Talk:Thraco-Cimmerian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article implies (I think) that the Thracians invaded the Balkans in the 8th or 7th Century BC. I haven't read that many books on the subject, but I did read Hoddinott---a recent authority on the Thracians. I remember him writing that the Thracian ethnogenesis probably occured in the Moldavian-Danubian-Balkanic area in the Chalcolithic period. Anyway, the Iliad mentions Thracians in Thrace before the 8th Century BC, right? Something's screwy here. I think the problem is Dr. Sauter. I don't know his credentials. I'm gonna go get the Hoddinott book again and see what's up. Alexander 007 03:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

no, I think it was just me not paying attention. For the purposes of this article, it is enough to say that the Thracians and Cimmerians were present in the Balkans & Anatolia at the time, and that there was some migratory activity; the Cimmerians did the invading, apparently displaced by [other] Iranians, and the Thracians were a large conglomerate of numerous tribes, possibly with expansive tendencies. I don't think the ethnogenesis of the Thracians is relevant here. Not enough is known anyway; "Thracians" may simply be a Greek umbrella term for unrelated peoples. Just feel free to correct things. dab (ᛏ) 17:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the article pretty much presented the idea that the Thracians were Iranic invaders who came along with the Cimmerians. That's not accepted by pretty much all the current Thracological literature. In fact, I think there is a trend in Thracology (I base this chiefly on reading some Bulgarian and Romanian Thracologists) to push the Thracian ethnogenesis in the Carpatho-Danubian-Balkan area even further back, with ideas of an early Thracian dominance in the arts and other fields, to the extent that they heavily influenced the ancient Greeks, who according to these theories, were in many respects less "advanced" than Thracians at the time. This may be backed up by archaeology along with some classical references. Alexander 007 13:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the known wordlist of Thracian, which is really to small to make a definite assertion, possible cognates are pointed out with a variety of Indo-Eur languages, but what I found really striking was how many of the words are identical, or nearly so, in both form and meaning, with Lithuanian. I had thought the Baltic languages were Centum, but apparently they are Satem. So thanks for correcting this. --ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Thracian in the Homeric and Classical age is pretty much unanimously regarded as a Satem language; the only question is whether this Satem nature dates back to Proto-Thracian; I have a link from one current linguist who hypothesizes that proto-Thracian may be more properly described as a Centum language. But for most intents and purposes, Thracian was a Satem language. About the Baltic cognates: yes, they are probably the most numerous, but there are also a number of close ancient Greek cognates, some Albanian, etc. The cognates don't necessarily indicate a Thraco-Balto-Slavic branch, which some linguists favor however. Alexander 007 13:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, that bizland glossary is generally ok, but a number of those "etymologies" and "cognates" are disputed in the literature; notably, the interpretation of Thracian buzas (from the Thracian personal name, Buzas) as "goat" (with Iranian cognates, etc.) is rejected by other more current linguists, such as Sorin Paliga, who connect it with Albanian buzë ("lip"); one of a number of data in support of this is the fact that the form is pretty much surely found among the Iapodians and Liburnians: Buzet, Buzetius; and among the Messapians. Those were not Satem languages. The "lip" interpretation does not require a Satem sound-shift (cf. Irish bus, "lip", etc.). This of course does not affect the Satem nature of Thracian, but it does knock another "Iranian cognate" out of the picture. There are not many close Thracian-Iranian cognates. Alexander 007 13:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, both the Franks, the Etruscans and the/some Nordic peoples traced their mythical origin to the Thraco-Cimmerians. At least in Nordic mythology the Aesir are supposed to have been Thraco-Cimmerians (or have some type of descendants from Troy).

Although, as far as I know, there is nothing in modern archeology to support this it might be interesting to note in the article that a number of poeples are thought to have traced their origins to the Traco-Cimmerians.Roncevaux 10:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mythical legacy?

Apparently, both the Franks, the Etruscans and the/some Nordic peoples traced their mythical origin to the Thraco-Cimmerians. At least in Nordic mythology the Aesir are supposed to have been Thraco-Cimmerians (or have some type of descendants from Troy).

Although, as far as I know, there is nothing in modern archeology to support this it might be interesting to note in the article that a number of poeples are thought to have traced their origins to the Traco-Cimmerians.Roncevaux 10:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that statement is definitely not something you could write in an academic essay ("both the Franks, the Etruscans and the/some Nordic peoples traced their mythical origin to the Thraco-Cimmerians"). Let me just illustrate you three fallacies therein: 1) there is no term "Thraco-Cimmerian" in Antiquity, it's a modern tag for an archaeological category (and poorly chosen, I might say, as any connection to the historical Cimmerians seems rather feeble). 2) the Etruscan origo traces them back to Asia Minor, not to the Balkans. 3) the "Frankish" origo and "Nordic" mythology (by which you probably meant Danish and therefore the "History" written by Saxo Grammaticus, or Icelandic and therefore Snorri's Edda) almost certainly do not reflect genuine traditions but scholarly constructs in the tradition of Vergil. As both Saxo and Snorri were Christians, they had to find an euhemeristic explanations as to what the Aesir actually were, as of course, there was no such thing as a pagan god, according to Christian doctrine. So they invented an "eastern" origin for the Aesir. But that is certainly NO basis at all to identify them in the slightest with the "Thraco-Cimmerians", whoever they were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigaranus (talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

O bugger, sorry. Was me. Meant to sign it. Trigaranus 11:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this is incorect

"intruded into Eastern Central Europe from the area north of the Black Sea". < basic geography —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nasz (talk • Nasz 08:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

lol thracians were not related to cimmirians those were the invaders. thracians were decedents of the ezor culture wich is a mix of aboriginal and indo european (most thracians had more aboriginal look due to the discovories of mural paintig wich shiows them with ligtly curled hair olive skin and black hair and dark eyes and thise is also the case from the exateaded thracian remanisn wich show hight consetrations of malanin in upper derma and iris area from thise scietists khow that thracians were mostly black haired dark eyed and olive skinned.there tablets and other languge insceptians they found thas not match any other langue in europe meaning they were there own branch.