Talk:Protochronism

• Archive 1

To Moa

As conclusion, i think "dacomania" was how nothing to do with real dacians.

I don't understand your logic. Dacomania claims that the Dacians were the precursors of civilization in Europe. Of course, it had nothing to do with reality, but it was about Dacians! bogdan 10:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If i look better, this article should speak more about how this theory was based on "who rules" and on "the power of the dacian nation".

No. This theory was not only about the power of Dacians, but also about their "very advanced culture". bogdan 10:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As a result there was no Protochronism about the ocntinuity of the culture of the real dacian people.

Sorry, but that's false. Protochronism claimed that the Romanian culture is essentially Dacian and that the Romans were: (quote from Verdery) "foreigners who had come from abroad to subjugate the indigenes". And since they were "mostly Dacians", the Romanians had no reason to leave Dacia during the Roman withdrawal and therefore the continuity was "explained". bogdan 10:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if Dacian were speaking a language close to latin, lingvists say that there are ONLY 4 original languages on the planet.

I'm sorry, but that's also false. There are hundreds of unrelated language families and many other language isolates. (see the article for a list). bogdan 10:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Ceausescu was completly mad, and nothing he ever sad was neither locical or part of a grater (conspiracy-)theory. He was speaking LIKE A CHILD.

But this theory was not developed by him. No, there were historians that started the pseudo-historical theories, in order to climb faster the hierarchy. Ceausescu approved them because they were ways to glorify Romanian people and him. bogdan 10:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Moa, beside the excellent points made by Bogdan, I want to point out that you misunderstood major sentences in the article:

1. It says nowhere that the attitude was limited to Ceausism - the closest thing is that "the term was coined to describe Ceausescu's", but that it has been applied to anything before and after that displays this "logic".
2. the preference for Dacology means just that: the preference for the term Dacology.Dahn 12:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I still don't belive Ceausescu and Protochronism was about continuity with dacians only.

Then may I ask you, what was it about? The idea behind all this was that the Romanian people and of course, their leaders, were unique. Latin heritage was "shared" with the evil Capitalist Westerners, so that's why it was not convenient to promote them. While it is true that Ceausescu was sometimes compared to Trajan (both great leaders, etc), there were no new theories about the Roman Empire... bogdan 23:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if there were this tendecy when it was usefull, it was not in my opinion somthing that people were obliged to think, so it was not the real official position even if it might seem to be. In a communist country, more than one teory can be sustained simultaneously, and the rulers can choose either one depending on the situation.

"foreigners who had come from abroad to subjugate the indigenes" - this is more or less true historically speaking, even if dacians were atacking the romans from time to time. And therefore the continuity was "explained"? I think in the communist time there was nead to invent a story to explain the continuity... this was closed subject long before. By the way, the continuity was explained long before communism, since the creation of the Romanian state, even before... Those who explained this theory were the "Scoala Ardeleana" and others.

Moa3333 21:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with the way you dismiss the origins of the Romanians as being something settled. The truth is that historians make only speculations on the place where the ethnogenesis happened, but they have no definite proof for either side. bogdan 23:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And befor speaking about daco-mania, what about post-communism RO-mania? Moa3333 21:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Moa, keep to those beliefs and we will keep to proof. And that linear "was explained" does not work as an argument - since we are having this debate now. If you have no proof to back your claims (!about the modern ideology, that is), then kindly remove the template at the top of the page. Dahn 23:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Modifications

I made a few modifications that alow me to erase the template from the top of the article. I have however kept this only for a little part of the article, witch i would like to see the sources... (like "dacians having no writing systems" versus "dacians not using offten their writing system because they used voice and did not found any economical interest in writing a lot - witch was very EXPENSIVE at that time") Moa3333 21:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

1. What say you learn to write in English first?
2. Again, what say you read reference provided before questiong it?
3. What say you do not consider "not having a writing system" an insult, and stop providing superfluous "information"? Dahn 21:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why expensive? You can write on big rocks, like the Old Norse people did, you can write on wax tablets like the Romans did, you can write on pots like the Greeks did, on bark like the Chinese, on linen, on hides, etc. The Dacians have not produced any writings in their language, with the exception of an one-liner: "DECEBALUSPERSCORILO". bogdan 22:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider an insult the fact that i do not know english perfectly. I try my best to learn english, and Wikipedia is a good way to do so.

It is one of the reasons i contribute to Wikipedia. I will read reference, if there is a prove that dacians were not writing... Pardon, but "not having a writing system" is an insult to dacian people... oups, i mean to science. You cannot say this without a proove, but i will read the reference first.

You can't have a proof for the non-existence of something. The same argument could go on about the Dacians driving flying saucers: it is not possible to prove the non-existence of the Dacian spaceships. bogdan 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If there are errors, gramatical, you can correct them (or i will have a look later on the article). Or would you like a diferent article? I would like to know what you think about the rest of the article, before editing the last chapter.

Please be polite: wikipedia is just a place to have fun, and to make jokes! Moa3333 22:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I would prefer reverting you edits. It is not an insult to anything that they did not have a writing system: I don't respect a civ. any less for not having one, but I cannot respect people who say it did, when there is no proof of that. Your logic is faulty: you are asking me to provide proof that something did not happen while there is no proof of it happening (Occam's blade should deal with that). Sure it could've happened otherwise, but this is no place for fantasy. Furthermore, Bogdan provided details of Dacian's relation to writing, from what is known (not from what can be speculated). I don't want to discourage you in any way, and I didn't mean to insult you when mentioning your English skills. But you see, I get tired of endlessly correcting rows of letters just because someone thought of "improving" info. Frankly, you're not at all constructive. Dahn 22:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What about dacian coins, from about 80 before JC. It seems there is something writen on them. Moa3333 18:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you've heard of this, but the Dacians were quite good at counterfeiting Greek and Roman coins. :-) Many of their coins are imitations of the Roman denarii. See this article. However, some Dacian coins (especially from areas that had commercial links with the Greek colonies) are manufacture using the Greek technology and write the name of local kings with Greek alphabet. bogdan 18:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I realy think the way all this is explained is not very NPOV. I t gives the impression that everythink was "invented" by nationalists in order to explain a false théory. It is very bad to do that. Let's only take the phrase "Dacians easily adopted and subsequently influenced the religion which would have been preached to them by Saint Andrew (considered, doubtfuly, as the clear origin of modern-day Romanian Orthodoxy).". This phrase will induce people in error:

• In romania there was NOONE who imposed the religion, as we have no information about anyone introducing the christianity, like we have in most other countries. It is exactly like the writing system, you cannot prove dacians were not writing, and you cannot prove ortidixy was brought in Roamnia/Dacia by some kind of king or religious empreror since there is no info on that.
• Saint andrew did preached in the territory of Romania, and we have good evidence of that. (very old scriptures, etc). Since you have this information, you can on the contrary suppose that christianity came very early.
• "considered, doubtfuly, as the clear origin of modern-day Romanian Orthodoxy" - another phras that is completly NPOV. Who consider that? who is doubtfull about that? It gives again the impression everythink was invented by the daco-manians, and that there is no real background. In fact, it is not the protochronism who invented anything about Saint Andrew. It is the founding mith of the Romanian Ortodox Church, a church that has diferent traditions than ANY other Ortodox churches in the world. For example it is the only Ortodox church that teaches aposolism, living like the apostols. It is an autonom church, and that has this founding mith, like the catolic church has the myth that he was founded by Perer Simon, who came to Rome. We can say the same about "Peter, considered, doubtfuly, as the clear origin of modern-day Catolicism", while the catolic church consider him the first pope...

This is only one of the many thinks i don't like about false suppositions in this article. Moa3333 18:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, the opposite of preaching from an apostle is not "imposing" (though, for the love of God, I don't see what's wrong with that on principle - it happened in so many places, but, of course, Romania has to be the exception). That pedigree is doubtful, nay, idiotic.

Let me see if I get your point: "I don't want it to be assumed that religion was imposed on me, so it would have to be preached by a guy who spoke to Jesus. Anything else would be imposing." Let's say it wasn't imposed. But what if I tell you that, adopted or imposed, it is very unlikely:

1 That Andrew ever came here - not only is hagiography late and biased, it does not mention the place with enough clarity. The mention of "Schythia" is vague enough to mean nothing - which is why he's the patron saint of Russia.

2 That a preaching would've had large effect (especially since you have no proof that it wasn't confined to Dobruja - not really connected politically to the rest, from then on until 1878 AD)

3 That any "preaching" sits at the source of the modern-day church (surely, Teoctist and the rest like to think so, but you'll understand why their assesment is biased). Dahn 19:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are no archeological proofs of Andrew's voyage. AFAIK, in Dobruja there are no proofs of the existence of Christianity before the 3rd/4th century, when it was brought from Rome by Christians wanting to escape persecutions.

Also, the place where the Romanian people formed was not even close to Dobruja. It was either in Transylvania, Banat, Oltenia or the south toward the Balkan Mountains.

Then, finally, Romanian has all their early Christian words (Dumnezeu, cruce, înger, păcat, paşte, etc) of Latin origin and no Ancient Greek/Aramaic words, which shows that the Romanian Christianity came directly from Rome. bogdan 20:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i think i came to my last thing. Lets say we do not chage anything. But why put all together? The early nationalism, with the communist influecnes, and the current supposed continuation with Savescu etc...? What is this? Some conspiration-theory? Are they conspiring from the early 17 century to make Romania be 4000 old??

Where do you see anything about early 17th century in the article ? bogdan 20:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think at the begining there was only a few marginal writers, this ides were not ment to do any harm, they were no mania, people were less scientific than today.

Less scientific? I'm sorry, but that's not true. The scientific method was already developed by then. bogdan 20:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Usualy it was the romnian poets and writers who said that, not the historians (Hasdeu was a simple writer i think, not a real historian; Mihai Eminescu also, and the others); this ides were more light.

Hasdeu was a writer and a historian. And what has Eminescu to do with all this ? bogdan 20:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Communist times were more politicaly-related. And post-communist, they are either by ignorance, either by the will to make a business, either i think most of the people are just intrested to know more, and since noone is studying the dacians in the hole Roùmania, the only solution are the ones that have more strong belifs. I strongly do not think that this web sites that have more than 30000 unique visitors every month, all the 30000 are dacomaniacs, and this is because in the comentaries to the aticle, thare are many critics, some of them very severe. I think this is led by the people who want to know more about the dacians, and since the only one who do research on this and who have installed web sites with forums are Savescu and the other, people are comming there.

I think maybe the 18 century phenomen should be explaned as "natinalism of poets" or so. communism should be called protochronosm, and current web sites should be explained as a diferent aproach, where a few people who run the business (the web site, the researches, etc...) are influenced by old protochronism mmore or less.

Again, what has 18th century to do with this? The earliest ideas that can be included in Protochronism were toward the end of the 19th century / beginning of the 20th century. bogdan 20:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Pure protochronism sould be limitated to communism time. ost people from to day explain this as abstract "let's suppose it is like this, and see what we can find, even if we found the hipothes is wrong". It is diferent than "his is the truth, let's see how we can prove it...". The first aproach is mmore schienitifc, as it is close to abstract thinking. This is the current trend, and we should not call it protochronism, as we should not call like this early natinoalism. Moa3333 20:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't talk about a phenomenon without putting it into context. Just because it earned its name and fame during Ceauşescu, it doesn't mean we should restrict it to that era. bogdan 20:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're reading into your suspicions, and not the article itself. There is no mention of "conspiracy", and no indicator that people are collaborating. It's a "tendancy of cultural nationalism", which is to say "an attractive idea for differnt people in successive generations". And, again:

1. the definition of the term does not refer to your idea of what it "should" mean. So, your critique is pointless. I have made it clear that ITS ETHYMOLOGY leads to ambiguities. The article also makes it clear what it should mean in this case.
2. the connection with Ceausescu is described in other terms than the ones you think are used. Because: the mention in the first line is that the term was coined to refer to its aspects under Ceausescu (ie: the behaviour is not limited to Ceausescu, nor defined by him); I think it is made clear by the article as I wrote it that the tendancy did not originate with him, nor was it ended by him. Dahn 20:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"the tendancy did not originate with him, nor was it ended by him"; i think this is wrong; you cannot say it is the same tendency now. I think tendency had two parts, first was the demistification, meaning that between 1990 and 2002 people wanted to forget about this and rejected any ideas.

The seccond period is begining just now. After people have rejected any ides related to dacians, now we want to find what is good and what is not good. We start with what we have in order to undestand what is good and what is not good.

On the other side, people involved here are using a lot of mistery, not because thay want to introduce confusion. They understand well that people are not dump, and will not take this as real scienitfic arguments. they d this because the same reason a holiwood movie will speak about dracula who eats blood! Not because it is true, but because it will make people come and see what could be true of.

Today resrches, even archeological, are melt with mistery, business, and at the end there are scientific aguments. But you nead also people, and people will not camo to your web ite if you do not tell them about how great the pharaons were, or how big Atlantida was, or how much dracula eated blood. Well, to people from USA, you can teel them that there are vamires to make them intrested with Romania, but to romanian people, this will not work!

I think Savscu is making a great job in making people intrested in the subject, even if it uses old misterious theoris. Every mean is good to obtain something, especialy when this something is to make people intrested again in history, especialy in pre-history and history of dacians. If not, people will never study the past, and we will not know more than what we know now.

Only very enthusiast people will come to this web sited, and noone will take him seriously 100%. Projects like the new wikidacia are ment to colaborative research. Moa3333 20:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, man. "Dacia Nemuritoare"?! Is that what you oppose to proof? Yeah, man, that is science... This is why I don't edit Romanian Wiki. I think Jimbo Wales needs to withdraw their license, if you ask me. The wiki porn portal has better quality info than that one! Dahn 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

+I find it especially ironic that you were prepared to believe this artcle was fantasy! Dahn 20:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was just launched this week i think (if i am not wrong) :) but, i would not contribute if the licence will not be GFDL. There is no reason to do so if i cannot import part of the articles in the wikipedia in romanian. What about we discuss about some other article now. Let's say Origins of romanian people. Because actually this was the article that i wanted to contribute to first. Moa3333 21:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What say if I tell you that Origin of Romanians, as it is, it is one of the best articles written by Romanians on English wiki? (No, I'm not saying it because I had something to do with it, since I did not). The English version too was popping with questionable material for Romania, written by the likes of Bonaparte (who is now banned on a related issue). What you didn't notice about the new wikidacia is that it is created by the same guys who run the site given in reference as staple protochronism. Please, this is getting tiresome. Dahn 21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that if Savescu do not soften their sayings in the future, they will loose support. But there are many people who agree on studying the dacians as they were: "the only country in the world that was able to fight the romans untill the seccond century, causing important damage to them".

What about the Germans? Remember Teutoburg Forest ? The Romans never defeated the Germans decisively, that's why Germany was never made a Roman province. bogdan 23:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to forget the Parthians-Sassanids. (No, wait. I'm wrong: It was only the Dacians and Asterix.)Dahn 01:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Then, of course, they were not speaking latin, but barbarian who knows what. Don't forget lain was a barbarian language at the begining for the greecks. And romans were hating so much the dacians and loved them at the same time, as you can see in the name of the province: "Happy Dacia", name given by roman authorities.

And your point is? Dahn 01:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

When speaking about Bonaparte, he was banned because of insults most of the time, and vandalism. One thing i do not do. There are other intresting articles on wikipedia writen by romanians at least partially, for example this page about IDE is one of my favorite.

I didn't say you'd get banned. I just say that I think Romanians on English wiki have managed to keep this place quite objective. No such measure was taken on RoWiki, wher Bonaparte's kind roams free. Dahn 01:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But now i undersand how it works all this. You are the most hard romanians. Many will go to Savescu's site. Other will go to various forums, with free speech. Some go to the wikipedia in romanian, and i can see the NPOV is much less enforced there, as the main goal seem to be to increese the number of articles first. There was a time when english articles were translated to romanian wikipedia, but now, as wikipedia.en is close to one million real articles, administrators here have hardened the NPOV, and now new articles are first written on wikipedia in romanian, and then translated to wikipedia in english, with a few modifications like erasing all less serious arguments. I can see now that the most "orthodox" editors have migrated from the wikipedia in romanian here, where they can restrict any doutfull opinion, that has a few NPOV... I do not say this is a bad thing, it only demonstrated the change of migration, now pages migrate from wikipedia.ro to wikipedia.en... Moa3333 23:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't care about what goes on there. True, I have translated and hygenised articles for Romanian voivodes. But, mostly, I restrict my investigations to factual info, not the usually inept commentary. RoWiki had Codreanu as a "hero and martyr" up to a few weeks ago; some idiot seeped that "info" on the English version, and it was erased in hours (the non-Fascists promised to replace it, but then got lazy - that's how come I wrote the new article myself, and am proud to say that it is NPOV). RoWiki does not even consistently feature proper grammar (by which I mean that perhaps 70% of biased people in there are also illiterate). Also, I myself consider English wiki to be the stem anyway. I do not care much for other national languages as of yet. Others are not like that, and that's their business. Thanks for your outlook, I guess. Dahn 01:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Modern-day equivalents - Hungary

Re: the recently added Hungarian examples. It should be noted that vast majority of the Hu population is not interested in these theories, any Hungarian, if asked, would say that Hungarians are a Finno-Ugric people, having been arrived at the Carpathian Basin in 896. I, as a Hungarian, have never heard of most of the "other strange theories" added by Greier. He did not include, however, an unconfirmed myth that really exists among many Székelys - I wonder if he can find it. :-) If not, I will include it later on.
One more thing: these theories have never been supported by any significant political party, or significant political movement in the last 60 years. --KIDB 10:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Protochronism and the Hungarians

I took this part out: Protochronism was an official ideology in Romania, while in Hungary, these are only the theories of some individual crack-pots, therefore irelevant to this article.

=== Hungary ===

Hungarian alternative history present the Magyar tribes as the descendants of various ancient peoples, ranging from the :Etruscans, Sumerians and Celts to Scythians and Huns, or claim direct linking with different ancient peoples like the Sarmatians [1], Iazyges, Avars and even Dacians, commonly called "Magyar brethren", which colonised the Carpathian Basin in successive waves.

Other strange theories, like the supposed Magyar origin of Jesus Christ, the descendancy of the Magyar tribe from on of the Lost Tribes of Israel, the racial purity of the Hungarians, Hungarian as the most ancient language, the Hungarian origins of Easter, the ancient Hungarian origins of the wheel or the Hungarian origin of the panties are also common.

See external links:

• An anthropological discussion of the significance of theories of cultural and :historical primacy illustrated with examples from Hungary and Serbia - Eric Beckett Weaver
• HunMagyar.com; A site which presents several theories regarding the Magyar tribes.

bogdan 21:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I support Bogdan's changes. An essential thing has been dropped en passant by KIDB, and I think it should be stressed again: One more thing: these theories have never been supported by any significant political party, or significant political movement in the last 60 years.Dahn 22:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention could be made about Szálasi's fantasies, as they might qualify under "official policy". I am, however, not sure about their purpose and exent. Dahn 23:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Szálasi or his idiot friends had any sophisticated theory. What I heard of is that in the 19th century it was believed by many that Huns were the predecessors of Hungarians. And that is still quite common amongst Székelys to believe that after the death of Attila, many Huns fled to Transylvania under the leadership of his son, Prince Csaba - and this is where the Székelys are from. Note that names like Attila, or Csaba are often used in Hungary --KIDB 06:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

?????????

Dahn, Bogdan, I think that in your desire to be... I don`t know how to put it... to appear "modern", "open-minded", "european" or something like that, you are merely looking silly... I don`t know why. Maybe you just have a minority complex, not regarding what happened two thousand years ago, but about what is happening now. You have a minority complex in regard to how Romania is perceived outside it`s borders, and you have an honest intention to change that, to show that Romania is as "european" and "modern" as it can be. However, you are crossing the border, know what I mean? You go from one extreme, to the other... For God`s sake, who and more important why does someone makes an article about "Romanian protochronsim"... I really don`t get it... You know, there is an universal saying: Dirty laundry are washed in family...

Anyway, as the article is now, the meaning of "Protochronism" is rather obscure. You can`t make even a description based on comparative characterisation using the rest of what I am being told is an equivalent.

• Albanian communist dictator Enver Hoxha supported the theory of Zacharie Mayani that Albanians and Albanian language are related to ancient Etruscan civilization, as well as that of the Pelasgians.

You just cant compare an exageration with an invention. While the "dacomania" is based on something firm, being merely an exageration, or as you say, a trend (noticed in several versions of Romanian nationalism) to ascribe a unique quality to the Dacians and their civilization. Usually glossing over the fact that Dacian society lacked such basic instruments as a writing system, protochronists attempt to prove either that Dacians had a major part.... etc, Hoxha`s theories were just that: theories. For God`s sake, what the hell does the etruscan-albanian connection have to do with the dacian-romanian connection. I don`t know, maybe I`m just plain stupid, but I think that you`re wasted... Now we get to the part which I personally think it`s just grose: Protochronism was an official ideology. WTF???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? What do you mean by official? Was it in the constitution that dacians used writing? Was it ever is a history book? Did in atheist Communist Romanian ever such claims about the connection between the supposed monotheism of the mysterious Zalmoxis cult and Christianity, in the belief that Dacians easily adopted and subsequently influenced the religion which would have been preached to them by Saint Andrew (considered, doubtfuly, as the clear origin of modern-day Romanian Orthodoxy)? And as we contine through the article, it get`s even more pathetic. While first it says that it the official ideology (you still haven`t realised what you are stating here, do you?), it than explains how this "official ideology" is continuated... by....by a dude from America. What sources are you using? Verdery and a link to a page which has the same validity as the link I gaved. About that, I still see no reason for deleting the Hungarian equivalent. You use the same lame, almost idiotic reason of official ideology... While I still see no prove for this claim of official ideology, I see Internet sites like this, or this, or this. The same kind of link are used by you to show prominent characteristics of Romanian Protochronism.

• Bulgarian communist dictator Todor Zhivkov supported the theory that there are clear links between the Bulgarians and the ancient Thracians. His daughter Lyudmila Zhivkova created the Institute of Thracology as part of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
• Iranian Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi tried to forge a secular national identity by appealing to various stages of the Persian Empire (and especially to the Achaemenid dynasty).

With this I agree. In fact, Zhivkov was close to the thruth, but is simply was not exactly how he puted it. While there is no need to polemic that some/many/few/a lot of bulgarians are ultimatelly drawn from thracians, and bulgarian traditional culture is of ultimatelly of thracian origin, there are much more to be said about what Bulgarians mean (at least more than can be sayd about Romanians). The same about Persians.

• Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has frequently appealed to imagery and rhetoric that assumed a direct link between the modern-day country and Sumer or Babylon.

Again, how can you compare someting that you call imagery, with something which altough exageratered, or POVist to use Wikipedia parlance, is still a fact: the dacian origin of Romanians, Romanian traditions, Romanian customs, Romanian wearing, etc. More than that, even you call it Dacomania, Daco-mania, that is an obsession, not a complete phantasmagoria, as the direct link between Sumerians and Saddam. If there were claims of direct descendancy of Romanians from the Cucutenians or from Hamangians, than I would agree that you are completely right to make this article.

Man, and even if you were entirelly right, beacuse partially you are, as indeed there is an abashment from people like Savescu, this was not the way to do it. You don`t realise it do you. Wikipedia is perhaps one of the most important and powerfool tools to inform in these times, so powerfull that it can be safely said that it could also be used as a manipulating tool. So, while others "inform", you thought you shoud too, right? No, you didn`t inform nothing, didn`t accomplished nothing with this article. Those "dacomaniacs" will still be there, just that they will be regarded with pathetism. So much, that anything related to them, would be regarded as such: that is, YOUR HISTORY! With this article you`ve just proved that you (you, not other romanians) do have an inferiority complex... you shoud of remembered: rufele murdare se spala in familie... greier 08:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen, Greier. It is not my responsability to go on articles about "Hungarian prehistory" and proofread them. It is also not my responsability to answer to your demands, while ignoring the fact that this article references a plethora of essays and articles (and that the term is well-established in historiography, both Romanian and foreign). The references to official ideology do not exclude its pre-official history or its post-1989 heritage (especially since it partly involves the same people).

Your contemptible display of ethnonationalism and localism, as well as your appeal to "wash dirty laundry in our own family", remind me of the mafiosi logic of the "neam" that this article partly deals with. In fact, I will go as far as to say that, even if I were to accept the fact that having Romanian citizenship makes me "family" with other holders of the same honour, I still would not want to be family with Greier. Dahn 10:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

ok. greier 11:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dacomania

A newer, pejorative term that was given to the Romanian phenomenon is Dacomania

Verdery's book, written around 1989, published 1991, uses the word "Dacomania" twice, so it's not very new. bogdan 22:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"The present popularity gains of prothocronism"

I am not very sure, if "popularity gains" are factual accurate. Mr. Napoleon Savescu and his collegues provide a loud and grotesque presence, though I wouldn't equate this to a gain in popularity. Actually, both instances which could decide upon popularity in this case - the audience at large and the scientific community - ignore royally the dacomaniac agitation. To make the passage from Ceausescu to present days, a more moderate formulation than "popularity gains" would probably not be such a misplaced ideea.--Vintila Barbu 17:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it is safe to say that the phenomenon has democratized itself, and that it is not enforced by any rigid state structure. Apparently, the myths attract more people freely expressing their options (and more and more vandals to this page); of course, it is not the case of academia - but, hopefully, academia is not about popularity. What do you suggest instead? Dahn 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

actually, you already formulate it...let's say something like: "After the downfall of the Ceausescu's regime, prothocronism ceased to be enforced by any state structure. Though it receives no recognition (maybe better: is largely ignored by) from the national or international scientific comunity, prothocronism still gathers a number of enthusiasts and nostalgics."--Vintila Barbu 11:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I took up your format and reworded it somehow. Would you say it is ok? Dahn 12:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

it's ok (I would have added that these "circles" are marginal, to say the least, but it's too POV); good point of having referenced the association between autarky and protocronism ! wenn I find time, I'd like to go a little into a conceptual distinction of "protocronism", since there are however worlds between the cutural attitude suggested by Papu and the semi-educated élucubrations of a Napoleon Savulescu --Vintila Barbu 17:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. Note that the 22 source alludes to the difference, so we may use it as well. Dahn 18:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Daco-Romanian continuity

I believe that another term used for this is "Daco-Romanian continuity", but I don't see that in the article. If you Google '"Daco-Romanian continuity" -wikipedia' you'll see that while there are not a ton of hits, they are mostly from pretty solid sources. - Jmabel | Talk 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a major difference. Most Romanians and Romanian historians will probably agree that there is a connection between the Dacians and the first Romanians, and most will in any case oppose all notions that Romanization occurred [solely] south of the Danube. Most of them will never present Dacians as superior or even reasonably advanced, and they will not argue that the Romans played a negative/insignificant role in ethnogenesis. Dahn 01:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

...or, to put it in other words, Joe: while "Daco-Roman continuity" is a sound historical model (the best we have by now), the "Dacian connection" (i.e. glorification of an alleged pure Dacian ancestry and of a no less superior Dacian civilization) is but a delirious phantasmagoria where semi-educated guesses meet ignorance and pretences meet obscure agendas. Except one or two genuine scientists having constructed fallacious models some 100 years ago (it happens), the rest of the present "Dacomaniacs" belongs to that part of the audience enclined to seek solutions in esoterics, mysteries and with no scientific background.

In contrast, the "Daco-Roman continuity" is an historical model. As you very well know, history deals with the reconstruction of the past. The remoter that past, the frailer and riskier the model. For the Romanian ethnogenesis, we don't have anything better than "continuity". A good model uses a minimum of axioms to generate a maximum of theorems and the continuity model does it better as other models. It has an increased explanatory force with a minimum of premises.

Besides, the term "Daco-Roman continuity" is a kind of straw-man argument, since no serious historian has ever stated a theory called "Daco-Roman continuity". Actually, historians (not only Romanian) have constructed various and complex models having in common the ideea of a lasting presence of Romanized population north of the lower Danube. Adversaries have focused exclusively on this ideea, reducing complex historical models to simplist allegations, in order to better refute them all. Visiting some models of "continuity" would show how plausible and interpretive they are and how far from reductionist exaggeration.

BTW, the whole thing's name is "Daco-Roman" and not "Daco-Romanian" continuity as it absurdly stays in the WP "in-depth" article, which, BTW again, is very weak an article, which reduces 150 years of historical research to a kind of quarrel between "continuitionists" and "immigrationists" - embarrassing ! To subsume the various and complex historical models produced by historians under the terms "continuity/migration theory" is oversimplification - a strategy probably efficient in a propaganda war, yet not very helpful in an encyclopedic project.--Vintila Barbu 16:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

More of what you just said needs to make it into the article, to clarify what portions of this intersect what historians otherwise accept, and what do not. - Jmabel | Talk 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This term

Does this term exist in English? Is it being used? --Thus Spake Anittas 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a few of the authors whose works in English (or translated into English) use the term: Gabriel Liiceanu, Alexandru Zub, Norman Manea, Dennis Deletant, András Bozóki, David Turncock, Alex Drace-Francis, Andrew H. Dawson & Rick Fawn, Marcel Cornis-Pope & John Neubauer, Andrew Hammond, Tom Gallagher, Ted Anton, Vladimir Tismăneanu, Lidia Vianu. This is, of course, without the references already provided in the text. Dahn 05:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Do they use it in reference to Romania? Does any author use the term in reference to anything else but Romania? And lastly, does this word exist in the English dictionary (like Websters)? I tried to look it up, but found nothing. A quick google search results in a modest 521 searches. --Thus Spake Anittas 06:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the article refer to anything but Romania? See why this whole thread is pointless? Dahn 06:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking about the article, but about the word. It seems to me that the term doesn't exist in the English language and the authors just did some kind of transliteration of the Romanian word. --Thus Spake Anittas 06:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So? Dahn 06:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So the article doesn't make that clear. One may believe that that the term also exists in the English language, especially when it says that the word "is a modern tendency in cultural nationalism." It may be so, but only in Romanian. The article does say that the term was coined in Romania, but that doesn't have to mean that one must believe the term is only used there. --Thus Spake Anittas 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should make it clear that the term is used only in reference to Romania and not in reference to other countries. --Thus Spake Anittas 09:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, as a Brit, that the term is a coinage in English. This doesn't mean it isn't valid, in the context of Romanian historiography, as long as its meaning is explained. There are many precedents I can think of, for example the term "lustration" as applied to a political issue, which recently came from Polish. It might be worth looking at alternative formulations, such as "re-writing history" or "myths of national origins" - but protochronism sounds cleverer, (in that slightly tiresome US way beloved of IT specialists and similar creatures!)It can still stand though. It was actually almost more interesting to read the talk page, and the discussions/rants it provoked. All that stuff about "not washing your dirty laundry in public" - which presupposes that foreigners would be gullible or not sufficiently interested to question what they are told about Romanian history by Romanians. Toroboro 11:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that I should start a consesus, unless the article makes it clear that the term is used only to Ro-related topics and that the term does not exist in English. The article should, perhaps, be deleted or merged with another article. The term doesn't have enough notability. --Thus Spake Anittas 12:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to fix it? --Thus Spake Anittas 11:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Oh well, a bit late to this conversation, I've edited the lead to indicated the term's purely Romanian origin and to what it refers. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources needed

Do we have any sources for this section? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protochronism#Modern-day_equivalents Or is it the author who is speculating? Is that stuff mentioned in any of the books listed in the reference section? --Thus Spake Anittas 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, that section does not add to this article, and there has been a lot of back and forth about what should be included in there. Ever since the article was created, it appears that the section has been supplanted by Nationalism and ancient history, and that is where the info can be included if it is decided it should be kept. For now: I have pointed out elsewhere that a parallel has been drawn between Romania and Mexico, and I think that should be added in the text. Dahn 16:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ro wiki

It seems that while writing about protochronism here may lead to debate, touching the subject on ro.wiki leads to reactions beyond the borders of wikipedia. Check this out [2] and this [3]. Plinul cel tanar 11:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, probably some people disagree with the (rather few) Romanian history articles from ro.wiki which are not written from a nationalist/fascist/neo-nazi POV. bogdan 11:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, Plinul, those imbeciles are getting more and more organized. The rant about the Tismăneanu Report in one of those links you provide lets me know that I've dealt with their exact kind before. There is an absolute need for someone to, quite literally, sanitize ro wiki, and I'm glad to see you still have the patience of trying, Plinul (especially after exposing yourself to criticism from what I can only suspect is the usual Legionary-Securitate association - of which Agero is a prime example). In case more trouble of this type surfaces, and in case nothing is done about the still-massive presence of nationalist, xenophobic and anti-scientific material on ro wiki, I suggest we bring this to Jimbo's attention. Dahn 12:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the "implacable 4GW War" (whatever the hell that means) is to continue as before :). Dahn 12:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm no hero, I stayed away from the contemporary history articles on ro.wiki, it makes me sick to even read some of them. I merely removed some quite obvious junk about the genealogy of a 14th century warlord. Feel free to explore ro.wiki and see the reactions. Plinul cel tanar 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried a bit of cleanup a while ago, but it's not easy and there are too many things which still remain, like:

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comunismul_în_lume_şi_evreii (it uses reliable references, such as Stormfront (website))

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimele_şi_ororile_comise_de_comuniştii_evrei_împotriva_românilor_în_timpul_evacuării_din_Basarabia_şi_Bucovina_în_1940

bogdan 13:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I must say that the unanimous voices against at least one of the articles convince me that things are going the right way, and that editors have become more energetic in dealing with the legacy of one Irismeister and Dacodava. I remember being disheartened by the lassitude and nationalist bias of some admins I met there in the past, but a "grassroots resistance" seems to have been generated. In my opinion, such problems will only be solved once a zero tolerance policy is put into motion, and once some users who have made a mockery of that project receive at least a temporary block. I'm know I sound radical, but I've also been dragged through mud by those people, and I've seen other reliable users being chased away (I can only hope they decide to return). Dahn 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern-day equivalents - Iran

The context is wrong. Iran is a direct cultural and more importanly lingustic successor of the ancient Persian states starting from the Achaemenids. Nothing questionable about that. If the Reza Pahlavi claimed descent from the Elamites it would make sense.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this page

I find some of the language on this page problematic.

1. there are usages such as "enigmatic Dacian language" and "mysterious Zalmoxis cult". Daican language is not enigmatic, it's simply not known, since it was never written. The Dacian's (polytheistic generally but at least in part monolatrist, according to mainstream historians) religion is again, a suject that's not really 100% known, but to call it mysterious it's kind of unusual. Such words are not really NPOV, though I'm not really sure exaclty what they are intended to suggest.

I second that, this article is the best example for how to avoid writing an article. The WP:NPOV policy is absolutely tarnished. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

2. the official stance of the Church is that St. Andrew preached in Dobrudja (which is quite probable), and therefore he is the patron Saint of the Church of Romania. Nothing about him magically converting ALL the population of Moesia and Dacia, about how Vlachs were eventually converted or about him going anywhere else inland into Moesia (or further into Dacia) -- only that he preached in the heavily Hellenophonic Dobrudja, a region that for a long time was part of the late Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. Now why they thought this to be reason for considering the Apostle the Patron Saint of Romania is not really a historical or political debate is it (more like a religious one)? So I don't really see why mention of this is important to the article, because it's not really related to Dacomania, is it, since it was most probably Romans and Hellenophones/Greeks that St. Andrew preached to if he ever went to Dobrudja (which accorning to tradition he did). Now, Dacomania was about the Dacians and was created in the not exaclty Christian-friendly environment of late Romanian communism.

I will admit that after Dacomania and protochronism went out of fashion some intellectuals found refuge one way or another around the Church. I will also admit that Dacomania and protochronism sometime have a religious (Christian or not) eloement to them. But to advance the idea that the entire Church is protochronist and to call that its official stance is kind of EXTREME. In my humble view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 13:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and applicability

The article for Protochronism is written from an obvious non-neuntral point of view, full of hate rhetoric. The protochronism concept by itself is outdated and linked to Socialism and Communism. Many of the new authors deemed protochronists are living and have careers outside Romania, in democratic and open-minded societies which encourage thinking outside the box. While some of their accusers are still even today in the same structures of Romanian academia that promoted Protochronism during Nicolae Ceauşescu and which barely changed their views or created any quality research in the last 20 years. The hypocrisy is huge. Terms like Dacoman, although ridiculous and pejorative, may make more sense if at all. The article is also a platform for absorbing other articles like Dacian script, based on very subjective claims that all the researchers behind those distinct theories described there are unqualified and protochronists. Above all, this has become a place for people to dump their hate and venom against whomever they hate or disagree with in the Dacian history topic, based on personal, subjective reasons. I don't find it worthy of Wikipedia, it is limited to Romanian space and doesn't bring any good to anyone. Keep an open mind. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to clarify some basic concepts, these people [4] are researchers. People upholding dacomania are not. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but I think there is too much negativity in this war among Romanians, about their own history. The foreigners are looking at this and are laughing their ass out, some are very happy to see how masochistic and fatalistic we can be about ourselves. We can simply be left alone by anyone who doesn't want our success as a nation since we will surely destroy ourselves. And you saw the response of James Murray to this letter. He was very objective and not very partisan. American Academia welcomes opinions from anyone.The difference between the American and European (definitely the Romanian) mentality is that they give the chance to people to speak at least ONCE. They believe in the freedom of speech. It doesn't mean they cannot discern between qualified and not so qualified people. Be sure that anyone who talks about Dacians, Atlantis and Maya in one sentence will be dismissed and not invited next time! But it means they encourage, thinking outside the box, new theories. The answer has a nice statement in the end: "specially from underrepresented regions of the world.", proving my points. He was eluding to the fact that these Romanian academicians who took the time to write the petition, maybe the Romanian government who pays them in universities and governmental offices, should DO more, should be PRESENT there themselves and not let Dacomans fill the void. They should PARTICIPATE, they should DO more SCIENCE. They should remove the Dacomans, by showing EXAMPLES about how they DO rigorous science, not by putting their fists in their mouths. Why Bulgarians can have respected Thracologists who have done many amazing discoveries recently (look at the discoveries, ignore the fact that the site may be maintained by a Dacoman - Sic!), and we can't restore honor to the term Dacologist? Bulgarians had their own protochronism, linking Slavs and Bulgars to Thracians, which is more far-fetched than linking Dacians to Romanians, but is barely mentioned in this article. But Bulgarians managed to clean up the Thracologist term and make it respectable again. Why our academicians don't take these titles back and go to work, pushing the Dacomans into obscurity? Why can't we have a qualified Romanian "Zahi Hawass" who does significant discoveries like the modern Bulgarian thracologists and is not afraid to call himself a "dacologist" if he is researching Dacians? Or Getologist, Phrygologist or whatever you want to call them. Why egyptologist is a great title, Thracologist is fine now, but the term Dacologist is doomed? If Dacians and Thracians are not as strongly connected as originally thought, why someone who is researching Dacia should continue to call himself Thracologist? Out of fear of this masochistic and fatalistic Anti-Neo-Protochronism Police? The news about Eastern Europe ancient archaeology and history that hit the international press have very commonly two types articles: Amazing discoveries in Bulgaria and Theft and devastation at Romanian archaeological sites. Why is that? I tell you why, because some Romanian academicians are so busy burning Dacoman witches that they forgot to do their jobs. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Codrinb, your message above is an absolute fallacy, from top to bottom; it discredits whatever point you're trying to make, and shows that you're only seeing this matter in terms of cultural relativism (bordering on moral relativism?) - in other words, that we should open wikipedia articles to praise for esoteric, anti-scientific and fringe theories because we are Romanian, and like all Romanians, one is led to conclude, we are all naturally attracted to, and represented by, such canards. Argumentum ad populum, tu quoque, and so on. Do you have any objection that would actually be supported by wikipedia policies, as opposed to your fringe POV? I suppose not. Dahn (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Other thank attacking me personally, you didn't answer any of my valid questions.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Quite frankly I've never seen more polemics about "who are we? really?" than here. Lecturing each other (Dahn, my perception) really is not helpful (and as I recall you and I have had some interesting exchanges on Romanians versus Moldavians). As for Codrin's rhetorical but with non-rhetorical implications questions, the point is valid as to why exploration of certain aspects of ancient roots are ridiculed outright (that is, dismissed, case seemingly proven and closed) in one case [ROMANIA] but pursued as an area of inquiry in another [BULGARIA]. When it comes to our (collective) origins, we still don't know what we don't know. I do have to wonder, with regard to Romanians, if areas of inquiry aren't being dismissed out of hand because the zenith of their pursuit is associated with a defunct totalitarian regime. (Yes, I've read the four theories, do I hear five?) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Really, if you've got four divergent plausible theories, isn't that just a scholarly euphemism for "no idea, really"? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Note to self, my timeline here needs to go back further. And we can see how the conversation went there. (!). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Peters, thanks, really good points. Appreciate your neutral position. Much needed here.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Peters, why are we even discussing this? The Protochronist theory is dismissed "outright" for a very sound reason: it is unscientific and counterfactual, it is pursued by amateurs, it is politically tainted from the start. That there are other theories around is irrelevant, since those theories are all from within the scientific community. In short, Protochronism is ridiculed because it is ridiculous. Whatever you personally want to infer from your past debates with me (and why?), please refrain from poisoning the well with "I have to wonder" speculations. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dahn, stop going in circles with your patronizing, know-it-all attitude and answers these very clear questions. What is wrong with the terms "Dacology" and "Dacologist" in contrast with "Thracology" and "Thracologist" and why it cannot be cleaned up like the Bulgarians did? Why this entire article is so Romania-centric and no Bulgarians, Albanians rush here to thrash their own people and write at least as much content as Romanians do? Why spend the time writing an article full of hatred, and spend the time deleting content, if your knowledge is vastly superior and the List of Dacian towns points to a LOT of non-existing articles? Why favor destruction to creation? How many Germans do you think spend their time on writing the Nazi Germany and Hitler articles? How many Israelis spend their time on writing Palestine Liberation Organization article? Why all this Romanian self-hatred, negative behavior, finger pointing, masochism and fatalism, and above HUGE hypocrisy? --Codrin.B (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Roman Emperors

"claimed that Dacians gave Rome many of her Emperors ".

Is this a reference to the so-called Illyrian emperors? Those actually born in the Balkans? Dimadick (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably. Dahn (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dahn, time to rush and delete that article, or mark it Protochronistic and incorporate it here. Or probably you are not doing it because it says Illyrian instead of Dacian? --Codrin.B (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You still fail to see the point, it's not that "it" says Illyrian instead of Dacian it's that scholarly literature says Ilyrian instead of Dacian. And, quite importantly actualy although not necessarily on wikipedia, the emperors themselves used Ilyrian in their own propaganda, one would speak of virtus Ilyrici or genius exercitus Ilyriciani. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Protochronism of FYROM (Former Yogoslav Republic of Macedonia), Macedonia the 2000-borne Country

I think this Protochronism deserves mention in the article alongside the Albanian and other Protochronisms.

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), supports the theory that its citizens (mostly Slavic of Bulgarian origin, and ethnic Albanian and Greek Slavophones) are direct descendants of the Greek Macedonian King Alexander II and the Greek Macedonian phylum of which Alexander was from at large, ignoring even such obvious facts as language (Slavic was not a language Greek Macedonians spoke or wrote in) or the arrival of Slavic peoples in the region (they came in the area at least 800 years after Alexander).

This claim was initially used by FYROM as a means to foster some form of national cohesion and ethnic identity so as to fight off the overwhelming national inferiority complex and defeatist sentiment that had resulted after the collapse of the Yugoslav Union about a decade ago, leaving the then-impoverished and struggling new-borne state at the time known as "Vardarska" (later to be renamed as FYROM) being in dire need to ascribe and ascertain validity for its existence. This was achieved by FYROM, similarly to the "Thracian" and "Dacian" protochronisms, mainly by seizing the unclaimed idea of "Macedonian" sentiment; which remained unclaimed by all neighboring nations until a few years before FYROM first formed (with the exception of Greece, which already owned the vast majority of what was the geographic area of Greek "Macedonia" since the first Balkan wars, but had no nationalist claims concerning the "Macedonian" sentimenmt at the time, much like it is not nationalistic about its Minoan culture at present, unless the Egyptians begin saying Minoans were Egyptian).

FYROM nationalists use the name "Macedonia" to give false credence of greatness and ancient roots, or even have claims to geographic expansion, and by extension have adopted the view that they are "Macedonians" in the sense that they are descendants of the ancient Greek Macedonian tribe. It is not in reference to th use of the name "Macedonia" that the protochronism is made, but with regard to the claims of shared ancestry with ancient Macedonians, and the connections to Alexander the Great, making the FYROM protochronism a prime example of protochronisms, more so than the Thracian and Dacian examples, due to the fact that these views are shared ubiquitously shared by the majority of the people of the FYROM.

In effect, by forging such a link to ancient Greek Macedonian ancestry as well as using the name "Macedonia" and appropriating these as their own unique culture, and by way of the resulting semantics confusion that has resulted (the Greek prefecture "Macedonia", and FYROM now calling itself Macedonia), FYROM has aims to achieve much more than national cohesion, whereby the FYROM usurps and obviously desires to annex, in its view, parts of the modern Greek state's prefecture "Macedonia", gaining access to the Aegean Sea, since FYROM is landlocked.

This nationalistic propensity and desire to access the Aegean has resulted in forging history books, misinforming the public with the erection of statues of Alexander III inscribed in Slavic, and even issuing FYROM bank notes that represent a large area of the Greek state's prefecture "Macedonia", including part of the Greek peninsula of "Chalkidiki" and the Greek city Thessaloniki, with the border of this area of the Greek state fringed with barbwire, as though this area is under occupation by the Greek State. The semantics confusion of the name "Macedonia" is the a Protochronism in itself, achieved by FYROM by appropriating the name "Macedonia" that refers to the Modern Greek Province and the ancient Greek Kingdom "Macedonia", with the ancient geographic region of that kingdom and the homonymous modern Greek prefecture of "Macedonia" and a small part to the south of FYROM up to lake Ohrid, and loosely connecting and distorting historic facts using procrustean means in order to ascertain connection to antiquity.

The Protocronist ideology of FYROM is heavily borrowed from the Protochronism of Albania mentioned previously, given that all three countries share borders, and in particular due to the communist regime that FYROM was under during the Yogaslav union.

Most people fail to see that the right of the people of FYROM to sovereignty and to name their country whatever they want, are not the same as deliberately harnessing this idea of the right to sovereignty so as to have leverage over geographic claims. Worst of all, by claiming ancestry to what was formerly amn ancient Greek kingdom named Macedonia, as well as claiming to be part of the lineage of one of its kings, they, like the Albanians, feel that they may have precedence over certain areas, presently part of Greece.

In a nutshell, FYROM attempts to claim primacy over the Greeks in the region called "Macedonia" from antiquity until present, even though, they as Slavic peoples arrived in the area about 1000 years after Macedonians were there. This is a prime example of an attempt to show that they were "first" "in time" (thus a protochronism) in the region and assert land claims.

I suggest that a mention be made in the article alongside the other types of protochronisms.

---

Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 00:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Modern-day equivalents

Main article: Nationalism and ancient history

• Albanian nationalists claim that the Albanians descend from the ancient Pelasgians, the semi-mythical original inhabitants of Greece, as a way of establishing primacy over other Balkan peoples, particularly the Greeks. In Communist Albania, an Illyrian origin of the Albanians (without denying Pelasgian roots a theory which has been revitalized today) played a significant role in Albanian nationalism, resulting in a revival of given names supposedly of "Illyrian" origin, at the expense of given names associated with Christianity. The protochronist ideology developed in Romania was directly borrowed by the communist regime in Albania.
• Bulgarian communist dictator Todor Zhivkov supported the theory that there are clear links between the Bulgarians and the ancient Thracians. His daughter Lyudmila Zhivkova created the Institute of Thracology as part of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

Nationalists in The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), support the theory that they are are direct descendants of the Greek Macedonian King Alexander II and the Greek Macedonian phylum of which Alexander was from at large, ignoring even such obvious facts as language (Slavic was not a language Greek Macedonians spoke or wrote in), the arrival of Slavic peoples in the region (they came in the area at least 800 years after Alexander) and that FYROM is mostly composed of people who are Slavic of Bulgarian origin, and ethnic Albanian and Greek Slavophones. This claim was initially used by FYROM in its early stages as a means to foster some form of national cohesion and ethnic identity so as to fight off the overwhelming national inferiority complex and defeatist sentiment that had resulted after the collapse of the Yugoslav Union, leaving the then-impoverished and struggling new-borne state at the time known as "Vardarska" (later to be renamed as FYROM) being in dire need to ascribe and ascertain validity for its existence. perhaps it is one of the best known examples of Protochronisms that got out of hand, leading almost a whole nation to identify with and refine the protochronist claims postulated three-four decades ago.

This was achieved by FYROM, similarly to the "Thracian" and "Dacian" protochronisms, mainly through seizing the unclaimed idea of "Macedonian" sentiment; which remained unclaimed by all neighboring nations until a few years before FYROM first formed (with the exception of Greece, which already owned the vast majority of what was the geographic area of Greek "Macedonia" since the Balkan Wars, but had no nationalist claims concerning the "Macedonian" sentimenmt at the time, much like it is not nationalistic about the Minoan culture at present). FYROM nationalists use the name "Macedonia" to give false credence of greatness and ancient roots, or even have claims to geographic expansion. In effect, by forging such a link to ancient Greek Macedonian ancestry as well as using the name "Macedonia" and appropriating these as their own unique culture, and by way of the resulting semantics confusion that has resulted (the Greek prefecture "Macedonia", and FYROM now calling itself Macedonia), FYROM aims to achieve much more than national cohesion, whereby FYROM obviously desires to usurp, or in its view annex, parts of the modern Greek state's prefecture "Macedonia", gaining access to the Aegean Sea, since FYROM is landlocked.

This nationalistic propensity and desire to access the Aegean has resulted in forging history in history books, misinforming the public with the erection of statues of Alexander inscribed in Slavic, and even issuing FYROM bank notes that represent Greek of monuments as their own (notably the White tower of Thessaloniki), or create maps showing a large area of the Greek state's prefecture "Macedonia", including part of the Greek peninsula of "Chalkidiki" and the Greek city Thessaloniki, with the border of this area of the Greek state fringed with barbwire, as though this area is under occupation by the Greek State. This does not end here, but is ubiquitous throughout FYROM with calendars, bumper stickers, and Christmas cards, among other paraphernilia.

The semantics confusion of the name "Macedonia" is the biggest Protochronism achieved by FYROM, by appropriating the name "Macedonia" that refers to the Modern Greek Province and the ancient Greek Kingdom "Macedonia", with the ancient geographic region of that kingdom which stretched across the entirety of the homonymous modern Greek prefecture of "Macedonia" and a small part to the south of FYROM up to lake Ohrid, and loosely connecting and distorting historic facts using procrustean means in order to ascertain connection to antiquity. As an example, consider reading all the aforementioned by removing all clarification to "Greek prefecture" Macedonia and Macedonia "the country" referred to as "FYROM" for clarity, with simply "Macedonia"; there would be no way of disambiguating between the two and "Macedonia" one refers to each time; yet most people would think of the country, not a prefecture, because that is what people learn in geography books.

The Protochronist ideology of FYROM is heavily borrowed from the Protochronism of Albania mentioned previously, given that all three countries share borders. FYROM still uses the name, and identifies as, "Macedonia" even though it has not been recognized by many countries, and a number of petitions have been signed by hundreds of notable academics and professors and sent to the United States Presidents Obama and Bush, and the UN to help clarify the forging of history and inaccuracy that has resulted in tension between Greece and FYROM. Most people fail to see that the right of the people of FYROM to sovereignty as well as their right to name their country whatever they want, are not the same as deliberately harnessing this right so as to have leverage to make claims over Greece's northern geographic area. The semantics confusion is exacerbated by Greeks who inadvertently in defense often state "Macedonia is Greek", on the one hand by enraging the people of FYROM who identify as Macedonians (since to them it sounds as though the Greeks have imperialist views for their country), and on the other hand by escalating tension, since to the rest of the world it appears as though Greece is challenging FYROM's right to sovereignty. As professor D. Papageorgiou has said, perhaps it is better for Greeks to chant "Macedonia is a Greek Prefecture", and leave it at that.

Controversies

It was added a new chapter which contains criticism on works of the main critics of "protochronism". All this is in acord with wiki rules, have a very reliable source, and bring a little balance on neutrality of the article. For avoiding any problems i suggest talks here to be done before any new changes on the main article. I know that there are Boia fans, but they should understand that there are many most important or specialized historians who doesnt agree with some of his ideas, and those must be presented as well for a neutrality of the article (inexistent now). Fact that Boia twisted his opinions acording which what political regime was in power, that he is not specialized in any of the historical fields mentioned there and he was criticised by PhD historians, members of Romanian Academy, for his ideas must be show there ofcourse, as he is the main author quoted in the article

If you write a paragraph on "controversies", then discuss the topic/facts, not the people. I don't think it's relevant to the article what Boia did during the Ceaușescu era or what is the ethnicity of Verdery. If there's an opinion that Boia's methodology was wrong or Verdery used facts that were not correct, then add that (with a reference to the author of that criticism), not some unsourced personal drivel about them. bogdan (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

it is very relevant. First, about Verdery, it is an know fact how hungarian historyography look at Dacian and Daco-Roman continuity, and how many of their views are more like fringe theories then close to reality. If there is specific things pointed by her, and supported by other neutral historians or archeology, i agree she can be a reliable source. She s personal opinion are not (btw, what specialization she have?). About Boia, it must be said that he is not a specialist in any of the areas he talk about, and his change of views from a period to another, (as well as his suspect promovation in hierachy at that University) might have other reasons sometimes, and are not necessary related to historical truth. More then that, those who criticize him are well known historians and we need to point out their opinion as well, for a balance and neutrality of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.222.182 (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop it. Dahn (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

i am sory, things dont go like that. I see you are a fan of some specific view in this problem, but is need to show both sides of the coin. That is a neutral point of view, and i dont care if you like it or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.230.156 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

All you have added is inflammatory self-sourced data, which is in direct contrast to wikipedia policies (mentioned in my edit summary), and contradicts consensus. Other speculations of yours do not interest me in the least, and your original research cannot in fact bear any weight on the wikipedia project. Dahn (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Make sure you also read our WP:SYNTH policy. Dahn (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources are correct, and i can quote from them if you wish, ofcourse. All i write there is backed by what one or another of those two PhD historians said. Not to mention that they are specialized in those fields of expertise, unlike Boia. I understand that you dont agree with them, which is not my concern. Before to trow all kind of "wiki policy" around learn to respect the neutral point of view one, and the balanced view of material presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.230.156 (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you even understand WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP? Or should I take you to WP:AN/I? Dahn (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, to cut out some of the bullshit, the Tribuna source "quoted" for Ioan-Aurel Pop (the anonymous editor couldn't even get his name right!) is an interview with Pop, where Pop repeatedly states that his views on mythology are "complementary" with Boia's, and where protochronism isn't mentioned at all. The personal site mentioned for Scurtu's opinion is uncitable (wikpedia simply doesn't use such self-published web "sources" against scholarship - see WP:RS) - and even that, cited in the awful way it is cited, doesn't say anything about protochronism. This is simply the IP's editorializing and ungrammatical original research. So is the sinister crap about Boia's "communism" and how Verdery's supposed Hungarian origin "disqualifies" her - in fact, it is entirely the IP's rant and vendetta against sources this article uses. I can't even begin to count how many other wikipedia policies are explicitly broken by such edits (though WP:BLP is especially stringent), and I'll happily get this article semiprotected if this guy comes back with such tripe. Dahn (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

what on Earth are you talking there? A site of a PhD historian, member of ROmanian Academy, is not good because is "self-published"? Are you real? He states there pretty clear his opinions about Boia, or his work, and for a neutral point of view, and a more balanced article, that should be mentioned too. Ioan Aurel Pop needs to be mentioned as well, and he pretty clear said he is not in the same line with Boia, and his book actualy is "correcting" Boia ideas. I understand you want to defend a POV, but i understand as well that wiki try to be a neutral site, and all the opinions need to be presented, especially ones coming from such full proof sources (as 2 PhD historians, members of Academy and way more specialized then historian of ideas Boia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.140.13 (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, self-published: WP:RS. On Boia: contentious original research, not actually verified by any published sources, and in gross breach of our WP:BLP policy. Not to mention irrelevant to this text. See also WP:COAT and stop flogging the dead horse - I assure you this type of manipulative soapboxing is not taken lightly by administrators of this project. Dahn (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

dahn, stop vandalizing the page, none of your points are valid, and the sources are quoted correct and reliable. Wiki encourages a balanced point of view and a presentation of all opinions, and discouraging these little moanings and personal wars made by users who dont like another point of view. You are edit warring so stop this vandalism, its really pathetic and embarrasing