 | This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Maybe it is just me Please take in consideration the followings, and reject or not, it is up to you. I write it just one time.
=a
You are saying based on Ion Muşlea, Şcheii de la Cergău (Alba County) şi folclorul lor, Cluj 1928. and Милетич, Любомир (1896). "Брашов и брашовските българите („шкеи”, bolgárszeg)" (in Bulgarian). Дако-ромънитѣ и тѣхната славянска писменость. Часть II. София: Сборникъ за Народни Умотворения, Наука и Книжнина. http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/lm/lm_1.htm. that
- "Researchers maintain the Şchei were ethnic Bulgarians who later adopted the Romanian language and ethnic identity"
Sorry, I do not know Bulgarian and the sites where the referenced article is written is in Bulgarian, too Schei Brasovului for historians (among them D. Onciul) is not necessarily Bulgarian, but Slavic people. And, it also result from D. Onciul He also says neither Romanians or Slavs from there considered Bulgarians
In his book The Origin’s of the Romanian kingdoms DIMITRE ONCIUL (Historian) the book is in Romanian “ORIGINILE PRINCIPATELOR ROMANE - BUCUREŞTI, Ştab. de Arte Grafice “ELZEVIR” 1899” (it is on free domain, now) quoted Miklosich, Die Sprache "der Bulgaren in Siebenbiirgen. Denkschriften der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Viennâ 1855
- “The Romanian-Bulgarian kingdom from Ardeal had been conquested by Stephen The Saint. Hungarian chronicles speak about Schiai (Slavs / Sclavs) until today, a suburb of Brasov is named Schei, These are the older Slovens spreaded on the entire territory of Dacia. Under Bulgarian domination, they had been named Bulgarians like the Slovens from Bulgaria. Remnants of them lived in Ardeal until the past century (Miklosich, Die Sprache "der Bulgaren in Siebenbiirgen. Denkschriften der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Viennâ 1855)
Romanians didn’t consider themselves or the Slavs they lived together, Bulgarians even though the outsiders called both of them Bulgarians. Those Slavs had been assimilated and left a Slavic influence in Romanian language and toponyms of Romania. “
In this English translation, in the spirit of his times and his quoted / cited work G. Onciul The “Older sloven” should be translated with Slavon and/or Slavonic If not, one might consider there was about a Sloven quarter in Brasov’s Scheii Romania http://en.wikipedia.org/Church_Slavonic_language
=b
Neighbourhood's name has been recorded through the ages as follows: Bolgarszek (1611)....
- An earlier attestation is provided by the researcher Vasile Oltean in his work “Junii Braşoveni şi troiţele lor din Şcheii Braşovului de Vasile Oltean” If you want I can provide where anyone can buy it
”the kings from the other side of mountains and Romanian authorities used just the name "Şchei", as it is attested in the charter of the Moldava’s king Aron Voda from 1595”
Vasile Oltean is not a trustworthy person. He is the author of the theory that "Schei" is actually a German root like in "Scheisse" which means "excrement". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.75.125.135 (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
=c
Romanian linguist and literary historian Sextil Puşcariu, however, rejects a Bulgarian presence in the neighbourhood altogether
- In fact: Sextil Puscariu in his book “Sextil Puşcariu Braşovul de altădată. Cluj-Napoca: Ed. Dacia 1977 OCLC 3446164” wrote:
“The origin of Scheii Brasovului had been a Slav colony, romanianized totally no later than 10th-11th century. Based on the proves brought by G. Kisch , when Saxon colonized in 13th century, there weren’t Slavs who speak Slavonic, in the territories where they settled” Another quote: "Despite these facts, some historians maintain to connect the beginning of Schei with the coming of these Bulgarians just because the name "Bulgarians" shouldn’t be taken ethnically but geographically „ and another quote Those who think Schei is the name given because of the (Bulgarians) laborers who came by the time of building the Black Church in 1392 are committing an anachronism”
German historian It is said that they came in 1395 AD to build the Gothic Black Church
=d
Just 2 details 1) Misplaced Pages http://en.wikipedia.org/Bra%C5%9Fov sustain: Once Braşov became a German colony, Romanians were denied several privileges by the new German settlers. And yourarticle mentions :until the 17th century, the inhabitants of Şchei were forbidden from owning property inside the city walls:
2) your article states that “By the beginning of the 19th century, the Bulgarian population of Şcheii Braşovului had been gradually Romanianized”
From the quotation of D. Onciul, see below, (Miklosich’s article is from 1855) then these Slavonic people had been assimilated until 18th century
Sorry for any inconvenience, Blurall (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Ion Muşlea didn't say the Şcheii Brasov had been established by people of Bulgarian ethnicity. Burcze (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Since it is about a Romanian city, the opinion if Romanian historian who concurred that Scheii Brasov has a Romanian origin, it should be included in this article.Burcze (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Todor Bozhinov, Please stop "bulgarising" the Schei article. Eventually present the different neutral views of different historians. The origins of the Schei, as well as of Brasov, are definitely related to several ethnic groups , one of them being medieval immigrants from South of the danube. The old origin includes slav population and romanic population (see old toponyms of the schei). The schei is much older then 1392. Several citations are incorrect. Muslea refers to the Schei of Cergau not from Brasov. The chronicle of Radu Tempea 2 is very controversed and this should be mentioned. Tempea 2 wrote the chronicle at the beginning of the 18th century. The first part (1484-towards the end of the 17th century) is mainly based on the family chronicle of priest Vasile (written around the middle on the 17th century), describing events happening more then 150 years earlier. The reference to Tempea's chronicle in your article is from a German source. Recent research examined several aspects such as church registers, old saxon municipal records, toponimy and how this reflect on the identity politics in the Schei. The Schei has been enough politicized, already from the 16th and 17th century, because it was a stronghold of Orthodox faith and Romanian identity. The first school in Romanian was established in Schei, as well as the first printings in Romanian language. The edition of the article should better reflect how the identity politics of various ages shaped different interpretations on the origin of the Schei village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.98.8 (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Recorded names
Biruitorul, then how should I insert them in order to fulfill the distinction from Suciu's alleged versions and as well having the consequent and consecutive timeline - as usual? (anyway, the 1611 record should be correctly Bolgárszek, regarding "Şchiaii" or "Şchiiaii" by some time could be different as they would transfromed from Cyrillic script...)(KIENGIR (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC))
Categories: