ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162 
|
Post by ioan on Jan 31, 2011 3:58:51 GMT -5
tnx Krivo.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 31, 2011 4:02:14 GMT -5
Was ever Serbia called Zagora? Bulgaria in 13 century was often called Zagora/Zagore by the westerners (venetians mainly). Ioan Asen II was called ruler of Zagora or ruler of Zagora and Bulgaria. He called himself tzar of Bulgaria.
As a whole there are lots of different names we were called. I ve read somewhere that a Polish document called Bulgaria Thrace, as well as an Armenian one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 31, 2011 5:32:14 GMT -5
Now another potentially most convincing source of the Serb name and that is the name of the place in Greece where they were first recorded in history and that is Servia in Maceodnia. The name vastly supersedes in age the Serbs in terms of when it was first recorded so it is not derived from them. Most likely Serbs were named after it.Servia
Etymology
Its name derives from the Latin verb "servo" 'to watch over' and it was given by the Romans approximately during the 2nd century A.D.[citation needed] It may be the ancient "Phylacae" (Greek: Φυλακαί) from the Greek verb φυλάσσω [2] mentioned by the Roman writer Pliny the Elder as well as at an ancient Greek inscription found at the city of Veroia: "Παρμενίων Γλαυκία Φυλακήσιος νικητής εν δολίχω" 'Parmenion son of Glauceas from Phylacae winner at Doliche'. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servia,_Greece#Etymology Conslusion: Name appears Roman derived one way or another. |
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Feb 9, 2011 8:39:45 GMT -5
The "Tribillians" were obviously assimilated by the Serbs at some point, most probably during Dusan's rule. And the reason why the word Servian is used is because of a mistranslation as a result of V being pronounced like a B in the Serbian language. You're all amateurs. Triballi & Serbs obviously denote two different people and can not be synonyms. What's more, Triballi are located outside the core Serbian realm of Raska. If anything they are located more in Bulgarian territory. The fact that Admin does not recognize such obvious things must be a reflection of his ummm poor logic and obsessive emotionally driven love affair with ancient Hellenes. In any case I want to put Admins retardness aside and jump on the Pyross, Novi bandwagon for a minute... What I notice is that the Triballi are coincident with Vlachs & Torlaks;    Now, the Greek scholar Demetrius Chalcocondyles (1423-1511) apparently said of an Islamized christian noble: "... This Mahmud, son of Michael, is Triballian, which means Serbian, by his mother, and Greek by his father." This again clearly denotes Serbs & Triballi as separate peoples. Now my interpretation here is that there was a clear mix here between Vlachs (Greeks) & specifically Serbs in the region of the Triballi. For Novi & Pyrros this lends support to the idea that the eastern Serbs were clearly of at least partial Serbian origin as identified as far back as the 15th century. I'd like to know what the Bulgarians think of this. |
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Feb 9, 2011 12:20:16 GMT -5
You mean to say that Byzantines had no clue what they were writing and what they were often writing is that Serbs was same as Triballians. If we doubt Byzantines then lets also doubt earliest accounts on Serbs written by the same Byzantines.
|
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Feb 9, 2011 17:46:30 GMT -5
Arsenije, I don't know what the real thing with Tribalians is and I don't think anyone does. Simply the gap in time between their last mentioning as a separate tribe and the arrival of Serbs and Bulgars is too long and everything one could say is just a matter of interpretation.
I can tell you that Torlaks in Bulgaria consider themselves as the people who met Bulgars when they set foot for good in the Balkans. Who they really were, Tribalians or not, is just a speculation.
Finally, it doesn't matter thaa much. Instead of exercising ourselves in proving something that can not be proved, like their origin, we must try to preserve their language and culture. They are very colourful people, with an exceptional attitude to life and this is what matters.
Admin, Byzantines regarded Bulgars as Scythians whenever they had to mention them in their chronicles, people who worshippped 'the Scythian madness", and so on. This thing, however, is not a subject of your 'researches' and you still give crappy references for Bulgars being Mongols, despite the fact that this is not supported by any archeological or historic evidence.
How am I supposed to understand this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Feb 9, 2011 17:58:27 GMT -5
This thing, however, is not a subject of your 'researches' and you still give crappy references for Bulgars being Mongols, despite the fact that this is not supported by any archeological or historic evidence. I don't remember saying Mongols although it is not too far from truth. If they were Turkic they were Turanid (Mongoloid/Caucasian mix) and if they were Sarmatians they were at least Turanid if not outright Mongoloids judging by the way Sarmatians have been described as bellow link shows. Sarmatians and their race illyria.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=physicalracialanthropologydiscussion&action=display&thread=32725So Sarmatian or Turkic still equals to at least half Mongoloid. |
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Feb 9, 2011 18:05:19 GMT -5
Scythians, re Admine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Feb 9, 2011 18:17:09 GMT -5
Scythians were long gone by the time Bulgars appeared in the area and their name at that point meant Sarmatians (and to lesser extent other people living in the area thus it was also used to point to their location rather then to point to the origins). Sarmatians have replaced them and ruled Scythia for centuries by the time Bulgars came there but I will cover them anyway. On Scythians
Late Antiquity (AD 300 to 600)
In Late Antiquity the notion of a Scythian ethnicity grew more vague, and outsiders might dub any people inhabiting the Pontic-Caspian steppe as "Scythians", regardless of their language. Thus, Priscus, a Byzantine emissary to Attila, repeatedly referred to the latter's followers as "Scythians". But Eunapius, Claudius Cladianus and Olympiodorus usually mean "Goths" when they write "Scythians".
The Goths had displaced the Sarmatians in the 2nd century from most areas near the Roman frontier, and by early medieval times, the Turkic migration marginalized East Iranian dialects, and assimilated the Saka linguistically.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians#Late_Antiquity_.28AD_300_to_600.29-------- Migration period
Although the classical Scythians may have largely disappeared by the 1st century BC, Eastern Romans continued to speak conventionally of "Scythians" to designate Germanic tribes and confederations[54] or mounted Eurasian nomadic barbarians in general: in 448 AD two mounted "Scythians" led the emissary Priscus to Attila's encampment in Pannonia. The Byzantines in this case carefully distinguished the Scythians from the Goths and Huns who also followed Attila.
The Sarmatians (including the Alans and finally the Ossetians) counted as Scythians in the broadest sense of the word — as speakers of Northeast Iranian languages,[55] and are considered mostly of Indo-Iranian descent.[56]
Byzantine sources also refer to the Rus raiders who attacked Constantinople around 860 AD in contemporary accounts as "Tauroscythians", because of their geographical origin, and despite their lack of any ethnic relation to Scythians. Patriarch Photius may have first applied the term to them during the Siege of Constantinople (860) . en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians#Migration_period------------ Additionally, mitochondrial DNA has been extracted from two Scytho-Siberian skeletons found in the Altai Republic (Russia) dating back 2,500 years. Both remains were determined to be of males from a population who had characteristics "of mixed Euro-Mongoloid origin". ("European" in this context means Western Eurasian).[23] One of the individuals was found to carry the F2a maternal lineage, and the other the D lineage, both of which are characteristic of East Eurasian populations.[24]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians#Genetics--------- On BulgarsAnthropological data collected from medieval Bulgar necropolises from Dobrudja, Crimea and the Ukrainian steppe have shown that Bulgars were a Caucasoid people with a small Mongoloid admixture,
Both the present-day Bulgarians and the Chuvash far to the east in the Urals are believed to originate partly from the Bulgars. However, according to DNA data, the genetic backgrounds of the two populations are clearly different. The Chuvash have an Eastern European and some Mediterranean genetic background (probably coming from the Caucasus), while the Bulgarians have a classical Mediterranean composition, probably coming from the Balkans. It is possible that only a cultural and low genetic Bulgar influence was brought into the two regions, without modifying the genetic background of the local populations.[21] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars#Racial_type_and_descendants |
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Feb 9, 2011 19:04:02 GMT -5
Things a logical historian/human being may deduce:
Scythians/Sarmatians were not Mongolic
Schythians/Sarmatians spoke an Indo-European language
'Serb' is non-latin in origin.
If you deny these things you're acting on primitive, emotional responses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Feb 9, 2011 19:06:54 GMT -5
You mean to say that Byzantines had no clue what they were writing and what they were often writing is that Serbs was same as Triballians. If we doubt Byzantines then lets also doubt earliest accounts on Serbs written by the same Byzantines. Seriously, how dumb are you? I quoted a Byzantine source in my last post. Can you read what it says? He is associating Triballi (as a separate tribe) with Serbs (as a separate tribe), not saying one is the other or that is the root source. Make up your mind budalo you've quoted about 10 other names for Serbs and you support every single one randomly. Do you realise that you are being contradictory? It's like you are playing a stupid juvenile game. Take your blinkers off. |
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Feb 9, 2011 19:13:41 GMT -5
^He somehow thinks that the Sarmatians called themselves such because of Greeks saw their almond-shaped eyes as 'lizard-like'.
Even though his own source states that the Ancient Greeks created a false etymology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Feb 10, 2011 3:27:21 GMT -5
Seriously, how dumb are you? I quoted a Byzantine source in my last post. Can you read what it says? He is associating Triballi (as a separate tribe) with Serbs (as a separate tribe), not saying one is the other or that is the root source. Make up your mind budalo you've quoted about 10 other names for Serbs and you support every single one randomly. Do you realise that you are being contradictory? It's like you are playing a stupid juvenile game. Take your blinkers off. It is not blinkers but blinders. There is no mind to make up since there is nothing concrete to base this upon since there is multitude of name recorded by Greeks. What I was referring to is what I already posted before which is that the Byzantines had often called Serbs as Triballians (along multitude of other names). I was was not referring to what you wrote specifically. Triballians
The Triballi (Greek: Τριβαλλοί, Bulgarian, Serbian: Трибали/Tribali) were an ancient Thracian tribe whose dominion was around the plains of southern modern Serbia[13][14] and west Bulgaria, at the Angrus and Brongus (the South and West Morava) and the Iskur River, roughly centered where Serbia and Bulgaria are joined.[14]
This Thracian tribe has etymologically been connected with the Serbs,[15][16] as many medieval Byzantine historians referred to the Serbs as the Triballians[17] (Serbian name for Triballians is "Srblji/Србљи", Thracians is rašani - the first Serbian state was Rascia, present-day Serbia). Trebinje, a present city of Herzegovina and historical Serbian principality (Travunija, sometimes rendered as Triballia) has also been connected with this tribe.
From the 11th century until the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the Serbs were called Triballians in Byzantine works.[18][19][20][21][22] For example in the works of historian Niketas Choniates (1155–1215), Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425), it is explained that Triballians are synonymous with Serbs.
13^ Papazoglu 1978, 58-61
14^ a b George Grote: History of Greece: I. Legendary Greece. II. Grecian history to the reign of Peisistratus at Athens, Vol 12, 1856 "...from the plain of Kossovo in modern Servia northward towards the Danube..."
15^ The letters of Manuel II Palaeologus
16^ www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/thracian-tribes.htm
17^ The development of the Komnenian army: 1081-1180
18^ JSTOR: The English Historical Review, Vol. 53, No. 209 (Jan., 1938), pp. 129-131
19^ Mehmed II the Conqueror and the fall of the Franco-Byzantine Levant to the Ottoman Turks Page 65, 77: "Triballians = Serbs"
20^ The letters of Manuel II Palaeologus Page 48: "The Triballians are the Serbs"
21^ The Journal of Hellenic studies Page 48: "Byzantine historians [...] calling [...] Serbs Triballians"
22^ Studies in late Byzantine history and prosopography Page 228: "Serbs (were) Triballians" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Serbs_and_Serbia#TriballiansPS: You don't exactly come off as a genius by insulting another for merely stating his own opinion. You come off even less of*genius after insulting forum admin. Are you trying to force me to ban you because you can not think that I will tolerate this? |
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Feb 10, 2011 3:38:25 GMT -5
^He somehow thinks that the Sarmatians called themselves such because of Greeks saw their almond-shaped eyes as 'lizard-like'. Did they leave written records about themselves or, what seems to be the case, are we as usual using Greek records to get a clue about these barbarian people? Greeks wrote those records for themselves and I doubt were concerned with what these primitive people called themselves. Ancient DNA of 13 Sarmatian remains from Pokrovka and Meirmagul kurgans was extracted for comparative analysis. Most of the genetic traits determined were of western Eurasian origin, while only a few were of central/east Asian origin.[21][22] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians#GeneticsSo they were described as Mongoloids and now genetics show Mongoloid association also. |
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Feb 10, 2011 4:42:33 GMT -5
^He somehow thinks that the Sarmatians called themselves such because of Greeks saw their almond-shaped eyes as 'lizard-like'. Did they leave written records about themselves or, what seems to be the case, are we as usual using Greek records to get a clue about these barbarian people? Greeks wrote those records for themselves and I doubt were concerned with what these primitive people called themselves. Very good question Admin, one which would be better left without the rest of the rhetorical questions following it. Since not much written was left by these ancient people, of course we have Roman, Greek, and Persian records to refer to. The meaning of the term Sarmatian has been variously explained by modern historians. Perhaps the most entertaining derivation is from the Greek word 'sauros', suggesting 'lizard people' - supposedly inspired by their dragon standards and reptile-like scale armour. This is, of course, nonsense. Most historians now agree that 'Sauromatae' is a variant spelling of 'Sarmatae', first seen in texts of the 2nd century BC (Polybius 25.2); indeed, Pliny the Elder (4.80) states that one was the Greek spelling, the other the Latin: 'Sarmatae, Graecis Sauromatae' (though to complicate matters further, Greek authors often use the Latin spelling.) But we do have a better idea of what the Sarmatians called themselves: Greek authors of the 4th century BC (Pseudo-Scylax and Eudoxus of Cnidus) mention neighbors of the Scythians living near the Don called 'Syrmatae'. Meanwhile the Avesta, the holy book of ancient Persia written down in c.500 BC in an early dialect of Iranian, mentions a region 'to the west' called 'Sairima'.www.scribd.com/doc/28328848/Osprey-The-Sarmatians-600-BC-AD-450So, the earliest term the Greeks used for the Sarmatians was 'Syrmatae' not Sauromatae, which we logically deduce corrupted into later on. Non-Greek sources which predate Greek, notes Sarmatia as ' Sairima'. Thus the Greeks took the Sarmatian name and transliterated it. This scenario is mirrored with Latin and the Serbian name. Ancient DNA of 13 Sarmatian remains from Pokrovka and Meirmagul kurgans was extracted for comparative analysis. Most of the genetic traits determined were of western Eurasian origin, while only a few were of central/east Asian origin.[21][22] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians#GeneticsSo they were described as Mongoloids and now genetics show Mongoloid association also. [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Feb 10, 2011 10:52:17 GMT -5
This is interesting from wikipedia link above Trebinje, a present city of Herzegovina and historical Serbian principality (Travunija, sometimes rendered as Triballia) has also been connected with this tribe. |
|
|
|
Post by branislavnusic on Jul 14, 2018 12:33:39 GMT -5
This is interesting from wikipedia link above Trebinje, a present city of Herzegovina and historical Serbian principality (Travunija, sometimes rendered as Triballia) has also been connected with this tribe. There is also a village in south albania called Trebinje. Deal with it, Serbs are slavic. |
|
|
|
Post by Pyrros on Jul 20, 2018 10:45:59 GMT -5
All humans are SLAVIC.
|
|
|
|
Post by branislavnusic on Jul 23, 2018 3:59:24 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that, but I think Indo-Europeans are all Slavic |
|
|
|
Post by Pyrros on Jul 23, 2018 4:24:52 GMT -5
That's why TRUE Greeks (1%-5%) like their ancestors (Slavs), while .. the rest 99-95% HATE Slavs/Serbs.
|
|
