Forvm Romanvm

Сутра од 11 у свечаној сали - не пропустите! Биће занимљивих тема од римског, преко средњовековног, до модерног права!

Iceland's DNA carries a secret that no saga ever recorded.
When geneticists analyzed the ancestry of Iceland's founding population — the people who arrived on that volcanic island in the late 9th and early 10th centuries and built a society that would remain remarkably isolated for over a thousand years — they found something that stopped them.
The men's ancestry traced overwhelmingly to Scandinavia. Norse, Viking, from Norway and Sweden — approximately 75 to 80 percent of the founding male lineage.
The women's ancestry told a completely different story. Roughly 60 to 62 percent of the founding female lineage traced not to Scandinavia, but to the British Isles — specifically Ireland and Scotland. Gaelic women, in numbers that dramatically outnumbered their Norse counterparts.
And here is the detail that makes the pattern impossible to explain away: there are almost no Gaelic men in the founding population.
Norse men. Gaelic women. No corresponding Gaelic male ancestry.
That asymmetry is not an accident. It is evidence. And what it is evidence of sits at the uncomfortable heart of the Viking age that popular culture prefers not to examine too closely.

The science behind this comes from two types of genetic analysis. Y-chromosome studies trace ancestry through the paternal line — father to son, generation to generation. Mitochondrial DNA traces ancestry through the maternal line — mother to child, unchanged across time. When researchers compared modern Icelanders to populations across Europe, the split was dramatic and consistent: men's ancestry pointing to Scandinavia, women's ancestry pointing to Ireland and Scotland.
This wasn't gradual mixing over centuries of contact. This was Iceland's founding population — the original settlers who established the genetic baseline that a remarkably isolated society would carry forward for over a thousand years.
Recent studies analyzing actual ancient DNA from medieval Icelandic remains confirmed and deepened the picture. Early Iceland shows roughly equal Norse and Gaelic ancestry overall — approximately 50/50 — but the split is gendered in precisely the pattern the modern DNA suggested. Norse men, Gaelic women.
Modern Icelanders show approximately 70 percent Norse ancestry — significantly more Norse than the founding population. Something caused the Gaelic genetic contribution to decline across the centuries. Researchers propose two explanations, neither comfortable: lower reproductive success possibly linked to lower social status, or population bottlenecks from famines and epidemics that disproportionately affected descendants of the enslaved.

To understand what the genetics are telling us, you need the historical context.
Starting in the late 8th century — 793 CE is the traditional date, the raid on the monastery at Lindisfarne — Norse raiders began striking coastal communities across the British Isles with increasing frequency and depth. They came in longships fast enough to outrun defenders and shallow enough to beach anywhere. They struck monasteries. They struck villages. They struck settlements along rivers that gave them access to the interior.
They took treasure. They burned buildings.
And they took people.
Slavery was not peripheral to Viking society. It was structural. The Norse word was þræll — thrall — and slaves performed the labor that sustained farms, households, and the Viking economy across Scandinavia and its settlements. They were property, bought and sold in markets across the Viking world, appearing in legal codes that regulated their status and value.
Among the most valued captives were women — who could work, and who could bear children, expanding the workforce and the population simultaneously.
Ireland was raided heavily and repeatedly. The Vikings established permanent settlements there — Dublin was founded as a Norse trading and raiding base. They controlled stretches of coastline for generations and penetrated inland along river routes. The Icelandic sagas, written centuries after the settlement period, mention Irish and Scottish slaves in Viking settlements. Archaeological evidence has produced slave collars and chains. The historical record, fragmentary as it is, documents a slave trade that was substantial by any measure.
When Norse settlers began colonizing Iceland in the 870s, they were building farms from nothing in a harsh, unpopulated environment. They needed labor. They needed women to establish households and bear the children who would populate the new colony.
The genetics record where those women came from.

The asymmetry is the argument.
If Gaelic women had come to Iceland as voluntary migrants — as wives, as free settlers traveling alongside Norse partners who had settled in Ireland and Scotland — you would expect to see Gaelic male ancestry as well. Families migrate together. Communities migrate together. Voluntary partners leave genetic traces on both sides.
You don't see that. You see Norse men and Gaelic women, in proportions that fit precisely with what you'd expect from raiding and the slave trade.
Researchers are appropriately careful about what DNA alone can prove. Genetic evidence shows ancestry. It cannot directly confirm legal status. It cannot tell us, of any individual woman, whether she crossed the North Atlantic as a free person or as someone's property.
But genetic evidence combined with documented historical practice — the raids, the slave markets, the legal codes, the saga references to Irish thralls — makes coerced migration the most probable explanation for a substantial portion, likely the majority, of the Gaelic women in Iceland's founding population.
Some may have been wives of Norse men who had settled in Ireland and chosen to migrate. Some small number may have come as free individuals. The evidence doesn't rule out those possibilities for some.
The overall pattern — dramatic asymmetry, absent Gaelic male ancestry, perfect fit with documented practices — points elsewhere for most.

These women left almost nothing in the historical record.
The Icelandic sagas are remarkable documents — detailed, literary, historically engaged. They preserved Norse history, mythology, law, and genealogy across centuries. They named chieftains, recorded feuds, traced lineages, celebrated achievements.
Slaves appear occasionally in the background, unnamed, their stories deemed unworthy of preservation. The women who built Iceland's households, worked Iceland's farms, bore Iceland's children — if they arrived as thralls, the sagas did not record their names, their origins, their experiences, or their deaths.
But DNA doesn't care about sagas.
DNA records who actually contributed to a population's formation. And the DNA records these women completely — not their names, not their stories, but the undeniable fact of their presence, their survival, and their biological contribution to every generation that followed.
Six in ten maternal lineages among Iceland's founders trace to the British Isles. That means six in ten Icelanders today, tracing the matrilineal line back far enough, will find a Gaelic woman somewhere in that ancestry.
A woman whose name we will almost certainly never know. Who may have appeared in a long-lost document simply as thrall, or not at all. Who may have been taken from a coastal village in Ireland, placed on a ship, and brought to a volcanic island she had never imagined existed.
She survived. She built something — not by choice, but by the particular fierce determination that survival under those circumstances required. She raised children who became Icelanders. And she left a genetic record that a thousand years of silence could not erase.

This is where history becomes uncomfortable in ways worth sitting with.
Popular culture has always loved Vikings. The longships, the warriors, the exploration — the Norse who reached North America centuries before Columbus, who built a legal system sophisticated enough to form the world's oldest parliament, who produced sagas of genuine literary achievement. That is all true. Vikings were remarkable.
The same longships that enabled exploration brought captives across the North Atlantic. The same maritime skill that reached Iceland also made the raids on Ireland possible. The wealth that funded the settlements came partly from slave markets. The exploration and the exploitation were not separate phenomena — they were the same phenomenon, powered by the same forces, documented in the same historical moment.
Acknowledging this does not diminish Iceland or Icelanders. Every population's history includes violence alongside achievement. Honest history is richer than comfortable history, not poorer.
What it does is restore the Gaelic women to their actual place in Iceland's story — not as background characters barely worth mentioning, but as people whose survival, resilience, and biological contribution shaped the nation as profoundly as any chieftain the sagas chose to name.
Enslaved people are never passive. Survival under oppression requires constant agency — learning new languages, adapting to brutal climates, navigating social systems designed to deny your humanity, finding ways to preserve knowledge and perhaps fragments of original culture while forced into a society that owned you. That is strength. That deserves recognition as historical agency.

The burial evidence adds texture to the picture. Some Gaelic individuals in early Iceland were buried in unmarked graves, suggesting low social status. Others were buried in traditional Viking fashion with grave goods, suggesting either integration during their lifetimes or that their descendants gained status across generations. The full range of individual experience under slavery is visible even in the archaeological record, which is another reminder that these were not a uniform group but individual people navigating individual circumstances.
The decline of Gaelic ancestry in modern Icelanders — from roughly 50 percent in the founding population to about 30 percent today — may reflect that those lower-status lineages had lower reproductive success across the centuries. Or it may reflect that famines and epidemics, which Iceland experienced across its medieval history, fell harder on those with less social protection.
Either way, the arc of that decline is its own kind of historical testimony.

There is a broader point in all of this that extends well beyond Iceland.
Genetic research has given historians a tool that bypasses the fundamental problem of recorded history: that it was written by people with power, about people with power, for audiences with power. The people at the margins — the enslaved, the displaced, the people whose stories were not deemed worth preserving — left no sagas, no chronicles, no official records.
They left DNA.
And DNA, as the post's original author rightly noted, is an archive that cannot be edited, destroyed, or rewritten to suit a more comfortable narrative.
Iceland's genetic record is speaking for women who were silenced over a thousand years ago. It is saying, with the precision of science rather than the poetry of sagas: We were here. We were central. We built this.
They deserved to have their names recorded. They deserved to have their stories told. They were denied both.
What they were not denied — what nothing could take from them — was their biological contribution to the people who came after.
Six in ten maternal lineages. Thousands of individual women, unnamed, unrecorded, who crossed the North Atlantic and survived what they found there.
The sagas didn't write them in.
The DNA wrote them in anyway.
And a thousand years later, that testimony still holds.

Драги наши форумаши,

Од сутра, наредна три дана, на Правном факултету се одржава седма међународна студентска конференција из правне историје - Iustoria 2026, са темом "У сенци империја"! Као и обично, имаћете прилике да чујете три гостујућа предавања, као и бројне сесије младих истраживача (студената основних и постдипломских студија) на српском и енглеском језику. Наравно, има и форумаша међу учесницима - а не сумњамо да ће их бити и у публици!

Ако сте у могућности, дођите у конференцијску салу - а ако не, придружите се онлајн! На сајту Факултета можете видети програм и књижицу апстраката, где је садржан и линк за Вебекс приступ.
https://ius.bg.ac.rs/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Apstrakti2026.pdf

, , , ,

У среду, 29. априла 2026. године, проф. др Борис Бабић са Филозофског факултета Универзитета у Бањој Луци одржао је у клубу „Forvm Romanvm“ предавање „Рецепција грчке и византијске културе у Западној Европи од XIV до XVI вијека“. Говорио је о италијанском хуманизму, који је карактерисало велико интересовање за стари Рим, а затим и Грчку, те о доласку бројних ромејских дипломата и учених људи у Италију, од којих су неки и остали за стално и имали своје истакнуте ученике. Поменуо је многе важне личности и догађаје – од предавања Димитрија Кидона у Италији, преко стотина грчких рукописа које је Ђовани Ауриспо донео из Константинопоља, до никејског епископа Висариона који је остао у Риму, примио католичанство и постао кардинал (чак је двапут учествовао и у конклавама), у чијој су се кући окупљали одбегли ромејски интелектуалци. Важно питање представљао је, наравно, покушај уније на сабору у Фиренци 1438. године – покушај ромејског царства да се спасе од османског освајања издајом православне вере, који није успео јер га црква и друштво нису прихватили. У другом делу предавања говорио је о почецима издавања ромејских књига у Европи, где је најважнију улогу играо филолог Јероним Волф. После предавања развила се дуга и жива дискусија међу окупљеним наставницима и студентима.

У уторак, 28. априла 2026. године, у клубу „Forvm Romanvm“, професор емеритус Дејан Поповић одржао је предавање „Коста Цукић: први српски економиста и први професор финансија и пореског права на Лицеју у Београду“. Предавање је било посвећено јубилеју – двестагодишњици од рођења Косте Цукића (1826-1879), као и истом приликом приређеног новог, језички осавремењеног издања Цукићеве књиге „Финансије“, које су приредили наставници Катедре за правно-економске науке – Дејан Поповић, Гордана Илић Попов, Светислав Костић и Лидија Живковић. Предавање је проф. Поповић започео кратким прегледом историје високог образовања у Србији, после чега је говорио о животу и раду Косте Цукића, од породичног порекла и детињства у Крагујевцу, преко студирања на истакнутим универзитетима у иностранству, до потоње академске каријере на Лицеју у Београду и државне службе. Доста пажње посветио је реформама које је Цукић спровео (или покушао да спроведе) као министар финансија и в.д. министра просвете и црквених послова. Дао је свој суд и о личности и значају Косте Цукића за Србију оног времена, али и за данашње време, кроз допринос који је оставио у академској литератури и значајним реформама. После предавања, присутна публика имала је бројна питања.

The headlines called it the most generous act in the history of American industry.
They were not entirely wrong. They were not entirely right, either.
On January 5, 1914, Henry Ford and his vice president James Couzens walked into a room of reporters and announced that Ford Motor Company would begin paying its workers five dollars a day — more than double what most factory laborers in America earned. Newspapers ran glowing editorials around the world. The notion of a wealthy industrialist sharing profits with workers on such a scale was unprecedented.
What the headlines didn't say was that the five dollars came with conditions.
But to understand the conditions, you first have to understand the problem Ford was trying to solve — because this story begins not with generosity, but with chaos.
By 1913, the moving assembly line at Ford's Highland Park plant in Detroit had done exactly what it was designed to do: it had made the production of automobiles astonishingly fast and efficient. A Model T that once took over twelve hours to build could now be completed in a fraction of the time. The machine was working perfectly.
The humans inside it were not.
Workers who had taken pride in their labor were quickly bored by the more mundane assembly process. Some took to lateness and absenteeism. Many simply quit, and Ford found itself with a crippling labor turnover rate of 370 percent.
This was not a philosophical problem. It was a mathematical one. To keep a factory running, Ford needed a stable workforce — and stability was the one thing the assembly line seemed constitutionally incapable of producing. Every time a worker quit, Ford paid to find another, pay to process them, pay to train them. The efficiency gains from the line were bleeding out through the revolving door.
Something had to change.
This was 1914 — the year Europe stumbled toward the First World War, the year the Panama Canal opened, the year America was still working out what industrial modernity actually meant for the people inside it. Into that moment, Ford made his announcement.
Lost in the headlines, however, was a crucial detail: the pay increase was not a raise. It was a profit-sharing plan. If you made $2.30 a day under the old schedule, you still made $2.30 under the Five-Dollar plan. But if you met all of the company's requirements, Ford gave you a bonus of $2.70 on top.
The requirements were where things got interesting.
Thousands of workers flooded Detroit to apply for jobs, causing crowds and riots outside the factory gates. Ford then announced he would only hire people who had lived in Detroit for at least six months — instantly filtering the queue. The men who made it through the gates were then subject to something no employer had attempted on such a scale: the Ford Sociological Department.
To qualify for the full five dollars, workers had to abstain from alcohol, not physically abuse their families, not take in boarders, keep their homes clean, and contribute regularly to a savings account. Investigators were dispatched to visit workers' homes and verify compliance. They inspected the kitchen. They asked about drinking habits. They reviewed bank books.
Ford's reasoning, stated plainly: workers troubled by money problems at home would be distracted on the job. If higher pay was intended to eliminate those problems, Ford would make sure his employees were using his generosity "properly."
The workforce Ford was trying to shape was not a homogenous one. By 1914, seventy percent of Ford's total workforce were foreign-born, with over half coming from eastern and southern Europe. Poles, Hungarians, Italians, Russians — men who had come to America with different languages, different customs, and different ideas about how a life should be organized. Ford's Sociological Department had a mission for them too: Americanization. English classes. Citizenship courses. The gradual transformation of immigrant factory workers into a particular vision of the American middle class — Ford's vision.
There was genuine complexity here that resists easy judgment.
On one hand, the wages were real. For many of Ford's workers, five dollars a day represented a genuine leap in living standard — the difference between poverty and stability, between renting a room and owning a home. Ford's profits doubled within two years of the announcement. In 1915, Ford hired only 6,508 workers, mainly to fill new positions. In two years, the time it took to build a Model T dropped from twelve hours and twenty-eight minutes to ninety-three minutes.
The five-dollar day did what Ford designed it to do. Workers stopped leaving. Productivity soared. The revolving door became a waiting list. Men were terrified of losing a wage that no other factory in America was offering, and that fear translated directly into the discipline and consistency the assembly line demanded.
Ford is often quoted as saying the five-dollar day was "the best cost-cutting measure I ever undertook." Whether he said it exactly that way or not, the math was real. Generosity, in this case, was also strategy — and the two were inseparable.
On the other hand, the Sociological Department represented something that deserves honest examination. An employer sending investigators to a worker's home to inspect the cleanliness of his kitchen and the contents of his savings account is not benevolence in any simple sense. It is control — dressed in the language of uplift, but control nonetheless. Workers deeply resented the intrusion into their personal lives. The department was eventually dissolved, though not before leaving a significant mark on the company's culture and its relationship with labor.
During World War I, the Sociological Department went further still — joining hands with federal authorities to identify and remove workers suspected of radical sympathies. By 1921, it had been merged into Ford's notorious Service Department, which became one of the most feared internal security operations in American corporate history.
And yet the economic logic that Ford stumbled into — or engineered, depending on your reading — was genuinely revolutionary. By paying his workers enough to afford the product they were building, Ford collapsed the distance between producer and consumer. His employees became his customers. His factory floor became his market. The assembly line that had driven workers to quit in despair was now producing cars that those same workers could park in the driveways of the clean homes they were required to maintain.
It was a closed loop of extraordinary elegance. And extraordinary ambiguity.
This is the part of history that is hardest to hold — the moments when the same decision is simultaneously progressive and controlling, generous and manipulative, visionary and invasive. Ford's five-dollar day was all of these things at once. The workers who benefited from it were real. The workers who resented the home inspections were real. The leap in living standards was real. The surveillance was real.
Henry Ford did not invent the American middle class. But on January 5, 1914, standing in front of a room of stunned reporters, he announced the terms under which a version of it would be built — and the terms, as always, were his.
The question worth sitting with, more than a century later, is a simple one:
When the raise comes with an inspector at the door, what exactly are you being paid?

OPEN ACCESS🏆
After Constantine: Studies in Early and Byzantine Christianity. Special Issue: Proceedings of the Entangled Christianities Conference 2026 (Orthodox Academy of Crete, April 2026)

https://afterconstantine.org/read/special-entangled-christianities

CONTENTS:

Augustine of Hippo’s *De baptismo contra Donatistas* as an Invitation for Integration -- Athanase Bukin

Transforming Body and Mind: Anglo-Saxon Coin Pendants as Active Objects during Christianization -- Marion Fauqueur

Between Rome and Constantinople: Christianization, Sacred Space, and the Byzantine Affective Koine in Early Medieval Naples (6th–10th Centuries) -- Fermude Gülsevinç

Interpreting Enlightenment: East Syriac Christianity and Buddhist Thought in Tang China -- Rong Huang

The Letter of the Monk of France to the Emir of Saraqusṭa: Mozarabic Christianity and the Politics of Interreligious Engagement -- Anthony John Lappin

Hymnology and Theology in the Service of Imperial Authority: An Ecclesiological Aspect of the ‘Entanglement’ of Christianity -- Pantelis Levakos

Entangled Christianity in Pagan Lithuania: Franciscan and Orthodox Martyrdoms by Grand Dukes Gediminas and Algirdas -- Rasa Mažeika

Four Threads, One Roof: Orthodox, Catholic, Miaphysite, and Church of the East Visual Repertoires at Asinou -- Matthew Milliner

Appropriation of the Christian Past in Postconquest Coptic Hagiography: Case Study of Abū Mīnā Sanctuary -- Przemysław Piwowarczyk

Why Do Byzantine Penitentials Pay Great Attention to Intimate Issues? Some Thoughts on Sexual Life and Social Control in Middle Byzantine Orthodox Communities -- Edward Trofimov

The Entanglement of the First Carmelite Cloister on Mount Carmel with the Mamluk Armies in the Thirteenth Century -- F***y Vitto

Да ли је ово био апсолутно највећи љубитељ Илијаде? 🙂
https://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/749275/fragmenti-homerove-ilijade-pronadeni-unutar-egipatske-mumije

https://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/749275/fragmenti-homerove-ilijade-pronadeni-unutar-egipatske-mumije

Фрагменти Хомерове „Илијаде” пронађени унутар египатске мумије Копија пронађена у мумији старој 1.600 година

The Varangian Guard was one of the stranger institutions in medieval history: a corps of Norse and later Anglo-Saxon mercenaries serving as the personal bodyguards of the Byzantine emperors in Constantinople, loyal not to any man but to the office of the throne itself.

They were famously described by Byzantine writers as terrifying in appearance and equipment, enormous axe-wielding warriors from the frozen north who had traveled south through the river systems of the Rus into the heart of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Basil II had recruited the first six thousand from Prince Vladimir of Kiev in 988, deliberately choosing men with no local political loyalties who could be trusted to protect the emperor from the Byzantine aristocracy itself.

By 1034, during the reign of Emperor Michael IV, units of the Guard were wintering in the Thrakesion Theme, the military district covering the interior of western Anatolia.

Spread through the local countryside in their winter quarters, they occupied villages and farmsteads in the manner of soldiers on campaign.

The Chronicle of John Skylitzes, the eleventh-century Byzantine historian whose work is one of the most significant surviving sources for this period, records what happened when one of these men encountered a local woman alone in a remote area.

He attempted to assault her. When she refused, he tried to force her. She pulled his sword, drove it through him, and he died on the spot.

When the news reached the other Varangians quartered in the region, they gathered together. What followed is the part of the story that Skylitzes found worth preserving. They held a thing, the Norse legal assembly that the Guard maintained as its internal court, and passed judgment on what had happened.

Under Norse law, the r**e of a woman was a capital offense punishable by death. The man had received that death at the hands of the person he had tried to harm.

The Guard honored the woman with a wreath, formally recognized her act, and awarded her all of the dead man’s possessions, including whatever valuables and clothing he had with him, some accounts specifying silk garments among them.

They then left his body unburied, a deliberate and significant act in Norse and Varangian custom, treating him as though he had died by his own hand, the most dishonorable death available in their tradition.