Print Page | Close Window

szekler in romania

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Archaeology & Anthropology
Forum Description: Topics on archaeology and anthropology
Moderators: Leonidas, SearchAndDestroy
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=14774
Printed Date: 28-Feb-2021 at 06:36
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: szekler in romania
Posted By: galvatron
Subject: szekler in romania
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 08:37
i want to ask ,who are the szekler in romania ,are they related to magyar people of hungary ,thank you .



Replies:
Posted By: werbulchu
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 09:49
The szekler (szekely) are hungarians, but they feel themselvs more and better hungarians then the others.
Sometimes I think they are right.

-------------
Si fractus illabatur orbis, impavidum ferient ruinae.


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 14:14

The Székely ('sék-ei' in pronunciation) or Szeklers, (Hungarian: Székely, Romanian: Secui, German: Szekler, Latin: Sicul), are a Hungarian ethnic group mostly living in the counties of Harghita, Covasna and Mureş in Romania, with a significant population also living in Vojvodina, Serbia. Most of the world's Székely population live in Romania and they are tightly concentrated in an area informally known as Székelyföld (Szekler Land). Based on official 2002 Romanian census numbers,[1] approximately 1,400,000 ethnic-Hungarians live in Romania, mostly in Transylvania. Of these, about 670,000 consider themselves Székely, and mainly live in the counties of Harghita, Covasna and parts of Mureş. Székelys hence account for an important part of the Hungarian minority in Romania.
...
The Székely are of uncertain origins, subject to much debate among themselves and among scholars. A widespread theory asserts that they descend from the warrior tribe lands, on which the Magyars soon settled, along frontier mountains to defend against invasions from Tatars and other menacing people from the east. Székely people adhere proudly to their Hungarian identity.

Theories have been advanced suggesting Avar (most of the recent theories), Gepid, Scythian (Scoloti), or Hunnish ancestry, and some have dated their presence in the Eastern Carpathians as early as the fifth century. Some have also suggested the Székely, like the Hungarians, are simply descended from the Magyars, and that cultural differences with other Hungarian groups stem from their relative isolation in the mountains.

Many scholars believe in a two-fold Hungarian migration of Transylvania and the Pannonian Plain, one prior to the main Magyar conquest of the Pannonian Plain in 896. According to this theory, the Székely are a Hungarian group that settled in Transylvania during this first migration.

Others believe that the Székely had different origins, such as Turkic origins. A small number of scholars believe that they are related to the Scythians who may have joined the Magyars on their trek westward, and 'magyarized'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szekler - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szekler

beyond the romanticized presentation on Wikipedia (which seems to be the creation of a hungarian nationalist) Szeklers were colonized in East Transylvania in 12-12th century, in the same time with the colonization of the Southern Transylvania with Germans (Saxons) by the Hungairan Kingdom, for the strenghtening of the extreme East frontiers. In 12th century the Szeklers are mentioned in West of Transylvania, in today Salaj county. The archaeological research (made by Hungarian speaking archaeologists) proves that there were not Hungarians or Szeklers in Harghita-Covasna-Mures before 12th century.

The origin of the Szeklers is as unclear today as before. Surely there is not about Huns or Avars, most probably they are a Hungarian tribe. They consider themselves Hungarians and are more Hungarians like the ones in Hungary, at least in their physical appeareance.
For example the senator Verestoy Attila looks like this:




Completing the information from Wikipedia, the area lived by Sekellians is very beautiful and they are a hospitable people. They were brothers with the Romanians in a great peasant revolt, one in 1514, leaded by the Sekellian Dózsa György

who was martyrized as many of the insurgents too.


In the medieval period, Seklers had a partialy autonomous organization. They were organized in some districts: Ciuc, Odorhei, Sfântu Gheorghe, Târgu Mures (Romanian names) which corespond with some depressions on the Western side of the Eastern Carpathians. It's the coldest area in Romania, very untamed and beautiful.

The Seklers were living isolated from Romanian population surrounding them, today few of them could speak Romanian. The natality is in strong declin, is the region in Romania with the lowest cota.

Sekellians are a big non-Romanian speaking enclave in the heart of Romania. Even they are more Mongoloid looking than the Hungarians in Hungary, it seems that they too are mostly Magyarized Romanians, as genetics proves. The area where they live was peopled by Romanians before, which where systematicaly magyarized and drawn away, as documents from feudal period mention. Descendants of these Romanians still live in some localities.


Naturaly, the area is mountainous, the mountains being of   voulcanic origin. The woods is predominantly of coniferes. There are very fine landscapes everywere but the most spectacular are the Bicaz gorges, the lake Saint Anne voulcanic crater) and Red Lake (result of a earth slide in 19th century), the Olt and Mures valleys (these two great Romanian rivers are springing from here).

Also the historical cities of Târgu Mures, Odorhei, Târgu Secuiesc, several castles and fortresses.




-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: CelticScythian
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 07:06
Thank you for the great information and beautiful photographs!Clap

--Thomas


-------------
"It's too early to tell the future." --Yogi Berra


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 10:31
Originally posted by rodimus prime rodimus prime wrote:

i want to ask ,who are the szekler in romania ,are they related to magyar people of hungary ,thank you .
Menumorut is right. The Szeklers moved to Transylvania in the 12th century. Before that time they lived in separated groups on other borderlands of Hungary. This is why some historians beleive that the ancestors of the Szeklers were originally people with various ethnic origin who colonized the same areas and has the same rights.
 
The Romanian theory that they are magyarized Romanians are questionable. In my personal opinion its a creation of Romanian nationalists. For example a notable Romanian historian Stefan Pascu thought that they are a mixture of varoius nomadic tribes like: Huns, Avars, Khazars, Pechenegs etc.
 
If you want a non-Hungarian, non-Romanian view about them look after the works of Hansgerd Göckejan, a German sholar.
(->Hansgerd Göckejan: Hilfsvölker und grenzwächter im mittelalterlichen Ungarn. Quellen und studien zur geschichte des östlichen Europa. Band V. Wiesbaden 1972.)


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 12:01

Some historians (of course of Bulgarian origin Smile) believe that Szeklers are close or the same as Esegel -- on of tribes that came to Volga Bulgaria with other tribes. It was mentioned by Ibn Fadlan and Ibn Ruste for example.

Esegels (or Äsägel) were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_nomads - Eurasian nomads , that joined the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_Bulgaria - Volga Bulgaria state and were assimilated to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolgars - Bolgars . They were probably of Turkic or perhaps Ugric origin. They are supposed to have originated from Central Asian tribe http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chigil&action=edit - Chigil or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishkil&action=edit - Ishkil . Their living in Volga Bulgaria in 9th-10th centuries was also mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Fadlan - ibn Fadlan .

According to some theories, the modern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szekler - Szeklers are the descendants of the Esegels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esegel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esegel
http://www.kroraina.com/p_bulgar/p_bulg1b.htm - http://www.kroraina.com/p_bulgar/p_bulg1b.htm
 
 


-------------
.


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 15:58


Quote The Romanian theory that they are magyarized Romanians are questionable. In my personal opinion its a creation of Romanian nationalists.


It's surely that much (or most) of the Transylvanian Hungarians are magyarized Romanians who catholicized themselves and adopted the Magyar language in all the period between 11th and 16th century.

About the Sekellians, is hard for me to believe that they found an empty land. Their Europid look doesn't seems to be very different of the Romanians'.


Quote For example a notable Romanian historian Stefan Pascu thought that they are a mixture of varoius nomadic tribes like: Huns, Avars, Khazars, Pechenegs etc.


I think in 9th century we cann't speak more about Huns, they already have mixed with other peoples for centuries.
The Sekellians doesn't seem to have been magyarized before their colonization, they seem to have been an already Magyar speaking group and that mean they are not a different than Magyars people because Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans, by adopting Magyar language, lost their identity and became Hungarians. The Sekellians may be just a tribe of Hungarians and the preservation of their name may be best explained just by their Hungarian apartnence.




    
    

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 17:47

I read in one book (A.Stamatov, Tempora incognita of the Early Bulgarian History) that some information about them could be found in Hungarian Chronicle of Johannes de Thurocz. As far as I understood they spoke language different from Hungarian and with "non-mixed blood". Up to the end of 15th century they preserved their "Scythian alphabet" which actually was specially cut wooden sticks. After arrival of Hungarians to Pannonia they moved to Transilvania where they had semi-independent duchies until XI century.

What language do they speak now? Hungarian, Romanian or something else?


-------------
.


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 19:18
    

Thez speak Hungarian and I didn't heard about another language.

Saxons, colonized in the same time, preserved their German language, why should Sekellians have lost their language?

About Sekellian runes I dont know, you cand search on the web, look what I found rapidly:


http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/rovas/inf/rovasE.html - http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/rovas/inf/rovasE.html (fancy site but with some good information)

http://pedroiy.free.fr/alphabets/hongrois.htm - http://pedroiy.free.fr/alphabets/hongrois.htm

http://www.dsuper.net/~elehoczk/frmain.htm - http://www.dsuper.net/~elehoczk/frmain.htm




-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 02:24
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

Some historians (of course of Bulgarian origin Smile) believe that Szeklers are close or the same as Esegel -- on of tribes that came to Volga Bulgaria with other tribes. It was mentioned by Ibn Fadlan and Ibn Ruste for example.

Esegels (or Äsägel) were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_nomads - Eurasian nomads , that joined the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_Bulgaria - Volga Bulgaria state and were assimilated to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolgars - Bolgars . They were probably of Turkic or perhaps Ugric origin. They are supposed to have originated from Central Asian tribe http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chigil&action=edit - Chigil or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishkil&action=edit - Ishkil . Their living in Volga Bulgaria in 9th-10th centuries was also mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Fadlan - ibn Fadlan .

According to some theories, the modern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szekler - Szeklers are the descendants of the Esegels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esegel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esegel
http://www.kroraina.com/p_bulgar/p_bulg1b.htm - http://www.kroraina.com/p_bulgar/p_bulg1b.htm
 
 
Not all of them are Bulgarian. For example this theory was supported by a quite perstigious Hungarian historian: Gyula Kristó.
 
 


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2006 at 09:20
       


A sad day for Romanians.
This weekend, a great ensamble of UDMR (the national and political Party of the Hungarians in Romania), including the heads of Hungarian minority in Romania as well as 300 majors and others personalities, have made a rezolution asking the autonomy of the so called Szekler Land (Szekelyfold in Hungarian).

The reactions of Romanian politicians is amortized by the trouble with the International Festival of Francophony, fifty presidents and other State chiefs from all the world being espected at Bucharest next days.


-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 19:10
Originally posted by Menumorut Menumorut wrote:

       
A sad day for Romanians.
This weekend, a great ensamble of UDMR (the national and political Party of the Hungarians in Romania), including the heads of Hungarian minority in Romania as well as 300 majors and others personalities, have made a rezolution asking the autonomy of the so called Szekler Land (Szekelyfold in Hungarian).

The reactions of Romanian politicians is amortized by the trouble with the International Festival of Francophony, fifty presidents and other State chiefs from all the world being espected at Bucharest next days.
 
Well, Menorut, yesterday was a bad day for Romania, but today it is a good day: the European Union has accepted the entrance of Romania (and Bulgaria) with secundary conditions, from january first of next year.
As a european member, Romania is going to be bound to accept the "Autonomy" of the Szekler lands, but it is going to have "warranted" the
political frontiers.  It is the western european way to deal with the minority problem: no change of frontiers, only autonomies with related rights.
In Italy, for example, the problem of the Alto Adige/Sud Tirol has been solved in this "calm" way (solving a bloody terrorism problem), without ethnic cleansing like in the former Yugoslavia.
By the way, I liked very much your comments on the Bulgarian communities in Romania (and on the Romanian communities in Bulgaria) in another forum.     So, allow me to ask you your opinion on the Timok valley Romanian/Vlach communities in Serbia (as I have asked you in the Forum of Vlach area maps).   I am considering to write a book on the neo-latin people in the Balkans south of the Danube river, and every grass-roots information is very appreciated. 
Thank you.    Smile    Bruno
 


-------------



Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 09:56
    

Quote As a european member, Romania is going to be bound to accept the "Autonomy" of the Szekler lands, but it is going to have "warranted" the
political frontiers. It is the western european way to deal with the minority problem: no change of frontiers, only autonomies with related rights.



I disagree. There are not directives for ethnic autonomy administration in the UE. This is even the motive UDMR hurried to make this, because after Romania will be integrated in UE, autonomous entities will not be allowed to be created.


But more important are the moral aspects: is not right to accord autonomy to a population which is the result of colonization and who was privileged in the defavour of autochtonous population, which was severely deprived, magyarized and exploited through the centuries.

Also, such measure would create a precedent. In the are of the (former) Saxon colonists, the villages are inhabited mainly by Roma people. This is an area big as two counties and is in the vicinity of Szekler region.


Hapily, the autonomy will not be put in existence (it was just a policital maneuvre of the leaders of UDMR which were accused by the radical nationalists that they are not representing Hungarian minority aspirations).

But this declaration will cool the relation between Romanians and Hungarians for ever. Only a contra-declaration will repair partialy this, but I dont think it will be gived.


...........


About UE integration of Romania I dont make great hopes. Romania is such a corrupt country that I dont think integration will cure its weakness. Ratherly, the political and economical Mafias will adapt to the new medium and is not excluded that Romania's integration to lead at an extension of corruption in the countries of UE.

Most of the corrupted politicians and functionaries are not Romanian ethnics but Roma-Romanian metises.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 16:41

I have only written that "Romania is going to be bound to accept the authonomy of the Szekler lands", without any references to "directives for ethnic autonomy administration in the UE".     These are two things very different, Menumorut.                                                                               You are too much pessimistic about your beautiful country: corruption is much more terrible outside Europe.    I have been in South America and Africa and I can assure you that Romania's corruption and problems are a "piece of cake", as Americans say.      Bye Bye,  Bruno

P.S. : About the minority problems laws in the EU, please read the " European Union Law: An Integrated Guide to Electronic and Print Research  By Marylin J. Raisch   at http://www.llrx.com/features/eulaw2.htm - www.llrx.com/features/eulaw2.htm   "  
 
 
 
 


-------------



Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 15:25
Originally posted by Menumorut Menumorut wrote:



Quote The Romanian theory that they are magyarized Romanians are questionable. In my personal opinion its a creation of Romanian nationalists.


It's surely that much (or most) of the Transylvanian Hungarians are magyarized Romanians who catholicized themselves and adopted the Magyar language in all the period between 11th and 16th century.
 
Hi!
 
In such a sort time (500 years)we could "magyarize" the Transylvanian romanians and your brothers in W. and M.  under other nomadian rules could hold the antient culture 2000 years long??? ...ejnye-bejnye...
 
After my knowlidge in Trans. lived bulgarians and mostly slaws (f.e. relativs from the duleb's) Certenly there could live antient dacians-some thracians survived in the East-Roman empire- too.
 
In the saxon territorys were living the seklers before the saxons arrived so 60-70 years; the most names of the szekler széks and familyes are originated from that part.
 
In the Gesta Hungarorum yuo can read, that the hungarians after the pecheneg and bulgarian attacs (their horses were taken by bese-s(hawks in old hungarian) had spend 4 years in Transylvania.
And, some graves of hungarian border patrol troopers were found in Moldva and Walachia(not far away from Bucarest) from the 10. century. Than where was the land, that they had  to defend?
 
After that the magyars made peace with the pechenegs-that could happened in that 4 years- they leaved the most part of Tr. (exept the banks of the Maros)and began to occupie the rest of the K-basin.
 
The old walachian name of Erdély was Argil, wasn't it? (i'm not sure:-)
 
In the hungarian schools it is teached that the first time that

About the Sekellians, is hard for me to believe that they found an empty land. Their Europid look doesn't seems to be very different of the Romanians'.
 
Certenly there could live 20-30 000 people max. 4-5000 antiant dacians.
the others were surly a lot of slaws and some bulgarian soldiers.
Oh, and not the hole terrytory wich belong today to Romania was Transylvania, onli the half part. The others were the Partium, the Banat, etc, where from the hungarians only under the osman wars had died out.
There, and in the large part of Trans, man can't find any villages, geografical names, that cuold have a romanian origin before the 14 th century.
 
  TSZ

Quote For example a notable Romanian historian Stefan Pascu thought that they are a mixture of varoius nomadic tribes like: Huns, Avars, Khazars, Pechenegs etc.


I think in 9th century we cann't speak more about Huns, they already have mixed with other peoples for centuries.
The Sekellians doesn't seem to have been magyarized before their colonization, they seem to have been an already Magyar speaking group and that mean they are not a different than Magyars people because Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans, by adopting Magyar language, lost their identity and became Hungarians. The Sekellians may be just a tribe of Hungarians and the preservation of their name may be best explained just by their Hungarian apartnence.




    
    


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 15:54
Quote they seem to have been an already Magyar speaking group
Evidence?


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 16:26
Quote Evidence?


Mr. Chilbudios (have I met you today on a Romanian forum?), if the ancestors of the Szeklers have spoken another language, when could have took place the adoption of the Hungarian? Why there are no differencies between Hungarian and Szekler languages?

Do you somehow believe hat Szeklers are not colonists but an elder population?

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 16:43
Quote if the ancestors of the Szeklers have spoken another language, when could have took place the adoption of the Hungarian?
Though I don't agree with the way the question is issued, the answer to it is: a language can be learnt in less than one year. The Szeklers were colonized (i.e mentioned) there in the 12th century. There were a lot of Magyarized Serbs or Vlachs in the medieval Transylvania (like the wellknown example of the Candea knyazs becoming later Kendeffy). Do you think their grandgrandgrand...children speak today a) Romanian b) Hungarian c) another language?
As for their origin, the first attestations of their ethnonyms are Siculi / Zaculi. Doesn't sound convincingly Hungarian to me. Probably that's why there are still controversies on their origin.
 


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 17:11
    
Quote There were a lot of Magyarized Serbs or Vlachs in the medieval Transylvania (like the wellknown example of the Candea knyazs becoming later Kendeffy).


You have to make distinction between exploited populations, Vlachs and Serbs for example and privileged populations, the colonists. The colonists preserved their original language.

Cândea knyazs have catholicized and magyarized in 15th century, when the control over Transylvania of the Hungarian rulers was being stronger.



Quote As for their origin, the first attestations of their ethnonyms are Siculi / Zaculi. Doesn't sound convincingly Hungarian to me. Probably that's why there are still controversies on their origin.


This name could have been gived to them by other people. The name Vlachs doesn't sound very Romanian, for example.
    

But, beyond their origin, what you think about what they are doing these days?

I mean http://www.ziua.net/display.php?id=208083&data=2006-09-28&ziua=e1150daeb129e6e96bff2a9a7ae7c184 - this ?

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 05:30
Quote You have to make distinction between exploited populations, Vlachs and Serbs for example and privileged populations, the colonists. The colonists preserved their original language.
How would you know who was "exploited" (I hope it's not a marxist approach") and who wasn't? How would you know if the colonists preserved their language or not?
 
Quote Cândea knyazs have catholicized and magyarized in 15th century, when the control over Transylvania of the Hungarian rulers was being stronger.
But this process didn't start in 15th century. Though we don't have relevant data for, let's say 12th century, we need to postulate it otherwise there's no verosimile justification how a settling nomadic group would later (linguistically) cover almost the entire Pannonia and large parts of Transylvania. The population was either exterminated or assimilated, and I believe the latter option is more probable.
 
Quote This name could have been gived to them by other people. The name Vlachs doesn't sound very Romanian, for example.
True, but this was not quite my point. Some consider their name Hungarian and relate their name with their administrative seats. But having in mind the first forms of the word I believe the administrative organization but most certainly its name and relation (szek - seat) are following their earlier presence and probably can be explain in a similar way with a large part of Hungarian toponimy related to "szek/szeg".
Also while the Vlachs are openly admitted as "Romanic", I don't know analogous description of the early Szeklers. The early Hungarian chronicles tell about them being the ancestors of the Huns or the people of the king Attila, sharing the same life with the Vlachs in the mountains. But as we see in Simon de Keza even the Vlachs were subjects of the king Attila. So ....?


Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 06:43
Hi!
 
These picture  chronicles are in the rule not more then cartoons. They were writen by west-influenced (hungarian-hun story) writers, who wanted to make a fundament and a history for all settlements and noble familys in Hungary. Almost all of the castle or village or mountian name giver "historian persons" in Gesta Hungarorum die in that settlements. It's funny:-)
Just a few antient storys were writen down (the tale of the Beses f.e.)
 
Gyula Kristó said that the székelys as independent group were formed int the 10-12th centuries, from the tree joined kabar tribes, who had a privilegized status , and from the poor free nomad hungarians, who didn't want to be a sklave of the new feudal nobles. So they run away from the feudal territories, out to the Gyepüs (the UNINHABITATED!!! nomadian border lands).
Many of the 11-12th hungarian king orders prescripted for the nobles (ispans) and chuches that they had to catch thes free nomad peoples.
 
TSZ
 


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 08:53
    

Quote How would you know who was "exploited" (I hope it's not a marxist approach") and who wasn't?
How would you know if the colonists preserved their language or not?


Do you sustain that theory that in Middle Age wasn't mattering the ethnicity? This was an adiacent observation.


In Transylvania, the conquerors where the Hungarians. The Hungarian aristocray and their Hungarian subjects considered Romanians a conquered population. From 1437 with the Unio Trium Nationum, Romanians were officialy deprived of the rights but even untill then they were considered unequal with the Hungarians and Germans. This was from the first moments of Transylvania's territory conquest (which lasted two centuries, X-XI).


The colonists were "secure" populations, I mean they have been chosen from that groups which it was presumed to remain loyal to Hungarian Kingdom. A magyarization of colonists could not take place because magyarization or any other ...-ization appears when a ethnic group is dominated by another, politicaly or culturaly.



Quote But this process didn't start in 15th century. Though we don't have relevant data for,
let's say 12th century, we need to postulate it otherwise there's no verosimile justification
how a settling nomadic group would later (linguistically) cover almost the entire Pannonia and
large parts of Transylvania.


Ofcourse, before 15th century many Romanians passed "voluntary" (quotas are because actualy the Romanians were in social inferiority and they were attracted by Hungarian privileges) to catholicism and Hungarian language. Hungarians always wished to hungarize everything (toponims, name of the non-Hungarian peoples), not only from XVIIIth century, but untill XIIIth century this was done spontanous, not organized.


The way Hungarians covered Pannonia and Transylvania is interesting; we can make only presumtions about how this happened. In Transylvania there have been discovered by arhcaeologists necropola of early Hungarian warriors, X-XIth century. They were still pagan, still burried with the horses. From XIth century the burials are Christian. I think Romanian population was not very numerous.

In Xth century The Hungarians established some military camps on the Carpathian Southern line. In XIth century the voivodate from Alba Iulia was fighting against the Pannonian Hungarians. This may have been ruled by Hungarian, Romanian, Slav or combinated ethnic origin voivods. Romanian villages have ben subjects of this voivodate.

From XIth century, Christianized population resulted from metising between Hungarians, Slavs and Romanians in Pannonia established settlements in Transylvania which were the oldest Hungarian villages from here.

In XIIth century started the process of colonising Saxons and Szeklers in South and East of Transylvania. The process ended in XIIIth century. The Romanians from these areas retreated in areas like Fagaras Land, Întorsura Buzaului, Vlahita and others. We can speak more about that.

The point is that colonists have not reasons to adopt the language of the Kingdom rulers. Thez were considered equal in rights with the Hungarians and guests of the King.



Quote But having in mind the first forms of the word I believe the administrative organization but most certainly its name and relation (szek - seat) are following their earlier presence and probably can be explain in a similar way with a large part of Hungarian toponimy related to "szek/szeg".


This theory is contradicting the historical data. In XIIth century the Szekelyfold (Land of Szeklers) is mentioned in Mese Mountains (Salaj county) with that name, Szekler. Toponims (Sacuieni in Bihor, Szekeliko near Aiud) attest the migration of Szeklers accros Transylvania in 12-13th century.



Quote These picture chronicles are in the rule not more then cartoons. They were writen by west-influenced (hungarian-hun story) writers, who wanted to make a fundament and a history for all settlements and noble familys in Hungary. Almost all of the castle or village or mountian name giver "historian persons" in Gesta Hungarorum die in that settlements. It's funny:-)
Just a few antient storys were writen down (the tale of the Beses f.e.)


Is true that the connections with Attila were pure fabulations, but Gesta Hungarorum is saying about 9th century voivodates at Biharea and Dabâca and this have been confirmed clearly by archaeology. The fact that at Dabâca is spoken about Romanians and Slavs is also very correct.


Quote Gyula Kristó said that the székelys as independent group were formed int the 10-12th centuries, from the tree joined kabar tribes, who had a privilegized status , and from the poor free nomad hungarians, who didn't want to be a sklave of the new feudal nobles. So they run away from the feudal territories, out to the Gyepüs (the UNINHABITATED!!! nomadian border lands).


As I sayed, this 'run' across Transylvania lasted more than a century.
    

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 10:37
Do you think, that the hungarian tribes, who occupied and ruled tho most of the little frankonian and slawian kingdoms and principats(sorry, Idon't know the correct word), and fought against the best armies of Europe,  Frank Empire, Bizac, made war in german terrytorries, reached the Atlantik in France, looted in Burgundia, in Italy, in the Kalifat from Cordoba; that they wasn't able to make short procedure with two little voivodates??
(of wich inhabitants is not sure that they were romanians)
 
And I think, you don't understand, what the major politik and the major social principle of the hungarians was: (and this was one of the magyars damage too)
As a nomad tribe-union, the dentu-moger contend a lot of occupied or invited different ethnic groups, with their own strongs and issius, with different tasks. The Magyar country was like a little Europe, a perfect working organization with hungarian leading, until the Mongol invasion. They cilled or robbed all those inhabitans, who couldn't run over the snow-border:-) So '/3 of the cc. 2 million magyars died, after that the colonist from M and W went to a lot of destroyed and outwiped hungarian territories.
 
It's important than in these age there weren't living a lot of people in Trans., and that few population lived near by rivers and not high in the Mountains. in the 14th cent. there was a large increase of population all in the country, so the magyars grewagain, and the number of romanian colonists grew too. They occupied the higher regions of Tr. so in the Osman wars they survived with little damages the turks and krimian Tatars.
 
In the 15 year war (when the Kt-s damaged total Alba Jula/Gyulafehérvár) and halfed the hungarian and saxonian population, the romanian pupulation had got the leading "minority" in Transylvania. 
 
 
Gyula: had a hungarian or Bulgarian name: Prokuj. His doughter had a turcic-hungarian name: Sarolt - little weasel - silly:-) She was the mother of I. Stephen, she cuold ride a horse, shoot with the bow and drink men under the table:-))) a real nomadian woman:-))
 
 
Oh, and: Geza and Stephen made a big population-removal all over the country, they damaged the communities of the tribes and minorities- to prevent any revolts against themself.
 
TSZ


Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 10:58
Hi!
 
Sorry, Alba Jula was damaged in the 1690's.
 
And: how cuold a few hungarians magyarize:-) the much more romanians? Than they should had speak more romanian, like the proto-bulgarians  were spoken a slawian language with few turcic words and their cars had slawian names 200 years after their conquest in Thracia.
 
TSZ


Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 11:43
Hi!
 
Interesting thing about the székelys:
the székely army, the leaders, the horsemen(lófő) and the foot troops had (probably first time in Europe)an  established military uniform: the red köntös(caftan) and dolmány (coat). (from the 15th c.)
 
TSZ


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 11:54

Quote In Transylvania, the conquerors where the Hungarians. The Hungarian aristocray and their Hungarian subjects considered Romanians a conquered population. From 1437 with the Unio Trium Nationum, Romanians were officialy deprived of the rights but even untill then they were considered unequal with the Hungarians and Germans. This was from the first moments of Transylvania's territory conquest (which lasted two centuries, X-XI).
If you remember Bobalna revolt it weren't just the Vlachs who revolted, which somehow shakens your theory of oppression on ethnic layers. While I don't deny the ethnicity as much as almost any markers of the identity were sources of conflict during the entire history of humanity, there were also Vlach nobility living quite well in medieval Transylvania, as well as Hungarian/Szekler peasantry living quite badly.
As for the extension of 15th century realities in 10th is groundless. About what rights anyway are you talking about when you address 10-11th century Transylvania? About what equality?

Quote The colonists were "secure" populations, I mean they have been chosen from that groups which it was presumed to remain loyal to Hungarian Kingdom. A magyarization of colonists could not take place because magyarization or any other ...-ization appears when a ethnic group is dominated by another, politicaly or culturaly. [...] The point is that colonists have not reasons to adopt the language of the Kingdom rulers. Thez were considered equal in rights with the Hungarians and guests of the King.
  You learn a language to interact with other people, not because you're "insecure" or "not equal in rights".
Needless to say that Hungarians eventually built an impresive Christian kingdom, therefore your requested criterias of political and cultural domination are fullfiled.

Quote This theory is contradicting the historical data. In XIIth century the Szekelyfold (Land of Szeklers) is mentioned in Mese Mountains (Salaj county) with that name, Szekler. Toponims (Sacuieni in Bihor, Szekeliko near Aiud) attest the migration of Szeklers accros Transylvania in 12-13th century.
I don't know of any Szekler (taken ad litteram) toponym in 12th century Transylvania. Care to detail? As for Sacuieni and other toponyms how do you explain Sacueni in Wallachia? Do you think Szeklers itinerary included those places, too? Also, do you think today's form of the toponym reflects a 12th century reality? Let me give you an example of Transylvanian evolution in toponymy: in 1295 we find particula terre Godyn vocata, que vulgariter Ryngylkyrch nominatur (an obvious German toponym: Ryngenkirche - the round church). Later it becomes Ringelkirch, Rynkerkerh (1313), terra seu villa Ryngenkerg (1323), terra seu poss. Regurkyrch (1324), Regurkyr (1335), Rengunkirl, Rengerkyrch (1380), Lengerkirth (1437), Lengelkyrk (1509), Lengielkek, Lengyelkek (1576), Lengyelfalva (1578), etc.. So from "round church" we get "Polish church", "Polish blue" or "Polish village". Excuse me that I'm skeptical on your analysis of toponymy. Also look how a name given by those priviledged colonists was Magyarized. How dared they?

Quote but Gesta Hungarorum is saying about 9th century voivodates at Biharea and Dabâca and this have been confirmed clearly by archaeology
GH doesn't mention any voivodates. Also the archaeology just found some earthwork fortifications, not voivodates.



Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 11:58
   

Quote Do you think, that the hungarian tribes, who occupied and ruled tho most of the little frankonian and slawian kingdoms and principats(sorry, Idon't know the correct word), and fought against the best armies of Europe, Frank Empire, Bizac, made war in german terrytorries, reached the Atlantik in France, looted in Burgundia, in Italy, in the Kalifat from Cordoba; that they wasn't able to make short procedure with two little voivodates??
(of wich inhabitants is not sure that they were romanians)


All the barbar invasions and conquests were lead by a small number of people. For example, the Germanic peoples who invaded the Europe in V-VIth centuries and created Germanic states everywhere (Spain, France, Italy and others) where 6% of the total population.

The efectinvness of Barbarians was due to the fact that ealry medieval European society was almost unorganized, the population sparsed.

The fact that voivodates of Biharia and Dabâca opposed Hungarian invasion is attested arhcaeologicaly. But this opposition lasted only short time.



Quote So '/3 of the cc. 2 million magyars died, after that the colonist from M and W went to a lot of destroyed and outwiped hungarian territories.


I think you are intoxicated with fake nationalist historiography. The tribes who moved in Pannonia at the end of IXth century where numbering ~25.000 warriors, so with women, elders and childs they may have reached ~100.000 people.


Quote It's important than in these age there weren't living a lot of people in Trans., and that few population lived near by rivers and not high in the Mountains.


How you know how many lived and where they lived?



Quote In the 15 year war (when the Kt-s damaged total Alba Jula/Gyulafehérvár) and halfed the hungarian and saxonian population, the romanian pupulation had got the leading "minority" in Transylvania.


I'm not contradicting you but also I don't believe you untill you don't bring some arguments.



Quote Gyula: had a hungarian or Bulgarian name: Prokuj. His doughter had a turcic-hungarian name: Sarolt - little weasel - silly:-) She was the mother of I. Stephen, she cuold ride a horse, shoot with the bow and drink men under the table:-))) a real nomadian woman:-))


Don't know at which Gyulayou refer to.






-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 12:08

Quote I think you are intoxicated with fake nationalist historiography. The tribes who moved in Pannonia at the end of IXth century where numbering ~25.000 warriors, so with women, elders and childs they may have reached ~100.000 people.
Before patronizing your debate parteners make sure you read what they write.  Tar Szerend was talking about the Mongol invasion not about the end of 9th century.

I hope you won't do similar gaffes while replying to me.


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 13:43


Quote If you remember Bobalna revolt it weren't just the Vlachs who revolted, which somehow shakens your theory of oppression on ethnic layers. While I don't deny the ethnicity as much as almost any markers of the identity were sources of conflict during the entire history of humanity, there were also Vlach nobility living quite well in medieval Transylvania, as well as Hungarian/Szekler peasantry living quite badly.
As for the extension of 15th century realities in 10th is groundless. About what rights anyway are you talking about when you address 10-11th century Transylvania? About what equality?


You're right.


Quote You learn a language to interact with other people, not because you're "insecure" or "not equal in rights".

The adoption of a language by a whole people come only in some situations. I cann't see how the ancestors of Szeklers have learned Hungarian for interacting with them and remained a different identified group.


Quote I don't know of any Szekler (taken ad litteram) toponym in 12th century Transylvania. Care to detail? As for Sacuieni and other toponyms how do you explain Sacueni in Wallachia? Also, do you think today's form of the toponym reflects a 12th century reality?


Sacuieni-Bihor



For Sacuieni-Bihor, read this:
http://www.metszes.hu/honlapok/szekelyhid/roman/index.htm - http://www.metszes.hu/honlapok/szekelyhid/roman/index.htm

Sacuieni in Wallachia ofcourse are results of Romanian withdrawals from Harghita-Covasna across Carpathians.

Sorry for this quote in Romanian, I think is inteligible:


O parte a populaţiei secuieşti a fost aşezată pe graniţa vestică şi nordică a ducatului, respectiv a Regatului Ungariei. Secuii sunt amintiti, printre altele, în anii 1256, 1314, 1323 şi 1364, pe latura vestică a statului maghiar, în comitatele Pozsony şi Moson. Prezenţa lor este confirmată apoi şi de numele unor localităţi, cu denumiri de genul Székely şi Székelyfalu, ambele în comitatul Szabolcs, formate prin includerea etnonimului maghiar atribuit secuilor. Importante comunităţi secuieşti sunt evocate documentar şi în comitatele Bars, Szerém, Gömör, Abaúj, Somogy şi Baranya.

Un segment important al populaţiei secuieşti a fost aşezat în părţile răsăritene ale Regatului Ungarie, pe teritoriul Transilvaniei. Sarcina principală a contingentelor secuiesti a constat în consolidarea şi apărarea fortificaţiilor de graniţă (ung. gyepü). In consecinţă, comunităţile secuieşti au fost deplasate treptat, în mod planificat, concomitent cu avansarea hotarelor statului maghiar spre estul şi sud-estul Transilvanei. Prezenţe secuieşti sunt semnalate în secolele XI şi XII în anii 1116 şi 1146 în Bihor, în zona localităţilor Teleac şi Salonta, dar şi pe teritoriul actualelor judeţe Timiş şi Hunedoara. Comunităţi secuieşti, întemeiate la o dată incertă, probabil la cumpăna secolelor XI-XII, sunt semnalate de izvoarele arheologice şi scrise pe văile râurilor Secaş, la Sebeş-Alba, şi Târnava Mare, în zona municipiilor Mediaş şi Sighişoara, dar şi în Podişul Hârtibaciului la Saschiz şi Viscri.

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secui - http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secui



Quote GH doesn't mention any voivodates. Also the archaeology just found some earthwork fortifications, not voivodates.


OK, Dukedoms. And archaeology found Duke centers (even in Romanian historiography they are ratherly called Voivodates), not simply fortifications:

Biharia,
com. în jud. Bihor (la cca 12 km NV de Oradea), în marginea careia pe malul vestic al râului Cosmeu (Cesmeu) se pastreaza o mare cetate de pamânt. Aceasta este de plan rectangular (cca 180 / 220m la exteriorul santurilor), valuri late la baza de 20-30m si înalte de 5-7m si santuri adânci de 4-5m, înconjurând cetatea pe trei laturi. Spre E, unde curgea pe sub cetate Cosmeul, santul lipseste, aici fiind alipita valului mare o fortificatie de pamânt mai scunda de plan circular alungit ("Cetatea fetelor"). Aceasta dateaza se pare din comuna primitiva, si a fost refolosita odata cu ridicarea cetatii mari dreptunghiulare... Cetatea B. a fost identificata cu "castrum Byhor" atestat de Cronica notarului anonim ca centru politic-militar al voievodatului Bihorului aflat atunci sub stapânirea "ducelui" Menumorut... Se pare ca centrul ducatului bihorean s-a mutat în secolul 11 de la B. la Oradea... precum si bordeie semiadâncite datate din sec. 5-6, 7-8, 8-9 si 9-10, atestând o locuire...
(Enciclodepia arheologiei si istoriei vechi a României, 1994-2000)
....

Dabâca,
com. în jud. Cluj pe terit. careia se afla o mare fortificatie cu valuri de pamânt, santuri si urme de palisade (cca 15 ha) pe terasa înalta de pe dreapta vaii Lonea... Cercetarile de amploare initiate în 1964 sunt înca în curs. Fortificatia, de plan aproximativ triunghiular, consta din 4 incinte concentrice. În prima ei perioada de existenta, cu doua faze de constructie datate de la sfârsitul sec. 8 pâna la începutul sec. 10, valurile si santurile au delimitat pe botul terasei patru incinte: a) val lat de cca 5 m precedat de berma (1,25 m) si sant adânc de 1,30 m, delimitând incinta I, lunga de cca 50 m, înlocuit apoi printr-unval cu latimea dubla, precedat nemijlocit de sant adânc de 3,25 m; b) val lat de 8 m cu berma (2,50 m), precedat de sant lat de 5 m si adânc de 1-1,5 m, delimitând incinta III la cca 230 m distanta de vârful botului de terasa; c) val lat de 7 m si adânc de 2,54 m, delimitând incinta IV la aproape 600 m departare de vârful botului terasei... În incintele III si IV au fost descoperite semibordeie, locuinte de suprafata din bârne de lemn, gropi de provizii, ateliere (cuptoare de redus minereul si fierarii) ce confera locuirii din sec. 9-10 caracterul de asezare întarita. Cele mai vechi dintre bisericile ale caror temelii s-au descoperit si cercetat la D. nu beneficiaza înca de datari ferme; este posibil ca ele sa apartina sec. 10. Majoritatea materialelor arheologice descoperite la D. si datate de la sfârsitul sec. 8 la începutul sec. 10 constau din ceramica, la aceasta adaugându-se piese de metal (pinteni de tip carolingian placati cu foita de aur, arme, unelte etc) si piese de podoaba (pandantive din argint de factura bizantina). S_a propus identificarea primei etape a fortificatiei de la D. cu cetatea de resedinta din apropierea râului Somes a lui Gelu, voievodul român al Transilvaniei din primii ani ai sec. 10, atestat în cronica lui Anonymus (castrum suum iuxta fluvium Zomus positum). Dezvoltarea ulterioara a asezarii de la D., în vremea extinderii stapânirii maghiare asupra Transilvaniei si când aici s-a instalat centrul comitatului cu acelasi nume, este aestata si de izvoarele scrise (1068 -in urbem Dobuka).
(Enciclodepia arheologiei si istoriei vechi a României, 1994-2000)


Dabâca
http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?action=show&ident=1639960">

Biharia, house from 5-6th century
http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?action=show&ident=1639949">


Read http://www.ubbcluj.ro/www-hu/pr-acad/doctorat-teze/Istorie%20Bacuet%20Crisan%20Avram%20Dan%2012.03.2005.pdf#search=%22cetatea%20dabaca%22 - this too.
    
    

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 14:35

Hi!

 
OK, I'LL show you some facts after the weekend:-).
 
Szekelys and the hungarian language:
 
prehistory:-):
There were a planty of time before some ugrian groups, who lived by the Ural(or somewhere els there)and who had a big iranian(alanian) influence(so they were nomads). some tousend miles away in the middle of the asian steppe lived the turk tribe-union of the tinglings. Some hundred years later the name changed into tielö; from this was "born the ogur and the oguz tribe-union (some times later they have built two different turcic language group). From the ogurs came the onogurs, onogundurs(proto-bulgarians), kutrigurs, utrigurs, saraugurs, kazars etc.
 
In the 7th century the kazars made a country (not with only kazar, but with different alanian and other ogur and ugric, Horezmian groups and probably some avars too). And slawes lived there too. 
In the northern part there lived ugors. I think(these all is my own teory:-), that the kazar Kagan sended an onogur group up ti this area, to defend this border land against other nomads . Here happened the same story with the onogurs like with the proto-bulgars by the Danube: they were "Magyarized":-)) by the ugors. (in about 50-100 years) Here had born the first Hetmagyar union.
Here could happened the székely-story, or after 812(kazarian civil war), when the kabars joined to the magyars.
When Julianus had arrived in 1232 near to Volga-Bulgaria, in Magna Hungaria ("Big" (antient) hungary) there were living hungarian groops who had spoken just like the western, "european" hungarians.
In the De Adm. Imp. Konstantinos said that the kabars teached their language the hungarians, but they speak the hungarian language too. And, that in the Kaukazus are living an other hungarian group, and they send delegates to eachother.
 
  TSZ
 


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 05:12

Quote The adoption of a language by a whole people come only in some situations. I cann't see how the ancestors of Szeklers have learned Hungarian for interacting with them and remained a different identified group.
Szeklers are a Hungarian speaking group with own identity. The argument is whether they spoke it as they arrived (whenever they did) or if they learnt it after they arrived. I see absolutely no reason to dismiss a priori any of the two alternatives.
And to participate a little to your rhetoric, how do you see the ancestors of today Szeklers preserving their identity as a Hungarian speaking group? Why did they not simply become Hungarians?

Quote O parte a populaţiei secuieşti a fost aşezată pe graniţa vestică şi nordică a ducatului, respectiv a Regatului Ungariei. Secuii sunt amintiti, printre altele, în anii 1256, 1314, 1323 şi 1364, pe latura vestică a statului maghiar, în comitatele Pozsony şi Moson. Prezenţa lor este confirmată apoi şi de numele unor localităţi, cu denumiri de genul Székely şi Székelyfalu, ambele în comitatul Szabolcs, formate prin includerea etnonimului maghiar atribuit secuilor. Importante comunităţi secuieşti sunt evocate documentar şi în comitatele Bars, Szerém, Gömör, Abaúj, Somogy şi Baranya.

Un segment important al populaţiei secuieşti a fost aşezat în părţile răsăritene ale Regatului Ungarie, pe teritoriul Transilvaniei. Sarcina principală a contingentelor secuiesti a constat în consolidarea şi apărarea fortificaţiilor de graniţă (ung. gyepü). In consecinţă, comunităţile secuieşti au fost deplasate treptat, în mod planificat, concomitent cu avansarea hotarelor statului maghiar spre estul şi sud-estul Transilvanei. Prezenţe secuieşti sunt semnalate în secolele XI şi XII în anii 1116 şi 1146 în Bihor, în zona localităţilor Teleac şi Salonta, dar şi pe teritoriul actualelor judeţe Timiş şi Hunedoara. Comunităţi secuieşti, întemeiate la o dată incertă, probabil la cumpăna secolelor XI-XII, sunt semnalate de izvoarele arheologice şi scrise pe văile râurilor Secaş, la Sebeş-Alba, şi Târnava Mare, în zona municipiilor Mediaş şi Sighişoara, dar şi în Podişul Hârtibaciului la Saschiz şi Viscri.
I'm not following what are you trying to prove. How would these make their name deriving from "seat"? 

And "denumiri de genul" hides an uncertainty and an inaccuracy. For instance, I've found out that Bihor's Sacuieni was attested in 1291 as Zekelyhid and there's also another contemporary settlement in Bihor known as Zekelteluk, though earlier in the same area I've found Zakulhyd (1278), Zekulhyd - also sometime during 13th century, Sicula (1234). So as you can see, though the toponyms suggest a Szekler presence they certainly do not suggest that "szek" (as "seat") was the root of all these terms. Looking for more such toponyms I've found a large variety: "zek", "zeek", "zak", "szak", "zegh", "zeech", "zyk", "zik", "sic", "scec", "scek" etc.. It's also true that we might have several roots for this variety of toponyms, that we might have here a hesitation of the Hungarian administration to adapt their own words to Latin culture and writing, but as well can be other words foreign to Hungarian.
Such a foreign word could be the Romanian "sec" (it or its derivates are found in toponymy as "sec", "seaca", "sac", "saca", "secatura", "sacatura", etc.), and even its source from Latin, "siccus"/"sicca" which can mean: dry, barren, arid, husky, empty, etc.. And we have a quite a number of mentions suggesting such meaning. A small river called "Szek - Asszo - patak", "Valleszaka vel Szarazpatak" during 12th century, "Valle Zeku" during Andrew II, or a document from 1341 mentioning a small valley "quod vulgo dicitur Zeek". Between "szek" and "sec", for a valley it makes more sense the second meaning.
A very interesting mention is at the middle of 13th century: terra Zek, which is a land "inter terras Olacorum de Kyrch, Saxonum de Barasu et terras Siculorum de Sebus" (which seems to point in the actual Szekelyfold). This "terra Zek" belonged to a Saxon, Fulkun, and after the Mongol invasion remained deserted and uninhabited. And the king Bela IV gave this land to a Szekler named Vincentius. Was this 13th century "terra Zek" a "Szekler seat"? Moreover, considering the description of the land, the interpretation "zek" = "sec" seems to provide a good description and a suggestive toponym.

For another example of a rather modern Szek check this toponym: hospites nostri de Zek (1291), villa Zek (1310), Scekakna (1315), decimae salium de Zekakna (1326), Zeeg (1333), Zyk (1370), comites camerarum salium de Szek (1410), oppidum Szek (1430), villa Skekakna (1438), Zeek (1545, 1579), Szekvaros (1750), Sziku (1839), Szek, Sic (1854).

Quote And archaeology found Duke centers (even in Romanian historiography they are ratherly called Voivodates), not simply fortifications:
If you read carefully the text you'd notice that there's no evidence they were actually dukedoms, other but GH's mention. They are described as earthwork fortifications.



Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 09:04
    
Quote I see absolutely no reason to dismiss a priori any of the two alternatives.


So, you say is possible Szeklers to have been spoking another than Hungarian language when they arrived.

As Tar sayed, Szeklers were not regular colonists, like Saxons. They were nomad groups in Partium and Transylvania and they have been concentrated in the today territory in 12-13th century.
If they were speaking another language, I think is impossible that this language to be replaced with Hungarian as quick.
Or, at least some elements of the ancient language should have remained. But there is NOTHING, Szekler language is pure Hugarian.


Quote Why did they not simply become Hungarians?


They preserved their tribal identity, what is so strange?
The assimilation of a group by another appears in some conditions. Szeklers being a special category of warriors of the Kingdom, so having a high level of self-conscience, is explicable that they preserved their identity.



Quote How would these make their name deriving from "seat"?


The name of the Szekler districts, Szek (Seat) was chosen because the sounding similarity with their name, Szekely. The name Szekely is anterior to the founding of the Szekler Districts of Seats.


Quote Moreover, considering the description of the land, the interpretation "zek" = "sec" seems to provide a good description and a suggestive toponym.


This is not convincing me. Ratherly, I think Szekely is an ancient tribal name, of an origin which may not be very interesting.




Quote If you read carefully the text you'd notice that there's no evidence they were actually dukedoms, other but GH's mention. They are described as earthwork fortifications.


Such fortifications could belong only to some extended political organizations.

    

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 10:34

Quote
As Tar sayed, Szeklers were not regular colonists, like Saxons. They were nomad groups in Partium and Transylvania and they have been concentrated in the today territory in 12-13th century.
Evidence? Evidence on "types" of colonists in medieval Transylvania. Evidence on Szekler nomadism (what kind of nomadism, where they came from in the Carpathian Basin? - that is part of the main question). Evidence on their alleged concentration.

Quote
If they were speaking another language, I think is impossible that this language to be replaced with Hungarian as quick.
How quick, why impossible?

Quote
Or, at least some elements of the ancient language should have remained. But there is NOTHING, Szekler language is pure Hugarian.
Simon de Keza tells us about early Hungarian population: Boemi, Poloni, Greci, Bessi, Armeni et fere ex omni extera natione que sub celo est. Where are they today? Don't they speak Hungarian (or Romanian or German) today ?
Also, considering there are arguably mutual local influences between Hungarian and Romanian, between Hungarian and Slavic languages, between Hungarian and Turkic languages and other languages where a contact existed, assuming the Szeklers would have spoken one of these .. how do you know they weren't one of the agents (and Szeklers do not speak a pure Hungarian, there are dialectal differences - however I don't know what's the cause, I'm only hypothesising now)?
And also, keep in mind there were Hungarians Romanianized in Wallachia or Moldavia, as well as Romanians Magyarized in Transylvania, therefore we know it's possible that individuals and even groups to fully change their language. Their identity was preserved in toponyms, sometimes traditions, but not language.

Quote They preserved their tribal identity, what is so strange?
You're offering a special pleading. If they preserved their "tribal" identity while speaking the same language as a large part of the population, why wouldn't they preserve it if they learnt this language?

Quote The assimilation of a group by another appears in some conditions. Szeklers being a special category of warriors of the Kingdom, so having a high level of self-conscience, is explicable that they preserved their identity.
A "special category" shared with Pechenegs, Cumans, Saxons, Vlachs. In some battles they are the avanguard (for instance, a 12th century document blames the Szeklers and the Petchenegs for running away from the battlefield). Sometimes they are among the buffer population between the kingdom and its southern and eastern neighbours. Also I don't know of a warrior culture in the manner of the Germanic populations.


Quote The name of the Szekler districts, Szek (Seat) was chosen because the sounding similarity with their name, Szekely. The name Szekely is anterior to the founding of the Szekler Districts of Seats.
 Why Szekely (what does this ethnonym mean?) and not Zakuli, Zekeli, Siculi or somehow else?

Quote Such fortifications could belong only to some extended political organizations.
While I prefer not argue about what "extended" means, my point was archaeology doesn't say anything about voivodates or dukedoms. Don't invoke other disciplines to support such assertions.



Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 14:29
Quote Evidence on "types" of colonists in medieval Transylvania. Evidence on Szekler nomadism (what kind of nomadism, where they came from in the Carpathian Basin? - that is part of the main question). Evidence on their alleged concentration.


I will quote from the same page of Romanian Wikipedia:

Nu sunt cunoscute exact împrejurările şi nici data exactă la care secuii s-au alăturat ungurilor. Izvoare istorice mai târzii (Anonymus, Simon de Kéza) îi amintesc pe secui alături de maghiari deja în secolul X, perioadă în care secuii au preluat probabil şi limba maghiară. În calitate de popor asociat ungurilor, secuii s-au aflat permanent în avangarda trupelor maghiare, participând alături de acestea la diferite raiduri militare.

Secuii, împreună cu pecenegii, sunt evocaţi în anul 1116 în avangarda trupelor maghiare, în calitate de combatanţi în bătălia de la Olsava condusă de regele Ştefan al II-lea al Ungariei (1116-1131). Câteva decenii mai târziu, în anul 1146, îi regăsim pe secui, alături de aceeaşi pecenegi, în oastea regelui Géza al II-lea al Ungariei (1141-1162), în luptele de pe Leitha, duse împotriva margrafului Heinrich al II-lea de Austria. Demnă de menţionat este şi participarea secuilor, alături de români, saşi şi pecenegi, în trupele conduse de comitele Joachim al Sibiului, trimise între anii 1210-1213 de regele Andrei al II-lea al Ungariei în sprijinul aliatului său ţarul Borilă al Bulgariei (1207-1218). În fine, secuii au făcut parte şi din structura trupelor regelui Andrei al II-lea, participant între anii 1217-1218 la Cruciada a V-a, care au luptat în Palestina împotriva arabilor conduşi de Al Malik al-Adil (1193-1218) din dinastia Aiybidă.

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secui - http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secui



Quote How quick, why impossible?


Because Szeklers were living separately from Hungarians. the Hungarian population in Central Transylvania was scarce. There are no conditions for a Hungarization after the colonization.


Quote Simon de Keza tells us about early Hungarian population: Boemi, Poloni, Greci, Bessi, Armeni et fere ex omni extera natione que sub celo est. Where are they today? Don't they speak Hungarian (or Romanian or German) today ?


Yes, but due to Hungarization in the later period. You may know that Gherla was called Armenopolis.

And don't forget: Why there is nothing non-Hungarian in Szeklers' language? Even the smallest original element (dont tell about dialects, tell about original elements, like in some regions of Romania there are Latin origin wrods which are not to be found in other regions)?


Quote Also, considering there are arguably mutual local influences between Hungarian and Romanian, between Hungarian and Slavic languages, between Hungarian and Turkic languages and other languages where a contact existed, assuming the Szeklers would have spoken one of these .. how do you know they weren't one of the agents (and Szeklers do not speak a pure Hungarian, there are dialectal differences - however I don't know what's the cause, I'm only hypothesising now)?


Ofcourse they have been agents, they magyarized the Romanians in the region (see
http://www.romfest.org/rost/mar2004/secui.shtml - http://www.romfest.org/rost/mar2004/secui.shtml )
. But the magyarized Romanians speak also a Hungarian without original non-Romanian elements. I speak about the Chango people.


Quote If they preserved their "tribal" identity while speaking the same language as a large part of the population, why wouldn't they preserve it if they learnt this language?


Because the colective memory about their Szekler identity could not vanish.


Quote A "special category" shared with Pechenegs, Cumans, Saxons, Vlachs.


This phrase is against you. Why all other peoples preserved their language, only the Szeklers would have changed their?


Quote Why Szekely (what does this ethnonym mean?) and not Zakuli, Zekeli, Siculi or somehow else?


The name Szekely may have been a tribal or group name, like for example Moldavians. Its origin are far, maybe even before the Hungarian migration and the original sense was lost. The name could have been gived by a foreigner people or could derive from a toponyme or something else.

Do you believe that the Szekler Seats have been founded early? In which century?


Quote While I prefer not argue about what "extended" means, my point was archaeology doesn't say anything about voivodates or dukedoms.


I will prove with pure archaeological arguments, quoting from the same book with an article about a political center known only from archaeological discovery:
Fundu Hertii,
sat în com. Cristinesti (jud. Botosani), pe terit. caruia... a fost identificata, prin ample sapaturi arheologice, o asezare din sec. 8-11 d.H. situata în marginea de S-V a satului, pe locul "La reduta". Asezarea este întarita cu un val de pamânt lateral si cu 3 valuri de pamânt si 3 santuri adiacente, transversale pe directia caii de acces, delimitând o incinta cu o suprafata de cca 2,5 ha. Valurile de pamânt transversale si laterale, pastrate pâna la înalt. de cca 1,00m - 2,50m, au fost prevazute initial cu palisade de lemn, dispuse ca un gard pe culmea lor, iar pe pantele exterioare placate cu lespezi de piatra... ...În interiorul cetatuii au fost descoperite numeroase locuinte, partial adâncite în pamânt, adosate la valurile laterale si transversale. Locuintele contineau ca inventar unelte si arme de fier, precum si bogate resturi ceramice lucrate cu roata si cu mâna, ornamentate cu incizii orizontale si valurite. Au fost descoperite si gropi de provizii contiând grâu, mei, orz si secara carbonizate... ...Analiza sistemului de aparare, a locuintelor si a inventarului lor atesta faptul ca cetatea apartine, ca si altele din Moldova, populatiei vechi românesti (constituita într-un cnezat) si ca a fost ridicata ca mijloc de aparare împotriva navalirilor ungurilor, uzilor si pecenegilor la E de Muntii Carpati.
(Enciclodepia arheologiei si istoriei vechi a României, 1994-2000)



    

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 16:12
Hi!
Cuold we make a new topic with the Changos?
Ther is an interesting chango sentence: Hagyvá hagyta magyarit az magyarok császára(királya).
The hungarian king had left his hungarians away.
 
 
In the 1340's the hungarian and the transylvanian vojvod, Lackffy attacked many times with the seklers the Moldavian terr. of the Golden Hord. After that, when Radul(?) made Moldavia, the romanians weren't very strong to fight against the tartars, and the alans (jazigs, jaszok) left the land to (they moved to Hungary), so the hungarians settled little army groups out from the Carpatians, near to the old alanian city, Jasi (Jászvásár) (Jazig market). And after that, some szeklers moved to Moldva as colonists. Like the Walachs to Trans. .All hungarian kings helped the colonization, just
Corvinus, who turned the H. politic to the north from the south and east, had left this way. So the King was him.
 
The szekelys (not the other nomad hungarians and maybe besenyos and horesmians, who joined to them on their way)were settled after Gy. Kristo in the 10-11. c. in the Northwestern and western borderlands and by the innerborders of the comitats (by the duty places) and by the capitals of the dukes (f.e by Bihar comitatus: Székelyhíd stb.) Inthe Time of I. Ladislau and Kalman and II. Stephen they were moved to the east, against the Kipchaks. The place of the szekelys were taken by the big number of pechenegs, who were emigrated to Hungary after their final damage in 1122. Some székelys didn't moved, their villages were in the Őrség, and in the western parts of the western hungarian comitats. They have in nowdays related dialekts with the Transylvanians.
The first seks were in the saxonian lands (there weren't any saxons that time. When in he 1170's-90's the kings invited the saxons, and they moved the sekelys to the seks of today. (it can be seen by the nomadic graves under saxonian temples and cemeteries)
 
A lot of hungarians lived in Trans (f.e: in Kolozs district,) and just after the Mongol storms were the most of their villages deserted.
in 1241 f.e. near by Egres (there were livin the cistercienses) the inhabitants of 70 hungarian villages made a big earth-wood castle and fought against the mongols, but they failed, and were masacred.
 
Oh: I've red the Book Tatárjárás (Osiris Pres): Carpini, Master Rogerius : the last was here by the Mongolstorm: he was captured in Trans. by the mongols after Muhi, but he could run away; in his script there were armenians, kipchaks, saxons, seklers, hungarians but now walachians. I searc after an english or german version in the net, hope I'll find one.
 
TSZ


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 19:29
Quote Cuold we make a new topic with the Changos?
    

You can start a new topic for Changos if you want. As Changos are surely an effect of Szeklers (either as magyarized Romanians either as Hungarians) I think we can speak about them on this topic, but how you want.



Quote After that, when Radul(?) made Moldavia, the romanians weren't very strong to fight against the tartars, and the alans (jazigs, jaszok) left the land to (they moved to Hungary), so the hungarians settled little army groups out from the Carpatians, near to the old alanian city, Jasi (Jászvásár) (Jazig market).


Any sources for such a late existence of the Alans?



Quote And after that, some szeklers moved to Moldva as colonists.


Please, mention that thes are just your supositions. Origin of Changos is not known. Anything we know is that people exist, not when and how they arrived in Moldavia.
Anyway, the mention of Hungarian speaking in Moldavia is from XIIIth century, so your theory is surely not correct:
Primele surse(de indicat sursele) menţionează prezenţa unei comunităţi etnice maghiare în Moldova încă din secolul al XIII-lea.
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceang%C4%83i - http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceang%C4%83i

See also
http://www.ceangai.ro/ - http://www.ceangai.ro/ (Very interesting the page about the names of Changos in old documents, nakmes which even magyarized are of Romanian origin. The site is the official site of Chango community.)




Quote Like the Walachs to Trans.


Actualy, the flux was from Transylvania to Wallachia and Moldavia. How many Moldavian or Muntenian name villages are in Transylvania? I never heard of one.

But in Moldavia and Wallachia there are hundreds villages founded by Transylvanians. Myself, I was born in such a village, in Vâlcea county.




Quote in 1241 f.e. near by Egres (there were livin the cistercienses) the inhabitants of 70 hungarian villages made a big earth-wood castle and fought against the mongols, but they failed, and were masacred.


The region of the 70 villages is Peregul Mic in Arad county (see:
http://www.virtualarad.net/county/Peregul%20Mic/virtual_peregul_mic_home.htm - http://www.virtualarad.net/county/Peregul%20Mic/virtual_peregul_mic_home.htm )

There, in the neighborhoods, it is the oldest Romanian monastery still in service, Hodos-Bodrog, mentioned in 12th century but existing in 11th century:
http://www.manastireabodrog.ro/istorie_engleza.htm - http://www.manastireabodrog.ro/istorie_engleza.htm

Also, at some tens kms, near Arad city (Frumuseni comune), it was a most important Christian-Orthodox center, an 11th century Byzantine-style monastery recently discovered archaeologicaly:
http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/finds/bizere/bizere.htm - http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/finds/bizere/bizere.htm


So, in a strong Orthodox area, how could you speak about 70 Hungarian villages?




Quote Oh: I've red the Book Tatárjárás (Osiris Pres): Carpini, Master Rogerius : the last was here by the Mongolstorm: he was captured in Trans. by the mongols after Muhi, but he could run away; in his script there were armenians, kipchaks, saxons, seklers, hungarians but now walachians. I searc after an english or german version in the net, hope I'll find one.


Please make an effort and understand that some (most?) of Hungarian historians are deliberately covering the thruth. Try to avoid Hungarian sources and read other sources.

Let me help you with Rogerius' Carmen Miserabile:

The Carmen Miserabile of the Italian prelate Rogerius is a chronicle written after 1241 (occupation of Transylvania by the Tatars which he witnessed) giving interesting details of the organization of the Transylvanian knezates, a type of administration which was characteristic of the Roumanian communities.

Rogerius tells us how the inhabitants of the village of Frata (today Magyar-Frata, near Cluj, entirely Roumanian) received him, offering him black bread; the village population ('quae Frata dicitur in vulgari,' in the vulgar Latin, or Ausonian, spoken by the inhabitants) 'contituerunt canesios (ie knezes) id est balivios, qui justitiam facerent...et erant canesii fere centum... Conveniebant canesii pene qualibet septimana...Elegi igitur potius cum ipsis canesiis ad exercitum ire...Canesii vero ad recipienda munera acceserunt'.
     These knezes 'brought back peace' (after the Tatar invasion). Neither the Hungarians nor the Saxons of Transylvania availed themselves of the institution of knezates which was purely Roumanian (the word was Slavonic but was the title of prince in Russia), nor of the 'scaune' or seats of justice. The part of the country inhabited from the end of the thirteenth century to the present day by the Szekels - Siculi - has always been called 'Trei-Scaune' in Roumanian.

http://www.vlachophiles.net/ghika.htm - http://www.vlachophiles.net/ghika.htm

or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogerius_of_Apulia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogerius_of_Apulia


    

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 02:45

Originally posted by Menumorut Menumorut wrote:


Any sources for such a late existence of the Alans?
The jászok were a group of Alans. Their name was Asi or As in Arabic and Turkic languages. Presumably they first arrived Hungary together with the Cumans. In the 13th century they were still numerous enough to serve as border guard people in the Byzantine Empire. Some 14th century maps describe Moldavia as Alania. Only after the formation Romanian principalities they disappered.

Quote Please make an effort and understand that some (most?) of Hungarian historians are deliberately covering the thruth. Try to avoid Hungarian sources and read other sources.


Please make an effort and understand that some (most?) of Romanian historians are deliberately covering the thruth. Try to avoid Romanian sources and read other sources. Wink

This is nonsense you couldn't exclude sources just because you disagree with them.

Rogerius' Carmen Miserabile:

'quae Frata dicitur in vulgari,' in the vulgar Latin, or Ausonian, spoken by the inhabitants) '
"In vulgariter" or "in vulgari" are frequent formulas of medieval sources. It doesn't mean vulgar Latin, but the tongue of the people.
 
for example (ZsOkl. V. 247 1415): ad duas arbores vulgariter thulfa et nyrfa=
towards two trees named in common tongue tölgyfa and nyírfa
 


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 04:07
Quote Presumably they first arrived Hungary together with the Cumans. In the 13th century they were still numerous enough to serve as border guard people in the Byzantine Empire.


Surely is not a confussion in the Byzantine sources? It's known that Byzantines attributed names of Ancient peoples to some who came from the same regions in their time.



Quote Some 14th century maps describe Moldavia as Alania.

Wow! 14th century maps of Moldavia. And me was thinking that the oldest maps of Moldavia are from 16th century.


Quote Only after the formation Romanian principalities they disappered.


On what is based this theory? Only on Iassy city name? This name could came from many other things. I didn't heard about Yazig archaeological discoveries in Romania later than 4th century AD, and that in the West of the country (Partium). In Moldavia, Sarmatians vanished with the left of the Goths in 376. There is not any sign of Goths or Sarmatians after this date. And I never heard about non-Christian discoveries after 13th century in Moldavia.



Quote Please make an effort and understand that some (most?) of Romanian historians are deliberately covering the thruth. Try to avoid Romanian sources and read other sources.

Actualy not. Romanian historiography is in accordance with international historiography.


Quote "In vulgariter" or "in vulgari" are frequent formulas of medieval sources. It doesn't mean vulgar Latin, but the tongue of the people.


Rogerius explained there that Frata, the name of the village, is the name in vulgar language, as you say, the language of the people. Rogerius observed the vulgar Latin origin of this name and knowing that the people in village was spoken this language, considered necesary to make that explanation.

So, the people of the village was spoking vulgar Latin, Romanian.

   

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 04:32
Originally posted by Menumorut Menumorut wrote:

Quote Presumably they first arrived Hungary together with the Cumans. In the 13th century they were still numerous enough to serve as border guard people in the Byzantine Empire.


Surely is not a confussion in the Byzantine sources? It's known that Byzantines attributed names of Ancient peoples to some who came from the same regions in their time.

Quote Some 14th century maps describe Moldavia as Alania.

Wow! 14th century maps of Moldavia. And me was thinking that the oldest maps of Moldavia are from 16th century.


Quote Only after the formation Romanian principalities they disappered.


On what is based this theory? Only on Iassy city name? This name could came from many other things. I didn't heard about Yazig archaeological discoveries in Romania later than 4th century AD, and that in the West of the country (Partium). In Moldavia, Sarmatians vanished with the left of the Goths in 376. There is not any sign of Goths or Sarmatians after this date. And I never heard about non-Christian discoveries after 13th century in Moldavia.



Quote Please make an effort and understand that some (most?) of Romanian historians are deliberately covering the thruth. Try to avoid Romanian sources and read other sources.

Actualy not. Romanian historiography is in accordance with international historiography.


Quote "In vulgariter" or "in vulgari" are frequent formulas of medieval sources. It doesn't mean vulgar Latin, but the tongue of the people.


Rogerius explained there that Frata, the name of the village, is the name in vulgar language, as you say, the language of the people. Rogerius observed the vulgar Latin origin of this name and knowing that the people in village was spoken this language, considered necesary to make that explanation.

So, the people of the village was spoking vulgar Latin, Romanian. 

1. Alans: I used secondary sources, if you wish I will try to find some more precize sources.
2. International historiography is mostly not interested in Romanian-Hungarian disputes. They generally use secondary sources written by Romanian or Hungarian historians.
3. I do not see how Rogerius speculated about the origin of the village name. There is no such thing in the text.


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 04:56
Quote 1. Alans: I used secondary sources, if you wish I will try to find some more precize sources.


Only if you want, but I think we already are too far off topic here.



Quote 2. International historiography is mostly not interested in Romanian-Hungarian disputes. They generally use secondary sources written by Romanian or Hungarian historians.


I don't understand: they are not interested but they are taking the Romanian and Hungarian sources? You think that these historians are so trustfull to Romanian and Hungarian interpretations?

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that everybody could make an impression about objectivity of the Hungarian historians on one side and Romanian on the other side. The Hungarian interpretations are (with few exceptions) strongly tendencious. I can prove this but not now, later.



Quote 3. I do not see how Rogerius speculated about the origin of the village name. There is no such thing in the text.


I dont have the Rogerius' text, only that quota in Matila Ghyka webpage and the mention of a the vulgari language is about Frata: quae Frata dicitur in vulgari.

Also, have you mentioned the several refferencies of Rogerius at canesios (knezes)?

For me, Rogerius's Carmen Miserabile is a proof that Transylvania was peopled almost only by Romanians even in 13th century (excepting the land were Saxon and Szekler colonists have been brought) and the today Hungarians are magyarized Romanians.
    

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 07:42
Quote
2. International historiography is mostly not interested in Romanian-Hungarian disputes. They generally use secondary sources written by Romanian or Hungarian historians.


I don't understand: they are not interested but they are taking the Romanian and Hungarian sources? You think that these historians are so trustfull to Romanian and Hungarian interpretations?
 
Raider is right. In my thin experience, the Western historians are ignorant of many sources but also local historiography. This worringly happens for even the late and relatively well-documented history of the East European Middle Ages. And there are several reasons for this to happen:
- many of them do not have the proper linguistic knowledge - Slavonic, Hungarian, Romanian, etc..
- much of the material (primary sources but also recently scholarly work) is in the libraries of Eastern Europe, untranslated (in many cases there's an abstract in English/French/German) and much of what's translated is in local conferences and publications. Needless to say, the translations are often not in English, which is an increasingly difficulty for English speaking scholars. How many English writing scholars have you seen refering to Revue des Etudes Sud-Est Europeennes, for instance?
- lack of interest. A positive consequence of the historiographical debates (though rooted in nationalism) is the competition and the mutual criticism. That's why, for instance, many Romanian works were translated in Hungarian (or extensively quoted) and viceversa (I don't know of so many Hungarian works translated but I've read a lot of criticism on Hungarian authors where they were quoted extensively).
 


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 08:39
Originally posted by Menumorut Menumorut wrote:



I will quote from the same page of Romanian Wikipedia:

Nu sunt cunoscute exact împrejurările şi nici data exactă la care secuii s-au alăturat ungurilor. Izvoare istorice mai târzii (Anonymus, Simon de Kéza) îi amintesc pe secui alături de maghiari deja în secolul X, perioadă în care secuii au preluat probabil şi limba maghiară. În calitate de popor asociat ungurilor, secuii s-au aflat permanent în avangarda trupelor maghiare, participând alături de acestea la diferite raiduri militare.

Secuii, împreună cu pecenegii, sunt evocaţi în anul 1116 în avangarda trupelor maghiare, în calitate de combatanţi în bătălia de la Olsava condusă de regele Ştefan al II-lea al Ungariei (1116-1131). Câteva decenii mai târziu, în anul 1146, îi regăsim pe secui, alături de aceeaşi pecenegi, în oastea regelui Géza al II-lea al Ungariei (1141-1162), în luptele de pe Leitha, duse împotriva margrafului Heinrich al II-lea de Austria. Demnă de menţionat este şi participarea secuilor, alături de români, saşi şi pecenegi, în trupele conduse de comitele Joachim al Sibiului, trimise între anii 1210-1213 de regele Andrei al II-lea al Ungariei în sprijinul aliatului său ţarul Borilă al Bulgariei (1207-1218). În fine, secuii au făcut parte şi din structura trupelor regelui Andrei al II-lea, participant între anii 1217-1218 la Cruciada a V-a, care au luptat în Palestina împotriva arabilor conduşi de Al Malik al-Adil (1193-1218) din dinastia Aiybidă.

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secui - http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secui
Leaving aside the quality of the material (it starts with "we don't know when Szeklers joined Magyars" and continues "Szeklers were always the avantguard of the Magyars" Shocked LOL), it doesn't answer my questions. Moreover, it shows Szeklers having a similar military role with Saxons, Petchenegs, Vlachs - where is the particularism you evoked?


Quote
Because Szeklers were living separately from Hungarians. the Hungarian population in Central Transylvania was scarce. There are no conditions for a Hungarization after the colonization.
When do these happen? How scarce were the Hungarians? How dense were the Szeklers? How dense should the Hungarian be (compared to Szeklers) so that a linguistic assimilation could take place? When it is the first mention the Szeklers are a Hungarian speaking group?


Quote
Yes, but due to Hungarization in the later period. You may know that Gherla was called Armenopolis.
How late? Toponymy doesn't give the answer when the assimilation happened, we have even today places called "Peceneaga" while their linguistic identity was lost many centuries ago.

Quote
And don't forget: Why there is nothing non-Hungarian in Szeklers' language? Even the smallest original element (dont tell about dialects, tell about original elements, like in some regions of Romania there are Latin origin wrods which are not to be found in other regions)?
I am not that knowledgeable in Hungarian and particularily the Szkeley dialect so I can't point lexical differences exposing different sources/contacts. However, a different dialect usually includes also lexical differences, too. You earlier claimed the Szeklers speak the "purest Hungarian" and now "nothing non-Hungarian", groundless claims so far.

Quote
Because the colective memory about their Szekler identity could not vanish.
You failed to address the question ("why wouldn't they ... if ...") offering me ad nausesam the same assertions.


Quote
This phrase is against you. Why all other peoples preserved their language, only the Szeklers would have changed their?
Yeah right, please show me Petcheneg and Cuman speakers in Transylvania LOL

Quote
Do you believe that the Szekler Seats have been founded early? In which century?
Are you making fun of me? Confused
 
Review our discussion:
Chilbudios: I believe the administrative organization but most certainly its name and relation (szek - seat) are following their earlier presence
Menumorut: This theory is contradicting the historical data
 
I also concluded a bit later:
Chilbudious: though the toponyms suggest a Szekler presence they certainly do not suggest that "szek" (as "seat") was the root of all these terms.
 
Soon after you changed your opinion and embraced "my theory" (though I still objected to your chosen earliest form "Szekely"):
Menumorut: The name of the Szekler districts, Szek (Seat) was chosen because the sounding similarity with their name, Szekely. The name Szekely is anterior to the founding of the Szekler Districts of Seats.
 
And now you asked me this??? I remember I once quitted a debate with you and it seems now obvious why.


Quote
I will prove with pure archaeological arguments, quoting from the same book with an article about a political center known only from archaeological discovery:
Fundu Hertii,
sat în com. Cristinesti (jud. Botosani), pe terit. caruia... a fost identificata, prin ample sapaturi arheologice, o asezare din sec. 8-11 d.H. situata în marginea de S-V a satului, pe locul "La reduta". Asezarea este întarita cu un val de pamânt lateral si cu 3 valuri de pamânt si 3 santuri adiacente, transversale pe directia caii de acces, delimitând o incinta cu o suprafata de cca 2,5 ha. Valurile de pamânt transversale si laterale, pastrate pâna la înalt. de cca 1,00m - 2,50m, au fost prevazute initial cu palisade de lemn, dispuse ca un gard pe culmea lor, iar pe pantele exterioare placate cu lespezi de piatra... ...În interiorul cetatuii au fost descoperite numeroase locuinte, partial adâncite în pamânt, adosate la valurile laterale si transversale. Locuintele contineau ca inventar unelte si arme de fier, precum si bogate resturi ceramice lucrate cu roata si cu mâna, ornamentate cu incizii orizontale si valurite. Au fost descoperite si gropi de provizii contiând grâu, mei, orz si secara carbonizate... ...Analiza sistemului de aparare, a locuintelor si a inventarului lor atesta faptul ca cetatea apartine, ca si altele din Moldova, populatiei vechi românesti (constituita într-un cnezat) si ca a fost ridicata ca mijloc de aparare împotriva navalirilor ungurilor, uzilor si pecenegilor la E de Muntii Carpati.
(Enciclodepia arheologiei si istoriei vechi a României, 1994-2000)
 

    
There's no archaeological argument. Such conclusions prove a dubious scholarship of their authors. An earthwork fortification with weapons, ceramic and grains do not prove their inhabitants where "Ancient Romanians" nor that they were part of duchy/principality.


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 10:07
Quote In my thin experience, the Western historians are ignorant of many sources but also local historiography.


But this is not a reason for them of taking out what Romanians or Hungarians say in history subjects. I have seen that the Westerners express their opinions, even without having much information about the documentary and archaeological researches, and that they don't take as it is gived what Hungarians or Romanians say.



Quote That's why, for instance, many Romanian works were translated in Hungarian (or extensively quoted) and viceversa (I don't know of so many Hungarian works translated but I've read a lot of criticism on Hungarian authors where they were quoted extensively).


That is true. But please tell me, could you say Romanian historiography is partisan or that Hungarian historiography is objective?



Quote eaving aside the quality of the material (it starts with "we don't know when Szeklers joined Magyars" and continues "Szeklers were always the avantguard of the Magyars"


It's not a contradiction. Not knowing when the Szeklers joined Hungarians doesn't means they don't appear as the Hungarians' avantguard.


Quote it doesn't answer my questions.


You asked where are mentioned Szeklers before the settling in East Transylvania. I think the fragment of text answers this: the fact that Szeklers are so present in the Hungarian wars is because they were setled close to Panonnia or in Panonnia. Is hard to believe that they were all the time coming from East Transylvania, fighting then returning and so on.


Quote When do these happen? How scarce were the Hungarians? How dense were the Szeklers? How dense should the Hungarian be (compared to Szeklers) so that a linguistic assimilation could take place? When it is the first mention the Szeklers are a Hungarian speaking group?


When the Szeklers were setled in East Transylvania, the Hungarian population in the rest of Transylvania was almost inexistent, perhaps few villages. This could not be the agent of Szeklers' magyarization.




...
Székely runic script is first mentioned in Simon Kézai’s 13th-century chronicle. He states that the Székely, after coagulating with the Blacks (or Vlachs), "I am told, used their script." This, in any event, suggests that the Székely used a script with which they were not familiar in the Royal Court.
...
In other words, the Magyar tribes were literate in their own way before they became literate in Latin. He does not explain, however, why runic script survived only amongst the Székely, who live in eastern Transylvania, the only ones to use it after the 13th century.
...
The origin of the Székely also still puzzles historians. Of yore there were some who identified them as the descendants of nomads, who formed a tribal confederation with the Hungarians, an advance guard in battle, and frontiersmen after settlement. Current research confirms them as frontiersmen, not only in the eastern marches of Transylvania, where they survive, but also in the environs of Pozsony (Bratislava-Pressburg) and in Western Transdanubia, in Zala and Vas counties where in the őrség (the March) toponyms still bear witness to their earlier presence. In Transylvania they first lived in what, between the 13th and 19th centuries, was known as the Terra Saxonis, moving on to their present pastures in the 13th century when the Saxons arrived.



http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no157/080.html - http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no157/080.html




Quote I am not that knowledgeable in Hungarian and particularily the Szkeley dialect so I can't point lexical differences exposing different sources/contacts. However, a different dialect usually includes also lexical differences, too. You earlier claimed the Szeklers speak the "purest Hungarian" and now "nothing non-Hungarian", groundless claims so far.


They have a slightly distinct Hungarian dialect, but most of the differences from Hungarian language consist of archaic words and phrase constructions, as well as a particular intonation.
http://wordsonline.org/Szekely - http://wordsonline.org/Szekely




Quote Yeah right, please show me Petcheneg and Cuman speakers in Transylvania


Why put you such childish questions?




Quote There's no archaeological argument. Such conclusions prove a dubious scholarship of their authors. An earthwork fortification with weapons, ceramic and grains do not prove their inhabitants where "Ancient Romanians" nor that they were part of duchy/principality.


Such fortifications could be only the result of an organized population. Ofcourse, there have cases like that described in Carmen Miserabile, with 70 villages making an earth fortress, but that was in 13th century not in 8th century and it was a temporary establishment, not one lasting for 2-3 centuries like Fundu Hertii, Biharia, Dabâca and others.

You are hurrying to say that there is no prove that the population from Fundu Hertii was Romanian. How do you know what it was? I see you are very superficialy, you start with the preconception that Romanian archaeologists are mystificators or stupids. You didn't studied the works of Romanian archaeologists but have opinions about them.
I sugest you first read their studies and then make a conclussion. Untill then, I'll tell you that Romanian archaeologists know exactly the dangers of ethnic attributing of the discoveries and what is in that article about Fundu Hertii is not a superficial conclussion but the result of long examination. The fact the article is such concise is because is in an encyclopedy.
    
    
    
    
    
    

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 11:09
Quote But this is not a reason for them of taking out what Romanians or Hungarians say in history subjects. I have seen that the Westerners express their opinions, even without having much information about the documentary and arhcaeological researches, and that they don't take as it is gived what Hungarians or Romanians say.
Opinions without evidences are worthless.
 
Quote That is true. But please tell me, could you say Romanian historiography is partisan or that Hungarian historiography is objective?
They have both biased and unbiased "camps". They both have great scholars but also extremist individuals of a questionable reliability, though even the greater scholars may show sometimes moments of irrationality and special pleading.
 
Quote It's not a contradiction. Not knowing when the Szeklers joined Hungarians doesn't means they don't appear as the Hungarians' avantguard.
But not knowing when Szeklers joined Hungarians means not knowing the Szeklers were always an avantguard for Hungarians (as a population related to them). The extremist discourse makes itself remarked through such words thrown in without consideration. It's worrying you accept such statements with ease.
 
Quote You asked where are mentioned Szeklers before the settling in East Transylvania.
 Actually I asked "Evidence? Evidence on "types" of colonists in medieval Transylvania. Evidence on Szekler nomadism (what kind of nomadism, where they came from in the Carpathian Basin? - that is part of the main question). Evidence on their alleged concentration. ". Needless to say "Carpathian Basin" is not "East Transylvania", I hope you remember we both have provided toponyms suggesting Szekler settlements throughout Transylvania, not only the actual Szekelyfold.
 
 
Quote
 I think the fragment of text answers this: the fact that Szeklers are so present in the Hungarian wars is because they were setled close to Panonnia or in Panonnia. Is hard to believe that they were all the time coming from East Transylvania, fighting then returning and so on.
The text doesn't suggest that and more, please stop with these false dilemmas. Do you imply the French crusaders were actually original from Cyprus or that Mongols were actually original from Ukraine because it's hard to believe they campaigned so far from their homelands? It's amusing this original way to discuss history pushing such fictional impossibilities LOL
 
Quote When the Szeklers were setled in East Transylvania, the Hungarian population in the rest of Transylvania was almost inexistent, perhaps few villages. This could not be the agent of Szeklers' magyarization.
 This is not what I asked. First, your claim is arguably false. Archaologically the Hungarians (or other steppe raiders displaying a similar material culture - but we have no other candidates but the Magyar tribes and their satelites) entered Transylvania since 10th century. Written sources correlated with archaeology show how these tribes and then the Hungarian kingdom expanded in Transylvania. Second, we both agreed and brought examples of Szekler presence in Bihor, in Alba and other Transylvanian regions than the actual Szekelyfold. Third, we have no information about the ethnic composition, purity and density of these populations. Fourth, you avoided a vital question: when it's the first evidence the Szeklers speak Hungarian. You can't dismiss a hypothesis by stating "too quick" or "not enough Hungarians" if you can't provide a time frame. And also without time frame you also don't have the space localization. Your dismissal is moody and unsupported.
 
Quote They have a slightly distinct Hungarian dialect, but most of the differences from Hungarian language consist of archaic words and phrase constructions, as well as a particular intonation.
"most of the differences" - what about all differences? "archaic words" - what words and of what origin? "phrase constructions", "particular intonation" - of what influence? You previously stated emphatically "pure Hungarian" and now you come at me with some googled "slight distinction". Why don't actually research the topic or just express decent opinions on what you actually know?
 
Quote Why put you such childish questions?
  LOL
I have previously mentioned Szeklers as being part of a "special category" (paraphrasing you) shared with "Pechenegs, Cumans, Saxons, Vlachs."
You replied to me: "Why all other peoples preserved their language, only the Szeklers would have changed their?". Therefore according to your interpretation, Pechenegs, Cumans, Saxons, Vlachs preserved their language. In that case, please prove your wild assertions by pointing out some modern Pecheneg or Cuman speakers (of Saxons and Romanians I know, don't worry).
And few days ago I warned you: "Before patronizing your debate parteners make sure you read what they write. " Wink
 
Quote Such fortifications could be only the result of an organized population.
What level of organization? A duchy is not just "organization". Also, institutions and positions like voivod or knyaz are inexistent (or better said, unproved) for that time and space.
 
Quote You are hurrying to say that there is no prove that the population from Fundu Hertii was Romanian. How do you know what it was? I see you are very superficialy, you start with the preconception that Romanian archaeologists are mystificators or stupids.
I never called them as such. I just asked for evidence and questioned the scholarship creating such groundless claims.
 
Quote You didn't studied to woroks of Romanian arhcaeologists but have opinions about them. I sugest you first read their studies and then make a conclussion. Untill then, I'll tell you that Romanian archaeologists know exactly the dangers of ethnic attributing of the discoveries and what is in that article about Fundu Hertii is not a superficial conclussion but the result of long examination.
Oh boy, bring the evidences and let them talk or shut up as the lack of them does LOL 
 


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 11:52

Quote They have both biased and unbiased "camps". They both have great scholars but also extremist individuals of a questionable reliability, though even the greater scholars may show sometimes moments of irrationality and special pleading.

Opinions without evidences are worthless.


Let me remember all the Hungarian sources and all the Romanian sources (in both English and Romanian) I have put on this forum topic; I think it's an example about the Romanian objectivity and real scholarship but I cann't say exactly the same for the Hungarian sources, not even about the few close to acceptable. And trying to be polite, I avoided sources considered academic or official in Hungary, which are, I think, embarassing. Let's mention the most important:

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/ - http://www.hungarian-history.hu/


Quote But not knowing when Szeklers joined Hungarians means not knowing the Szeklers were always an avantguard for Hungarians (as a population related to them). The extremist discourse makes itself remarked through such words thrown in without consideration. It's worrying you accept such statements with ease.


The fact that the discourse in the Romanian Wikipedia article was not extremist can be proved with a Hungarian source which says the same thing, I quote again:

Of yore there were some who identified them as the descendants of nomads, who formed a tribal confederation with the Hungarians, an advance guard in battle, and frontiersmen after settlement. Current research confirms them as frontiersmen...

I think you are prisoner of prejudices.



Quote First, your claim is arguably false. Archaologically the Hungarians (or other steppe raiders displaying a similar material culture - but we have no other candidates but the Magyar tribes and their satelites) entered Transylvania since 10th century.


That is incorrect. Hungarians were not the only steppe people that have entered Transylvania since 10th century. Pechenegs, Cumans and others have done this.


Quote Fourth, you avoided a vital question: when it's the first evidence the Szeklers speak Hungarian.


I think you put false problems. The fact that Szeklers could not have had another language after the colonisation is clearly proved by the total lack of non-Hungarian and non-Romanian origin words in their language.



Quote "most of the differences" - what about all differences? "archaic words" - what words and of what origin? "phrase constructions", "particular intonation" - of what influence?

Ofcourse, of Romanian influence and of an archaic (medieval) Hungarian character.


Quote You previously stated emphatically "pure Hungarian" and now you come at me with some googled "slight distinction". Why don't actually research the topic or just express decent opinions on what you actually know?


I say again that Szeklers speak a pure Hungarian, an even purer Hungarian than the rest of Hungarians.



Quote In that case, please prove your wild assertions by pointing out some modern Pecheneg or Cuman speakers (of Saxons and Romanians I know, don't worry).


but what are you following with these? Ofcourse that I have reffered to the peoples who survived.


Quote What level of organization? A duchy is not just "organization". Also, institutions and positions like voivod or knyaz are inexistent (or better said, unproved) for that time and space.


The word used for that leader and organization is less important. What can be deduced from archaeological evidences is that it was a long time community, well organized and well going. We cann't think it was kind of a Barbars group.

And you have to know that it was analysed in the larger context of discoveries in the area, Botosani county being the most densed peopled area of today Romania, in that time. The Costisa-Botosana culture from 5-7th century was continuated by a transition period to the period of Dridu culture.

See how Costisa pottery was looking:




Quote I just asked for evidence and questioned the scholarship creating such groundless claims.


I repeat that what I posted was an Encyclopedia article, so that couldn't be detailed. The fact you call it groundless show how unobjective you are.

There have been some articles about Fundu Hertii, search on web about their authors and try to obtain the article and ONLY AFTER THAT speak. Groundless is what you say, without having read nothing about this.


Quote Oh boy, bring the evidences and let them talk or shut up as the lack of them does


I think you should shut up because you surely speak about you dont know.



    
    
    
    

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 03:51
Hi!
 
I wrote that the inhabitants of some west-hungarian villages of todays speak a h. language with the same attributes like sekler-hungarian. It's the same kind of hungarian like the hungarian-hungarian:-). 800 years long the seklers were living with hungarians so the  archaic elements of their language disappeard totally. It can't be a found for a dispute.
 
...as like a chango magyar, or the bukovin-sekler.
 
Earth fortesses: Trans. was called auf Deutsch:-) Siebenbürgen. /Septem Castra/In the end of the 12. Cent. So there had to be seven hungarian comitat or border patrol fortesses, with ispans, with fortess-jobbagiones and fortess-soldiers. It's known, that the hungarians didn't let any slawians or other just peacefull people in their army, like bulgarians-thats a proof of the big number(or larger, than the avarian or bulgarian nomads) of the hungarians and their related federation tribes. Just other nomads or varegian (rus) warriors.
in 1016 (G:H:) I. Stephen were hunting in Transylvania.  time the Pechenegs attacked the land: Stephen ordered that all of the peolple had had to move under the fortesses (in G.H:Cities) with thei goods and animals. After that the pechenegs were defeated.
So they were some hungarians in Tr before the seklers.
F.e the Gyula(Prokuj) and his tribe./the grandfather of Stephen/who were living along the Maros. (he fighted against Stephen, not voivods)Menumorut said thet building fortesses neaded an ordered population. The hungarians had in Tr. seven.:-)
After the Gyula the first voivod in Trans. was Zoltan, a relativ of Stephen.
 
Earth fortesses: f.e. in Slowakia the archeologists are having a habit: if they find or examine an antien grave or earth-fortess, the y categorraly call it morva(moravian). It's not interesting them if on the bones or in the walls are f.e. avarian stile things (belts, weapons or ceramic), it is morva. It couldn't be else.
Certenly it could be, but not in 100% of the cases. So the Biharian fortesses couldn't be 100% romanians/dacians too. An archeological excavation can't be objective, if you know, what do you want(or had) to find.
The hungarians archeologists had to date every non 100% nomad-style graves to the antient slawes too, under the Komm. era because of the order of the big slawic brother(CCCP). The hungarians were the non agricultural, just maet-eater uncivilizated beasts, who occupied the peaceful and much more civilizated big moravian empire...
 
Jasigs:In 1283, the byzantian emperor settled 10 000 jazig families from Moldva in his land to protect the norder borders.
the map from 1330 of Angelino Dulcert called the whole terr. of Moldva Alania (Nordenskiöld, A. E.: Periplus. Stockholm 1897. IX.table)
"In that time, when Bogdan(sorry of Radul upper) romanian viovod moved with his people to Alania (after 1342), these country name dissapeared with the main of the alans from Moldva."
 
TSZ


Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 03:54
Hi!
 
Certenly the buk. sekler and the chango language is an archaik form of hungarian, but it was spoken in Hungary in the 18th Cent(buk. s.) and in the 14-17.th c. (chango) too.
 
TSZ


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 08:18

Quote Earth fortesses: Trans. was called auf Deutsch:-) Siebenbürgen. /Septem Castra/In the end of the 12. Cent. So there had to be seven hungarian comitat or border patrol fortesses, with ispans, with fortess-jobbagiones and fortess-soldiers.


Siebenburgen/Septem Castra is, as you say, the German name for Transylvania. The name was gived (by Germans or Romanians, don't remember) to the small region called today Marginimea Sibiului (The surroundings of Sibiu city) (which, by the way, is one of Romania's best ethnographical and folk tradition centres).

This small region have had in 11-13th several (I dont know if even seven) earth fortresses of the Romanian people: Orlat, Tilisca, Saliste, Sacel etc.

Sibiu was the first area where German Saxons settled, so they took the name for the small region arround Sibiu. Later, they extended the name to the entire Transylvania and in their acception the name started to be considered as reffered to their seven fortified towns, Sibiu, Brasov, Sighisoara, Medias, Bistrita, Sighisoara, Sebes.

Another ipotesis is that:
Un'altra ipotesi sul nome tedesco della Transilvania č nel fatto che lo stanziamento germanico nella regione iniziň da Sibiu, il cui nome tedesco originale era Cibinburg, che si trasformň in Siebenbürgen e divenne il nome dell'intera regione, anche un dialetto tedesco parlato dai tedeschi residenti in zona si chiama cosě, per l'esattezza Siebenbürgisch.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transilvania - http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transilvania




Quote o there had to be seven hungarian comitat or border patrol fortesses, with ispans, with fortess-jobbagiones and fortess-soldiers.


Then why the name is used by Germans, not by Hungarians?




Quote It's known, that the hungarians didn't let any slawians or other just peacefull people in their army, like bulgarians-thats a proof of the big number(or larger, than the avarian or bulgarian nomads) of the hungarians and their related federation tribes. Just other nomads or varegian (rus) warriors.
in 1016 (G:H:) I. Stephen were hunting in Transylvania. time the Pechenegs attacked the land: Stephen ordered that all of the peolple had had to move under the fortesses (in G.H:Cities) with thei goods and animals. After that the pechenegs were defeated.


You are trying to demonstrate that there were not being Romanians in Transylvania. You are patetic and offtopic.



Quote So the Biharian fortesses couldn't be 100% romanians/dacians too. An archeological excavation can't be objective, if you know, what do you want(or had) to find.


The Biharia fortress was inhabited and used many centuries. Succesive habitations where atested in 5-6, 7-8, 8-9 si 9-10th centuries. Ofcourse, not all of them where Romanians. But Dabâca surely was founded and inhabited bz Romanians and Slavs, as the documents say.

And Fundu Hertii could be best attributed to Romanians, even nothing sure can prove this.



Quote In 1283, the byzantian emperor settled 10 000 jazig families from Moldva in his land to protect the norder borders.


Where have you read this?


Look what I found:

In the Middle Ages another Iranian people appeared in Eastern-Europe, the Jazones who probably came to the Kingdom of Hungary together with the Cumans in the 13th century after they were defeated by the Mongols. Béla IV, king of Hungary granted them asylum and they became a privileged community with the right of self-government. Ultimately they were absorbed into the Magyars but they remained a distinct ethnographical group until today under the Hungarian name jászok (or jász in singular).

The connection between the Jazones and the Iazyges is disputed. Most Hungarian scholars claim that they were two different Iranian people, and the Jazones are relatives of the Alans and the Ossetes. Others think that the Iazyges either migrated back east onto the steppes in the confusion of the Hun and Avar invasions of the 5th-7th centuries, or the Iazones were a fresh branch of the Iazyges that had never moved west before and remained throughout this period in what is now southern Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazyges - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazyges


Quote the map from 1330 of Angelino Dulcert called the whole terr. of Moldva Alania (Nordenskiöld, A. E.: Periplus. Stockholm 1897. IX.table)


Later in the 13th century, the King of Hungary Charles I attempted to expand his realm and the influence of the Roman Catholic Church eastwards after the fall of Cuman rule, and ordered a campaign under the command of Phynta de Mende (1324). In 1342 and 1345, the Hungarians were victorious in a battle against Tatars; the conflict was resolved by the death of Jani Beg, in 1357). The Polish chronicler Jan Długosz mentioned Moldavians (under the name Wallachians) as having joined a military expedition in 1342, under King Władysław I, against Mark of Brandenburg.[1]

In 1353, Dragoş, mentioned as a Vlach Knyaz in Maramureş, was sent by Louis I to establish a line of defense against the Golden Horde forces on the Siret River. This expedition resulted in a polity vassal to Hungary, centered around Baia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldavia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldavia


    

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 13:04

Quote Let me remember all the Hungarian sources and all the Romanian sources (in both English and Romanian) I have put on this forum topic; I think it's an example about the Romanian objectivity and real scholarship but I cann't say exactly the same for the Hungarian sources, not even about the few close to acceptable. And trying to be polite, I avoided sources considered academic or official in Hungary, which are, I think, embarassing. Let's mention the most important:

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/ - http://www.hungarian-history.hu/

Most of the Romanian sources you invoked where actually Wikipedia articles, a fact which by itself says a lot about what your discourse and its standards of "academicism". As for the site you attempt to flame with, it actually contains interesting information and valid points beside nationalism and chauvinism. And between DuNay's "there were no Romanians/Vlachs in Transylvania prior to 13th century" and "there were Romanians in Transylvania in 10th century organized under voivods and knyazes", I can't say I favor any, because in both cases it is too much historiographical fiction for my taste. None of the sides is interested in history (as discipline) or in figuring out verosimile hypotheses, only in promoting their own ideologies, their own agenda. Your discourse is no exception.

Quote The fact that the discourse in the Romanian Wikipedia article was not extremist can be proved with a Hungarian source which says the same thing, I quote again:

Of yore there were some who identified them as the descendants of nomads, who formed a tribal confederation with the Hungarians, an advance guard in battle, and frontiersmen after settlement. Current research confirms them as frontiersmen...

The difference between aforequoted Romanian discourse and the one you quoted in the paragraph just above is that in the former we have a worrying symptom of nationalism - the archetype. It was said the Szekelers were always the avantguard of the Hungarians, therefore sealing them a with historical role/destiny, binding their name to a role, which rather looks definitory than circumstantial. In two sentences regarding the same topic an "all", "every", "none", "always", "never" makes a lot of difference. About such a difference the casual nationalists never seem to bother.
And the irony of the situation was that these Szekelers were loaded with this permanent role, it was openly admitted about their beginnings being obscure. They openly pontificate conclusions about realities they admit they don't know.

Quote I think you put false problems.
Labeling the issues you can't answer as false won't make them so. We know the first document in Romanian language as being Neacsu's letter. We know many previous historical mentions (more or less reliable) which suggest the Romanic character of the Vlachs. We even have fragments like "torna, torna, fratre" on which the historians may speculate forms of late Balkanic Latin. It's an universal question to trace in the past the evolutions of a historical reality - in this case the language spoken by Szeklers.

Quote
The fact that Szeklers could not have had another language after the colonisation is clearly proved by the total lack of non-Hungarian and non-Romanian origin words in their language.
And non-Slavic, and non-Turkic (which they all must be analysed if they entered Hungarian pre or post settlement), and so on ... lack of what, finally?

Quote I say again that Szeklers speak a pure Hungarian, an even purer Hungarian than the rest of Hungarians.
A "true Scotsman", right? There's no such thing a "pure language". There is no "purer language". All languages (dialects) evolve, all languages (dialects) share features and mutate slowly in time. There is no preferential form of a language, there's no preferential moment in time and location in space where a language can be frozen and labeled as "pure". Your linguistical perspective is flawed.

Quote but what are you following with these? Ofcourse that I have reffered to the peoples who survived.
Your premises are your conclusions, therefore your arguments betray often circular inferences. Were they exterminated? No. They were assimilated. That's my point, the Szeklers could have been linguistically assimilated, therefore, linguistically they didn't "survived" either. Of course, if you eliminate from start this possibility, then you wonder why I am bringing the issue. The Szeklers as eternal Hungarian speaking bodyguards seems a dogma I must fight against and I don't have so much patience.

Talking of which, I will continue later.



Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 15:04


Quote Most of the Romanian sources you invoked where actually Wikipedia articles, a fact which by itself says a lot about what your discourse and its standards of "academicism".



That because historiographic materials made by Romanian scholars are not available on net. But the Wikipedia articles are made by young historians or History students.



Quote As for the site you attempt to flame with, it actually contains interesting information and valid points beside nationalism and chauvinism.


Information is mixed with sugestions, so is not useful.



Quote And between DuNay's "there were no Romanians/Vlachs in Transylvania prior to 13th century" and "there were Romanians in Transylvania in 10th century organized under voivods and knyazes", I can't say I favor any, because in both cases it is too much historiographical fiction for my taste.





In 10th century Transylvania surely existed some Romanian organizations which later become more numerous, as population increased. I already copied the articles about Dabâca and Biharia, also the fortresses in Marginimea Sibiului, let put some more (thes are my translations):


Sanislau
(comune, Satu Mare county). Early feudal necropolis of Romanian knezes, from which several rings with seal where discovered, with liniar heraldic motives.
(from Dictionar de arta veche a României, 1981)


An aspect relevated by the recent archaeological researches is the identification on the Mures Valley (Arad county) of some earth fortifications (dig, wall, palisade). We count for the ones at Vladimirescu, Cenad, Felnac which have been systematicaly studied. All are dated in 7-10th centuries and have been built by the local population which was in economical, social and political rising after the ceasing of the Avar military pression in the area...
...There is not any hiatus, discontinuity, the vestiges are succeding naturaly, logical on the timeline, with progresses from one period to another...


(from Ziridava, the review of County Museum Arad, 1993)

Or look what I found on web:

In sec. X si XI in jurul centrului minier Rodna s-a constituit un cnezat intr-un tinut separat numit VALEA RODNEI .Aici traia cneazul care era raspunzator fat de voievodul transilvan de implinirea contributiilor.
In the 10-11th century around the mining center of Rodna (Bistrita Nasaud county) it was constituted a knez-principality of a separated land called THE VALLEY OF RODNA. Here it was living the kneaz which was responding to the voivod of Transylvania for the fulfill of contributions.

http://www.referat-scoala.com/referat/istorie/17/ISTORIA--RODNEI--RODNA-VECHE--Valea-si-Muntii-Rodnei.php - http://www.referat-scoala.com/referat/istorie/17/ISTORIA--RODNEI--RODNA-VECHE--Valea-si-Muntii-Rodnei.php



Quote None of the sides is interested in history (as discipline) or in figuring out verosimile hypotheses, only in promoting their own ideologies, their own agenda. Your discourse is no exception.


I put concrete evidences on this forum, you just are making the theory of historiography. Empty words.



Quote Your premises are your conclusions, therefore your arguments betray....


I think you better will stop with this philosophical bla-bla. If you don't have information about the topic, you may shut up, there is not necesary to speak.
    
    
    

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 17:01
Quote That because historiographic materials made by Romanian scholars are not available on net.
Of course there are. There are materials written by A. D. Xenopol, N. Iorga, I. Bogdan and other famous (yet obsolete) scholars as well more recent materials written by the newer generations of historians like Al. Madgearu, St. Brezeanu, et. al. Needless to say there are materials concerning this topic written by Hungarians and scholars of other nationalities. Because you don't know where to look it doesn't mean such information is unavailable. And I'm talking about free resources not journals and libraries where you have to pay for the materials.
Moreover, no one here asked for online resources. You see, the informations I brought here were compiled from books and articles written by St. Brezeanu, St. Pascu, D. Prodan, Al. Madgearu, Pal Binder et al.. I can trace many of my claims back to authors, their arguments and their sources. Many of your claims can be traced only to Wikipedia and other online materials (of whose existence you previously had no idea until you googled for them trying to counterargue to me)
 
Quote But the Wikipedia articles are made by young historians or History students.
So naive you are. I know many Romanian Wikipedia users, I also contributed to Wikipedia articles from English wikipedia. I interacted with them, both in Wikipedia talk pages and edits also in other forums and discussion groups. The sheer majority of Wikipedia users composing and altering history related material are neither young historians nor students in history.
 
Quote Information is mixed with sugestions, so is not useful.
Then you understand why I keep distance from your so called "evidences" and "sources".
 
Quote In the 10-11th century around the mining center of Rodna (Bistrita Nasaud county) it was constituted a knez-principality of a separated land called THE VALLEY OF RODNA. Here it was living the kneaz which was responding to the voivod of Transylvania for the fulfill of contributions.

http://www.referat-scoala.com/referat/istorie/17/ISTORIA--RODNEI--RODNA-VECHE--Valea-si-Muntii-Rodnei.php - http://www.referat-scoala.com/referat/istorie/17/ISTORIA--RODNEI--RODNA-VECHE--Valea-si-Muntii-Rodnei.php
If you quote high school papers as scholarly material for 10th century Romanian knyazes, the discussion with you gets hopeless. LOL
 
Quote I put concrete evidences on this forum, you just are making the theory of historiography.
I dealt with all the "evidences" you brought and you failed to reply back or you just shifted the topic. That's why from Szeklers we reached your hateful accusations against Hungarian historiography and other such juicy subjects.
 
Quote If you don't have information about the topic, you may shut up, there is not necesary to speak.
Since I asked you to bring evidence or to shut up you keep addressing me this lait-motif. If you want to copy me, better read something, don't attempt to create sad and distorted reflections of my wit, because you'll never succeed Wink
 
Now there are few paragraphs I wanted to reply earlier, and I will address now.
 
Quote That is incorrect. Hungarians were not the only steppe people that have entered Transylvania since 10th century. Pechenegs, Cumans and others have done this
First, let me correct your straw man. The Magyars and their satelites were not the only tribes entering since 10th century, but they are the only candidate for 10th century.
Second, your reply is hilarious. Because Cumans are not attested in 10th century and also because it's well known where Patzinakia and Tourkia were but also the honfoglalas in Transylvania points to a origin in Pannonia (advancing on Somes, Cris, Timis, Mures) not in eastern Pontic steppes. If there were any Turkic/Petcheneg elements among the Magyar tribes - well, that I don't deny, that's why I said "Magyar tribes and their satelites"
 
Quote The word used for that leader and organization is less important. 
So you're saying it doesn't matter if we call Gelou an emperor, a king, a duke, a voivod, a knyaz, a boyar or a lord. Or we characterise his alleged residence as specific for a ... ? Confused
 
Quote What can be deduced from archaeological evidences is that it was a long time community, well organized and well going. We cann't think it was kind of a Barbars group.
That's quite funny because some centuries earlier the Byzantines speak of the north-Danubian populations who were Romans once but now they are Barbarians.
Don't worry, I understand what you mean by "Barbar", the same archetype syndrom.
 
Quote And you have to know that it was analysed in the larger context of discoveries in the area, Botosani county being the most densed peopled area of today Romania, in that time. The Costisa-Botosana culture from 5-7th century was continuated by a transition period to the period of Dridu culture.

See how Costisa pottery was looking:
This is quite a red herring. Also you posted that picture, if I'm not mistaken, three times in this forum.
 
Quote I repeat that what I posted was an Encyclopedia article, so that couldn't be detailed. The fact you call it groundless show how unobjective you are.

There have been some articles about Fundu Hertii, search on web about their authors and try to obtain the article and ONLY AFTER THAT speak. Groundless is what you say, without having read nothing about this.
You're making a fool of yourself. I've researched some archaeological journals and I found lots of articles that can prove you it's not the shortage specific to encyclopaedias, it's a doctrine, it's an ideological constraint, an inertia.
Especially for you, here it is an online finding.
If you search "Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis", an archaeological publication from Sibiu you'll find materials like:
http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/ats/ats3/act3-7.htm
I quote on Dabaca: "Separarea suprafe?ei fortificate în trei incinte nu are leg?tur? cu situa?ia terenului, a?a cum apreciaz? unii autori, ci mai degrab? cu reflectarea unei situa?ii sociale. Nu avem de a face doar cu o simpl? a?ezare fortificat?, ci mai degrab? cu o curte cnezial? ?i a?ezarea aferent? acesteia, fapt sus?inut ?i de descoperirea în incintele III ?i IV a numeroase locuin?e ?i vetre de foc cu material ceramic ?i piese din metal caracteristice pentru secolele IX-X. "
In English: "The separation of the fortified area in three precincts it is not because of terrain, as some authors claim (P. Iambor) but rather because of a social situation. It is not a simple fortified settlement, but a knyaz court and its settlement, fact supported by the discovery in the precincts 3 and 4 of numerous houses and fireplaces with ceramic mateiral and metalwork characteristic for 9-10th centuries".
 
Like I was saying, the knyaz comes out of nowhere. It is not an archaeological argument, not even a historical one, it is just fiction.
 
 


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 17:56
Quote Of course there are. There are materials written by A. D. Xenopol, N. Iorga, I. Bogdan and other famous (yet obsolete) scholars as well more recent materials written by the newer generations of historians like Al. Madgearu, St. Brezeanu, et.



You are hilarious. You mention some 19th century historians of whose theories are considered wrong today (not all, ofcourse).

For Madgearu, thanks for sugestion. I'll quote later with what I found in his pages.


Quote Then you understand why I keep distance from your so called "evidences" and "sources".


I didn't make interpretations.


Quote If you quote high school papers as scholarly material for 10th century Romanian knyazes, the discussion with you gets hopeless.


That is your problem.



Quote I dealt with all the "evidences" you brought and you failed to reply back or you just shifted the topic.


That because I don't want to make sugestions.




Quote If you want to copy me, better read something, don't attempt to create sad and distorted reflections of my wit, because you'll never succeed


From now on, I will not answer anymore to these offtopic lamentations.


Quote That's quite funny because some centuries earlier the Byzantines speak of the north-Danubian populations who were Romans once but now they are Barbarians.


I don't understand what you want demonstrate with this 'well-educated' refferences, I think they are steril sophisms.


Quote I've researched some archaeological journals and I found lots of articles that can prove you it's not the shortage specific to encyclopaedias, it's a doctrine, it's an ideological constraint, an inertia.


This is Boia syndrome, a new kind of phoby against what you sayed. Don't you see is ridicuous to speak about the atitude of the scholar in place of arguing or contra-arguing to the content of his work?



Quote Like I was saying, the knyaz comes out of nowhere. It is not an archaeological argument, not even a historical one, it is just fiction.


I think you are obsessed with making some kind of an authenticationing system of analysing the evidences. Is what Theodoru tryed with his theory about pottery volumetry analysis system. Much work for nothing.

Now I make a more clear understanding about your fixism: YOU TRY TO AVOID ANY INTUITIONISM in research. is just a phobia which take you into an irrealist word of ...what ever.





-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 07:57
The substance of the discussion moved in the other thread. However you left here some tendencious affirmations I thought for a while I don't bother answering.
 
Quote You mention some 19th century historians of whose theories are considered wrong today (not all, ofcourse).
This sentence betrays a double ignorance a) I mentioned myself the word "obsolete". b) However, historians like Madgearu (and not only, even non-Romanian historiography) quote N. Iorga or Ioan Bogdan quite often. You prove you have not read much history about Romania (and particularily Transylvania).
 
Quote I didn't make interpretations.
[...]
That because I don't want to make sugestions.
 
It is just your opinion. I'm not sure which linguist would support your "pure Hungarian" theory and other such dubious statements. We can move the linguistic aspect of the discussion on a forum like that of Sorin Olteanu (though Hungarian language is not within his interests, however the general considerations of the linguistics I'm sure he covers quite well, and perhaps has more patience and certainly more knowledge than me to explain).
 
Quote That is your problem.
Yes and no. Yes, I have a problem with individuals who dare to refer an online material with no author, no references, no bibliography, a poor quality paper for high school use (if this is the level you want to move the discussion at least please use the official curriculum, quote the textbooks!). And no, it's not my problem you, the user signing as Menumorut, display this intellectual level in a historical discussion.
 
Quote From now on, I will not answer anymore to these offtopic lamentations.
 Let's see if you can keep your promise "from now on" (hint: testing, testing LOL)
 
Quote This is Boia syndrome, a new kind of phoby against what you sayed. Don't you see is ridicuous to speak about the atitude of the scholar in place of arguing or contra-arguing to the content of his work?
You failed to read what I wrote. I objected precisely to content. The conclusion does not follow the premises. From content and reading several such materials, yes, I can form my own conclusion.
The Romanian nationalism fears this "Boia syndrome" because is demolishing its dearest theories. Actually the "Boia syndrome" is a more general movement in the post-89 Romanian scholarship which manifested differently in history, in archaeology, in ancient history, in modern history etc. For archaeology we already had a discussion for the epoch of migrations when I brought to you names like Eugen S. Teodor or G. A. Niculescu.
Contrary to the common fears, this criticism does not focus on attitudes, but on content. The inconsistence of the content, the copied and repeated syntagms and arguments without any bit of criticism or scientific awareness, such things create the attitudes. Yet esentially it remains a problem of content, of interpretation, of historical discourse.
 
Quote I don't understand what you want demonstrate with this 'well-educated' refferences, I think they are steril sophisms.
First, sophism has a precise meaning and particularily if you can't grasp my rationality it doesn't mean it is a sophism, it may even reflect something about your own capacity. To identify a sophism you have to identify its specific flaw. Which you couldn't.
Second, I addressed precisely the "Barbarism" of north-Danubian populations in the eyes of the civilization which coined this term. I showed you how you misused this term under the influence of modern historigraphies.
 
Quote I think you are obsessed with making some kind of an authenticationing system of analysing the evidences. Is what Theodoru tryed with his theory about pottery volumetry analysis system. Much work for nothing.
If you can't appreciate E. S. Teodor and particularily if you can't appreciate his work, it rather shows you're unfamiliar with archaeology and its problems. Moreover, Teodor's initiative is not singular, but we can discuss this on a proper thread if you are interested in something else but my "fixisms".
 
Also if you have anything else about the Szeklers except insulting Tar Szerend or me, I'm sure everybody would appreciate.
 
 
 


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 08:33
Quote The Romanian nationalism fears this "Boia syndrome" because is demolishing its dearest theories. Actually the "Boia syndrome" is a more general movement in the post-89 Romanian scholarship which manifested differently in history, in archaeology, in ancient history, in modern history etc.


The Romanian nationalism being what? Do you think Professor Protase, Vulpe fear of Boia & Niculescu? They know exactly what is in these guys' minds. It's an inferior and fake way of understanding. But be aware: I don't consider that mr. Vulpe and other real specialists are mixing nationalism with science.


Yes, can be sayed that is a genral syndrom, a new trick for geting up in scientific society, a new way of oportunism. The best example is the so called New Europe College.


Quote For archaeology we already had a discussion for the epoch of migrations when I brought to you names like Eugen S. Teodor or G. A. Niculescu.


I think you are wrong puting together the to men. Teodor ( http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/TTW/index_est.html - http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/TTW/index_est.html ), beside his slight hyperrigorism, is a man capable of seing the reality as it is. Niculescu, if not an oportunist, is a victim of some realy unscientifical prejudices.


Quote Contrary to the common fears, this criticism does not focus on attitudes, but on content.


Looking on Niculescu's main 'contribution' in the field (search for his study among the others here: http://www.nec.ro/fundatia/nec/publications/a_nec1997-1998.pdf - http://www.nec.ro/fundatia/nec/publications/a_nec1997-1998.pdf ) we see it's pure comment of the atitude of archaeologists. I think what Niculescu have done is useless. He didn't changed the way researchis or will be done in Romania or elsewhere, excepting maybe some ephemere vogue of denying ethnic attrributions.


Quote Also if you have anything else about the Szeklers except insulting Tar Szerend or me, I'm sure everybody would appreciate.

You was the one who changed the direction of discussion.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 09:25
Quote The Romanian nationalism being what? Do you think Professor Protase, Vulpe fear of Boia & Niculescu? They know exactly what is in these guys' minds. It's an inferior and fake way of understanding. But be aware: I don't consider that mr. Vulpe and other real specialists are mixing nationalism with science.
For you the historians are some cartoonish characters divided in heroes and evil guys. Oh, and the heroes are also mindreaders LOL
 
Quote Yes, can be sayed that is a genral syndrom, a new trick for geting up in scientific society, a new way of oportunism. The best example is the so called New Europe College.
Huh? What about Vasile Parvan institute or the Univesity of Bucharest where your these scholars you insulted practice?
 
Quote I think you are wrong puting together the to men. Teodor ( http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/TTW/index_est.html - http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/TTW/index_est.html ), beside his slight hyperrigorism, is a man capable of seing the reality as it is.
You forgot that I provided this link to you some time ago LOL
I've read other materials by Teodor, and also know his closeness to Florin Curta (he also translated Curta's book in Romanian). And if you read the link you brought on Niculescu, Teodor's other materials on archaeology (especially on methodologies) and Curta's work you'll realize they all are part of this new generation of archaeologists I talked you about.
 
Quote
 Niculescu, if not an oportunist, is a victim of some realy unscientifical prejudices.
[...]
Looking on Niculescu's main 'contribution' in the field (search for his study among the others here: http://www.nec.ro/fundatia/nec/publications/a_nec1997-1998.pdf - http://www.nec.ro/fundatia/nec/publications/a_nec1997-1998.pdf ) we see it's pure comment of the atitude of archaeologists.
You're aggressive and ignorant.
With much ease you could have googled for a resume like:
http://www.colbud.hu/mult_ant/Thyssen-Participants/GheorgheANiculescu.htm#_Toc88996992 - http://www.colbud.hu/mult_ant/Thyssen-Participants/GheorgheANiculescu.htm#_Toc88996992
 
Quote I think what Niculescu have done is useless. He didn't changed the way researchis or will be done in Romania or elsewhere, excepting maybe some ephemere vogue of denying ethnic attrributions.
Who cares about what you think? - you're living in the 19th century. Read better Niculescu's article, read Curta's first 25 pages online and free, published by Cambridge University Press and try to inform yourself more about those scholars they talk about. The change already happened and is still happening (as none of those theories are new dogmas, they keep improving), now it's up to some conservative nationalists to adapt or to fade away.
 
Quote You was the one who changed the direction of discussion.
Yeah, right. I wrote "Please make an effort and understand that some (most?) of Hungarian historians are deliberately covering the thruth. Try to avoid Hungarian sources and read other sources. " and other such venomous and off topic remarks which disrupted the entire discussion. Embarrassed 
 


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 09:54
Quote What about Vasile Parvan institute or the Univesity of Bucharest where your these scholars you insulted practice?


Don't put the plural form because only Niculescu is in the New Europe College. And at "Vasile Pârvan" Institute he is an exception. I have seen the Dacia bulletin on 2005, all the scholars were presenting scientifical materials, only Niculescu was speaking about ...archaeologists.


Quote And if you read the link you brought on Niculescu, Teodor's other materials on archaeology (especially on methodologies) and Curta's work you'll realize they all are part of this new generation of archaeologists I talked you about.


Please, don't say this. Is explainable that such a guy like Niculescu could not be rejected by the scholar community, on the one hand because is not collegialy, on other hand because would seems to be an ideologic epuration. Is exactly the same way things happened in the communist period. If someone started adulating Ceausescu, nobody would contradict him.

And you may recognize that both Boia and Niculescu built their reputation on this strategy, and are the most famous historians of Romania, even they have not important realy historiographical contribution.

I know Niculescu have worked on archaeological sites and published some works ( http://www.colbud.hu/mult_ant/Thyssen-Participants/GheorgheANiculescu.htm - http://www.colbud.hu/mult_ant/Thyssen-Participants/GheorgheANiculescu.htm is strange his CV can be found at a dot-hu address) but not for that became he famous.

And Boia was more succesful. After his "shock book" he become a prolific author and a vip.

Look how is manifesting the cult of personality toward him:

http://autori.humanitas.ro/boia/altii.php - http://autori.humanitas.ro/boia/altii.php

http://www.cafeneaua.com/node/view/1122 - http://www.cafeneaua.com/node/view/1122


And look how he enriched himself after the first book:
http://www.raft.ro/rez.asp?cautare=Lucian%20Boia - http://www.raft.ro/rez.asp?cautare=Lucian%20Boia

Anyway, we completely forgot of Szeklers, so I sugest to start a topic (or find an already existing one) about historiographical objectivity and method.


   
    
    
    
    
    
    

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 05:46
Hi!
 
Guys, just be cool.
I didn't want to tell the source of the 10 000 alanians from Moldva, because it is in a book of György Györffy, a hungarian prof. It it sure that he had got thise from a bizantian source, but I don't know, exactly where from. 
 
And in this topic I think it's needed to talk about the origin of Transylvanian romanians too, they are a part of the seklers history.
 
In hungary there are a lot of earth fortesses from the 12Th Cent. BC to the 12th Cent AC, the cultures of their inhabitants have hungarian names, like they in Romania romanian names, but it's shure that in these places didn't live any hungarians until the 10th AC century (exept maybe some of their relatives or antients of some bulgars or avars in the magyar tribe-union.). So in the other side romanians can't say that in the f.e. biharian fortesses there were living antien romanian kenezs with their people just because of a maybe 20-25% archeological chance.
 
TSZ
 


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 12:13
    
Quote I didn't want to tell the source of the 10 000 alanians from Moldva, because it is in a book of György Györffy, a hungarian prof. It it sure that he had got thise from a bizantian source, but I don't know, exactly where from.


By "Alans", the Byzantine source may have named another population, perhaps Cumans or Pechenegs.



Quote And in this topic I think it's needed to talk about the origin of Transylvanian romanians too, they are a part of the seklers history.



Only in the measure in which the Szeklers' history is concerned. Else, there are already topics about Medieval Transylvania:

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5700&PN=3 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5700&PN=3




Quote In hungary there are a lot of earth fortesses from the 12Th Cent. BC to the 12th Cent AC, the cultures of their inhabitants have hungarian names, like they in Romania romanian names, but it's shure that in these places didn't live any hungarians until the 10th AC century (exept maybe some of their relatives or antients of some bulgars or avars in the magyar tribe-union.). So in the other side romanians can't say that in the f.e. biharian fortesses there were living antien romanian kenezs with their people just because of a maybe 20-25% archeological chance.


In the case of Hungary, the fortresses from 1st millenium AD may presumable belonged to the romanized Panonian population:

The Anonymous Notary of King Bela II (1131-1141) or Bela III also mention the presence of Vlachs in Pannonia and them mixing with Slavs, but retaining their language and culture:
Rex Athila...de terro scithia descendens cum valida manu in terram Pannoniae venitm et fugatis Romanis regnum obninuit. "Quam terram (Pannoniam) habitabant Sclavi, Bulgarii et Blachii ac pastores Romanorum. Quia post mortem Athilae regis terram Pannoniae Romani dicebant pascua esse, eo quod greges eorum in terra Panoniae pascua Romanorum esse dicebatur, nam et modo Romani pascumtur de bonis Ungariae... "Et murtuo illo (Athila) preoccupassent Romani principes terram Pannoniae usque ad Danubium, ubi collocassent pastores suos
...
In the chronicle of Simon of Keza (1282 to 1290), the Vlachs of Pannonia are mentioned as a settled population after the collapse of the Hunnish Empire:
Blakis, qui ipsorum fuerunt pastores et coloni, remanentes spone in Pannonia"; "Pannonia extitit decem annis sine rege, Sclavis tantummodo, Grecis, Teutonicis, Messianis, et Vlachis advenis remanentibus in eadem, qui vivente Ethela populari servicio ibi serviebant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Romanians#_note-4 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Romanians#_note-4


The same for Romania. I don't see how Slavs or other nomads could build such fortresses, because they even don't have houses, they where living in tents.


And, I ask you to explain why from starting point you exclude the presence of Romanians in Transylvania, but not the presence of other peoples.



Quote So in the other side romanians can't say that in the f.e. biharian fortesses there were living antien romanian kenezs with their people just because of a maybe 20-25% archeological chance.



The archaeological studies in Crisana did not resumed to Biharia. The archaeological materials from 7-11th century are very interesting, they show the preservation of a genuine Roman origin tradition of pottery, which survived in these areas isolated from the cultural changes which take place in other areas of this part of Europe. In the same way, in Wallachia, the Ipotesti-Cândesti archaeological culture is of strange Dacian and Roman tradition as late as 7th century AD. And in Moldavia (see the photo some messages above) the pottery is of conservative Ancient, Roman tradition.



    

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 12:58
Hi!
 
F.e. Anna Komnena called the walachian nomads scytas. Tehey were beated from other nomads (I1have forgot, maybe the pechenegs from the kipchaks), they were called ....something else:-). And, of course, bizantians of the 14th century, who already known (by names) pechenegs, kumans, bulgars etc, so they surely cuold distinguish the different groups that time. They have known alans a long time ago, from the Biz. borderland is the Kaukasus, in Krim etc.
 
You cuold red, I give for the romanians about  20-25%. It is very much from a hungarian/slawian/kipchak/swabian.:-))
(but I think that these 25% people were  just related with dacians, not with that romanians, who were related with the albans and mowed ut from the Dinaian Mountins and from Tracia to walachia and there they mixed with bulgarians and with kipchacs and after the milennium they settled the rare inhabitated lowlands and uninhabitated uplands is Transylwania(I'm in dept with the books, someone don't want to borrow me that books, but I think I'll get them soon)
 
I have to say that the hungarians were livin 2-300 years long in the Kazar kaganat; near to the east slavians, who builded the best grods in that part of Europe, near or with the bulgarians and with the kazars, who had the biggest fortess-towns with earth-wood (f.e. Itil) walls in that time in Europe, and the biggest stone fortesses in the Kaukas(?)us exept the persians. And hungarians knew bizantian fortess-builders/buildings too (Sarkel).
Avars had rings in Pannonia and in the deeplands; maybe a little north-border "chinese wall" too, under the Matra and Bukk mountians, against the slaws.
 
The hungarian chronics put the "present time" of the 12.century in the days of the hungarian conquest, to give a statue for the Arpad dinasty and for the noble families. The Arpads needed to have a non bloody history. (Not just Arpad kende occupied the country, but Cursan/Cusal and others. But they didn't mach in the Arpad history, so they were "forgotten" for example)
 
  TSZ


Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 13:07
Hi!
 
I can't write normal, excuse me, it is too late:-)
So! Back to the seklers!!:-))
 
In the Gesta you can read (maybe:-), that the seklers (or 3000(?) warrior) joined to the hungarian army in Transylvania. But, as I wrote, there weren't living any sekler group until the end of the 11th Century. And romanians did?
I don't belive in a "book", that saiys there is only 5 generations between Attila an d Almos kende(the father of Arpad). It is not a correct source.
 
TSZ
 
 


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 14:30


Quote In the Gesta you can read (maybe:-), that the seklers (or 3000(?) warrior) joined to the hungarian army in Transylvania. But, as I wrote, there weren't living any sekler group until the end of the 11th Century. And romanians did?
I don't belive in a "book", that saiys there is only 5 generations between Attila an d Almos kende(the father of Arpad). It is not a correct source.




The question is: why Gesta mention that Pannonian Vlachs (Romanic speakings)? Is pure fiction? How can be mentioned some real figures (Attila surely is intercalated but the Apradian kings not) else because there it was a tradition or some croniques about them. and the so for Vlachs in Pannonia, Crisana or Transylvania.

And that is supported by archaeology.

For Transylvania, I already presented data and links (see for example http://www.geocities.com/amadgearu/notary.htm ).

For Pannonia:
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Christianity/HunMigrations.html - http://www.cryingvoice.com/Christianity/HunMigrations.html






And, in the last, I make a surprise for you:


From http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/bogdan/bogdan03.htm - http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/bogdan/bogdan03.htm



-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 14:53
Hi!
 
THIS map is silly.:-))But the arrows are right:-)))
 
Menumorut, cuold you search for some dates and/or pictures about the nomad hungarian grave near by Bucarest? (and maybe for the one or two peace in Moldavia?)
 
Thanks:
 
  TSZ


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 17:04
I spent some time and didn't succed.

Anyway, your afirmation about the arrows should be supported with some arguments. If you want, I invite you on Vlachs:

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12810&PN=6 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12810&PN=6

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 03:35
Originally posted by Menumorut Menumorut wrote:


The question is: why Gesta mention that Pannonian Vlachs (Romanic speakings)? Is pure fiction? How can be mentioned some real figures (Attila surely is intercalated but the Apradian kings not) else because there it was a tradition or some croniques about them. and the so for Vlachs in Pannonia, Crisana or Transylvania.
I presume you thought the "pastores romanorum" phrase, when you mentioned pannonian Vlachs. It is rather dubious that this refers to Vlachs. I personally think that the Avar remnants are the most likely candidates.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 05:40
Raider,
 
In GH the term pastores occurs twice:
 
About the dukedom of Kiev (the duke of Ruthenians): Quam terram habitarent Sclavii, Bulgarii et Blachii, ac pastores Romanorum

And after king Attila's death: Et mortuo illo preoccupassent Romani principes terram Pannonie usque ad Danubium, ubi collocavissent pastores suo.
 
If in the second occurence Anonymous doesn't say who were the pastores, in the former one he gives it as a surname. Now perhaps it can be argued that from the phrase construction pastores Romanorum can be applied to Sclavii et Bulgarii. However, I believe it applies only to Blachii, and for that I'll invoke the other medieval histories of Hungary.
 
Simon de Keza states about Attila's times: Blackis, qui ipsorum fuere pastores et coloni, remanentibus sponte in Pannonia.
 
Descriptio Europae Orientalis contains the following detail: Notandum est hic quod inter Machedoniam, Achayan et Thessalonicum est quidam populus valde magnus et spaciosus qui vocantur Blazi, qui et olim fuerunt Romanorum pastores, ac in Ungaria, ubi erant pascua Romanorum, propternimiam terrae viriditatem et fertilitatem olim morabantur.
 
If we're to conclude upon this scholarly medieval tradition - obviously, the Vlachs are pastores Romanorum. If the term initially refered to something else and its meaning and association was altered, that is possible but some arguments should be brought to support such hypothesis. So, why the Avars are the "most likely candidates"?


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 08:57
I found somewhere but forgot where a desciption about the archaeological discoveries of the Romanic population in Pannonia, which lasted untill the coming of Hungarians.

It was in Romanian.

Anyway, shouldn't we move the discusion about Vlachs on the dedicated topic?

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 05:42
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Raider,
 
In GH the term pastores occurs twice:
 
About the dukedom of Kiev (the duke of Ruthenians): Quam terram habitarent Sclavii, Bulgarii et Blachii, ac pastores Romanorum

And after king Attila's death: Et mortuo illo preoccupassent Romani principes terram Pannonie usque ad Danubium, ubi collocavissent pastores suo.
 
If in the second occurence Anonymous doesn't say who were the pastores, in the former one he gives it as a surname. Now perhaps it can be argued that from the phrase construction pastores Romanorum can be applied to Sclavii et Bulgarii. However, I believe it applies only to Blachii, and for that I'll invoke the other medieval histories of Hungary.
 
Simon de Keza states about Attila's times: Blackis, qui ipsorum fuere pastores et coloni, remanentibus sponte in Pannonia.
 
Descriptio Europae Orientalis contains the following detail: Notandum est hic quod inter Machedoniam, Achayan et Thessalonicum est quidam populus valde magnus et spaciosus qui vocantur Blazi, qui et olim fuerunt Romanorum pastores, ac in Ungaria, ubi erant pascua Romanorum, propternimiam terrae viriditatem et fertilitatem olim morabantur.
 
If we're to conclude upon this scholarly medieval tradition - obviously, the Vlachs are pastores Romanorum. If the term initially refered to something else and its meaning and association was altered, that is possible but some arguments should be brought to support such hypothesis. So, why the Avars are the "most likely candidates"?
First of all I have spoken only about Anonymus' work. It's obvious that at Kézai pastrores romanorum is a reference of vlachs.
 
In Gesta Hungarorum there are different opinions among Hungarian historians. Many (Most?) of them says that the pastores are vlachs, others say its a different group.
 
I have found the later version more convincing.
Because:
 
Vlach did not live in the Pannonian parts at Anonymus' age. The term pascua romanorum is a known cliché and the Anonymus Notary copied it from the Russian Nestor chronicle. (And happenly the prince of Kiev speaks about them in GH.)
 
The GH enumerated the people lived in Hungary when Magyars arrived.
"Sclavii, Bulgarii et Blachii, ac pastores Romanorum"
Slavs, Bulgars and Vlachs plus the shepherds of the Romans.
the pastores romanorum stands separately and do not belong neither to the Slavs, Bulgars, nor to the Vlach. Later when Anonymus speaks about Vlachs and their rulers he never mentions them as pastores romanorum.
So in my opinion pastores romanorum must be a 4th separate kind of people.
 
We can presume that Anonymus did not know the true meaning of the phrase, because he simply forget to describe them in his work.
 
There is the question. Which people can be identified with the pastores romanorum.
 
The Hungarian chronicle tradition never mentions the Avars. In the chronicles Attila is followed nearly immediately by Árpád. So "after Attila's time" could be "before the Hungarians" or "after Bayan khagan's time". Charlemagne's (Holy Roman) Empire crushed Avar power and made the Avars servant. It is proven that some Avar groups remained till the Hungarian conquest. They were shepherds in the service of "Romans". (And not Roman shepherds as sometimes falsely translated).
 
Later these fragments were assimilated to the Hungarians and Anonymus didn't even know them. Presumably The later chronicles did not understand the phrase and identified them with the vlachs, because the phrase stands besides the in Anonymus' list.
 


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 05:44
Originally posted by Menumorut Menumorut wrote:


Anyway, shouldn't we move the discusion about Vlachs on the dedicated topic?
I am sorry, you are right. I will post there in the future.


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 09:53
Quote hey were shepherds in the service of "Romans". (And not Roman shepherds as sometimes falsely translated).


I think your explanation is not correct. The pastores surely where a Romanic population.

Avars have been included in the mention of Bulgars.


The fact that two Romanic populations are mentioned is close to the historical truth because in Pannonia were both latinophon Pannonians and Vlachs, latinopohons from Dacia or Moesia. The two dialects have been distinct.


    

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 11:03
I agree with Menumorut.
The phrase:
"Sclavii, Bulgarii et Blachii, ac pastores Romanorum"
refers to four different ethnic ppopulations because in Latin the comma PLUS the "ac" is a double separation of meaning.  In other words, the author of the phrase is putting three names togheter (Sclavii, Bulgari and Blachii) with a fourth name (pastores Romanorum), in order to pinpoint that the first group has the same importance of the second. 
All this means that the population was made of two groups of people, each with aproximately the same size: the group of the "pastores Romanorum" (the Romanized Pannonians) and the other group (made of Slavs, Bulgarians and Vlachs).   Bruno
 
 


-------------



Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 11:12
Other explanation could be that pastores Romanorum were looked as the autochtonous population while all others were alogens.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 11:31
Yes, of course.  But we have to read the full latin text to understand  the references to alogens and autochtonous population.  Bruno

-------------



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 12:02
I am not very sure "ac" can be translated as a simple conjuction in an enumeration, after all, Anonymous uses "et" with the same function. AFAIK, the grammar function of "ac" is to join two parts in a whole, not just enumerate. More than a simple "and", "ac/atque" may mean "and that too", and that even", "and in fact", etc.. I've seen (I have to look for if you want examples) several occurences like "in terram/provinciam nostram ac/atque <name here>" where obviously the given name is the name of the invoked territory/province.
It's also true that "ac/atque" can form some pairs of rather contrary elements (like "unus atque alter") therefore Bruno's explanation may be true, as well - the chronicle attempting to describe a demographic reality divded in two: the "pastores" and the others given by the first enumeration.
However, it's obvious the Hungarian Latin tradition furthermore took "ac pastores Romanorum" as a description of the Vlachs, and not as another population so it brings a heavy weight on those who attempt to prove otherwise.
 
I wouldn't bother too much about geographical accuracy. As Raider pointed out Anonymous probably used a Russian source (in the first passage, those populations are not necessarily in Pannonia, they can be located in Galitia as well or other places where we can hypothesise Vlachs in that time).


Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 13:42

There is absolutely NO DOUBT about the double use of the "COMMA" and the "AC" in the phrase cited.  In Latin (and every good grammar and vocabulary can confirm my affirmation) the use of a double separation in a phrase means that there are two groups (or sections) in the phrase: the group of the "pastores Romanorum" and the group of the "Slavii, Bulgari and Blachii).  Chilbudios, you have to look at the presence of the comma (before "ac") in the phrase: this comma is the key to understand that there are four populations.    Bruno



-------------



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 16:34
Actually Bruno, I believe most of the original texts do not have the proper punctuation, ortography and sometimes even the break between the words. These are in large part done by modern editors. Probably the comma added there is due to a modern interpretation. That is not to overvalue it!
 
However, as I said, I do not contest your interpretation (I admitted it's possible for "ac" to present adverse components in a whole, even my sentence from DEO describing the Vlachs in Balkans regions "ac" in Hungary show this type of usage you're claiming), is only that my interpretation makes more sense reviewing the entire scholarly context of Medieval Latin Hungary, where in other chronicles the Vlachs appear obviously as pastores (the verb "were" leaves no doubt) not together with pastores or complementing them in some demographical landscape. If indeed that deep separation you invoke it was true, it would be so nice to have other arguments to support it otherwise than arguing over a comma.
 
Now that I've looked on some texts of GH on that comma (not conclusive, some put it, some not) I've discovered the passage refers to "terram Pannonie" (though the paragraph on Ruthenians), so it needed to be corrected.
It indeed would be nice to see where this term originated and if that helps our attempts to decypher it. Its later usage is obvious but it's not enough for a decissive conclusion.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 17:08
Raider, on your hypothesis Avars = the shepherds of Franks I couldn't locate the Frankish domination in Pannonia at the end of 9th century (when these Avar remnants encountered the Magyar tribes). Annales Regni Francorum seem to suggest the Frankish Marques were bordering the Bulgarian ones, but this is relatively early (3rd decade of 9th century) and the Carolingian Empire decayed quite fast during that century. As I said above, I couldn't locate an early chronicle tradition of pastores Romanorum (even less Avars as pastores "Francorum") therefore I'm left in wonder who would preserve this "ethnic identity" information.
A good start to investigate your hypothesis would be also to see who was calling the Frank empire "Roman" in that period. I know of several accounts in those centuries (8th-10th) where the non-Roman ethnicity was praised in opposition to the Roman which was seen decadent and filthy. My point is "Franks/Germans=Romans" was not an universal equation.


Posted By: Tüske
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 17:56
In Erdély most of the geographical placenames where hungarian untill after WW1 It is not easy to change placenames even when peaple are not living in an area, the name remain the same. The romanians had a hard tine to chane the names to romanian because the new names had no meaning. The place have been Magyar for the last three-four  thousend years. There is thons of evidence to support this.
 
Thank you


-------------
Ignoring facts is criminal


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 18:49

http://www.allempires.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=4803&FID=7 - Tüske , only 3-4 thousand years? I've heard of at least 6 Shocked

I would disagree strongly with your pre-Triannon obsession. A lot of toponyms had double forms during centuries of Hungarian-Romanian cohabitation. Like Nyires/Masthakon (mesteacan, of course), or like Karpenica alias Gertyanos or like Valleszaka vel Szarazpatak where it's very obvious it is a dual toponym reflecting the two languages.
Some may be also Latin origin, not necessarily Romanian as could be for Cluj/Koloszvar: castrum Clus (1213), Clwusvar (1275), Clusenburg (1345) - the origin seems to be the Latin clusa.
Also sometimes the place "speaks" its true name. For instance, a river in Oltenia is named Amaradia. Hungarian scholars (I. Kniezsa, for instance) give the etymology Hamarod. However "hamar" means fast. The problem is this river is a field river, flowing slowly. And a chemical analysis of its waters shows a very high concentration of salts, and the waters indeed have a taste which can be labeled as bitter. Therefore it's more probable that its true name to be the Romanian "amar" which was received by Hungarian administration as "hamar" and further developed as a toponym "Hamarod" which gave back in Romanian "Amaradia". It's interesting that Homorod is a Transylvanian toponym which is associated sometimes to lakes rich in salts or other substances (some also being placed in volcanic mountains). It's very unlikely these waters were ever fast in the known history, but certainly they were bitter/salty.


Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 00:37
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Actually Bruno, I believe most of the original texts do not have the proper punctuation, ortography and sometimes even the break between the words. These are in large part done by modern editors. Probably the comma added there is due to a modern interpretation. That is not to overvalue it!
 
However, as I said, I do not contest your interpretation (I admitted it's possible for "ac" to present adverse components in a whole, even my sentence from DEO describing the Vlachs in Balkans regions "ac" in Hungary show this type of usage you're claiming), is only that my interpretation makes more sense reviewing the entire scholarly context of Medieval Latin Hungary, where in other chronicles the Vlachs appear obviously as pastores (the verb "were" leaves no doubt) not together with pastores or complementing them in some demographical landscape. If indeed that deep separation you invoke it was true, it would be so nice to have other arguments to support it otherwise than arguing over a comma.
 
Now that I've looked on some texts of GH on that comma (not conclusive, some put it, some not) I've discovered the passage refers to "terram Pannonie" (though the paragraph on Ruthenians), so it needed to be corrected.
It indeed would be nice to see where this term originated and if that helps our attempts to decypher it. Its later usage is obvious but it's not enough for a decissive conclusion.
 
Chilbudios, I agree with you about the problems related to proper punctuation of original texts with some modern editors. That is why we have to go to SERIOUS EDITORS, in order to have peace of mind.
So, I have made my own research, and  I have found an italian edition of the Chronicon in latin language of "Gesta Hungarum" of "Anonymi Bele Regis Notarii", from Garzanti Editori in the Vatican Library. This is TOTALLY reliable, be sure of that: the Vatican Library is the best for books in Latin in the world.
 
Here it is the translation in english of this excerpt from the section "De pace inter Ducem et Ruthenos" (About the peace between the (Hungarian) Ruler and the Ruteni):
..."Sed rogaverunt almum ducem, ut dimissa terra galicie, ultra silvam Hovos versus occidentem in terram pannonie descenderent, que primo athila regis terra fuisset.
Et laudabant eis terram pannonie ultra modum esse bonam.
Dicebant enim, quod ibi confluerent nobilissimi fontes aquarum, danubius et tyscia, et alij nobilissimi fontes bonis piscibus habundantes.
Quem terram habitarent sclavij, Bulgarij et Blachij, ac pastores romanorum.
Quia post mortem athila regis terram pannonie romani dicebant pascua esse, eo quod greges eorum in terra pannonie pascebantur.
Et iure terra pannonie pascua romanorum esse dicebatur, nam et modo romani pasc**tur de bonis Hungarie...."
TRANSLATION:
....But (the Rutenians) begged "almum" ruler, in order to (make him) abandon the land of Galicia, to descend toward the west after the forest "Hovos" into the land of Pannonia, that initially was the land of the king Attila. And (they) praised to him that the land of Pannonia was extremely good. So, (they) said that there arrived the water from very noble rivers, Danube and "Tyscia", and other noble waters full of good fishes.  THAT LAND SLAVS, BULGARS AND VLACHS, AND ROMAN SHEPHERDS POPULATED. Because of (the shepherds) the Romans of Pannonia after the death of Attila called the land pascua romanorum (pasture of the Romans), therefore the flocks of them (the roman shepherds=pannonians) were pastured in the land of Pannonia.....
 
I believe, Chilbudios, that with this Vatican translation there are no more doubts about the reference of the sentence (in discussion) to four populations living in the former land of Attila.  The comma is NOT an editorial mistake.
best regards.    Bruno
 


-------------



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 02:26
Quote The comma is NOT an editorial mistake.
An interpretation is not necessarily a mistake and I haven't ment that way, we're talking of scholarly intepretations, perspectives, arguments, not of carelessness or lack of knowledge or whatever else "editorial mistake" may be.
I also disagree strongly with your "Vatican has the Truth" line of argumentation. Assuming the original text had no punctuation, the Vatican library editors made their own choice to place a comma or not. Until we won't see where that comma came from, we can't commit "TOTALLY" to a conclusion (well, maybe you can, I can't). It's not the editor's seriousness I'm worried about, but his arguments for his choices.
 
When a scholar attempts to persuade me on the authencity of his interpretation starts with the original material (or whatever later copy he had and argues for its reliability). Then he comes with interpretation notes and interpolations and argues why did he choose an alternative or another. And afterwards he gives me the text and says "look, this is the way it should be". Of course, many times I'm not getting to question each material, but now if you brought the issue of this comma, this is how a "winning" argument should look.
 
few translation notes: "almum" - the nominative form - in English all declension forms are alike anyway - is Almus
Tyscia is very probably Tisa/Tisza.
"Quia post mortem athila regis terram pannonie romani dicebant pascua esse, eo quod greges eorum in terra pannonie pascebantur. " - "eo quod" does not add an effect (therefore), rather a cause.
 
Moreover, I already wondered why other medieval readers of Anonymous chose to see Vlachs as pastores romanorum (examples listed above) while some later readers didn't. Raider argued the former misread. Did they?


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 03:21

It seems however the punctuation issue is not an issue as the text was delimited in original.

In Wikipedia I've found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gesta_Hungarorum_Anonymous.jpg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gesta_Hungarorum_Anonymous.jpg
 
Therefore, without seeing that specific page, I assume in manuscript that excerpt is rendered "Blachij ·ac pastores romanorum" (of course, the words may not have this exact form).
 
Then, if indeed as it seems, Anonymous offers "Sclavii, Bulgarii and Blachii and as well pastores Romanorum" a) what was his source? b) is it a misread which caused the later accounts to consider pastores Romanorum not a distinct ethnicity but an ethnic caracteristic of the Blachii?
 
One more translation note for Bruno's last message: nobilis may mean not only noble, but also well-known, famous. In that context it seems obvious it is about some famous waters (for their abundence in fishes, as it further claims), not noble :)
 


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 05:14

Other two interesting mentions seem to be:

From "fratre Riccardo" (13th century): "in terram, que nunc Ungaria dicitur, tunc vero dicebatur pascua Romanorum"
 
Some say the source of Anonymous is Odo de Deogilo (12th century): Terra hec in tantum pabulosa est, ut dic**tur in ea pabula Iulii Caesaris extitere. Pabula = food (but also pasture). It is verosimile the transformation Iulius Caesar -> Romans, therefore "pastores Romanorum" become added only to value this earlier description (and that leaves out the Frankish connection). And then, it makes sense to postulate the misreading in the other two chronicles which further distort the original meaning (the description of a territory, not of a population). It becomes interesting. I wonder if there are any earlier mentions of these pastures Smile


Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 10:17
Chilbudios, I have gone to the famous Vatican library in Rome (where I live) and I assure you that everything there has been totally and seriously checked for authenticity.  It is considered the "holy place" of the Latin language by all the scholars in the world. If you ever will go there, I'm sure you'll agree with me.  So, the cited "comma" is there as an UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that there were four populations in Pannonia when Hungarians arrived there.
Of course, there is even Wikipedia and other secundary sources....
FINALLY, I am not using in this Forum a "scholar method of discussion", because this is a simple and friendly website to exchange opinions of everybody.  Shocked   Bruno


-------------



Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 11:43
Quote In Erdély most of the geographical placenames where hungarian untill after WW1 It is not easy to change placenames even when peaple are not living in an area, the name remain the same. The romanians had a hard tine to chane the names to romanian because the new names had no meaning. The place have been Magyar for the last three-four thousend years. There is thons of evidence to support this.



The Romanians changed some names, especialy in the Szeklers area, because it would be dificult for Romanian authorities to spell and pronounce Hungarian names.


The same have done in Middle Age the Hungarian rulers and with some exceptions, Romanians adopting in most cases after a while the Hungarian toponimy.

This is clear if you look on a detailed map of Transylvania; you will see that the name of villages and of some cities are Hungarian or German but the names of the natural entities are mostly Romanian, SLav or of unknown origin.
    
    
I could give you several examples of localities who are attested in medieval documents with their Romanian name but today Romanians are calling them with names of Hungarian origin.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 11:51

Bruno, it's not only about scholarship but about reason. There are some basic principles which are estabilished from Antiquity and they form the fundaments both of scholarship and science but also to a decent discussion. One of these principles is that appeal to authority is non-argument. Every evidence is debateable, that is how reason and how history as a science works. If you will keep asserting "it's undeniable because it's written in Vatican's library" you're wasting the time replying to me on a history thread as I'm wasting my time with you.

The cited comma does not prove anything beyond the text which includes it (and I conceded on this issue based on the evidences I brought, not because a Vatican text says so!). I've raised some issues, some questions, mostly unaddressed. That if anyone is interested in figuring out truths and myths about the demographics of Carpathian Basin in that period. 
 
As a side point, Vatican is not even a scholarly reference in Latin linguistics, philology, epigraphy, etc.. Scholars refer other scholars, not works because they are published by Vatican.


Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 22:25
"you're wasting the time replying to me on a history thread as I'm wasting my time with you".
Chilbudios, I was thinking that you had a different level...
 
"Vatican is not even a scholarly reference in Latin linguistics, philology, epigraphy, etc.. "
What you say is unbelievable:  please, go to the website http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/Main_Hall.htm - www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/Main_Hall.htm
anf "IF" you are an expert in Latin Scholars, you can easily contact the "Vatican library" managers in order to find where it is located the ORIGINAL BOOK of the GESTA HUNGARUM of anonymous. So, you can get a photocopy of the original page with the "comma", that confirms there were four populations in Pannonia, when the Hungarian tribes arrived there.
 
"Every evidence is debateable, that is how reason and how history as a science works"
Of course, but there is a REASONABLE LIMIT. If you cross that reasonable limit, you go down to "fanaticism".  For example, all the nationalistic fanatics of the world refuse to accept the archeological evidence against their country, arguing that this evidence can be easily altered in many ways (and can be interpreted differently).
 
"Assuming the original text had no punctuation, the Vatican library editors made their own choice to place a comma or not. Until we won't see where that comma came from, we can't commit "TOTALLY"
Why you assume that the original text had no punctuation? Check the original text, please. Don't anticipate the effect, before even knowing the cause! 
 
"Quia post mortem athila regis terram pannonie romani dicebant pascua esse, eo quod greges eorum in terra pannonie pascebantur. " - "eo quod" does not add an effect (therefore), rather a cause".
If you know well Latin, you should know that Cicero used to write often
"eo quod" to add an effect (therefore).           And so did many others, after him.......
The phrase clearly says that the Romanized Pannonians considered the land to be "pascua", and so they used to flock greges eorum (their = romanized Pannonians) in the land of Pannonia.
 
"If indeed that deep separation you invoke it was true, it would be so nice to have other arguments to support it otherwise than arguing over a comma"
This a typical "fanatical" affirmation: deny a clear-cut evidence asking for new arguments in order to forget (or diminish) the reality, that is contrary to the point of view of the fanatic.
 
"the Hungarian Latin tradition furthermore took "ac pastores Romanorum" as a description of the Vlachs, and not as another population so it brings a heavy weight on those who attempt to prove otherwise."
You seems to remember ONLY the "hungarian Latin tradition".  May be you are Hungarian and that explains your lack of impartiality in the topic.  Why don't you ask yourself who were the Pannonians?  I am sure you know that the Pannonians were sheperds like the Moesian Vlachs.  The Pannonians, as the famous historian T. Mommsen wrote, were "living nomadically as a nation of sheperds and horsemen and only with their romanization these Pannonians started to settle partially in small villages in the plains around the Danube river" (The Provinces of the Roman Empire,1909).
So, there is nothing strange that in the phrase "ac pastores romanorum" there is a clear reference to the Pannonians, who were the AUTOCHTHONOUS population of Pannonia (as the forumer Menumorut says).   And in the south of the area of the plains occupied by the Hungarians (in the actual Serbian Voivodina and Timok Krajina) there are still now Romanian populations called Vlachs by the Serbs.  Exactly what wrote Anonymous in the Gesta Hungarum (.....Blachii, ac pastores romanorum).
 
LAST AND NOT LEAST, allow me to write that a "decent discussion" need to remain above the level of partiality and stubborn denial of clear-cut evidences.  Even the Library of Congress (Washington/USA) has photocopies of the original Gesta Hungarum of Anonymous at:   http://www.loc.gov/index.html - http://www.loc.gov/index.html
 
Good luck!  Angry   Bruno
 
 
 


-------------



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 12:38

Quote Good luck! 
Reason does not need luck.

Quote Chilbudios, I was thinking that you had a different level...
As in: you come and show us the light and we bow in obedience to this revelated truth? And now as I refused, you're going to teach me a lesson?
LOL
 
Quote What you say is unbelievable:  please, go to the website http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/Main_Hall.htm - www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/Main_Hall.htm
anf "IF" you are an expert in Latin Scholars, you can easily contact the "Vatican library" managers in order to find where it is located the ORIGINAL BOOK of the GESTA HUNGARUM of anonymous. So, you can get a photocopy of the original page with the "comma", that confirms there were four populations in Pannonia, when the Hungarian tribes arrived there.
 
I've linked above the first page of the manuscript. You're late and your rant (as seemingly your entire post) is malicious and irrelevant.
Your insistence on this comma betrays also a profound ignorance. You see, the language as its written forms evolved a lot in time. The punctuation at a given time (and space, as Europe's written culture was not at all uniform) has a particular form, which in our case was not addressed until I questioned it. That particular form (as you should have known, but the manuscript proved) it was not even a comma; however that "punctus" which can be seen in the text is good enough to render the text in a way closer to our modern ortography.
Claiming ad nauseam the text proves four populations is mindless. If you haven't realized, repetition does not make a claim to be true and to some has zero persuasive value, being rather annoying. Similarily capitalizing words is sometimes perceived rather hysteric than emphasized.
I've already brought several other similar mentions from the same period, we have to contextualize to see what value this testimony may have.

Quote Of course, but there is a REASONABLE LIMIT. If you cross that reasonable limit, you go down to "fanaticism".  For example, all the nationalistic fanatics of the world refuse to accept the archeological evidence against their country, arguing that this evidence can be easily altered in many ways (and can be interpreted differently).
Debating and doubting beyond reasonable limit is called skepticism, nihilism (that if you care about labels). The nationalism usually takes at face value authoritative claims and embraces them dogmatically, not questions them endlessly as it would eventually undermine itself. Often, these "reasonable" limits are shields to protect the convenient doctrines and protect shaky theories from "vicious" attacks. You have a point somehow that is unconstructive to question iust for the sake of doubting, however I had solid grounds to question the punctuation as it became an important of piece of an argument which out of convenience or ignorance did not address at such real issues of original text (the manuscript and its cultural context).

Quote Why you assume that the original text had no punctuation?
First, "assumed". Read before write.
Second, I assumed so, as if you would have been at least a bit familiarized with Ancient and Medieval written testimonies (paleography, epigraphy and such) you'd have known that at the beginning of the Middle Ages the texts weren't remotely having the forms we see today. The words were in an initial stage undivided (the so called "scriptio continua"), there was no punctuation. Even the first forms of punctuation were rather incompatibile with our today usage - some were not even separating grammar structures but intonations in voice, some weren't giving a fully compatible rendering (some were very simple, later ones became rather complex with usages and nuances the modern punctuation can't render in a true correspondence). I don't want to make a history of the European punctuation - the bottom line is: even later, at the periphery of Europe where written culture had its first steps, such hard-readable texts were created (for instance, check the early Old English texts). Without being a specialist in the early literary history of Hungary, in 12th century it doesn't seem at all extraordinary to imagine such "unpunctuated" texts being produced here. And if someone makes a big fuss about a comma, then the question arises naturally - how was the original text written?

Quote If you know well Latin, you should know that Cicero used to write often
"eo quod" to add an effect (therefore).           And so did many others, after him.......
The phrase clearly says that the Romanized Pannonians considered the land to be "pascua", and so they used to flock greges eorum (their = romanized Pannonians) in the land of Pannonia.
It seems I know more Latin than you.
Because if you check a dictionary "eo quod" means "because", "for", "since" etc. and thus does not add an effect. The relation between clauses is the other way around: they have not used the pastures as a consequence of land's name or given value as you wrongly claimed, but more naturally and logically: the lands are called pastures because they were used as such!
If you ever consulted Vatican library for other things than bragging on some forums, you couldn't have missed such Latin verses in the Bible:
Luke 19:9-11 :
19:9  ait Iesus ad eum quia hodie salus domui huic facta est eo quod et ipse filius sit Abrahae                          
19:10  venit enim Filius hominis quaerere et salvum facere quod perierat     
19:11  haec illis audientibus adiciens dixit parabolam eo quod esset prope Hierusalem et quia existimarent quod confestim regnum Dei manifestaretur
 
You can look even at Classical authors for similar causal constructions but "eo quod" is a rather Medieval expression. I really wonder on your Cicero's quotes. Because both "eo" and "quod" have multiple meanings and perhaps you simply got him wrong Wink

Quote This a typical "fanatical" affirmation: deny a clear-cut evidence asking for new arguments in order to forget (or diminish) the reality, that is contrary to the point of view of the fanatic.
You have brought no evidences and worse, no further arguments (after your first comment in this thread). You suggested also you're unable to bring any (this last reply of yours is mostly an ad hominem addressed to me). You seem to lack the proper knowledge. Precisely, you don't know the history and the geography in discussion (as "Almum" and "Tyscia" suggest) and you don't know Latin good enough to properly understand the testimonies ("eo quod" does not mean "therefore", "nobilissimi fontes" does not mean "noble waters").
As for fanaticism, since I'm discussing in this thread I've embraced several hypotheses and raised many questions while you're pontificating only one dogma (can't be called hypothesis, as you repeatedly asserted its "undeniability" betraying your immovable position and warning about the fruitlessness of any attempt to debate) and bashing anyone and anything which opposed it. You're rather making self-characterisations, so watch out with your sharps words - you could hurt yourself Big smile

Quote You seems to remember ONLY the "hungarian Latin tradition". 
Descriptio Europae Orientalis, Riccardo's or Odo de Deogilo's testimonies are not "Hungarian Latin tradition". As I just have argued, you do not possess the proper knowledge to handle the discussion.

Quote May be you are Hungarian and that explains your lack of impartiality in the topic
That is a true gem. But also reflects a sad reality: many show their nationality advocating a certain representation of the past. When some people do not respect this pattern, the confusion arises among the aggressive forumers which feel very uncertain if they don't have this back-up. I've been called Hungarian, English, French, Bulgarian because of the discussions I participated in (but also Atheist, Christian Fundie, Anti-Semite, Philo-Semite, Feminist, Chauvinist etc.).

Quote Why don't you ask yourself who were the Pannonians?
I don't know who are the Pannonians (especially for the times of Hungarian honfoglalas), I'm expecting those who identify populations to define them, too.

Quote I am sure you know that the Pannonians were sheperds like the Moesian Vlachs.
Ethnicity myths and zero evidences.

Quote The Pannonians, as the famous historian T. Mommsen wrote, were "living nomadically as a nation of sheperds and horsemen and only with their romanization these Pannonians started to settle partially in small villages in the plains around the Danube river" (The Provinces of the Roman Empire,1909).
Why would I read Mommsen and not read more recent scholarship (1909!!) which hopefully avoids such romantic depictions and offers more balanced views than these obsolete and fictional identities. And how would an account be valid for realities centuries later than its times? This is, mildly put, an anachronism.

Quote So, there is nothing strange that in the phrase "ac pastores romanorum" there is a clear reference to the Pannonians, who were the AUTOCHTHONOUS population of Pannonia (as the forumer Menumorut says). 
My investigation so far (I'm eager to see more evidences on it; as you can see I've gathered only five accounts) seems to point out the reference in Anonymous is derived from "pastures" which otherwise can be seen are just a legendary image of some rich Roman provinces or just an instant creation of history valuing the realities of the present (pastures) with the heroes of the past (Romans). No real reference to a population, whatsoever.

Quote And in the south of the area of the plains occupied by the Hungarians (in the actual Serbian Voivodina and Timok Krajina) there are still now Romanian populations called Vlachs by the Serbs.  Exactly what wrote Anonymous in the Gesta Hungarum (.....Blachii, ac pastores romanorum).
I must admit arguments by neighbourhood have their own special flavour. You see, as there were Vlachs in Pannonia, they certainly were in Bohemia because it's just a bit north of them. And if they were in Bohemia, they certainly were in Silesia. LOL
Oh, and you make the same mistake quite often showing its not just a spelling issue: it's not accusative singular, it's genitive plural Wink

Quote LAST AND NOT LEAST, allow me to write that a "decent discussion" need to remain above the level of partiality and stubborn denial of clear-cut evidences.
If you'd read what you write and more important, understand and follow it, perhaps we'll get there. Meanwhile let me decline your hypocritical advices and ignore you on this thread until you'll behave and participate accordingly. In case you prepare a juicy reply be sure you'll write it just for show off, as I will no longer take part in this disruption. I just showed (to you or whomever was curious) I can handle it; from here we can go back to discuss the demographics of Pannonia, Transylvania and why not - the original topic, the Szeklers.



Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 14:09
Chilbudios, I am starting to understand that you are a bit "silly".
 
You write that there is a "punctus"...but  in which manuscript?
the original?  Next time you'll write that the punctus was made by a
dead flyLOL
 
You write that Mommsen is an anachronism and cite many Bible
verses....Wink
 
You write that eo quod is rather a medieval expression, but EVIDENTLY you have never read the CATILINARIA of Cicero, that has many
"eo quod" written.Wink
 
You are not even capable to understand that a geographic citation can be repeated exactly in a phrase, and this does not mean a mistake by the writer.LOL
 
What do you mean with "Oh, and you make the same mistake quite often showing its not just a spelling issue: it's not accusative singular, it's genitive plural"? 
You write in a confuse way.....like a silly person does!LOL
 
I have read many of your posts in other topics and sincerely I have doubts about your knowledge....they are filled with superficiality, like your interpretation of the comma.Angry
 
You are an ARROGANT in many of your posts with other forumers!
Indeed, who are you to decide that " I just showed (to you or whomever was curious) I can handle it; from here we can go back to discuss the demographics of Pannonia, Transylvania and why not - the original topic, the Szeklers."?  
You should nickname yourself "little Adolf" in the AE forums.LOLLOLLOLLOL
 
My last question: do you have a degree? Or you are a self-made expert, scholar, etc....Wink   Bruno
 
 
 


-------------



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 14:36
I realize I've been vague and I'll trying to be more clear for people who read this thread and may have missed things.
 
 
 
 
For those who suffered from temporary cecity, dyslexia or simply missed my earlier message or just jumped to later messages in the thread skipping the discussion:
I have added earlier this paragraph:
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

In Wikipedia I've found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gesta_Hungarorum_Anonymous.jpg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gesta_Hungarorum_Anonymous.jpg
 
Therefore, without seeing that specific page, I assume in manuscript that excerpt is rendered "Blachij ·ac pastores romanorum" (of course, the words may not have this exact form).
 
If you can click the link you'll have in front of your eyes the page of a manuscript - Gesta Hungarorum. If you will make an effort (focus, put your glasses, click to enlarge image, anything else necessary) you will distinguish some small dots being spreaded out in the text. Those are the punctuation marks which in newer editions are rendered either as commas or full-stops or semi-colons or whatever else, as the context and the interpretation of the editor suggested. As some of you didn't know such a punctuation mark was once known as "punctus" (from here we have the word "punctuation" today) and later more types were available ("punctus versus", "punctus elevatus", etc.).
 
 
 
For those who do not know Latin:
In "Gesta Hungarorum", the word "Hungarorum" is in Genitive plural and means "of the Hungarians". If one would mistake and write it, for instance, "Hungarum" then it would mean simply "Hungarian", a noun in Accusative case (some preposition might be added to it, according to context). Therefore be careful when you misspell Latin words because sometimes, without your knowledge, you can give new meanings to the text, make it incoherent or simply absurd. Few mispells can be excusable as typoes, but if you make it a bad habit then it's no longer ok Wink
 
 
 
And though I haven't brought that confusion, it's more like a hint. There are a lot of Latin texts online on the Internet (not so many translations as texts LOL) if you want to practice your Latin or simply look for sources.
For instance one can find:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_cicero_latin_catilinarian.htm - http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_cicero_latin_catilinarian.htm
 
Another hint is that you can use Ctrl+F (or in top menu: Edit > Find) to find whatever passages, syntagms, words.


Posted By: maria d.
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 14:41
I request the intervention of the Moderator against Chilbudios.
In my opinion Bruno has expressed opinions, about a translated excerpt in the Gesta Romanorum of anonynous, that are correct.   But Chilbudios attacks Bruno with arrogance and provocation, and all this is not suitable to our forum.   Maria d.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 14:45

maria, can you justify your opinion that I attacked Bruno and it's not the other way around? If not, why do you troll this thread?



Posted By: maria d.
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 14:59
Let's allow the Moderator to decide.  Not you, or me, or someone else.   Maria d.


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 14:59
I don't think anyone here deserves an official warning yet, but I would ask all of you to keep it down. Attacks on somebody's argument are fine, but some of you are starting to make personal attacks, which are not. Please return to the original topic and try to keep it civil.
 
Chilbudios, I have read your threads for a while now, and I respect your knowledge, but you have a way of arguing and inserting subtle comments here and there that may cause other members to lose their temper. Some of your comments can easily be construed as personal attacks by a passionate member, even when they are only an attack on a position they hold. I recommend you pay attention to that.
 
Bruno, you're new here, welcome! I think you overreacted somewhat to Chilbudios's comments (thought I can understand why and I don't really blame you). Just remember that this is a friendly discussion forum.
In general, I've seen much worse arguments in other threads, but this discussion could easily degenerate into a mud-slinging contest. I will keep a close eye on you all.


-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 15:16
Thank you, Decebal.
I appreciate very much your intervention.
Bruno  Clap


-------------



Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 15:46
Dear Chilbudios,

I don't understand why should you speak such aggressively.

You acuse the nationalistic interpretations but you became a persecuter. The truth is for people, not the people for the truth.


I think that, as you accused others that are wrong, you should suspect yourself that you are wrong, if not in scientifical theories at least in human atitude.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 16:41
I'm a bit worried by such double standards. I can't find anything aggressive in my messages to Bruno until my last message on the 14th of October, therefore I can't identify myself as an aggresor in this question.
Then he started to address "my level", "my fanatism", "my possible Hungarian ethnicity" and other such ad hominems. The way he started his next message seems to suggest he was insulted by me asserting we would waste each other's time if some arguments won't change (this was quoted when he "degraded my level"). I don't understand even now why.
I agree my next reply to him was aggressive but in my view it was just a response ("eye for an eye" - not very Christian though Wink). As I added in its ending, I just showed I can handle an ad hominem approach and immediately I called for a return to the initial topic. Which not only that didn't happen (though I've ignored most of Bruno's following venomous remarks as I previously warned) but due to some other thoughtful users we're discussing Chilbudios vs Brunodam conflict here instead of anything remotely relevant to the thread. Decebal is excluded as he has a job to do, but both you Menumorut and Maria are not helping the thread, you're simply adding straws on fire. Wasn't the circus enough for you? Pay the ticket and maybe I'll consider LOL
 
Now some may interpret my insistence requiring evidences for conclusive claims which are "undeniable" as persecution. Well, you Menumorut and Brunodam and other users have this thing to have the last word in a conversation even though you're not bringing anything new. That is, if anything, you "persecute" yourself by participating in discussions you've been requested for some arguments you don't have. To concede is not a bad thing: even in this discussion I've changed my position (abandoning some of my initial claims) once the evidences suggested so and allowed other verosimile hypotheses (and unlike some of my opponents I haven't denied their hypotheses from start!).
 
These being said and with Decebal's advice, if you have anything left to say about me or my attitude, write me a personal message.


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 16:47
After 3 tentatives of sending a pm to Decebal and 3 more to sending one to Menumorut maybe this is the way. It's in Romanian but maybe they should explain me why I cannot pm themConfused.
 
Nu ştiu dacă o să-ţi placă dar văzând ce se naşte pe topicu ăsta cu secuii încep să mă gândesc la o mulţime de ... mai bine nu spun.
Aşa cum am acris în fostul forum rezervat non englezismelor, nu sunt decât limitat la istoria modernă (din când în când), istoria militară şi discuţia 'telectuală.
Deşi nu sunt arheolog sau antropolog am avut ocazia, datorită slujbei pe care o am, să mă aflu şi în ţinuturi secuieşti şi în alte zone din Transilvania. Am evitat să intervin în topicu'  (şi nu numai) ăsta pentru că mi s-a părut că nu are rost să-mi fac şi eu simţită prezenţa.
Există însă elemente care aş putea să le aduc în discuţie. Cum ar fi o simplă întrebare: "Ai fost acolo?"
Pentru că, pe fond, la aceasta se reduce totul. Putem discuta o mie de ani despre ce semne de punctuaţie foloseau istoricii dar o bucată de marmură sau coborârea în galeriile romane de la Rosia Montana cred ca au mai mult efect decât orice "dezbatere din fotoliu".
Ce pot să fac?


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 16:58
Cezar, I was there. But I couldn't feel who or where were the Szeklers 1000 years ago. Smile
We can write about our limited and anecdotic experiences in Szekelyland (or Bihor or any place you consider relevant), but it's a whole different side of the discussion, don't you think?


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 17:04


Dear Chilbudios, I think I have mistaken accusing only you for this.

I observed in my life that sometimes we say a word and others interprets it wrong, as aggressive, or viceversa, we interpret wrong somebody's word when actualy that man has not any adversion on us.


...............

Dear Cezar,about me, yes, I was in Szeklers region and I studied the history and culture of this area.


I could provide you these links which are especialy about the Romanians (or their ancestors) in the region. There are rare sources because the Hungarian majority of the region is having an atitude of not showing the ancient, pre-Hungarian history and culture of these lands, in museum, schools etc:

http://www.formula-as.ro/reviste_478__44__.html - http://www.formula-as.ro/reviste_478__44__.html

http://www.cultura.ro/sectiuni/Patrimoniu/...ta/harghita.pdf - http://www.cultura.ro/sectiuni/Patrimoniu/...ta/harghita.pdf
http://www.cultura.ro/sectiuni/Patrimoniu/...sta/covasna.pdf - http://www.cultura.ro/sectiuni/Patrimoniu/...sta/covasna.pdf
http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/expo/html/index.html - http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/expo/html/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/harcovus/index00.html - http://www.geocities.com/harcovus/index00.html


I think we can speak here about what you want.

I'll try to send you a PM.

    

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 17:08
Maria d., here it is in Latin how are written the words "Gesta Hungarum" in the Chronicon of Anonyni.   As you can see, not necessarily must be written "gesta Hungarorum".  But ARROGANT persons will never admit this........and additionally, they will never admit that a "punctus" is like a comma separating "Blachii" from "ac pastores romanorum": the meaning is the same (there were four population groups in Pannonia when the Hungarian tribes arrived there).  Impartiality is not a characteristic of the arrogant and aggressive persons.    Thank you for your request.
BrunoSmile
 
CHRONICON
Anonymi Bele Regis Notarii
GESTA HUNGARUM

Index

[ javascript:toggleToc%28%29 - celare ]
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#Incipit_prologus_in_gesta_hungarum - 1 Incipit prologus in gesta hungarum
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_Scithia - 2 De Scithia
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#Quare_hungari_dicitur - 3 Quare hungari dicitur
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_almo_primo_duce - 4 De almo primo duce
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_duce_almo - 5 De duce almo
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_electione_almi_ducis - 6 De electione almi ducis
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_iuramento_eorum - 7 De iuramento eorum
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_egressu_eorum - 8 De egressu eorum
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_pace_inter_ducem_et_ruthenos - 9 De pace inter ducem et ruthenos
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_VII_ducibus_cumanorum - 10 De VII ducibus cumanorum
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_ciuitatibus_lodomer_et_Galicia - 11 De ciuitatibus lodomer et Galicia
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#Quomodo_pannoniam_intrauerunt - 12 Quomodo pannoniam intrauerunt
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_hung_castro - 13 De hung castro
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_arpad_duce - 14 De arpad duce
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_camaro_castro - 15 De camaro castro
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_monte_turzol - 16 De monte turzol
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_Zerensze - 17 De Zerensze
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_Borsod - 18 De Borsod
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_duce_bycoriensy - 19 De duce bycoriensy
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#Qualiter_contra_byhor_missum_est - 20 Qualiter contra byhor missum est
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_Zobolsu - 21 De Zobolsu
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_nyr - 22 De nyr
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_uictoria_thosu.2C_zobolsu_et_tuhutum - 23 De uictoria thosu, zobolsu et tuhutum
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_terra_ultra_siluana - 24 De terra ultra siluana
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_prudentia_tuhutj - 25 De prudentia tuhutj
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#Quomodo_contra_Gelu_item_est - 26 Quomodo contra Gelu item est
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_morte_Gelu - 27 De morte Gelu
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_reditu_eorum - 28 De reditu eorum
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_duce_salanus - 29 De duce salanus
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_egressu_zeremsu - 30 De egressu zeremsu
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_castro_nougrad_et_nitra - 31 De castro nougrad et nitra
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_nitra_ciuitate - 32 De nitra ciuitate
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_speculatoribus_missis_a_ducibus - 33 De speculatoribus missis a ducibus
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_pugna_ducum_arpadij - 34 De pugna ducum arpadij
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_exercitu_grecorum_et_bulgarorum - 35 De exercitu grecorum et bulgarorum
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_egressu_salani_ducis_contra_arpium_ducem - 36 De egressu salani ducis contra arpium ducem
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_victoria_arpad_ducis - 37 De victoria arpad ducis
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_egressu_arpad - 38 De egressu arpad
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_nuntiis_ducis_bulgarie - 39 De nuntiis ducis bulgarie
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_castris_zabrag.2C_posaga_et_vlcou - 40 De castris zabrag, posaga et vlcou
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_insula_Danubij - 41 De insula Danubij
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_ciuibus_bulgarorum_et_macedonum - 42 De ciuibus bulgarorum et macedonum
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_portu_Moger - 43 De portu Moger
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_terra_pannonie - 44 De terra pannonie
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_ciuitate_bezprem - 45 De ciuitate bezprem
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_castro_ferreo - 46 De castro ferreo
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_deuastatione_pannonie - 47 De deuastatione pannonie
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_duce_menumorout - 48 De duce menumorout
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_usubuu.2C_veluc - 49 De usubuu, veluc
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_successione_zulte_ducis - 50 De successione zulte ducis
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_deuastatione_Lotoringie.2C_alemanie_et_francie - 51 De deuastatione Lotoringie, alemanie et francie
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_morte_lelu_et_bulsuu - 52 De morte lelu et bulsuu
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_inimicis_athonis_regis - 53 De inimicis athonis regis
  • http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#De_constitucione_regni - 54 De constitucione regni

< =text/> //

[ http://la.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Gesta_Hungarorum&action=edit&section=1 - recensere ]

Incipit prologus in gesta hungarum

P. dictus magister ac quondam bone memorie gloriosissimi bele regis hungarie notarius N. suo dilectissimo amico uire



-------------




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net