Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Origin of the Romanians. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I added as arguments against migration from south the mention of Walachians in Nestor Chronicles In 6406 (898) Magyars, who fought against Slavs and Walachians, marched past Kyiv on the hill, which nowdays is called Hungarian Hill. Chronicles by Venerable Nestor (1056 - 1136 AD)link

As far as I know, Gesta Hungarorum has been proven to be quite unreliable on many points. 'Anonymus' (as the author is referred to) often just made up things to fill the gaps in his story. This may or may not be the case as regards his account of Vlachs in Transylvania. Still, the overall unreliability of GH is important to bear in mind when weighing this argument, so maybe we should include a note on it.--Tamas 17:45, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I feel it was not underlined the corespondence with Nestor's chronicle. Basically both chronicles show romanic population (vlachs) in Transylvania during 9-10th centuries. Daizus

• Dacian toponyms were kept (names of rivers: Samus - Somes, Marisia - Mures, Porata - Prut, etc; names of cities: Petrodava - Piatra Neamt, Varadia - Oradea)

This argument is very-very shaky. For example, it states that the Dacian name of the river 'Marisia' was Mures. The river is indeed called Mures is present-day Romanian, but this does not mean it was called so in Dacian. In other words, this is a circular reference.

Herodotus specifically mentions this river as having the name Maris, also spelled Marisia, etc. Cf. Herodotus, History, Book IV, paragraph 48. See also a map of region showing only ancient hydronyms. The river was known by that name in Herodotus' time, before his time, and after his time. It is 99.99 % certain that the Dacians also knew it by that same name (or a variant spelling of the same name). The river is still named so, undergoing a change in form from the spellings found in ancient sources. So, it can be considered a Dacian hydronym, no problem there. As for who originally named the river, that's another question. No one knows who named the river Maris, but it may well have been named by these early Dacian-Thracian peoples. The same can be said for the other ancient hydronyms in the area, except perhaps for Porata which Herodotus says was the "Scythian name" for the river (in the same line he says Pyretus was the Greek name for the river). Decius

OK, most probably you are right. However, until you came, nobody substantiated this point so I think my criticism was justified. (And it was no 'Hungarian parade': semi-chauvinistic remarks like this hurt people and contribute nothing to the discussion)--Tamas 11:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alright, that's justified: I'll remove that remark. I might even say "I apologize". Decius 00:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Varadia - Oradea is even more ludicrous: there was no Roman settlement called Varadia. Varadia is the latinized version of Hungarian Várad, invented by medieval scribes, chroniclers etc writing in Latin. The name Oradea, in turn, derives from Várad. (The vá->o change is pretty regular in loanwords from Hungarian, see város 'town' -> oras)

Therefore I think we should remove this argument as nonsensical. (It is so obviously weak that it weakens the case it is arguing for.) T

I'm afraid you misunderstood the argument. It's not important if the Dacian name of the river was Mures, Marisia, Murus, Amorie, Mory or whatever (I'm inventing examples). I guess it was Bogdan who added that argument and he just gave Latin and Romanian names together, so the second name is not really meant to be a Dacian name. What is important in this argument is the statement that the name of the river is of Dacian origin (which may be true or false, but that is another question). Boraczek 10:02, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I still don't get it. An example: the Hungarian name of Marisia(Lat)-Mures(Rom) is Maros. Similarly: Samus(Lat)-Somes(Rom)-Szamos(Hung). If we accept the argument to be valid, we could as well say these names are of Hungarian origin. Or we could say they are of Slavic origin, and the Latin, Hungarian, Romanian forms derive from the original Slavic forms. Another example: the Latin name of Köln (Cologne) in Germany was Colonium. Does this mean the name of the town is of Germanic origin? No, it probably means that the Germanic tribes adopted the original Latin name. Mures, Somes etc can be such adoptions as well (maybe from Hungarian, maybe from Slavic, or Latin whatever) The point is: nothing in this argument proves that these names are of Dacian origin. They may be, I don't know, but this argument doesn't make much sense. Ceterum censeo: it should be removed. T

Yes, the article doesn't substantiate the statement that those toponyms are of Dacian origin. The argument is just "there are some Dacian toponyms", not "these toponyms must be of Dacian origin, because...". So I agree with you that in the article there's no prove that those names are of Dacian origin. The prove must emerge from some linguistic analyses we don't know. Maybe there's no real prove and the statement is wrong, I don't know. But if those names are of real Dacian origin, the argument is very important, because it shows that there's some kind of continuity between Dacians and the present inhabitants. So I think it should stay. What you pointed out is that it lacks some substantiation, maybe reference to some linguistic researches, and I concur with you here. Boraczek 16:13, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One final remark: still, listing the Latin names alongside their similar-sounding Romanian counterparts here may create the false impression in the reader that these names are of Dacian origin BECAUSE OF the apparent similarity. In other words, it suggests a false causal link. So my proposal is that we should only use the present-day Romanian names here. T

I think you're right, T. Boraczek 17:41, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We know that these toponyms were used by the Dacians/Getae because that's what Herodot, Strabo, etc said. They described the land of the Getae and they used the Greekified versions of the local names of the rivers.

Varadia is a medieval Latin name, it was my fault adding it. We can replace it with Timis/in ancient times Tibis (mentioned by Herodot). (From a linguistic POV: yes, there are other words in Romanian that changed "m"s in in "b"s, proving that it was the Hungarian that borrowed it from Romanian, not the other way around) Bogdan | Talk 18:49, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's nice :-) Could you please add a note that those Dacian toponyms are known to us because they were written down by ancient Greeks, in the article? I think it would strengthen the argument and make it clearer. I also think it would be clearer if there was information what language those toponyms are in. For example, is "Samus" an original Dacian toponym or a Dacian toponym in the form written by Greeks, or a Latinized Dacian name, or a present-day name? It's hard to figure it out. Boraczek 17:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK. Let's remove Varadia and leave the others. Still, I'm not sure this is a sound argument for continuity. It can be integrated into the migration theory as well: it is possible that the original Dacian/Getan names were picked up by Slavs, Avars, Hungarians or any other people whatsoever, and then from them by Romanians upon arrival. Such a thing has happened quite often in history. The Hungarian name for Danube (Duna) is pretty similar to Latin Danuvius, but this doesn't mean there was a continuous Hungarian settlement along the Danube since Roman times. The same goes for other rivers and peoples. T

I replaced Varadia with another city with Roman name, Abruttum (now Abrud, in Transylvania).

To put it in another way: if no toponyms were kept, this would be a strong argument against continuity; but the fact some (or even many) toponyms were kept does not prove continuity. The preservation of toponyms is a necessary condition of continuity, but not a sufficient one. T

I agree that if no toponyms were kept, this would be a strong argument against continuity (BTW this alone may be good reason to mention those toponyms in the "continuity" section). And I agree that Dacian toponyms don't prove that the Romanized Dacians survived the Dark Ages as a Romanic people and constituted the base for the formation of the Romanian nation. On the other hand, if the whole population of Dacia had been evacuated, as the "migrationers" are likely to think, then Slavs, Teutons, Hungarians etc. could not have picked up the local Dacian names, because they wouldn't have lived together with Dacians and got to know the names. As I said, I think this argument proves that there's some kind of continuity between Dacians and the present inhabitants. Boraczek 17:53, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that: the preservation of toponyms indicates clearly that Dacia was not completely evacuated. However, the main statement of 'migrationism' is that Romanians are not 'continuous' with Dacians. The evacuation story is strong ammunition for them, but the theory does not stand or fall on it. What if some Dacians remained after the Romans left, and then these Dacians were assimilated by Slavs, Teutons whoever, who picked up the Dacian names etc, and when Romanians arrived, they picked up those names form Slavs, Teutons, Hungarians etc. This too would be some kind of continuity indeed. However, Daco-Roman continuity implies ancestry as well (or at least that's how people usually use the term). The preservation of toponyms is indeed a very strong argument for 'weak' continuity (such as the Native American--Anglo-Saxon continuity in the US), but much less so for continuity=ancestry.

What if we added the following sentence to the original argument to state this point:

(It should be noted, however, that the preservation of toponyms only indicates continuous settlement, and not neccessarily continouos settlement by the same people.)

Or, maybe more logically, we could list this as a counterargument against complete evacuation. Either of these solutions could settle this matter correctly.--Tamas 20:55, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) --Tamas 21:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All right with me. Boraczek 22:01, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As no objections have been raised, I added the note.--Tamas 16:53, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Bulgarian influence, not Serbian nor Greek

However this is easy to explain as historical and archeological sources indicate that southern part of Romania has been colonized by Slavic tribes speaking dialects close to Old Bulgarian (6th century).

I don't know how this explains that there is no Serbian nor Greek influence.Bogdan | Talk 09:12, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite all that argument, because it doesn't seem clear to me. Boraczek 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

According to me it is clear. According to "classical" migration theory motherland of Vlachs is present-day nothern Bulgaria, Macedonia and southern Serbia (at that times solely Bulgarian speaking). Besides collonization of Vlachia by "Bulgarian-like" Slavic tribes (6th century) is very well documented. There is also very well documented the fact that Vlachs mixed up themselve with local Slavic population of the territory later known as Vlachia (after 12th century), taking its social and political structure and (in some extend) local, Bulgarian-like language. To summarise: The "Bulgarian-like" language and cutural influence on Vlachs (and lack of "Serbian-like") can not be considered as argumenet against theory about "allochtonic" origins of Vlachs.Yeti 13:16, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

---

There are a lot of emotions regarding this subject. We have to take in consideration that for centuries in a row, there was a hard time in this region, with nomads raiding, natives migrating and natives hidding in forests or just obeying the new (temporary) rulers. I, for one, simply cannot imagine a large, fertile, teritory void of population for a long period of time. This isn't Sahara. -- MihaiC 31 may 2004

Nobody claim it to be a desert. Untill 3/4th centuries it was probably inhabited largely by Thracian-speaking people, and in some territories by Iranian people (western and southern part) and Germanic people (north), than in was collonized by masses of Germanic migrants from Ukraine (Goths, Gepides) than masses of Turkic migrants were added, and in 6th everything was covered by Slavic flood. Such development of situation is confirmed by historical as well as by archeological sources. There was no space for void. Unfortunatelly, claims of some (not all) Romanian historians about autochtonic origins of Vlachs do not meet with any proofs. The most probably theory is that modern Roamanians are descendants of Romanic-speaking migrants from present-day Bulgaria, Macedonia and southern Serbia who mixed themselves (largely already in presen-day Romania) with Slavic population and some Germanic, Turkic and possibly Dacian remnants. This theory explains almost everything: enormous influence of Slavic on Romanian language, Slavic territorial and social structure of early Romanians, close similarity between Romanian and Aromanian, and is supported by available historical sources. I know that this theory does not meet with Romanian historical myths (created in 19th century), but is just the most documented theory of Romanian origin. Yeti 16:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

"The most documented theory". That's a misleading phrase, as if there is a comprehensive or even sizable body of documents. The truth is that there is a scarcity (not absence)of extant documents pertaining to Romanians/Vlachs north of the Danube till later times. Apparently first documented presence is south of the Danube, documents in question being Byzantine documents. It's obvious why Romanians south of Danube are thus mentioned first, being closer to Byzantine world. "Most probable theory" is a statement of opinion.(Decius)

Romanian is very different from Dalmatian, so they probably developed in distant regions. This suggests that Romanians could not have come from the western part of the Balkans (including Albania). - I think that this argument should be entirely removed as it definitelly is not argument against theory of migration from south, but barely from Dalmatia (nobody claims that Vlachs arrived from Dalmatia). It is just irrelevant. On the same basis Dalamiatian could be replaced by Italian.Yeti 17:58, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

(however, the fact that Romanian is very different from Dalmatian is problematic, as supporters of Migration Theory place origins of Romanians not distant from Dalmatia, in Romanized provinces of Moesia & Thracia. I do not know any serious theory, which claim that Vlachs came from Dalmatia area. Dalmatian was spoken in northern Croatia and has nothing to do with claimed motherland of Vlachs.

1. If you don't know some theory, it doesn't mean that the theory doesn't exist. I've just checked my sources again to make sure I didn't confuse anything. I didn't. The migration theory I had occasion to get acquainted with claims that Romanians came to Romania from northern Albania and adjacent areas. I don't know if you consider that theory a "serious" theory, but I think it's good to write an argument against that theory anyway.
2. Thracia was not Romanized.
3. Moesia was not distant from Dalmatia. Moesia was adjacent to Dalmatia.
4. Dalmatian was not spoken in nothern Croatia. It was spoken in Ragusa, 100 km away from Albania and 250 km away from Macedonia.
5. Albania and northern Macedonia are situated south of the Danube and to the south of Romania.
6. The argument at hand is not an argument against the migration theory in general, but it's an argument against that version of migration theory which likes to see Romanians coming from western Balkans. I think it's clear. Boraczek 18:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

1. The mainstream of migration theory claim that Vlachs derive from modern Macedonia, Southern Serbia and Bulgaria rather than from Albania. Anyway, thats not the point. 2. Obviously Thracia was not romanized. We explained it before. I was not strict, sorry. 3. The fact that Dalmatia is close to Moesia in geographical sense means nothing. Dalmatia was not spoken in all over dalmatia of course but in small westernmost areas. You are right, that southern dialect of Dalmatian was spoken in Ragusa, but how can you claim that this area is adjacent to Moesia? Mayby we use different maps. Untill now I was sure that there is modern day Bosnia ans Serbia between? 4. I do not claim that Albania is not south of Danube :-))). 5. OK Yeti 11:13, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ad. 3. You wrote that the province of Moesia was distant from Dalmatia, so I corrected that. Of course, I don't claim that Ragusa was adjacent to former Moesia. I agree that the Dalmatian argument doesn't exclude Moesia. Boraczek 23:42, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The truth is no one today knows for sure the EXTENT to which Dalmatian was spoken in the province of Dalmatia. It may have been much more widespread than people such as Yeti (above) assume. The extent no doubt also fluctuated over time. IT IS RELEVANT that Moesia is adjacent to Dalmatia. It doesn't in itself demolish the migration theory, but it should be seriously taken into consideration. It also very relevant that Thrace was not Romanized. So, for the migrationists, that narrows down the area.(Decius)

I don't like the "pure blood" theories - Romanians are "just" Romans or "just" Dacians. IMO the "recipe" for Romanian people is like that : you merge Dacs with Romans (who were a mix themselves), add Slavs and some Goths, Gepides and Cumans for the taste :). Every nation is a mix after all. Migration theory says that ALL roman population left - I cannot agree with such a thing. MihaiC Jun 1st 2004

---

I don't know exactly how to integrate this info (earliest mentionings of "Vlachs"), but I think they would be relevant to this article:

• south of Danube: 976, Cedrenus, Byzantine
• north of Danube: 1070, Jan Dlugosz, Pole [1]

Bogdan | Talk 20:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Bogdan, the second date (1070) is wrong. As you wrote it yourself, Gesta Hungarorum mentions the presence of Vlachs north of the Danube in the 10th century. I've seen the page you gave a link to. It contains a lot of interesting information, but I noticed some obvious linguistical and historical mistakes in it, so I don't know if the remaining information is trustworthy. Boraczek 22:58, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Boraczek, it's OK to remove comments, but you should put them in an archive page.

---

Also, the article adds "Common words with Albanian" as an argument for migration from South of Romanians, but the truth may be the other way around. The Albanians could have migrated from Dacia to their current land. See the arguments of the Bulgarian linguist Georgiev [2] (the "Albanians and Rumanians" section). There's also a map of this theory here Bogdan | Talk 10:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll change the note to the argument, so as to encompass Georgiev's theory. Boraczek 14:39, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

But many medieval sources indicate presence of Vlachs in areas south of the Danube.

Not that many. In fact, there was no reference until 976. There a few older that could be considered, but all of them are arguable. Bogdan | Talk 19:34, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Romanian grammar kept some Latin features (case system, neuter gender, etc) that cannot be found in any other Romance language (opponents claim that these may have been kept due to the Dacian or Slavonic grammar influence over the language).

Certain northern Iberian dialects (specifically Bable, AKA Asturian, if memory serves) have in fact retained neuter constructions into modern times, though to the best of my knowledge it is correct to say there are no other modern literary languages of Romance origin (to discount recent efforts to revive Bable) that share this feature. Vorlon 00:53 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*There are no traces of Teutonic influence in Romanian and we know that in the 5th and 6th century Dacia was inhabited by Teutonic tribes

what teutonic tribes inhabited Dacia in 5th and 6th centuries ?

Goths and Gepids. Boraczek 08:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, it seems that all the Visigoths evacuated Dacia after 377 (the late fourth century) after getting the permission of Valens to enter Roman territory. This applies only to Visigoths, as far as I know. Other germanics moved in later. This is important because these various germanic groups that moved in were not at all stable or continous in Dacia, & it takes a degree of stability & continuity to affect the language of one's neighbors. The Gepide kingdom in parts of Pannonia & Dacia was crushed in 567 by a collaboration of Avars & Longobards. The Longobards, though they temporarily settled in Pannonia (not Dacia), realized that they didn't want to live adjacent to Avars, so a year later in april of 568,the Longobards left Pannonia & headed towards Italy. As for the Avars, who seem to have been Turkic speakers, they settled mostly in Dacia. So, the Gepides also were in Dacia for only about a century. Alexander 007 November, 2004

"There are no traces of Teutonic influence in Romanian"--this statement needs to be scrutinized. Are there no Old Germanic words in Romanian? Alexander 007

Actually there a few words that entered some time in the language (probably 4-5th century) and have Slavic cognates -- AFAIK, they're still considered an enigma. It would be interesting to see whether there are any Gothic cognate. I should mention "stăpân" (master), "jupân" (sir), "vorbă" (talk). Bogdan | Talk 09:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Being close is not a proof in linguistics, it also has to match phonetically the sound changes. Since all these were indo-european languages, they're supposed to have cognates. For example, this word can also be found in Slavic: "dvorĭba". Was it from Latin or Slavic ? Bogdan | Talk 10:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Invading tribes generally did not penetrate the mountains of Romania. Proto-Romanians could have easily established themselves in mountain communities, at least temporarily. Yet I see no need to restrict Proto-Romanians to 'mountain communities', because the invading hordes weren't as pervasive in Dacia as is presumed. Alexander 007

If we had isolated mountain communities, then, we would have a plethora of Romanian dialects, as each local community would develop its own local variation of Vulgur Latin. Bogdan | Talk

That would be less of a problem if the 'mountain communities' (I didn't say 'isolated') were actually temporary retreats into fortress communities, communities linked with groups at lower elevations and ground level. Even if some Proto-Romanians did remove themselves south of the Danube, they did not go to "Africa" or some distant land, they just went next door----literally. There probably was much or at least some cross-filtration: most likely many of the evacuees went back north, a few miles. Alexander 007

The common words between Romanian and Albanian prove nothing about a southern origin for Romanians, because the Paleo-Balkan languages spoken in Albania and northern Greece (Illyrian and Ancient Macedonian) were centum languages, and Albanian is a satem language, as was Dacian and Thracian. Alexander 007

There are two types of words common with Albanian:

• the words borrowed from Latin, the same Latin dialect that was then developed into Romanian. See cabbalus -> cal (Rom), kal (Alb); etc
• the words inherited directly from IE. These comply to the sound laws of Albanian and there's no way they were borrowed from a Vlach language. Bogdan | Talk 09:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Albanians probably originally lived north of the Danube in or adjacent to Dacia. Alexander 007

That is not impossible. See: Origin of Albanians

The Dacians were not restricted to Dacia, and there is much evidence (particularly in ancient personal names) of Dacian penetration into Moesia. So even if the Romanization occured south of the Danube, the romanian substratum could still be Dacian. Alexander 007

In Western Moesia (now Serbia), yes.

One interesting fact: the only toponym that follows closely the Romanian language sound-changes is not North of Danube, but South: "Săruna" (Thessaloniki). So, I wouldn't discard this theory completely.

The absence or scarcity of Teutonic words in modern Romanian proves nothing really.It is doubly intriguing that 'there are no Teutonic words' in Romanian seeing as how the Visigoths settled in the Vlach-populated provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire south of the Danube for a time. Yet, are there no Teutonic words? Alexander 007

Many linguists searched for them, but as far as I know, there did not find any.

It may be the case that despite their belligerence, the Goths were not a strong influence linguistically upon early Romanians, whom they may well have encountered in Dacia & who they definitely encountered south of the Danube. Alexander 007

Of course. Just as we don't have any Cuman, Avar or Pecheneg words, although they ruled lands inhabited by Romanians. Bogdan | Talk 09:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I replaced "opponents" with "some opponents". Is it all right now? Boraczek 12:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's alright now. Decius

I've seen some people try to prove the origin of various Balkan ethnic groups (many of which are defined by language) via genetic methods. Decius 04:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Linguistics has little to do with genetics: one can learn a language and pass it to his children regardless of the ethnic/racial/genetic background: Romanians (mostly from Transylvania), Serbians and Albanian are genetically close, but you can't tell from this where the Romanians and Albanians originated. Bogdan | Talk 18:31, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you're interested in the Dacian component of Romanian and connections with Albanian, you may want to read the archive at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/balkanika/ Bogdan | Talk 18:31, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering when the Dacian language disappeared, and so on, but not much progress has been made in this field. I've seen estimates such as the 5th or 6th century AD. Also wondering how it was engulfed so readiliy. Decius

One explanation would be the "Romanianization" (instead of Romanization) of Dacians. The Vlach Latins expanded their teritory to include the former Dacian lands, this happening in the Dark Ages. So, the famous foundings of Wallachia and Moldova ('descălecare') are not just legends. Bogdan | Talk 10:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From what I remember, there aren't that many examples that show that Dacian was a satem language, unless I've missed those examples. Maybe Dacian was neither Satem or Centum in the classical sense. Some languages such as Hittite are neither Centum or Satem. Decius

Exactly. It's because:

1. a centum language may have satem influence and a satem language may have centum influence;
2. some languages split before or after the sound changes from centum to satem.

BTW, Romanian "suta" is believed to be derived from an ancient Satem language (most likely Dacian), not from Latin (if it were Latin, it would look like this: "cint"). (and it's very unlikely to be from Slavic). Bogdan | Talk 09:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look at these Thracian words: http://www.geocities.com/indoeurop/project/glossary/thra.html Bogdan | Talk

I know about that list, compiled by Cyril Babaeev I think, and based largely on Ivan Duridanov and Vladimir Georgiev's work. Alexander 007

• It would be interesting to know what they teach children in Hungary about this. Is the migration theory the only thing they learn?
• I don't think the etymological arguments can lead anywhere. You can prove anything with that kind of stuff. Even DNA wouldn't prove much.

DNA says that most people living in Europe have their genes older than the Indo-European migration. Bogdan | Talk 21:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• The Dacians spoke many dialects of a primitive language. The Romans were techically superior and it is easy to understand how they adopted that language so easily, and why they had no reason to borrow from the Teutons

There is no such things as 'primitive' and 'advanced'. Some tribes in Africa might have some languages that are much more complex than English in some aspects. Bogdan | Talk 21:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• There were Romanians living in Bulgaria. They became assimilated by the superior Slavic civilisation. There were migrations over the frozen Danube, but there was nothing huge and organized that would include a complete migration of culture; Romanians aren't like that, Hungarians are. Romanians couldn't even organize a feudal state.

AFAIK, the Slavic people were not superior technologically when they reached the Balkans, but they were in a rather large number, since the Balkans were pretty sparsely populated at the time. In fact, that was one of the reasons of lack of feudal states. Bogdan | Talk 21:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• The whole debate is pretty absurd; even if, by absurd, the Hungarians could prove that Romanians are Eskimos, this still wouldn't give them any right over Transylvania

• Us Romanians don't have much proof for our theory, but the Hungarians don't have any coherent theory. The Hungarian point of view fails with regard to Occam's Razor; their ideas are both incoherent and complicated. All these theories are based on an undocumented double migration; the Romanian theory has zero migrations in it.

• In my Romanian History high school manual it says that the original proponent of the Romanian theory was one collector of Roman inscriptions called Szamoskozy Istvan; after Mihai Viteazul invaded Transylvania, he changed his theory; so did many other Transylvanian scholars after surges of Romanian nationalism.

"Superior Slavic civilization"? Oh brother. You are misinformed bigtime. I could fill an encyclopedia set with examples to the contrary. Here are some quotations from the Strategikon of Emperor Maurice(reigned 582-602), speaking of the Slavs of his time: "They live among nearly impenetrable forests, rivers, lakes, and marshes..."---in other words, they were relegated to the barbaric fringes, not civic areas. "They live like bandits and love to carry out attacks against their enemies in densely wooded, narrow, and steep places." "Their experience in crossing rivers surpasses that of other men, and they are extremely good at spending a lot of time in the water. Often enough, when they are in their own country and are caught by surprise in a tight spot, they dive to the bottom of a body of water. There they take long hollow reeds they have prepared for such a situation and hold them in their mouths, the reeds extending to the surface of the water. Lying on their backs on the bottom they breathe through them and hold out for many hours without anyone suspecting where they are." These are features not of a civic people, but of people who knew how to live in Wild areas, like Native Americans did. More from the Strategikon:"Owing to their lack of government and their ill feeling toward one another, they are not acquainted with the order of battle." "They use wooden bows with short arrows smeared with a poisonous drug which is very effective." "They are also not prepared to fight a battle standing in close order,or to present themselves on open and level ground. If they do get up enough courage when the time comes to attack,they shout all together and move forward a short distance. If their opponents begin to give way at the noise, they attack violently; if not, they themselves turn around, not being anxious to experience the strength of the enemy at close range. They then run for the woods, where they have a great advantage because of their skill in fighting in such cramped quarters." Yes, how civilized they were. You just revealed your ignorance by your statement that slavs had a superior civilation: compare these wilderness-inhabiting Slavs with the city-living Dacians who truly had a long-standing civilization. It took the Romans long & bloody battles over centuries to finally conquer part of Dacia. Here is a quote from Procopius, speaking again of the Slavs:"They live in pitiful hovels which they set up far apart from one another, but, as a general thing, every man is constanly changing his place of abode." Yet I guess you magyars consider this wilderness way of life "superior". Decius

It's revealing that Maurice emphasizes the amphibious aspects of the Slavs. Consider this quote from The Balkans, a book in the Time-Life Library written by Edmund Stillman and the editors of Life, speaking of the derivation of the term 'Slav': "Still another suggestion sometimes offered is that the word derives from a river or swampy area known as Slava or Slova. The Slavic peoples did, in fact, originally come from the marshy regions of the upper Vistula valley area." Swamp people. Not exactly civilizers, by any means. Decius

To make the arguments in here more ordered, it would help if each debater added his name or pseudonym at the end of each entry. I don't want my comments confused with anybody else. Decius

The hungarian theory that Romanians originate from south of the Danube is not convincing, and I'd rather debate something else. That's why I'm mostly concerned with the Dacian Latin theory vrs the Romanization theory. But if you want to battle, we can battle. Eat some goulash and get ready. Try to write coherent sentences. Decius

Which Hungarian theory ? That the Romanians are from south of Danube ? Bogdan | Talk 14:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me be exact: there is no single coherent hungarian theory. Just reveiwing 6 such websites, I came back with 6 different versions. So you guys got work to do. When you come up with anything scientific, I'll send you a box of cigarettes. Decius

In Hungarian schools, both versions are being taught, although the bottom line is that Daco-Roman continuity is probably incorrect, and the south-of-the Danube theory is probably true. But the whole thing is no big deal for most Hungarians, I guess it is more important for Romanians as it pertains to the origins of their nation. And I also believe Hungarians scholars (I don't speak about amateur enthousiasts on the internet, who are not a reliable source on theory) don't want to claim any right to Transylvania, they are just interested in historical truth. And let us remember that the theory of Daco-Roman continuity as a tool for territorial claims was first used by Romanian nationalists wanting to unite Transylvania with the Old Kingdom, that's how the whole issue got politicised in the first place.--Tamas 15:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The bottom line is: the Hungarian speculation that Romanians migrated from south of the Danube is not in anyway supported by any solid evidence, and is in fact a very unlikely scenario. And Hungarians need not concern themselves with Transylvania: that is Romanian land, and always will be. Decius

Toponyms and personal names seem to suggest that Dacian belonged to another branch of the Indo-European language tree (satem, while Latin was centum). Yet in recent years linguists have begun to question the supposed satem nature of Dacian and Thracian, and some linguists and thracologists consider Dacian and Thracian to have been in fact Centum languages with some satem features.

I'm sorry, but I think a report on the discussion about the satem or centum character of the Dacian language does not belong in this article and in the section dedicated to arguments against the Latin-relative theory. I think we should present the arguments as briefly and clearly as possible. And I think the first sentence and the fact that we mention the Latin-relative theory makes it clear enough that there is no consensus about the satem character of the Dacian language. Hence I'm moving the higlighted part to the article about the Dacian language. Boraczek 17:02, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dacian: who knows, despite being a largely Satem language, it may have been grammatically similar to Latin, due to shared Indo-European grammatical features. This would have speeded the Romanization process. Alexander 007 01:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You`re right.I think is the only explanations which make sense in logical terms.Not to mention, probalby that guy who wrote Strategikon know much more then we know today.

Many names of places and rivers in Transylvania, if not the most, can be traced back to Slavic origins. The most obvious examples is offered by the names of some major rivers, such as Bistrita, Târnava, Cerna and some minor ones like Bistra. Now, it is very interesting the fact that in the case of Târnava, the Hungarian correspondent is Kukulo, which is in fact the translation of the slavic name (meaning the whirling river i think). The Germans (or Saxons) who were settled in the aria of this river in the 12th century, name it Kokel, which is clearly borrowed from Hungarian. In fact the dialect spoken by the Saxon settlers, unlike the Hungarian language, has no direct Slavic borrowings and no slav settlements are mentioned in any documents concerning Transylvania from 11th century onwards, which strongly suggests that the Slavs had already been assimilated/dissapered when the Germans arrived. How is then possible that the Romanians, who is alleged to have arrived only from the 13th century onwards, have preserved the Slavic name? Furthermore, the Romanian pronounciation of Târnava is exactly the same as the Slovakian Trnava (city in Slovakia). The same is true for Bistrita (pronounced exactly the same as Bystrika, from Banska Bystrika - region in Slovakia). The Hungarian and Germans correspondent are Beszterce and Bistritz, respectively. Even more interesting is the fact that on the superior valley of river Bistrita, the local Romanians still call the river with the Repedea (from the common noun of Latin origin "repede", which means the same as Bistrita in Slavic, i.e. Rapid, Fast).

there is this romanian word 'bistrit' with unknown origin; and there are these two ancient Dacian toponyms Tsierna/Dierna (river Cerna), and 'Birzava' (the famous 'inde Berzobim, de inde Aizi processimus' quote of Trajan). note that in Bulgarian language 'birzo' means "quick, fast" and in Russian language 'biistra' means "quick,fast".

the capital of the empire of the Asen brothers in 1185 had its capital at Turnovo in what is today Bulgaria. interestingly the romanian word 'turn' comes from german 'tura' -- Criztu 07:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent anonymous addition:

(It should be noted, however, that the emperors often kept titles of lands conquered by predecessors but no longer actually held, a habit continued by kings until modern ages.)

This is not the case here. It is a well-established fact that the Romans fought countless battles against the Dacians (who were allied with Goths) after the Aurelian retreat.

Maybe we should include this piece of information in the original article. It makes the whole issue of the title Maximus Dacicus irrelevant: if we know about Romans fighting Dacians after the retreat, that's a solid piece of information and we do not need to make conjectures based on imperial titles.--Tamas 20:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

About the Gesta Hungarorum: Vlach meant Romanian, not probably Romanian. It is very clear stated: "Blachi ac pastores Romanorum". Also, the Magyars settled first in Pannonia, then advanced toward Transylvania by conquering the local Romanian and Slavic states. Bogdan | Talk 15:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some historians argue that the writer of GH was notorious for extrapolating present conditions into the past. So the fact he talks about Vlachs would only prove that there were Vlachs in the territory by the time of the writing of the chronicle.

Also, talking about Slavic and Romanian 'states' in Transylvania in the 9-10th century AD seems a bit of an exaggeration to me.--Tamas 20:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong about the word "state" ? From how they were described, they had all qualifications needed in order to be a state:

the Montevideo Convention from 1933, whose article 1 states: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. (from state)

Bogdan | Talk 22:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"According to Roman sources the population of Dacia was evacuated south of the Danube." I suggest that everyone interested in the debate tracks down each and every Roman source and each and every Roman sentence, cite them in the reference section of the article, and provide a link to the quote in Latin, if possible. According to Eutropius, the Romans (not "all Romans", and not "the Dacians" and not the "Romanized Dacians", who though linguistically Romanized may not have cared to declare Roman citizenship) in the cities (=urbibus) and lands (or 'cultivated lands'; the Latin word used is agris) of Dacia were resettled in Moesia, south of the Danube. There is no mention that the entire population of Dacia was evacuated, Roman or not. Alexander 007 08:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Romanians (sometimes referred to as Vlachs in historical contexts)

Actually, even nowadays, the Daco-Romanian speakers of Eastern Serbia are commonly referred by Serbs as "Vlachs", so it's not just in historical contexts. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 21:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was until 29 May, Bogdan. Since the French and Dutch referenda the entire project of EU enlargement has been thrown into disarray. Don't expect to join in either 2007 or 2008. As for our assimilation, I would dispute the notion that we are assimilating to a "foreign" culture, as you with your AK-47 have admitted you are in the US of A. The Greek-speaking world has been familiar to us during our entire existence, and we have helped mould that world by contributing powerfully to the creation of a modern Greek state. Moreover, there are many historical examples of minorities assimilating to the majority culture while retaining inordinate influence in their country's affairs. The Jews in America, for instance. We are Greece's Jews. User:Theathenae

Good Lord, the fact that you ended your diatribe by proclaiming "We are Greece's Jews" proves my point. Decius 03:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not see any assimilation here in Greece going on.The Aromanians are the same as the other Greeks genetically.

Not "the same". Genetically related yes, but cannot be "the same".

Actually, genetically, there are several groups in the Balkans:

1. Inland Greeks, Vlachs, Bulgarians and Wallachians

2. Transylvanians, Serbians/Croatians, Albanians

3. Mediteraneans -- on the coast and islands (Greeks, Italians, even some Turks)

As you see, they match more geographical regions than ethnic borders.

Why is this? Because Europeans lived in Europe before the arrival of Indo-Europeans and their languages! There was a study that showed that more than 80% of the genes of the Europeans are of pre-Indo-European origin. The genetical differences match the pre-Indo-Europeans' ethnic borders and not today's ethnic borders.

So that's why using genetics in Balkan ethnology is wrong.bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Greco-Roman culture was always our culture.In fact Rome was culturally always a Greek city.It is said by Horatius.

If that information is correct that Albanians and Transylvanians are in the same genetic group, to me that indicates that Albanians may be from Transylvania, as some scholars have written (rather than vice versa). Interesting. I would expect "Illyrian descendants" to fall in the Mediterranean group, with coastal Greeks and Italians (yeah, some Illyrians were also in Serbia, but Illyrian focus was further south). Decius 17:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. Genetics again. Why can't Vlachs be genetically "the same" as Greeks?

Simply because any isolated population will grow its own distinctive genetical features. All the genetical differences you see today in the human species (or even the differentiation between any kind of species, animals or plants) are due to the isolation of groups. So, even if by reductio ad absurdum they were originally a Romanized Greek group, in the time since they started using Latin, they had to develop those features. And from what I know about Vlachs, until recently, they were isolated from the Greeks: they have few, if any ancient Greek words; their traditions encourages marriage within the same ethnicity; in the 12th century, Benjamin of Tudela said that they even killed the Greeks which entered their lands. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 19:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geneticists have discovered that the variation within groups is much wider than it is between them.--Theathenae 18:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's true, but it has nothing to do with what we're talking here. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 19:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a superficial similarity between the province name Moesia and Romanian words (1) moş, (2) moşie meaning (1) elder, uncle, father, grandfather, and (2) homeland, family property. - you'll have to prove that if you want sentence to stay:

1.Moesia existed since long before 46 AD and the moesians were related/in contact with the dacians, so this word can very easily be from those times, so how does this relates to a post roman migration, especialy when we know that Moesia was replaced by Dacia in 275 which lasted until at least 600 ?

2.Do you have any other example of a roman province name at the origin of a word designating "homeland, family property" ?

3.Did any scholar related Moesia to romanian word Mosie ? -- Criztu 22:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a superficial similarity between the province name Moesia and Romanian words (1) moş, (2) moşie meaning (1) elder, uncle, father, grandfather, and (2) homeland, family property. - you'll have to prove that if you want sentence to stay:

1.Moesia existed since long before 46 AD and the moesians were related/in contact with the dacians, so this word can very easily be from those times, so you have to prove the word Mosie couldn't have entered the languages spoken north of Danube before a post roman migration from south

2.Do you have any other example of a roman province name at the origin of a word designating "homeland, family property" ?

3.Did any scholar related Moesia to romanian word Mosie ?

4.Did any author presented this "similarity" betwen Moesia and Mosie as an argument for a Migration from South ?

5.are you aware that http://dexonline.ro gives 'Mos' as "confer albanian Moshe = age" ?

6.why not the name of the province/people to be from a thraco-daco-moeso-getae word Mosie/Mos ? -- Criztu 22:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Point 6 above should work equally well, Criztu. The fact that Romanian still preserves the meaning homeland, home property attached to the word moşie could prompt to the argument that moşie-derived Moesia was in fact homeland to at least some Romanian-speaking people; the Romanian language must have not been necessarily confined to the space North of Danube. This, in the assumption that Romans named the province Moesia by the name it ran with the local, Thracian/Dacian inabitants.--192.94.73.3 00:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

there was this Getae movement from south of Danube (Moesia) to north of Danube (Dacia) somwhere during 300 BC, could these Moes > Mos and Moesia > Mosie date from that "migration from South" ? -- Criztu 14:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and i can tell you the meaning of Mosie is not "homeland (home country, country of origin)" but "land inherited from the elders (Moshi), land of the elders(pamant stramosesc)", not "family property", but "property inherited from the elders" -- Criztu 15:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and there's the word "Moasha" (birth assisting experienced woman), according to your POV this word should come from "Moesa" = "a female inhabitant of Moesia" :) -- Criztu 15:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was added by an anonymous with no reference. It was also a bad argument, so I erased it on sight. Decius 22:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A common characteristic of Central Indo-European languages is the drift of voiceless consonants into voiced ones. (e.g.: s > sh; d > z) A Central Indo-European-speaking people would change Southern-pronounced Moesia into Moshia, and Moes (i.e., the inhabitant of Moesia) into Mosh. Other than that, my using a non-registered edit does not necessarily discredit my edits.--192.94.73.3 22:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you mean say thousand years from now the word "america" and "american" might evolve into "homeland, family property" and "elder, uncle, grandfather" ? :) -- Criztu 23:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No credible reference means you can't include it. Even supposing they are cognate, it is a weak argument because Daci lived also in Moesia, and Moesi and Daci probably spoke closely-related languages or dialects. Decius 22:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criztu, the meaning of "Moşie" (homeland) is derived from "Moş" (elder), not the reverse. And AFAIK, suffix "-ie" is of Latin origin. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 10:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

so there was a people Moesi, from which the name Moesia came. The romanian word Mos (confer albanian Moshe) comes from "Moes" (inhabitant of Moesia), or from a thraco-daco-moeso-getae word (say Moxis) meaning "age/ancient/pimordial/ancestor" ? -- Criztu 13:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and then there are the Motii (motzii) in Maramures in Tzara Oashului. There are speculations that Motz comes from Moes. -- Criztu 13:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Criztu. These two remarks of yours are in line with the Migration from South theory. I am not saying that all Romanians did in fact migrate from Moesia at a specific moment in history. This connection between Moesia and moshie (and as you say, motz) can, and will, be used as an argument in favor of the migration theory. One should not burry ones head in the sand at the prospect of such theories, (and therefore erase them on sight) but rather one should consider that several historical events must have contributed to the formation of such a numerous nation.--192.94.73.3 19:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i guess this is the point where BogdanGiusca intervenes and tells you that Wikipedia doesn't allow original research :) -- Criztu 19:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It will be erased on sight unless you have current scholarly references for it. Decius 19:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criztu once tried to argue that Romanians might be descents from Arabs because of the Basarab name. Watch out for him!

--Anittas June 29, 2005 07:40 (UTC)

As much as I usually get along with Criztu, I have to admit that he is strangely preoccupied and attracted to various eastern peoples (turkic groups, hunnic, semitic, iranic, etc.). Sometimes I wonder why, but everybody has their own "thing" I guess. Decius 29 June 2005 07:48 (UTC)

user:Anittas is simply an Internet troll, he is flaming me for a couple of months now. to have a troll on your back would be the price that anybody in search of new grounds has to pay i guess. -- Criztu 29 June 2005 11:03 (UTC)

-- Criztu, have you lost all sense of time chronology? I've been flaming you for years. But I don't tell lies.

So anyway, I see that you've decided to be a Messagetae. What happened to the other 10,000 tribes you used to claim? --Anittas June 29, 2005 13:22 (UTC)

Both are correct to an extent, but I have the impression that the Serbs and Hungarians only use the term in an old-fashioned folkish sense, much like the Turks use the term Rumlar or even gavurlar ('infidels') for the Greeks. "Vlach" is not an official language of Vojvodina; Rumanian is.

The same thing was in Romanian, where Turks were named "păgâni" (pagans), but this hasn't been commonly used for a couple of centuries. Unlike that, in official Serbian statistics, the Romanians living in Timok valley are still called "Vlachs" (Власи/Vlasi). Actually, the Romanians living in Vojvodina (speaking the Bănăţeană variant of standard Romanian) are officially "Romanians", while the Romanians living in Serbia proper (speaking the Oltenească variant of standard Romanian) are called Vlachs. If you don't believe that, see the official statistics at the Serbian government site: Власи/Vlasi (0,53%), Румуни/Rumuni (0,46%) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 10:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Besides, the Vlachs article itself says that "since the creation of the Romanian state, the term has mostly been used for those living south of the Danube river".--Theathenae 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would wait for people who currently live in the area to weigh in on this:User:Bogdangiusca, User:Criztu, etc. Decius 08:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i go for "historicaly" meaning "in the past", cuz today romanians are "contemporarily" refered to officialy as romanians in neighbouring countries. at least the hungarians and bulgarians refer to romanians as 'romanok' and 'rumuntzi' respectively. romanians don't call the polaks as "leshi" anymore, but "polonezi"-- Criztu

I guess the Serbian Власи/Vlasi are a special case, as they do in fact live south of the Danube. But they live in regions contiguous to Rumania and are clearly ethnically Rumanian, not Vlach in the Aromanian or Meglenitic sense. The Slavic "buffer zone" between the Rumanians and Aromanians is discussed at Origin of Romanians#Migration from South. The Serbian Власи/Vlasi clearly fall on the Rumanian side of the divide.--Theathenae 12:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I personally would prefer which maintains that. And it's quite irrelevant here whether I am Hungarian or not. Frankly, it's quite annoying that some Wikipedians continue to see this whole problem in terms of a nationalistic debate between "Hungarians" and "Romanians". Come on, we are supposed to be the smart guys who have already moved on and left the old-style nationalistic quarreling behind us. :) --Tamas 22:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also hope that the new generations of Romanians and Hungarians will learn to appreciate each other more, rather than slander one another. Decius 22:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's often ignored that north-Danube's population had a long contact along Danube with post-271 Romans.

There is absolutely no proof of that. From what we know, after 271, there was no linguistic contact between the Romanians and the Western Romance languages. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

i understand mother of i forget which post 271 roman emperor was from Romula from Dacia Trajana. so at least in this respect there was continuous contact, people circulated on both sides of Danube after 271 -- Criztu 16:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The Roman Empire, then the Eastern Roman Empire, and then the Byzantine Empire maintained this border continously until the 7th century

The Eastern Roman Empire was Greek-speaking, so they had nothing to do with the Romanization.bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

(the Avaro-Slavic and then the Bulgar invasion) and they created it again after ending the First Bulgarian Empire (but perhaps this one is a bit too late for our discussion's focus). Emperors like Constantine the Great or Justinian built or rebuilt fortifications north of the river, in the supposed non-Roman territory (was a common method for Romans to protect their borders, their limes with fortification on both sides of the border). Between 4th and 6th century there were permanent troops in those fortifications. They will mostly fall (or become deserted) during the late part of 6th century and the first part of the 7th. So as for the romanization centers north of Danube, beside the already mentioned Transylvania and Oltenia, there's Scythia Minor

Although it was for a longer time under Roman rule, Schythia Minor only small parts were Romanized and eventually the Latin-speakers were completely assimilated by the larger Dacians/Getae population, then by the Slavs, Turks (Pechenegs, Tatars, Cumans) and other migrating peoples, who were eventually assimilated by Romanian population coming from Wallachia and Moldova. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

and a strip, not very well defined, which means southern Wallachia and southern Moldavia. The duration and the intensity of the process, of course, varied, but it's a much more promising map for the Daco-Romanian theory, and especially for the romanization of Dacians. Daizus

From what I know, southern Moldavia was never under Roman rule. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

from the maps ive seen on the net, there was a fortified wall in southern Moldova built by the romans -- Criztu 15:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, no doubt. I've been trying to determine how Romanized Scythia Minor was in the period when proto-Romanian would have formed. People seem to forget about Scythia Minor and those other regions. Decius 07:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Schythia Minor probably had the most complex history of all of today's Romania. Maybe I'll try to write more on history of Dobruja next week. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As long as there were Roman fortifications north of Danube why do you say there was not a linguistic contact? Because, please note I'm not talking about Western Romance, but about Romans in Balkans, hence Eastern.

As for the Hellenization of Eastern Roman Empire - it was a becoming process. In Eastern Roman Empire during Constantine the Great, or even after the break from 395 AD, Latin was widely spoken and it was the official language for a significant time. Historians speak of a Greek Empire since Justinian's era, but mostly after Heraclius. For the time questioned (3rd-6th centuries), it is reasonable to assume that Latin was a spoken language in Balkans.

Scythia Minor was under Roman rule after 271 and some cities belonged to Byzantines until late 7th century. A lot of evidences (like mixed Daco-Latin anthroponyms) and circumstances (like a flourishing urban life) needed for the Romanization theory come from here.

And also please note I haven't claimed a Roman rule in southern Moldavia, but a Roman influence (Romanization), specifically some circumstances for a proto-Romanian language to be forming in most of the territories it's encountered today. Daizus

Neagu Djuvara has an interesting argument that the place of origin of the Romanians is in Transylvania, based on the fact that Romanian language has an unusual amount of juridic words borrowed from Hungarian, including:

• a făgădui (to promise)
• a tăgădui (to deny)
• a se răfui (to settle a deal)
• a bănui (to presume)
• a îngădui (to allow)
• a chibzui (to judge a situation, to reflect)
• a mântui (to redeem; to save)

These words can be found in all subdialects of Romanian. Supposing the Hungarians' claim that the Romanians came to Transylvania only in the 12th/13th century, it means that the Transylvanian Romanians had very little time to assimilate the words, then spread them on all their territories. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

(in Romanian)

Marele nostru arheolog Vasile Pârvan a descoperit două documente din veacul al IV-lea, în care un „rege" al goţilor de prin părţile noastre, la nord de Dunăre, îşi zice „Jude" — or, acesta nu era un titlu onorific pe care să i-l fi putut conferi împăratul de la Constantinopol (cum ar fi patriciu, despot sau cezar), era doar numele pe care localnicii daco-romani îl dădeau căpeteniilor lor administrative peste o grupare de sate sau peste o vale, judecători şi administratori (termen ce se va păstra până târziu, cum vom vedea), înseamnă că acest rege barbar domnea la nord de Dunăre peste populaţii de limbă latină şi a vrut să-şi zică cum numeau supuşii lui localnici pe şefii lor.

---

I removed the last argument against migration as it is not relevant. No-one claims that there were no Dacians after evacuation in 271. Yeti 22:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, that was added by User:Criztu some months ago and it was allowed to slide by. Removal of that one was better. ---Masterful Killer 22:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I`ve read all the arguments around here, i propose to all members interested in romanian history to join this discussion.Firstly, Occam`s Razor says that the most simple explanation tends to be the correct one, in this case the most simple one that dacians indeed spoke a language similar to latin.Why i am saying this ?Just think at medieval romanian.Lets suppose whe have no doccuments written in medieval romanian (like whe have almost no one in dacian), only a couple of names.Seeing names such as Vladislav, Vlaicu, Vladimir, or anything like that, anybody could simply suppose that medieval romanian was a satem slavic language (oh, and i forgot the word "suta" ), which we know it is not the case (fortunately, whe have plenty of documents in medieval romanian, so there is no place for such abberations).So, lets came back to dacian.What if whith the dacian was a similar situation, a centum language, which because of its geographicall placement, got many satem charactheristics ?Whe now that Scythians and later Sarmatians exercited an important influence over Dacia.There are already lingvists claiming that the Dacian language was in original a Centum language which later developed Satem charachters.

It is higly unlikely that any roman colonist whith any logical thinking, would have remained in Dacia after 271.That merchants and missionaryes from the Roman Empire came, that is a different story.The only people having an interest to remain, where the local dacians.

The Thracians where not "romanised".A part of them, living in the south, where at some time asimilated by greeks, but most of them remained as a people.They where still a living populatian during the time of Justinian,in the VI century, and remained until the slavic invasion dominant in what is modern Bulgaria.Then, they retreated into the mountains and later emerged as the Vlachs.If the thracians where not romanised and the result of them where the Vlachs/southern romanians, thus no romanisation for the dacians was necesary in order to form the romanian people.QUAD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM.

It is an attractive scenario, and I will not be silly and say that it is "impossible". I used to investigate a version of the theory (that Daco-Thracian was very similar to the Italic languages and that not much, but some, Romanization took place), but I abandoned this because of 1) lack of evidence; 2) what evidence there is suggests something else. However, the case is not closed. ---Decius 14:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyway,something did happened overhere in the V and VI century :).The romanisation you speak of ,was probably due to christianisation in latin language (which whe now it is for sure), if the theory i exposed above (and i personally believe) it is right.I tried to look in books after arheological discoveries in Romania dating from that period, but only settlement of migrating people where found.Recently, i have learnt of the existence near Brasov of some sort of fortress in the mountains (not a large one, and made out of unpolished stones) which COULD date back from that period.Again presumptions, nothing sure, unfortunately.The evidence of what language the dacians spoke, it is probably somewhere forgotten in the libraries of Vatican, where the poetry of Ovidius was partially lost, but no romanian scientist ever wondered to look after those scrolls...Someone shoudl really search for them, and also for the work of Dion Christostomos.These two if found, could resolve all these disputes.

One important question:there are Vlach comunities in Slovakia, and southern Poland, where they where mentioned in the early middle ages.We now these areas where inhabitted by the dacians.Are these Vlachs emigrants from the south, or are they indigenous to those areas ?

This is a debateable subject. The Vlach communities in Poland probably emigrated there in later times. ---Decius 20:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

So called 'Great Migrations of Vlachs' along Carpatian Mauntains to Ukraine, Slovakia and Poland are very, very well documented. They had place between 14th and 16th centuries. Settlement of Vlachs in uninhabited mountains was promoted by local landowners and was regulated by so called Valachian Law (Prawo Wołoskie in Polish). In fact there were joined migrations of Vlachs and Slavic tribes and the Vlachs has been slavized during migrations.Yeti 00:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There where mountainous regions in Romania which even up to the XIX century where very hardly accesible.These regions contain today populations which are either by traditions, by some small language difference or by looks, different from the romanians living in nearby.On of these regions is the one in Poiana Ruscai mountains, named "Tinutul Padurenilor".Etnographs today consider the "padureni" as coming directly from the dacians.They use agriculture in terrases, they have plenty of decorative elements in theyr pottery and dressing common (if not identicall) whith those the dacians used.Not to mention the fact, that they have in vocabulary the word "a vulnera" for "a lovi" ,one of the many latin "arhaisms" in romanian language,which is a more than clear evidence for theyr continuous presence overhere.Another of this isolated place, is in the mountainous areas of the Buzau country, more exclusively in the Ivanetu mountains.There is an entire ancient monastic complex built in small caves, named "Agathon", which dates back probably as farr beyond as III - IV century AD, whith evidence of continous settlement until the XVIII century.

---

I would like to propose to remove the first argument against migration theory. In fact it is not argument against. At the time of proposed migration the territoty of present day Romania have been populated mainly by Slavonic people speaking language akin to Old Bulgarian/Macedonian/Old Church Slavonic. According to Migration Theory the migrating Vlachs could peacefully settle amongst the Slavs and recognize the authoriy of local Slavonic rulers and then assimilate the local slavonic population. It perfectly explains influence of South Slavinic on Romanian. This is also supported by the fact that the first known rulers of Vallachia have obviously Slavonic names.Yeti 01:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

To Decius: the argument removed by you perfectly supports migration theory. According to linguists the Vlach dialects split after 700-800 AD. It means, after Slavonic colonisation of Balkans, inluding present day Romania. I beg your pardon but I let myself to restore it.Yeti 01:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine, but a counter-argument will be placed after it. Decius 01:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added the following argument for the continuity theory: Linguistic evidence: the subdialect spoken in the mountainous and upland regions of western Transylvania preservs some very old words of latin origin such as "pedestru" (from latin "pedester"), "nea" (from "nix, niva"), "june" (from "juvenis") which are absent from the subdialects of the southern Romania where they may have old slavic borrowings equivalents. This supports the continuity of latin speaking in the upland regions as opposed to the migration from the south. [11]

I do not agree with the later edit:

(However opponents can argue that it is only an evidence that migrants from South of Danube who settled in sparsely populated mountains have been less influenced by Slavonic population than those who settled in more accessible areas).

This can meen only two things: 1) a strange segregation of the romanian imigrants into more Latin-speaking individuals who settled in the mountains and more slavic-influenced ones which stay in the lowlands, or, more probably 2) a migration of the romanians into a slavic speaking land, but relatively uninhabited in the mountains. In the worst case, this still means that the romanians arrived there when the slavic populations were still strong in numbers, i.e. before the arrival of the Hungarians. Algos

I added some more linguistic arguments from [11] which suggest that the ancient dialectal variation existed in the Latin spoken in Transylvania vs the southern regions was preserved in the modern Romanian.

• Lets make it clear: this is Wikipedia, not a place of fight between Hungarians and Romanians. I am neither Romanian nor Hungarian and I am not interested in your fight who-was-first-in-Transylvania.

• Indeed this is Wikipedia, where people fight like on internet forums. And theories are created and developed online. If it was Encyclopaedia Britannica, the matter would have been settled for quite a while. There is only one theory there.Algos

Secondly: Your last "evidence" you have included in the article is not an evidence at all. The examples given by you can be explained in many different ways, I have given one.

• As I explain below this is a valid argument. It is documented. You have not given an explanation. It is a dialectal variation in the Latin stratum of the language and has nothing to do with slavic influenceAlgos

1) a strange segregation of the romanian imigrants into more Latin-speaking individuals who settled in the mountains and more slavic-influenced ones which stay in the lowlands, or, more probably

Mountainous populations are often isolated. It is not strange. It is obvious. As an extremal example you have small population of migrating Goths who settled in the mountains of Crimea. The Vlach population settled and isolated in mountains has been less influenced by local Slavonic population and less influenced by official Orthodox Church. What do you expect as an effect?

• I understood your point. This is the case of situation 2) I was also hoping that you understand that situation 1) covers the hypothesis that the romanians arrived in the 12th century and after (is not this what the official migration theory says? or it seems to me that you are developing here on your own another migration theory - see also below about academic and less academic theories) In any case, the Romanians arriving after 12th century, obviously there are no Slavs left in Transylvania; whatever slavic influences in the language, etc they have, they bring these with them from the south. In this case the segregation i mentioned looks strange. Algos

2) a migration of the romanians into a slavic speaking land, but relatively uninhabited in the mountains. In the worst case, this still means that the romanians arrived there when the slavic populations were still strong in numbers, i.e. before the arrival of the Hungarians.  

And? As I told I am not interested in your fight who-was-first.

I don't think this is not relavant. This is not my fight, but the essence of the whole topic. This is the very reason for the existence of more than one theory. The "migration theory" is a theory perfected by the Hungarian historians. Do you have references of an academic and detailed formulation of the "migration theory" other than a hungarian one, or one which is not crucially related with the "who was first in Transylavania" issue? I do not mean "website" or "discussion forum" theories, or mere hypotheses put forward by recognised scientists, but on few pages only - far from being developed into an extensive theory. I mean a theory supported by many, extensive and recognised, i.e. peer-reviewed publications (unlike "beer-garden" publications which try to propagate the "Dacian language = Latin" theory; by the way, could we put an argument against the "Dacian language theory" saying that no contemporary academic, peer-reviewd publication supports it?). Besides, the introduction of the article clearly states that "19th century's Hungarian historians largely supported the migration theory, which maintained that Transylvania was not inhabited by Romanians at the time of the Magyar arrival in central Europe during the 10th century." Even if you are not interested in this, the argument is at least setting some limits on the time interval of the migration form the south. Algos

"Official" migration theory? I see the point. You still argue against politically motivated theories of Hungarian historians from the beginning of 20th century. C'mon... The world moved forvard from that time. I do not know any serious historian who argue that Vlachs could not reach Transilvania before 12th century. I will find references later.

In fact, according to migration theory, Vlach collonization of present day Romania was not an "invasion". The "collonization" could last for 200-300 years. Groups of Vlachs who possibly recognized authority of Bulgarian khans and tsars, and local Slavonic and Cuman rulers could escape wars that devastated present day Bulgaria and Serbia and settle on plains and mountains in Vallachia and than migrate northwards, to Transilvania and Moldavia. As indicate available linguistic and historical evidcence it could happen between 700 and 1100 AD. As I told this process was gradual and some areas could be collonized earlier and other later. I do not know, mayby Transylvania - to some degree - has been colonized by Vlachs before 896 AD. This process did not stop at the point and in the 13th century Vlachs reached present day Ukraine, in 14th Poland and some migrants reached Bohemia in 16th century.

Anyway, in your last edit you manifested you opinion as a fact. As I told your argument is very easy to repell and do not contradict migration theory at all. I let myself to move your last edit to discussion:

There are also some remarkable dialectal variations in the language spoken in Transylvania vs. the southern regions, which correspond to north/south variations in the Vulgar Latin known also in other parts of the Roman Empire, such as "rarunchi"/"rinichi" (from latin "renunculus"/"reniculus", i.e "kidney"). These are much easier to explain by the continuity of vulgar dialects latin north of the Carpathians than by a migration from the south where the variations were not present.

• If there was an argument which contradicts absolutely the migration theory, then this would have been long since dead. The linguistic arguments are not absolute proofs, just arguments. Is not my opinion, I have given references. The ancient dialectal variations are a fact, and they are easier explained by continuity than by migration. The main point here it is not what archaic linguistic feature was lost through slavisation, but rather that there is some archaic diversity/variation in the latin stratum of the language. Some elements of these variation such as "renunculus"/"reniculus" are especially difficult to explain in the migration theory context. Is not that "renunculus" was lost in the south; is rather that, from the best of actual knowledge of the Vulgar Latin, the term was not used south of the Danube, from the very begining. These two words come the same Latin root "ren", and they are diminutives formed in two different ways, using two different grammar rules. This might be still wrong (i.e. maybe renunculus was in use also in the south), but even if the even if the variation existed at some point back in time in south, this would imply complicated migration patterns to the north, in orde to bring one variant in Transylvania only, and the other in the rest of the country only. This is more of an Occam's razor argument. Another interesting thing mentioned in [11] is that these dialectal variations are not very numerous, but they have such deep roots that one wonders how they did not evolve into two completely separated dialects in modern Romanian. This is explained in [11] by continuous movement of the population and a possible migration from the south after the Slavic invasion of the Balkan peninsula. I come then to my final point:

• In my opinion the continuity theory does not necessary have to contradict migration form the south. It only contradicts the "official migration theory" put forward by the Hungarian historians, which excluded any continuity on political premises. It is very possible to have both continuity and migration. What the arguments are supporting is the continuity of the romanised population in the uplands, not the absence of the migration. Maybe we should make this thing clear somewhere in the article, that the two theories do not entirely contradict each other. At the moment we only have the first link which is suggesting something similar. Algos

As i told it do not contradict the Migration theory. It only indicates that after migration particular the Vlach poulation were to different degree influenced and some kept some archaic fetures that disapeared in other areas. Yeti 09:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• As I said the archaic dialectal variation in the Latin stratum has nothing to do with slavic influencesAlgos

• What if remove then your "counter-argument" from the article? It seems to me a personal comment, not an argument. Besides you are supporting there your own "variant" of the migration theory. Arguments should not be personal - the article is not a discussion forum. They should be extracted from reviews of the academicaly accepted theories only. And what is the point of having separate "argument for" and "arguments against" sections if after each argument an counter-argument is placed. Is the article a place where we present/describe established scientific theories or a place where new theories are born? Algos

The word 'rinichi' is used in all Romanian dialects. I don't know of any other word for 'rinichi'. --Anittas 09:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, how can I help then your knowledge? Maybe in Sweden they speak less Romanian :))) Well... moving to serious talk... i am sure you know that Romanian literary language is based on a southern subdialect, where only "rinichi" exists. "Rarunchi" has now become a regionalism ; by school education and mass-media "rinichi" is now well-spread in all regions. "Rarunchi" is still used in many proverbs and popular sayings north of the Carpatians. http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=rarunchi&source= http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/filologie/Zafiu/37.htm

"Termenii perechii sinonimice rinichi – rărunchi au o îndepărtată origine comună, pentru că provin din latina populară, din două diminutive (renunculus, reniculus) formate de la acelaşi cuvânt de bază, ren. Repartiţia dialectală a sinonimelor a fost înregistrată de ALR I (1938): rinichi era termenul curent în Muntenia şi în Dobrogea (Puşcariu 1976 presupunea de aceea că ar fi venit din sud), în vreme ce rărunchi era folosit în tot restul teritoriului românesc. Oricum, rinichi e forma care s-a impus în limba literară, în vreme ce rărunchi a rămas un cuvânt învechit şi popular – care apare în unele dintre cele mai vechi texte româneşti şi care a dezvoltat o frazeologie destul de bogată (a fi cu seu la rărunchi „a fi om înstărit“; a prinde seu la rărunchi „a se îmbogăţi“; a i se rupe rărunchii de milă „a-i fi foarte milă“ etc.). De fapt, cuvântul are şi un înţeles mai larg, dar nu foarte depărtat de cel primar: „adâncul trupului omenesc considerat ca centru al forţei, al sensibilităţii etc. “ (DLR, Tomul IX, Litera R, 1975). Acest sens apare cu claritate în construcţiile care exprimă intensitatea, forţa unei stări sau a unei acţiuni fiziologice: din rărunchi, până-n rărunchi, până în fundul rărunchilor. În citatele din DLR, sintagmele cu sens intensiv determină verbe ca a se bucura, a se opinti, a geme, a suspina, a ofta, a se cutremura („am suspinat din rărunchi“ – G. Galaction; „să se cutremure până-n rărunchi“ – E. Camilar) etc. Acestea sunt de fapt contextele în care cuvântul circulă şi azi (în afara vorbirii regionale) în registrul colocvial şi în presă; discursul public oferă exemple precum „strigând din rărunchi“ (textele unui cenaclu, în Internet), „ideea salvatoare a lui Ninel este să urle din rărunchi“ (arhiva Internet RLit 1998); „o ţară care se pretinde tolerantă şi creştin–ortodoxă până în rărunchi“ (arhivă VL); „sindicalişti sau peremişti care cer din rărunchi demisia guvernului“ (arhivă AC 1997) ş.a. "Algos

1. Unfortunatelly, it is only your opinion that these variations could be better explained by continuation theory. According to me it could be very well explained by migration theory. Whose opinion is better? If we have got migration of separate small population from different regions south of Danube, small variations in their language are unavoidable even if they speak the same language. Sorry, but I do not undersand why continuation is to explain it better.

2. According to linguists (Romanian as well) Romanian and Arumanian dialects derive from the same proto-Romanian language that split around 700-800 AD. Do you imagine that isolated population from Carpathian mountains and Romanized population of Moesia could speak the same language after 400 years (Roman evacuation of Dacia had place about 270 AD)? We know that untill 600 AD territories South of Danube (Moesia and "Dacia Nova") have been populated by permanent urban and rural Romance speaking population. It was invasion of Slavs and Avars in the time of Emperor Focas (around 600 AD) that destroyed Roman civilisation in this area. It perfectly match with liguistic data we have. Vlachs seems to be surviving descendants of this population. It explains everything and match with historical and linguistic data we have. You are talking about Occam's razor. So you have got an opportunity to use it. Yeti 18:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And how this theory explains the cohesion of Romanian language in the north-Danubian theory? How the quasi-illiterate colonists from ex-Moesia now invaded by barbarians spreaded a language in a territory that vast?

And how do you image that a mythical population hidden (like elfs or trols or something) in Carpathian mountains for whose existence there is NO eveidence could impose their language for Slavic and Altaic population?

This doubt support theory of migration as romanized population South of Danube (that existence is confirmed without doubts) was at least numerous. Yeti 13:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Why these hypothetic guys (the populations coming from south - I don't think there's a historic proof of a massive migration) could preserve a language from 600 AD to late medieval ages when we have actual proof of Romanian language be spoken, but the former couldn't preserve a language in 400 years? This is a special pleading case, and certainly not an Occam's Razor. Daizus

1. We have some slight mentions. For example about people resetled by Awars and Bolgars from Moesia to Vallachia. Besides, that it was not an invasion but graudal migration.

Those numbers cannot make for the entire actual Romanian space. Daizus

And?

There were plenty of such recolonizations in those ages (Byzantines did many such recolonizations, also) but there's not a nation/language origin theory for each. Again, a special pleading case and an unsupported generalization. Daizus

I beg not to agree. According to me it is mch more supported than collonization and assimilation by mythical "elfs" hidden in mountains.Yeti 13:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

You still haven't proven how the populations moved by Avars can make for the entire Romanian space. You can't say it's "more supported" as long as you don't bring proofs, just rhetoric. Daizus

And how a small population from Carpathian Mountains could do the same? The difference is that as we know for sure, south of Danube there was a numerous latinized population, that COULD resettle north of Danube. How it could assimilate Slavonic and Turkic population? For example because Slavonic population was less culturally developed. Obviously, because of lack of decisive evidence I can not prove it. On the same basis you can not prove the theory that you defend. I can merely consider the theory of migration much more supported. You do not have to agree.Yeti 22:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

On what evidences you claim the population north of Danube is "small"? On what evidences you claim the population south of Danube is numerous (some historians justify the slavization of Balkans due to a scarce population!)? Slavonic populations also invaded Greece. Turkic populations also invaded Pannonia. None of the above regions is speaking their languages, from different reasons. And again, as long as you don't have absoutely no positive evidence, it's absurd to say "more supported". "More supported" means more arguments, more evidences. Where are they? Daizus

1. On what evidence? If this theoretical population was bigger we would have some clear traces of its existence, do not you think? :-) It is duty of defenders of continuity theory to prove that this population existed and was large enough to assimilate non-romance population before we would start consider this theory seriously seriously. At the moment you have absolutelly no decissive evidence to confirm it. 2. I am not talking about Panonia, that was always scarcely populated from that latinized population largely fled during 5th century. And Moesia? We are talking about country that gave several Roman Emperors. We are talking about the country are where many big cities existed untill beginning of 7th century, for example Sirmium, Naissus, Singidunum, Viminacium, Nicopolis and many, many others. We are talking about area where rural villa culture was very well developed and many traces of it you can see even now in Bulgaria and Serbia. C'mon...

Well, there's plenty of archaelogical evidence about a north-danubian population in the centuries we talk about. Only that archaelogy doesn't tell us what language was spoken. We know the territory was well inhabited. As for the population of Moesia, it's a non sequitur between the number of Roman emperors or the Roman cities and the density of the population as long as you don't have any other data that would corelate them with the density of the population. The rural culture is to be found on both banks of Danube, so only starting from that, it's a bit hazardous to label populations as "small" and "large".Daizus

2. Where I have written that someone could not preserve their language for 400 years? I have written that after such period Moesian and you mythical population from Carpathian Mountains could speak recognizable different languages or dialects (it was an answer for previous argument).

I ment "to preserve a language" as in "without altering it through dialects" not necessarily not losing it. Because that would be the case for those preserving it from 600 AD (when this assumed population migrated) until late Middle Ages. Daizus

3. So we have got lack of evidence of massive migration (however we have some mentions that such migration COULD have place and non direct evidence of such migration) against lack of evidence of existence. What is better?

There's not quite a lack of evidence against Romanic population north of Danube. There's indeed a lack of evidence that this population would be enough to maintain a linguistic continuity in the context of the migrations. Daizus

There IS lack of evidence. If you know any, please shere with us.Yeti 13:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There're linguistic arguments (like that of picula/pacura), there's continous Roman presence just north of Danube after Aurelian withdrawal (Drobeta, Constaniniana Daphne, Sucidava, the abandoned cities in southern Moldavia mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, but also interesting mentions like that of Evagrios and a novela during Justinian which show human presence - soldiers, veterans and coloni), there're proofs of a christian population remaning in Dacia after 271 (don't tell me they were the Carpians :p). So they all together show a Romanic population at least able to hold (and also develop) some cultural traits of their own during centuries. If the Romanian language was one of them it's impossible to prove, likewise it's impossible to prove that the people you say migrated from south to north of Danube spoke a proto-Romanian language. Daizus

No of your arguments could be considered a proof. The presence of Roman cultural influence does not imply presence of considerable latinized population and especially continuity of Romance population from 271 AD. For example as we know Germanic population east od Rhine was strongly influenced by Roman culture and for example they used to build their homes in Roman mode. But no-one claims that they were latinized. Many Germanic tribes could enter Roman territory already partly as christians. And what? They just borrowed some cultural solutions from more advanced Roman culture. In post-Roman Dacia we could expect the same. The (Greek-speaking by the way) cities in southern Moldavia? And what? It used to be a part of Roman territory even AFTER withdrowal from Dacia and some cities existed even after arrival of Goths and under their authority and even later. But I do not see any connection of them to latinized population of former Dacia. Similary as an evidence can not be considered existence of one or two Roman military forts that were part of fortifications along Danube. Existence of Roman garrison on the left bank of Danube or even small groups of Roman refugees does not mean existence of (especially continious and considerable) latinized population north of Danube. Yeti 22:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No argument is a proof, but all are evidences which make this theory more probable. We know of plenty of other of Roman cultural areas that speak Romanic languages. For instance, in Gaul, there's no evidence of proto-French languages until VIII-th century - lingua Romana rustica, lingua vulgaris. Is there any sane historian to assume that there's a discontinuity between the Roman cultural space of Gaul and of Francia and to assume that this Romanic speaking population came from .. Balkans? :) Because for France, there's absolutely no proof that its population developed the Old French from latin in the same space, it's mere interpolation, due to evidences and a reasonable interpolation. The same argument goes for north-danubian space, only that the lack of documents shows a larger gap. Also, talking of other examples, all Romanic languages are claimed to be formed in a cultural Roman space. So a cultural Roman space is a necessary premise which is shown by the above.

They are not evidences of existence of romanized population in Dacia. Roman fortifications from limes have nothing to do with population of Dacia Traiana - it was different area. On the same basis you can give as an evidence Roman remains for example from north Africa. The difference between France and Dacia is such that in France we have got plenty historical and archeological evidences for continious settlement of the same population that do not exists in Romania. I repeat: to prove the POSSIBLITY that theory of continuity is correct you have to give serious evidence that Roman civilisation existed continiously in former Dacia Traiana after 270-290 AD. Yeti 11:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Straw man and selective observation - I am not talking only about Roman fortifications. Daizus

In Romania there's archaeological evidence for continous habitation until the 6-7th centuries. Beside the historical gap and the smaller number of evidences I don't see what's the serious counterargument that can be made against the culture-language connection in Romania and not working against France. It's an anachronic way to argue. Daizus

But you ignore that some of the arguments (like picula/pacura) show that it's more unlikely the migration than the continuity. The problem is more complex than your analogies. Daizus

I do not ignore it. I claims that it can be explained very well on the basis of migration theory as well. Yeti 11:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

How? "Pacura" (crude oil) was extracted in north-danubian space and not from Balkans. Daizus

There are mentions of christian missions so we know the approximate date when German tribes are christianized. Also the archaelogy gives hints for early christian populations. There's no room for "could"s here. Daizus

And what? Roman cultural influence does not imply existence of latinized population. C'mon...Yeti 11:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You're arguing ad nauseam. I already explained to you that I'm giving evidences (necessary claims) not proofs (necessary and sufficient claims). No logic - no debate ;) Daizus

There's absolutely no evidence of a Greek speaking population in the cities from southern Moldavia. That those cities existed after Roman withdrawal from Dacia it's an argument for a population in contact with a latin Roman world (as north Balkans were long enough after 271). Daizus

Why? These cities had nothing to do with Dacia. Cities from Crimea also had contacts with latin world. Do you want to use their existence as an "evidence" as well? :-)Yeti 11:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

But the issue at hand it's not only Dacia but the entire north-danubian space - the Romanic language space. It's an argument that those cities are a proof of Roman influence and culture. In/near Turris were found (I think now are lost) inscriptions of Severus and Trajanus. It's a proof for a Roman culture north of Danube. Daizus

Regarding spoken greek I found a nice testimony of Priscus Panites that during middle 5th century at Attila's court the spoken languages were hunic, gothic, ausonic and latin. That would be expectable but he is amazed by a greek-speaking slave he encountered there as greek could be spoken only by "prisoners from Thrace and from Illyrian's coast". It seems that Jirecek line still holds and we can safely consider that most Roman influences north of Danube were done by a rather latin-speaking population, than greek, during Eastern Roman Empire and probably some few more centuries later. Daizus

If you talk of "one or two Roman military forts" you either minimalize an argument or you're ignorant in the question. Daizus

Give me an example of existence of undoubtelly Roman fortifications after 300 AD North of Danube, outside limes, especially in former Dacia. The examples you gave (for example Daphne) were on the Danube line and constituted part of border fortifications and were 200 kilimeters from formerly populated by Romans area of former Dacia Traiana. Yeti 11:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

a) Dacia Traiana bordered Danube in south. Drobeta and Daphne and all the limes west of Alutus/Olt's mouth in Danube was part of Roman Empire b) I have not claimed that Romans actually ruled the territory outside Dacia Traiana and I don't see why would you want to search for faraway Roman fortifications? There're are some isolated castra in Moldavia, but I don't think their presence justifies more than some temporary military or economic Roman activities. c) You're fighting a strawman if you'll reduce all my argument to Dacia Traiana. I'm considering the Romanic culture elements from the entire Romania's territory (that's why I addressed southern Moldavia). The arguments from Transylvania prove the continuity of Dacia Traiana, the arguments from the rest of territory prove the Roman cultural influence. No argument is decissive but their complete set shows a coherent theory. For instance, there're evidences of Romanizations in Scythia Minor (people with barbaric - sometimes latinized - names having children with Roman specific names), there's a flourishing urban life in Scythia Minor, the culture of Scythia Minor encompasses fortifications on the other side of the danubian limes (like Turris), and the economy of Scythia Minor was based on salt or wood which was extracted from Eastern Carpathians - hence we have a whole direction of Roman culture diffusion from Scythia Minor up to the Carpathians. Southern Moldavia was region not under Roman's direct rule but under Roman's influence. Weaker than in Transylvania, probably, but still an influence to be taken in account. Daizus

And what is more important all your examples have nothing to do with Roman province of Dacia. Yeti

Some of them show the contacts with the latin world north of Danube, but some of them show the reality of post-Roman Dacia (most of paleochristian sites are in 3-4th century located in Transylvania. Only starting with 5th century they become more numerous in Moldavia and Transylvania showing the diffusion of Christianity). I strongly suggest you to study these issues before arguing over them ;) Daizus

If the theory of continuity would be correct we would have plenty evidences of existence of Roman civilisation after 271 AD on the colonized territory of the former province, i.e. in Transilvania. As I mentioned above late Roman fortifications of limes from 4th century or cities from southern Moldavia have nothing to do with Dacia and with this hypothetical latinized population left in former Dacia. So i stress again: 1. We have absolutelly NO evidence of existence of Latinized population in former Roman Dacia Traiana after 271-290 AD. 2. We have no evidence that this "mythical" population could collonize and assimilate non-romance population living on the other territories of present-day Romania. So which theory seems to be more handicaped? In case of theory of migration we have at least the real people that existed at the time. To continiue my rethoric, in the case of theory of continiuity you have only "elfs" that disapeared around 280 and came out from nowhere 800 years later. But fairy tales have not to much to do with history. Yeti 23:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

As in many other places (Gaul, or even Byzantine empire since VIIth century) a massive ruralization took place, hence you won't find many archaeological findings. But archaelogy gives evidences for a human and cultural continuity at least until the great avaro-slavic migrations when obviously something changed in the life of those people. But let me remind you that 1. Is a strawman. Our debate was about north-danubian latinized populations. It's also not true as shown above through the paleochristian findings (especially when corelated with historic considerations like the conversion of the Goths) including latin inscriptions. 2. It's anachronical to call this population "mythical" as long as those migrating people are not supported by anything else than a scenario. Because if we talk about evidences, there's evidences of continous inhabitance north of Danube (in ex Dacia Romana also), but no evidences of migration. There's also evidence for remnants of Roman culture north of Danube. Indeed, fairy tales have not much to do with history so I suggest you come with an evidence for that migration theory or bury it in silence ;) Daizus

In 7th century France we have got plenty of archeological findings and the villa culture did not cease exist. Even in Britain where Roman villa culture was wiped out we have plenty of findings confirming what we know about Anglo-Saxon collonization even traces of remained non-Germanic population on the territories subdued by them. Romania should not be an exemption. 1. These findings (and Christianity) are not en evidence of latinized population. They are an evidence of Roman cultural influence, that we can expect. 2. As far as I know there are uno decisive evidence of Roman culture on the large scale from post-Roman Dacia Traiana. If you know such why do not you put in into the article? Yeti 11:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Romania is not an exception. There are also plenty of rural habitation findings (not exactly a villa culture - there were no longer rich landowners, but still a rural one), but they are less relevant than christian findings about the culture that produced them, that's why my argument focused so far on paleo-christian artifacts. Instead of asking articles from your debate parteners shouldn't you study the problem and have all the data at hand? We should debate here not teaching history.Daizus

You can search for cultures like Ipotesti-Candesti-Ciurel, Costisa-Botsana or Bratei-Biharea if you want proofs for habitation. In some of the settlements you will find those paleochristian artifacts I was telling about. Or, more interesting you can look how near Napoca, Potaissa or Arcidava, near the ex-Roman city a significant number of small rural settlements appeared as the city decayed. Daizus

Ok, now let me put back the rhetoric. I don't think that between 271 and 7-8th century we can talk only of isolated populations. Byzantine chronicles warn about the 'romans' from north-danube that forgot their customs and embraced the barbarian ones. Daizus

Source, please.

I think it's from the Strategikon of Maurikios Daizus

I beg not to agree, again. The passage you mean does not mention latin speking population. Poeple mentioned by it could be for example: 1. Non latinized poeple who were subdued to Roman Empire in the past, who received Roman citizenship with all other inhabitans of Empire. 2. Refugees from Roman territory south of Danube (for example Goths, Slavs, Huns, or even latinized refugees i.e. local "bagaudes"). There is absolutelly no evidence that this passage could apply to romanized descendants od population that inhabited this territory before 275 AD.Yeti 13:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The passage mentions Romaîoí. Romaîoí can mean only ex-Roman or Byzantine population, which is latinized, or eventually greekized. The point you make at 1 doesn't make sense as we read in the same passage (XI 4 31) that they forgot about their people/relatives. It's obvious they had a stronger connection with Roman world that you imply. About the point you make at 2 please read the passages from IX 3 6-8 which clearly pictures the concept of refugee as applying from people coming from enemy to Byzantines. If you think this is bizarre then please read Salvian or other testimonies of Romans enjoying Barbaricum unlike the common sense says. To be outside Roman borders was not that bad in an age when Rome couldn't defend properly its borders. Daizus

I know what the passage mentions. 1. Your claim that Romaioi means only latinized or hellenized population is baseless as Roman citizenship at the time was not connected to native language. 2. And you in fact confirm my point of view. Read one time again what I wrote above.Yeti 22:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

1. I'm not going to give you education about what Romaîoí means especially some that forget about their own (now Byzantine) relatives. Selective observation is not argument, rather a fallacy. 2. If your point of view is that those refugees came from north of Danube, yes then I do confirm it. But you initially said "Refugees from Roman territory south of Danube" which puts you in a self-contradiction and also my position supports the existence of "Romans, north of Danube, that forgot about their own". Daizus

I know what Roman mean (I had Roman Law in my curriculum :-) ). I gave examples who those people could be. You claim that they were descendants of latinized population of Dacia. I explained that not necesserilly. that's all. Yeti 11:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Roman Law doesn't address the period we're talking about ;) I tried to explain what Romaîoí ment in the entire context of the paragraph. Daizus

I think the north-danubian populations assimilated the barbarians. The only migratory populations which I think it was harder to assimilate were the slavic ones, and I think that perfectly matches the slavic influences from Romanian language (again, please note they are almost homogenously spread throughout the daco-romanic linguistic space). Daizus

I think the north-danubian populations assimilated the barbarians. It is only your claim not supported by any evidence. I think that perfectly matches the slavic influences from Romanian language (again, please note they are almost homogenously spread throughout the daco-romanic linguistic space). - and what? This absolutelly does not contradict migration theory.

Not necessarily - I was rejecting the suggesion that the north-danubian population was unable to assimilate the waves of nomads and keep their own culture and eventually language. Anyway it was an opinion I thrown earlier in thread under a different context now splitted by our interventions, I really don't understand why did you reply to it only now :) Anyway, please take care of those straw men. It seems I'm not always arguing for the purpose you think I am. Daizus

As I told we have no evidence that such population existed at all. How could I belive that it could assimilate anyone?

I just offered a source above. Also until the great avaro-slavic migration even the archaeology shows different hints like a paleochristian culture (from which we have the "Ego Zenovius" inscription) and sometimes such informations can be even corelated with history - Teophil as bishop of Gothia is mentioned before Goths were converted by Ulfila. Daizus

1. I do not understand what christianization of Goths by Goth Ulfia has to do with the subject. Not only Goths have been partly christianized before coming to Roman territory. 2. Roman cultural influence does not mean presence of latinized population. You have got Nubia as an example where Greek koine was the language of culture.Yeti 13:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

1. What's the evidence (even indirect) that Goths were christianized prior to 340 AD? None to my knowledge. 2. Indeed it doesn't, but it's an evidence for the continuity scenario. You asked for necessary claims (evidences) not sufficient (a proof). I can't prove that, just bring evidences and suggest a conclusion. Similarily, you can't prove the migration scenario, otherwise this origin wouldn't be a controversy, but a historical fact like WWII. Daizus

1. And? What is the point? 2. I know it. And it is the reason why we debate at all. Yeti 22:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I already explained what's the point. There's absolutely no other possible christian population north of Danube (and in Transylvania) than the Romanic population of Dacia left behind Aurelian's withdrawal. Daizus

No. We know about activity of christian missionaries amongst Germanic tribes. We know that Germanic tribes that entered Roman territory were partly christianized even without living in former Dacia Traiana. Your argument is not evidence, again. Yeti 11:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Go study and bring evidence that the Germanic tribes from Gothia were christianized in 325. The Goths were christianized outside Roman borders around 340, no earlier date is known. We're already arguing ad nauseam here, do you have a point or just you don't like my argument? :) Daizus

And as far as Slavic influence is concerned it much better explained by theory of migration from South of Danube (settlement amongst Slavic population, political authority of Slavs and slavized Bulgarians and Cumans, influence of slavized Orthodox Church etc.). And - more important - the migration thory explains lack of such exstensive influence amongst Aromanians. Yeti 13:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

You know that while the common religious words are latin, the ceremony related are slavic. Which shows on contrary that the population was christianized through a non-slavic way. The slavs were not yet christianized before 800 AD, nor had enough time to influence some romanic populations migrating north. Unless you claim vlachs migrated north after year 1000 :) Daizus

And it support theory of migration. The ancestrors of Vlachs lived on territory of christian Roman Empire at least to 600 AD and they were chrostianized before this date, so it is obvious that basic religious words are latin. But later they settled in territories were Slavonic Church dominated and they acquired ceremony related nomenclature from the Church and Slavonic population. Yeti 13:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

As I shown above, the north danubian territories were christianized also before 600AD. There's no evidence of Slavonic church north of Danube until late Middle Ages (14th century) and even then in conflicts with Catholic Church (which is mentioned even earlier - in 13th century, the Bishopric of Cumania). For all that matters it could be a parallel to the situation of Great Moravia, but this time Orthodoxy won. Daizus

While I remarked your fierce opposition, I didn't understeand what's the approximate date of this migration. I understand there's absolutely no historical or archaelogical proof, but at least do you propose a date? Or your preference for migration is because you don't like/believe the continuity theory, without having a scenario of your own? Daizus

We can only guess. 1. We know that there was a permanent rural and urban Latinized population in Moesia and Dacia Nova untill 600 and some time after and that Roman cities in this area were destroyed at that time. 2. We know that both Moesia/Dacia Nova and future Vallachia and Moldavia (and to some degree Transilvania) were included in one state: the state of (turkic) Bolgars from 680 to around 900 AD. 3. We know that there was an Empire of Bulgars and Vlachs created in 1185 AD. 4. The Wallachia as a state (and probably with largely Romanian population existed at the begining of 13th century. So someone could expect that gradual migration of Latinized population of Moesia could have place in a few waves: 1. During conquest by Avars and Slavs (i.e between 600-650) - less or more forcefull resettlements of skilled population and prisoners. 2. Between 680-900 - migration from permanent wars on the Roman-Bulgarian borderland and for better conditions of living. 3. During the second Bulgarian state - after 1185 AD. Yeti 22:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

1. OK 2. The Bulgar domination over a large part of the terriories you mentioned came much later, in the second part of VIIIth century when the Avars fell. 3. The second Bulgar empire is only south of Danube. 4. Wallachia as a state exists only since 14th century. In 13th century however the first political formations are mentioned. Daizus

Bolgarian state comprised Wallachia already in 7th century and later comprised also Transilvania. But I do not claim that Transilvania has been collonized by Vlach as first.

Now that you presented your scenario. a) How the successive migration waves support the lack of dialects from Romanian language when we'd expect the opposite? b) If there are more waves why is still there's no evidence (historic, archaeologic) of such a massive colonization? There's no evidence for one wave, and you suggest more waves?? It seems to me that you started with the conclusion and now you want to create the premises. c)Do you agree that your argument is just a fairy tale? :p Really now, what makes your argument not a 'fairy tale' as you labeled mine or what makes your waves a population not some waves of 'elfs'. You shouldn't mock the arguments of your opponents and come with such fantasies as serious arguments. Daizus

1. I gave examples when the migration (migrations) could have place. I do not claim that I know how many waves of migration happened. The lack of dialect can by explained in many ways: a) there was only one large migration b) there were a few migrations (or continiouus migrtion for some period) in a short period of time, c) new migrants have been "assimilated" by existing population etc. 2. Elfs? Only if population of several big cities and many smaller (not to forget rural population) and several Roman Emperors were "elfs". I repeat: In the case of migration theory we have got the population but we have not decisive proofs of migration. In case of continuity theory you have neither population nor evidences of migration. This is the difference between the theories.Yeti 11:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note that your reason at c) it's an argument for continuity. If there was an existing population (which you can't prove) why wouldn't be an existing population before the first wave? Daizus

There was population north of Danube. There's no proof of population moving north of Danube, the moving population are the elfs. Daizus

And (as usual, it seems) a straw man! In the case of continuity we have the population, we don't have a decissive proof for the language they spoke. Likewise there's no decissive proof for whatever people marched north of Danube that they spoke Latin. The migration theory falls even under Ockham's razor. Daizus

I do not think I would make you an enthusiast of theory of migration and vice versa. Anyway, it was nice to discuss with you.Yeti 11:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure it's not about persuading the other, just about presenting a case. Daizus

• I am also sorry that you don't want to understand. This is not "only my opinion". Even the academic critics of the theory do not argue on the logic of this fact; what they argue is that the number of words/differences in question is not very large. As for the logic, is the following: as you agree in in (2.), isolated populations living in separated areas, as upland regions in Transylvania vs. South, develop differences in their language. This is more natural than assuming that the differences come from a homogenous area, i.e. the S of Danube (there is no need to say that those imperial provinces, urbanised and with the people very much interacting each other were a bunch of small populations with dialectal differences in 600AD). And there is no need also to explain why the words in question are not encountered any more in the south. This much about Occam's razor.Algos

We know almost nothing about dialectical situation in Moesia around 600 AD. Everything you wrote about the fenomena are your opinions. Nothing more. Some populations south of Danube, speaking the same language could use some different words. It was quite large area. It is normal in every language. For example in Podlachian dialect of Ukrainian language (in Poland) there are slight differences in vocabulary even between neighbouring villages. In Bisantian Moesia could be the same. And those differences could be reflected after migration. So the fenomena you indicate are not very unusual. Sorry, but the examples you have given are not evidence. Yeti 13:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• I am still waiting for your academic, non-hungarian treatis on the migration theory...Meantime, as I see that many are still passionate about this topic, I might bring some detaild archaelogical evidence...which is recognised in the international circles; this is the main reason why Britannica has only one theory. And in the most foreign academic environements, the situation is similar.Algos

---

A let myself to remove this fragment:

During the campaigns of Justinian against the Avars, one of the local guides presumably said in the local language "torna, torna fratre", which are considered a clear evidence of the presence of Romanic people north of Danube.Howewer, there is still debate upon this.

It seems not to be correct. This guy seems to be a muleteer from south. If you do not agree, a proof, please.Yeti 10:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

A "muleteer" from the south ? Improbable. Avars where dwelling at that time to the NORTH of the Danube,so when the bizantynes attacked them, they would have needed a guide who know well those places.When an army takes a guide, it takes it in order to be of use.A simple vlach shepherd (as it is suggested by you) from the south, would hardly now anything about the geography of what is north of Danube.

In 579 there was a campaign in present day Serbia, South of Danube. The Bizantians moved their campaigns into Awar territory after 589 AD. Yeti 16:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentleman, I for one would not give a flying fuck whether the Romanization occured in Moesia (Dacia Nova) or Dacia. In either case, Hungary has no territorial rights. However, until new evidence is found, there is nothing conclusive about the Moesian scenario. ---Lord Marshal 14:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as Hungarian claims are concerned you are absolutelly right. Unfortunatelly the Moesian scenario is far more probable than Dacian.Yeti 17:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to say which, but I think it is clear that they lived somewhere relatively near to the Danube and the Timiş River. The names of these two rivers are the only that fit perfectly with the Romanian phonetic evolution. bogdan | ^Talk 18:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion the theory of Daco-Roman continuity is pure fiction and chauvinistic propaganda to justify the oppression of ethnic minorities and to prove the so-called historical right to the annexed territories. There are no more than 12 words of Dac origin in the Romanian language. In fact approx. 40% of the Romanian words have Slavic origins. The former dictator tried to establish a Dac language faculty in Bucharest. It makes me laugh. Continue to fantasize. Nomen Nescio 00:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion is one thing, making statements of supposed fact that are erroneous is another thing (e.g., "there are no more than 12 words of Dacian origin in the Romanian language"). There is no linguist out there who can say whether the Romanian language has 6 Dacian words, 12 Dacian words, or 200 Dacian words---the Dacian language is barely attested aside from some plant names, and a number of anthroponyms, hydronyms, toponyms, et cetera. And as for fantasizing about the number of Dacians words in Romanian... I would find nothing wrong with an Illyrian or Thracian substratum, rather than a Dacian. In any case, a Romance language with a Paleo-Balkan substrate (and a nice touch of Slavic too) is much more pleasing than that non-Indo-European, Finno-Ugric thing from the Asian steppes that you call Hungarian (or Magyar, whatever). -Alexander 007 11:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"More pleasing"... eh. My non-Indo-European, Finno-Ugric thing-speaking self inside cries "De gustibus non est disputandur." More trolling, anyone? KissL 21:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, taking shots at each others' languages on internet talk pages won't get us anywhere, and it is quite possible that I just said that to get under someone's skin, though it's also possible that I am evil. However, I don't want people to think that Romanians promote this Daco-Romanian continuity for propaganda purposes in order to claim "historical rights", as Nescio commented above. No. Many Romanians believe it is true; they feel the connection to ancient Dacia and the Dacians, whatever the historical reality may be; and as yet we don't know the historical reality, nor do scholars agree that the migration from the south theory is "the most likely". As for chauvinism and injustices against ethnic minorities, Hungarians are just as guilty, with or without Dacian claims on their part. In evaluating my actual feelings, I do not find myself to be a chauvinist or an anti-Hungarian, but if someone doesn't want to recieve chauvinism in return, don't give chauvinism out to others. Regardless of what Nescio thinks about the Romanian language, I will go on record and say that I think Hungarian is just fine, and the fact that it is a non-Indo-European language can make it a delight to look through a Hungarian dictionary for "strange" new words. Regards, Alexander 007 09:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC) (also, I must remind Hungarians that Illyrians are recorded as having settled on the Pannonian plain long before any Hungarians arrived: see John Wilkes' book, The Illyrians, the chapters dealing with the Pannonian peoples)

Since this is becoming increasingly off topic, I replied on Alexander's talkpage. In case someone is interested. KissL 11:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

For those who can read Romanian, a very recent history of Transylvania (the post-roman period) can be found at: http://www.alburnusmaior.ro/Ro/index/INDEX.htm or http://www.alburnusmaior.ro/Ro/situri/Istoric_Marinescu_2/Istoric_Marinescu_2.PDF (the pdf version is more detailed). It contains also a review of the archaelogical evidences. Details about some of the most interesting and important pieces can be found in the archaeological excavation reports at http://www.archweb.cimec.ro/scripts/ARH/Cronica/selen.asp There was a remarkable discovery in 1995 of a site where continuous habitation is attested until the 12th century and which preserved the romano-provincial culture as late as the 9th-10th century: http://www.archweb.cimec.ro/scripts/arh/cronica/detail.asp?k=276 Maybe a synthesis of these things in English is worth doing here... algos

Barbarus hic ego sum, qui non intellegor ulli, et rident stolidi verba Latina Getae; Ovidius, Tristia V, 10, 37-38 Daizus

Argument: Aromanian is a more archaic form of Romanian.

Question: How is that? Proof?

Argument: The southern Thracian tribes were subdued to Rome in the first half of the 1st century A.D.These people later formed the bulk of the colonists in Dacia,together with Illyrians,since they lived close to the new province.

Question: What is the evidence of that? We know that Trajan brought colonists ex toto orbe Romano. We don't have any testimonies of depopulations in the above mentioned territories in parallel with the populating of Dacia. And even if this hypothesis would be true, how is this an argument that several centuries later will happen the same?

Argument: Great numbers of Illyrians living in western Balkans were already latinised at tht time of the conquest of Dacia by Traianus.

Question: Illyrians unlike Thracians? And again, how is this an argument for the phenomena centuries later.

Argument: In 'De Administrando Imperio',written by the Byzantine Emperor Constantinus Porfyrogennitus,latin speaking 'Romani' are mentioned in southern Albania.This region was named Nova Epirus in ancient times.This book was written in 900 A.D.

Question: Beside the fact wasn't written in 900 AD (the author may have meant 10th century), there are mentions of Romanic speaking populations throughout Balkans. How are these populations a proof for migration and are not just other 'islands' of Romanic population.

Looking at all the arguments above I suspect an Albanian author. However I will gladly expect him here to back up his arguments and to integrate them in "Migration from South" thesis. Daizus

Linguistic evidence: the subdialect spoken in the mountainous and upland regions of western Transylavania preservs some very old words of latin origin such as "pedestru" (from latin "pedester"), "nea" (from "nix, niva"), "june" (from "juvenis") which are absent from the subdialects of the southern Romania where they have either different latin-derived or old slavic borrowings equivalents. This supports the continuity of latin speaking in the upland regions as opposed to the migration from the south. [11](However opponents can argue that it is only an evidence that migrants from South of Danube who settled in sparsely populated mountains have been less influenced by Slavonic population than those who settled in more accessible areas).

This is not a valid argument because almost all dialects of Romanian have Latin words not found in the other regions:

• Moldavia/Maramureş: "curechi" (cabbage)
• Banat: "nat" < natio (nation; "neam" is a borrowing from Hungarian and "naţiune" is a 19th century borrowing from Italian)
• Aromanian: "a dimânda" < demando, "eta" < eta, "baş" < basio
• Megleno-Romanian: "agru" < ager, "ariia" < aria, "arete" < aries, "cămbână" < campana, "căpiton" < capitaneum

bogdan | ^Talk 13:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Si asta nu indica o origine diferita/neomogena a populatiilor respective? algos

Nu. Astea sunt câteva cuvinte, însă structura limbii, indiferent de regiune e aceeaşi. Gramatică limbii române are o structură complexă care a evoluat destul de mult faţă de latina vulgară, şi este imposibil să fi fost mai multe nuclee. Unitatea s-ar rupt abia acum vreo mie şi ceva de ani. bogdan | ^Talk 18:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ai citit lucrarea lui Bratianu? Noi suntem aici pe post de experti ne dam cu parerea avizata despre valoarea academica a unui argument sau altul, sau sa le prezentam cat mai fidel? algos

Bratianu crede ca doar atat a mai ramas din nucleele lingvistice de la nord (nord de Mures, chiar) - a avut loc cu siguranta o omogenizare lingvistico-culturala dupa venirea slavilor - cu aport uman/lingvistic de la sud . Cultura Dridu indica acelasi lucru - omogenizare culturala dupa secolul al VII-lea. algos

Mi se pare o afirmaţie corectă şi din punt de vedere al istoriei limbii române. Este clar că a existat la un moment dat o uniformizare, de-aia vorbitorii de română de dincolo de Odessa înspre Crimeea vorbesc aproximativ aceeaşi limbă cu cei din Timoc. Uită-te în schimb la italiană cu zeci de dialecte care sunt uneori chiar de neînţeles pentru un vorbitor de italiană literară.

Cum s-a produs uniformizarea e încă discutabil, la fel şi ce erau vechii locuitori înainte de uniformizare. În Moldova şi Muntenia, erau ceva slavi de sud (adică proto-bulgari), nişte rămăşiţe dacice/tracice, ceva cumani, dar în general densitatea populaţiei era foarte scăzută, motivul principal fiind invaziile. Transilvania şi mai ales Banatul sunt oarecum mai izolate şi au permis supravieţuirea unei populaţii romanice.

În secolul VII s-au oprit însă invaziile nomade. Ce a făcut asta? Khazars. Imperiul lor a oprit pentru o perioadă invaziile, iar românii au putut să-şi extindă în văile din Câmpia Română şi cea a Moldovei. Dacă nu erau Hazarii, atunci poate că românii nu mai existau ca popor...

Daca te uiti pe harta, se vede clar ca poti merge pe din munte in munte, prin padure daca vrei, chiar si cu oile :))) din Timoc pana in tara Motilor. algos

Nu doar până în ţara Moţilor... au mers mai departe... Păstori români au ajuns în Ucraina, Slovacia, Polonia, Cehia... În Slovacia sunt două lanţuri muntoase din Carpaţi numite "magura", în Cehia există o regiune numită Moravian Wallachia. bogdan | ^Talk 23:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Doar nu s-au apucat romanii de pastorit numai dupa ce au venit slavii... Nucleele astea (Timoc, Hateg, Apuseni) sunt destul de apopiate geografic, si au fost relativ ocolite de migratori. algos

Ce facem, ne dam singuri cu caramida in cap? De ce e asa de greu de acceptat ca a existat o continuitate in zonele inalte din Tara Hategului, Poiana Rusca, Tara Motilor? (vezi si http://www.romanianmuseum.com/Romania/RomaniaEthnoARDEALhateg.html ) algos

Eu nu contest continuitatea, doar argumentul. Istoriografia ungurească spune că românii s-ar fi format în nord-estul Serbiei de azi, (vezi harta lor) dar problema e lipsa influenţei sârbeşti asupra românei, deci varianta lor nu e valabilă. bogdan | ^Talk 18:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Si atunci ce faci, distrugi toate argumentele pro-continuitate din articol? Macar nu pune contraargumentele imediat dupa argumente, pune-le la locul lor. algos

If an argument is not valid, we should remove it. An invalid argument is not giving any benefit, even if it is pro-continuity. I think we can agree that this argument about extra Latin words is not compelling. -Alexander 007 23:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Bine fratilor, argumentul e tampit, Bratianu si ceilalti istorici ai nostri la fel. Am stabilit noi aici prin vot. De ce nu scrieti voi atunci un tratat de istorie despre "Venirea romanilor la de la sud in secolul al VII-lea, impinsi din spate de slavi" si publicati-l apoi la Oxford. "Teoria" continuitatii ati prezentat-o rigid, aproape ca pe vremea scolii ardelene (ca si cum ar exclude complet orice aport de populatie sau influenta de la sud), si doar in 7 mici punctulete, apoi ati reusit sa o distrugeti cu contraargumete plasate imediat dupa dupa fiecare argument; in schimb la teoria migratiei ati lasat tot felul de mici rautati de genul "if there was any Romanisation process", "if they spoke Latin at all", sau "There are no written documents confirming that Romanic peoples lived in Dacia in the period between the Roman evacuation of Dacia and the 10th century"...but "many medieval sources indicate presence of Vlachs in areas south of the Danube". Parca "multele" astea surse medievale despre vlahii sud-dunareni ar fi existat inainte de secolul al X-lea! Nu are rost sa scriu in engleza, ca vad ca autorii sunt tot romani de-ai nostri...Dar nu cred ca nici ungurii ar fi putut face o treaba mult mai buna! Lasati macar sa se vada ca articolul e "Point of View", ca nu e scris dintr-un punct de vedere neutru. E mai mult o sinteza gen ezboard "illyria forums". Cine vrea un punct de vedere neutru, sa consulte Encyclopaedia Britannica. algos

Sure, Romanian bisericǎ is from Greek basilike, but there is nothing that suggests that this word did not enter Proto-Romanian from Vulgar Latin, as spoken in the Balkans. Western Romance languages use terms derived from Greek ekklesia, again by way of Vulgar Latin ecclesia. Another case is Romanian înger, from Latin angelus, in turn from Greek angellos. Since the New Testament was written in Greek, you can expect all Romance languages to have some religious terms derived from Greek. This does not necessarily suggest proximity or extended contact. In fact, the form of the Romanian word bisericǎ seems to demand a Latin intermediary: *basilica. See DEX Online. Alexander 007 00:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Seeing a modification of Ghepeu I wonder. Isn't Dobrudja (Scythia Minor) a territory inhabited today by Romanians and conquered (for even a longer period than Dacia) by Romans? Didn't Romans had numerous fortifications beyond Danube (some anonymous contributor obviously exagerated when he claimed 50% of territory, but we know that there were Roman settlements and fortifications in southern Moldavia - for instance at Barbosi - or in Wallachia along and north of the river, though these territories were not officially Roman provinces) Daizus

I have removed all material relating to this theory because it does not have any authoritative linguists or historians who support it at present. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Before people get mad at me, consider this: the idea is improbable and is considered pseudo-scientific, and leaving it in the article makes the Romanian camp look less academic, even though no current, bonafide Romanian linguists or historians support the Dacian-close-to-Latin idea. In my opinion after dealing with this issue for awhile, Dacian could not have been much closer to Latin than Gaulish was to Latin. But I think the degree of closeness between Dacian and Latin is still a very serious thing to look into; and the closer it was, presumably, the easier would Romanization have been. Alexander 007 09:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Presenting the idea in main articles (Dacia, Dacian language, this article) does not seem like a good idea. We also have the article Protochronism now, and actually rather than start a new article the material can be discussed there it seems. Alexander 007 09:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I splited the article about roman and dacic continuation because it was not clear. I think we should consider both dacian influences and roman influences. This is not a new theory, it has more than a few centuries. It was very popular before communist period amond intelectuals. The theory has erupted after the comunist period outside Romania mostly (USA). In Romania, there is still a strong pro-roman position from many historians, excepting they do not speak about romanisation any more, but they use daco-romanian continuity to speak about the same thing, witch is total romanisation. I think we should not use this term, as it is ment to induce confusion, and it is the last thing we want on wikipedia. Moa3333 20:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, i would give much less importance to the migration théory, witch is an outdated theory of the last century, and does not desirve as much space as other theories. Moa3333 20:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well that is the issue at stake when you have controversy over history. Powerfull write history. Winners write it,losers have no say in it. It has always been like that. Well not anymore. Or not for long. It is obvious that the networked people of the world with huge and unprecedented access to information will no longer settle with anything less than the truth.But not your truth,not my truth,not Enciclopedia Britannica's Truth. No,you start with the very beginning of hummanity and go all the way up to today, and make no mistake in the process! Already this trend is HUGE on Wikipedia. More history has been rewritten in 6yrs of Wiki than anytime in history. So my guess is that a lot of surprises will follow and a lot of myths on which history is based on, will fall. Myself, having read some pretty fascinating works like Jared Diamond's "Guns,Germs and Steel" and with some guidance for a valid framework of analyse like Chomsky's,I will hardly take anything historic that doesn't start with the very beginning!:)) So,if in this conquerers vs.conquered historic framework, the Roman Empire and the following powers, wrote history for themselves and for those who they conquered or opressed that won't stop me to ask a simple question that go beyond 2000years of highly biased history writting: who says Latin is what it is and why? and what if Latin is no more than a version of Dacian language? Peace:) --Radufan 00:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, Latin is almost certainly not a version of Dacian. We know as many as a hundred Dacian toponyms and they do not look at all like Latin. It was a completely different language, on another Indo-European branch. bogdan 00:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You probably are aware of the material and the theories existing on websites like dacia.org. That is highly controversial and it has to be because it goes against mainstream. But what puzzles me is that they manage to answer a simple question which nobody before managed to convincingly answer to and that was a sort of "taboo" to even ask! So if Dacians and Romans were our ancestors,what happened to the Dacian language? How can such an anomaly happen that in less than a millenia time a partly-colonised people,with a rich history and culture, forget their own langauage!? Well until someone else has another better answer and a theory to prove otherwise...a "Dacian as origin of Latin theory "could easily fit into an "other theories" section(it does have plenty of material available to support it).Just like in a "conspiracy theories" section to be found on many pages,if you like:)--Radufan 00:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

All kinds of theories can easily fit in any article, since Wikipedia is not paper; the problem is, no actual linguists support the idea that Dacian=a Latin variant. The idea should go in a separate article; compare Pre-Indo-European origin of Albanians; perhaps it should be discussed in Protochronism. Alexander 007 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe even an article about Napoleon Săvescu. He is the one pushing this theory, afterall.bogdan 00:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dacian possibly went extinct in Romania, the Dacians being assimilated by Slavs and/or Romanians. It's not like this is unseen before. See this image of the territories of the Celts 2500 years ago. Nowadays there's no surviving Continental Celtic language. bogdan 00:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to "All kinds of theories" this controversial theoriy does have some real support. In fact much of the data used to support it is conventional enough; adding to that a critique to conventional theories and their unanswered questions, the theory basically makes a different interpretation on a different framework of thought. And logic. That seems to me credible and scientific enough. As to what their findings are and the controversy coming out of it, that's a different story. Nonetheless I believe it is by now third in a list of possible theories to Romanian Origins. There's a lot of followers, plenty of controversy and interest in the theory and plenty of available material for it;and the organisation behind(Dacia Revival International Society) cannot be of mad men. In fact try and read their status of association where they state to be a "Cultural Organisation" with "cultural scientific" activities. You can't just ignore that as being nonsense. Moreover,the main article states only 2,both controversial enough theories. Since both have lots of Pros and Cons, there is enough space for interpretation. But I also agree with Alexander007; maybe an article like Pre-Indo-European origin of Albanians should be written instead and then perhaps it will make it to the status of "Link" on the main page if it can't make it to "other theories status":) What I belive is that on a controversial issue people should be given the possibilty to listen to more opinions and voices and then ENQUIRE on their own rather than simply say "no actual linguists support the idea that Dacian=a Latin variant" or stronger "Actually, no, Latin is almost certainly not a version of Dacian."--Radufan 01:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

They claim what they're doing is science, but it's not. I read their articles. They have absolutely no evidence, they make no predictions using the scientific method, just wild speculations. It's on the same level with Fortune telling and Intelligent design. To prove my point, I give you these links: :-) bogdan 12:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• The Conquest Of North - Western Europe By The Carpatho - Danubian People
• The Conquest of India by the Carpatho-Danubian People
• The Conquest Of Sumer (Iraq) By The Carpatho - Danubian People
• The Conquest Of Japan By The Carpatho – Danubian People.
• Misterul cuceririi Americii de catre carpato-dunareni.

It is good for us to maintain a high level of standards in Wikipedia and cultivate the scientific method. Savescu is practically saying that the Thracian language was Romanian; I have encountered Bulgarians who say that the Thracian language was Bulgarian; I have encountered Greeks who say the Thracian language was Greek. What will help us get to the truth? The scientific method. The scientific method leads us to the conclusion that all those ethnocentric claims are wrong. Alexander 007 19:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

High level of standards?Then it means you have little understanding of what the scientific method in writing an encyclopedia should be. We're not setting the whether the theory is good or not,we're supposed to expose it as it as(stating of course it is highly controversial and related to other phenomena of nationalism,phrotocronism and whatever). On the same assumptions you wouldn't write an article on,say God. What scientific method do you have to explain it? You only state the assumption and the implication and sofort. The theory might in itself be mad if you like but having it in the encyclopedia will make people understand that some people do pose questions to history and anyone can, like them,do that. I'm only saying that it ought to be published and let people laugh at it if that's the case,but don't just decide that since it's too controversial and does not suit your level of tollerance to ideas against mainstream beliefs,it can't be even mentioned. You have no right in doing that kind of censorship.The article will be written.(with the proper mentions,of course)--Radufan 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood. By high level of standards I mean that Wikipedia must strive to be at the Academic level in its articles (except where Academic-ness is not the right tone, as in Groo the Wanderer), such as this article. Yes or no? The answer is yes. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. I am not misunderstanding Wikipedia. Removing such ideas from main articles is the thing to do (for example, do I want the article Thrace to even mention the idea that the Thracians were Greeks? no. But I can link many websites that say "the Thracians were Greeks"). You seem to forget that discussing the idea in Wikipedia but it in a separate article was my idea... so yes, the article will be written...and if you write it remember that it was my idea :) Alexander 007 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As a better example than Thrace, there is the Ancient Macedonian language. There are many, many websites that argue that the ancient Macedonians spoke a Slavic language; but this is dismissed by the academic community because it is contradicted by the evidence and it has no real evidence in support of it. So the idea is removed from Ancient Macedonian language unless someone finds a linguist or authoritative historian who supports it. Exact same case here. Such ideas are removed from main articles and relegated to spin-off articles, like Pre-Indo-European origin of Albanians. Allowing that kind of stuff in main articles will bring down the quality of Wikipedia and make more serious people not even want to touch Wikipedia. Alexander 007 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I started the debate because I saw no mention of the theory and thought it might be interesting. As to the form it should have I asked you guys because you know more than I do. But as to should be written or not, why not? In fact it is quite interesting to go through the Pseudoscience category. So like yourself I think the same should happen as in the artcile about Pre-Indo-European origin of Albanians- which by the way made it to the link status on the main page. Anyhow I think we missunderstood each other on the last point; I understood that there was no way the theory can make it on the main article. Oh,and if you want to write it,do so, it would take me a lot longer since I'm yet to discover proper writing on wikipedia:)--Radufan 21:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Romanian language does contain a certain number of words and terminations of etruscan origin, which could have not entered from other language than latin.This is the most viable argument of all arguments for romanization of the dacians.

Savescu's idea is a waste of time (and for his organization, a waste of money and resources, though it is also perhaps a source of money). After 4 months, most people discard his stuff and move on. Maybe in Groo the Wanderer's world, Savescu's idea may be true. Alexander 007 13:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's correct, fereastră [fenestra], toamnă [autumnus], prier [aprilis], şerb [servus], popor [populus], arină [arena], etc are ultimately of Etruscan origin.

Of course, Săvescu can claim that the Etruscans borrowed those words from the Dacian language, after the Dacians returned from the conquest of America! :-) bogdan 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. It's not the bringing of Daco-Roman continuity clearly to the forefront that is the problem, rather the result reads as if it is pointing toward Savescu's "Dacian was a Latin language" type stuff, which is quite different from the concept of Daco-Roman continuity. Numerous major changes which need to be agreed upon on talk first. Alexander 007 05:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Also reminiscent of Protochronism. These sentences are part of the problem: However, very few is know about the early romanian people up to IIIrd century. We know that for more than 2000 years they were dacians." And: "There is no historical documents speaking about any kind of romanisation of dacians. This has led to a controversy about the nature of the roman population living there in the IIIrd century." Alexander 007 05:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)