Printable View
Some time ago another org member told me that Vlachs are actually descendants of Thracians. Is this at all true?
Now I know Bulgarians claim the same but that's far from being true since they are mixed in turks and romanians and mostly bulgars. They even speak a slavic language. So they are not thracians. Vlachs on the other hand speak an ancient language only similar to Romanian, so they are definetly the real thing. But are they Thracian?
No one in any part of the world is a truly pure decandant of any ancient culture.
Well then that ancient culture was not pure either, so what's your point? :rolleyes:
*sigh* I could make the same types of pedantic comments for every thread in the org(and sometimes I do), but you know I didn't mean *pure* pure. I meant that have kept the traditions of laguage and have some of the same DNA as that ancient culture.
Thracians = Bulgarians + Romanians
It's a mix of it. Thracia was the south of Romania + the north of Bulgaria.
Errr Thracians = ancient peoples whom Dacians(Romanians) were related to
Bulgarians = people's who came from the steppes to Thracia(now bulgaria) in the 13th century
I think you have it mixed Edyz. Bulgarians are Turk and Slav mixed together.
That's six centuries off. The Bulgarians consider 681 the birthyear of their state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
I think Edyz is right. The Thracians are to Bulgaria and Roumania what Celts are to Britain in France. Some pockets of their language survive, their genes have been assimilated into the main ethnic populations that now populate their lands.
How is he right? This is what he said:
Here are some map to refute that.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyz
https://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3706/2270ro.jpg
https://img177.imageshack.us/img177/...ermania5hi.jpg
A quote from teh encyclopedia:
So they came from Russia and invaded the area known as Thracia. They then got invaded by the Turks and mixed with them far more then any others. I don't think they are very Thracian, although I'm sure they have some thracian blood in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Encarta_Microsoft Corporation
Well there isn't much left of the Thracians... Their languages (they spoke several) seems lost, and their makeup seems lost as well. Most Thracian tribes are described quite different from how the people of the region look today.
So I dare say that the Thracians are gone. Of course their blood run in a few of us (not me I think), but so does many other peoples, and their governing traits and culture does not exist.
The thracians were absorbed into the Slavic peoples that moved into what is now Bulgaria and Wallchia(SP). So were the Turkic Bulgars that conquered the Slavs in Bulgaria then became part of them. Both Thracians and the Bulgars left some cultural and linguistic remenants in the Bulgaria of today.
The Vlachs are the decendants of the Romans. Both of the very small Romano-Dacian population that was left behind after the legions left Dacia and Romans who migrated from Moesia superior and infirior (provinces located in what is now Serbia more or less) to the Transylvannian plateau after the Slavs moved into the Balkans in the 600's AD.
It should be pointed out that the first Principality of Wallachia was begun by a family descended from Cumans. Basarab, the ruler who established the principality has a Cuman name, as does his father Tihomir.
The area itself was first Thracian, but was a welcome mat for many incursions after Rome. First the Visigoths, then the Huns, then the Kutrigur Huns, then the Avars, then Bulgars from the south, then Slavs from the north, then Pechenegs, then Cumans, and finally the Mongols. After the Mongols left, the remaining Cumans established the above principality. Later they were conquered by the Ottomans. Attempting to draw a line from the Thracians to the Vlachs is impossible.
Well , could not define it better !!! (but think about the Jews and some of the Chinese)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
The Vlachs were the purest decendants of the Roman Legionnaires Gemina XIII and nearby Roman settler from Moesia (modern Bulgaria and Serbia). The name Vlach is a barbarian word for Roman, and the principality of Wallachia is literally Romania. This name was given by the Saxons when they invaded the Roman Empire and also was given to the southwestern region of Britain; Wales (because more Romans probably lived there when the saxons invaded Britain). Of course no one can say that he or she is a pure descendant of anything anymore for example: an Italian cannot say that he descends from Julius Caesar's family because a lot has changed in Italy over time, as in other countries. However, it is more likely that most of ones ancestry is Roman if he or she are from Italy, Spain, Romania, Portugal or France because these areas, for the most part, remained unchanged after the barbarian invasions. This is evident through the romance languages that are spoken in the areas and the last names of the inhabitants (particularly in Romania). As for the Thratians, they are not Romanian. Studies have shown that the closest people to Thratians are actually modern Albanians. They descend from an old Dacian tribe the "Carpe" which were defeated by Emperor Domitian and resettled in southern Illiria (modern albania). To this day the Albanian language is thought to be the closest spoken to that of the Dacians/Thratians. A good example of this is the word "carpe", in albananian, it means rocky or stony (I cant remember which because I am not Albanian and don't speak their language). Also, the name of the "carpathian" mountains (located roughly in modern Romania) has absolutely no significants in romanian. However in Albanian the carpathians would simply be rocky or stony mountains.
PS
Ill post the link to this statement when I find the article again if any one is interested
____________________
Patria Nostra Romania
Wow, let's be very careful about equating ethnicity with language spoken. In the example given, the lands who speak Romance languages (France, Spain, Portugal, Italy) were subjected to considerable barbarian invasions and migrations, not to mention the fact that the Romans replaced the Gauls and Iberians in any case, and so there was considerable diversity. As several people have said, there is no way of successfully tracing the decendants of a people (who may already be very ethnically diverse in any case) from 2,000 years ago, especially in an areas subjected to so many invasions as the Balkans; so many turkic, germanic and slavic tribes have settled there in the past.
My personal belief, not backed up by anything except conjecture, is that the proto-Indo-Europeans, the original source of the many branches of the Indo-European tribes and languages, came from the Black Sea valley prior to the great flood around 7500 BCE which created the current Black Sea.
This area would have been much more fertile than the so-called fertile crescent. With the forbidding mountains of Anatolia to the south, the most likely routes of exodus as the valley filled quickly would have been southeast, northeast, north, and northwest. These areas are precisely the areas from which the list of suspects for the origins of Indo-European arise a couple of millenia later. The Thracians to the northwest, the steppes people to the north, the Central Asian tribes to the northeast, and the tribes of the Caucasus to the southeast. To date, the Thracians on the eventual northwestern shore of the new Black Sea, in what is now Bulgaria, still have the record for the earliest known examples of massive gold and copper mining and working, as early as perhaps 4500 BCE. We'll probably never know much about what if any civilization flourished there prior to that massive flood; but Bob Ballard found tantalizing signs of settlements, including the characteristic mounding of continual settlements building up on top of each other, near the banks f what used to be rivers now under the Black Sea.
In the end, I suppose that would mean that almost all of the later invasions into what was once the domains of the Thracians were made by people who were distantly related to them anyway. So maybe it's a moot point.
One small correction:
The Black Sea was as a lake about 2/3rds of the current Black Sea. Remember that quite a few very large rivers run into the area and would thus have formed a very large lake.
But yes, there were people living at the foot of the Anatolian highlands as Bob Ballard found a small village about 100 meters down under water.
The truth is that there are few and far between historical documents implementing the ethnicity of the people in the Bulkan region during the barbarian invasions. Therefore, the language argument is the best option for determening the ehtinicity of people in the Bulkans. There are 6th century Saxon and Hunnic scriptures mentioning the Vlachs north of the danube in what was called Wallachia (corresponding to modern Romania). That is how we know that Romans lived there during that time. As for modern eastern Roman ethnicity, just look at Romanias geography. It is surrounded by slavic countries. If the Bulkan region was heavely invaded and assimilated by these people (as you said), than why is it that the Romanians managed to preserve their romance language (which is closest to Vulgar Latin grammatically) over the course of histoy? This we do not know. That is why my earlier post stands. And if you read carefully I too said that the ethnicity of the people whom speak these romance languages are not 100% known, however, it is more likely that their ethnicity are closer to that of the Romans as opposed to other countries such as Germany, Poland, Holand ect. Mind you I am speaking of national not individual ethnicity.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfTheIsles
[QUOTE=Kraxis]One small correction:
The Black Sea was as a lake about 2/3rds of the current Black Sea. Remember that quite a few very large rivers run into the area and would thus have formed a very large lake.
QUOTE]
I also heard about this but thats just a geological theory. Another theory states that the black sea and the caspian sea were once one big sea. Yet, they seperated because this sea was resting on two tectonic plates. In which case the black sea couldn't have been a lake because the caspian sea is a sea not a lake.
Since they are pretty far apart you are going more than a mere 8000 years back in time. You are speaking of perhaps millions of years. That is quite far outside our timeframe of discussion.
I'm not going to argue that they were not connected, I simply don't know, but not this close as the Indo-Europeans certainly did go down through the Caucasus, which would have been impossible if there had been a sea blocking their way.
Yes, indeed. My post apparently wasn't clear. I wasn't implying that the Black Sea valley had no sea in it at the time of the flood; just that the flood was so large and fast that it pushed the people there out quickly, and in more than one likely direction. My mention of rivers was in reference to Bob Ballard. The way he located the remains of settlements was to first try and locate areas which looked likely as the underwater remains of where rivers once flowed into the smaller pre-flood Black Sea. He postulated that the confluence of these now flooded river channels and the old sea would be the most likely place for settlements. So that is where he looked. And settlements is what he found. It's possible, even likely, that there were other settlements around the circumference of the old water line; but Ballard hasn't yet looked, nor has anyone else. I'm pretty sure his main focus was where the Danube flows into the Black Sea. Other good places to look would be the Dnieper, the Dniester, the Don, the Kuban, the Kolkheti, the Yesilirmak, Kizilirmak and Sakarya river channels. The main problem to locating the old channels is sedimentation, especially in the shallower areas such as the northern banks, after 9500 years. But the advantages are obvious; these settlements would be relatively undisturbed since the flood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Actually he was looking down by Turkey as he was really looking for Byzantine wrecks and not settlements but the slow Turkish authorities forced him to do something with his time. Impressive that he can use the sparetime to do somethat that spectacular... He has got to be the most talented sea hunter (sorry Clive but Bob wins hands down).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
No no. I was talking about millions of years back ofcourse. The theory you were speaking of states that the black sea was once a fresh water lake but if that caspian sea and the black sea were once one sea millions of years ago, than it wouldn't make any sense for the black sea (lake) 8000 years ago to have fresh water since the caspian has salt water. :)
It is not exclusive...
It could have been fresh or salt, but the size of the thing leads towards a salt lake. The number of large rivers (the Black Sea is simply ringed by massive numbers of them) would bring enough sediment with them to salt up the lake. How salt is impossible to know.
If the black lake had salt water than both theories stand
Then it was probably the Sakarya river channel that he explored, not the Danube. That would have been Byzantine Paphlagonia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
And the Indo-Europeans certainly did go down into the Caucasus. Armenian and the extinct Hittite, and the northern Iranian languages such as Ossetian are all Indo-European.
There are two competing main theories for the genesis of proto-Indo-European. The most commonly accepted one is the Kurgan hypothesis, setting the genesis with the Kurgan peoples of the Yamna culture which stretched the length of the northern Black Sea shore to the northern Caspian Sea shore from 4000-3500 BCE.
The competing theory, which I favor, is that the base language developed much earlier around 4500-3500 BCE, with the Black Sea flood as the instigating force for the spread. I had my dating off, by the way. The date for the deluge is around 5600 BCE, which makes it about 7500 years ago not 7500 BCE. Anyway, the Sredny Stov culture which was located on the north shore of the Sea of Azov (which was created when the Black Sea deluge occurred) predates and is the ancestor of the Yamna culture. It is postulated as the Urheimat or homeland of proto-Indo-European. More recent finds for this culture came after the Kurgan hypothesis gained widespread acceptance.
An interesting aside, the Sredny Stov culture shows evidence of the domestication of the horse; and if correct would be the earliest evidence so far, slightly beating out the Samara culture for the record. Sredny Stov is also contemporary with the early proto-Thracian culture at Varna which has the current record for the earliest gold mining and working. Both would have been forced to their eventual sites by the Black Sea deluge, if the deluge theory is correct. This would make them both much more closely related. And if the proto-Maykop culture along the southern and eastern shore of the Black Sea has similar origins in the deluge, then I think it gives even more weight to my view of the origin of the language roots.
Well, the flood does seem a rather likely event for a mass exodus that spread in all directions (all the way to India for instance).
And the flood is deeply ingrated in our minds, though that i not so great an argument as we can go back to when Britain was landlocked with Europe with a great plain in the North Sea. Also, there was a massive flood when the water broke through at Gibraltar.
I am born in Pleven, Bulgaria. My mother is from the lands of the Thracian tribe mizi and my father's family were refugees from Macedonia, near the Ohrid lake. I am who I am.
Holy :daisy:, someone quoted from Encarta encyclopedia in this thread. Speaking of ancient tribes...
Venerable necro.
Tautology, the one truth of philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Born on the Balcans