movement of Dulceanca settlement (as we kept talking about it) or the other considerations on the disapperance/fading of some north-Danubian cultures, which E. S. Teodor sees as a consequence not of extermination but of resettlement, i.e. from earthen/stone steady settlements to temporary settlements (wooden shelters, tents) which are hard to be noticed archaeologically. Of course, this doesn't prove a South-North migration, but it certainly shakes the "steady autochtonous population" myth.
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 12:50
Man, I see that you mention 'Celtic, Thracian, Iranian, Germanic, Slavic, Turkic populations, not mentioning the Roman and Byzantine influences and colonization'. Why not Dacians? What do you think about Militari-Chilia culture? Theoreticaly, the population which made Ipotesti culture could be of any origin but analysing the characteristics a normal man could think that is 95% sure is a Dacian romanized or in process of romanization population. Where have you seen such earthware else in Dacian tradition?
I have read one or two year ago Procopius's Wars and have not a copy now. I remember about letters addressed by Barbarians to the Emperor. Also the Goths addressed letters in the name of their people. Do you believe that these Goths which in 6th century were still in Italy were not a homogenous ethnic group?
Yes, is true that the archaeological aspects of romanic population in Southern Romania are not homogenous but that doesnt mean they belong to some migratory people. The migratory people were abiding in tents I think. And even they have some builded dwellings, they could not make such pottery we see in Ciresanu, Ipotesti or Costisa cultures.
I think what Teodor says are myths. He may convince only some diletant people, not a serious specialist.
I have read what this guy says. Are you somehow Niculescu himself? If yes and even if not (you think exactly like him) get mature and understant that the myths are these new theories which are unscientifical and fancy. Why do you reject from the starting point that the Romanic population could persisted? Why didnt dissapeared in France or Spain? When did Dacians dissapeared and how?
What language do you think predominated in 6th century teritory of Today Serbia and Northern Bulgaria?
The topic is about all the Vlachs, not just the Carpathic ones.
This is very sure that was a retreat and withdrawal of the population. But that Balkanic population may have been strongly helenized. Do you know about that piece of earthware from Sirmium?:  
http://www.muzejsrema.org.yu/slike/arheo/opeka.jpg Is writen "God, please save Romania" dates from 580 and is in Greek. How such an intim addressing was made in Greek if there was a latin speaking population?
Ofcourse, it were movements of the romanic population. Only few settlements had continuity for several centuries. Like the romanized Dacians which after the withdrawal of the Roman administration, have left their villages and settled in more favorable places (their village places were chosen by Romans for them, after the conquest, different from all other Roman provinces were the autochtonous localities continued after the Roman conquest).
It's a sign of a population romanized or in process of romanization. It's a conscious adoption of a Roman style of pottery, like the Goths adopted Roman pottery as a sign of their orientation toward Roman civilization. Do we agree?
Is very clear that Goths adopted Dacian and Roman pottery style from Free Dacians, Costobocs and Carpians, who were in process of romanization as early as 2-3rd centuries (the Free Dacians from Muntenia were also in a similar process). The Carpians are strongly present archaeological and we know, from contemporary documents and from archaeology, that they cohabited with Goths. About costisa culture, if you'll present the data to a foreign specialist he surely will say is of a romanized Dacian population. I appreciate your efort to demolish the continuity theory as a manifestation of an "objective" Romanian scientist but you falled down in a trap.
Ofcourse. The Goths are another example. But the context shows that Costisa belong the romanized and romanizing Dacians.
Where exactly did I disagreed with you? ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 14:41
|
In their journey through Balkans, the Goths of Theodoric were joined by other Gothic bands (like the one led by his homonymous Theodoric Strabon). Before his open military conflict with Odoacer he also gathered the remnants of other Germanic populations (like the Rugi). After starting his rule as a king, he gathered in his sphere of influence and also in his armies, Germanic populations from vast areas - the Gepids, the Heruli from Pannonia, the Alamans defeated by Clovis, even warriors descending from Scandinavia. And finally, during his reign there was a continuous duality Germanics - Romans, so undoubtely, the interactions between these two cultures had not a very homogenous result. Also, during the Italian kingdom of the Goths there were two antagonizing factions: pro-Roman and anti-Roman. This was reflected in their values, education, customs, spoken languages, but also social interactions. It's hard to know how deep this separation went (it affected only the aristocracy?) or to draw a clear boundary (what exactly was similar/different), yet these degrees cannot be ignored.
First, you haven't read his work, though I have linked it above. Second, he's a serious specialist: http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/autori/teodor.html - http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/autori/teodor.html You, on the other hand, are an anonymous, fueled by a nationalistic impulse, whose temple I profaned. Please have some decency and stop this mud-throwing. You don't have to do it.
But again, what is your point?
Sirmium was a large city, an important key to the Byzantine administration and defence in northern Balkans. This testimony (as you offered it in English) doesn't seem intimate at all, on contrary it reflects the new Byzantine (Imperial, Christian) political values, even may have/reflect a propagandistic/promotion aspect. Read Helene Ahrweiler or Stelian Brezeanu's works on this topic. One more thing: I'm not a specialist in Byzantine epigraphy, yet this tablet seems to say more than what you've translated. Do you have a proper reading/interpretation of this text?
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 16:24
Why not African or South American?
Shortly, do you have an opinion about the ethnicity of the peoples who made Militari-Chilia, Bratei, Ciresanu, Ipotesti and Costisa cultures?
I gived Procopius as an example. I'll never read in Romanian or foreign history studies that the ethnicity was not signifiant in Antiquity and early Middle Age, until I've meet the writings of this generation of historians from Romania. Speaking about Procopius, is impossible he to has an eronated vision because not only he was the official imperial historiographer but participated at most of the events described in the Wars and surely readed the very letters of the Barbarian reprezentatives.
Do you want say that those named Heruli, for example, were not a distinct ethnic group?
This is an English forum. You have to write in a manner that everybody to understand the subjects. If you dont have an English text to put here, we should not speak about studies in Romanian language. About the Slavs, how do you think their migration manifested? Do you believe that they were hundreds of thousands moving as a compact wave, or how?
Attending a faculty doesnt mean a man is serious. I can give the example of some historians that cannt be called serious at all. Anyway, let's speak about history, not about emploiees of institutions.
You too are anonimous and are acusing Romanian historians of lack of objectivity. I think you are wrong, the Romanian historians are not lacking objectivity. Also I think that the future belong to the Continuity theory. When the archaeological, linguistic and documentary evidences will be studied by larger groups of specialists, the Continuity theory will win. The Boia syndrom (Boia is a historian from Romania who want to demolish something) is a manifestation of superficial understanding and prejudice.
I didnt afirmed that the character of pottery attest a Romanic population by itself. Some human groups made these cultures and the belonging to the autochtnous romanized Dacians is the best explanation in a larger context. Curta himself (or Teodor) says that Ipotesti culture is very different from other achaeological cultures of the epoch. Not any migratory people could create such a culture and their character, their delicacy (the hand made pottery) and their forms could not be atributed to others than romanized Dacians. So, to demolish the continuity theory you have to: -make vanished the romanized Dacians and the Free Dacians -make Goths adopt Dacian elements of expression by a magic method -call some enigmatic populations with Dacian expression in pottery in 5-7th centuries -make Slavs or other groups in Moldavia (including Bassarabia) have a signifiant demographic extensions in the last century of the first millenium -make rests of Avars or Slavs have Roman-like pottery in 7-11th century Crisana -dehelenize the population in Balkans and give them some lessons of Classical Latin to can reach the character of today Romanian. Actualy I dont know when you think that the migration of the Southern romanic people took place so I will not refer to later periods.
Do you have an idea about the demographic proportion between Dacians (and their descendants) and migratory groups? If you have not any source, why did you adopted the idea that Dacians were asimilated?
The fact that all the inscriptions are in Greek is an indication that the helenization was strong. Is hard to believe that the Greek was used in such extension and the population remained Latin.
I have not. I'm not a history specialist, just a passionated guy. Anyway, do you think that an official man, a Greek speaking, have written an official text on a piece of earthware?
But what about the Dacian character of Santana de Mures culture? You have to adopt also the Gotho-Dacian formula.
So, if the Dacians were the originators of the Santana de Mures culture that mean they were a vigurous people and culture. this corelate good with the Dacian character of the following cultures.
Sorry but I think my eyes are a better teacher. Costisa is clearly a culture of a sedentary people and the Roman character of their pottery is surprising. Do you agree?
Even this demolishing atitude should be in indication for you that you are not proceding correct. Offer some better explanations and variants, not just contest the theory of continuity. Why are you contesting this theory?
------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 18:09
And if you haven't heard about several things is caused by your lack of education. I provided some links above (Curta's) where you'll find a number of scholars arguing about what ethnicity is and how can it be studied. It's not a fashion in Romanian historiography, well, perhaps only now they opened their eyes to it. Maybe you should, too
Please read some scholarship on Procopius. Start with Wilhelm Ensslin.
You also seem to forget that you also posted some links to materials in Romanian.
Do you have anything more to say on this topic or you're just adding straws on the fire?
Also a having a doctorate is much more than attending an university.
(emphasis mine)
After you trashed E. S. Teodor and G. A. Niculescu, now you pick on Lucian Boia. I wonder who's next
I don't see what can be discussed with you. You're merely repeating the same things without providing any relevant argument (unless you call "delicacy" an argument
).
Straw man. I'm unwilling to follow.
Hellenization probably resumed to cities. It is assumed that also many indigenous language survived in the early Byzantine period (as some Thracian dialects in the Balkans). There are accounts of people not knowing Greek, there are certain cases which illustrate along Greek also other spoken languages in the early Byzantine Empire as Latin, Syriac, Coptic.
However, if you can't provide a source/justification, how do you know that translation is correct? If you can't provide a source/justification how can you use it as an argument? 
Not entirely. Only the prejudiced ones can be surprised
I guess there's nothing left to discuss ... (I'm not really expecting answers on the last questions)
Have fun!
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 20:18
Not any new perspective is good. I agree that the ancients were understanding ethnicity different from how we understand it but I see that these guys are not conscious that they could also be wrong.
If you got some ideas from Ensslin, why dont you put here that ideas?
What means "Herulic" to you?
That page reccomended was containing evocatory images.
When you send me to some books or opinions, I think this is not a dialogue. You have to present ideas, not authors.
On one hand, I have a great respect and even love for Romanian archaeologists who hardly work for bringing to light the secrets of the past hidden in earth. On another hand, I worked 8 years in an important university and I know exactly how a doctorate is obtained, so such titles leave me cold. You seem to accord too much importance to the personality of some employee, in place to analyse their ideas with your mind.
What issue? Boya syndrome is born from an excess of deviant morality, if the guys are realy Romanian. They (Niculescu & co) are conmvinced that they have to demolish the 'nationalistic-communist historiography' and waste their time with such philosophic debates in place of practicing the profession of historian or arhcaeologist.
I think is good. Better will be to not stop at any theory which appears to you. Check several time any idea.
This orientation for demolishing something is in the same time a psychose and an anti-scientific atitude. How could you contest an idea without putting something in place? What foreigner historian do you see to proceed like that, excepting some politic infested scholars? Dont you see that they start with the idea of migration, they are not comparing the posibilities?
I brought some interpretation about the material cultures. You sent me to some authors and sayed that I'm not prepared to hear your theory. And now you say it cannt be dialogued with me.
So, you dont believe that a people could change the character of their material culture and their language?
http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/gis?region=5 - Search Epigraphical Database,
The Thracian dialects preserved in Byzantine empire could be the Dacian dialect of Carps. Cannt be compared the situation in Egypt, where the aotochtonous were permanently in the presence of the impressive architectural and artistic heritage of their past with the situation in Balkans. Also in Syria. By the way, the nationalism in these revolted provinces is a sign about the importance of ethnic affiliation in late antiquity. I'm wondering what languages were spoken in 6th century in Sirmium and its region...
From another forum, from a guy who presented this object. And he has a similar position with you, the named Diogene. I invite you on that forum: http://forum.softpedia.com/index.php?showtopic=80323&st=2610 - Softpedia Forum: Originea Românilor
You sayed that that crock is a reflection of the Imperial political values: This testimony (as you offered it in English) doesn't seem intimate at all, on contrary it reflects the new Byzantine (Imperial, Christian) political values, even may have/reflect a propagandistic/promotion aspect.
The cultural borrow is earlier than the cohabitation with the Carps. I've read is from period when Goths have been settled more Northern and were having contacts with the Costobocs. The fact that Goths adopted Dacian forms of earthware can be explained only in this manner: the Goths, like other Barbarians from the late period of the Classical Roman Empire, were strongly oriented for adopting Roman elements of culture and civilization. The character of Pietroasele treasure, their claim to be federates of the Empire are proves of that. They wished to adopt the Roman way of life so they used pottery (and probably other wares) of Roman style. The fact that they adopted too Dacian elements of expression can be due to their confussion between Romans and Dacians. A part of the Dacians were romanized and Roman citizens and they used Dacian style wares in 2-3rd centuries, so the Goths believed that these forms are Roman and adopted them. What you think?
The manner of sending me to a book in place of presenting ideas is a serious behaviour?
Is this an argument? I put again the image with some Costisa pottery:
You too. ------------- |