Vlasi — balkanski fenomen

[haeul]

No, that's wrong. The term Vlach is an exonym and it corresponds to the endonym Român (or Rumân). This is exactly the way the exonym Greek corresponds to the endonym Hellene. Or the way the exonym German corresponds to the endonym Deutsche.

And what might be wrong with it? The fact that Romanians probably have more Slavs among their ancestors than they do Romans or Dacians? Need I remind you that an etymological analysis of Romanian vocabulary showed that only 20% of Romanian words are inherited from (Vulgar) Latin? Slavic words make up 11.5%, and that's today, after decades of 'cleansing'.

The term 'Vlach' is indeed an exonym, but not one that ever referred to a single people. It was used throughout history for various groups that included the Celts, various Romance speakers and even the Serbs. In Polish, the Italians are referred to as Włosi. Are they, too, Vlachs?

As for your endonym, I remind you once again that Romanians are not Romans. Unlike Срби, Έλληνες, Dutch and Deutsche, your endonym is of foreign origin, derived from the name of a city that has nothing to do with Romanians. It may have escaped your notice, but Rome is in Italy, not Wallachia, Moldova or Transylvania.

The Romanians are not the only Vlachs. There are also the Armâns and the Rămărs. The Armâns or Aromuns live in Greece, Albania, Macedonia. The Rămărs live in Istria. Their second exonym is Ćići. These three endonyms of the Vlachs -- Român, Armân and Rămăr -- are all variants of Romanus, i.e., Roman.

What we have here is a prime example of Romanian nationalist propaganda. You are trying to draw parallels between ethnic identity of particular Romance speakers, and the form of the derivative of Romanus they use. Any population of Romance speakers that uses the same or similar endonym as the Romanians, is claimed as Romanian. In reality, that perhaps reveals something about the relative closeness of their language, but it says absolutely nothing about their identity. It's a bit like drawing the conclusion that the English, Irish, Americans and Australians are the same people, based on their shared English language.

You don't go from Romanus to Român, Armân and Rămăr overnight. That process - the process of ethnogenesis - is a gradual one, that takes place over many generations. Even more importantly, you can't have Român, Armân and Rămăr while there are Romanus, which sets a clear lower limit on how early this process could have begun.

Also, there are in fact a great deal more of these regional endonyms among the Romance speakers of our peninsula, but that's well outside the scope of this discussion.

You cannot, by physical appearance alone reliably distinguish a Vlach from a Greek, nor from a Bulgarian, nor Serbian, nor Albanian, etc.

Not reliably, no, but there are certain physical traits that are more likely to be found among Greeks than the Serbs, and vice versa.

The question is not whether the Vlachs are partly Slav. That's a given. The real issue on this forum is that the Serbs are slavicized Vlachs.

What an excellent way to flush one's credibility down the toilet.

 

[AELarisa]

No, that's wrong. The term Vlach is an exonym and it corresponds to the endonym Român (or Rumân). This is exactly the way the exonym Greek corresponds to the endonym Hellene. Or the way the exonym German corresponds to the endonym Deutsche. In the present country of Romania there are three major regions: Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania. All three are inhabited by Vlachs, i.e., Romanians. The name Wallachia is derived from the exonym Vlach, while Moldavia and Transylvania (= Land beyond the Forest) are geographic, like Thessaly or Peloponnesse.

The Romanians are not the only Vlachs. There are also the Armâns and the Rămărs. The Armâns or Aromuns live in Greece, Albania, Macedonia. The Rămărs live in Istria. Their second exonym is Ćići.

These three endonyms of the Vlachs -- Român, Armân and Rămăr -- are all variants of Romanus, i.e., Roman. It's a name that goes back to the Roman empire.

Some centuries ago all the citizens of Eastern Roman Empire were called Romani. The term "Greek/Hellene" meant "pagan".
The Byzantines were Romani and Byzantium was officially Romania (the name Byzantium was given by German historians 100 years after its fall).
The Turks called the Byzantines "Rum".
This is why they called the romance speakers Vlachs, because the greek speakers of the Roman Empire were Romans (Romani). Not to mention that all the noble families of Byzantium fled to Moldovlachia (as Romania of today was called by that time). And the term Vlach is slavic as far as I know.
So, the Byzantines were all Vlachs / Romanians according to you?

Many Vlacho-Romanian rulers from the middle age had Slavic names such as:

- Vlad the Impaler (Vlad is a short form of Slavic names Vladimir and Vladislav) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad

- Bogdan III the One-Eyed (Bogdan is name orf Slavic origin, it's very popular among Serbs, Ukrainians and Russians) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdan_III_the_One-Eyed

- Radu I of Wallachia (Rad means work on many Slavic languages, name Rade is very popular among Serbs and name Radek is very popular among Czechs) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radu_I_of_Wallachia

- Mircea I of Wallachia (name Mircea derivated from Slavic word Mir which means peace, Slavic names Miroslav and Mirko also derivated from Mir) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_I_of_Wallachia

DEAL WITH IT!!!

In Greece you find them as surnames. Vladis, Bogdanos, Rados, Mirisklavos. All of them found in northern parts of Greece and Thessaly. Also Zlatanos, Dusas, Stogianis.

 

[haeul]

Rūmī was also used by the urban Turkish-speaking population of the Ottoman Empire. Until the mid-to-late 19th century, the term 'Turk' was only used in reference to Anatolian peasants. Using it to describe a city-dweller or, God-forbid, a member of the elite, would have been considered a grave insult.

In Greece you find them as surnames. Vladis, Bogdanos, Rados, Mirisklavos. All of them found in northern parts of Greece and Thessaly. Also Zlatanos, Dusas, Stogianis.

All these Greek names have Serbian cognates that are still in common use. Владо/a, Богдан, Радош/Раде, Мирослав, Златана, Душан, Стојан. It's quite remarkable.

 

[Carlin15]

 

[Mrkalj]

IMO

It is only logical the Balkan Romance tribes formed after long period of migrations from 2nd through 6th century caused by German barbaric wars and invasion of Apennine Peninsula. The concentration of Roman Apennine refugees was in Adriatic coastal cities, Aegean coastal cities, and the largest population formed in the region of central Albania inland. The population in Aegean cities formed today's Aromanians who are commonly known as higher class of Greek merchants that began to spred over hills of Greece and Macedonia only during Otoman times to avoid islamization. Migration process goes also for the Vlach population of central Albania. They bagan to migrate to Dacia as of 14th century.

The Apennine German-Roman mixture, civilized Germans (so called "Goths"), continued to invade all Mediterranean coasts (only coastal cities) of the Balkan Peninsula and that is where their influence can be observed. The Goths never made it to Balkan midland.

Could't agree more!

- - - - - - - - - -

Evo gde KP7 pominje "Romane u Draču" - 32.4.5., i oni bi se mogli smatrati precima danačnjih dačkih Rumuna. Tema je mogla da se zove "D(r)ački Rumuni".

32.4.5. Drački Romani

Spojler

Konačno, drugi važan podatak iz Pouqueville-ovog teksta je da su Bouioi, KOJI SU SVI BILI LATINOFONI, njihovi susedi su ih tada nazivali ALBANOUS (Albanci), 1815. godine. Zapravo, njihovi susedi su ih nazivali Arvanitima, kako su oni sami sebe zvali, ali (izgleda) - 1815. godine Albanci i Arvaniti znače jedno te isto (te da je verovatno da se ovi 'termini' odnose na Latinofonu populaciju - kao sto i sam pojam 'Albanija' proizlazi iz latinskog/romanskog).

Mislim da smo stigli do momenta kada neko od poznavalaca starog i ranog srednjeg veka na Mediteranu treba da nam da mišljenje kada su drački (budući dački) Romani došli u Drač (Albaniju) sa Apenina.

- - - - - - - - - -

Albanija je najlogičnije pribežište nekog ko se na Apeninskom poluostrvu povlači pred Germanskom najezdom do samog juga poluostrava, a zatim prelazi u Albaniju standardnim putem preko Otranta i kopnom - Drač, Vojuša, Kroja.

 

[AELarisa]

The Vlachs in greek texts are mentioned as invaders from the North, along with the Bulgarians.
So, I don't think their first homeland can be Albania. They later inhabited Albania, just as they did in some parts of Greece.
Albania by that time was inhabited by Slavs and descendants of Illyrians.

The Romans had moved large numbers of population from Dacia (Roman Dacia was almost completely evacuated), because there were almost always under attack and it was not easy to defend it.
So, the Vlachs are probably scuh tribes, mixed up with Thracians and others that lived in the Balkans.
And the Albanians are probably Dacians that were not completely romanized and kept their dacian language.
There are many common words (non latin and non greek) among the language of Albanians and Vlachs.

 

[Mrkalj]

The Vlachs in greek texts are mentioned as invaders from the North, along with the Bulgarians.
So, I don't think their first homeland can be Albania. They later inhabited Albania, just as they did in some parts of Greece.
Albania by that time was inhabited by Slavs and descendants of Illyrians.

The Romans had moved large numbers of population from Dacia (Roman Dacia was almost completely evacuated), because there were almost always under attack and it was not easy to defend it.
So, the Vlachs are probably scuh tribes, mixed up with Thracians and others that lived in the Balkans.
And the Albanians are probably Dacians that were not completely romanized and kept their dacian language.
There are many common words (non latin and non greek) among the language of Albanians and Vlachs.

My perspective is completely different.

Dacia is part of Slavic Homeland. Romanians in Balkans are refugees from Italian peninsula as of 4th century (give or take). Scipetars (so called Albanians) came from Africa to Southern Italy, Sicily, Greece and Balkans during 11th century. According to toponyms, central Albania is Roman, and all other parts are Slavic.

Slovenski toponimi čine većinu toponima Albanije - ko bi se tome nadao? (Google maps)

- - - - - - - - - -

Da "malo" uveličamo:

- - - - - - - - - -

Velika slika slovenskih toponima prema Seliščevu (velike slike bolje je gledati izvan brauzera):

 

[haeul]

The Vlachs in greek texts are mentioned as invaders from the North, along with the Bulgarians.
So, I don't think their first homeland can be Albania. They later inhabited Albania, just as they did in some parts of Greece.
Albania by that time was inhabited by Slavs and descendants of Illyrians.

The Romans had moved large numbers of population from Dacia (Roman Dacia was almost completely evacuated), because there were almost always under attack and it was not easy to defend it.
So, the Vlachs are probably scuh tribes, mixed up with Thracians and others that lived in the Balkans.
And the Albanians are probably Dacians that were not completely romanized and kept their dacian language.
There are many common words (non latin and non greek) among the language of Albanians and Vlachs.

Unfortunately, the fact that Vlachs were referred to by Greek sources as invaders from the north, does not actually tell us as much as it may at first appear. It simply means that Vlachs were making advancements into Greek-populated regions. Where, specifically, they were coming from, is not revealed.

It is true that Albania was populated by Slavs at that time, but as Mrkalj pointed out, there are some Romance islands in the sea of Albanian toponyms of Slavic origin. Those islands are proof of the presence of Romance speakers.

When it comes to Dacia, one must bear in mind that the province of Roman Dacia occupied merely a portion of it, and that the Roman presence in the region was relatively short, hardly affording enough time for the complete Romanisation of the native population. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the Roman Dacia was "almost completely evacuated" - non-Romanised natives had no reason to leave with the Romans, unless forced - and in any case, plenty of Dacians lived outside the borders of the province.

As for the supposed links between the languages of the Vlachs and the Albanians, it's important to note that both are part of the Balkan sprachbund, both have been strongly influence by Slavic dialects, and that virtually all of the 160 Romanian words of possible Dacian origin, among which some have Albanian cognates, have alternative, far more plausible etymologies.

In short, we're really no closer to uncovering the origin of Albanians.

 

[AELarisa]

One thing is for sure.
The ancestors of Albanians were not good seamen, because all the albanian words related to the sea come either from Latin or Greek.
So, they cannot be the Illyrians that were famous seamen and pirates.
They must have come from a place that the sea is not so close.

So, i think they either came from the Carpathians or from Caucasus (they have many genes related to Caucasus - the ancient Albania), but for sure their primary homeland was not close to the sea.
Could be some Dacian tribes mixed up with the Avars? Maybe.
Given that there are some toponyms of today's Romania that come from the albanian language, i think that the most probable is that they were some of the Dacian tribes that were removed by the Romans to other parts of the Balkans. Most of them were romanized (Vlachs) and some others kept their language (Albanians).

Of course, Romanians of today are mostly Slavs. Many slavic populations had settled in the lands of Romania and they have lots of slavic genes.

The name Sqiptar comes from latin scopetiere = gunman. They were the favorite guards and soldiers of the Romans and the Italians (and the Serbs of Stefan Dusan had also used them). The ancient Dacians were also famous for being very hard to defeat and strong soldiers.

 

[haeul]

I wholly agree about the Illyrian part. The complete lack of any Illyrian (that is to say, non-Greek and non-Roman) maritime terminology in the Albanian language is more than reason enough for the theory of the Illyrian origin of Albanians to be abandoned once and for all. Albanians may have some Illyrians among their ancestors, as do the Serbs and many others, but they are simply not the 'modern Illyrians', as they claim.

It's perfectly possible that Albanians have some Dacian blood, but there's simply no proof at this stage. There's even less proof of their Dacian origin, and same goes for the Caucasus theory. Simply, we know nothing about them until they are first mentioned in the 11th century.

 

[Pravi Vlah]

And what might be wrong with it? The fact that Romanians probably have more Slavs among their ancestors than they do Romans or Dacians? Need I remind you that an etymological analysis of Romanian vocabulary showed that only 20% of Romanian words are inherited from (Vulgar) Latin? Slavic words make up 11.5%, and that's today, after decades of 'cleansing'.

The term 'Vlach' is indeed an exonym, but not one that ever referred to a single people. It was used throughout history for various groups that included the Celts, various Romance speakers and even the Serbs. In Polish, the Italians are referred to as Włosi. Are they, too, Vlachs?

As for your endonym, I remind you once again that Romanians are not Romans. Unlike Срби, Έλληνες, Dutch and Deutsche, your endonym is of foreign origin, derived from the name of a city that has nothing to do with Romanians. It may have escaped your notice, but Rome is in Italy, not Wallachia, Moldova or Transylvania.


What we have here is a prime example of Romanian nationalist propaganda. You are trying to draw parallels between ethnic identity of particular Romance speakers, and the form of the derivative of Romanus they use. Any population of Romance speakers that uses the same or similar endonym as the Romanians, is claimed as Romanian. In reality, that perhaps reveals something about the relative closeness of their language, but it says absolutely nothing about their identity. It's a bit like drawing the conclusion that the English, Irish, Americans and Australians are the same people, based on their shared English language.

You don't go from Romanus to Român, Armân and Rămăr overnight. That process - the process of ethnogenesis - is a gradual one, that takes place over many generations. Even more importantly, you can't have Român, Armân and Rămăr while there are Romanus, which sets a clear lower limit on how early this process could have begun.

Also, there are in fact a great deal more of these regional endonyms among the Romance speakers of our peninsula, but that's well outside the scope of this discussion.


Not reliably, no, but there are certain physical traits that are more likely to be found among Greeks than the Serbs, and vice versa.


What an excellent way to flush one's credibility down the toilet.

I don't know why you are getting so animated. No one said the Romanians are Romans -- only that the ethnonym is derived from Romanus, clearly a term left from the Roman Empire. The meaning of Romanus of course evolved over time, originally referring only to citizens of the city of Rome and later to citizens of the entire Roman Empire. Centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire the ancestors of today's Romanians began to see themselves as one people.

Now if you think the Greeks or the Gemans or the Serbs always thought of themselves as one people, you should look into current views of the concept of ethnicity.

As to the origin of the ethnonym Serbs, it is not Slavic. The most likely attribution is to some Iranian (not Slavic) group.

 

[Pravi Vlah]

Of course, Romanians of today are mostly Slavs. Many slavic populations had settled in the lands of Romania and they have lots of slavic genes.

Slavs appear on the stage of history in the sixth century. Where were they before that? Today a very large number of people -- from Russians to Poles to Czechs to Bulgarians to Serbs-- speak Slavic. Wherever they are today, in antiquity only non Slavic people were mentioned. How did it happen that in a matter of a few centuries the Slavic language spread over such a large area? Neither archeology nor genetics supports large scale migrations. So what is left? The idea that Slavic was a lingua Franca that eventually replaced other languages.

There is no such thing as a Slavic gene. Nor a Latin gene. Nor Germanic. Instead one can speak of distributions of various haplogroups that are present among Slavs, Latins, Germanics, etc. The Slavs are heterogeneous. For instance, genetically modern Serbs are closer to Albanians than to Poles.

 

[Pravi Vlah]

Could't agree more!

Nobody in the scientific world accepts this map. Nobody in the scientific world accepts the concept of a Vlach original homeland.

 

[AELarisa]

Slavs appear on the stage of history in the sixth century. Where were they before that? Today a very large number of people -- from Russians to Poles to Czechs to Bulgarians to Serbs-- speak Slavic. Wherever they are today, in antiquity only non Slavic people were mentioned. How did it happen that in a matter of a few centuries the Slavic language spread over such a large area? Neither archeology nor genetics supports large scale migrations. So what is left? The idea that Slavic was a lingua Franca that eventually replaced other languages.

There is no such thing as a Slavic gene. Nor a Latin gene. Nor Germanic. Instead one can speak of distributions of various haplogroups that are present among Slavs, Latins, Germanics, etc. The Slavs are heterogeneous. For instance, genetically modern Serbs are closer to Albanians than to Poles.

You have to check the Veneti / Venedi people.

 

[haeul]

I don't know why you are getting so animated. No one said the Romanians are Romans -- only that the ethnonym is derived from Romanus, clearly a term left from the Roman Empire. The meaning of Romanus of course evolved over time, originally referring only to citizens of the city of Rome and later to citizens of the entire Roman Empire.

You appear to be under the mistaken impression that this somehow at odds with what I said. I assure you, that isn't the case. You are essentially repeating my words.

Centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire the ancestors of today's Romanians began to see themselves as one people.

Yes, centuries after, though we have no idea exactly when. You are trying to pass off the theory that the various Romance speakers that inhabited these regions in the first few centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire had a developed a separate collective identity on the level of the whole group, and can rightfully be referred to as a separate people. There is simply no proof of that - none whatsoever. Just as there is no proof of the emergence of a separate Romanian identity until much later. As you often like to point out, we all have ancestors going all the way back to the very first human that inhabited this Earth, but that does not mean that all our ancestors were Serbs or Romanians. Those identities appeared somewhere along the line - some earlier, some later. There were no Romanians at the time of the arrival of the Slavs, nor did the Romance speakers have any separate collective identity other than the generic Roman one.

Equally, there is no proof that the various 'Romanians' outside Romania ever saw themselves as such. Earlier, you mentioned that there were three groups of Vlachs (which isn't strictly correct, but that doesn't matter right now), and implied that all those who called themselves Român/Rumân had a sense of belonging to the same people and were essentially Romanian. I am sorry, but as I clearly explained, that simply doesn't stand.

Now if you think the Greeks or the Gemans or the Serbs always thought of themselves as one people, you should look into current views of the concept of ethnicity.

I don't. Those identities appeared at some point in time, and in some cases, they were not exclusive. For many centuries, the Greeks also saw themselves as Romans. There is hardly any German collective identity to speak of until 17-18th century, and while we can speak of the Serbs in the 6th century AD, and perhaps a few centuries prior to that, we certainly can't claim that they existed in 1000 BC.

As to the origin of the ethnonym Serbs, it is not Slavic. The most likely attribution is to some Iranian (not Slavic) group.

The Serbs came to this peninsula with that name. It's ultimate origin, whatever it may be, in no way negates the fact that there was a Serbian people in the 6th century, just as there is today. The Serbs may have mixed with other Slavs and non-Slavs, but they didn't lose their identity. The same can't be said for the Romanians. You seem unable to grasp that there is a difference between 'Romance speaker' and 'Romanian'. A Romance-speaking ancestor of a Romanian (or a Vlach) is not by default a Romanian (or a Vlach).

Slavs appear on the stage of history in the sixth century. Where were they before that? Today a very large number of people -- from Russians to Poles to Czechs to Bulgarians to Serbs-- speak Slavic. Wherever they are today, in antiquity only non Slavic people were mentioned. How did it happen that in a matter of a few centuries the Slavic language spread over such a large area? Neither archeology nor genetics supports large scale migrations. So what is left? The idea that Slavic was a lingua Franca that eventually replaced other languages.

Where were they? Probably not here, though there are some alternative theories.

Where were the Romans before they came to rule over these parts? How did it happen that in a matter of a few centuries Vulgar Latin spread across much of Europe?

Archaeology and genetics do support the theory of large-scale migrations, both of Slavs and various other peoples.

There is no such thing as a Slavic gene. Nor a Latin gene. Nor Germanic. Instead one can speak of distributions of various haplogroups that are present among Slavs, Latins, Germanics, etc. The Slavs are heterogeneous. For instance, genetically modern Serbs are closer to Albanians than to Poles.

It's abundantly clear to what she was referring.

Nobody in the scientific world accepts this map. Nobody in the scientific world accepts the concept of a Vlach original homeland.

And how many non-Romanians "in the scientific world" have even focused on this topic? How many have been engaged in actual research, as opposed to parroting someone else's conclusions?

I say, non-Romanians, because the theory of Daco-Roman continuity is practically sacrosanct in Romania.

 

[Mrkalj]

Nobody in the scientific world accepts this map. Nobody in the scientific world accepts the concept of a Vlach original homeland.

Њхат ис Ћсциентифис њорлдЋ, бз дефинитион?

- - - - - - - - - -

And how many non-Romanians "in the scientific world" have even focused on this topic? How many have been engaged in actual research, as opposed to parroting someone else's conclusions?

I say, non-Romanians, because the theory of Daco-Roman continuity is practically sacrosanct in Romania.

Њригхт он тхе монез, ас усуаллз.

 

[Carlin15]

It seems that some of the recent posts are more applicable to a couple of other (current) threads - i.e. about the Vlachs and Albanians respectively. I disagree with some of the views, but that would be for a different thread.

I'll return to the topic at hand, by quoting Phaedon Malingoudis in order to illustrate/reiterate a point I have argued before and have mentioned several times over:

"The fourth category, finally, comprises the place-names of Slavonic etymology which cannot be decribed either as Slavonic or as Greek. These are the place-names which, either from their phonetic forms or from their endings, are indisputably Albanian or Aromunian. A large number of Wallachian or Albanian place-names of Slavonic etymology are described as Slavonic in Vasmer's catalogue."

URL:
http://www.kroraina.com/slav/malingoudis_1983.htm

Continuing with the toponyms - the father of Vasilis Koukouras (who was mentioned above), originates from the village of Vérvena, Arkadia.

This is quite interesting because there is another village in the Peloponnese with the same/similar name. Kryovrysi, in Elis - but before 1928 it was Βερβενή - Verveni. (Derveni is also mentioned.) Max Vasmer in his book claims this toponym to be of Slavic origin.

Do Vérvena and Verveni follow typical Slavonic phonetic forms and/or endings?

I'm no M. Vasmer but these names strike me as Latin / Romance terms - here are some relevant examples:

1. Verbania - Verbania is the most populous comune (municipality) and the capital city of the province of Verbano-Cusio-Ossola in the Piedmont region of northwest Italy.

2. Vervins - Vervins (French pronunciation: ​[vɛʁvɛ̃]) is a commune in the Aisne department in Hauts-de-France in northern France. Vervins was mentioned in the ancient times as Verbinum in the Antonine Itinerary.

3.
a) VERVINA - among the Romans, a long javelin, also a spit or broach.
b) VERVENA, an herb that was reckoned sacred among the Romans.

Above is from An Universal Military Dictionary, in English and French: In which are ..., By Charles James:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=Ir...4Q6AEIQTAF#v=onepage&q=vervena romans&f=false


PS:

Totally unrelated, but I stumbled upon Kryoneri while searching for info on Kryovrysi (Verveni) above.

This Kryoneri is located in the Peloponnese and close to Kryovrysi (Verveni). It is a little village near Olympia, Elis.

Now, note the following:
- Kryoneri (Greek: Κρυονέρι, before 1928: Μπάστα - Basta).
- The old name for Kryoneri, Basta (still used in the region), is Italian.
- The Black Death (1347–1350), along with malaria, devastated much of Elis' population. All inhabitants of the villages Basta, Kaloletsi (now Neraida) and Milies had died. After the plague 10,000 Orthodox Christian Albanians settled in the area, invited by Despot of the Morea Manuel Kantakouzenos. Until the beginning of the 20th century, the people from Basta spoke both Greek and Arvanitika.

I suspect that both Vérvena (Arkadia) and Kryovrysi (Verveni) have something to do with Arvanites and/or Arvanitovlachs (Vlachs) too.

 

[Pravi Vlah]

The Serbs came to this peninsula with that name. It's ultimate origin, whatever it may be, in no way negates the fact that there was a Serbian people in the 6th century, just as there is today. The Serbs may have mixed with other Slavs and non-Slavs, but they didn't lose their identity.

That is a 19th century fantasy.

 

[haeul]

That is a 19th century fantasy.

This coming from someone who fancies himself as a descendant of senators and legionnaires.

 

[Pravi Vlah]

This coming from someone who fancies himself as a descendant of senators and legionnaires.

There is no doubt that I am a descendant of legionnaires. I am also a descendant of Cuman warriors. Or of Huns, Avars, etc. And of Vlach shepherds.

But to return to your outrageous statement:

The Serbs came to this peninsula with that name. It's ultimate origin, whatever it may be, in no way negates the fact that there was a Serbian people in the 6th century, just as there is today. The Serbs may have mixed with other Slavs and non-Slavs, but they didn't lose their identity.

According to the historian Tibor Zivkovic, in the 7th or 8th century the Serbs made up just 2% of the population. That means today's Serbs are 98% something else. So that 98% fraction did not change their identity?

We don't even know if those 2% Serbs were Slavs. Scientists suppose they were Iranians. Even today there is a Pashtun tribe named Sarbani. Here's a photo of Pashtuns. These must be your distant cousins:

Moreover the Slavs who came to the Balkans were pagan.

So, please back up your statement. What part of the Serbs were a people? What part of their identity did they preserve?

 

[haeul]

There is no doubt that I am a descendant of legionnaires. I am also a descendant of Cuman warriors. Or of Huns, Avars, etc. And of Vlach shepherds.

The legionnaires? Quite possibly. After all, when the legionnaires weren't fighting, they were committing atrocities which naturally included rape.

According to the historian Tibor Zivkovic, in the 7th or 8th century the Serbs made up just 2% of the population. That means today's Serbs are 98% something else. So that 98% fraction did not change their identity?

The late Tibor Živković was entitled to his opinion. It is clear that his claims fit well into your nationalist agenda, but alas, the opinion of one historian by no means constitutes the final word of science.

A fact remains that a mere 20% of Romanian words are inherited from (Vulgar) Latin. Estimates of the share of Slavic words vary between 11% and 20%, but one must bear in mind that a good number of the roughly 40% of Romanian words, which were borrowed from French and other Romance languages since the 19th century, replace pre-existing Slavic words.

On the other hand, the vast majority of Serbian words are Slavic in origin, which speaks volumes to all those willing to listen.

We don't even know if those 2% Serbs were Slavs. Scientists suppose they were Iranians.

No, we don't, and that's precisely the point. We don't know whether it's 2% or 92%. You choose the former because it fits your agenda. I choose the way of science and refrain from making ludicrous assumptions.

Even today there is a Pashtun tribe named Sarbani. Here's a photo of Pashtuns. These must be your distant cousins:

Racism, pure and simple. I see no shame in being a distant cousin of these fine gentlemen; after all, we are all Indo-Europeans, and members of the same human family. You clearly do, or you wouldn't have used their image in this shameful attempt at an insult.

What you don't mention is that we Serbs are not the only Slavic Serbs. Our brothers in the north, the Sorbs, also bear our name, and they too are Slavs. A coincidence? Perhaps.

Moreover the Slavs who came to the Balkans were pagan.

And your point is - what? Was Saint Basil the Great any less Greek than Pericles, by virtue of his Christian faith?

So, please back up your statement. What part of the Serbs were a people? What part of their identity did they preserve?

Please work on your grammar. I am not accustomed to deciphering broken English. I wouldn't have brought it up, had you not so arrogantly boasted of your English prowess on a previous occasion.

The same part that was preserved in the case any people that went on to become Christian, Muslim, Buddhist.. When the Serbs, Greeks, Franks, Chinese, Persians, Samoans etc. adopted their new religions, they didn't go on to form new collective identities that were entirely distinct from those of the past. These new creeds enriched them spiritually and culturally, but they remained what they were.

Now, kindly spare us your hysteria and return to the original topic of this discussion, which is: Južnoslovenska toponimija Grčke.

 

[Carlin15]

"Овде треба истаћи да се између Македоније, Ахаје и Солуна, на великом простору, налази један веома бројан народ који се назива Власима. Они су некада били римски пастири и некада су живели у Угарској где су се, због изузетне плодности земље и бујности зеленила, налазили пашњаци Римљана".

URL:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ropae_Orientalis_Anonimov_opis_istocne_Evrope

 

[Pravi Vlah]

"Овде треба истаћи да се између Македоније, Ахаје и Солуна, на великом простору, налази један веома бројан народ који се назива Власима. Они су некада били римски пастири и некада су живели у Угарској где су се, због изузетне плодности земље и бујности зеленила, налазили пашњаци Римљана".

URL:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ropae_Orientalis_Anonimov_opis_istocne_Evrope

Да, у Хроници Gesta Hungarorum, мађарски хроничар Anonymus of Bela пише да када су Мађари у деветом веку стигли у Панонију тамо су наишли на Словене, Бугаре, Влахе и пастире Римљана (quam terram habitarent Sclavi, Bulgarii et Blachii ac pastores Romanorum). У овом контексту Власи су били романизовано становништво које се није бавило сточарством док пастири Римљана су такоће романизовани али се баве сточарством.

Мађари и данас називају Италију Olaszorsag док су Румуне називали Olah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherds_of_the_Romans

Мађари су асимиловали Словене а пастири Романи су се повукли у Трансилванију и у данашњу Србију, Албанију, Македонију и Грчку.

 

[Carlin15]

LOL

Vervena, Vervitsa and similar names come from slavic word vrba. It is a tree that you find there and it is 1000% slavic . They are both (Vervena and Vervitsa) found in Arcadia, Peloponnese.
The ending is similar to Krestena (krst) in the Peloponnese.

AND
Close to Vervitsa, in Arcadia, there is a village that was called SERVIA (also mentioned as Servou, the name it has today).
Typical Vlach or Albanian name is my guess.

https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Σέρβου_Αρκαδίας

https://www.servou.gr/

I have repeated many times over that there are lots of Slavonic toponyms throughout Greece. At times, I believe I have shared material that is little known regarding the Slavic presence in Greece. Also, to repeat once more:

"The fourth category, finally, comprises the place-names of Slavonic etymology which cannot be decribed either as Slavonic or as Greek. These are the place-names which, either from their phonetic forms or from their endings, are indisputably Albanian or Aromunian. A large number of Wallachian or Albanian place-names of Slavonic etymology are described as Slavonic in Vasmer's catalogue."

In addition to this, we also seem to have a lot of toponyms that are of non-Slavonic origin and etymology, that were/are incorrectly assumed to be of Slavonic etymology.

While Vervitsa could likely be Slavonic, I fail to see how this term is related to Verveni and Vervena? According to which linguistic rules Verveni and Vervena have and contain Slavonic phonetic forms and endings?

The same goes for your example Servou (Servu).

Interestingly, there is a page "Clarification of the origin of the name "Servou" - here is the link (it's mostly in Greek so I am sure I don't need to translate it - there are some parts in English as well so others can take a look as well):
https://www.servou.gr/2013-06-23-10...krinisi-gia-tin-proelefsi-tou-onomatos-servou

Let's leave that aside for now.

Would it surprise you to know that "Vlach shepherds" are associated with this Arcadian village, Servou - or that in this general area many Arvanites lived as well?

 

[haeul]

Would it surprise you to know that "Vlach shepherds" are associated with this Arcadian village, Servou - or that in this general area many Arvanites lived as well?

Would it surprise you to learn that many "Vlach shepherds" have Slavic blood? The Slavic influence of which we speak here needn't necessarily date back one or two hundred years. It could be from ten centuries ago. Thus, an alleged Vlach presence, or even dominance within a particular area, at a give time, in no way negates the possibility of a Slavic or Greek presence.

As Larisa pointed out at the very start, some in Greece are reluctant to admit that they are anything but 'purely Greek', and are disinclined to admit to anything that may point to a possible non-Greek presence in their village, city, country. Does it honestly seem logical to you that someone should neglect to so much as mention the possibility of a connection between 'Servou' and the Serbian ethnonym? How does one manage to overlook something so obvious? Bear in mind, this is Greece; it is highly unlikely that they wouldn't have herd of the Serbs. Why, then, is this perfectly plausible theory ignored? Does it really not warrant mentioning?

It's akin to a hypothetical situation of a linguist in Serbia claiming that 'Метохија' cames from 'метох(=ставих) и ја', and completely ignoring the Greek 'μετοχή' as its obvious origin.