WorldWar2.ro Forum -> History of Maramures and Sighet

Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website

Romanian Army in the Second World War · Forum Guidelines

Help

Members

Calendar

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Resend Validation Email

WorldWar2.ro Forum -> Non-WW2 Topics -> Ancient, Medieval and Modern History

History of Maramures and Sighet, By Teofil Ivanciuc

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Dénes	Posted: February 14, 2012 09:08 pm
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4368 Member No.: 4 Joined: June 17, 2003	I found the following page of Teofil Ivanciuc very interesting: http://teofil-ivanciuc.weebly.com/history-of-maramures.html I appreciate the author taking a fresh look at local history and having the courage to break away from some well established myths. Gen. Dénes

Florin	Posted: February 15, 2012 12:07 am
General de corp de armata Group: Members Posts: 1879 Member No.: 17 Joined: June 22, 2003	I read your link from top to bottom, and as somebody who is not professional historian, I am asking: why this is "a fresh look at local history and having the courage to break away from some well established myths" ? It does not seem to contradict the history of that whole area as we knew it from before - as far as I know.

Dénes

Posted: February 15, 2012 02:12 pm

Admin

Group: Admin
Posts: 4368
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003

Just one quote from the study about the origin of the name of Sighet (Sighet: nume dacic, slav sau maghiar?):

QUOTE

"Între timp s-a cunoscut apogeul pseudodacismului, curent istoriografic rămas la modă şi diferit de dacism (care este strict ştiinţific), ce proclama 2050 de ani de centralism statal dac, Clujul devenind Napoca, Turnu Severin, Drobeta (cum sună Paris-Lutetia sau Budapesta-Aquincum?!), continuitatea neîntreruptă ajungând literă de lege, chiar în locurile unde datele arheologice nu dovedesc una ca asta etc.

Astfel, prin anii ’80 am citit că numele Sighet nu vine de la maghiarul „sziget”-insulă, ci din limba dacică („zeget”-fortificaţie), această interpretare etimologică devenind azi cvasioficială."

"Un alt exponent (mai sunt Alexandru Pele şi mulţi alţii) al acestui curent este Mihai Dăncuş, care în mai toate cărţile sale vorbeşte despre rădăcina „Zeget”, continuitatea neînreruptă de la „geto-dacii” (!) din sec. VII-VI î. Cr. până în mileniul I (ceea ce nu s-a dovedit în vreun fel), despre Dealul Cetăţii cu o cetate traco-dacică (!) ce stă pavăză aşezării (stereotipie neadevărată de care sunt pline mediile de informare) şi despre piesele din perioada traco-dacică (!) găsite de R. Popa în săpăturile de la biserica reformată din Sighet."

So, in light of this official stance, I believe it takes courage to draw other conclusions and publish them:

QUOTE

"Concluzii

1. Nu există nici o dovadă că la Sighet ar exista urmele unei cetăţi dacice, deci nu se poate susţine că numele aşezării provine din traco-dacicul „zeget-zegethis” ca „fortificaţie” (mai ales că pentru acest radical există mai multe traduceri diferite).

2. Dacă la origini oraşul a fost loc de târg pentru localnici, botezat cu topicul de origine slavonă „Sihot” (Sihota), doar cercetările arheologice o vor putea lămuri.

3. În acest moment (lingvistica, ca şi istoria, sunt ştiinţe de multe ori relative) nimic nu ne împiedică să afirmăm că numele studiat provine din limba maghiară: fie din „sziget” (insulă- vezi dovezile că oraşul a fost situat pe un adevărat arhipelag în evul mediu), fie din „félsziget” (peninsulă), ambele fiind realităţi ale locului."

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on February 15, 2012 02:12 pm

21 inf	Posted: February 18, 2012 06:02 pm
General de corp de armata Group: Retired Posts: 1512 Member No.: 1232 Joined: January 05, 2007	It is odd that it is stated that the name of Sighet is not coming from dacian language because the fortified settlement was not identified on the field. In the same time, the slavic name is given as probable, but the settlement is also ... unidentified on the field. The suposition of hungarian name might be right, as sziget means island, but what kind of island? A geografical term as a piece of land surrounded by water seems to me unproper, unless it was a village of type "lacustru". If it is not this kind of reference, than what kind of island it is? An island of hungarians in the middle of romanians? Seems plausible, as the area was under romanian rulers and heavilly inhabited by romanians. Available data for population in 1869 shows 69% hungarians in Sighetu Marmaţiei. Another settlement with the name of Sighet in Transylvania is Sighetu Silvaniei. It's first documentary mention is from 1466, when the village apears as Zygeth. Furhter documentary mentions came from 1475 as Zygethy, 1547 Ziget, 1604 Zyget, 1607 Zigett, 1641 Szigeth, 1733 Szidette, 1746 Sziget, 1760-1762 Szilagy Szigeth, 1850 Szigyet, 1854 Szigeth, Siget, 1900 Szilagysziget, 1930 Sighetu-Silvaniei, 1966 Sighetu-Silvaniei. Available data for population shows in 1850 95% romanians and 5% jews. All surrounding villages are heavilly populated by romanians, so an ethnical island is excluded in this case. It is hard to believe that it has a geographycal meaning as land surrounded by waters. Another thing: why in the article is analised only the name Sighet and not also Marmaţiei? What would be the ethimology of Marmaţia? And what researcher analises only one name in an composed name of a settlement? For Marmaţia, please read here http://dorinstef.blog.com/2010/05/02/maramures-etimologie/

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members:

« Next Oldest | Ancient, Medieval and Modern History | Next Newest »

[ Script Execution time: 0.0096 ] [ 14 queries used ] [ GZIP Enabled ]