| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 10,426 Given: 4,139 |
You don't have the gall to post your ugly mug here so just apply some butthurt cream and shut up old man.Originally Posted by Szegedist
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 6 Given: 1 |
Well , at the end both romanians and hunarians are a bunch of gypssies who occupied the lands where they live. They fight temselves like dumbasses , however its well known hungayrians migrated from central asia steppes to central europe like pannonia plain , carpathian mountains , etc. While romanians were a bunch of leftovers by the roman empire who later mixed with the romani gypssies who came from the kashmir region of north india and even enslaved them and so the romanians were formed as a race genetically.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 5,569 Given: 2,482 |
It should be illegal for you to post such an ugly face on the internet.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 4,654 Given: 661 |
It must be pointed out that the anonymous notary of King Bela III, who wrote much later than the Russian compilers, had a very limited knowledge indeed about the Carpathian Basin. Written 300 years after the Hungarian conquest, Anonymus's narratives are, in many respects, of very questionable historical value, which not only has been noted by Hungarian scholars but is generally acknowledged in the international literature. [51]Anonymus was neither an eyewitness to nor a participant in the historical events that he described in the Gesta Hungarorum, and his sources did not include contemporary eyewitness accounts regarding the course of the Hungarian conquest. Instead, the observations of a Western chronicler, Regino, and the Gesta Ungarorum served as secondary sources. Two important events, for example, recorded by contemporary sources and related to military actions, were not mentioned at all by Anonymus: in 896 Emperor Arnulf appointed Braslav to defend Pannonia; and in 907 the Hungarians defeated the Bavarian army at Bretslavspurc, today Bratislava (Pozsony) in Slovakia. There are, however, a few correct elements in the narrative, such as most of the place names and the fact that the Hungarians conducted military raids in Western Europe and the Balkans, especially in the first half of the tenth century. The details Anonymus gave about these battles were not compatible with descriptions from other sources, and place names often were used merely
19
to tell a story about someone of the same name who died at the place. The Hungarian leader Botond, for example, was mentioned in Byzantine sources in connection with raid against Byzantium in 958, while Anonymus placed him in the first years of the tenth century; and Lél and Bulcsu were killed, according to some sources, [52] in 955 at Augsburg, not in 913, after the Hungarian defeat at the Inn River, as Anonymus thought.
The Gesta did make mention of some historical figures who really existed, such as Prince Ahtum (Ajtony), who lived in the region of the lower Maros and Küküllő rivers, and Gyula (Djila or Djula) [the name means commander-in-chief], an Hungarian leader in southern Transylvania at the beginning of the eleventh century. [53] Ajtony (whose origin has not yet been clarified) was the lord of Marosvár [Latin: Morisena] Castle and adopted the Byzantine Christian religion in Vidin. [54]. On the other hand, contemporary records mention some twenty rulers and significant historical figures who played an important political role in the history of the ninth century; Anonymus is unacquainted with any of them. [55] Anonymus's biographical data about members of the Árpád dynasty are also fictional. [56] The individual who reworked the Hungarian Chronicle (Magyar Krónika) in the thirteenth century recorded, for instance, the settlement of the Huns in the present-day territory of Hungary as the first Hungarian conquest. The rest of the names found in the Gesta in connection with southeastern Hungary were apparently not the names of real persons but were figures created by Anonymus for the purpose of his narrative.
At the end of the twelfth century, when the Gesta was written, King Emerich (1196-1204) was making many royal land grants to a new, foreign aristocracy. [57] King Bela's anonymous notary wrote his narrative also with the aim of defending the positions and rights of the landowners who had inherited their estates from the time of the conquest and the following century.
The notary took up the tradition about the fight between King St. Stephen and several powerful local Hungarian leaders, who resisted central rule and often also Christianity. Their names were in many cases still borne by their descendants, the landowners of the notary's own time. They also knew about the castles and areas possessed by their ancestors but did not know what peoples their ancestors had had to fight with or the details of the conquest. Anonymus wrote a narrative to demonstrate the courage of the landowners' ancestors, and for this he needed fearless leaders whom he simply invented.
While the Hungarians were living north of the Black Sea, the Chozars and the Szekelys joined them and followed them to the Carpathian Basin. These peoples then were settled in the region of
20
Nyitra (Slovakian Nitra) and Bihar, and their territories were ruled by the princes of the Árpád dynasty. [58] Furthermore, the Gesta noted that Zulta, the son of Árpád, received the territory of the Chozars, the Bihar region; but the name of Zulta's ancestor, defeated in the narrative by the Hungarians, was invented by the anonymous notary on the basis of the names Menrot and Morot, found in the Hungarian Chronicle of the eleventh century. Morot, according to this chronicle, was the leader the Hungarians met in Pannonia. This story was based on the tradition that Moravia, a country in the northwestern Carpathian Basin, was attacked by the Hungarians at the time of the conquest; [59] Marot is the old Hungarian designation for the Moravians. The notary did not, however, know about Moravia and placed the country of the invented leader in the region of Bihar because of the villages of Marot and Marótlaka.
King Saint Stephen (King from between 970 and 975 to 1038), who Christianized Hungary, subdued the Hungarian chief Gyula in Transylvania in 1002 and Ahtum (Ajtony) in the Banat several years later. Gyula and Ajtony, as mentioned previously, were known by Anonymus; but he constructed the names of their unknown ancestors whom the Hungarians defeated in the Gesta from place names in the areas in question: Glad, of Bulgarian origin from Galad (1332-1337: Galad; 1462: Galadmonostora), today Gilad, in the Banat; and Gelou (name of Turkish origin) from the name of the village Gyalu where, according to the Gesta, this imaginary leader was killed. [60]
The anonymous notary was very fond of inventing etymologies: there are twenty-one in the Gesta Hungarorum; [61] and they are often connected with an event described in the story, such as the death of the prince of the Czechs, Zubur. According to Anonymus, Zubur was killed on a mountain that was thereafter called Zubur (Zobor). There had, however, been a monastery on that mountain since the ninth century whose Slavic name [zъborъ] (cf., modern Czech, Slovak, and Polish zbor) must have been connected with the name of the mountain.
It is important to note that also in the thirteenth century chronicle of Simon de Kéza (Kézai Simon), as in the Gesta Ungarorum, fictional battles, historical events, and people were often associated with place names. In his writings about the history of the Huns, Simon de Kéza first referred to Romans, Langobards, and Germans in Pannonia; but later, in his reports dealing with the period just before the Hungarian conquest, he wrote (probably under the influence of Anonymus) about Slavs (Sclavis), Greeks (Graecis), Germans (Teutonicis), Bulgarians (Messianis), and Vlachs (Ulahis) in Pannonia. It is well known that
Kézai did not differentiate between the Romani and Teutonici (Alamanni, Germanici).
Ethnical Criteria in the Gesta Hungarorum and the Russian Primary Chronicle with Special Reference to "Romans" (Romani) and "Blachii" (Vlachi or Voloch)
The first medieval chronicler to mention the name "Voloch" (Voloh) north of the Danube was the twelfth century anonymous Russian monk, who wrote the Russian Primary Chronicle. The first to use the form "Blachi" was Hungarian King Bela III's anonymous notary who wrote the Gesta Hungarorum at the end of the twelfth century. It has repeatedly been demonstrated that neither chronicle, even if it gives valuable data about the ethnic relationships in the ninth and tenth centuries, can be accepted as historical proof, especially 800 years after it was written. It is, moreover, also impossible to conclude, on the basis of the texts of the anonymous notary and the Russian chronicler, that there was a Romanian population in Transylvania or in the Banat at the time of the Hungarian conquest. In the first place, the anonymous notary did not use the word "Romanians," as Romanian historians maintain, but rather "Blachii," the ethnic significance of which will be discussed.
The population of the Bihar area was, according to Gesta, Chazar; Duke Menumorout who ruled there said about himself that he had "a Bulgarian heart." As already noted, his name was most probably constructed from the old Hungarian morva or Marót, the name for the Moravians. Another of the notary's inventions was in his description of the peoples found by the Hungarians upon their arrival in the Carpathian Basin. Contemporary sources recorded the presence of six different peoples: Avars, Danubian Slovenes, Moravians, Bavarian Franks, Bulgarians, and Gepidae. [62] Anonymus mentioned Sclauii (which probably corresponds to the Slovenes), Bulgarii (Bulgarians), and Blachii; and spoke of Romans, Czechs (Boemy), [63] Greeks, Chazars, and Cumans. At the beginning of the tenth century, however, the Czechs had no contact with the Hungarians, [64] nor were such contacts developed until the eleventh and the twelfth centuries. They were quite intensive at the time of Anonymus. The Turkic-speaking Cumans, called Polovtsy by the Russians, lived in the time of the Hungarian conquest on the Pontic Steppe north of the Black Sea. They migrated westward in about 1050 and reached the plains east and south of the Carpathians (present-day Moldavia and Muntenia) in the second half of the twelfth century. From then until the mid-thirteenth century, these areas, which had belonged before to the Pechenegs, were calledCumania. The Cumans helped the brothers Peter and Asęn create the second Bulgarian Empire (1186-1393), fighting against Byzantium only a few years before Anonymus wrote his narrative. It is not surprising that a scribe rewriting a chronicle or translating foreign texts would change the ethnic names. It is documented that the conquering Hungarians fought the Bulgars in Transylvania, but it is not impossible to assume that Anonymus substituted or confused the Bulgars with the Vlachs. In the days of Anonymus the Vlachs were indeed in Transylvania while the Bulgars were no longer there.
As is known, there were Bulgars on the east side of the Tisza River at the time of the Hungarian conquest; and it is known that they fought the Magyars, although the extent of the fighting is unknown. [65] There is documentary evidence that the troops of the Danubian Bulgar King Simeon (reigned from 890 to 927) included, in addition to Greeks, Balkan Vlachs who fought against the Hungarian conquerors. This was recorded 300 years later by the anonymous notary who knew of this from oral traditions. The name Bulgar at that time encompassed the mixture of Bulgars, Slavs, Vlachs, and other groups that populated the Bulgarian state. The pertinent literature in English refers only to the Franks and the Pannonian Bulgars, who occupied the territory of modern Hungary after the end of the Avar domination (about 800) and at the time of the Hungarian conquest.
The designation "Voloh" (Volochi) appears three times in the Russian Primary Chronicle. [66] The early Slavic literature on the subject considered the "Volohs" of the Russian Primary Chronicle to be Celts or Roman legionaries from Dacia; the early Hungarian writings interpreted the name "Voloh" to be a reference mainly to the Romans but also to the Bulgarians, Romanians, and Getae. According to the Russian scholar A. Sahmatov, the term "Vlach" or "Voloch" is used by the Slavs to mean Roman, not just Italian. [67] According to the Hungarian scholar Mátyás Gyóni, the "Volochs" of the Russian Primary Chronicle were Franks, [68] a theory that is supported by the Slovene, D. Trstenjak, and by most Hungarian researchers. [69] Romanian historians, however, consider the "Volochs" to have been Romanians; this opinion is shared by Moldavian-born V. D. Koroljuk. After exhaustive research, the Hungarian Gyula Kristó determined that the most plausible historical explanation was that the "Volohs" of the Russian Primary Chronicle were a New Latin-speaking people of Western Europe, certainly the French, that is, the Franks of the ninth century.
The wide range of theories indicates the difficulties involved in identifying the "Volohs" of the Russian Primary Chronicle, a subject that will continue to spark controversy for a long time to come. It is, in fact, questionable whether an authoritative answer can be found
owing to the inaccuracies, confused statements, and inventions of the medieval chroniclers. Ethnic names are used loosely in medieval sources and do not reveal a people's identity or history. The name Vlach, for example, is sometimes but not always used to indicate Romanian ethnic identity. Correct conclusions can only be reached with the help of philology and a careful study of the causes of historical events.
It is interesting to quote the opinion of the Romanian scholar and main proponent of the theory of Roman continuity north of the Danube, Constantin Daicoviciu: "I am convinced that the disputed passage from the pseudo-Nestor chronicle refers, in fact, to the Volochii of Pannonia [and not Transylvania], which [therefore] reveals a different situation." [70]
In the Gesta Hungarorum the anonymous notary referred to "Romans" (Romani) in three different periods:
1. Before the fifth century, that is, until Attila drove them out and began his reign in Pannonia;
2. From the fifth through the tenth centuries. As Álmos, the chief of the Hungarians, left Scythia, he was told by the Russian leaders that Pannonia was inhabited by Slavs, Bulgarians, and Blachs, and by shepherds of the Romans (Sclaui, Bulgarii at Blachii ac pastores Romanorum);
3. In Anonymus's own time. In connection with the pastures of the Romans, he wrote: "One could say in all fairness that Pannonia is the pasture land of the Romans, because right now the Romans are pasturing [their herds] from the goods [territory] of Hungary."
Contemporary Hungarian and, to some extent, international scholars consider that the designation "Roman" before the fifth century in Pannonia referred without doubt to the ancient Romans. [71] There are, however, sharply differing opinions about the identity of the "Romans" in Pannonia from the fifth through the tenth centuries. It is highly likely that the anonymous notary believed that the Romans of this period were, in fact, ancient Romans who had returned to Pannonia after the death of Attila. The anonymous notary's imagination doubtless played a role here, however, since the Hungarians found no Romans when they entered Pannonia.
The designation "Vlach" is referred by Anonymus in the Gesta Hungarorum as Blacus (plural Blachii, Blasii, Blacorum) and is associated with three events:
owing to the inaccuracies, confused statements, and inventions of the medieval chroniclers. Ethnic names are used loosely in medieval sources and do not reveal a people's identity or history. The name Vlach, for example, is sometimes but not always used to indicate Romanian ethnic identity. Correct conclusions can only be reached with the help of philology and a careful study of the causes of historical events.
It is interesting to quote the opinion of the Romanian scholar and main proponent of the theory of Roman continuity north of the Danube, Constantin Daicoviciu: "I am convinced that the disputed passage from the pseudo-Nestor chronicle refers, in fact, to the Volochii of Pannonia [and not Transylvania], which [therefore] reveals a different situation." [70]
In the Gesta Hungarorum the anonymous notary referred to "Romans" (Romani) in three different periods:
1. Before the fifth century, that is, until Attila drove them out and began his reign in Pannonia;
2. From the fifth through the tenth centuries. As Álmos, the chief of the Hungarians, left Scythia, he was told by the Russian leaders that Pannonia was inhabited by Slavs, Bulgarians, and Blachs, and by shepherds of the Romans (Sclaui, Bulgarii at Blachii ac pastores Romanorum);
3. In Anonymus's own time. In connection with the pastures of the Romans, he wrote: "One could say in all fairness that Pannonia is the pasture land of the Romans, because right now the Romans are pasturing [their herds] from the goods [territory] of Hungary."
Contemporary Hungarian and, to some extent, international scholars consider that the designation "Roman" before the fifth century in Pannonia referred without doubt to the ancient Romans. [71] There are, however, sharply differing opinions about the identity of the "Romans" in Pannonia from the fifth through the tenth centuries. It is highly likely that the anonymous notary believed that the Romans of this period were, in fact, ancient Romans who had returned to Pannonia after the death of Attila. The anonymous notary's imagination doubtless played a role here, however, since the Hungarians found no Romans when they entered Pannonia.
The designation "Vlach" is referred by Anonymus in the Gesta Hungarorum as Blacus (plural Blachii, Blasii, Blacorum) and is associated with three events:
1. On the way to the Carpathian Basin the Hungarians were told by the Russian leaders that "Pannonia is inhabited by Slavs, Bulgarians, and Blachs, and by shepherds of the Romans";
2. A "Blach" by the name of Gelou was a ruler in Transylvania;
3. The conquering Hungarians went to battle with Glad (Galad, the ruler of the area between the Maros River and the lower Danube), who was "supported by the Cumans, Bulgarians, and Blachs."
An Analysis of the Treatment of the Gesta Hungarorum as an Historical Source by Modern Romanian Historians
During the last decades, Romanian historiographers have produced several surveys analyzing the text of the anonymous notary of King Bela III. Here, however, our discussion is limited to the interpretations from only a few Romanian historical works. The Romanians' main historical argument for the theory that their ancestors lived in Transylvania before the arrival of the Hungarians is the Gesta Hungarorum of Anonymus, supported by the chronicle of Simon de Kéza written about 1283. [72] The Romanian historians generally see in Anonymus's "Romani" the ancestors of the Romanians north of the Danube. A detailed analysis of the modern Romanian interpretation of Anonymus's Gesta Hungarorum will follow.
In Istoria românilor (1975) Constantin C. Giurescu refuted the assumption that mention of Vlachs in Transylvania in the early tenth century was only a transposition of circumstances of Anonymus's own time into the past. He explained this opinion by referring to the fact that Anonymus did not write in the Gesta about Saxons in Transylvania in the tenth century, in spite of their presence there in his own time. This comment, however, creates a serious chronological inconsistency: the settlement of the Germans in Transylvania, as is well known, was organized by the Hungarian King, started in the mid-twelfth century, and was in progress when Anonymus wrote his chronicle. Obviously, he could not have described the Saxons as having lived in Transylvania three centuries earlier. Giurescu tried to prove that even the Hungarian historian Bálint Homan considered the narrative of the anonymous notary as a reliable source and that its mention of Vlachs in Transylvania at the beginning of the tenth century was supported by the Russian Primary Chronicle, which wrote about "Volohs and Slavs" whom the Hungarians encountered in the Carpathian Basin. [73]
With regard to Homan's opinion about the reliability of the anonymous notary, one should consult the whole text [74] from which Giurescu
25
only quotes a few words: "The perfect elaboration of the history of the Hungarian conquest from the geographical and strategic points of view proves the advanced nature of his critical spirit, his systematic thinking and solid knowledge. [75] It was, in fact, his independent criticism that caused his errors, the most characteristic of which was his inclination for ethnographical anachronisms. All thinking medieval authors were, in their descriptions of past ethnographical, political, and social situations and constitutions, influenced by the ethnographical, political, and social situations and the constitution of their own time, except when they relied upon contemporary written sources. Anonymus, too, fell into this error, explaining events and facts of "once upon a time" by transposing the situation of his own period into the past. He saw Cumans in the people of Ed and Edömen, because of the fact that Cumans were living in Ruthenia in his time. He identified the shepherds living in western Hungary under Frankish rule and the Pannonian Vlachs, called "Roman shepherds" by the eleventh century Gesta and "Danubian Volochs" by the eleventh century Russian chronicle, with the Vlach shepherds. He referred to the Moravian prince of the Slovenes in the region of Zobor as a Czech. He constructed the document about the oath of the Hungarians (vérszerződés), according to the custom of the contemporary royal court."
The comparison of Giurescu's quotations with the original text shows that the support he claimed from Hungarian historiography was quite spurious, that his argument with Hungarian historians about Anonymus's credibility was untenable, and that he considered this narrative of great importance, since he resorted to the most unscholarly methods to try to preserve its credibility.
Ironically, current Romanian historians often question the reliability of Anonymus and the other medieval sources they so often cite, when these sources do not support the desired conclusions. It is maintained, for example, that the reports of the Byzantine chronicler Kekaumenos are not reliable sources, [76] that Eutropius's writings about the evacuation from Dacia are not accurate, and that early written sources are in general scarce, incomplete, and at times contradictory. [77]
On the other hand, Romanian historians have drawn numerous conclusions from the Gesta Hungarorum that are not warranted by the text itself, before one even questions the author's credibility. All these conclusions are notable for their methodical deficiencies: there is an almost total absence of any rigorous, scholarly examination of the sources; instead of objective, linguistic arguments, they use unsubstantiated and arbitrary statements; and facts are taken out of context to defend preconceived theories.
26
Although it is asserted that Anonymus mentioned "three Romanian or Romanian-Slavic countries" called "voivodships," [78] in only one of them were Romanians (Vlachs) actually mentioned. The Gesta clearly stated that the country of Menumorout was inhabited by Chozars (a Turkic people), with no mention whatsoever of Vlachs. The territory between the Maros River and Haram Castle was said to have been ruled by Glad, who came from Vidin; but the ethnic character of his people was not specified. Glad's army was described as "a great army of cavalry and infantry" supported by Cumans, Bulgarians, and Vlachs. Nothing in this text, however, would indicate that Vlachs were living in that territory; on the contrary, one may infer that the supporting troops came from abroad. The whole description, of course, bears all the marks of having been written at the end of the twelfth century, the time of the revolt of Bulgarian nobles in Byzantium in 1185 under the brothers Peter or Kalopetros (usually called Theodor) and Asęn. [79] This revolt led to the foundation of the independent Second Bulgarian Empire (which lasted from 1186 to 1393) and was strongly supported by the Cumanians, who at that time lived north of the Danube and on the Pontic Steppes, and by the Vlachs of the Balkan Peninsula. It is noteworthy that at the end of the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth centuries the Byzantine chroniclers reported an alliance of the Vlachs and Cumanians on the Balkan Peninsula against the Byzantine Empire and also mentioned Latin refugees in Pannonia (Hungary). Certainly, these reports were still fresh in Anonymus's mind and were obviously the inspiration for his narrative. The text of the anonymous notary thus mentioned the Vlachs as living in Transylvania in the areas southeast of the Meszes Mountains.
It is asserted that Anonymus claimed "the mass of the Hungarian tribes was forced to retreat mostly to Pannonia." This is not, however, found in the text; nor does it follow from it. Most of the time, Anonymus described successful offensive attacks, in which the ancestors of his contemporary Hungarian lords fought bravely and, in several cases, won the estates owned by these lords. Another example of warranted conclusions was the assumption of some "representative authority" in the territory of Gelou, on grounds of resistance to the Hungarians and because Tuhutum had "reached an agreement" with the population, "strengthened by an oath."
So far, two types of methodological mistakes in the above-mentioned treatises have been discussed: taking most of Anonymus's statements as confirmed facts and drawing conclusions, even from nonexistent statements, about the presence of Romanians in eastern and southeastern Hungary in the tenth century. To these may be added the Romanian historiographers' erroneous assumption of the existence in
27
that period of Romanian polities in other parts of Transylvania. All these errors have been exaggerated even more by Ştefan Pascu, [80] whose reasoning is reminiscent of the eighteenth century Transylvanian School, whose works were admittedly produced for use in a political struggle. Considering the scarcity of materials from the ninth through the twelfth centuries, it is clear that Pascu's work was of necessity based largely on hypotheses, supported by the Gesta Hungarorum and archaeological finds. Like many of his contemporaries in Romania, Pascu adapts his research to support an ideology. His analyses of the ethnic makeup of the population of Transylvania have been influenced by the theory of Romanism and continuity. He draws many conclusions from the narrative of Anonymus, describing (albeit with frequent reservations such as "possibly," "probably," or "one may presuppose") a Romanian Transylvania even to the smallest valleys. He enumerated more than 80 so-called "village communities" [81] that allegedly existed in the ninth and tenth centuries. The borders of the land ruled by Gelou were not described by Anonymus, but Pascu assumed that the northeastern frontiers might have been situated at the Meseş (Meszes) Mountains, because Gelou tried to oppose the Hungarians there. (Repeated attempts to locate the fortress of Gelou, prince of Vlachs and Slavs, in Gilău [Gyalu], Dăbîca [Doboka], and Cluj-Mănăştur [Kolozsmonostor, all in Cluj County] have been fruitless.) The unfamiliar reader would believe that in the period between the tenth and fourteenth centuries in Transylvania there was a continuous existence of Romanian villages, lead by dukes, such as Glad, Menumorout, Gelou, Negru Voda, Dragoş, and Bogdan. [82] It is known, however, that Negru Voda (or Radu Negru) was a figure in popular traditions in Fogaras (Făgăraş) County and is said to have been lived there in the thirteenth century, [83] while Dragoş and Bogdan were Romanian leaders (with names of Slavic origin) in Máramaros (Maramureş) in the mid-fourteenth century; Glad (Galád), as previously mentioned, was of Bulgarian origin in the vicinity of Temes (Timiş), where several localities in the Middle Ages already bore the name Galád and where even today there is a village called Gilád. [84] Two of the other names, Gelou and Menumorout, as stated above, were created by Anonymus; and the two others, Ahtum (Ajtony) and Gyla (Gyula), were Hungarian leaders (the name Gyula is of Turkish origin and that of Ahtum has not yet been clarified).
With respect to the castles mentioned by Anonymus and cited by Pascu (Bihar, Szatmár, Orsova, Haram, Keve, and Doboka), it has been proven that no wood-earthen fortifications were built in Transylvania between 650 and 950 and those built after that period were Hungarian. [85]
28
It is even strange that Pascu did not discuss the question of Anonymus's credibility inasmuch as he questioned his reliability elsewhere. He pointed out, for instance, that Anonymus confused the Pechenegs with the Cumans "because, when he wrote his Gesta, the Cumans were the dominant people on the Danube." [86] Moreover, Anonymus wrote about the cnezes of the Bulgarians, "but the Bulgarians never had cnezes." [87] Pascu also mentioned the medieval writers' habit of creating personal names out of existing place names [88] to be used for legendary figures in narratives, and he questioned the assertion of Anonymus (as well as of Simon Kézai) that the Székelys originated from the Huns. [89] These doubts alorie would seem to warrant a thorough analysis of the Gesta before he would base so many assumptions on it.
One Romanian historiographer recently made an interesting analysis about those passages in the Gesta Hungarorum that probably refer to Romance populations: pascua Romanorum, pastores Romanorum, Blachi, and Blasi. [90]Based on rich references to both old and more recent literature, the author of the survey makes a long argument which is, however, not convincing and shows serious defects. He claims that starting in the second half of the nineteenth century political considerations prompted the severe criticism of Anonymus as an historical source. [91] On the other hand, however, the author himself had asserted that the idea of continuity became a basic political argument for the national movement of Romanians in Transylvania beginning at the end of the eighteenth century. [92] Under these circumstances, the narrative of Anonymus, considered as "one of the basic proofs in favor of continuity," [93] must also have been regarded by the Romanian historiographers as an argument in a political struggle rather than a topic of objective historical investigation.
According to the current Romanian historiography, one may presume from the explanations given by Anonymus that there was a tradition in the eleventh to fourteenth centuries that the Romanians were the oldest population of Transylvania. This view, however, confronts its proponents with a dangerous corollary: if Romanian historians accept this conclusion from Anonymus's text, they must also accept Anonymus's statement that the Székelys were the successors of Attiia, that is, the Huns, and that the Székelys were already on the territory before the arrival of the Hungarians.
Anonymus's Gesta Hungarorum, as already discussed, was an example of the romantic descriptions that became fashionable in Europe during the twelfth century. To glorify the Hungarians, the ancestors of the author's contemporary landholders, the ancient Hungarian nobility, are presented mainly in fierce battles with their victories
29
over their enemies securing their lands. It would, therefore, not be unlikely that Anonymus, in search of enemies and not being familiar with the real ethnic situation of the Carpathian Basin three centuries before his own times, placed the Vlachs there for reasons of expedience.
There are several medieval texts in which "Romans," "shepherds of the Romans," and Blachi are mentioned as living in Pannonia [94] (and in several Balkan provinces). In the Middle Ages the designation "Blach" (Vlach) was not, like "Vlach" is today, a specific reference to the ancestors of the present-day Romanians. The Germanic tribes, for example, designated both the Celts and Romans as "Walh" (Vlachs), just as the Rhaeto-Romanic and Italian-speaking peoples were called "Walchen" by the Germans until modern times. From "Walach" came the Slavic name for the Romans, Vlach (plural Blasi, Vlasi; Russian Voloch), which was used by the Bohemians, Poles, and Slovenes until modern times to describe the Italians. The inhabitants of the Dalmatian cities and islands still use the Slavic Vlah for all the farmers and shepherds on the mainland, while in Croatia Viach is used to describe a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
When the thirteenth century Hungarian chronicler Simon de Kéza refers to the "Blachs" who remained in Pannonia during the Hunnish domination, this cannot mean Romanians in the present sense of the word, because in the fifth century, the period of the Hunnish domination in Pannonia, one can only speak about Romans. The development of the Romance languages had scarcely started in that century. If the tradition has any real substance, it can only be interpreted as referring to a "Romanized population." Such populations are known to have existed in the Balkans, in Raetia, Noricum, and Pannonia even after the collapse of the Roman Empire.
It must be emphasized that in all these texts, the territory in which the Romanized population is described is always Pannonia and several Balkan provinces but never Dacia. [95] Anonymus also mentions only Pannonia and not Dacia in connection with a former Roman population. When writing about Transylvania, he merely mentions "Blasi et Sclavi" and "quidatn Blacus" but does not connect these Vlachs with a Roman population. The tradition about Hungary (Pannonia) being the former "pastures of the Romans" is also mentioned in the Hungarian chronicles of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. [96]
According to certain Hungarian historians, [97] the Vlach and Blacus (Blak, Blacii) were two different peoples: the Vlachs were the ancestors of the Romanians, while the Blaks were a Turkic people from the Trans-Ural territory who probably lived at one time in symbiosis with the Onoguric Bulgars, with whom they shared a common culture. They eventually reached Transylvania, perhaps even together with
30
the Onoguric Bulgarians, where they became assimilated with the Székelys. [98] Anonymus, as previously indicated, mentioned the Blaks twice in connection with the Bulgarians and once in connection with the Slavs. The plural of Blacus appears as both Blachi and Blacci (Blaks, as Blacki). [99] The first reference to the Blaks as Blachi, Blaci, or Blacci was in 1222 in the Hungarian charters: terra Blacorum was said to be in the area of Fogaras (Făgăraş). [100] information is provided also by Simon Kézai on the Blaks as Blackis. A charter of Pope Honorius III mentions in 1222 terra Blacorum, [101] the area that the Blachi had occupied with the Pechenegs and that was under Bulgarian sovereignty at that time.
Place Names Mentioned by Anonymus in Transylvania and the Banat
If one were to assume, as contemporary Romanian historiographers do, that the territory between the Meszes Mountains and the sources of the Szamos River was inhabited by Romanians and Slavs in the ninth century and that the Hungarians systematically subdued them, toward the eleventh century, one would expect that the Hungarians would have borrowed place names from Romanian as is normal in such cases. While the place names are among the reliable elements of the Gesta Hungarorum, they do not reflect the situation in the tenth century but are taken rather from the time of Anonymus at the end of the twelfth century. Anonymus mentioned the names of three villages, six rivers, and a mountain in northwestern Transylvania and in the Banat. It would be reasonable to expect at least some of these names to be of Romanian origin, if the population of the area had really been Romanian before the Hungarian conquest. What, then, is the origin of these names?
Meszes Gate: from Hungarian mész "limestone," a common name for mountains; it was borrowed by the Romanian language as Meseş.
Almás River: from Hungarian alma "apple" + s, "something with apples"; borrowed by Romanian as Almaş.
Körös (Criş) River: the old Hungarian name Kris mentioned at the first time in 950 and later changed to Kërës, Körös; the Romanian name Criş was borrowed from Hungarian.
Morus (Maros) River: the Hungarian-Latin Morisius, Morus, Mors, Maros is attested for the twelfth to thirteenth century and was most probably adopted from the Slavic Morisъ. [102] The Romanian Mureş may be derived from the medieval Hungarian form Maros.
31
Zomus (Szamos) River: ancient names: Latin, Samus; Hungarian, Szamos; and Romanian, Someş. The Romanian form is not directly inherited from Latin because Latin s did not change to Romanian ş. The ancient river name Zomus was transferred to Hungarian most probably by the Slavs and to Romanian either by Hungarians or Slavs.
Temes River: the old Hungarian form Timis was replaced in the thirteenth century by Temes. The Romanian form Timiş(ul) was borrowed from the old Hungarian form.
Kapus River: from kapu "gate, door" + s "something with doors", borrowed by Romanian: Căpuş (a without stress changes to ă in Romanian borrowings from Hungarian).
Zyloc village: modern Hungarian Zilah. The origin of this name has not yet been established. It may derive from Slavic (cf., the Ukrainian personal name Zel'ak). [103]
Esculeu (Esküllő) village: from old Hungarian es + küllő "old" + "swallow"; German Schwalbendorf. The Romanian form is Aşchileu, evidently borrowed from Hungarian. There is another village with this name in the district of Élesd (Aleşd), west of Nagyvárad (Oradea).
Gyalu village: from the Hungarian personal name Gyeló, Gyaló, documented in 1246 as Golou. [104] There are several villages with this name in other parts of Hungary. The Romanian Gilău is borrowed from Hungarian and is not a personal name in Romanian.
As already noted, nothing about these place names would indicate Romanian presence in that area at the time of the Hungarian conquest. On the contrary, the Romanians borrowed all the village names and nearly all of the river names from the Hungarians. Moreover, two of these names have sound patterns in Romanian that give some indication as to the period in which they were borrowed by the Romanians: Căpuş and Zalău. (The time of borrowing is, in this case, identical with the appearance of the first Romanians in the area.) In the Gesta the modern Kapus River is written Copus. In Hungarian, the vowel o changed to a during the twelfth to thirteenth century; by the mid-fourteenth century, this change was almost general, Since Hungarian o is generally preserved in Romanian borrowings from Hungarian but the Hungarian a changes (if unstressed) to ă, the form Căpuşmust have derived from Hungarian Kapus after the o > a change or, in other words, after the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries. [105] The Romanian Zalău from Hungarian Zilah is also a later borrowing; in the Gesta, at the end of the twelfth century, this name ended in a consonant (Zyloc). In Romanian borrowings from Hungarian, -k was preserved: Hungarian Széplak > Romanian Săplac. At the time of borrowing,
32
the consonant had already disappeared from the end of this name.
The place names that appear in the Gesta suggest that in the anonymous notary's time, northwestern Transylvania was inhabited by Hungarians and that the Romanians appeared there no earlier than in the thirteenth century. The number of place names in the Gesta is, of course, far too low to draw a definitive conclusion. A detailed survey of the problem of Transylvanian place names is given in chapter IV (Geographical names).
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 6,915 Given: 7,434 |
That (and other Slavic toponyms) might have something to do with this:
And this:
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Северна Македонија
Ελλάδα
France
Posting Permissions
România
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks