Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 23rd, 2010, 11:43 PM   #41

Anna James's Avatar
Pro Bono Advocate
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: currently Ancient Odessos, BG
Posts: 7,699
Blog Entries: 11
Re: The Thracians and their place in history


Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
For varna, look into the Wiki-link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_Necropolis, no single word about the Thracians. For the Thracians itself read, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians.

1500 BC is the estimated, earliest time of Thracian ethnogenesis.
And why do you consider wiki more relyable than the links I posted? Besides, I said, I'm not setting anything in stone, I'm looking for answers.
I read far more stuff on the topic that wiki, so, for this once, I prefer to stay on my opinion than take wiki, I posted all bunch of links that deserved to be seen too, and not only wiki.
http://www.omda.bg/engl/history/varn...s_treasure.htm
Here one link that says "Bulgaria's Thracian Heritage - The Varna Necropolis Treasure".
Here a video on the Varna Necropolis - The Oldest Gold in the World - The Thracians
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKLy_0wKcWM"]YouTube - The Oldest Golden Treasure in the World -The Thracians - DISCOVER BULGARIA[/ame]
I'm taking the video with a grain of salt, but of course it's not only that. Fol-Marazov-Penkova's theory about the Thracians being part of the Thracian-Pelasgian culture is viable, in my opinion. I hadn't heard it to be refuted.

Last edited by Anna James; November 24th, 2010 at 12:11 AM.
Anna James is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 24th, 2010, 12:08 AM   #42
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,473
Re: The Thracians and their place in history


Well, I took part in a lot of Balkan discussion, if you think Edward's and my discussion is unfriendly and full of hate, you should join the balkan forum.

I don't say, that the Bulgarians don't have some roots in the Thracian culture and that the Thracians don't have some roots in pre-thracian cultures. I wouldn't deny it especially if we look to the genetics.
But that has nothing to do with the origins of the Thracians.

First of all you need a definition for Thracians. You can take the culture, but I told you about the Celts e.g., We don't know when the Celts evolved. There are different hypothesis. I for myself link them with the La-Tene-culture. Others link them with the older Halstatt. I think both cultures are close related and of indo-european origin, so I would agree, to call the halstatt, bt only those of the west, proto-celtic. The eastern halstatt is for sure not celtic.
So you can see, that a culture can include different ethnic groups. This is the same with La-Tene. we have a lot of reports about "Germanic" tribes, often we cannot identify them in the archaeological sites. so a lot of Germanic tribes are part of the La-Tene.
If we look at the Germanic nations, we have several cultures, that could be called Germanic or at least Proto-Germanic. We have the Norther culture, the Harpstedt-Nienburg-culture, the jastorf-culture and the Face-urn-culture (here later the Oksywie-, Przeworsk- and Wielbark-culture). While the 2nd one is standing between the la-Tene and the jastorf, the last ones include Celtic and Lusatian elements, are perhaps just Germanizised.
We have the Problem, how shall we give a definition of Germanic. We can see, a culture is not a good idea. So we have mostly the language to do so. The language can only be called "Germanic", if the important changes (Grimm's laws) occured. Before this, it was an indo-european language, but not a Germanic one. We have no informations about unhistorical eras, first in the 2nd century we have written sources about Germanics. here we can see, that some parts are still outside what we would call a Germanic speaking area. So in the west Germanic language can be found around BC, not earlier.

So if you speak about Thracians, you must have this in the back of your mind.

Perhaps another point. There are several hypothesis about the indo-europeans. Even those who identify the rise of agriculture with the indo-europeans, will usually give you no date far earlier than the 6th millenium BC century. So the Thracians had to come earlier than the indo-europeans or at least are the oldest nation among the indo-europeans, perhaps it would be necessary then to speak of Thracians than of indo-europeans. If we follow Gimbutas, than those Thracians would have arrived in Europe some millenium even before the rest of indo-europeans, perhaps even before indo-europeans existed.
beorna is offline  
Old November 24th, 2010, 12:19 AM   #43

Anna James's Avatar
Pro Bono Advocate
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: currently Ancient Odessos, BG
Posts: 7,699
Blog Entries: 11
Re: The Thracians and their place in history


Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
Well, I took part in a lot of Balkan discussion, if you think Edward's and my discussion is unfriendly and full of hate, you should join the balkan forum.

I don't say, that the Bulgarians don't have some roots in the Thracian culture and that the Thracians don't have some roots in pre-thracian cultures. I wouldn't deny it especially if we look to the genetics.
But that has nothing to do with the origins of the Thracians.

First of all you need a definition for Thracians. You can take the culture, but I told you about the Celts e.g., We don't know when the Celts evolved. There are different hypothesis. I for myself link them with the La-Tene-culture. Others link them with the older Halstatt. I think both cultures are close related and of indo-european origin, so I would agree, to call the halstatt, bt only those of the west, proto-celtic. The eastern halstatt is for sure not celtic.
So you can see, that a culture can include different ethnic groups. This is the same with La-Tene. we have a lot of reports about "Germanic" tribes, often we cannot identify them in the archaeological sites. so a lot of Germanic tribes are part of the La-Tene.
If we look at the Germanic nations, we have several cultures, that could be called Germanic or at least Proto-Germanic. We have the Norther culture, the Harpstedt-Nienburg-culture, the jastorf-culture and the Face-urn-culture (here later the Oksywie-, Przeworsk- and Wielbark-culture). While the 2nd one is standing between the la-Tene and the jastorf, the last ones include Celtic and Lusatian elements, are perhaps just Germanizised.
We have the Problem, how shall we give a definition of Germanic. We can see, a culture is not a good idea. So we have mostly the language to do so. The language can only be called "Germanic", if the important changes (Grimm's laws) occured. Before this, it was an indo-european language, but not a Germanic one. We have no informations about unhistorical eras, first in the 2nd century we have written sources about Germanics. here we can see, that some parts are still outside what we would call a Germanic speaking area. So in the west Germanic language can be found around BC, not earlier.

So if you speak about Thracians, you must have this in the back of your mind.

Perhaps another point. There are several hypothesis about the indo-europeans. Even those who identify the rise of agriculture with the indo-europeans, will usually give you no date far earlier than the 6th millenium BC century. So the Thracians had to come earlier than the indo-europeans or at least are the oldest nation among the indo-europeans, perhaps it would be necessary then to speak of Thracians than of indo-europeans. If we follow Gimbutas, than those Thracians would have arrived in Europe some millenium even before the rest of indo-europeans, perhaps even before indo-europeans existed.
I didn't say that your discussion is full of hate, and I don't know what Edward has to do with it. True, I prefer more tolerant conversation, but I don't think this can be helped by joining a Balkan forum. I try to give everyone a fighting chance and get indignant when it's denied to me.
The Thracians were Indo-Europeans, not being here before them, the were part of them. And I don't see how what you are saying about the Celts refutes the Thracians. And I also an presenting a theory, and I don't see why it has to be refuted because wiki didn't mention it. As far as I know, all historical theories that have some viability are allowed to exist, why this one should be different? There are enough sources that support it, and enough Thracologist behind it. I myself prefer to see it as a theory in evolvement, as a hypothesis, that I'm personally researching, but I won't accept it to be torn down because of wiki.
If you are allowed to have your opinion about the Celts being La Tene instead of Halstatt, why can I have my opinion about the Thracian-Pelasgian culture? I personally know next to nothing about the Celts, read some books on say, popular level and this is all, so I can't give opinions for things I didn't seriously investigate, but I read a lot about the Thracians, and did other things too /my personal favorite is the Thracian remnants in the Bulgarian folk culture, which have nothing to do with when the Thracians arrived here/, therefore I feel I can talk about it.

Last edited by Anna James; November 24th, 2010 at 12:38 AM.
Anna James is offline  
Old November 24th, 2010, 12:31 AM   #44
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,473
Re: The Thracians and their place in history


sorry, you misunderstood me, my words about the balkan forum should show you, that this is a very hot discussion very often. It had nothing to do with our discussion.
Not only some Bulgarians try to trace their roots far back, you can see this at some Mazedonians, some Romanians and all the others too.

What my saying about the Celts has to do with the Thracians? You want to construct a relation between 7000 BC and 1000 BC, unimportant if there were several different cultures, different waves of migrations and others. you ae speaking of Thracians even if perhaps indo-europeans didn't exist. It is hard to believe that indo-european Thracians existed before Indo-europeans and even several thousands of years before the origin of other indo-european nations or linguistic families. Italicans exist since 1500-1200 BC, Celts since 800-500 BC, Germanics since 600-400 BC , Slavs since 200-400 AD and Thracians since 7000 BC? hard to believe.
beorna is offline  
Old November 24th, 2010, 12:38 AM   #45
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,473
Re: The Thracians and their place in history


This is the most earliest thesis about an indoeuropean migration. It's by Colin Renfrew. It is not accepted generally

Click the image to open in full size.

After the other hypothesis of Gimbutas, today no longer as generally accepted as before you have several waves to Middle and Southeast Europe
  • Phase I between 4.400-4.300 BC.
  • Phase II between 3.500 BC.
  • Phase III short after 3000 BC.
beorna is offline  
Old November 24th, 2010, 12:43 AM   #46

Anna James's Avatar
Pro Bono Advocate
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: currently Ancient Odessos, BG
Posts: 7,699
Blog Entries: 11
Re: The Thracians and their place in history


Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
This is the most earliest thesis about an indoeuropean migration. It's by Colin Renfrew. It is not accepted generally



After the other hypothesis of Gimbutas, today no longer as generally accepted as before you have several waves to Middle and Southeast Europe
  • Phase I between 4.400-4.300 BC.
  • Phase II between 3.500 BC.
  • Phase III short after 3000 BC.
I have no idea who Gimbitas is. I told who who I know - Fol, Marazov, and
Penkova, and I'm presenting here their theory. I'm sorry that I don't use German to read more in the Thracology's literature, because a large part of it is in German /because the German financial support and stuff on the joined digs/. Now, excuse me if I don't know the European historian who deal with the prehistory, but I gave you sources for my info and I don't see why I have to except yours when you kick mine to the curb.

Last edited by Anna James; November 24th, 2010 at 10:48 AM.
Anna James is offline  
Old November 24th, 2010, 12:53 AM   #47
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,473
Re: The Thracians and their place in history


Gimbutas and renfrew are the two main schools for indo-european history. Another hypothesis is by Pitman and ryan.

I possess some literature about the Thracians, I can take a look in it, if you can wait until I found it.
beorna is offline  
Old November 24th, 2010, 01:26 AM   #48

Anna James's Avatar
Pro Bono Advocate
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: currently Ancient Odessos, BG
Posts: 7,699
Blog Entries: 11
Re: The Thracians and their place in history


Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
Gimbutas and renfrew are the two main schools for indo-european history. Another hypothesis is by Pitman and ryan.

I possess some literature about the Thracians, I can take a look in it, if you can wait until I found it.
I don't mind waiting. As I said, I'm interested in culture, and for this it doesn't matter when exactly the Thracians came, it matters that they existed.
I will try to find some more Thracology studies on the net, now I find only popular stuff. Next time I go to Bulgaria will be in 2 years, and was there last year and I so feel sorry now that I didn't get my Thracian studies...I never knew I will be doing foruming and will need it. I also didn't keep any bibliography on the books and articles I read fro the last 15 years, now it would be handy, but...since I'm not a professional historian I never even suspected I might need it. In fact, I didn't even study history professionally, my Master's is in Education, minor in Geography and I did 2 years of Culturology /like Theory of Cultures/. I read history for fun, but this way didn't give me a systematic thinking, I'm kind of messy.
Are you a professional historian?
Anna James is offline  
Old November 24th, 2010, 01:48 AM   #49
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,473
Re: The Thracians and their place in history


I studied old history and medieval history ( and I finished it succesfully), but I am unfortunately no professional historian.
my favorite subjects are Germanics, celts, roman, Greek and egyptian history. and of course medieval history, especially the earlier phases.
I hate modern history, because you cannot discuss with a lot of people, without ending in a great quarrel. Unfortunately I participate too often in such discussions.
I am no expert in Thracian or bulgarian history, allthough I dealed with it during my study, or exactly with the Bulgarians. All I wish to show you, that these old cultures are a part of your history, but not Thracian. We all have our roots in South asia or more early in Africa, but we wouldn't call these cultures German or Bulgarian or something else. In that way Thracian is probably not older than 1500 BC. But every nation has its ancestors.
beorna is offline  
Old November 24th, 2010, 08:19 AM   #50

Anna James's Avatar
Pro Bono Advocate
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: currently Ancient Odessos, BG
Posts: 7,699
Blog Entries: 11
Re: The Thracians and their place in history


Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
I studied old history and medieval history ( and I finished it succesfully), but I am unfortunately no professional historian.
my favorite subjects are Germanics, celts, roman, Greek and egyptian history. and of course medieval history, especially the earlier phases.
I hate modern history, because you cannot discuss with a lot of people, without ending in a great quarrel. Unfortunately I participate too often in such discussions.
I am no expert in Thracian or bulgarian history, allthough I dealed with it during my study, or exactly with the Bulgarians. All I wish to show you, that these old cultures are a part of your history, but not Thracian. We all have our roots in South asia or more early in Africa, but we wouldn't call these cultures German or Bulgarian or something else. In that way Thracian is probably not older than 1500 BC. But every nation has its ancestors.
There are Thracian towns on the top or next to the preihistoric /not that this is a proof, of course,because cultures as religions, slide into the already made "grooves"/, but I think it means something. Kabile in next to Karanovo, and a Thracian village next to the Varna necropolis. The gold from Varna and the ring from Karanovo are made in the same style and method, and the Thracians loved to work with gold. I have somewhere in Bulgaria studies on the continuation of the ceramic style from Kabile, I think it's continuation from Karanovo. My personal favorite from both is a kind of a cheese making mold, something like a sieve. In Karanovo it was amazing the crater the archeologists did during the years...I walked between walls towering metres above me, and from the walls the pieces of pottery were just sticking out, so thick, like porcupine needles. Than you have to be careful where you walk, because from the ground were sticking flint knives and stuff. one of the finds when I was there was a flint knife about 12 inches long, a rare thing to find intact. We will never live to see all this excavated and organized, let alone studied and theorized about. Who knows what lies there, we are only scratching the surface.
I wouldn't say so far that those cultures are definitely or definitely not Thracian, but I think we have to look at all possibilities.
I'm not big on Bulgarian medieval history, by the way, it never struck my fancy enough so I go deep, sturm is the expert here on that. But I think that cultures are the ones to research in order to orient oneself in time, not languages. Our data about ancient languages is too scanty, and in the case of the mute cultures we don't have it at all, all theoretizing is pretty much sucked from someones's fingernails, so I don't see how it can be used for dating, as you a mentioned about the Celts; I definitely wouldn't use it for the Thracians.
Why do you think that the prehistoric settlements in Bulgaria can't be the beginning of the Thracians? AFAIK, there is not evidence against it, if you have such, tell me. The way I see it, if a big Indo-European group came to Europe somewhere in 7 000 BC, and settled and developed there, and then we have the migrations of the Thracians and Myceneans, whoever was there before them intermarried with them, and then each /Thraciand and Myceneans I mean/ continued in it's own way, that makes sense to me.

Last edited by Anna James; November 24th, 2010 at 10:14 PM.
Anna James is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
place, thracians



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thracians okamido Ancient History 36 January 17th, 2018 03:43 PM
How do Kings and Emperors become that in the first place!? lokariototal General History 14 September 21st, 2016 07:39 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.