Talk:Gelou

Political affiliation and power over the territory

From the time of Krum to the time of Samuel of Bulgaria, this territory which Gelou protected was politically dependent on Preslav and Ohrid in the end. So, I do not see any reason to remove the Category:Transdanubian Bulgaria. Moreover, Hungarian statehood up to 1000 years cannot be said, let alone Romanian statehood.

Here is a source. Unfortunately, the book has not been translated into English: Transylvanian (Siebenbürgen) Bulgarians. Ethnicity. Language. Ethnonymy. Onomastics. Prosopography Angel Angel 2 (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

If Gelou existed at all, he was not subject to Bulgarian authority either according to the Gesta Hungarorum or according to modern scholars who think he existed. Borsoka (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

@TheGoldAge:, why do you think we need to mention the continuity theory in an article about a legendary Vlach duke? Borsoka (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The is no mention of the continuity theory but of the author's opinon about the only work which describes Gelou. The particular paragraph is "Gesta Hungarorum's reliability" which is exactly what Deletant talks about, so it's relevant. Why do you think the direct quote from Gesta Hungarorum concerning Gelou is not relevant to the page? TheGoldAge (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

In the article's consent, Deletant's view of the historicity of Gelou is relevant. His view about the presence of Romanians in Transyvania is out of the scope of the article. Borsoka (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

But is Deletant's view of Gesta Hungarorum relevant? As his view is slightly different from that of the other historians mentioned: István Bóna, Pál Engel, Gyula Kristó. He doesn't argue that "Anonymus had no real knowledge of the Carpathian Basin (including Transylvania) at the time of the Hungarian conquest and invented all the opponents of the Hungarians because he needed characters to be defeated by the conquerors" as currently present in the article. TheGoldAge (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

In the article's context, Deletant's view does not differ from other scholars: Gelou was invented like the Hungarians' all other enemies in the Gesta. Borsoka (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it does, Deletant says that the cases for and against the existance of Gelou simply cannot be proven. Which is different from István Bóna, Pál Engel and Gyula Kristó's views that he is incorrectly put together with. And István Bóna, Pál Engel, Gyula Kristó views on Anonymus' knowledge of Transylvania that he is again incorrectly associated with. Deletant says that a number of Anonymus' characters are clearly created and lists them, Gelou is not part of that list. TheGoldAge (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I have rewritten that part and removed Deletant's view of Gesta Hungarorum as a whole, including his view about the presence of Romanians in Transyvania, only mentioning the part related to Gelou in particular. Do you agree with this new edit? TheGoldAge (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It is a possible approach, but you verbatim cited him without using apostrophes. I fixed the problem. Borsoka (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

King Peter and Gelou

@TheGoldAge: why do you think there is a connection between King Peter Orseolo (died in 1046) and the late 9th-century Gelou. The subject of Curta's article is the history of Transylvania around 1000 AD. He only tangentially mentions Gelou in connection with the possible occupation of the site at Doboka in the late 9th century. He argues that two pendants may date the site to this period. Madgearu rejects Curta's argumentation. Borsoka (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Florin Curta thinks that. He writes in his work that the coins of King Peter Orseolo found during excavations helped them accurately determine the date of the second encampment at Dăbâca. The connection is that without King Peter Orseolo's coin they couldn't have dated the 2nd encampment. The relevance is that this implies that the 2nd or 1st encampments at Dăbâca could have indeed been Gelou's seat of power, the key word being could. Actually, he has a whole chapter dedicated to this. I do not know where you found this: "that were found at the site may prove that an earthwork existed at the site before the Magyars' arrival", because from what I read in the source, an earthwork at the site was already proven to exist. This is a direct quote from the book: "the excavators were overwhelmed by the complexity of the site and embarrassed that no substantial evidence was found to prove the Gesta right ... there are four enclosures at Dăbâca". They expected to find little but found an overwhelmingly amount of things at Dăbâca. In spite of the rich history they found at Dăbâca, they were embarrassed they couldn't find anything to link Dăbâca to Gelou. Some archeologists argued that merely the existance of an earthwork at Dăbâca proves Gesta right, but Curta argues that "while the most critical approach to the literally evidence would still have to accept the existance around 1000 A.D. of some form of political authority in Transylvania and the neighbouring regions, so far archegologists have been unable to identify any focal points of social and political interaciton. Even if we were to admit that Dăbâca existed as a fort before the Hungarian conquest, it remains to be explained what was the role of the fortification within the local network of settlements, why was it erected in the first place, or what its function was. Merely assigning Dăbâca to Gelou does not explain anything." In other words, he argues that they know that Dăbâca existed as a fort before the Hungarian conquest, but they don't know its role or broader context in relation with the rest of Transylvania, and merely assigning it to Gelou does not prove anything. In the end the result is inconclusive, the archeological findings don't rule out the possilibty of Dăbâca being Gelou's seat of power, but also don't prove Dăbâca as Gelou's seat of power. I think all of this is relevant within to the article and "in modern histography" subsection because it's about Gelou. 1968 may be a little outdated, but Florin Curta's work is from 2001. TheGoldAge (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No. Curta raises the possibility that the two pendants (and nothing else) can be dated to the late 9th century. Borsoka (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he does, I have the source and gave you exact quotes from it. TheGoldAge (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have the source. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Then read pages 141-152. TheGoldAge (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have read several times. The pendants are the sole artifacts that make a possible connection between an earthwork built before the time King Peter and Gelou, according to Curta. However, this connection is only a possibility, and the dating of the pendants is sharply refused by Madgearu. He says that the same earthwork must have been built between 970 and 1050. Borsoka (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

"the second enclosure is the only defense work to have produced clearly datable artifacts, namely a silver penny of King Peter (1038 - 1041 and 1044 - 1046)", page 148. TheGoldAge (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, consequently the previous defense work must have been built before that time. It is dated to the late 9th century by Curta and to late 10th century by Madgearu based on the same pendants. Borsoka (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I didn't alter or changed that part from the article. TheGoldAge (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

And? Why should we mention Peter? His only role in this play that the earthwork tentatively connected with Gelou was built before the 1040s AD. So it may have been built in 2000 BC or in the 4th century AD. The pendants are the only objects that possibly connect the structure with Gelou's age. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, which is relevant because Peter helps us identify the date of the 2nd encampment about 50 years after Gelou's alleged rule, which means that either the 2nd or 1st encampments at Dăbâca could have indeed been Gelou's seat of power. Otherwise we wouldn't have any reference points for any of the 4 encampments. I consider him relevant for this, and I believe it's safe to say that the author Florin Curta also considers it relevant otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it when discussing whether the 1968 archaeological discoveries prove Gesta right or wrong. TheGoldAge (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

We are not here to summarize all details of an essay, but to give a relevant summary. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It is relevant summary of 11 pages in 8 rows. If you wish I can make it shorter. TheGoldAge (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I requested a third opinion ([1]).Please read WP:Edit warring before continuing your reverts. Borsoka (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I was about to reedit it in a way we could both agree with and see how we could have worked from there, before the pop-up showed me that you undoed it. It would have been much shorter but would have included Florin Curta's conclusions, Peter's coin and the two pendants. I don't understand what you disagree with anymore, is it Peter's coin's relevance or the length of the summary? Peter's coin's relevance is in helping us identify the 2nd encampment shortly after Gelou's rule (as opposed to 2000 BC or in the 4th century AD), which doesn't infirm the theory that either the 1st or 2nd encampments at Dăbâca could have been Gelou's seat of power (this wasn't the case if the 2nd encampment was dated to 2000 BC or in the 4th century AD, which would have made it impossible for that to be Gelou's seat of power). If its the length of the summary, I managed to make it shorter, the edit was lost when a pop-up appeared that the page was already modified. TheGoldAge (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You were about reverting the text for the third times in two days. Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It has been 12 days and nobody came with a 3rd opinion, would you allow me to edit the article in a way that hopefully satisfied both of us: I'll make it shorter (what you want) and include the two pendants (what you want) and Peter's coin's (what I want). You'll see the result and can give me feedback on what you don't like about the new edit, hopefully that way we can reach an edit with consensus. TheGoldAge (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Again: Peter's coins has nothing to do with Gelou who is the article's subject. What is relevant (the possible dating to the late 9th century of the fortress based on two pendants) is already mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Gelou who is the article's subject, the excavations at Dăbâca are relevant to the article, Peter's coins are relevant to the Dăbâca as they helped them date 1 of the 4 encampments. The discovery of the 4 encampments at Dăbâca is also relevant. If you are so insistent on the Peter's coins, would you agree ot make an edit but remove Peter's coins from them? TheGoldAge (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

We do not mention buildings built in Dăbâca in the 21th century either. What is important in the article's context is that a fortress may have or may have not existed at Dăbâca. This piece of information is mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Florin Curta, the author, did not mention buildings built in Dăbâca in the 21th century either, but he did mention the 4 encampments at Dăbâca and Peter's coins in a work about the existance of Gelou.

Additionally, that piece of information is not present.

In the current form of the article - "According to Florin Curta, Romanian archaeologists "made every possible effort ... to prove that the Gesta was a reliable source for the medieval history of (Romanian) Transylvania" during the excavations at Dăbâca (Gelou's assumed seat) between the late 1960s and 1980s, but they were "embarrassed that no substantial evidence was found to prove the Gesta right". He argues that based on two pairs of silver pendants, similar to 9th-century Moravian jewellery, that were found at the site may prove that an earthwork existed at the site before the Magyars' arrival.[86] In contrast, Madgearu states that the pendants can only dated between around 970 and 1050" - This implies that: (a) The archaeologists didn't find anything (false), (b) does not even mention the fortress found at Dăbâca, which you consider relevant.

In my edit - while "the evidence published so far, albeit poorly, does contain evidence of a 9th century occupation on the site ... the impression the attentive reader will get from the 1968 archeological report is that, far from cunningly distorting or destroying the evidence, the excavators were overwhelmed by the complexity of the site and embarrassed that no substantial evidence was found to prove the Gesta right ... there are four enclosures at Dăbâca ... the second enclosure is the only defense work to have produced clearly datable artifacts, namely a silver penny of King Peter (1038 - 1041 and 1044 - 1046)" - This (a) mentions what the archaeologists found, I verbatim cited the author to avoid any misinterpretation (b) mentions the fortress found at Dăbâca, which the author finds relevant. (c) mentions Peter's coins which the author found relevant in a chapter dedicated to whether Dăbâca could have indeed been Gelou's seat of power or not.

At the end of the chapter, the author offers his conclusion: "while the most critical approach to the literally evidence would still have to accept the existance around 1000 A.D. of some form of political authority in Transylvania and the neighbouring regions, so far archegologists have been unable to identify any focal points of social and political interaciton. Even if we were to admit that Dăbâca existed as a fort before the Hungarian conquest, it remains to be explained what was the role of the fortification within the local network of settlements, why was it erected in the first place, or what its function was. Merely assigning Dăbâca to Gelou does not explain anything." - (a) he makes it clear that Dăbâca existed as a fort before the Hungarian conquest, where as the current article says "may prove that an earthwork existed at the site before the Magyars' arrival" (false). TheGoldAge (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Curta thinks that the fort existed around 900 based on pendants. Madgearu says that the pendants does not prove the existence of the same fort before the 970s. Both scholarly PoVs are mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You keep bringing up the pendants despite me not talking about the pendants. I agree with the pendants being mentioned in the article, but that's not what I am talking about. TheGoldAge (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Because the pendants are the only objects based on which Curta thinks that the fort existed before the Hungarian conquests. Madgearu does not accept this argumentation. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

No, they are not. He does not say that in the source. TheGoldAge (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"There are four enclosures at Dăbâca, each one associated with earthwork fortifications and, at least in the case of the second enclosure, with a palisade partially erected on top of the earthen rampart of the first enclosure. The latter seems to have been restored at least once, at an unknown date. Two hearths found behind the rampart were associated with two pairs of silver, bell-shaped pendants with filigree ornament most typical for ninth-century Moravian artwork." (Curta, Florin (2001). "Transylvania around A.D. 1000". In Urbańczyk, Przemysław (ed.). Europe around the year 1000. Wydawn. DiG. p. 148. ISBN 978-837-1-8121-18.) "Under these circumstances, the most certain chronological indication is provided by the objects found just under the burned level that appeared after the destruction of the palisades. On the watch way of phase 2 from precinct I several fireplaces were discovered... The fireplaces are contemporary with the end of phase 2. In these fireplaces archeologists found potsherds, some fragments of forks and pails, and four bell-shaped pendants made of gilded silver with filigree. The investigators proposed a date in the 9th century for these pendants, but this is impossible, because such pieces were found only in sites dated between the last third of the 10th century, and the first half of the 11th century..." (Madgearu, Alexandru (2005b). The Romanians in the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum: Truth and Fiction. Romanian Cultural Institute, Center for Transylvanian Studies. p. 115. ISBN 973-7784-01-4.) Could you refer to statement from scholarly works indicating that the fort was dated based on other objects? Borsoka (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"the second enclosure is the only defense work to have produced clearly datable artifacts, namely a silver penny of King Peter (1038 - 1041 and 1044 - 1046)" (Curta, Florin (2001). "Transylvania around A.D. 1000". In Urbańczyk, Przemysław (ed.). Europe around the year 1000. Wydawn. DiG. p. 148. ISBN 978-837-1-8121-18.) TheGoldAge (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

And what is the relevance of a silver penny issued in the 1040s in an article about a legendary ruler who lived around 900? Borsoka (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The silver penny issued in the 1040 helps us identify the date of the 2nd encampment shortly after Gelou's alleged rule, which means that either the 2nd or 1st encampments at Dăbâca could have indeed been Gelou's seat of power. TheGoldAge (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody states that the silver penny from the 1040s helps us to identify Gelou's seat of power. It helps us to date a fort which was built in a place where a previous fort had been erected at an uncertain date. The uncertain date is associated with the late 9th century (and possibly Gelou) by Curta, and with the late 10th century by Madgearu - based on the same two pairs of pendants. Borsoka (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Then why would Florin Curta mention the silver penny in a chapter dedicated to identifying Gelou's seat of power? Why would he not mention the pyramids or the buildings built in Dăbâca in the 21th century but he would mention the silver penny? It helps us asses that the fort was still functional in 1040 meaning that either this fort or the previous one from the 1st encampment had the potential to have been Gelou's seat of power. TheGoldAge (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Because his chapter in the book is not dedicated to Gelou (a legendary Vlach ruler living around 900), but to power centers in Transylvania around 1000. Borsoka (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Since page 147 he beings to talk exclusively about archeological excavation at Dăbâca and whether or not that was indeed Gelou's seat of power, the mention of the silver penny is on page 148. TheGoldAge (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

In a chapter about Transylvania around 1000. Sorry, our discussion became circular. It is time to stop it. I guess the principal problem that you think that the fortress existing under KIng Peter's rule and Gelou's alleged seat are one and the same fortresses. However, they existed in different times on the same place. Gelou's alleged fort is dated by pendants, the later fort by coins. Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

In a book about Europe in year 1000. You can zoom out as much as you want, the fact remains that he began discussing about Dăbâca and whether or not that was indeed Gelou's seat of power on page 147, and the silver penny is mentioned on page 148 during that discussion, the context is clear. Your zooming out is the equvalent of having an author talk about the Normandy landings in a chapter about the Western Front, but you don't consider the 101 Airborne Division relevant when he talks about it during the Normandy landings because the chapter is called Western Front and the whole book is called World War II. That's weak.

I don't think that the think that the fortress existing under KIng Peter's rule and Gelou's alleged seat are one and the same fortresses, I think is a possiblity, and so does the author if you read his conclusion on page 152. We don't know whether that was Gelou's seat of power or not. All we could prove was that there was a fort around Gelou's lifespan that might have been his seat of power, but also might not. We don't have certainities, the best we have is possibilities, and Florin Curta with Peter's coin offers us a possibiliy. That's the best we got.

Since you have the source, please point out where in the source says that "However, they existed in different times on the same place. Gelou's alleged fort is dated by pendants, the later fort by coins" because it doesn't mention such a difference in the source. Nowhere does he says that the pendants are the only objects based on which he thinks that the fort existed before the Hungarian conquests. TheGoldAge (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Madgearu makes it clear that the fortress at Dăbâca "had four building stages" and it was used until the 15th century. The first stage - Gelou's alleged seat dated by the four pendants - "ended with the burning of the entire fortress" after 970 (likely around 1003). The second stage - the one dated by King Peter's coins - began after the destruction of the earlier fortress. (Madgearu, Alexandru (2005b). The Romanians in the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum: Truth and Fiction. Romanian Cultural Institute, Center for Transylvanian Studies. pp. 114–116. ISBN 973-7784-01-4.) Consequently, we are talking about two fortresses. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I see, Madgearu does mention that it's impossible for the 2nd encampment to be Gelou's seat of power since it was built after the 1st encampment was burned in 1002 or 1003. I will remove the mention of Peter's coin from the edit, but what is your objection to the rest of the edit?

There are some inconsistencies with the article that I found while reading Madgearu's work:

First, right after saying "The investigators proposed a date in the 9th century for these pendants, but this is impossible, because such pieces were found only in sites dated between the last third of the 1Oth century and the first half of the llth century" the very next sentence is "Therefore, these pendants show that the first stage lasted until a moment that could be placed between the last third of the l0th century and the first half of the 11th century".

Madgearu is not making the claim that the 1st encampment was built in the late 10th or 11th century, but that the 1st encampment lasted until the late 10th or 11th century. Being built at a previous date.

Second, Madgearu also mentioned King Peter's coin. "a coin was found, issued by the Hungarian King Peter I (1038-1041, 1044-1046)", that makes 2 historians that considers the coin relvant. But the fact that the 1st encampment was burned in 1002 or 1003 is more relevant and makes it clear it's imposible for the 2nd encampment to be Gelou's seat of power.

However, Madgearu also argues that: "The destruction of stage I had no relation with the conflict in which Gelou was involved. No earlier destruction was observed. This fact does not rule out a dating of stage I during the time of Gelou, because the fortress could have remained untouched, since, according to GH, the men of Gelou surrendered to the Hungarians after his death.

His conclusion is that "The contemporaneity of stage I with the period of Gelou is not excluded" later saying that "Therefore, the existence of the Dăbâca fortress since the 9"' century is not yet proven by the archaeological evidence, but it is still possible, since some excavations results were not published. On the other hand, if the events related by GH occurred, mast probably, in the 930s, a date during the rime of Gelou remains possible. Taking into account that stage I had two phases and that the settlement from phase 2 had two or three levels, it could be supposed that stage I lasted for about a century, which means that its beginning could be placed before the Hungarian conquest. However, there are no certain archaeological arguments for this idea." in the end saying that "The building of the Dăbâca fortress during the 9'h century is not yet demonstrated, but remains possible.43 Even if this fortified settlement actually existed before the Hungarian attack, the identification with the residence located on the Someş is contradicted by its location, too far from the warzone described in GH."

Madgearu's counter-argument to Florin Curta is insightful. I will make another edit with the updated information, that will not include king peter's coin. TheGoldAge (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not proved, but of course it may have existed and it may have not been destroyed. Anything that is not proved may be true. Do you really think we should expand this article with unproven possibilities? Borsoka (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because everything about Gelou is unproven possibilities. If we go only based on what is proven, we would not have a Gelou article at all. Historians don't know whether Gelou was real or not. We don't have certainities, the best we have is possibilities. I made a new different edit based on Madgearu's work, please review it. TheGoldAge (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

WP is an encyclopedia. WP articles are not destined to repeat scholarly studies. Borsoka (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Gelau as a Bulaq

Why was my post deleted? I had marked everything with a source, and this is a theory accepted by several historians and referred to by several written sources. I have specifically stated that it is a theory, just as this whole page is about a probably fictional person. Zsombor wiki (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

As per DUE: the vast majority of mainstream historians do not accept this theory. Furthermore, the theory could be desribed as a fringe theory. It was quite obviously fabricated by historians who wanted to accept Anonymus' tales about the Magyars' heroic deeds during the Conquest without accepting a Vlach presence in Transylvania before the Conquest. Borsoka (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Even so, two contemporary sources, mentioning the Bulaq Turks as newcomers who came with the Bulgars, and the Nord sagas, also mention a people called "Blokumenn" who were horse nomads, and not Christians, which are not appropriate adjectives for the Vlachs. (Eymund's Saga, Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla) I think it would be fair to include the opinions of other historians, especially if it is cited as a "theory", and is corroborated by contemporary sources, as well as place names and archaeological finds that attest to a Turkic population in the area. I think it's not that they want to accept the fictional fabulous conquest of the Hungarians, but that archaeology, place names and written sources refer to a population whose leader was "Gelou", which is also an earlier name for this people.There is reason to believe that the "Blasis" are not Romanians and are a Turkic people, especially since old maps and old sources distinguish them. CriticKende (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:DUE, we can hardly mention a theory that contradicts all relevant scholarly theories. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Despite this, there are still a lot of theories on a lot of historical topics, such as the origin of the Albanians, there is a special section on the Caucasian origin of the Albanians, although everyone has been rejecting that for 30 years. Or the theories about the origin of various ancient peoples. Why not here, then, as many historians say, and there is archaeological, linguistic and historical evidence. But fine, then don't mention their opinion. CriticKende (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)