Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Medieval Transylvania |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 3456> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Tar Szernd 
Consul 
Joined: 28-Aug-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 384 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Medieval TransylvaniaPosted: 20-Oct-2007 at 09:30 |
|
Hi Menumorut!
Its important for my following answer: christianized people: wich century? 4,5, 6, 7, or even after the bulgarian conquest?
I got a new article from the Histria magazine, about the Gesta and the hung. conq. in Transylwania from Istvn Bna, There are a lot of things in it what you have already heard from me and other hungarians here on Allempires, but I 'll translate it for you (certenly on my english level:-)).
TSZ
|
|
 |
|
|
Menumorut
Chieftain 
Joined: 02-Jun-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1423 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Oct-2007 at 14:06 |
|
The Daco-Roman population, who always was majoritary in all regions, was having a form of popular Christianism.
In 4th century the contacts with the South of Danube were still present and there are some Christian objects found, especialy in the North of the former province, in the area of Porolissum (the third city of Roman Dacia in number of population), today Moigrad, Salaj county. It seems that the pagan religion stopped to be practiced by the population in both the areas of the former province and in the lands of the Free Dacians. The Goths who settled in Muntenia and Moldavia for 100 years were pagan but in their time Christianism was preached among them by some missionaries, the most famous being Saint Sabbas the Goth (actualy a Microasian) who was killed by Goths by drowing in the river Musayos. From the story of the life and death of Sabbas we learn that the Goths from Muntenia were living in villages and some villges were having Christian churches and priests. In the areas of Buzau and Prahova mountains have been discovered rupestrian Christian hermitages from 4th century. In Basarabia, especialy on the right bank of Dniestr river, there are several rupestrian hermitages from many epochs, some of them being from 4-5th centuries. In Transylvania have been discovered Christian objects showing an eclesial period. Anyway, the settlement of the Goths in Muntenia and then in Moesia, hardened the contacts between the North-Danubian population with the Christian centers from South. Actualy, in the time of Gothic occupation, the Dacians from Moldavia and Muntenia chosed to live in isolated places, because there are not Dacian sites from this period, as it is from the period before (2-3rd centuries) and after (5-7th centuries). With the fall of Danube frontier and the occpation of Balkans by Slavs, the contacts with the South of Danube became almost inexistent. If in 5th century we still can speak about a material culture in some areas which shows the conscience of the Roman origin, in 6-7th centuries the population is barbarizing. Surprinsinlgy, the pottery is of Roman tradition but the Dacic tradition is impressingly strong, especialy in Ipotesti culture. The religion of the population in 5-7th century was a sort of popular Christianism, without an eclesial organization or rituals, without churches and priests. Some elements of the pagan religion persisted. An aspect which deruted the archaeologists is the funerary rite, the incineration predominating. This made many of the them believe that the Daco-Romans were pagans. Actualy, the population was Christian but preserved the incineration, as the Christians in 1-3rd centuries also practiced. There are objects discovered in the Daco-Roman sites showing that this population was Christian. Look some images: vesels from Biharia. The one at nr. 1 is from 5-7th century 
Graves at the cemetery nr. 1 at Bratei (4th century). Despite the graves are of incineration, one grave is in the shape of a cross 
Two Christian seals from Palatca (Cluj county) and Jabar (Timis county) used for the consecration of the bread; they are from 4-5th century. 2). Stencil for cross-shape jewels from Snmiclaus (Alba county), 5-6th century 
Christianized Dacian pottery from Poian (Covasna county), 7th century 
5-7th century Christian stencils from Botosana (Iasi county, Moldavia), Dumbraveni (Mures county), Straulesti (near Bucharest), Olteni (Covasna county), Traian, Poienita, Cristur (Hargihta county) 
5-7th century objects from Moldavia 
Potterry from the cemetery nr. 2 at Bratei (7th century) 
In 8th century (caused by the foundation of the first Bulgar empire), the Christianism in organized forms started to spread from Balkans, brought by romanized and Christianized population from South of Danube. The first Christian burials are from 8th century, in settlements right on the bank of Danube, the most important being at Izvoru (Giurgiu county), where a cemetery with 344 Christian inhumation graves have been discovered. 
Inhumation burials were present in the territory of Dacia permanently, in the Daco-Roman necropolises allways a percenteage being of burial and at the migratory people being practiced more the burial than the incineration (Goths, Gepids). Th Slavs were practicing rather the incineration, but having (until 8th century) a different than Daco-Romans funerary rite (the Daco-Romans were having a funerary rite of Dacian and Roman tradition, the Slavs were practicing the incineration in urna). At this we should add the two recent discoveries from Cluj county, the first being from 8th century (also later) and the second not yet dated but by how it looks I don't believe is older than 9th century. With the Christianization of the Bulgar empire, the Romanians suffered the proces of introducing the Slavonic language as language of the church services. The Slavonic language became too the offficial language of documents and of the court and this was the main reason for the presence of the Slavic words in Romanian. Signs on the pottery from Bucov (Prahova county), 8-10th century 
8-11th century objects from Moldavia  Edited by Menumorut - 20-Oct-2007 at 14:10 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Menumorut
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Jun-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1423 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Oct-2007 at 07:27 |
|
I have forget to mention the early Christianism in Dobrudja. It was well developped:
http://www.arhiepiscopiatomisului.ro/istoric/2_istoric_crestin_cu_specif_loc/3marturii_arh_crest.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cezar
Chieftain
Joined: 09-Nov-2005 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1211 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 07:41 |
|
Hey, Menumorut, when you have new informations about such discoveries pm me. I was in Cluj last week and I could have came out with some more information about that discovery.
I thought of this thread to be extinct, maybe I can come up with some useful information since I do travel a lot into the country, though for now it seems that Transylvania awaits me from next year. There's still a delegation bound for Harghita, maybe I'll be nominated to go there.
Or maybe should I pm you when I'm leaving somewhere?
|
|
|
|
|
Menumorut
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Jun-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1423 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 13:13 |
|
Yes, pm me, I know well Romania, objectives which are known and objectives which are not known.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tar Szernd
Consul
Joined: 28-Aug-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 384 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 12:59 |
|
Hello, here is the article :
Istvn Bna:
The value of Anonymus's Gesta as a source
If a historian or archaeologist of the 20 th Century want to write about the history of the Trans Tisza region and Transylvania in the time of the hungarian conquest, he had to decide to use or not to use the most voluminous/most "detailed" "source", Master P (Anonymus) 's Gesta Hungarorurum.
If the historian made a compromis, he/she will meet with difficulties, like hungarian and other other historians since 200 years.
The gesta was writen in the begin of the 13 th Century,, its copy from the 14 th was discowered in the 18 th Century, and since the first edition in 1746 it became a kind of "Holy Script". But its documentary and geographical datas need to be thoroughly revised today from the standpoint of the contemporary written sources, archaeological founds and observations.
The first steps had been made by the historical source criticism by the end of the 19 th Century, wich became scientific at that time and proved step by step that the geographical, ethnographical and political dates/names/acts in the gesta are showing the situation arround 1200.
Its genre is in the 1200's flourishing romantic history=gesta, so it can't be handled as a source for historians, max. just for a literature-historian.
Made-up heroes
The writer of the Gesta had not any knowlidge -except of rpd and some other hungarian chiefs/leaders from different periods of the 10 th Century-
about the real actors and events of the hungarian conquest, and - except of some misunderstanded datas of Regino-
about the contemporary sources
about the names of the magyar's main enemies (I. and II. Svatopluk, II Moimir, Arnulf, german king and emperor, Braslav, prince of Pannonia, Simeon, bulgarian zar, Luitpold bayuwarian prince)
about the battle of Bratislava/pressburg/Pozsony, wich was one of the most important events
about the possible and real centres of the local defense (Csongrad, Mosaburg, the transylvanian and the danubian belgrad).
he didn't know -except the bulgars- the true enemy nations (moravians, slovenians, carantans, francs, bayuwarians), and he made two different tribes from the pechenegs (bisseni, picenati).
He had no other choice: he had to create enemies and persons, who could be beaten by his fabulous hungarian heroes. he creatod persons from rivernames (f.e. Laborc), from mountains (f.e. tarcal, Zobor -from the slavian name of a hill by Nitra: Sobor (Temple hill), the name giver of the benedict-abby of Zobor from the 11 th century), from villages (Gald, Gyalu, Mart). So he made soldiers and chiefs like f.e. the bulgarian Laborczy, the cuman Turzol, the bohemian Zobur, the walachian gelou and a cuman from Vidin: Glad.
The two main enemies, the bulgarian Saln and the khazar Mnmart are Anonymus's own fabulous creations, too.
His enemy nations: the bohemians, who were living in the time of the conquest in the Bohemian-basin; the cumans (kipchaks), who arrived arround 1055 in East-Europe; and walahs, who appeared in the Carpathian-basin in the 12 th Century -All of them are evidence for the late 12 th Century.
Most of his hungarian conquestor chiefs are not else than the "ancestors" of the noble families who existed in the 13th Century. They were the proved descendants of the leader families (with hungarian, bayuwarian, svebian origin) of the new state-organization of the 11th century.
Anonymus's purpose was -according to himself- the ideological upbacking of the rights of the ruling hungarian noble clans, who considered themself as antient conquerors. These "de genere" (Anonymus was the first, who used this term) families conquered their possessions during 10 years in bloody fights and battles, so their possession was as imperishable as the rule of the rpdian dinasty.
Though there were made attempts at prooving real clan/family traditions in the Gesta, the results are doubtful, because the relevant passages are connected with ahistorical events.
Studies about the history of Transylvania in the time of the hungarian conquest were/are based mainly on Anonymus:
The conquestors came trough the Verecke pass into the Carpathians, and they continued their way from the Tisza along the Szamos and attented to get into Transylvania trough the Meszes pass. But at the beginning they collided into Mnmart, khazarian chief with bulgarian hearth, lord of Szatmr and Bihar fortesses. They couldn't beat Mnmart, so they made an alliance with him. "Some walach" (quidam blacus) "chief" (dux), Gelou organizedfor resistance the inhabitants (Blasi et Sclaui), who were never been described during their history such disdainful as by -by the romanian historians praised- Anonymus. (it is not usual to quote this part of the sentence: "uiliores homines essent tocius mundi")
The historical studies of the slavian and romanian nations living together today with the hungarians doesn't use the methods of the historical source-criticism in the Anonymus-question. Moreover, they made a step back in the 20 th Century: they attribute to the writer (as a crown-witness) and his work totally authenticity as a war report from the end of the 9th Century, and they're looking at him as (as notarius of the hungarian king) unquestionable objective.
The romanian and transylvanian saxon history writing of today see -by Anonymus and by the codex copier from deformed villagenames created- Gelou (Gyalu), Mnmart (Mart), and Glad (Gald) as authentical, and their "acts" as the "homedefending" fights of the romanian nation, and their alleged territories as feudalic voivid states (voievodatul).
It can't be made a compromis or the approaching of the different views until the history writing is under the rule of state-national viewpoints.
...
|
|
|
|
|
Menumorut
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Jun-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1423 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 13:26 |
|
Gesta could not be entirely a fiction. The mentioning of Menumorut and Gelou with their fortresses, Bihar and Doboka, has a perfect corespondence in archaeology. How do you explain that Anonymus is knowing that Pannonia was under Bulgar domination, because this situation existed only in 9-10th century? Why Gesta mention the presence of Bulgars (perhaps Avars), Slavs and Vlachs in Pannonia, because in his time these population should no more exists there? Why he mention Slavs in Transylvania because also these have alreaby been assimilated in his time?
The Gesta Hungarorum tells the story of Menumorut twice. In the first passage, Menumorut declined "with a Bulgarian heart" (Bulgarico corde superbe mandando; Gesta Hungarorum, cap. 51) the request of the Magyar ruler rpd (907) to cede his territory between the Somes river and the Meses Mountains, and in the negotiations with the ambassadors Usubuu and Veluc of rpd he invoked the sovereignty of the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI the Wise. The ambassadors of rpd crossed the Tisza and came to the capital fortress of Biharia, demanding important territories on the left bank of the river for their duke. Menumorut replied: "Tell Arpad, duke of Hungary, your lord: Indebted we are to him as a friend to a friend, with all requisite to him, since he is a stranger and lacks many. Yet the territory he asked from our good will never will we bestow as long as we will be alive. And we felt sorry that duke Salanus conceded him a very large territory out either of love, which it is said, or out of fear, which is denied. Ourself on the other hand, neither out of love nor out of fear, we will ever concede him land, not even if spanning only a finger, although he said he has a right on it. And his words do not trouble our heart that he stressed he descends from the strain of king Attila, which was called the scourge of God. And if that one raped this country from my ancestor, now thanks to my lord the emperor of Constantinople, nobody can snatch it from my hands." (Wikipedia) You reopen subjects on which we already discussed. Menumorut cann't be a Khazar because he is declining with Bulgar heart, because he consider the Byzantine emperor his sovereign and because he says that Attila has raped the country from his ancestor (so, he consider himself the descendant of the autochtonous population). In conclusion, Gesta was grounded on some chronicles or oral traditions, which were strongly deformed but there are some authentic elements. Look some images of Biharia:  
And a description: Biharia Comune in Bihor county (at 12 kms NW of Oradea), in the limit of which, on the Western bank of river Cosmeu it's preserved a large earth fortress. This is of a rectangular plan (~180 / 220 m at the exterior of the moat), waves wide of 20/30 m at basis and 5-7 m high and moat 4-5 m deep, srrounding the fortress on three sides. To East, were is flowing Cosmeu, the moat is missing, here a lower fortification being sticked to the wave, of circular plan, called "The Fortress of the Girls". This is dated, it seems, from the Primitive comune and it was reused with the building of the large rectangular fortress. ...The Biharia fortress was identified with "castrum Byhor" atested in the Chronilce of Anonymus as a politicaly-military center of the Bihor voivodate ruled by the "duke Menumorut". ... Se pare ca centrul ducatului bihorean s-a mutat n secolul 11 de la B. la Oradea... precum si bordeie semiadncite datate din sec. 5-6, 7-8, 8-9 si 9-10, atestnd o locuire... ...There have been discovered demi-deep huts dated in 5-6th, 7-8th, 8-9th and 9-10th centuries. Today Biharia is a Hungarian locality and on the site of the comune is sayed that there was a Gepid settlement and an early Hungarian cemetery there. Actualy, the material culture of the 5-6th century is of Roman tradition, I post again these images:  
For comparison, look how Gepid artefacts are looking: http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/bibliotheca/relatii%20interetnice%20in%20transilvania/2%20miercurea/articol1.htm Also, the area of Silvania (Salaj county, near Bihor) is having in 7-10th century a pottery showing a Roman tradition: The finding allows the assumption that this type of pottery is the product of Romanian/old Romanian groups of population. Under the circumstances, for the northwest of Romania, an important aspect stays unclearified, that is, the origin of these communities. So it can be taken into account two hypotheses: a. a local evolution; b. the movement of certain groups of population. The first hypotheses reffers to the possibility of a local origin for the groups of Romanian/and old Romanian population, the author of fast wheel made pottery, comparable to that of Roman provincial style. The usage of fast wheel made pottery, denots superior technological knowledge and methods, transmited from the late Antiquity. But, for the moment, the research from the north-west of Romania didnt find the mechanisms through which this knowledge was perpetuated throughout quite a long historical period lungi (Stanciu 2003, p. 265). As for the second hypothesis it can be accepted the idea of the movement of groups of Romanian/old Romanian population from the inside of Transylvania (the former Roman Dacia province) towards the north-west of Romania. It is assumed an east to west movement, as the Nuşfalău Ţigoiul lui Benedek site is dated earlier than the one from Lazuri Lubi Tag, which, at this stage of research, represents the westernmost discovery of that type. The full article downloadable at: http://files-upload.com/files/592659/Istorie%20Bacuet%20Crisan%20Avram%20Dan%2012.03.2005.pdf Edited by Menumorut - 09-Nov-2007 at 14:20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tar Szernd
Consul
Joined: 28-Aug-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 384 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 14:03 |
|
...
Credible sources
Contemporary datas about the real history of the hungarians in the 9-11th Century were preserved in eastern (f.e. arabian from Asia Minor and Hispania, and persian) and in western (f.e. italian, netherlander and frankonian latin and east-romanian greek) sources.
There is no word about the persons and the events (or not from the time of the conquest) of the Gesta in these scripts, and in the earliest known hungarian source, wich was the disapeared "antient gesta" from arround 1060, copied into the oldest chronic -the Gesta Ungarorum- during the rule of I. Ladislaus.
We know just the outline events of the hungarian conquest. There is no evidence until now, that the early hungarian and kabar campaigns in alliance with the Carolings/and moravians against Pannonia/and Moravia in 862, 881, 892, 894 were started from a base in the Carpathian-basin. But the situation changed in 894, during the last campaign into Pannonia, because it coincided with the death of I. Svatopluk in the autumn and with the bulgarian campaign in alliance with Byzantium against I. Simeon.
At the end of the year the pechenegs attacked the eastern part of the hungarian territory, and in 895 the bulgars defeated the hungarian south-army. These men couldn't go back to their homeland bacause of the pechenegs so they had had to move trough the South-Carpathians to the north, where they met the hungarian tribes who fled/moved possible trough all of the East-Charpatian passes into Transylvania. The west army (wich fought in Pannonia) couldn't -or didn't want to- go back to the steppe, too.
This means that in 895 all of the main hungarian powers arrived into the Carpathian-basin. The western borders were the Danube and probably the Garam river, and they begun to wind up the bulgarian rule in the south zones.
Periods of the conquest
In the next years (896-900) there weren't any military acts in the Carpathian-basin. This was the period of furnishing in the new territories. The Caroling Pannonia was ruled by the slav Braslav dux, and it was peace between the moravians and hungarians.
The second period started with the military alliance between I. Arnulf and the hungarians. In 898 a small hungarian force -let trough Pannonia by Arnulf- made an agressive reconnaissance in Friaul an Marche (both enemies of the emperor). In the summer of 899 -on behalf of Arnulf- they started a large-scale campaign into North-Italy against I. Berengar. They beated him by the river Brenta in 24 th September, and they didn't lost any important battle 33 years long since that.
At the same time a brother-war was broken out (898-899) in Moravia after the death of I. Svatopluk. Arnulf supported II. Svatopluk, and probably the hungarians were helping him too.
But Arnulf died suddenly in 8th December 899. The hungarians considered the alliance with him as invalidated and this was the same case with hte Arnulf allianced II. Svatopluk. Because the alliance was not renewed by the Carolings (IV. Louise), nor by the Moimirids, the hungarians attacked and occupied Moravia between the Garam and the Morava rivers and in the same time the from Italy returning hungarian forces occupied Pannonia.
So the second period of the hungarian conquest ended in the summer of 900. the bayuwarians builded Ennsburg against them already in the autumn and, according to the Annales of Fulda, on the both sides of the Danube attacking hungarians returned into their "own" pannonia.
The crushing of II. Moimir's Moravia in 902 served the secure of the new conquered west- and north-carpathian territories, and they totally destroyed the counter-attacking bayuwars in a giant battle by the old main fortess of Braslav (Brezalauspurc=Pressburg) in 4-5th July 907, wich resulted the definitive hungarian dominance.
The history of the hungarian campaigns between 862 and 970 (862-955 in the west) has been analysed and writen up f.e. by hungarian, german, italian and french historians, and all of them acknowlidge that these were well organized and mostly succesful. The hungarian horsemen achieved great victories at the beginning against the armies of Italy, Bayuwaria, Thringia, East-Franken, Saxonia, Burgundia, they besieged and burned a lot of west-european and italian cities. they reached Dania, Bremen, the La Manche, the Atlantic in Aquitania, Al Andaluz, Otranto in Italy, Constantinople and Thessalonice.
Compaired with their real battles and campaigns, the fantasy of Anonymus sentenced them to fight with some fictitious Laborczys, Zobors, Gelous and Glads. Those, who besieged f.e. Beneventum, Narbonne and reims were standing helpless under the "biharian fortess" of "Menumorout" (usually it is quoted in these archaic hungarian form, but it can't lose its meaning: "moravian stallion").
The hungarians were feared over the Alps and the Pyrenees, over the Rhine, the Seine and the Danube, and they had to shrink back from the meszes pass, from the Maros (Mures) and from the Vg rivers, and from fabulous heroes, ruling county-sized territories?
Bna Istvn, in : Histria, Okt. 2007
(and in :Bna: The short History of Transylvania, 1989. Bp. /"Erdly rvid trtnete")
TSZ
Edited by Tar Szernd - 09-Nov-2007 at 18:04 |
|
|
|
|
Tar Szernd
Consul
Joined: 28-Aug-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 384 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 14:06 |
|
Please, let Wikipedia behind you.
I have found other interesting sources/etc , I'll write them too, and 'll try to answer your questions.
TSZ
|
|
|
|
|
Menumorut
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Jun-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1423 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 14:21 |
|
Wikipedia is only describing the text of Gesta.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Menumorut
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Jun-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1423 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 00:32 |
|
The next information is about Transylvania's territory during the Roman period but it helps understand why a signifiant Latinized population remained in the area of former Roman Dacia.
Transylvanias Roman past visible from the air By Norman Hammond, Archaeology Correspondent TRANSYLVANIA means, to most of us, vampire counts in Gothic castles, but centuries before this province of Romania acquired its sanguinary reputation it was a peaceful province of the Roman Empire, literally the land beyond the forest. A team from Glasgow University has now used aerial archaeology to locate Roman farms and forts in Transylvania, showing an impressive level of population density and organisation. Writing in the journal Archaeological Prospection, William Hanson and Ionana A. Oltean, a Romanian archaeologist at Glasgow, report that the dry summer of 2000 yielded a large number of parchmarks visible from the air. These are areas of restricted crop growth indicating the presence of buried stone walls, which make for a shallower, drier soil and plants that are paler than their fellows on wetter areas nearby. Their survey covered part of the Mures basin and the Hateg plain to the south, in the heartland of the ancient Dacian kingdom conquered by the Roman Emperor Trajan. At Alba Iulia, the legionary fortress of Apulum, they detected civil settlement outside the walls, now threatened by modern urban development; at Cigmau, the Roman Germisara, a complex pattern of settlement was revealed. The Roman fort sits on a hilly spur, and is long, narrow and irregular, unlike the usual rectangular plan; buildings identified inside it include the headquarters, what was probably the commanders house, and a large granary at least 20 metres (63ft) long. The civilian settlement or vicus outside has been known about for a long time, but the parchmarks revealed numerous stone buildings, running for nearly 400 meters. A previously unknown Roman villa was found at Oarda, and is one of the few examples known in Dacia with multiple buildings. There are several ranges grouped around what seems to have been a large courtyard. Another previously unknown villa was found at Vintu de Jos in the next small valley to the southwest, where there seems to have been a preceding native settlement of oval houses with sunken floors. The investigators, whose flying programme was funded by the Leverhulme Trust, were surprised at the lack of positive cropmarks, where crops grow higher over loose, wet deposits such as ditch fill. One answer may be that the Mures valley has wide areas of alluvium, where the difference between undisturbed soils and refilled features is low, a phenomenon noted in aerial surveys in Britain also. The restrictions imposed by the former communist regime mean that aerial archaeology in Romania is in its infancy: the results of the Glasgow team, and the encouraging precedents set by Otto Braasch and James Pickering in the former East Germany, suggest that the Roman occupation of Transylvania will prove to have been as highly organised as in the core provinces of the Empire. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...ticle852705.ece |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anton
Caliph 
Joined: 23-Jun-2006 Location: Bulgaria Online Status: Offline Posts: 2888 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 10:48 |
|
that might be too old reply to a post written in 2005 (beggining of this thread) but it might be interesting to some of you. Plural of biblean "volhv" in slavonic languages will be "volhvi" but not "volohi" as Gerik claimed. However, volohy does not necesserily mean "Vlach". For instance, in Jirecek I read that Poles, Croats, Chezhs and Slovenians call Italians "volohy".
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 01:35 |
|
You are wrong Anton, at least in Russian it's also volohi. Just take a look at the Primary Chronicle of Nestor. Volhv means pagan priest or wizard.
|
|
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
|
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006 Location: Bulgaria Online Status: Offline Posts: 2888 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 01:49 |
|
So plural of "volhv" is "volohi"? |
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006 Location: Bulgaria Online Status: Offline Posts: 2888 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 02:19 |
|
I might be wrong but I cheked one version of Nestor here: http://www.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=4869
When he speaks about Valahs he call them Volohi when he speaks about mags he call them volhvi or volosvi, volisvov etc. He always put V at the end. All this however does not change the fact that Poles, Croats and Chezch call (or called earlier) Italians "volohi"
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 02:24 |
|
Volhv is a wizard, plural from volhv is volhvy. Plural from voloh (ethnicity) is volohi.
|
|
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
|
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 02:30 |
|
Actually, I just realized that was saying the same thing as you.
Sorry for the misleading post. Yes, plural from volhv (mag, wizard) is volhvy. This is what you are saying, right?
|
|
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
|
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006 Location: Bulgaria Online Status: Offline Posts: 2888 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 09:31 |
|
exactly.
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
Chilbudios
Arch Duke 
Joined: 11-May-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1900 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 09:56 |
|
Anton, is there a Bulgarian word with similar phonetism and meaning? I'm asking because in Romanian folklore there's a certain type of fairy/witch (reigning in nature - waters, woods, etc.) called vlvă and has some interesting phonetical (the term as it is in Romanian is in feminine form, we can reconstruct a masculine as *vlv) and semantical similarities with the Russian term, but AFAIK the strong contacts between Romanians and Russians are much later, so if it is a loanword from Slavic I'd expect it to be borrowed from Serbs or Bulgarians.
|
|
|
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006 Location: Bulgaria Online Status: Offline Posts: 2888 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 12:40 |
|
Bulgarian as Russian has vluhv (влъхв). I think it is common for Slavonic languages or came to Russian with slavonic Bible (those three wise guys who came to see born Jesus were called volhvi in slavonic translation). These valvas looks more like Vilas or samovilas. But I am not sure if vila can be transfered linguistically to valva. Why don't you consider that word Volhv actually came from word Vlach to Slavs? I think vlachs looked pretty much magicians to slavs
 . BTW,there is a pretty funny but rather interesting Russian fantasy book "Osenniy Lis" (Autumn Fox) about a Vlachian guy.
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 3456> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.070 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.070 seconds.
