Tinto Maps #9 Carpathia and Balkans Feedback

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

I was exclusively curious why Kotyk considers the 14th century map with a lack of settlements by Russians in Dniestr-Prut interfluve

Because I was talking only about this territory where I can be sure, no more.

I mentioned that it’s about only northern part maybe 10 times in all my posts.
Exactly as you have now said:

It's only that northern part of Bukovina because the rest of it was almost 100% Romanian.

I just do not know how one can write that there is a lack while I see a concentrated cluster of dots exactly there in the red circle between the two black lines literally called Dnestr and Prut.
Either one of us is blind or the other is delusional, so yes, this is pointless.

 

[Zeprion]

Not sure what triggered you to start moving to insults, but I assure you I didn't mean to offend you if I did it in some way. You missed the point of the question though.

I was exclusively curious why Kotyk considers the 14th century map with a lack of settlements by Russians in Dniestr-Prut interfluve as evidence for Ruthenian majority

The map actually confirms that areas around Khotyn – Chernivtsi, northern Bukovyna, Pocutia must belong to Halych or at least have a significant Halychian/Ruthenian majority in 1337.

One can write that there is lack because there are only 5 in the 14th century when there used to be so many more in the 9th century:

So, not that many anymore, the tendency seems to be a decrease. And then you saw those 5 settlements as evidence of Ruthenian majority and belonging to Halych, how?

5 settlements is evidence of presence, which I already said I believe there was some Ruthenian population there, but it's not confirmation of majority by itself in any way.

Yet that's exactly what you said, that this map confirms a majority.

To say nothing of this context:

We have 2 confirmed Vlach voivodships (sort-of duchies) in the region in 1337, in Onut (near Hotin) and Hansca (in the Lăpușnei region). They are mentioned to be ruled by Vlachs, meaning it couldn't have been part of Halych as they are listed as vassals to the Golden Horde and had a significant Vlach population else they wouldn't be ruled by a Vlach.
We also have further mentions of "tari" and "codrii" in in Onut, Bacota, Ușița, Cucelmin, Calius and North Bukovina, these essentially were Vlach political formations smaller than a voivodship.
We also have Niketas Choniates's chronicle about the Vlachs who captured Andronikos Komnenus in 1164 at the borders of Galicia. And the book Medieval Towns in the Romanian Principalities says that in 1352, the south-east border of Poland had reached the Ceremu river, near the lands inhabited by Romanians.
All of these point out to a significant Vlach population in the 14th century.

But context aside, how can the map confirm such a thing?

 

[Inzano]

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

Not sure what triggered you to start moving to insults, but I assure you I didn't mean to offend you if I did it in some way. You missed the point of the question though.


One can write that there is lack because there are only 5 in the 14th century when there used to be so many more in the 9th century:
View attachment 1245937
So, not that many anymore, the tendency seems to be a decrease. And then you saw those 5 settlements as evidence of Ruthenian majority and belonging to Halych, how?

5 settlements is evidence of presence, which I already said I believe there was some Ruthenian population there, but it's not confirmation of majority by itself in any way.

Yet that's exactly what you said, that this map confirms a majority.

To say nothing of this context:

But context aside, how can the map confirm such a thing?

Sorry if something sounded insulting, that was not an intention.
That is all I would like to add on the topic.

 

[Zeprion]

This sounded insulting:

Either one of us is blind or the other is delusional, so yes, this is pointless.

Which I think was uncalled for. I've already had my shares of insults with other Ukrainians and Russians on this topic. To which previously I would retaliate and then the whole topic would become a clusterfuck. I was hoping to have at least 1 civil discussion with 1 Ukrainian or Russian. I don't think I acted disrespectful towards you.

View attachment 1245939

I was only interested in asking "how does the map alone confirm a Ruthenian majority? when it shows a lack of settlements in the region in the 14th century when compared to the 9th century map before the Vlach migration", not discussing the broader Moldavia thing again, but it seems I can't even ask this without the situation degenerating again. At this point, I don't even know what to do to have a normal discussion. I should have probably stopped there, as @Linbot#6018 said:

Can we not please?

If I see someone mention the Ruthenian population in Moldova one more time I am going to combust. There is absolutely NOTHING further to be said. In fact we passed the point of NOTHING further to be said months ago. Surely you all have something better to do.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

Zeprion trying to not to start arguments challenge: impossible

 

[bokorthedust]

Either one of us is blind or the other is delusional

 

[Polesie Admiral]

View attachment 1245959

We are on a Balkan thread after all

 

[ibvfteh]

Here's a map of archaeological sites of Russians from the 14th century. It's not exhaustive but it shows a lack of settlements by Russians in Dniestr-Prut interfluve at this time.
View attachment 1243990
For comparison this was the situation back in the 9th century.
View attachment 1243991

https://archaeolog.ru/media/books_arch_ussr/ArchaeologyUSSR_06.pdf

As there happens to be a lot of misconceptions in the current dialogue over this paper I would like to clarify a bit for non-speakers.

I have kept the original legends of the images, so anyone can verify my translations.

here is the map of all Old Rus fortifications between the X-XII centuries, and other types of not fully studied memorials, presumed to be Rus‘ related. Numbers descriptions can be found in the text(with city names)

Here is the map of the major cities of Rus' of X-XII centuries

In Chapter 3, the paper goes into the details of how fortifications are dated and classified and how we can determine that there was a city.
Don't want to go into the details but this is what they worked with

But it is important to know, that the decision on who inhabited those cities was made based on: archaeological evidence(for example pottery, armour, documents, tools, etc). Based on everything they looked into, they have determined that those cities were populated by Rus' people.

here is the map of in-detail researched fortifications, where their area can be determined

1 - small fortification <0.3 ha
2 - medium 0.3 - 0.5 ha
3 - large 0.5 - 1.0 ha


now about the main maps

Here is the map of Rus' fortifications between the IX and the start of the XI centuries.
2 - is the border of Kievan Rus'
3 - border of chronicle evidence

Here is the map of Rus' fortifications between the XI and the start of the XII centuries.
2 - border of Kievan Rus'

Here is the map of Rus' fortifications between the XII and the middle of the XIII centuries.
2 - border of Kievan Rus'

Here is the map of Rus' fortifications, which WERE DESTROYED in the middle of the second half of the XIII century (and stopped existing)
1 - destroyed cities
2 - border of Kievan Rus'

Here is the map of Rus' fortifications, which were destroyed in the middle of the second half of the XIII century,
but at the end of the XIII century, they WERE REBUILD.

This map has been incorrectly interpreted and used here. The actual meaning is much more narrow. It is only the rebuilt cities, not all cities.


Here is the map of Rus' Church building style findings

1. - 1 or 2 examples
2. - 3 or 4
3. - from 5 to 9
4. - 10 or more

 

[ibvfteh]

One can write that there is lack because there are only 5 in the 14th century when there used to be so many more in the 9th century:

So, not that many anymore, the tendency seems to be a decrease. And then you saw those 5 settlements as evidence of Ruthenian majority and belonging to Halych, how?

5 settlements is evidence of presence, which I already said I believe there was some Ruthenian population there, but it's not confirmation of majority by itself in any way.

Yet that's exactly what you said, that this map confirms a majority.

Unfortunately, this is incorrect.

As you can see the second map is not the map of all cities in the 14th century

direct quote says

cities that were DESTROYED in XIII and REBUILD in XIII-early XIV (direct translation: where life recovered)
The cities do not need to be rebuilt if they were not destroyed. This can be a reason why there are not a lot of them.


Unfortunately, this misinterpretation was brought by:

Here's a map of archaeological sites of Russians from the 14th century. It's not exhaustive but it shows a lack of settlements by Russians in Dniestr-Prut interfluve at this time.

I believe it is better to use the summed map to make any judgement about representation (the first one in my longread). It is a sum of all cities founded between the X and the XII centuries minus the ones that were destroyed and plus the ones that were rebuilt if I understood it correctly.

 

[Slime99]

As there happens to be a lot of misconceptions in the current dialogue over this paper I would like to clarify a bit for non-speakers

View attachment 1245948
here is the map of all Old Rus fortifications between the X-XII centuries
View attachment 1245949

Here is the map of the major cities of Rus' of X-XII centuries
View attachment 1245950

View attachment 1245966

In Chapter 3, the paper goes into the details of how fortifications are dated and classified and how we can determine that there was a city.
Don't want to go into the details but this is what they worked with
View attachment 1245951View attachment 1245961View attachment 1245963View attachment 1245964
But it is important to know, that the decision on who inhabited those cities was made based on: archaeological evidence(for example pottery, armour, documents, tools, etc)

here is the map of their locations
View attachment 1245952
1 - small fortification <0.3 ha
2 - medium 0.3 - 0.5 ha
3 - large 0.5 - 1.0 ha


now about the main maps
View attachment 1245954
Here is the map of Rus' fortifications, that are dated between the IX and the start of the XI centuries.
2 - is the border of Kievan Rus'
3 - border of chronicle evidence

View attachment 1245955
Here is the map of Rus' fortifications, that are dated between the XI and the start of the XII centuries.
2 - border of Kievan Rus'

View attachment 1245956
Here is the map of Rus' fortifications, that are dated between the XII and the start of the XIII centuries.
2 - border of Kievan Rus'

View attachment 1245957
Here is the map of Rus' fortifications, which WERE DESTROYED in the middle of the second half of the XIII century
1 - destroyed cities
2 - border of Kievan Rus'

View attachment 1245958
Here is the map of Rus' fortifications, which were destroyed in the middle of the second half of the XIII century,
but at the end of the XIII century, they WERE REBUILD.


Here is the map of Rus' Church building style findings
View attachment 1245960



The main point I want to bring up is that it is not cities in the century N, it is cities that are dated to the century N, so, if cities were built in century N they will not be shown on the map of N+1 century unless it was destroyed and rebuild.

To be fair there's a reduction in new sites on the Dniestr between the 9th to 12th centuries which may be linked to the migration of Tivertsians out of the area after the Magyar, Pecheneg and later Cuman invasions of the area. And the Dniestr-Prut interfluve was certainly not spared by the Mongol invasion, so the lack of destroyed settlements itself is something to note.

 

[ibvfteh]

To be fair there's a reduction in new sites on the Dniestr between the 9th to 12th centuries which may be linked to the migration of Tivertsians out of the area after the Magyar, Pecheneg and later Cuman invasions of the area. And the Dniestr-Prut interfluve was certainly not spared by the Mongol invasion, so the lack of destroyed settlements itself is something to note.

And, to be fair, what is of higher importance is that there is a relatively big cluster of cities, rebuilt by Rus‘ people in XIII century near Chernivtsi in Northern Bukovina. The number of cities even increased between the XI and XII centuries (check the region on the maps). Which for me indicates that the area was quite safe for Rus‘ people to remain there after all those invasions.

XI and XII centuries respectively.

As we can see, there was a major destruction of the area, but cities were rebuilt, and not all were destroyed.

The first map is total city destruction, the second, is destroyed and rebuilt cities.




Also big chunk of the cities around Dniestr are not marked as destroyed in the text, which can be an error, or their fate was spared by the Golden Horde (which they did a lot I believe)

 

[ArVass]

View attachment 1240334

Looks like there were some culture changes. For the better and for the worse. If anyone can make a more zoomed in and clearer image please do so.

View attachment 1240335

Unfortunately, Transylvanian Romanian and Transylvanian Saxon still have almost exactly the same colour, hope that will change too.

 

[Wildrake]

At the end of the day it's what source you choose to believe, cause the Russian toponyms and Romanian hydronyms sources contradict each other.

They don't contradict much because the legend for study says that RSL and RD are Romania hydronyms based on non-Latin words.

In particular, it mentions that hydronyms of Slavic origin (SL) and of Romano-Slavic origin (RSL) are correlated in their spread. So it is likely that RSL is a Slavic hydronyms that were translated into Romanian later. Area 5 on their map, has 11% Romanian hydronyms, 36% Slavic hydronyms and 30% of Romano-Slavic hydronyms, which, considering the above can (or can't,depending on how nationalist you are) also translate into 11% Romanian and 66% Slavic (+ RD around 20% Romanian) or 36% Slavic and 41% Romanian (+ RD around 50% Romanian)

Also this study, for some reason, lists hydronyms based on the words "drag"(dear), "bogat" (rich) and "iubit" (beloved) as Romanian when all three words are loans from Slavic roots drag-, bogat- and lubit-

 

[Zeprion]

View attachment 1245992
They don't contradict much because the legend for study says that RSL and RD are Romania hydronyms based on non-Latin words.

How so? the Romanian hydronyms dominate everywhere except in Budjak where there is like 50%-50% with Turkic.

Areas:

Area 1: "A first type covers the central-southern part of historical Moldavia, extending along the Prut River to the Lower Danube. It is the area with the largest share of Romanian hydronyms (including those derived from loans)" - about 90% as we can see from the table.

Area 2: "It is surrounded by type 2, a larger area covering the middle part of the region (the Siret–Prut interfluves, with extensions to the basins of Moldova, Suceava and the Middle Prut), where the weight of the Slavic hydronyms is significantly more important." - type 2 has about 80% Romanian toponyms.

Area 3 & 4: "Laterally, two other areas belonging to types 3 and 4 are distinguished, whose structure, similar to the types 1 and 2, is characterized by a significant share of hydronyms of Hungarian (type 3, located in the Carpathian and Subcarpathian areas) and Turkic origin (type 4, extended in the north-central part of Bessarabia), respectively".

Area 5: "Type 5 groups a strip in the shape of an arc of a circle, from the Ceremuș to the Middle Dniester river upstream of the confluence with Răut, where the weight of the Slavic hydronyms is very important, including in the form derived in or adapted to Romanian. Another peculiarity, already mentioned, is the frequent presence of some hydronyms of unclear origin. If in the northwest the predominant presence of the Ukrainian population justifies this situation, along the middle valley of the Dniester, on the present territory of the Republic of Moldova, this structure can be attributed to a massive slave presence in the past. According to the opinion of some scholars, the Slav tribe of the Tiverts mentioned in the medieval Russian chronicles (Spinei, 1999, p. 113) settled down between Răut and Dniester rivers."

Area 6: "The last type, 6, is very clearly personalized by an almost perfectly balanced combination of Turkic and Romanian hydronyms. The poor presence of Slavic hydronyms (most adapted to Romanian) can be attributed to the use of the Budjak region as the basis for the expansion of nomadic populations or as a transit area. Surprisingly, however, there is a massive and sustainable presence of Romanian hydronyms (including in the case of some channels linking the Danube to the lakes of southern Bessarabia)"

RSL and RD are Romanian hydronyms derived from words of slavic origin & other origins respectively.

This is a distinction that the Russian topography map does not make. So it is likely that in that study everything remotely slavic was listed as Ruthenian. Where as today about 20% of Romanian words are of slavic origin & in the past it used to be much higher, as there was re-latinization of Romanian in the 18th and 19th centuries.

View attachment 1245997
In particular, it mentions that hydronyms of Slavic origin (SL) and of Romano-Slavic origin (RSL) are correlated in their spread. So it is likely that RSL is a Slavic hydronyms that were translated into Romanian later. Area 5 on their map, has 11% Romanian hydronyms, 36% Slavic hydronyms and 30% of Romano-Slavic hydronyms, which, considering the above can (or can't) also translate into 11% Romanian and 66% Slavic.

There are a lot of assumptions here that the study simply does not make.

I cannot find in the study where you read that there are 11% Romanian hydronyms in Area 5. It says about 60% Romanian hydronyms based on the graph, which is the second lowest when compared to other regions but still a majority. And there is no such thing as Romano-Slavic hydronyms in the study. RSL is defined as Romanian derived from slavic loanwords, rather than Romano-Slavic.

This SL <-> RSL distinction is key because unlike the Russian topography map, the Romanian hydronyms map makes the difference between toponyms of Slavic origin and toponyms of Romanian origin derived from Slavic.

As the study says, there is a higher amount of RSL in region 5 because there is also a higher amount of SL (thus Slavs) in region 5. So it would naturally lead to more slavic loanwords being used by Romanians.

Area 5 is this one, right on the border regions:

But this is not the same thing as RSL being Slavic hydronyms that were translated into Romanian later. In fact, nowhere is such a thing said in the study.

Here the study speaks of the EN hydronyms, they are clearly translated into Romanian, but are not listed as RD rather EN. As they are not Romanian hydronyms derived from words of other origins, but simply hydronyms of unknown or uncertain origin. So translation into Romanian is not a criteria for becoming RD or RSL.

The study further addresses hydronyms that were translated later, so it is likely if that was the meaning of RSL it would have been stated as such. The first paragraph speaks about region 5 and this is Priscaru 2013 https://www.philippide.ro/Arhiva/Volume/cultura_2010/2013_18_Prisacaru 2010.pdf which says that after 1775 the names of Bucovina localities had their physiognomy well established, almost the entire minor topical nomenclature was Romanian and then explains how names were changed by the Austrian administration.

The first paragraph speaks about region 5 & third about hydronyms that were translated:

View attachment 1246002
Also this study, for some reason, lists hydronyms based on words "drag"(dear), "bogat" (rich) and "iubit" (beloved) as Romanian when all three words are loans from Slavic roots drag-, bogat- and lubit-

They are RSL. "drag", "bogat" and "iubit" also exist in Romanian with the same meaning. As you can see here, R, RD and RSL are understood as Romanian.

 

[ibvfteh]

Why is the city of the Golden Horde called Shehr al-Jadid (Romanian: Şehr al-Djedid) no longer a part of the Golden Horde? Neither does it have a Tatar majority?

Spoiler: Data about this city and villages around it

Archaeological finds — kilns to produce pottery and furnaces to puddle iron ore — identify towns that were important economic centres of the Golden Horde. At Orheiul Vechi, the ruins of a mosque and a bath were also excavated. The local inhabitants used high-quality ceramics (amphorae-like vessels, pitchers, mugs, jars and pots), similar to those found in other parts of the Golden Horde. The Mongols supported international commerce, which led to the formation of a "Mongol road" from Kraków along the Dniester. Almost 5000 Mongol coins from the first half of the 14th century have been excavated in the same region. At the mouth of the Dniester, Cetatea Albă (now Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi in Ukraine) developed into an important emporium.

It even minted currency later that time
View attachment 1221378

this Tatar city is believed to have been established toward the end of the 13th century on the rocky banks of the Răut River. Between 1363–65, Orheiul Vechi served as the residence of the future leader of the Horde, Khan Abdullah (1367–68).
According to: Gheorghe Postică, Orheiul Vechi. Cerecetări arheologice (1996–2001), Iași, Editura Universitășii A.I. Cuza, 2006, p. 56

View attachment 1221379
This source claims that Golden Horde has colonised this area by bringing people, to manufacture goods there. Claims the city fell when the Tatars were defeated

Wikipedia says:



The city was destroyed only after the Mongols had abandoned the Prut-Dniestrian region in 1369
There was a presence of Islam and Mosque was constructed

taken from a tourist guide:


the data provided by @CocoBZ
View attachment 1223092
View attachment 1223093

Here is the research of the Golden Horde city near Costești village in Ialoveni District (Near Chișinău)

Map of where those cities are located
View attachment 1223094

here is a selection from my previous source
View attachment 1221755
all those dots with half white and half black indicate settlements by the Golden Horde
View attachment 1221775

I propose a new location called Yanghi Shehr or Shehr al-Jadid, which will include those Golden Horde settlements and the city itself
View attachment 1221777
or like this to keep Orhei
View attachment 1222353
Making an alternative name for Orhei or Tuzara will move the border too deep into independent duchies. An alternative name for Chisinau can work, but the city is too far from the location. That's why I think creating a new location or extending the Chisinau location upwards is better.


The other city of the Golden Horde is named: Ак-Либо Aq-Libo or Moncastro. It should have both Italian and Turkic populations. In the 13th century, the site was controlled by the Cumans and became a center of Genoese commercial activity from c. 1290 on. In the early 14th century, by the middle of the century it was a Genoese colony

Vicina - was a town on the Danube used as a trading post by the Republic of Genoa. In the 12th century, the Arab geographer al-Idrīsī called the town Disina. At the end of the 14th century, Vicina was under Byzantine control, and according to a document from 1337-1338, it was ruled by "infamous heathens", presumably Mongols, Turks or Tatars. Portolan charts place this city right after Drinago (which is assumed to be modern Brăila), south of the Danube. Based on this, many historians identified it with Isaccea
source: Rădvan, Laurențiu. At Europe's Borders: Medieval Towns in the Romanian Principalities, Brill, 2010

Issacea



I want to claim that there are no sources that say there was the presence of Moldavians/Romanians in Budjak/Bessarabia
View attachment 1221318
There were also no villages of Romanian or Slavic origin in Budjak/Bessarabia


All the knowledge we have is:
Brodnici has populated this area. It is highly debated whether they were Slavic or Turkic people or a mix of both. Berladnici is considered East Brodnics

Spoiler: Their history and area

View attachment 1221324

In 1216 they were in the service of the knyaz of Suzdal.

In 1222, the Hungarian king Andrew II gave the Burzenland to the Teutonic Knights, delimiting it by the land of the Brodnici. A Papal bull of Pope Honorius III confirmed the charter in the same year; however, in the copy approved by the Vatican, "Brodnicorum" was replaced by "Blacorum" (i.e., "Vlachs" in Latin). While some historians believe that this shows that the terms were equivalent, others claim that this was just an error. The latter base their claim on the fact that the two terms were used together in several Hungarian documents, very unusual if referring to the same population.

The Novgorod First Chronicle says that in 1223 the Brodnici took part in the Battle of Kalka on the side of Mongols ("Tatars").

When speaking about Brodniks, the Chronicle mentions voivode Ploskynya (the name of the voivode is sometimes rendered as Ploscânea in Romanian historiography) who deceived knyaz Mstislav Romanovich and delivered him to "Tatars". Some researchers conclude that Ploskynya was the Brodnik commander. According to some researchers, the Chronicle should be interpreted as "And there Brodniks were with Tatars, and their Voivod Ploskynya [...]". However others disagree, considering that the source should be translated as "And there Brodniks were with Tatars, and Voivod Ploskynya, [...]". After this date, they disappeared from Russian sources.

In August 1227 Pope Gregory IX wrote a letter to the bishop of Esztergom instructing him to convert to Christianity "in Cumania et Bordinia terra illis vicina".

A November 11, 1250 letter of King Béla IV of Hungary to Pope Innocent IV says that Tatars imposed tribute onto the countries neighbouring his kingdom: "que ex parte Orientis cum regno nostro conterminantur, sicut Ruscia, Cumania, Brodnici, Bulgaria".

Nomadic populations do not build cities. It is the definition of being nomadic. This is why I think those areas should be majority Turkic populated

This is why I propose the border for the majority Turkic population provinces like this. Straight on the border where villages were not founded at all
View attachment 1221779


On the sidenote
View attachment 1223088
It is too early for the Nogai population! I think they have not lived here before the split of the Nogai Horde in 1557 into the Lesser Nogai Horde (in Crimea) and the Greater Nogai Horde. I think its better to make them Crimean.

However, I see where it comes from

Wikipedia about Isaccea says:


the land was settled by Nogai Khan and Nogai Tatars in this context means Tatars that were under the control of Nogai (who controlled the entire Golden Horde). So at that time, all Tatars were Nogai Tatars.

It should be Crimean Tatars or some new culture because they are connected with Nogay Tatars of Kazakhstan only by their name.

To add to Budjak, I would like to add information presented here:

View attachment 1240043

Археологические памятники кочевников Центральной Азии в Восточной Европе в XIII-XIV вв

Проблема выделения археологических памятников монголов периода монгольского завоевания Восточной Европы и Золотой Орды давно привлекает внимание исследователей истории и культуры средневековых кочевников. Многие современные археологи разделяют точку зрения, высказанную в свое время Г.А. Федоровым-Давыдовым, согласно которой именно племенами, пришедшими из Центральной Азии, оставлены в степях Восточной Европы захоронения, совершенные под каменными сооружениями. Однако этническая интерпретация подобных памятников затруднена тем, что на востоке Великого пояса степей Евразии до сих пор не выявлены археологические признаки монголов до начала их завоеваний. В статье рассматривается динамика распространения «каменных курганов» в степях Восточной Европы с конца IX по XIV вв. Они встречаются как среди печенежских и огузских памятников (5%), так и среди кыпчакских / половецких (10%). Но только в виде отдельных захоронений, спорадически разбросанных по степи. Говорить о том, что кочевники, оставившие эти памятники, играли заметную роль в этнической карте степей Восточной Европы до монгольского нашествия, не приходится. Ситуация меняется в XIII-XIV вв. На территории Золотой Орды «каменные курганы» составляют уже почти 20% от общего числа погребений кочевников, и они образуют две локальные группы: степи Южного Урала и бассейн р. Дон. Эти данные хорошо согласуются с данными письменных источников об участии в монгольских завоеваниях племен, генетически связанных с кочевниками Центральной Азии найманами, карлуками, кушчи, буйрака-ми. Именно они составляли этническое ядро Улуса Шибана младшего брата хана Бату.

cyberleninka.ru

We can see that there are Kurgans of nomadic Turkic populations there. From both the Golden Horde and Pechenegs/Cumans/Kipchaks. Which can indicate a sizeable presence of the nomad Tatars there. More developed areas like the entire Volga River and, in our case, around Shehr al-Jadid did not have them.

 

[ibvfteh]

At the end of the day it's what source you choose to believe, cause the Russian toponyms and Romanian hydronyms sources contradict each other.

They don't contradict much because the legend for study says that RSL and RD are Romania hydronyms based on non-Latin words.

I find it difficult to understand why hydronyms are being used as a basis for cultural representation of the Moldavia area in 1337. The study does not provide any specific dates for the naming of these rivers or establish any temporal framework that ties these names to the 14th century. Without such a critical context, the use of hydronyms as evidence for cultural divisions in the 14th century seems speculative at best.

The Author quotes another source, which says that there was a massive change of toponymy during the Austro-Hungarian occupation, including the translation or adaptation of some Romanian names in Ukrainian.

While these claims "are supported by other scholars", they inherently emphasize the fluidity of hydronyms. If significant toponymic changes occurred during the 18th and 19th centuries, how can these same hydronyms reflect the cultural or linguistic realities of the 14th century?

The paper even acknowledges an alternative view, that all Romanian hydronyms of Dniestr are dated to the 18th century

which is truthfully a strange claim for me.

But, with all due respect, an argument that "all of those names were created in the 18th century" is as valid as "all of this showcases the cultural representation of 1337".

The rivers could have been named this way before the start date, during the timeframe or even after the game scope, we do not know, and the authors do not specify that.

For instance, the Rhine and Danube rivers have Celtic names.
Does this fact meaningfully inform us about the cultural divisions of the 14th century?
Likely not.


As we discussed for a hundred pages this region has changed multiple times. And looking at the modern river names does not help (at least me) to make any conclusions about cultural divisions in 1337, or in the XIVth century in general.

This is why I believe it is important to look into the closest possible data to the 14th century.

Compare that with the recent archaeological research (on this page) or toponymic research I have used before.
And hydronymic analysis can not contradict it, as this analysis lacks the timeframe for the analysed subjects.

 

[Zeprion]

I find it difficult to understand why hydronyms are being used as a basis for cultural representation of the Moldavia area in 1337. The study does not provide any specific dates for the naming of these rivers or establish any temporal framework that ties these names to the 14th century. Without such a critical context, the use of hydronyms as evidence for cultural divisions in the 14th century seems speculative at best.

The Author quotes another source, which says that there was a massive change of toponymy during the Austro-Hungarian occupation, including the translation or adaptation of some Romanian names in Ukrainian.
View attachment 1246093

While these claims "are supported by other scholars", they inherently emphasize the fluidity of hydronyms. If significant toponymic changes occurred during the 18th and 19th centuries, how can these same hydronyms reflect the cultural or linguistic realities of the 14th century?

The paper even acknowledges an alternative view, that all Romanian hydronyms of Dniestr are dated to the 18th century
View attachment 1246094
which is truthfully a strange claim for me.

But, with all due respect, an argument "all of those names were created in the 18th century" is as valid as "all of this showcases the cultural representation of 1337".

The rivers could have been named this way before the start date, during the timeframe or even after the game scope, we do not know, and the authors do not specify that.

For instance, the Rhine and Danube rivers have Celtic names.
Does this fact meaningfully inform us about the cultural divisions of the 14th century?
Likely not.


As we discussed for a hundred pages this region has changed multiple times. And looking at the modern river names does not help (at least me) to make any conclusions about cultural divisions in 1337, or in the XIVth century in general.

This is why I believe it is important to look into the closest possible data to the 14th century.

What else can we use? I also find it difficult to understand why toponyms are being used as a basis for cultural representation of the Moldavia area in 1337. Especially when the study in question makes no difference between toponyms of Slavic origin and toponyms of Romanian origin derived from Slavic. Assuming everything slavic-like must be Ruthenian despite the Vlachs having strong slavic influences since the time of slavic migrations & First Bulgarian Empire.

Even stronger than today due to the re-latinization of Romanian in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The same issue that the study does not provide any specific dates for the naming is also present in the toponyms study. Namely, that if it is possible in the 21st century for people to inhabit localities with names which hold no meaning for them, it was no less possible in the 1337, as toponyms merely explain the name of those who founded the cities. Not the ones who currently live in them in 1337. Considering we have strong slavic presence in 9th century followed by a Romanian migration in 10th-11th centuries, it's very possible many of the old names remained in 1337 despite not being inhabited by slavs anymore.

Which likewise, without such a critical context, the use of toponyms as evidence for cultural divisions in the 14th century seems speculative at best.

The hydronyms study at least makes the Slavic origin <-> Romanian origin derived from Slavic distinction. Which doesn't make it infallible but at least makes it more accurate than the toponyms study.

While I acknowledge the temporal issue, this does not mean the toponyms study doesn't have said temporal issue. How do we know that a village, city or fort with a slavic name is still inhabited by slavs in 1337?

The best educated guess we can make based on the toponym is that it was founded by slavs somewhere in the past. Founding which is not the same thing as first mention.

And on top of that, it makes no difference between the Slavic <-> Romanian derived from Slavic cases.

We know that the Romanians migrated in the region roughly around the 10th-11th centuries and that before that there were more slavs in Moldavia. As such, except for new villages and cities they founded, the ones where they assimilated the slavs had slavic names and likely kept their slavic names afterwards.

So, how can you tell?

As you have said this region has changed multiple times. This is why I do not find either hydronyms or toponyms infallible. I believe the best educated guess we can make for the context of 1337 is by looking at the sources around 1337. Which there are, scarce, but there are.

This is why I insisted a lot with the Vlach voivodships, tari and codrii, records of Vlachs in 1164 at the borders of Galicia, I believe mentions of said people in the region takes precedence over hydronyms or toponyms.

Really, I think we all agree that there were some Romanians and some Ruthenians in Northern Moldavia, the question that spammed 20 pages is whether there were more Romanians or Ruthenians. And for me, the answer to that lies in the fact that they were ruled by Vlachs. Sure, it's not out of the question for a population to rule over the other without being a majority at that time. But in this particular case, I doubt that is the case because the Vlachs weren't warrior-like.

And I doubt they had such a striking charisma that the Ruthenians were like "hey, there's more of us, but let's put these Vlachs in charge" especially with the Halych principality that they could be a part of next door.

Doesn't make any sense why the Ruthenians would allow a Vlach military and administrative control unless they were a minority. It's like when Gardizi described the mas "more numerous than the Hungarians, but weaker", yes, other people have been warriors & raiders for centuries. The Vlachs were shepherds for centuries, forming states of their own very late when compared to others.

On the other hand, aside from hydronyms or toponyms, what evidence do we have of Ruthenian majority in Northern Moldavia? I mean of majority not mention because as we've established, both are mentioned. For the Vlachs, I found that they were ruled by Vlachs.

EDIT:

Compare that with the recent archaeological research (on this page) or toponymic research I have used before.
And hydronymic analysis can not contradict it, as this analysis lacks the timeframe for the analysed subjects.

I do not want to take away from the main point, so I'll write it here. So let's just make a summary, if you want I can copy-paste but I think this topic already has enough letters as it is.

A few small notes on the link you provided with your posts:

- Chernivtsi is still a Slavic city, even in Austrian censuses a lot of villages around it were Slavic. Why is it here with a Moldavian majority? Even though there are dozens of Slavic villages everywhere both now and in the 14th century? -> Chernivtsi was a Romanian city in 1774 if estimations are to be believed. And the map in question is from one of the most conservative estimations, with 60% Romanians where as others go as far as 75% or 80%. While for the Slavic villages it's the question of "how do we know it was really inhabited by slavs?" as in the main post, this hydronyms study showed that the areas with most Slavic hydronyms were also the areas with most Romanian hydronyms derived from words of slavic origin, so there is a correlation. And aside from "is it slavic or Romanian derived from slavic?" there is also the eternal original inhabitants question which pretty much applies to everything that is based on a toponym.

- Most historians put the Bolokhovians outside of Moldavia. And the one that put them inside Moldavia believes they are Romanians.

- Mentions with the tale of Igor's campaign & Kyiv chronicle of Hypatean chronicle. So, presence.

- The "Galați = Malyi Halych (Little Halych)" is a fake, was discussed a few pages ago, can look for it if you want.

- Ruthenian vicariate (vicaria Russiae) was a religious missions, with Romanians being of the same religion so it would make sense to visit those towns. It doesn't mean that they were Ruthenian because they visited them.

- The List of Russian Cities, we had a long discussion about this one, it doesn't mean that there were a lot of people who could communicate in a Slavic language. The list is just the city and who controls them (i.e Bulgarians, Vlachs, Lithuanians, etc). It's unknown why the author regarded the Moldovans as "Russian" but that list does not represent a list of all the cities were people speak Russian.

- The Polish source by Jan Dlugosz, most other contemporaries disagree with him, was also discussed a few pages ago, can look it up.

- Grigore Ureche, we talked this to death very early on this topic, it did not say that about the founding of Moldavia. It was a mistranslation on your part.

 

[ibvfteh]

The same issue that the study does not provide any specific dates for the naming is also present in the toponyms study.

A toponymic study has been provided for the cities in the 14th century. They were dated by the author. It directly shows the trend of the population in Northern Bukovina in the XIVth century to name new villages with Slavic roots and rules, and in Moldavian proper with Romanian roots and rules. For more details please refer to my breakdowns of it here and highly detailed here. Every major map has a date assigned to it.

The best educated guess we can make based on the toponym is that it was founded by slavs somewhere in the past. Founding which is not the same thing as first mention.

As I have outlined multiple times, the paper directly calculates the time of the foundation of every city.

here is an example directly from the source. The first column is the name, the second column is the first mention, and the third column is the presumed foundation date. I have translated the methodology before. The author has been operating with them to eliminate cities that were outside of the scope.

While I acknowledge the temporal issue, this does not mean the toponyms study doesn't have said temporal issue. How do we know that a village, city or fort with a slavic name is still inhabited by slavs in 1337?

because of that, I believe the temporal issue does not relate to toponymic study. Villages number has drastically increased, and the respective regions remained with their linguistic descriptions

maps of the 14th and 15th centuries for comparison. The amount of Slavic names for villages only increased in the area of Northern Bukovina. This can be attributed to the Slavic speakers who founded those villages between the 14th and 15th centuries. This indicated that they were a strong sizeable majority.
And in central Moldavia, Romanian villages were built, indicating strong Romanian majority.

We know that the Romanians migrated in the region roughly around the 10th-11th centuries and that before that there were more slavs in Moldavia. As such, except for new villages and cities they founded, the ones where they assimilated the slavs had slavic names and likely kept their slavic names afterwards.

So, how can you tell?

On the other hand, aside from hydronyms or toponyms, what evidence do we have of Ruthenian majority in Northern Moldavia? I mean of majority not mention because as we've established, both are mentioned. For the Vlachs, I found that they were ruled by Vlachs.

Archaeological research provided here beautifully fills this gap.
It only supports the current claim that those cities were Ruthenian.

This study shows Slavic cities in the X - XIII centuries.

They were Slavic because of building constructions, coins, armour, pottery, instruments, and documents that were found on those spots. As you can see only Bukovina and Dniestr are indicated to have them (regions under question).

In the end, both archaeological and toponymic evidence suggests that there has been a strong majority of Slavic speakers in areas in question.

 

[ibvfteh]

This is why I insisted a lot with the Vlach voivodships, tari and codrii, records of Vlachs in 1164 at the borders of Galicia, I believe mentions of said people in the region takes precedence over hydronyms or toponyms

And I doubt they had such a striking charisma that the Ruthenians were like "hey, there's more of us, but let's put these Vlachs in charge" especially with the Halych principality that they could be a part of next door.

Doesn't make any sense why the Ruthenians would allow a Vlach military and administrative control unless they were a minority. It's like when Gardizi described the mas "more numerous than the Hungarians, but weaker", yes, other people have been warriors & raiders for centuries. The Vlachs were shepherds for centuries, forming states of their own very late when compared to others.

The Norman Conquest (or the Conquest) was the 11th-century invasion and occupation of England by an army made up of thousands of Norman, French, Flemish, and Breton troops, all led by the Duke of Normandy, later styled William the Conqueror.

How could English people accept the rule of the French kings?

I doubt they had such a striking charisma that the English people were like "hey, there's more of us, but let these French be in charge undisputed for hundreds of years"

Doesn't make any sense why the English would allow a French administrative control unless they were a minority.

However English people just accepted them as kings and even now half of English language is attributed to the French dominance and influence over it.

Irony aside, how does this happened, but Ruthenians can not be ruled by Vlachs?

It is not like we have an another separate instance when Rus‘ population has asked to rule over them (or was conquered by) a person of different language…. Yeah it happened before...

The main point is, it happened. More times that I have mentioned. Let’s not make arguments like this could not happen if it did. People of that time cared more about religion rather than culture or language.