Jump to content

Talk:Dacianism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Modern-day equivalents

[edit]
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.[1] In Communist Albania, an Illyrian origin of the Albanians (without denying Pelasgian roots[2] a theory which has been revitalized today[3]) played a significant role in Albanian nationalism,[4] 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.[5]
  • 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellaivarios (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 2009, Gilles de Rapper, "by identifying with Pelasgians, Albanians could claim that they were present in their Balkan homeland not only before the "barbarian" invaders of late Roman times (such as the Slavs), not only before the Romans themselves, but also, even more importantly, before the Greeks‟ (Malcolm 2002: 76-77)."
  2. ^ Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers, Bernd Jürgen Fischer, Albanian Identities: Myth and History, Indiana University Press, 2002, ISBN 978-0253341891, page 96, "but when Enver Hoxha declared that their origin was Illyrian (without denying their Pelasgian roots), no one dared participate in further discussion of the question".
  3. ^ Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 2009, Gilles de Rapper.
  4. ^ ISBN 960-210-279-9 Miranda Vickers, The Albanians Chapter 9. "Albania Isolates itself" page 196, "From time to time the state gave out lists with pagan, supposed Illyrian or newly constructed names that would be proper for the new generation of revolutionaries."
  5. ^ Priestland, D. The red flag of communism. Grove Press, p.404.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Protochronism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian protochronism

[edit]

The statement that the Soviet claims for Russia inventing the first light bulb and radio doesn't give a valid source- the given source does not disprove the claims. Now, proofs PRO statement were quoted in some of the wikipedia pages related to the l. bulb and the radio. In any case, the mention of "russian protochronism" should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shasla1 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, it's a quote from [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless your state what do you mean by proof, nobody knows what you mean by the claim that the Oxford professor's book would be "unproven". I mean, you did not even figure out that you have to quote WP:RS, that would be a step in the right direction. You merely claim that the professor would be wrong simply because Shasla1 feels so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a person states that the professor is correct- the person quotes the alleged proofs in the professors book. If there are no proofs- the person quotes none. If a professors book has no proofs- the book is incorrect. This is the scientific method.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shasla1 (talk • contribs)

Actually, elsewhere in the same book (page 281), Priestland sources the light-bulb information to the Great Soviet Encylopaedia. "The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia informed its readers that Aledxandr Mozhaiskii, not the Wright brothers, built the first aeroplane; Grigorii Ignatiev invented the telephone; A. S. Popov the radio; V. A. Manassein and A G. Polotebnov pencillin; P. N. Iablochkov and A. N. Lodygin the light-bulb." Schazjmd (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, does Priestland give proofs that those statements are wrong? Or is it just his word? For if yes, he is incorrect, as the GCE gives sources, and the GCE is supported by the government of the state (and a government has more authority on the question of stuff that happened in the state)and by it's scientists, so, a "he is a professor, he has authority and thus his word is law" argument can't be used anyway.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shasla1 (talk • contribs)

Ah, I think I understand your objection now. You're not disputing that the Soviets claimed Russians invented those things; you're asserting that those claims are accurate, and thus the claims are not evidence of protochronism because the claims are true. I didn't get that from your earlier comments.
But as editors, we document what reliable, second-party sources say on a subject, and David Priestland is a recognized expert on the subject. Do you have any sources that challenge Priestland's characterization of the Soviet claims? Schazjmd (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shasla1 has been indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Coming back to his claims, the incandescent light bulb did not have only one inventor and Alexander Lodygin did file an invention which did not have commercial success. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From memory i think i added that bit in the article about Russian protochronism, as per Priestland. Priestland is an RS source.Resnjari (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The OP is an indeffed WP:TROLL. He never had the intention of editing constructively, as he himself told us upon his talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature

[edit]

When I joined wikipedia in 2007 my intention was to write an article on "tracomania" on ro.wiki and try to fight off the pseudo-historic propaganda that was quite rampant at the time. I was however quite surprised to find the article on Protochronism here at en.wiki. I took the easy way and quickly translated it. In the hind sight this is quite ironic since it goes to prove that Romanians tend to privilege Lovinescu's synchronicity over Papu's protochronism. Anyway, revisiting both articles 14 years later I realize I am faced with both an intellectual and moral dilemma. Both articles have an issue of nomenclature. I remember noticing it 14 years ago but it didn't seem like a big deal then. It kinda does now. Let me explain. Both major sources published in the '90s - Verdery and Boia use the term dacianism (dacism in Romanian) for the ethnocentric Dacian-related pseudo-history and protochronism for the alleged innovative nature of Romanian literature (and by extension culture). Verdery actually uses "protochronism" in Papu's original and rather precise meaning, while with Boia it's slightly broader. But at no point are dacianism (i.e. dacomania) and protochronism used interchangeably by either Verdery or Boia. They are in the Wikipedia articles. After 2008 academic sources started using dacomania and protochronism interchangeably but that is often because of wikipedia, with some academic journals going as far as to incorporate text from the wikipedia articles. I would really like to improve both en.wiki and ro.wiki articles and incorporate recent research but I'm not sure what the best strategy is. Take the nomenclature issue as a fait accompli and soldier on or split the article as we probably should have 15 years ago. I'm really hoping for some feedback here. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plinul cel tanar, from what I've understood, this article's title should then be Dacianism (or Thracianism?). If that is the case, a first step I would recommend doing is making a requested move to get to change its name. The rest should be easy, just remove anything not belonging to Dacianism in this article and split it to a new one dedicated to actual Protochronism. And yes, I believe you should indeed try to fix this issue. Super Ψ Dro 16:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus You got my meaning. For example the article reads Protochronism most likely came about with the views professed in the 1870s by Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu. The statement is attributed to Boia and Verdery (the page numbers are likely wrong for Boia - but that's a minor detail). In fact both authors connect Hasdeu to Dacianism not protochronism and both authors use Dacianism and protochronism with different meanings albeit they connect both phenomena to indigenism and nationalism. I would also favor splitting the article but that would entail other issues. For example, as I already wrote, several academics have been using protochronism systematically when they mean Dacianism. This is particularly true for people working on Neo-Paganism. The Dacianism article should thus contain a short paragraph on protochronism and vice-versa. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So be it then. First could come the name change and then the paragraph about Protochronism, and maybe while doing it we realize that there's enough information to split the article (or maybe not). Super Ψ Dro 20:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia created knowledge that then "escaped" into "scientific" articles written by lazy authors. Probably we should start by defining a section about Dacomania inside this article and see where it gets. If that sections comes to include more than 2/3 of the article, it's obvious we should move the article altogether and make Protochronism a section in the new article.Anonimu (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bothersome issue here is that literary theorists still use protochronism in the original meaning coined by Papu - i.e. the tendency of a national literature to anticipate trends as opposed to synchronicity - the tendency to imitate. See for instance https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=96149. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plinul cel tanar, I started to change the links now that the article was moved and I found a potential issue in the case a page for Romanian protochronism is written: at Nationalist historiography#Nationalism and ancient history, Albanians are also attributed with a movement known as "protochronism". While trying to do some Google searches (I have WiFi problems so I can't do anything in depth), I found the same might happen with Bulgarians. Do you know anything about this? Super Ψ Dro 14:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a mention of protochronism at Slovenes#Identity (I removed it for reasons given on an edit summary and because it was unsourced). Super Ψ Dro 14:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really an issue in my opinion. The Romanian page on protochronism should first focus on Papu and the Luceafaru movement in the 70s and 80s. We can then explain that the term is also used elsewhere. It has even been used for Hungary in recent papers. But all these reference are a posteriori. In the case of Romania the term was coined by Papu and used by both supporters and opponents. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plinul cel tanar, well, the article was moved a while ago. I see you are working in other articles right now, but I wonder if you plan to edit this article in the future as it still uses "protochronism" instead of "dacism". Super Ψ Dro 17:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super DromaeosaurusHi. I am definitely planning to get back to this, it's way up in my priority list. Unfortunately I got tangled in real-life work and in another article. I'll try touch ground on this in August. I can maybe do a temporary facelift this week... would that do? Plinul cel tanar (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you don't have to advance your plans, I am nobody to demand such a thing. I just wanted to know if you were going to work on this in the future or if you had forgotten it, and it appears you haven't, which is good to know! Super Ψ Dro 17:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was kinda feeling guilty... but I have not forgotten. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm sorry if I've contributed to this in any way. Super Ψ Dro 20:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 May 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protochronism → Dacianism – Protochronism and dacianism are related but different concepts. See Nomenclature above Plinul cel tanar (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)—Relisting. (t · c) buidhe 16:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plinul cel tanar, you'll need sources in order to convince more people. Do you have some? Can you cite quotes from them that show, indirectly or directly, that both are distinct? It's not that I'm skeptical now, it's just that you should elaborate more (even if you did above). Super Ψ Dro 12:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main sources that are already indicated in the article already use dacianism. For example, Verdery (page 326) - not only were many "dacianists" Moldavian but [...]; Boia - the Dacianist thesis of Densusianu, The "Dacianist" Hasdeu, The pure hard Dacianism of the Party and military historians came up against.... Manu mostly uses Dacianism (in Romanian dacism) when specifically referring to the imagined Dacian pseudo-history. She also uses protochronism but mostly in the broader sense of nationalist pseudo-history. As I explained above things are tricky because a lot of post 2008 sources use the terms interchangeably because they are literally based on wikipedia (Borangic, C., Fenomenul dacoman: promotori și aderenți. Buletinul Cercurilor Științifice Studențești, Arheologie - Istorie - Muzeologie, 14, 119-137, 2008). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plinul cel tanar (talk • contribs) 13:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a closer look even Mircea Babes's article post-dates the article on en.wiki and, coincidentally or not, he uses protochronism for dacianism. There's no easy way to fix this. The terminology is muddy and wikipedia played a big part in making it muddy (wikipedia including myself)... Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I wanted to wait to see if the article author was going to comment as I was still somewhat confused, but since days have passed, I did some research and clarified more this whole situation to myself. From what I understood, Dacianism (a more general term) is the nationalist movement that relates Romanians with Dacians (or the admiration of Dacians by Romanians, [2]), while protochronism is the discourse of the Romanians as related to the Dacians in literature and scientific works. I base myself from the following source [3] (a perhaps important note from there for the discussion: the author says that Dacianism is the manifestation of protochronism at page 8).
Honestly, both subjects are just too similar to be split, but as Dacianism is more general (in fact, could we say that protochronism is "scientific Dacianism"?), so it probably should be used as the title page. I think it is important to leave in the article clearly stated what Dacianism is, what protochronism is and also mention they are sometimes mixed up. By the way, the DEX has two different entries for Dacism and Protocronism. The definition of the latter does not mention the word "Dacian" or similar. Plinul cel tanar, do you know if protochronism is not only limited to Dacians (this might be the reason why I got confused)? If so, that this article's title should be Dacianism is more certain. Super Ψ Dro 17:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Protochronism is not limited to the Dacians and for a long time it did not specifically include Dacianism. Papu (who coined the term) defined protochronism as innovation (anticipation) in a national culture and opposed it to synchronicity - that is imitation of a foreign culture. Ceausescu's nationalist regime quickly got hold of the idea (the circumstances are presented in different ways by different sources) and it became ideology. At the same time, Dacianism was prospering and quickly became associated to protochronism. I would however like to stress one of my initial points - most references to Verdery and Boia in this article (the backbone of the whole narative) should read Dacianism not Protochronism. The two authors do say what we claim they say but in their respective books the terms are not interchangeable. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super DromaeosaurusI'm linking Verdery's book. Look at her contents - even without access to the full text you'll see my point. https://www.google.fr/books/edition/National_Ideology_Under_Socialism/5a4wDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=katherine+verdery&printsec=frontcover Plinul cel tanar (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then it's clear. Full support to moving to "Dacianism". Out of curiosity, for what else is Protochronism used? I can only think of those theories saying Latin comes from Romanian and not viceversa as another example of protochronism. Super Ψ Dro 20:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus Well if you follow the publications of the protochronists in the 70s and 80s, namely the Luceafarul magazine you'll note that it focuses a lot on literature (Neagoe Basarab as an early baroque writer etc) then moves to other fields - Paulescu discovering insulin and Odobleja inventing cybernetics before Wiener. Writing an article about Protochronism independent from Dacianism allows a focus on the split which affected the National Writers' Union in the 70s and 80s. It also allows a discussion on how poor Papu realized his idea was becoming something else and tried to nuance it. You can read this if you want (it only requires registration) https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=96149 .04:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Plinul cel tanar (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. A split article about protochronism would be interesting to read. Super Ψ Dro 09:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would and I am willing to invest some time in working on it. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article follows the use of the terms by historians such as Boia, and is for this reason probably overfocused on Dacianism. I don't disagree with it being renamed and split, as per the original proposal, though, in the event, I would like to remind authors involved in this to also check articles that link to the concept and change the links to either one of the two articles/names. Regards, Dahn (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dahn. Actually I went back to Boia as I was looking for the root of the problem (note: I have the 2001 edition). In the first part of chapter 2, where he discusses Hasdeu, Boliac and the emergence of dacianism he uses "dacianist" and "dacianism" (e.g. the dacianism of the amators). Boia first uses "protocronim" at the end of chapter 2 in the section dedicated to late communism (Discursul comunist: exacerbarea naţionalistă) and in precise reference to Papu and his lot (granted - Boia does say the idea is by no means original or unique). The term "protochronism" then disappears until chapter VI where he discusses "the ideal prince". This is where Boia uses "protocronist" again, only once, and again in relation to literature (N-au fost uitaţi nici domnitorii "culturali", precum Neagoe Basarab şi Dimitrie Cantemir, evocarea întăptuirilor lor având darul de a conforta tezele "protocroniste"). In the next paragraph Boia goes back to the Dacians and I'm guessing this is the source of the ambiguous terminology in the wikipedia article; however Boia's wording is clear indication that in his mind the terms "dacianism" and "protochronism" are not interchangeable. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Plinul cel tanar. As stated, I don't object to a revamp. Dahn (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dacianism&oldid=1241667402"