"Slavic settlements in the Balkans"
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=4520
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 11:44
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: "Slavic settlements in the Balkans"
Posted By: Guests
Subject: "Slavic settlements in the Balkans"
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 06:13
|
Here is a web site duscussing the matter......... http://www.rastko.org.yu/arheologija/tstefanovicova-greece_e.html - http://www.rastko.org.yu/arheologija/tstefanovicova-greece_e .html There is a lot of debates here about "Slavs" , i have posted before that they settled all across the Balkans, intermingled with the previous populace, creating the new peoples today. Slav no longer is a ethnic group (not if someone today can tell me if any nationality calls himself a slav), slavic is only a language group, the slavic language group in the Balkans are not slav by origin, well not pure slavic, from Romania to the tip of the Peloponessus (modern Greece) the mix is on a great scale, if one goes through history you will see that a lot of ethnic groups occupied the balkans and settled there. If we go this way the mixture is evident: Serbs are Slavic-Illyrian(Dacian?), Germanic Celtic group & nbsp; & nbsp; Bulgarians are Slavic-Tatar(Vulgar), Thracian, Armenian, Turkic group Greeks are Hellenic-Slav, Roman, Turkic group Macedonians are Macedonian-Slav, Roman,Illyrian, Thracian Turkic group Romanians are Dacian(Thracian), Slav, Roman group my point is the Balkans are a mixture of these peoples, the history for these modern peoples started when these countries where created after the Ottoman Empire. |
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 06:34
|
Here is another web site that explains more........... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs note: " In the early history of the Slavs, and continuing into the Dark Ages, non-Slavic groups were sometimes assimilated by Slavic-speaking populations: the Bulgars became Slavicized and their Turkic tongue disappeared; in other cases, Slavs themselves were assimilated into other groups such as the Romanians, Magyars, Greeks, etc. The Croats and the Serbs were probably merged Alans and/or Illyrians."
|
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 12:23
|
Genetics and linguistic/cultural identity are not one and the same thing. That's self-evident. |
Posted By: TheodoreFelix
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 15:46
|
No Agema, the Balkans isnt as mixed as you may think past Serbs and Croats, whom are largely made up of Slavinized Illyrian populants. Their numbers were too few to displace the population of then Illyrians, however their influence was very heavy. The Avars didnt stay in the Balkans long enough to bring any big blood donations but did place Slavs as the ruling populace and the dominant population in the region. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 21:32
|
Iskender they are not just my views, these web sites explained more detailed, you do know that the Illyrians & Thracians(Phrygians, Dacians) were a very numerous group in the Balkans. The ancient Hellenes described these people as the biggest populace in the Balkans, and if they were joined, which they weren't, they would have destroyed the Hellenic civilisation, to misplace these populations you would need a big influx migrations which i think didn't happen on a scale some historians think, but there only influence was the language, and even that isn't pure Slavic, modern day South Slavic Languages are mixed with ancient Thracian, Illyrian and even ancient Hellenic words, that is how the linguists showed similarities between these languages, not forgeting even Modern Albanian. These languages Modern Macedonian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek & Romanian have common bond even though they all belong to a different group of languages. If there was a big influx of Slavic tribes in Greece were are they, unless they mixed with the locals forming today modern Greeks, but on this forum some people write about other people being of Slavic descent, when in fact they are also....but they have there opinion, that's fine. |
Posted By: TheodoreFelix
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 21:42
|
Macedonian is Bulgarian, the two are slavic languages, which probably differ in dialect. Am I wrong? Cant Bulgarians pretty much understand Serb, Croat and Bosnian? Along with upper Slavic nations with more difficulty? Albanian has common origins with Romanians, which is believed was created through the Dardani tribe, which was a Thrako-Dacian/Illyrian tribe. Romanian is latin based. They not only share over 300 words which are only found between the two, but also many vocab rules follow similar properties.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 22:02
|
"Macedonian is Bulgarian, the two are slavic languages, which probably differ in dialect. Am I wrong? Cant Bulgarians pretty much understand Serb, Croat and Bosnian? Along with upper Slavic nations with more difficulty?" Macedonian is closest to Bulgarian, but is also close to Serbo-Croat, there isn't officialy a Bosnian language, and Macedonian is an official language, besides, if the Slavs occupied the Balkans brought there dialects to the local populace the language was already there before the real Bulgars(Tatars) came, it was wrong calling "Old Church Slavonic" a Bulgarian language when the language was already there prior the Slav influx. But a lot of Byzantine chronicles do mention that Macedonians and Serbs as Bulgarians, something to think about because chronogicaly it doesn't add up: *5-6 AD- Slavs arrive in Balkans (intermingle with Hellenes, Macedonians, Thracians, Illyrians & etc.) 7-8 AD - Bulgars arrive in the Balkans (adopt a language that is common all around them), and then modern scholars call this Bulgarian, why call it bulgarian when it was a Slavic dialect to start with....and prior to that nobody ever heard of Bulgarians....
|
Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2005 at 15:50
|
I must correct you Agema. There is absolutely no difference between a Macedonian and a Bulgarian. Macedonian is officialy recognized as an official lenguage, because of the efforts of Tito's communists to make Macedonian and Bulgarian as diverse as possible, and their international "popularity", shall we say it. Yugoslavia had wide international support, where as Bulgaria was hidden behind the "iron curtoin" and had no means of protecting the Bulgarians in Yugoslavia from Macedonization and Serbization. The Bosniaks were also being assimilated and that's why Bosnian wasn't proclamed an official lenguage. But Macedonian still is closer to Bulgarian then Bosnian is to Serbian, if I'm not misstaking. And why did the Serbs bother Macedonizing the Bulgarians in Macedonia you ask? This was a prelude to their Serbization. And why not directly "Serbize" them you ask? That was impossible, because the Bulgarians hated the Serbs for the brutal occupation and Serbization of Macedonia during the period 1913-1944. Since the Serbization was unsuccesful the Serbs decided to try to "Macedonize" the population. And it was quite succesful because the Bulgarians prefered being "Macedonians" instead of Serbs. That is how the Macedonian nation and lenguage were created. Untill 1944 there were practicaly no differences between Macedonian and Bulgarian. The Macedonian lenguage was officialy established in a monastery in Macedonia by a few "Macedonian" linguists, forced by the commies to right a grammer of the "Macedonian" language. I'll try to find and post that monasterie's name later. One of those linguists is still alive. Two or three years ago he published his memoirs in Macedonia in a book called "Blood can't become water". After 60 years he found the courage to admit the betrayal to his own people. I'll look for the article where I red this and if I find it I'll give you his name, more details and hopefuly - links. |
Posted By: strategos
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2005 at 15:53
|
I challange your thought of the Greeks being as mixed as Bulgarians or Serbians are. ------------- http://theforgotten.org/intro.html |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2005 at 18:38
Makedonians are Hellines, you are obviously refering to the FYROMians. Again from a similar topic: The Slavic myth:
Of course Hellines are not a "pure race", but the available data
demonstrate that any potential introgression into the Hellinic gene
pool were minor and did not replace the indigenous people. Hence,
Fallmerayer's thesis has been disproved. Some more info:
Haplogroup R1a ranges in Slavs from very low (in
Let's start off by clearing that there are a couple of topics that contain articles and genetic maps that prove some Mongolian percentage in modern Turks. Based on that we continue. ------------- The most comprehensive study of Y-chromosomal diversity in Europe thus far is Rosser et al., [1]. The human Y chromosome is passed on from father to son. One can thus study one half of a population's ancestry (along the paternal line) by studying the Y-chromosome. Greek Y-chromosomes belong to haplogroups HG1, HG2, HG3, HG9, HG21 and HG26. None of the 35 Greek Y chromosomes are of non-Caucasoid origin. A second Y-chromosome study including Greeks have also shown similar results. Helgason et al., [2] reports one HG16 sequence of North Eurasian provenance in a sample of 42 Greeks (at least 97.6% Caucasoid). To put this in perspective, eight HG16 chromosomes occur in 110 Swedes (at least 92.7% Caucasoid) and three HG16 sequences in 112 Norwegians (at least 97.3% Caucasoid) were also found. HG16 is shared by many populations ranging from Europe to Mongolia. Its origin has been placed by [7] in the Eastern range of its current geographical distribution. A third Y-chromosome study, by Malaspina et al., [3] which included a sample of 28 continental and 83 Cretan Greeks (total sample size of 111) found no evidence of the presence of non-Caucasoid Y chromosomes in Greeks. A fourth Y-chromosome study, by Semino et al., [4] included 76 Greeks and 20 Macedonian Greeks. One Eu6 lineage, corresponding to HG10/HG36 [5] is probably of East Asian origin. One Eu17 lineage corresponds to HG 28 which is frequent in Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent [6]. In total, admixture of 2.1% is detected (if we label HG 28 as non-Caucasoid). A fifth Y-chromosome study, by Weale et al., [8] included 132 Greek students from Athens. The same haplogroups found in [1] were detected in this study. No non-Caucasoid chromosomes were found. The most recent and comprehensive study of Greek Y-chromosomes, by Di Giacomo et al., [9] included 154 individuals from continental Greece and 212 from Crete, Lesvos and Chios. In total, Greeks from thirteen separate locations were examined, thus giving the most complete picture of variation so far. A single haplogroup A chromosome was found (in Lesvos) which is usually found in Africa. The remainder belonged to haplogroups found in Caucasoid populations. The breakup (in percent) of the haplogroups observed) based on the set of markers typed is as follows. P*(xR1a) R1a DE G2 I-M170 J2(DYS413≤ 18) J2*(xDYS413≤ 18) J*(xJ2) A Y*(xA,DE,G2,I,J,P) 12.8 9.8 20.2 6.6 14.8 20.2 4.9 2.7 0.3 7.7 A newer study by Semino et al. [10] has studied two samples of Greeks of size 84 and 59 (Macedonian Greeks). The focus was on two specific haplogroups E and J which are frequent in the Mediterranean region and can be used to detect population movements between Europe, Africa and the Near East. 2.4% of Greeks belong in haplogroup E-M123 and 21.4% in E-M78. Clades of E prevalent in Northern or Sub-Saharan Africa were not found. According to Cruciani et al. [11] most Greeks and other Balkan people belong to a specific cluster α within haplogroup E-M78 that is found in lower frequencies outside the Balkans and marks migrations from the Balkan area. E-M123 and its daughter haplogroup E-M34 originated in the Near East in prehistoric times. As for haplogroup J, most Greeks (22.8% Greeks/14.3% Macedonian Greeks) belong to J-M172 and its subclades which is associated with Neolithic population movements. Only 1.8%/2.2% of Macedonian Greeks/Greeks belonged to haplogroup J-M267 which could potentially (althought not certainly) reflect more recent Near Eastern admixture. Thus, at present, in a total of seven studies, in which 925 Greek males were tested, one HG16, one HG28, one HG10/HG36, and one haplogroup A chromosomes have been found, for a total of 0.4% possible non-Caucasoid contribution to the modern Greek male gene pool. Additionally, the latest studies [9, 10] with a more refined version of the Y chromosome phylogeny indicate that influences from the Near East and North Africa in historical times are unlikely (perhaps in the order of ~2%). Additionally, Y chromosome haplogroup R1a which is very frequent in Slavic populations (>50%) is found in only around 9.8% of Greeks, and is also found at comparable frequencies further East (10.8% in Iraq; Al-Zahery et al. [12]) indicating that its presence in Greece need not be associated with medieval intrusions by Slavic speakers. The emerging picture of Y chromosome variation in Greece indicates genetic continuity, with slight influences from neighboring Caucasoid regions and virtually no influence from non-Caucasoids. Future studies with larger samples and more detailed founder analyses will allow us to obtain a better pictures of Y-chromosome variation in Greece, Europe and the world at large. At present, it appears that modern Europeans share many of the haplogroups, while there is also geographic structure in the distribution. With the exception of the Northeast corner of Europe, all other European populations have very small traces of extra-Caucasoid genetic input(a). [1] Rosser et al. (2000) European Y-Chromosome Diversity. Am J Hum Genet 67:1526-1543 [2] Helgason et al. (2000) Ancestry of Icelandic Y Chromosomes. Am J Hum Genet 67:697-717 [3] Malaspina et al. (2000) Patterns of male-specific inter-population divergence in Europe, West Asia and North Africa. Ann Hum Genet 64:395-412 [4] Semino et al. (2000) The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective [5] Zerjal et al. (2002) Y-Chromosomal Insights into Central Asia. Am J Hum Genet 71:466-482 [6] Qamar et al. (2002) Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan. Am J Hum Genet 70:1107-1124 [7] Zerjal et al. (1997) Genetic relationships of Asians and Northern Europeans, revealed by Y-chromosomal DNA analysis. Am J Hum Genet 60:11741183 [8] Weale et al. (2001) Armenian Y chromosome haplotypes reveal strong regional structure within a single ethno-national group. Hum Genet 109: 659-674 [9] Di Giacomo et al. (2003) Clinal Patterns of human Y chromosomal diversity in continental Italy and Greece are dominated by drift and founder effects. Mol Phyl Evol 28:387-395 [10] Semino et al. (2004) Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area. Am J Hum Genet (to appear) [11] Cruciani et al. (2004) Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa. Am J Hum Genet (to appear) [12] Al-Zahery et al. (2003) Y-chromosome and mtDNA polymorphisms in Iraq, a crossroad of the early human dispersal and of post-Neolithic migrations Mol Phyl Evol 28:458-472 And a bit of anthropology: J. Lawrence Angel sorted Greek skeletal tendencies into six arbitrary morphological types, including several sub-varieties. These were not “races,” but rather [1]: “Types are entirely aribitrary creations from sorting of individuals. Genetically determined traits will recombine and re-form in each new generation largely at random so that types cannot express these new individualities adequately, only schematically. At best they give a preliminary overview of change.” Angel studied skeletal material from the Paleolithic to modern times, and participated in examinations of skeletal material throughout the East Mediterranean. With respect to Greece, he found that the morphological types already established in the third millennium BC, if not before that, persisted in all subsequent ages. Thus, he emphasized the racial continuity of Greeks, stating epigrammatically [2]: “Racial continuity in Greece is striking.” 1)Angel, J. Lawrence, in Mylonas, George E., 1972-1973, Ο ταφικός κύκλος V των Μυκηνών, Εθνική Αρχαιολογική Εταιρεία, Athens 2)Angel, J. Lawrence, 1944, A racial analysis of the ancient Greeks: An essay on the use of morphological types, American Journal of Physical Anthropology Same source as above. ------------- To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent. |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 03:22
|
I think the genetic evidences are good thing, but we must take into account other things. For example the researches of the japanese scientist Hideo Matsumoto "proves" that the Japanese and the Hungarians are relatives. |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 07:54
|
Raider Wasn't it the Pechenegs or some other Mongol tribe that was assimilated by the Hungarians? If so, Prof. Matsumoto's claims are obviously backed up by historic facts, so why the suprise when he claims a genetic relation to the Japanese? ------------- To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent. |
Posted By: Menippos
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 08:17
Guys, all people in the world are relatives, thanks to the first aminoacids or the amoeba...
------------- CARRY NOTHING |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 08:22
|
Above I have read that the hungarian population has slav marker-genes, other sources mention turkic marker genes also. We have everything. To be on topic, if greeks not assimilated slavs, where they are? As much as I know large numbers of slavic peoples migrated to the territory of modern Greece in the early medieval period. |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 08:23
|
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 10:53
Maria Nystazopoulou - Pelekidou, "Les Slaves dans l' Empire Byzantin", The 17th International Byzantine Congress. Major Papers (Washington D.C., August 3-8, 1986) New York 1986, pp. 345-367, with the bibliography and the quotation of the sources; for the policy of Byzantium, see p. 355. Mention that, not only did the Byzantine empire attempt to subjugate the new settlers but also forcibly transfered Slavic populations to Anatolia in order to achieve 2 things. 1) Slavic element in the Hellenic area was arithmetically weakened, and 2) assimilation was facilitated, since Slavs who were transferred to Anatolia found themselves among a flourishing and numerous Hellinic population. This demographic measure was even applied vice-versa, that is, Hellinic populations from Anatolia were transplanted into Slavic populations, the "tactic" known as ("epi tas Sklabinias") in order to reinforce the Hellinic element in these areas. Thus we learn, for example, that emperor Nicephorus (802-811) established in the northern Hellinic area populations which he transferred from all administrative districts ("ek pantos thematos") of Anatolia. Beside the measures taken by the Byzantines, it is intering enough to note that during the time of Stefan Dusan (1331-1354), the Serbs expanded their domination into Makedonia but there is not one source to mention that the conquered population was Slavic. The Serbian expansion is mentioned in contemporary sources, as a conquest of Hellinic regions and people. As I said before, the Hellines may have a little Slavic ancestry, but they are NOT of Slavic origin. The replacement theory does not agree with the facts. No one denies that a Slavic population was assimilated, but the numbers weren't large enough to displace or alter the 'original' population of the Hellinic area. ------------- To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent. |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 10:55
Yes, Greeks should give answer to this, so we can say where the anatolian greeks. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 13:19
|
Serbs---are from Russia-sllavs Slovenian---are from ukraina Croatia---??? perhaps from ukraina Bulgarian---i think were thrakia Albanian---Illyrian Rumanian---Dacian Macedonian (FYROM)---are from bulgarian ------------- |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 13:30
|
I am going to have to disagree with you, AlbanianTrilogy. As far as I know, Croats have always been Croats. Buglarians were a Turkic tribe that heavily mixed with Slavs. Albanians are a mix of immigrants from the Caucasus, Illyrians, and Slavs. Romanians are Dacian, Roman, and Slavic. I am not sure what Macedonians are, but from what I have heard from both Greeks and Slavic people, they anything but Macedonian. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 13:51
|
Belisarius you says prapaganda from serbs, where you believe albanians from causasian?, where? you speak albanians?, are vizited you Albania?, you know albanian history? and can you see albanian race? all linguist and historians evropian says (before some serbs and rrusian not) Albanian are Discenty from Illyria, it is fact before 350 years You are from philipine but you dont nothink for Albs , ok good luck and read albanian history/culture ------------- |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 14:11
|
I do not presume to be the foremost authority on Albanian history. I am
only offering what my research has produced on the subject. Just
because I am not Albanian and from the Philippines does not mean I am
incompetent about the subject. Please do not presume so. I believe that as an outsider, I can offer an unbiased account. I was never exposed to the propaganda of the Balkans. Here is a map of the ancient Caucasus, by the way, compared to the modern Caucasus.  ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 18:16
|
OK Belisarus, i speak poor english but i understand english aniway Causas Albanian is diferent from Albanian-Illryans why? 1)we have different languages, we are different race and we have different cultute, are world know this. Albanet were kingom of illyrian about Dardanet,Kaonet,Ardianet,ect) 2) Albani were to great britain (to Scotland), are Scotish caucas??, Albany are to United Stade of Amerika ect 3) Albaniann fot XI were Arbreshet-Arberian and Arbesh werw Illyrian....Albania-Arberia-Illyria 4) Albanian are IE and this languages are same for Illyrians, Pelazgian some are to Thrakian and Etrusko-Pelazgian It is factfrom all linguist evropian...and all tomponimes illyrians are to albanians...it is fact finaly over 350 years... OK Belisarus , sorry but i speak poor english i can't to tell good you...greets ------------- |
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 18:30
|
No more tripe from Albanian nationalistic websites? Im impressed. ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 21:03
You have different language, culture and so forth. Why is that? It is because it has mixed with the native cultures. I am not saying that you do not have Illyrian blood. What I am saying is that you are not pure Illyrian. Others have argued for the similarity of names like Albani. The Albani were Picts who had existed there even before the Celtic migrations. Then there are people who ask that since a neighboring kingdom is called Iberia that we are perhaps suggesting that they were forced migrated as well to the Iberian peninsula. This situation is different because both were names given to the area by Greeks and Romans, not what the people called themselves. The Albanians in Europe were not mentioned in Byzantine historical sources until 1043, although Illyria had been part of the empire for centuries. In fact the last time the Illyrians were mentioned at all as a seperate ethnic group at all was in the 7th century. The Illyrians could have well been extinct before the Albanians displaced from the Caucasus arrived and no one would be Illyrian today. Anyway, this is what my research has produced. In the future, please do be more careful in what you say to the people who disagree with you. ------------- |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2005 at 08:20
| I strongly suspect the theory of Caucasic origin for Albanians. My reason that a place named Albania (apparently the only "proof") is not any proof. Albania means "white country" in Latin (from albus=white) and many places have been called that way: Britain (Albion), Scotland (Alba), the city of Alba Longa (ancient capital of the Latins), etc. Also there's no documentary evidence of Albanians coming from anywhere nor linguistic evidence of Albanians speaking any Caucasic tongue (even IE Caucasic ones). Finally the strongest proponents of the Caucasic theory seem to be Serb historians, who are worldwide known by their nationalistic bias. |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2005 at 09:37
|
Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 01:54
| Croats and serbs acctually settled in todays Poland and Ukriane. Serbs somewhere along where the Sorbains are now, and Croats around the Polish area of krakow and regions in ukraine. According to history emperor Heraclius invited them to fight the avars and promised them land. http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/et01.html |
Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 14:35
|
Actually, there are 17 different theories about the origin of the proto-bulgarians. All of them are more or less probable, but even to this day there is no surtain evidance that categoricaly proves one of them. The oficial theory, which is studyied in school by 7- year-olds and that is most likely to be true, is that they came from Central Asia. The Macedonians (ooops, sorry FYROMians) are Bulgarians and nothing else. However, I must dissagree with this so-called "genetic evidance". There is no such thing as a "pure nation" - a tipically nationalistic term. 47 or even more different tribes and peoples have taken part in the making of the modern Bulgarian nation over the centuries. The genetic evidance is based on the presumption that every nation has its own, typycal for it, marker genes. But to determin how many Greeks have the Greek marker genes you must study the genetic sequance of every living Greek. A few people aren't reprisentative of the hole nation! But to determine the genetic sequance of every european is practically impossible. Another thing is how much of the Ancient Greeks or the proto-bulgarians had the marker genes typycal for the modern Greeks and Bulgarians. That we shall never know. So I wouldn't trust this evidance too much. All nations are heavily mixed.Greeks have a lot of Slavic blood, especialy in the northern part. I'm not saying that they are Slavs, but that they have some Slavic blood. Bulgarians have some Greek, Turkish, blood etc. |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 16:26
|
While I will agree that claims of a 'pure race' are nonesence, we can't overlook the fact that there is obviously some reason certain traits/characteristics are seen only in some 'races'. I have personally noticed while traveling abroad that I've always seemed to 'stick out' when compared to others in appearance.(physical characteristics) I've also noticed that I can easily point out an Albanian, Bulgarian, Romanian from our close neighboring countries or any other foreigner in general, from the rest of the people that live around me or are 'natives' in general. I'm sure anyone that has traveled has noticed something very similar. So it is obviously safe to say that certain physical characteristics are developed only among people that share common genes. ------------- To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent. |
Posted By: Hrodger
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 18:56
There is a similar strange relation between Berber and Saami, too. |
Posted By: Red_Lord
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2005 at 19:26
|
Could some one tell me why germans hate us(the slavs) so much? And about macedonian problem: First the macedonia of Alexander the great is a mix of thracians+greeks of course not slavianic empire as claims FYRM.In fact when proto-bulgars came on the Balkans they came with plan to assimilate tha slavianic population. 1)Not only Asparukh came to Dunabe but also his brother Kubber(in todays FYRM).They want to siege Constantinopole with a some kind of big ring.And in 680-800 the population of macedonians region became clear bulgars(it was to 1918).So the slavianik element in Greece is not small.My grand grand Father was born in Solun(Thessaloniki) and he was a bulgar but after WWI the region falls under greek ruling. 2) In fact the name of penisua is "Balkan" a plain in Bulgaria.So I can say that the name comes from Bulgaria(the first slavianic country with the richest history). 3)Balkans are mix of ants but we like that ------------- "The slave is fighting for freedom,free is fighting for perfectness" Yane Sandanski |
Posted By: anchorcheck
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 19:20
|
Very interesting discussion board. I am fascinated by ancient European history, and particularly ancient slavic history. Recently I read some studies about prehistoric europe, that suggested, based upon genetic studies, that at the glacial maximum, habitable areas of europe were reduced in size. One of these areas may have been southern France and the Iberian penninsula, and another area centering on Coatia and the western pontic area, around Moldavia today, possibly. I have not seen any maps on this information, and I had only quickly read much of this information, so I am not entirely clear on this theory. Essentially, the theory is that as the glaciers retreated, the peoples who inhabited these refuges, gradually repopulated the areas the glaciers were retreating from. But, again, I am not real familiar with this theory. Certainly, the differences between the physical types in Scandinavia and Spain are quite striking, so there must be more population differences than just this factor. I also had read in my meanderings that the ancient slavs were nordic, in the long headed shape, but that they changed to brachycephalic (round headed) as the centuries progressed. This was taken from ancient skulls found in Bohemia, if I recall. It showed a constant change to more and more brachycephalic readings through the centuries. Also, there is information I recall reading that immigrants to the US change their skull shape. Thus, the children of immigrants are more long headed than round headed. That was always a head scratcher for me. Also, the information about the Czech skull shape was considered to be a head scratcher by the scholars who recognized this change in head shape over time. Now, the idea posted by someone here about the change to round headed measurements in the Slavic populations being the result of difficult economic circumstances, is interesting. I'm not sure if this makes sense, either, but it might. Particularly in view of the change in head shape of American immigrants. Are the head shapes changing as better food is being eaten? Could head shape be effected by the soil where food is raised? I know that people seem to be getting larger. In America, I see many different people from around the globe. It is a fact that Asians become taller if they are raised in the US. I am sure that the easy availability of food is making people larger. Even when I was a child 50's, we were not allowed to eat whenever we wanted. We were told to not eat between meals, as this would ruin our appetite for the meal. And, I know that weight lifters live by the rule that in order to get big, you must eat big. Thus, the observations about people being small in ancient times likley depends upon what the economic circumstances were. Ancient Viking warriors averaged about 5 foot 8 inches. The Cromagnon people of Southwest France were quite large, with men averaging around 5 foot 10", I recall. And women around 5 foot 7", I think. I have read that natural selection made the physiques of these ancient people similar to those of professional atheletes. In other words, exceptionally robust. They can tell this from the bones, and the wear pattern that the ligamnets have upon the bones. This trait has diminished as populations became agriculturally based, and no longer needed to be selected for physical rugedness. Thus, the ancient finding of skeletel remains in Bugaria of very large people, and the 2 metter tall man in Poland is not so unusual, possibly. I read of one Cromagnon man who was 6 foot 5". So, the idea is that people can be quite large, if the genetics is there, and the access to high quality and large amounts of food. I believe the tallest people in Europe, are in Northern Europe, but possibly this is changing, as Eastern Europe gets better nutrition. I recall this information from demographic maps made on the soldiers being recruited into the armies of the first world war. Another very tall region was Montenegro, which was an independent country prior to WWI. Blondness and blue eyes is a trait centered around the Baltic Sea, I have read. When did people become blond and blue eyed? Possibly this was a trait that developed somewhat recently (thousands of years?). Maybe when people repopulated the north after the glaciers receded. The question of what happens to the original population of an area when there is a mass migration out or in always was interesting to me, also. For instance, Bohemia was named after the Celtic tribe known as the Boii, who were written about by the Romans. Next came Germanic tribes in Bohemia. Then, I believe Bohemia was settled by the Slavs after Germanic tribes left. But, did portions of the Boii remain in Bohemia, and portions of the Germanic tribes remain in Bohemia as the Slavs moved in? Much of what is today modern Germany was inhabited by Slavic tribes. I have heard that Western Germans are a bit dismissive of the eastern Germans, saying they are from these Slavic backgrounds. But, the Slavs who inhabited much of Germany, right up to Southern Denmark, were obviously absorbed into what became the population of Germany, I think. I believe that what was all of eastern Germany, was inhabited by various tribes collectively known of as the Wends. The Obradites were a powerful tribe located around what is today Hamburg, just south of Denmark. The island of Rugen, just east of Denmark, on the North coast of Germany, was an ancient religious center for the Slavic tribes. These Wendic tribes were apparently quite powerful. They did not want to accept Christianity. It was forced upon them by the growing strength of the German states. But, even after they were initially conquered, they soon revolted, and returned to Pagan ways. So, northern and eastern Germany was esentially Slavic, to around the year 1000 to maybe as late as the 1200's, I think it was. I recall these revolts were in the 1200's, possibly. The Lithuanians were the last to be Christianized. This was in the 1400's. I have also read that Christianity was a bit of a thin veneer across much of the European peasantry for many centuries. Few could read, and religion was disemminated from above, and the pagan beliefs took long to die away. The name Prussia comes from a Baltic tribe (sililar to Lithuanians). They were considered to be a handsome people. Were they absorbed or obliterated (killed and sold into slavery). I don't know. The name Pomeranian, I think also comes from a Baltic Tribe. Eastern Europe is a place with much historic movements of peoples. So, there is much admixture. Isolated places, such as Norway, are likley much less affected. The ancient Steppe people were not asiatic. They were caucasian. The Alans, Sarmatians, Sycthians, etc. The Steppe culture was nomadic. But, Caucasian peoples dominated the Steppes, up to the time of the Mongols. The turkic peoples were probably a different breed. I'm just throwing out a bunch of things that I have read over many years. Different facts I've come accross. Tthe origins of the Slavs is interesting. I remember a history teacher who said it was a mystery regarding how the Slavs exploded on the scene. The Slavic population seemed to have been very large, and where did they come from, to have blanketed so vast an area of Europe. I have read that the Slavs did conquer most of the Balkans. They even went out into the Aegean Sea, I recall reading. I recall reading that part of the remote inland area of the Peleponisian Peninisula (where Sparta was located) was speaking a Slavic dialect into the 1700s. I have read that the Slavs dominated much of the countryside of Greece, after their invasions, but the cities remained hellenic. Sorry for the rambling. Most of this is not specific to Ancient Slavic Warriors, but it touches on the fringe of the subject. My perception of the Slavic history is that the Slavs were warlike, and probably quite formidable. They have been called a docile and peaceful people by some historic accounts. I think this may be true to the extent that the ancient history, when the Slavic peoples were forming, they may have been so isolated, and the country so vast, that there was little need for much in the way of organized warfare. However, the Slavs seemed to explode upon the scene, and they seemed to absorb other groups, such as the Finnic tribes to the North and East. Also, the Slavic expansion which followed the ELbe river, all the way up to the border of Denmark, and the creation of very strong tribal presence. And finaaly, the explosion across the whole of the Balkans, doen to the Aegean sea, seems to be quite remarkable, and the Slavic tribes must have been quite organized and warlike. Charlemagne and the Germans had to fight for many generations to conquer what is now much of Germany. And, as some posted here, Austria was probably in the hands of the Slavic tribes, as well, and may have had the same Germanization as did Eastrn Germany. Surely, I assume many Germanic people came into Austria and Estern Germany. But, I imagine that a very strong substrata of Slavs remained. Regards, Anchor |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 20:51
There is officially a Bosnian language and there has been one for centuries. The language, and alphabet accordingly had been developed as the Bosnian aristocrats, and their overlords, bans, under allegiance to Croat kings, then Hungarians began to centralize, and by Ban Kulin's time mobilize for autonomy.
The modern Bosnian language uses the Latin alphabet. However, ancient scripts other than Latin were used much earlier, most notably the indigenous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Cyrillic - Bosnian Cyrillic called Bosančica, which is literally translated as Bosnian language and dates back to the 10th/11th century.
Wiki
Some other early mentionings include one from July 3, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1436 - 1436 , where, in the region of Kotor, a duke bought a girl that is described as: "Bosnian woman, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_church - heretic and in Bosnian language called Djevena" Wiki
In addition, one of the oldest South Slavic documents is the Bosnian statehood charter from 1189 , written by Bosnian ruler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulin_Ban - Kulin Ban (in Bosnian Cyrillic).
Wiki
The irony of the Bosnian language is that its speakers are, on the level of colloquial idiom, more linguistically homogenous than either Serbs or Croats, but failed, due to historical reasons, to standardize their language in the crucial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century - 19th century . The first Bosnian dictionary, a rhymed Bosnian-Turkish glossary authored by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhamed_Hevaji_Uskufi - Muhamed Hevaji Uskufi , was composed in 1631 . But unlike e.g. Croatian dictionaries, which were written and published regularly, Uskufi's work remained an isolated foray. At least two factors were decisive:
Prescriptions for the language of Bosniaks in the 19th and 20th centuries were written outside of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Probably the most authentic Bosniak writers (the so-called "Bosniak revival" at the turn of the century) wrote in an idiom that is closer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_language - the Croatian form than to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_language - the Serbian one (western tokavian-Ijekavian idiom, Latin script), but which possessed unmistakably recognizable Bosniak traits, primarily lexical ones. The main authors of the "Bosniak renaissance" were the polymath, politician and poet Safvet-beg Baagić, the "pote maudit" Musa Ćazim Ćatić and the storyteller Edhem Mulabdić. wiki
------------- |
Posted By: Shisharki
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 15:27
|
You are correct. So called "Macedonian" is south-western Bulgarian dialect. It did not exist until 1945 when it was legalized by a decree of the local communist party (a branch ot Tito's Yugoslavian Communist Party).
The claims that Bulgarians are Tartar-Slavs and Macedonians are Macedonian-Slavs are funny, because Macedonia was part of Bulgaria for hundreds of years, and the people there claimed themselves as Bulgarians. And most still do. Ohrid used to be the capital of the Bulgarian Kingdom when the ruler was Tzar Samuil. Its normal for the communist yugoslav historians to say that bulgarians are tartars from china etc - this is their trick to attempt to distinguish macedonians from the rest of the bulgarians; the main goal is political - serbians are willing to establish control over FYROM. However, the term "slavs" is not very clear, since it was introduced in the Russia through its imperialistic claims - the whole truth is that Russian Empire in the late middle ages. Russia was trying to establish control over Eastern Europe through influencing common origin, language. And of course, presenting itself as the big brother of all slavs. Slavs as a separate tribes or nations do not exist and never did, except in the books. Slavs are people who speak similar languages and that is due to its location.
You will also be surprised to know that Romanian language contains hundreds of bulgarian words. The lands between the Carpathian mountains and Danube River and the Black see used to be a part of the Bulgarian kingdom for a long, long time. Romanians used Bulgarian alphabet and religious books until the beginning of 20th century. Romania and Bulgarian did not come into a federation after the WWII mainly because Stalin did not allow them to do so. An intensive allienation (for political reasons) between these two countries followed during the communist era. I don't want to say the Romanians are Bulgarians. I jsut want to say that these two nations were very, very closely related in the past.
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 16:48
I think Romanian are a very mixed people. In Moldavia, in some regions the Slav genetical contribution is big, mazbe we can speak in fact about romanized Slavs. In Transylvania too, Germans (Gots, Gepids), Slavs have had a great contribuiton. In Southern Moldavia Magyars (before passing to Pannonia), Cumans and Tatars were romanized, in Eastern Muntenia (Prahova) a group of population from Adrianople which settled at the begining of 9th century left anthropological charactericts which differentiate Romanians from here from the others.
The fact that Romania and Bulgaria are the lands of the Thracians makes to have many similitudes. The phonetic of the two languages is close. Most of the words of Bulgarian origin in Romanian are not very old, they are from middle and late medieval period, so not from the time of the first and second Bulgar empire. -------------  |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 14:28
Balkans were full of Hellenic cities - colonies...
"Thracian, Illyrian and even ancient Hellenic words." Why you want to make your life difficult... Hellenic is enough. Almost the absolute majority of the Balkan population was hellenised during the Hellenistic world era and then adopted elements of the Roman culture.
the majority of the Slavic population which was placed in Greece was exterminated by the plague of the early 9th century which caused a significant population reduce in the southern balkans. Emperor Nikiphoros I replaced this population with civilians from Minor Asia. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 15:16
Linguistic studies suggest that when Slavs came to Balkans there were Thracian and/or Illirian speaking populations. You overestimate hellenization of Balkan population. ------------- . |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 16:00
|
I'm not saying that the Balkans were a peninsula which was populated by a static hellenised mass of population. Colonies were widespread in Balkans and especially in the shores . During the ancient period, before 3 cent. B.C. it would be possible for the people who lived in mainland not to be influenced linguistically by the Hellenes. Just put aside the Illyrians who were a brother tribe to the hellenic... Thrace was a huge region to say that it was influenced culturaly by one tribe only. I do thing that the one who builds cities , is the one who imposes his culture to the others. During the Hellenistic period , the whole Mediterranean was forced to speak the Attic dialect(indirectly of course, since it was the trading language) . It was the first step to homogeneity. The second , and most important was the Roman domination. Roman culture prevailed for more than 7 centuries in the Balkans, until the Roman territory got shrunk and the main forming "ethnicity " became the Greek speaking one (mainly focused in Anatolia). So until the slavic tribes have reached the Balkans, logically there were not many chances for these dialects to survive, were they? I do not have any evidence about unique dialects of Thracian tribes who survived until the 6 century.
-------------
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 21:01
|
Well, there are actually mentions of thracian language (particularly Bessian) at 6th century. Then 7 centuries of domination does not necessarily mean homogenisation of a population. Few examples are Ottoman domination and Russian Empire. Or Byzantine empire who constantly made attempts to homogenize the population over centuries and it seems it didn't succeed. Finally, as far as I understand Roman politics it was not directed to homogenize the population. Romans simply didn't care of people beliefs, language and culture. Otherwise they would start with making Greek speaking population Latin speaking. ------------- . |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 08:28
|
Oh yes Vessoi the draft-evaders. I think them and Paiones were the only unconquered Thracian populations (talking about Alexander's and diadohoi period) . Into the same frontiers under the same central goverment (Ottoman empire most recently) shows us that there is a relaxed interconnection btw the populations and their cultures, since language customs and populations are not objects strongly connected with spatial correlation or strictly limited inside the frontiers.
Of course the Roman plans were everything else than omogenisation(divide and rule).Omogenisation was a process which came as a physical consequense due to the time it had taken (of course there was a "clear" ground due to the fact that the macedonian kingdoms did the work a century before the Romans, for the Romans). Surely we cannot talk about absolute omogenisation but only about some elements as religion(for example Egyptian godess Isis was worshipped in Cyclades islands) , trading goods, architecture and linguistics.
Byzantine empire always wanted to rule indirectly its surrounding kingdoms(using religion and diplomacy) . Partly imposed the Greek language into the slavic church because it was the only one which could describe ,back then,some of the abstract meanings of the bible. In Kiev, the patriarch worked hardly to translate some very delicate meanings into Russian language and he accieved to create some new words in Russian- very lyrical as they say-. Now , if you're talking about the populations who inhabited inside the empire's frontiers(after the 7th century) they were homogenised due to the common religion(which was the major factor of internal stability) , language. Armenia could be an exception because of some dogmatic differences and geopolitical significance... the unstable frontiers never helped the Byzantines to consider Armenia as an original part of their territory(plus the disloyalty of the nobles). Anyway, it seems a success for the byzantine empire that everyone wanted to take a part of its glorius history and history. I can see two-headed eagles until today. (not to refer the orthodoxy...)
As for the Romans, the relationship with the Greek civilisation was special. It is said that Greece had lived its most prosperous era(since the Roman authority was consolidated)back then.
As for the languages, as we know until 20 century religion was used as a tool of language learning or imposition since a significant percent of population was illiterate and the only relationship with the grammar was the bible and religious books(specifically in balkans during and after the Ottoman domination, because until then, classic studies were something the usual in the cities).
-------------
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 06:44
Very interesting on this matter is the published work of Florin Curta on Slavs. In "The Making of the Slavs" he shows that neither the testimony of the Byzantine writers, nor the archaeology does not support an "invasion" in the strict sense of the word, and that the processes creating the Slavic ethnicities should be reconsidered.
Some online articles:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/opus.html - http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/opus.html
check on that site, for instance, the articles on Slavic fibulae:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/curta2004.pdf - http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/curta2004.pdf
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/cosoveni.pdf - http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/cosoveni.pdf
or on Slavic archaeology:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/pots.pdf - http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/pots.pdf
or from another site an interesting criticism of "Prague type" pottery and generally on methods of pottery analysis:
http://egg.mnir.ro/pdf/curta01.pdf - http://egg.mnir.ro/pdf/curta01.pdf
|
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 08:12
What is the research that you have made on the subject?
Because the best research one would make on albanian history would start in albania.There is countinues historical evidence of Albanian people having been were they are today from ancient times,and actually overhelming historical evidence of their conection with the Illyrians.The Language is unique,and there is not the slightest proof of any migration of albanian people throuout history.Albanian is not as you said an new name for the people who lived in albania after the illyrians,but the name of an Illyrian tribe itself,who came to be the bigest and the most important tribe,which latter gave internationally the Albanians the name they still have today.That only strengthens the Illyrian conection.The albanians today call themselves Shqipetar,does that make them a new population not conected with the Albanians?So as i said,the language,the historical evidence,the complete lack of evidence to prove otherwise,all give the Illyrian conection to history making as strong a case as to be as convincing as any other historical event. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 19:47
|
This is a discussion on Slavic settlements of the Balkans, not on the ethnicity of Albanians... or ridiculous Caucaus origin claims...
------------- |
Posted By: Perun
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 10:29
|
Slavic settlement wasn't a single occasion. It lasted for centuries.
In my humble opinion, first wave of settlers came to Panonia and were pushed to the south by another wave, and so on.
Southern mountainous regions as Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro and Dalmatia were less slavicized in the first instance. Most of the romanized Illyrians remained in Adriatic cities and mountain regions. Slavs took control over main settlements. It is hard to say if they belonged to certain tribal groups while living in the steppes or they were conglomerate of different tribes (the second theory is more realistic to me). Under Avaric rule Slavs organized into small "tribal kingdoms". Most of their names are pre-Slavic in origin (Bosnia, Duklja/Dioclea, Neretvanska knezevina). Remnants of Avars can be found in toponyms that have word Obar, Obri in it.
Slavic tribes identified as Serbs and Croats were parts of next wave of migration. Croats moved over to central parts of todays Croatia, with some parts of them settling in Dalmatia, near romanized cities Split, Zadar, Sibenik, Trogir. In northern parts of Croatia (Slavonija) local settlers for a long time didn't recognize themselves as Croats but Slovins.
Same thing happened with Serbs. They settled in southwestern parts of todays Serbia forming Raska. Later on they moved to Kosovo, northern and eastern Serbia, and some parts of todays northern Montenegro.
Other tribes (or tribal conglomerates) moved to southeastern Balkans: todays Macedonia, Bulgaria and parts of Greece. Some of them were hellenized (like those in most parts of todays Greece), other mixed with local Thracian tribes (and later Turkic Bulgarians) to form Bulgarians. Some of them were asimiliated in Dacia to form Romanians. The rest of tribes living in todays Macedonia created their own kingdoms (like Samuil's).
They always interacted with each other, sharing same or very similar language. Most of todays Balkanic languages can be sen as dialects. That is the reason why Croatian dialect from Zagorje is not much different from Bosnian one from Herzegovina, Montenegrin from Boka or Serbian from Sumadija, than is from another Croatian dialect from Dalmatia...
------------- Gromovnik |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 09:40
|
"Other tribes (or tribal conglomerates) moved to southeastern Balkans: todays Macedonia, Bulgaria and parts of Greece. Some of them were hellenized (like those in most parts of todays Greece)"
Do you know something that i don't know?
"other mixed with local Thracian tribes "
In antiquity period you could say that. There were many tribes in Greece like Dorians Aeolians Ionians Macedonians Thracians etc. After hellenisation era and Roman empire's domination the population was fully homogenised...Slavs had found a compact cultural background from which they adopted some elements in 6th century. -------------
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 10:20
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 12:01
|
I don't agree with that either.
------------- . |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 09:27
|
If not fully homogenized -almost fully. 700 years under Roman occupation and all the people of the area were leaving withing the borders of Greco-roman civilization, gradually adopted (if they werent already speaking) Greek or Latin language ,worshiped (with local influences) the same gods. When Slavs crossed Danube ,they found a more or less homogeneous group of people. ------------- http://protostrator.blogspot.com |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 16:04
|
Chronicles write opposite things. For example, they say that in time of Justinian people around Danube spoke their own language (not Latin or Greek). Exactly at the time when Slavs crossed Danube. ------------- . |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 14:23
|
Scholars hypothesised on various evidences (toponymy, antroponymy, various mentions in chronicles, etc.) the co-existence of ancient local languages (like Thracian, Illyrian, now extinct) until 5-6th century AD. These languages are probably the source of some of the words Romanian and Albanian share, which are neither Greek nor Latin in origin.
Also the religion was even much more diverse. Besides the classical Graeco-Roman pantheon, many deities were imported (e.g. Isis, Mithra) or evolved from local cults (e.g. the Thracian Horserider).
|
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2007 at 12:15
The fact that some tribes-the most distanced and primitive -like tribes near Danube or Bessoi on Rhodope mt- kept speaking their native language till 6th cent does not changes the overall status. ------------- http://protostrator.blogspot.com |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2007 at 14:04
|
They were neither the most distanced nor the most primitive (it were some ex-Roman provinces, though!). Can you bring some scholarly references for this amazing linguistic homogenity in late Empire Balkans? |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2007 at 18:22
He might bring plenty of scholars claiming hellenization of Thracians but this will say only about current status of historical methodology only. ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2007 at 18:31
The overall status is that Thracian language was spoken and Thracians were known at the time of Malala and Prokopius. Everything else is fiction. "Primitive" tribes preserved their language in the center of Eastern Roman Empire -- Bulgarian word Plovdiv is phonetically derived from Thracian "Pulpudeva" rather than Greek "Philipopolis". ------------- . |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2007 at 10:41
|
Thousands of written evidence are found throughout the area. Even everyday arrangements or curses written by simple people. Almost all of them in Greek or Latin. ------------- http://protostrator.blogspot.com |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2007 at 11:22
|
Similar situation was before this proposed "hellenization". There were many inscriptions in Greek. Number of found Thracian inscriptions is, I will remind you, only 4. Yet, nobody doubted Thracian language at that time. Some poets even wrote poems in this "disapeared" language in first century AD :) ------------- . |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2007 at 12:02
|
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2007 at 14:47
|
Most likely for the Bessoi tribe(due to specific reasons) to have kept the Thracian language until Late Roman period, but in a sea of Latin and/or Greek speaking population they were rendered linguistically as a living museum.Pretty sure this linguistic elements were lost short after the Slavic invasions. Your analysis of demographics based only on inscriptions would account for probably less than 10% of the population I'm pretty sure that in the towns of the older civilizations (Latin and eastern Mediterranean )this percentage was high enough so that we can regard these inscriptions as trustworthy. -------------
|
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2007 at 16:01
Inscriptions=4 Toponyms...so what? even "Corinth" is non-hellenic toponym/word-do u think Corinth was not "hellinized" ?
I m almost sure that i ve seen with my own eyes many more sculptures of thracian god/hero rider than you. If u look again u ll notice that i mentioned "same gods of course with local differences"-(such as this) ------------- http://protostrator.blogspot.com |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 07:13
I didn't say inscriptions but glosses in inscriptions and the number of these is larger and more than probably it is not properly counted (I haven't heard of any monograph dedicated to this issue). For instance you can read this article: http://soltdm.com/sources/inscr/kaga/kaga_e.htm - http://soltdm.com/sources/inscr/kaga/kaga_e.htm . It is about a word which seems to occur in two inscriptions, which doesn't sound neither Latin nor Greek and it is assumed to belong to the Dacians/Getae (speaking a Thracian dialect or after some scholars a distinct language however related to Thracian) living in the Roman province of Scythia Minor. It is worth remembering that the Roman poet Ovidius being exiled in this remote province learnt the language of the Getae and wrote in it. From his poetry one could even infer the Getae were the main demographical element (larger than Greeks, at that time though a Roman province, the Roman language was hardly spoken) as himself says "barbarum ego sum qui non intellegor ulli
et rident stolidi verba Latina Getae" (I'm the barbarian because no one understands me and the Getae laugh stupidly at the Latin words). Of course, this could be just rhetorics, however it is a coordinate in any discussion about the ethnic perspective of the Balkans during the Roman Empire. Another case is the word "midne" which occurs in a Latin inscription from 3rd century AD, which could be the Thracian word for "dwelling".
Another interesting example: Mesembria perserved in an inscription as "Mesembria - apo Melsa kai Bria" plus some etymologies in the ancient writers, which show that the two Thracian linguistic elements were known at the time when these were written.
Other argument is density of the toponyms. There are regions where it's rather improable that a completely Hellenized population would preserve almost entirely toponyms which were not Greek/Roman. A much more likely hypothesis is that these are linguistic enclaves.
Of course, by the time of early Middle Ages much of these elements were assimilated. However not before their complete disappearance, the 3rd century crisis and the invasions of the 5th century would alter again the demographics of the Balkans, therefore practically I don't think we can find a moment in the ancient history of the Balkans were we can account for homogenisation, for a complete Romanization (roughly in North and West)/Hellenization (in the rest of the peninsula).
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 08:37
This metaphors are proven by nobody Athanasios. In contrast, sources (I repeated this many times but what can I do?) say us that those "museum" is frequently met in Byzantine chronicles.
I am pretty sure that since 9th century till 13th and even later century you have thousands Bulgarian inscriptions and none Vallachian inscription. Nevertheless, Vallachs were not "Bulgarized". They are still there. ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 08:52
It depends on what you call Hellenization. If this is substitution of local culture and language by Greek ones than Corinth was definitely not hellenized.
Your problem is that you construct your logic only on the fact that at late Roman time there were many inscriptions in Latin and Roman but not in local language. This however is a mistake since prior to Roman conquest there were many Greek inscriptions and again almost none in local language. Same characteristics but no hellenization of Thracians. Total Hellenization and/or Romanization is a myth invented during national revivals of Balkan nations. ------------- . |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 09:22
|
I have a perception that byzantines didn't make any serious attempt to write history( chronographers ) with historical methodology as it is known today, but they only describe events of their lifetime, or even worse, they try to
describe the world's history from the of Adam and Eve's era, as Malalas did, mixing in his masterpiece biblical and imaginary
elements. As for Prokopios, even if his work is very
interesting and rich in content, he is dubious as historian
(see secret history). Vlachs are supposed to be latinized Thraces, but DNA studies have shown that they are different racial teams from region to region, right? Total Hellenization and/or Romanization is a myth invented during national revivals of Balkan nations. Now you make absolute conclusions... -------------
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 09:29
Well you and Brainstorm are my teachers  However I am talking about total hellenization and romanization. I do not see any reason to suppose that it happened. And I do not see any reason to not believe Malala and Procopius either since linguistic studies of south slavonic languages suggest that they have local substrate different from Latin or Greek. You can suggest that population around seas were Greek and Latin speaking but local people actually never lived close to seas were they? ------------- . |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 09:29
Also as I've been showing to Brainstorm, we have clear testimonies other languages were spoken. However the inscriptions do not offer a correspondending evidence of the other languages, which mean just that they were not written.
|
Posted By: Ypnos
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 02:08
The word "Balkan" is a Latin word for the Greek god Haephestus (Ηφεστος). So the name does not come from Bulgaria and it is not a Bulgarian word. The Balkans are named so after the mountain range that goes through Bulgria (but not just Bulgaria) and it is part of the Dinarotauric Arc which stretches from Russia to the South Western Med.
As regards the claims of the self-proclaimed FYROMians being "Makedons", please see any 1940's Yugoslavian stamp. You will clearly see that "FYROM" was actually called Vardar.
http://www.helleniccomserve.com/images/stampVARDASKA.jpg - http://www.helleniccomserve.com/images/stampVARDASKA.jpg
There is simply no historical precedent for a "Republic of Macedonia".
Anyone who has been paying close attention to the news, will see that the naming issue is coming to a close and "FYROM" will not be allowed the name "Macedonia". Several US Senators have ruled that the name is part of a propaganda campaign and are taking steps to reverse the Clinton/Bush unilateral decision to name Vardar, "Republic of Macedonia".
The fact that your Grandfather was born in Thessaloniki, is of no consequence to every single Bulgar's roots. That is merely anecdotal.
In 600AD, the Macedonia region was very much a part of the East Roman Empire's territory and any claim that Slavic tribes were dominating the region is false. Slavs were allowed to intermarry with Macedonians (officially Greek subjects in the 12th cent. AD), but under strict control from Konstantinoupoli. Slavs did gradually move down the Epirotan side of the Empire, down to the Pelloponese (Moria) but not in any great numbers.
------------- Θαρσήν Χρεί |
Posted By: Ypnos
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 02:13
Latin was used in the East Roman Empire purely for administrative purposes. It was the "language of the officials". However, Greek had always been used (first under the allowance of the Romans due their enormous respect of the Greeks and later autonomously) as the lingua franca of the ERE (Byzantium). In fact, in the 12th cent. AD, the Byzantine Empire started to act, think and regard itself as a country, rather than a collection of territories. Not only that, but it regarded itself as Hellenic and finally started to acknowledge itself as descended from the ancient Hellenes. ------------- Θαρσήν Χρεί |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 10:38
|
Actually there are many private inscriptions in Latin. Hellenization of Byzantine Empire happened much later than slavonic settlement in Balkans. Cyril Mango suggests it happened somewhere in 10-12 centuries as far as I remember. ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 10:45
You will be surprized how many Bulgarians have roots from Greek and FYROM parts of Macedonia.
I didn't get it. Every single marriage between Slavs and Byzantines was controlled in Constaninopolis? I would say it was not controled it was very much appreciated in order to homogenize the population of the country. ------------- . |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 11:37
In what sense? I would say the 6th century already, language wise. Was for example Crete Hellenized? Or Caria? Or maybe Byzantium itself which was a city founded by Greeks at 600BC? In the 10-12th century i would regard it as the de-Hellinization since the last pagans dissappeared. So, the Hellenization in the Byzantium is relative. -------------  
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 11:49
I sense of language. Latin and Greek was used by people for communication between different nations but people spoke majorly their own languages: Greek, Thracian, Slavonic, Armenian, Turkic, Gothic etc. etc. The whole empire at the time of arrival of slavs and later was a mosaic of different nations. ------------- . |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 11:59
Yes, I agree. But again there we have to take the area as a consideration. At some time when the largest part was Greek speaking, latin was forced as an official language. Later, when new areas incorporated the Phrygians spoke Phrygian until the 6th century. Later they become "Minor Asians" and share the tongue. Then the area gets bigger or smaller and incorporates other nations or looses them. In that sense, I mean it is relative. -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 12:07
|
Well, yes, you are right of course. It is area dependent. ------------- . |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 12:22
|
The population of Balkans was in great measure bilingv and even trilingv in 3-7t centuries. In some areas Greek was spoken more than Latin, in other areas Latin predomined and in some areas Thracian, Illyrian and Gothic was the most spoken.
In Constantinopolis I think that in 4th century Latin predomined, than Greek returned as most spoken. In 7-8th centuries even at Rome, Greek was most spoken language. Do someone know what language predominated at Adrianopolis? I'm interested because is an event, at the beginning of 9th century ~10.000 Adrianopolitans have been colonized in Wallachia. ------------- |
Posted By: Ypnos
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 18:53
Source? ------------- Θαρσήν Χρεί |
Posted By: Ypnos
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 19:11
Wrong, sorry. The poet, Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso - 43BC-17AD) clearly shows that the Greeks living in Magna Grecia (today, Southern Italy) since the 8th cent. BC still spoke Greek during Ovid's time ("...since the land of Italy was Greater Greece"). Thus, following the Gothic War (535-554AD), waves of Byzantines who fled to Magna Grecia found a common cultural and linguistic root with the inhabitants of Southern Italy ("eredi ellenofoni") as they were speaking a combination of Doric, Byzantine Greek and Italian, known as Griko. Records of Magna Grecia speaking Griko date to as late as the 11th cent. AD.
Source such as the above, show us that the Greek language was alive and well throughout the ERE and even the WRE. I think that you are confusing "Hellenisation" with "Hellenic National Identity", which indeed came about in the 12th cent. AD.
So, the Byzantines, had the language, a lot of the culture/philosophy and the genetic roots of the ancients throughout their history, but all they lacked was an actual national identity. Most historians acknowledge that Byzantines considered themselves "Greek citizens of the Roman Empire" (Romioi - Ρωμαίοι). ------------- Θαρσήν Χρεί |
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 19:29
Yes, those were called "macedon"-s in one of the first scripts where the ugri (hungarians) were mentioned. In the early 830's the bulgarians called the hung-s for help against the settlers. (tomorrow reply in the Med. Transylw. topic:-)
TSZ
|
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 19:36
Ypnos the Romaioi (Ρωμαίοι) were the westerners, the Romans. The Greeks of the eastern empire called themselves Romioi as you pointed out. After the equation Hellen = Pagan, the Helladic area was called Ρωμανία for a period of time. -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 22:09
- They spoke greek of course,otherwise the bulgarian Khan Krum wouldn't send them so far away from home;
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 22:25
------------- . |
Posted By: Ypnos
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 02:29
Don't you mean Roumelia (Ρουμελιά/Ρούμελη/Ρουμ)? ------------- Θαρσήν Χρεί |
Posted By: Ypnos
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 02:33
I was demonstrating the continuation of the Greek language from the ERE's birth right through to the time of the Slavic descent into the region. ------------- Θαρσήν Χρεί |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 08:34
Actualy, Ovid says about Getic, not about Thracian language: Book TV.II:45-79 As commanded, Ive reached the featureless shores of the Euxine Sea this land beneath the frozen pole yet Im not so much tormented by this weather, never free of cold, this soil always hardened by white frost, these barbarian tongues ignorant of the Latin language, this Greek speech submerged in the sounds of Getic, as by the fact that Im encircled, and shut in on all sides by nearby conflict: a thin wall scarcely keeps the enemy out. Book TV.VII:1-68 A few still retain vestiges of the Greek language, though even this the Getic pronunciation barbarises. Book TV.X:1-53 Here Im the barbarian no one comprehends, the Getae laugh foolishly at my Latin words. Book TV.XII:1-68 I myself have already un-learned Latin, I think, now Ive learnt to speak Getic and Sarmatian. http://www.grtbooks.com/exitfram.asp?idx=1&yr=-43&aa=OV&at=AA&ref=ovid&URL=http://www.tkline.freeserve.co.uk/Ovidexilehome.htm - Tristia Book V Book EIV.II:1-5 If anyone had set Homer down in this place, believe me, even hed have turned into a Getan. Book EIV.XIII:1-50 And you shouldnt marvel if my arts defective, since Ive almost turned into a Getic poet. Ah! Shameful: Ive even written a work in Getic, where savage words are set to Italian metres. http://www.grtbooks.com/exitfram.asp?idx=1&yr=-43&aa=OV&at=AA&ref=ovid&URL=http://www.tkline.freeserve.co.uk/Ovidexilehome.htm - Ex Ponto Book IV And he makes the difference between Getae and Thracians: The fierce enemy had taken it from its Thracian king and, victorious, held its treasure captive, till Vitellius, carried downriver, disembarked his troops, and advanced his standards against the Getae. {from the last link above) ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 10:30
|
Come on, Menumorut, Getaewere branch of Thracian tribes. ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 10:31
Greek language was used only around seas close to Greek cities, deep in the land Greek was not spoken. You can extend this continuation of Greek language up to 20th century. This will not mean that Greek was major language in those lands. ------------- . |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 20:09
| Not only that Greek was spoke in northern Balkans mostly around Greek colonies (and probably as a language of trade deep inside the land), but sometime after the Roman conquest of the areas, Latin became the lingua franca of this part of the Balkans, roughly separated by the Jireček line (i.e. the imaginary line which divides geographically the Balkans between two areas, with preponderence of Latin inscriptions and with preponderence of Greek inscriptions). |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 20:15
Ovid says about the Greeks in Tomis and on the Getic seasore that they were Getized, speaking Getic or a Greek much barbarized. Jirecek line is a wrong theory. The fact that inscriptions are somewhere in Greek and somewhere in Latin doesn't mean that where they are in Greek this language was more spoken than Latin. A good example is Dobrudja, were most inscriptions were in Greek but the population was Latin since the first decades of Roman occupation (before it was Getic speaking). ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 20:50
Dobruja is close to the sea side and hence was in the area of influence of Greek culture. However, I think that Jiricek overestimate the level of Hellenization/Romanization of the population in Balkans. ------------- . |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 20:57
Of course, Greek was present in inscriptions as you remarked in Scythia Minor, but that would imply a significant number of speakers as well (please note I wrote "roughly separated" and I detailed the concept precisely for this reason). What is more interesting that this line roughly corresponds with the Thraco-Dacian (or Thraco-Daco-Moesian) isogloss line.
And also be careful, I've wrote "lingua franca", that is the language of the culture, of the administration, not necessarily the predominant language on the streets.
|
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 13:20
|
If we look at the slavic settlements in the Balkans, we first have to look at the situation in the 5th and 6th century. After the defeat of the huns in 453 germanic tribes took place in the Hungarian and Romanian Area north of the danube. The Roman territories south of the Danube were destroyed by a lot of wars against the huns and the germanic tribes. At this times no Slavic nations were mentioned. It is possible that they came with the huns to western parts of Romania and to Hungary but this cannot be proofed. The problem is, that the Slavs are not known in these times. Perhaps you can identify them with the Kiev culture at the Dnjepr. The first probably slavian culture is the Prague-culture. But this didn't exist in the late 4th or the 5th century. If the Slavs moved westwards with the huns they lived under the authority of the huns till 453 and under that of the Gepids till 568. But there is no safe evidence. The Slavic invasion of the Roman Empire started in the early 6th century. But it was just less in the first half of it. In the second half of the 6th century and especially in the 7th century the Slavs moved to the Balkans very frequently. The pre-slavian population was not expelled. There still lived a lot of it. But they had lost their identification with the East Roman Empire. So they changed their ethnic status and became Slaves by themselves. Only in Romania (Walachia), at the coast of the Adria and in parts of Greece the original population did not become Slavs. The fact of self-changing ethnic identity is important for the amount of invading Slavs. We now need no big groups of hundreds of thousands of Slavs or even more. Just little groups are necessary to change a non-slavian population into a slavian one.
In these thread it was mentioned that the R1a-gene is related to the Slavs. This is comletely wrong. The origins of R1a lay in far times even before the neolithic revolution.
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 14:51
| I agree with much of your sayings, however it seems there're grounds to believe the Slavic ethnicity formed also north of Danube in the actual territories of Romania and Hungary / northern Serbia (I've already discussed it on some threads on early Slavic ethnicity). Many Byzantine testimonies we have on Slavs (Sclavenes) point out they lived just north of Danube (not in Pripet, not in Balkans). Also, some linguistic studies showed that Romanianization of the actual territory of Romania originated in the south-west (west), very probably on both banks of Danube (the closest to Latin are the regional varieties of language from these areas, plus this is the area of the former Roman territories). |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 15:28
|
For the Romanian archaeologists, the presence of Slavs is not an unknown problem.
There appears Slavic settlements in Moldavia in 5th century. n 6th century the Slavs appears in Transylvania. I give a translation from an scientifical article: Among the peoples which entered in Transylvania after the fall of the Gepid domination, there are mentioned the Slavs. About the period when the Slavs have entered and settled on the territory of our country, especialy in the parts which were in closer connection with the empire, are telling the writen sources. For the farther parts the historical data are very few or totaly missing. The diggings made in the last years in the Olt and Trnava Mare valleys have bring to light several settlements of 6-7th centuries, allowing us to establish the entering of the Slavs in the second half of 6th century in Transylvania and to distinguish what is Slavic and what is of local origin in the discovered material culture. The oldest vestiges of Slavic material culture have been discovered in Olt valley, in the settlements from Cernat and Poian (the 1st level), Covasna county and in the valley of Trnava Mare, - at Bezid, the 1st level (Mures county). The hand-made pottery material discovered in these settlements is representing pots types very low developed, characteristic for the Slavic settlements of 6th century on the superior basin of Dniepr, of Jitomyr-Korceak aspect or of Penkova aspect and in the area of Ipotesti-Cndesti culture. The pots at fast wheel are known from Ipotesti-Cndesti culture and from Bratei settlement. On the basis of this pottery material and of two discovered fibula, one digitated and one Byzantine, we can frame them in the 6th century. In this cultural horizont are well diferentiated the two composing elements, the Daco-Roman, autochtonous element and the Slavic element. A later period is represented by the settlements from Trnava valley, at Bezid -the 2nd level, Salasuri (Mures county), Eliseni, Filiasi, Cristur, Simonesti, Medisorul Mare (Harghita county), in the Olt valley at Coseni, Sfntu Gheorghe, Anghelus, Cernat, Poian, Turia. In the inventary of the huts from this period appears pots of "Praha type", of a shape more evoluted than the classical type and are still present fast wheel made pots. There are missing the archaical type pots and appears some elements of shape and decor, which are known in other later dated settlements. On the basis of the archaeological researches made in these localities we can constate that the Slavs are atested together with the Romanic elements; haven't been discovered not any settlement where the material culture elements to have a unitary Slavic character. The proportion between the two elements is not always the sam, it's varying, in the sense that sometimes the Romanic elements are preponderent, and other times the Slavic ones. It have been found Geto-Dacian type pots, of slim shape, without shoulders, decorated with cuts and sockets, which are known from the Bratei-Ipotesti culture. At Salasuri and Poian have ben discovered three Geto-Dacian tradition pots on which there are deep incised before the burn crosses, of which one is a chrismon. These shows that it was a Christian population or a population knowing the Christian religion. This population could not in the 6th century be otherone than the autochtonous one. With the regard of the ethnic belonging of the bearers of the culture represented by the mentioned settlements, beside the pottery material, very important is the shape of the dwellings. The demi-hut of rectangular shape, with stony hearth is known from 4th century at Bezid, is not characteristic nor for the Germanic population, nor for the Slavic one. The demi-hut with stony stove was used by other population, having this tradition before the coming of the Germanic peoples; from our actual knowledge, the origin of this type of hearth should be searched in the Romanic world. The Slavs could have settled only after 568, when the Avars have extended their rule over this region. In 6-7th centuries there cann't be a massif Slavic movement into Transylvania, from this early period there are attested only two settlements in the Eastern parts of Transylvania, placed at Cernat - in the front of Oituz mountainous pass -and Poian (the 1st level). It's anEastern Slavic element, the Ants, which coming from East (Moldavia) have settled among the local population. Massively they settled in the valley of Olt and of the Trnave rivers in 7-8th centuries another Slavic element, from the West, the Sclavines, proving a later coming shortly before the fall of the Avar empire. In these settlements it can be very clearly followed the living together of the local population and the Slavic element and its steeped vanishing, leading to a new culture having a Daco-Roman-Byzantine background. The title of the article is "The South East of Transylvania in 4-14th centuries", by Szekely Zoltan and was published in 1996 in "Angustia", the anuary of the Museum of the Eastern Carpathians in Sfntu Gheorghe. More information about the presence of the Slavs in Moldavia and especialy Muntenia you can find at: http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/TTW/Vol_1/Summ/Summ3_sec2.htm - http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/TTW/Vol_1/Summ/Summ3_sec2.htm ------------- |
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 17:10
|
Yes, it is said, that they once lived where now the Hungarians live. I don't know yet where exactly, I've to look. But there is no archaeological evidence. The slavs had only two ways west. One went through Transsylvania and the other way leds through southern Poland and Slowakia. South Poland was entered by slavs not before 450, probably not before 500 and the Slovakian area was also ruled by Germanic tribes until the late 5th Century, even until 510. The only possibility is that the slavs came with the huns an marched through the Danube area and then northwards. But we have a problem with the archaelogical places. If we look at the early Slavs, we don't have an unic ethnicity. As menumorut said, there were Antes, Sclavenoi and also Veneti. And I am sure there were just more tribes we don't know. The slavs rose from all these elder tribes and their ethnogenesis was still going on when they entered the Danube area an the Balkans. |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 17:58
|
The article from where I quoted is about South East Transylvania (the Harghita, Covasna and Mures counties).
The Slavs migrated through Moldavia and Muntenia. Before invading Balkans they settled on the line of Danube, as Procopius is saying. Haven't yet been discovered Slavic settlements on the Danube North border and actualy the Slavic discoveries from 5-7th centuries in Muntenia (Southern Romania) are few, pe3rhaps because different from Moldavia and Transylvania, the Slavs were not sedentarizing here because they were oriented to enter in the empire. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 18:42
|
beorna, actually the paper Menumorut linked (Teodor's PhD thesis) show that Slavs lived for a while just north of Danube (and actually Slavic material culture is not automatically nomadic one, nomadism, semi-nomadism and sedentarization are phenomena which spread over an area, not over an ethnicity): This could be the historical moment in which we may presume a massive Slavic presence in the Lower Danube area, and a long-term settlement of the Sclaveni warriors in the proximity of the Roman limes. From the same time (548-552) we may presume a Slavic colonization in Tisza and Middle Danube Plain, under the authority of the Gepids or Longobards (p. 236, 238). [...] [...] A great book on this topic is one I have already mentioned, Florin Curta's "The Making of the Slavs". It has received good scholarly reviews (here's one: http://www.seep.ceu.hu/archives/issue51/books51.pdf - http://www.seep.ceu.hu/archives/issue51/books51.pdf check pp. 101-103). This books shows that the location of the Slavs for decades, during 6th and early 7th century, was just north of Danube "in the shadow of Justinian's forts". It also disproves claims of migration or even initial intentions to invade the empire as 19th historiographical myths.
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 18:56
|
Chilbudios, your quotes from Teodor are quite confusing.
Lets say in simpler words: -There have been not discovered Slavic settlements in Romanian Plain (Muntenia, Southern Romania) and Teodor says that the Slavs, if lived here, have changed the way of live after the Daco-Romans (the proto-Romanians). This is possible but not in a large measure, as long in Bulgaria the Slavic discoveries are Slavic, the Praga culture. At Sarata Monteoru (Buzau county) is identified a Slavic necropolis, the bigest in Romania, but without Slavic pottery. Also, the archaeologists discovered that the Slavs from here were served by a far larger population of Daco-Romans, as Teodor is saying. My opinion is that, like other populations not oriented for sedentarizing (like Huns, Pechenegs , Cumans) the Slavs from Muntenia were living in tents, not in dwellings and the rests of their settlements have vanished in time. In Moldavia and Transylvania, were the Slavs have sedentarized in a measure, their traces have been found. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 19:54
|
Menumorut, here we go again. As long as I'm quoting and not interpreting (your saying in other words = straw man), I don't see any confusion except for that of not knowing/understanding what that man is talking about.
Please leave aside your opinions and try to see what other people are thinking and saying. Any attempt to discuss history with me must be grounded in a decency to at least quote and understand our sources correctly. This continuous distortion serves no purpose in a public discussion (if it serves for you then please keep it for you).
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 20:09
At this I was refering. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 20:27
|
I am not sure I understand your point. |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 20:28
|
the way Teodor is speaking (at least in English) is not very clear. ------------- |