Jump to content

Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

aromanians

You had a map showing aromanians emigrating from romania!!! What are your sources? There is no serious proof about that.Is there? Aromanians were local people of south balkans latinized by the romans in the 3rd cent. b.c.

The first romanised local people were in north epirus when the greeks of the area of adriatic sea felt the pressure of the Illyrians:In 229 bc greeks from Kerkyra asked for roman help against the Ilyrrians.The romans accept to help, but they ask for the help of north epirotans (greeks) and greeks of adriatic sea cities against the Carchedoneans.To communicate at the battles they have to learn latin!!!

In addition,local people were used after the construction of via egnatia as soldiers around the main roads of the empire in the east and especially on important roads close to the mountains where many "rebels" lived.These groups of soldiers were given some fields for their offer.At that time they were called armati.The following centuries local vlach speaking people changed this word to armatulu and later it was used in greek as armatoloi (αρματολοί). Similarities between aromanian and romanian language can be found due to immigration from south balkans to north and NOT the opposite!

In the middle of 6th century Ioannis Lydos wrote: " Νόμος αρχαίος ήν, πάντα μεν τα οπωσούν πραττόμενα παρά τοις επάρχοις, τάχα δε και παρά ταις άλλαις των αρχών, τοις Ιταλών εκφωνείσθαι ρήμασιν. ου παραβαθέντος, ως είρηται, τα της ελαττώσεως προύβαινε. τα δε περί την Ευρώπην πρατόμενα, πάντα την αρχαιότητα διεφύλαξεν εξ ανάγκης δια το τους αυτής οικήτορας, και περ Έλληνας εκ του πλείστου όντας, τη των Ιταλών φθέγγεσθαι φωνή, και μάλιστα τους δημοσιεύοντας..". He speaks about latin speaking people in the areas of west macedonia and epirus.(especially on and around Pindos) that are greeks in their majority since ancient times!!!

518-527 the slavs first attack but they do not achieve much. Since 550ac the slavs achieve to conquer many areas for some years.

In 584ac as Ioannis efesios informs us, the slavs came and destroyed and burnt cities and slavered the local people.From this time they wouldn't retreat and leave the area. Since then and until the years of Herakleios(who made greek the official language)and later the aromanians were forced to stand alone on the mountains away from the cities and lived as shepherds, in order to stay away from the attacks of the slavs.So they didn't follow the rest of people of the empire who would officially speak greek. In 746-747 epidemic of pestilence holds the vlachs as well as all others isolated. I have a lot of evidence based on historical facts, but I don't want to write forever... --Geotol (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove Info

I have removed some false info from the Romanian arguments but I've noticed similar false info on the Hungarian arguments section. This info even contradicts other info on the page (like the false statement that only Mures and Somes are preserved from Latin, when in fact there are other rivers like Cris and Olt, which are not mentioned). This whole article has gone from something concise to to a competition of who can list more evidence. Remember the intent of wikipedia is not to convince the reader of your own POV, but rather to show a balanced and unbiased perspective. Romano-Dacis (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such a statement that only Mures and Somes are preserved, Cris, Cerna and Olt rivers are also mentioned in the same paragraph. If you realised, no "pro-migration" and "contra-continuity" arguments have been added for several months; therefore, the competition (if any) is driven by the other side. I suggested that the whole structure of the article should radically changed.Borsoka (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Toponymy

The question of Romanian toponyms of Latin origin is extremely important, and unfortunately it is a question very rarely dealt with by experts from Romania or other Balkan countries. It seems that toponymy is very much a taboo in these coutries since doing research in it would reveal new facts in the very complicated ethnic history of this part of Europe.

The very odd thing about Romanian toponyms is the fact that superficially they look like dervations from latin forms, but if examined more closely they contain one or more unknown factors.

Toponyms, like any other words of a language, change in the course of time, as normal sound change happens in the language. Overall, sound change is regular, and possible exceptions usually turn out to be additional, and regular, changes, as science advances. We know very well the sound changes that happened from Latin to Romanian as well as their internal chronology (the "sound change machine"). In the case of Latin and Romanian the sound changes are relatively few and relatively simple.

However, if you use the toponyms of Latin Dacia as an input in the Latin-Romanian "sound change machine" Samus should turn out as *Sam, not Someş; Marisia should become *Merişia (or *Mereşia depending on the original length of the vowel), not Mureş; Porata should turn out as *Purata (or even *Prata), not Prut. Furthermore, Petrodava would possibly become *Pietrudaua, not Piatra; the output of Abruttum "ought" to be *Abrut, not Abrud - and so on and so forth.

Well, wouldn't it be easy and convenient if language behaved according to arithmetical strictness...but the sound change rules serve merely as orientation hints, they don't need to apply 100% every single time. One is also allowed to use his common sense. I don't think it is possible for anybody to ignore the similarity between Abruttum and Abrud for instance.To reject this is like saying that the German "hart" and the English "hard" are not related since "hart" ends one a voiceless consonant and "hard" on a voiced one. What about Tierna/Cerna, particularly if one considers the typical dialectal pronunciation of te/ti by the Romanians from Banat, which becomes ce/ci (pronounced like in check/chick). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.5.150 (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not go into wishful thinking. Sound change rules are much, much more than mere hints and science is based on scholarly knowledge and on the understanding of scientific mechanisms, common sense tells us that when a word does not follow sound-changes, be that an exception, it has to be explained. Similarity alone does not prove direct descent. Thus, Romanian /şcoală/ is not a descendant of Latin /scola/ and we know that because it does not follow sound changes. /Hart/ and /hard/ are perfectly consistent with Germanic sound changes and may very well constitute a school-book example. As for Cerna, it is of slavic origin, meaning black, dark and is a rather common hydronym, to my knowledge there are three such rivers only in Romania. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


Right, and this is because the Romans adapted a Dacian version of the name, so the romanian an latin versions have the same root, and doesn't come one from another.Morosanul (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's wrong. The genetic relationship between Latin and Romanian is clear: mother-daughter. Romanian is a descendent of Latin not of Dacian. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No, you miss the point and try to mix the things. We're not talking about the Romanian language’s origin, but about toponims. The toponimy is Dacian, and not Latin, so the local people inherited the original terms, not the Latinized ones.
Exactly the same happened with substratum words, considered of Dacian origin, they didn’t get trough Latin to come in Romanian language but directly.Morosanul (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I got your point, unfortunately it is not sound from a linguistical point of view and is a very common and misstaken belief among non-linguists. Romanian is a descendant of Latin, the substratum entered Vulgar Latin and should in principle follow sound-changes to Romanian. Here's a link to a linguist's site[1], the article concerns a different issue but the diagram at the bottom ilustrates what I mean. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly the sound-changes rules to Romanian is caused by the substratum, much probably there weren't 2 changes, this is the linguist's point of view. Sorin Olteanu is not a linguist, by the way. In any case, the names we are talking are from Dacian language, not Latin. What we can see in the chronicles are Latinized forms, which may have never been in common use. I will come back after reading the article. Morosanul (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'll stop here, I'm tired and wikipedia is not a forum. SO is a linguist (classical phylologist). Dacian words that entered latin should follow sound changes as any other Latin word, regardless of its origin. While I have already said that the problem of toponyms is far more complicated and had an entire debate here, your view is utterly wrong. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
For solving this issues is important to understand the process of evolution.
First of all, we cannot trace the toponymes form Latin chronicles as we do with the words. And second, there are exceptions even in the usual Latin words evolution. Is not the place and the time to show all these transformations here, but we should avoid making childish mistakes.
The names written in Greek or Latin documents are Graecized or Latinized spelling of the local pronunciation. The sounds Sh, Ch, Tz, Î, Ă are aproximated. Also some changes were made for names to sound less barbarian, to be worth beeng in a document.
Local pronunciation was used instead by the inhabitants – romanized Dacians and colonists who will develop the local form of Latin – later called Danubian Latin – this one also influenced by the substratum – the Dacian language.
From here, the names passed in proto-romanian and Romanian language, suffering from now on the normal course of changes.
In this process some names were influenced more then usual words by the passing migratory nations. One example is Bârzava from ancient Berzobis, in this case preserving the exact slavic variant. Other names were translitareated: Dierna became Cerna, or translated: Repedea became Bistra.
So there is a difficult task to find how a name came from Dacian into Danubian Latin, but we known for sure the sound changes from Hungarian into Romanian, and these do not confirm in any way this possibility.
But in Hungarian documents, can be traced the changes from Romanian version of the names to present day Hungarian names, for example the river Cris (Körös) --Morosanul (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


It is very hard to explain why these words have turned out so differently from what is to be expected. It must be admitted that sound change in toponyms is sometimes slightly different from the change in the word stock as a whole (for various reasons, an important one being that compound words which are common in toponyms are sometimes treated as unities rather than compounds by the speakers of the language). But the discrepancies between the expected outputs and the existing ones are not slight, but far too dramatic to be attributed to this factor.

What happened here? How did the Romanian forms come into existence? Clearly, the Latin names did not turn directly into Romanian ones.

Without wanting to choose between the continuity theory and the migration theory, any resonable and methodologically working scientist would suggest that the toponyms passed from Latin to another (unknown?) language and then into Romanian.

OK, let's try to figure out which was that mysterious "unknown language": Latin "Samus" to Hungarian "Szamos" (pron. sa(r)m-osh) to Romanian "Someş". Latin "Marisia" to Hungarian "Maros" (pron. ma-rosh) to Romanian "Mureş". Of course you can argue with this, it might be that Hungarian also took these names from another language. For place names in Transylvania read Historical names of Transylvania Gravy t 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the man's point - listing cognates doesn't prove anything, you have to give the sound changes and show they are regular. Vowel transitions in Maros - Mures for instance don't make any sense; take another Transylvanion hydronym/toponym Sáros (this one is clearly Hungarian meening muddy) it gave Şaroş in Romanian not Şureş or Şareş. Plinul cel tanar 21:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The Hungarian version for rivers names are closer to Romanian names because Hungarians didn’t take them directly from Latin, but from the language that evolved from Latin in this region, which is exactly Romanian language. Is interesting to trace this names in the documents – is visible the slow changing of the world, starting from Romanian version. Morosanul (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Unless you provide sound-changes and show they are regular this is pointless talk. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Is pointless because some guys here doesn’t have the basics in history, as you could see.
What is for sure, Hungarians didn't take the names directly from Latin cause it was not spoken any more in the area at that time, these names must have been taken from some local language. Morosanul (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Latin was no longger a spoken language but it was a chancelry one and the official language of the Apostolic Kingdom of Hungary. Scholastic borrowings directly from Latin are a possibility. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this what actaully happened to the toponyms, all I'm saying is that you are very haste to jump to conclusions. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I read the link you’ve talked about and I knew about that study, as I use to read some of Sorin Olteanu’s works. We’ve got anyway too deep in this, and might be not the right place for the discussion. What I am sure is that you have the knowledge and the authority to put an end to this controversy, but instead you prefer to keep in the middle to satisfy both parts.Morosanul (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
While you are right about this not being the right place for such a debate, you are wrong in assuming that I know more than I let transpire. I have no ideea how those toponyms entered Romanian. Note that Madgearu and Brezeanu [2] believe Arges to be of Patzinak origin having nothing to do with the ancient Ardesicus. While I may be personally unsatisfyed with the explanation (because Mures, Somes and Arges share the same suffix and any ethymological theory should treat them together and not individualy) it simply shows that things are far from meeting consensus even among Romanian scholars. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This need not be the case for all Latin toponyms on Romanian soil, but we certainly need examples of the opposite: Toponyms of Latin Dacia from well-documented sources turning into contemporary Romanian place-names problem-free without unknown factors. TPR

Unfortunately it's not that simple (and the problem has been adressed). The original toponyms are not Latin, neither Greek. We have Latin and Greek renderings of Dacian toponyms and hydronims. Take Argeş for instance. Attested forms are Ardeiscus (Cassius Dio if I am not misstaken) and Ὀρδησσός /Ordēssos. You can't simply take the Latin name and follow soundchanges to Romanian! The excercise is far more difficult. You have to backtrack to PIE and identify the *h2erǵ root meaning 'gliterring, silver-coloured' (it's pretty well attested) and then follow Proto-Indo-European to Dacian sound changes to (possibly) Arğesya which (probably) lead (how?) to Romanian Arğeş. As you can see this is pretty difficult stuff since you work with a very old level of the language. Plinul cel tanar 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Your answer is very interesting. As you might guess, the assumption underlying what I have written above, is that the Dacian language was replaced by the Latin language on (parts of) Romanian territory in Antiquity, and that the place names passed into Latin (causing the latin rendering of the name to become the "native" form and input in further sound change) which then changed into Romanian. In that case the place names "should" have evolved from the Latin forms into the asterisk forms.
However, if this is not the case (if we assume that things are not so simple, as you put it), I am sure you are right that we cannot simly take the Latin name and follow the sound changes to Romanian. But why? Am I right assuming that your theory implies that the Dacian language somehow lived on for a period of time (next to Latin/Romanian) so the place names could have passed into the Romanian language at a later date, producing the actual forms?
Before entering any more complicated matters one should note that ancient toponims that did survive are quite often from sources written by authors who were neither Dacian, neither Dacian-residents so to speak, so how reliable are they from a phonological point of view? This is why I insisted that Latin sources are not the only ones to be considered on the simple grounds that Romanian is a latin language. We have Latin and Greek sources. Hidden beneath them is the actal name used in Dacia by its inhabitants.
I see your point. Am I right that the assumtion is that the place names seem to have had both an "official" latin (or even greek) form used in documents etc. by the authorities, and a different "local" form used by the local romans (future Romanians) with a more thorough knowledge of Dacian, which is the actual input to sound change?
You have my point. Athough I wouldn't really speak of anything "official" (Cassius Dio is not really an official person he is simply... not from Dacia). But anyway, you got my general idea.
Moreover, proper names, tend to stick to their original form even if the language of origin has fallen out of use/ dissapeared. I will take a quick example. The Breton name Le Floch (some times spelled Le Folc'h) will be read as "Flosh" by most French outside Brittany in accordence to common French rules. However those living in Brittany will most certainly read it (correctly) - "Flok" althoug very few are actually capable of articulating a simple phrase in the Breton language. Note that at no point am I implying that Dacian language utterly dissapeared after the Roman conquest. All I am saying is that names have a habbit of behaving quite differently from other words and reasoning exclusively on the evolution of names is deceiving. Plinul cel tanar 08:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The forms of the names still bother me, though. If a name passes from one language to another, although it can behave differently from the rest of the word stock of the (new) language, it still ought to obey to phonological basics. For example, the Breton name you mention is definitely pronounced closer to the "original" by the locals than it would be by other Frenchmen, but after all they use a /k/ instead of introducing a Breton /x/ which would be alien to French. Likewise, shouldn't the assumed form *arğesya enter into Latin with the stress on the second syllable (-ge-) complying to the Latin stress rule? (if /y/ is a consonant, the syllable is closed > stress on /e/, if it is a vowel, it is the penultimate syllable > stress on /e/; if /s/ and /y/ become a single phoneme, a /ş/ this early would be alien to Latin. Maybe I'm being too meticulous - of course languages might introduce new phonemes (eg. Romanian /h/ or medieval French /h/) or stress patterns (Polish matematyka with stressed -ma-) from other languages - but it is quite rare. Surely this would have to be supported by a larger influx of Dacian words into Latin than mere place names. But then again, I presume this is also the case...
On the contrary, you are right to be meticulous, but I fear your research may be cut short by the same problem your predecessors faced: the lack of attested Dacian words. Without extensive knoledge on Dacian to Latin soundchanges little can be proved. Concerning the stress, you are right; in my humble oppinion that may actually be due to Hungarian influence. I am Transsylvanian myself and most of us place the stress even in some common Romanian words on the first sylabal resulting into what Romanians from the former Kingdom call "hungarian accent". Note that back-and-forth borrowings are not to be excluded either in the case of toponyms. The scenario I'm suggesting is: invador arrives, native toponyms pass into invador's language, invador's language becomes politically dominant (i.e. "official"), "invading" form of toponyms passes into native language.
Doesn't this imply that the language change from Latin to Romanian did not take place in Roman Dacia/Transsylvania, Oltenia and the Banat (as far as I recall, the names dicussed are Transsylvanian) but somewhere else (the Carpathians, Muntenia or even south of the Danube, as some argue - I wouldn't jump to hasty conclusions on this)?
Well no. The only thing that toponimy shows is co-habitation by successive populations, like Native American names in the US. The Roman colonists settled lived along side conquered Dacians, learned the river names from them and passed them on to their descendents. The process must have been repeated with the later invadors/colonizers (including Hungarians). Why co-habitation? Because no marauding band of savage butchers actually learns place names from a population it completely exterminates. This is why I said above that while place names are not an argument for strong continuity they are one for weak continuity.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the last sentence.
I was reffering to one of my edits to a different section of this talk page. One of the flaws of the article (in my oppinion) is that it fails to destinguish between weak continuity (i.e. Amerindian - American) and strong continuity (Galo-Roman - French). The presence of Dacian toponims in today Romanian is a sound argument that the decendents of Romanized Dacians and colonists stayed put after the the withdrawel and that they co-existed with the invadors. It doesn't point to who assimilated who but it may show that no one got massacared in the process. This assertion can easily be coroborated with the fact that germanic invadors whether Goth, Frankish or Vandal never wiped out native populations in any other territory they conquered.
By the way, it would be highly interesting to know if there are any parallel examples in the rest of the Roman world, i.e. examples of place names whose origin, although they might resemble the Latin form to a higher or lower degree, cannot be drived from the "official" Latin form (or rather: the form found in Roman sources) but which in fact come from forms in the local Gaulish, Celtiberian or Iberian language (although I don't expect Iberian to be that well attested). This would be parallel to Dacian forms surviving in Romanian. I wonder how much research has been done in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.41.45 (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't know... Is Burdigala -> Bordeaux regular ? Plinul cel tanar 16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a thorough knowledge of the sound changes either, but it seems quite regular. The French form looks like a plural, but if the Latin form is a neuter plural it checks out OK. I suppose one will have to start looking for examples.
TPR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.41.45 (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Did Dacian speakers and romanized Dacians/Romanians exist alongside each other, allowing the former to be assimilated to the Romanians at a later stage?
That is more that certain. It is historical and anthropological common sense. All of Dacia was not unde Roman rule, exchanges with free Dacian tribes must have existed and it is reasonable to assume at least a transitional period of bilinguism. Plinul cel tanar 08:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC) There is also recorded settlement of "free" Dacians in the Roman province under Commodus.
I am very interested in what is known about Dacian speakers and Dacian language in the centuries after the Roman withdrawal. Do you know of anything?
To my knoledge: there is no knowledge.
Are there any sources mentioning Dacians e.g. in Transsylvania in post-Antiquity?
I don't think we want to start discussing Jordanes' confusion of goths and getae, Constantin the Great's name "Dacicus" or even Emerich of Elwagen's letter so I would say no reliable source. But again, that is not necessarily relevant to place names. Plinul cel tanar 08:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No, not necessarily. But a reliable source mentioning this still would be great. By the way, I don't know Emerich of Ewagen's letter.
Emerich's letter is mentioned in the article.
You are right that it is difficult stuff, partly because of the PIE time span and partly because very little Dacian is attested. The reconstructed *Arğesya looks like an a(h2)-stem but it is apparently an o-stem according to Wikipedia, cf. the Latin and Greek renderings. It is strange, though, that Mureş (surely with the same suffix) is rendered as an a(h2)-stem, Marisia. Apparently the Romans were not that consistent.
Are you sure about Marisia, I don't have time to check but the form I was aware of was Maris?
Yes, Marisia exists, but I have also seen the form Marisus which fits better with Argeş (but which doesn't explain the /ş/ - but then again, this would be the "official" form, not the local)
Who has addressed the problems of Dacian/Romanian toponymy? TPR
Georgeiev among others, Sorin Olteanu more recently and if you look for his Traco-Daco-Moeso lanuaguage site you might find some info online, although maybe not about the precise problem you are interested in. Plinul cel tanar 08:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!

suggestion

It appears the main focus of the article is the continuity vs migration theory. As pointed out in the intro, the false dichotomies approach is inflexible, Furthermore, it limits the article. Becuase people are consumed in proving one or the other, it does not go into the details that romanians are probably very mixed. The Romanised Dacians may have provided the substrate from which the Romance language is evidenced, but surely all the Slavs, Cumans, Pechenegs, Bulgars that also settled the area probably mixed to produce what is now a modern Romanian.

The second point is that all the Romance people of the Balkans are diverse. The Balkan natives were a mixed bag of peoples, and groups such as "Thracians" and "Illyrians" themselves were heterogenous, with different languages and cultures. The Vlach peoples of the Balkans have the commonality of having acquired the use of Vulgar Latine during Roman times, however, they probably have a very mixed original background. So it is an oversimplification to suggest that they all fanned out of Wallachia. They were probably Latinised in situHxseek (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that serious advocates on both sides would agree that a change in the area where a language is spoken doesn't necessarily mean that there was a corresponding major population migration. However, even if this is admitted, it still remains something of a historical enigma as to where in the general Balkans region a substantial Romance-speaking society was hiding out from the 7th-century A.D. (when the Slavs overran the western Balkans as far south as the Peloponnese, and the eastern Balkans were split between Byzantines, Avars, and Bulgars) and for several turbulent centuries thereafter (with several waves of new invaders arriving from the east). AnonMoos (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
A comment: Certainly there was a substantial native Latin-speaking populous in the Byzantine Empire until at least the 6th century (e.g. Emperor Justinian). Given the patterns seen in the West where the Germans took over administratively but left a lot of the existing Latin culture in place (with modifications obviously) it is not hard to believe that Latin-speakers could have lived on in the Balkans and surrounding regions with their language and much of their culture intact (the fact that the Slavs continued to be part of the Eastern Roman Church makes it obvious that they were preserving lots of Roman/Byzantine culture as they overran the territories). It is not implausible to believe that there was a substantial Latin-speaking populous in the Balkans region that, increasingly under pressure from the Byzantines, who were gradually trying to stamp out Latin in the Empire in favor of Greek, and the Avars/Bulgars who probably treated them as second class citizens, gradually migrated into a concentrated settlement in Wallachia perhaps displacing the Dacian/Germanic tribes there. In fact, it is not implausible that at some point the Latins may have revolted against their loss of status in the Byzantine/Bulgar/Avar lands and, suddenly being considered a problem, were relocated to a new homeland helping them run out the Germans in the process (pure speculation on my part, of course). Such an event might have been considered an embarrassment on both sides and so would not necessarily have been well documented.
Although I am not a historical expert I personally find the theory that some small group of Romans came and got the existing local Dacian or later German populace to widely adopt Latin instead of their local language to be improbable (look how long the Romans were in Egypt and yet Coptic was still a popular first language even by the time the Arabs came). There doesn't seem to have been enough time for them to exert that kind of long-term influence. It seems to me much more likely based on what the historical records say that a populace that was already thoroughly Latin-speaking and Eastern Orthodox migrated to the region from Byzantine or former Byzantine lands in the later part of the first millenium.
Just my opinions ...
--Mcorazao (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the Byzantine Empire theories is that Romanians were not at all influenced by the Byzantines/Greeks before ~900 AD, not even on religious matters: For instance, Orthodoxy was brought by the Slavs, it was not acquired directly from the Byzantines. Before that, Romanians practiced some form of Early Christianity, isolated from the rest of the Christianity for centuries. bogdan (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe a lot of what you are saying is unproven theories (i.e. theories espoused by prominent scholars but not theories considered proven by the general consensus). The notion that the Slavs brought Orthodoxy to the Romanians is a theory that is mostly only supported by the Slavonic liturgy. Granted that is some good evidence but it could also be explained by the Romanians gradually finding themselves cut off from the Greeks and deciding to transfer alegiance to their Slavic neighbors instead of the Constantinople. Is there other evidence supporting that connection?
Yes: The fact that many basic religious terms (such as Church) are not of Greek origin, but Latin. And what's funnier, is that the terms are not used by Western Romance people. Dpotop (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as when the Romanians began practicing Orthodox Christianity I am not clear on all of the evidence but my understanding is that the evidence mostly shows that the Dacians were practicing Christianity during the late "Roman" and early "Byzantine" period, the Goths practiced Arian Christianity, and then there were Latin-speakers practicing Orthodox Christianity as the millenium closed. But the connections between the Latins and the others are not proven as far as I understand and so it cannot be stated what type of Christianity the "Romanians" (i.e. the ancenstors of this ethnic group) were actually practicing nor is it established that they were not influenced by the Byzantines before this. To put another way, again if I understand the scholars correctly, their ancestry before the last century or two of the first millenium is not proven and so it cannot be conclusively stated what they were doing or who was influencing them before this time.
Also, when you talk of "Orthodox Christianity" you should talk about "Byzantine Rite". It's more precise, and even Catholics claim they are orthodox and the other not. :) Dpotop (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Bear in mind also that, contrary to popular belief, in the early Byzantine period there were lots of groups in the Empire that did not practice Constantinopolitan Orthodoxy. Indeed it has been argued that part of the reason the Egyptians were so willing to be ruled by the Arabs and that so many were willing to convert to Islam is that they had major religious differences with Constantinople and so, to some extent, were willing to adopt the religious practices of their new "friends" partially out of spite. One could argue that that something similar happened with the Romanians which would explain how they became so closely affiliated with the Slavic religious tradition.
--Mcorazao (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I don't know where you got your ideas about Egyptians willing to convert. Dpotop (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


I am not doubting that some latin speakers remained somwhere in Danubia. I doubt that all the Latin -sepakers in the Balkans stem from Dacia. There were many "Vlachs" in Dalmatia/ former Yugoslavia. They probably were there since Roman times. Ie the Vlachs of Dalmatia, Macedonia/ GReece might have been Latin-speaking Illyrians and Greeks, respectively, whereas the forerunners of Romanians were Latin-speaking Dacians etc.

My criticims of this article is that it is far too simplistic. Firstly it tries to equate Romanis with all Vlachs. Secondly, it does not menton that Romanians are the product of mixing of Dacians- which themselves were quite disperate, "Romans" -again a wide varitey of people from all parts of the empire (from Gaul to Asia), as well as SLavs, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Cumans.

Third point: didn;t the ROmanians acquire BYzantine rite christianity from the Bulgarians which ruled much of Romania in the 9th an 10th centuries ? Hxseek (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

1. First, all other Vlach languages (which are 3, one of them almost exctinct) are mostly considered by scholars as "Romanian dialects". Check Brittanica
2. Second when you speak about Vlachs from Dalmatia, you're reffering to the Istro-Romanians which are in fact the closest ethnic group to the Romanians, and it is believed they left Maramureş, Transylvania about a thousand years ago and settled in Istria, Croatia. They consider themselves Romanians check their Webpage
3. Third Slavs, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Cumans in Roman Empire? LOL. When you say mixing you're reffering that Romanians (mainly peasants) assimilated much more military stronger populations like those? Romanian language doesn't show any traces of turkic elements, if an assimilation would happen I'm pretty sure it would happen in the opposite way. Romanians didn't had any military power untill 13 century therefore saying romanians could assimilate such populations is absurd.
Additionaly genetic studies show Romanians have a homogenous DNA structure similar to that of Greeks and Albanians and that ethnic contribution of the indigenous Thracian and Daco-Getic population have indeed made a significant contribution to the genes of the modern Romanian population and to the contribution to other Balkan (Albanians, Greeks) and Italian groups.[3]
Haplogroup J is mostly found in South-East Europe, especially in central and southern Italy, Greece and Romania. It is also common in France, and in the Middle East. It is related to the Ancient Romans, Greeks and Phoenicians (J2), as well as the Arabs and Jews (J1). Subclades J2a and J2a1b1 are found mostly in Greece, Anatolia and southern Italy, and are associated with the Ancient Greeks.[4]
And most religious terms in Romanian are directly inherited from vulgar latin, which means the Daco-Romanians were converted to Christianity in the Latin language, and as far as I know bulgarians didn't spoke or speak this language...isn't it? Rezistenta (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
... most religious terms are certainly not inherited directly from vulgar Latin, some are but not most, and it's not impossible that Romanians were still mostly Pagan in the eleventh century, please read A.A. Rusu's point view: [5]. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
the most important are, Biserica -> Basilica, Dumnezeu -> Dominus Zeus, Craciun -> Creatio etc Rezistenta (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely messed up article

This article was composed only by neutral sources and was very well balanced until this Hungarian guy came with his aberrations. For example at the part were he says Mures, Somes, Abrud came in Romanian through Hungarian…. So the dacians actually lived until Hungarian came in the 9 century but were all immediately killed and the Hungarians took their toponyms, after that another populace from South of the Danube which shares substratrum words with Dacians have the same traditions, traditional clothers etc came in these areas and took the Dacian toponyms from Hungarians. One small question : if the dacians lived long enough to pass the Dacian toponyms to Hungarians which came in these areas in the 9 century, what on earth makes you think they all died suddenly after that ? Why on earth made the Hungarians took the toponyms from the Dacians or from the Slavs ?

It's an example of hungarian irredentist propaganda....This is getting absurd, this section is expecially for this kind of things, first present here the arguments seek consensus, give neutral sources (not one hungarian obscure source) ... ok ? Rezistenta (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rezistenta, my understanding is that the article is composed of two parts: one of them summarizes the "arguments for" the Daco-Roman continuity, while the other one records the "arguments against" this idea. Therefore, I presume that the continuity had been under debate before the last edits were made and adding "arguments against" the continuity, in itself, should not qualify as "an example of hungarian irredentist propaganda". I think, if all the editors follows the original composition of the article ("arguments for" and "arguments against"), all of us will be able to improve it by providing additional information for the use of other Wikipedians. It is well-known that mainstream historioghraphy in Hungary denies the Daco-Roman continuity, but, in itself, it does not mean that Hungarian historians have been following irredentist ideas. It is also well-known that historiography in Roumania follows the idea that the Romanians are Romanized Dacians, but, in itself, it does not mean either that all of them would like to annex the territories of the neighbouring countries "from the Dniester to the Tisza".
Therefore, I suggest that we should all accept the fact that different approaches of history may exist together, and if we let each other provide additional information to the article based on reliable sources, it will contribute to the success of Wikipedia. Under our policies, all the edits have to be based on reliable sources, and the last edits summarizing the Hungarian approach were based on academic sources that demonstrate the consensus of academic views in Hungary. I think a proper reference was always made to all the new sentences. As far as I know, the use of Hungarian academic sources is not forbidden, because ("by nature") Hungarian academic views are usually summarised in Hungarian peer-reviewed books (but of course, English language literature is also accessible, although it is not so detailed as the Hungarian one).
As to the neutrality of the article, my concern is that all the sources cited in the article follows the continuity theory, therefore they cannot summarize the "arguments against". For example, the "arguments against" based on toponyms or archaeological findings are not mentioned in the article.
As to the sources used by the article, my feeling is that many of the sentences of the article qualifies as "original research", because there are plenty of sentences where no citation was made to reliable sources.
So, I would like to suggest that all the editors should follow the present composition of the article; therefore, all the "pros and cos" of the Daco-Romanian continuity and the Romanian migration theories could be provided properly. I hope that this approach is acceptable for the majority of other editors.Borsoka (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This article should contain mainly the international official point of view, which states the Daco-Roman continuity, and at the end we could present also the alternative theories. In this form, it looks like a forum gathering opinions and arguments.

Thank you for your remarks. First of all, could you explain the expression "international official point", I do not understand it. I presume that all the articles in Wikipedia gather opinions and arguments, because there is no forum to decide whether a point of view is true. However, my view is that articles in Wikipedia should reflect all major and veriable aspects of their subject. In this specific case, there are two opposit approaches: continuity or migration, and I think that none of us is in the position to qualify one of them "alternate theory". Mainstream histographers in Romania follows the former theory, while academic historians in Hungary do not accept it. Internationally, German histographers are divided, Romance speaking histographers usually follows the mainstream view in Romania, while other historians use the academic source they found in their library. Interestingly, for example the article Goths suggest that Scandinavian histographers denies some aspects of the continuity theory (archaeological findings referred in this article as proving the continuity theory are connected to the Goths). Therefore, I suggest that the present composition of the article should be followed. Borsoka (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We should remember that Roesler’s theory has a political, and not a scientific aim. Today no official history sustains the Romanian’s migration, not even Hungarian academics, even though some present this alternative idea.

As far as I know, the theory of continuity was and is being also used for political purposes: it is really remarkable that the frontiers of Decebal's empire tend to follow the actual borders of the Romania. However, politics, in itself, should not mean that "arguments for" the continuity are invalid or they are not based on reliable sources.
As far as I can remember, "official history" disappeared from Europe when the Communist regime collapsed; therefore, I cannot cite any official standpoints.
Mainstream (academic) historians in Hungary deny the Daco-Roman continuity theory. Not because they follow irredentist purposes, but because they think that several studies (e.g., archaeology, toponymy) and the primary sources suggest that people speaking a Romance language disappeared from the Carpathian Basin following the Roman withdrawal (they left the territory or they merged into the newcomers), similarly to the Roman population of Pannonia, Noricum, Africa; and the Romanians migrated to the territory from the 11th century. As their arguments are based on their scientific researches, I think that their view is valid and veriable.
As far as I know, mainstream history in Roumania follows the Daco-Roman continuity theory, and their views are also based on their scientific researches, none of the Hungarian editors could deny that their views had to be reflected in the article. In itself the fact, that historians are divided does not prove that any of the views they follow are invalid, but it proves that history is an exciting study. Borsoka (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The doubts are not related to Hungarian sources, but their credibility, and as long as these cannot be verified by non-Hungarian speakers we should stick on English sources. Also, Hungary is the only place where the Migrationist theory is still somewhat accepted. So, yes, use only english references, since is a enlish language article. Morosanul (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no policy that only English sources are acceptable. Of course, we should refer to the English version of the books cited, if there is such a version available. Just for remark, one of the sources used when editing the article (History of Transylvania) has an English summary, while the other source (Blank Spots in the Balkans) containes an English, a French and a German summary. Therefore, English-speakers could checque the credibility of the sentences based on the majority of the sources used. Borsoka (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, let me begin by stating that I am Romanian, just to make one point clear. As I've previously stated, I find the article is weak and does not reflect recent research. However let me contradict the previous editor, classical Daco-Roman continuity (probably even more political than Roesler's theory) is far from meeting international consensus and has been abandoned even by Romanian historians, just like Hungarian historians (except some dinosaurs) have abandoned classical migration theory. By classical continuity I designate the theory stating that the Romanian people and language were formed exclusively north of the Danube and on a territory covering most of today's Romania. By classical migration I designate the theory that supports late proto-romanian migration (10th century or later) and from a region non-adjacent to current Romania. Anyway, my oppinion is that we have no reason to refuse a reference to a Hungarian academic source. Of course, I don't believe that a source from the 80's, Hungarian or Romanian, may do the article any good, but that's still not a reason to reject it. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your remark. I think any major theories based on academic researches are welcomed by our community.
The latest source used when editing the article was printed in 2002. "The History of Transylvania" was printed in 1988, but it is still the best and generally accepted summary of academic views in Hungary. Of course, academic views have been developing since 1988; e.g., the latest book written by a respected albanologist, tries to determine the territory (south of the Danube) where the Romanian language was developing during the centuries. Borsoka (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
And there are even more books by some other respected 'albanologists' that claim that this is just speculation.Octavian8 (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
     Such as?

Of course you can use any academic references, but an English Summary is not enough to make the point. The problem is the difficulty to check the accuracy of a Hungarian source (or Romanian) by other then Hungarians (Romanians), to see if it is accepted or not by the mainstream historians. Another error is that "classical Daco-Roman continuity (probably even more political than Roesler's theory)", the comparison is anyway ridiculous. Daco-roman continuity was actually the most intuitive and accepted theory before Roesler. Maybe Boroska is closer to the reality: the theory of continuity might have been also used for political purposes. Two more things: Decebal’s kingdom was not an empire, that was Burebista’s. Official point of view refers to the scientific, not political matters (you are too much affected by communism). Whatever is taught in universities and academical environment represents the widely accepted, in this way official, theory. I will check if the Hungarian historians support the Romanian migration in 12th century. For the moment allow me to doubt about that. Morosanul (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, if my understanding is correct, we agreed that academic sources and scholarly books qualify reliable sources. It is a perfect approach for me. If you read any English version of a Hungarian academic's work, you will be convinced that none of the academics in Hungary accept Daco-Roman continuity and all of them are in favour of the migration theory. I think you can use the following two works in English:
History of Transylvania (general editor: Béla Köpeczi; Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994, Budapest, ISBN 963-05-6703-2) - summary of the view of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Early Transylvania (895-1324) (author: Gyula Kristó; Lucidus Kiadó, 2003, Budapest, ISBN 963 9465 12 7) - a respected medievalist's work Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, there are no archeological evidences of a migration from South, and the studies show an uninterrupted inhabitance of this territory from antiquity. The only interruptions are seen in cities’ life, not in general. Also many archeological studies reveal a fusion of cultures of newly arrived migratory peoples with the local cultures (as in Dridu culture).

If you honestly can say that the main academics in Hungary support the migration theory, I’m sure you can check much better than me. I don’t say to exclude the migration theory from the article, (the same for others, because there is no just one alternative theory), just to state if one of them is most internationally accepted, as considered the most realistic. I can offer only US/Canada historical works references.

It is for me very strange, indeed, the interest of Hungarians in rewriting the Romanians’ history in some different way. Morosanul (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


The migrationist hungarian theory is obvious a political one because historically is very hard to fiend arguments for it. For example is a non sens to say that romanians come in Transilvania in XIV century when they are named there since IX century (even in medieval hungarian sources) and are attested archeological much earlier. Did some one ever say that french, spanish, italians or other romance people moved in their today’s land from south? Did French come in France from Espania? Why should romanian be so different? I know why, because the hungarians would like to, end of the story.

  • Migration is not a political question in Hungary, that is fact, I have not heard any of the politicians speaking of the "Dako-Roman continuity" or "Migration of the Romans to Transylvania" in Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we are not in the position to decide wether any of the theories are correct. For me, the theory of migration looks more logical based on the sources, but I really do not want to decide. Based on Wikipedia's policy, any major approaches should be reflected in the articles, provided that a proper reference to at least one reliable source is made. I think if we forgot this approach, Wikipedia would be impoverished. Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Excuse my english —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porfirogenetul (talk • contribs) 09:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Your English is obviously better than mine. Nevertheless, in some cases, if it is necessary, I can concentrate and improve it. Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits & suggestion

Following the above consenus (only academic and scholarly works can be referred and a preference is always made on English books), the "Arguments against" of the continuity theory and the "Arguments for" the migration theory were re-edited. The edit was necessery, because the former text of the article did not summarized the major topics of the argumentation and it failed to refer to reliable sources; therefore, nobody was in the position to checque whether the statements were verifiable.

I would like to suggest that the section "Ancient and medieval sources" should be improved significantly, because the order of its sentences seemingly neglects to follow any internal logic.Borsoka (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

negative. All sources are hungarian sources. Please do not disrupt and broke this article with your irredentist hungarian propaganda Rezistenta (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "irredentist propaganda"? Please do not move sentences based on reliable academic sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
What are your concerns about following the chronological order of the works cited in the section "Ancient and medieval sources"? At its present state, this part of the article cannot be followed, because the sentences are jumping from sources written in the 11th century to chronicles written in the 14th century and back, and again, and back. I suggest this should be significantly changed in order to help other users of the Wikipedia to read the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it cannot be followed by you because I didn't see anyone else complaining untill now. Please do not disrupt this article anymore. If you really feel like talking about this subject take your political views and hungarian sources sowhewere else like on forums, this is really not the place. Rezistenta (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain what your concerns are about following the chronological order? At recent stage, there are sentences cited from chronicles and other primary sources without following any order. I presume the article could be significantly improved if the sentences were reedited. Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, Rezistenta I have undone your edits and will continue to do so as long as you remove sourced material without adressing the problem on the talk page. Borosoka, before discussing your edits in general let me know where you stand on this: I believe that the organization of the article as a pro-con debate makes it very difficult to follow. We should rather organize it in three sections: written sources, linguistical aspects and archelogical evidence. For each of these sections we may illustrate the different points of view. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For me, your suggestion looks reasonable. Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking on your edits history a little and looks like your a fierce opposer of romanian history. First of all do not pose as a romanian, you may be living in Romania and know the language but this doesn't mean you necessarily romanian, second if we should rather categorise it in three sections, why you're not doing so instead of completely messing up this article and encouraging irredentist views ? Rezistenta (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezistenta, did you look the word iredentist up in the dictionary? Just so that we may get this out of the way, Transylvania is Romanian and that is a closed matter as far as international law is concerned and not an issue to be taken by historians or linguists. Second, acting agressively towards other users serves no cause, certainly not a Romanian one.Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Boroska, while I have no problem with Hungarian sources, I do have a problem with Illyés Elemér being cited extensively with respect to topics concerning medieval history and linguistics. Elemer Illyes' field of research is modern anthropolgy, minority ritghts, ethnical issues, he is neither a linguist nor a recognized medieval historian and as such he is not a reliable source with respect to such aspects. Moreover, even if you argue some credibility, citing him as extesively as you do certainly gives his oppinions undue weight. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The more I look into this the more I feel that all uncoroborated Illyes arguments should be removed.Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Elemér Illyés is not a linquist or a historian, but his book is based on the works of linguists and historians. I think that his book is an excellent summary of recent linguistic and historical approaches (although, he follows the migration theory). Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ, I believe Illyes' book to be very well written but more than bias and very selective in its sources. On a more personal note, I fail to understand why a scholar would venture into fields in which he is not competent in order to write an overview if his aims are purely scientific. All in all, Illyes is at best a tertiary source, like Wikipedia itself, he is not a relyable secondary source. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I think his book is an excellent summary of the "pro-migrationist" views in English. I think Wikipedia accept several terciary sources (encyclopedias, etc.), therefore using his work does not contradict to our policy. Borsoka (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Then you should look before thinking i'm the one insane...ins't it? Rezistenta (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm simply being civil and acting according to the guidelines. I'm not questioning the presence of Hungarian sources, I'm questioning Illyes's competence as a historian of the Early and High Middle Ages and I'm taking the issue to the talk page. I've also added the POV tagg as Borsoka does not present the views of his sources neutrally, particluarly since some are questionable and come in direct conflict with sources already cited in the article, but endorses their point of view. For example sources written about Romanians in Transylvania do exist before 1210 (Nestor's chronicle being the obvious one!) and further more 1210 corresponds to the dating of the Anonymus chronicle by Kristó Gyula, dating which has already been chalanged. The archeological evidence, Borsoka, is equally challenged, first and foremost by Szekely Zoltan whome, in my oppinion, cannot be accused of endorsing Romanian nationalism. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do not think that Nestor referred to Romanians in Transylvania (remember, he wrote that the Volohs had conquered the Slavs, therefore his Volohs must have been the rulers of East Francia). Moreover, neither did some other authors cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Even so, the statement becomes a matter of interpretation and not a fact. Again, on a more personal note, let's be reasonable, no other Russian chronicle ever reffers to "the rullers of East Francia" as Volohs, however the exonym is pratically the only way Russian authors designate Romanians untill the XVIIIth century. Further more note that we have one XIth source - the Gotland tombstone that attests vlah presence north of the Danube (read the Curta/Vasary link in the article) and Maurice's Strategikon which may be used to argue the presence of a Romance-language speaking population in the same century. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree that it is only a fact of interpretation. Remember, according to Nestor the Slavs arrived first, they were occupied by the Volochs and the Volochs were defeated by the Magyars. The Gotland tombstone says "Blakoman" which can be interpreted as "Black People" (the Swedish intepretation) or "Black Cumans" (István Schütz), as well. As far as I remember, the Strategikon refers to Vlachs living at the Sava and the Danube, it does not contradict to migration. Nevertheless, I think we should not decide, but we should ensure that the major views are demonstrated in Wikipedia. I think we could also follow your suggestion (written sources, archaeological evidences and linguistics). Borsoka (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the ethnonym on the Gotland tombstone (by the way it reads BLAKUMEN) is a matter of interpretation not a fact. Yet, that makes the written sources statement equally a matter of interpretation and not a fact. Concerning the Strategikon, you are reffering to Kekaumenos while I am reffering to Emperror Mauritius who mentions Rhomayoy living north of the Danube fighting alongside barbarians. He equally mentions refugees who seek shelter South of the river and calls them refugi although he is writing in greek which seems to indicate that that is how they called themselves. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
All his POV is structurated the same way and I'm glad you've reached my conclusion . Its never wrong to acknowledge or admit you've made a mistake, cheers Rezistenta (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

His edits contain a lot perfectly valid information. One of the most interesting aspects is the possible existance of a belief among Romanians in the XVIIthe century that their ancestors came from the South. This can be further illustrated by citings from the Metropolitan Dosofteiu. The Romanian historian Ovidiu Pecican also believes that (whether right or wrong) such a tradition existed. This is most paradoxal, since a belief in continuity or at least in Romanian precedence in Transylvania, whether right or wrong, may be attested among Hungarian Medieval and early modern scholars. It is extremly interesting for the reader to learn how the points of view may have shifted. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, his views are structurated in a very biased manner and i'm not saying all his statements are wrong but many of them are . There are thousands and thousands of arguments sustaining both theories and this encyclopedia it's not really the ideal place for such debates. It simply appears to have a politcal and irredentist connotation because of such unencyclpedic hungarian sources and I think it's alot better to take this dispute on forums and not over here. For understanding better my point it's enough make a parralel with articles regarding the origin of hungarians where is also place for many theories and biased opinions but despite this I haven't seen romanians involved and giving unencyclopedic romanian sources. Rezistenta (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Stop doing that! Removing sourced statements may very well qualify as vandalism! Let the man answer. While the wording should be reviewed Hungarian sources are valid and welcome, provided they come from actual specialists. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Fully The Young dude, I don't think you're very familiar with what it may or not qualify as vandalism since your only purpuse constitutes the disruption of this very only article. Rezistenta (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't have to put up with this, do as you may, I'm leaving this be. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
begging for others help proves the opposite Rezistenta (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think all parts of the article require serious cleanup. As a linguist, I'm particularly pissed off by the "linguistic" arguments in the pro-continuity part concerning the origin of some Hungarian words. Clearly, whoever wrote these arguments about the origin of "erdő" and "város" did not even have a basic understanding of Hungarian, let alone linguistics. This is just sad. Zigomer trubahin (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As a hungarian linguist you have the right to say whatever you want but let's not defy the reality, there's a clear explanation which clarifies each linguistic argument so that every regular mortal can understand, there's no need to be a linguist to see such obvious and detailed explanations . Funny how all the sudden miracly popped out from the sky hungarian linguists, historians etc. There are alot of hungarian articles waiting for your help, why wasting your precious time with romanian articles ? Rezistenta (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I hope now you do not want to remove encyclopedic and very well sourced statements Rezistenta (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You should take up arms and teach Hungarians on the battlefield what is what. It's a pity you've chosen to ruin Wikipedia instead. Don't worry, I've got better things to do than refuting your pseudoscientific nationalistic propaganda. Zigomer trubahin (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The first part of your sentence skipped unnoticed for me. I'm astonished that a person posing as a linguist and therefore as an intellectual instigates to ethnic and national hatred and violence. It's very sad indeed and the words are too much for your such a shamefull attitude. I’m sorry but you don’t belong in 21 century. Rezistenta (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about respect for others, it is chauvinistic and is not up to date from scientific point. It is referring to data from times where science was funded by dictators, and since then it was proven false. This article is also extremely long and it's aim is to list explanations for the Daco-Roman continuity. Science is not about explaining something but about INVESTIGATION. So do so, and drop your commmunist (school)books, and read some newer ones. Abdulka (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Szia to you too Rezistenta (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Blakumen

In answer to Borsoka but also in view of a future edit of the article. The mainstream view held not only by Romanian linguists and historians (Decei, Brezeanu, Isbasescu althogh the latter also gives some less probable alternative interpretations) but also by most Scandinavian scholars (Jansson et all, Soderhjelm et all, Hannestad etc) is that Blakumen is an Old Norse rendering of Vlach. This is supported by the existence of the mention of a raid by Alexios Comnenos in Blokumannaland in the Heimskringla (a late Latin version translates it by "in Blachorum terram"). Another source (Flateyjarbók) also records the ethnonim blokumenn. Some scholars (the most prominent being Pritsak) do indeed identify the blakumen with Cumans (Pritsak's literal interpretation being the pale ones), but Schütz's view remains quite unique not in the interpretation but in the actual ethymological explanation and the attempt to identify the very ethnonim cuman in blakumen. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep All the Viewpoints Intact with their Evidence

There are two things from the oral history of my family I'd like to add to these discussions, and to provide a backdrop to the article:

1. My grandmother's oral history has been many stories about how people near Cluj were extremely careful about who they married. There were many stories she told me about people who did not "marry the right person because s/he was from ---." So there has been a social resistance to intermarriage between the diverse groups. If she had lived, she would be over 100 years old now.

2. My mother's oral history is that she remembers the history teacher at school in Romania telling her that he must say certain falsehoods, but if he lies while lecturing, he will wink. He did a lot of winking. So I think the history books written during the communist period are quite suspect, and anything in them should be attempted to be corroborated using other sources. There can be no "official" version of Romanian history while scholarly study is bogged down with political propagandas.

There is a new Romania now, part of the EU, and it's time to let the impartial eye of scholarship take over. I think it's important that all viewpoints be preserved at this time. Destruction of a viewpoint or its evidence now would just be foolish. For the first time, Romanians can look at everything freely, and so, it's more helpful to keep all the viewpoints intact. The truth will come to the surface in time, we simply have to be patient and free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.145.192 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Saint Stephan a romanian?

Woah i really laughed a big. So here are the problems:

1. We do not know who was/were Árpád's wife(s). 2. Mén-Marót ruled in Bihar. Bihar is west of Transylvania. Anyonymus writes that they were khozars(Of course some rom. will again prove it that the khozar is just a corrupted version of vlach :P) Also, we do not know that the full story about Mén-Marót is true or just one of Anonymus's fabrication. 3." Zolta brought wife from the land of the cumans for his son, Taksony" We know it that there were no cumans at that time, but there were the pechenegs. Probably Anonymus wrote this down because in his time cumans do were (+cumans did not live in SE Transylvania..). 4. Just because Mihály and several others were baptised in Orthodox rite, doesn't means they were Romanians. From Byzantine sources, we know it that after Termacsu and Bulcse, the transylvanian gyula aslo went to Constantinople to be baptised in Orthodox rite, and he took with him a monk named Hierotheos to help spread the Orthodox religion. 5.Gyula is an old Hungarian/Turkic title mentioned by several sources. There was no way he was a Romanian or a Cuman. 6. Sarolt is of Turkic origin, and it means "white queen". 7. Vajk is a Turkic name with the meaning hero/rich. Take a look: Hungarian "vaj" means butter. And butter was a symbol of wealth.

I hope now you can see that this argument in the article is totaly nonsense. Please delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.237.146 (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is messed up

The article is closed since June. Coudn't be this changed? Because it needs a lots of work. The arguments against for the migration are just the arguments for the continuity.

Also, many arguments for the continuity are like they were only written down to make that part longer. Many of them just states the Romanians are of Roman descendants, which was never disputed. The 16-18. century sources stating that Romanians are the anciest nation of Transylvania can be easily explained. They do know it that Hungarians didn't live there always, but they didn't know where from the Romanians came. So, the easiest way is to say they were always there (there wasnt anything like gesta valachorum so they didnt have any sources)

Some of the sources are also quite disputable. Procopius mentioning a slav who is speaking latin who learnt the language in the present-day Moldavia. However, this doesn't need to be acknowledged that Romanians were living there. There were many latin colonies at the coast of the Black Sea. Most of them were still existing in the 5-6th century. Emmerich of Elwangen's letter. The problem here is that he is mentioning Dacians, Germans, Sarmatians, and Alans! If we take out the Dacs, he couldn't met any of these people "north of Danube" in 860! Finally, most of the sources are only talking abour vlachs North of the Danube. Well, there are lots of things North of Danube... And again, the problem comes up that many later chronicle writer only wrote it that Romanians are living there because they also met them/or know it that there are these people. And the same think comes up again what i write down before. 82.131.226.84 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

On one hand the whole article is messed up; on the other hand, it contains several information that could be debated:

  • the Hungarian presence in Transylvanis does predate 1000;
  • the Diocese of Oradea was not established by King St. Ladislaus;
  • the word "the" exist in the Romanian language although it follows the noun (similarly to the Albanian, Bulgarian);
    • Actually it doesn't. Your knowledge of Romanian must be very poor.
      • un om > omul (a man > the man)
        • Ok, you just proved you have no idea what an article is. Adding a suffix to the back of the word is not an article, it is the exact opposite!
          • The meaning is the same "the" = "ul" (in this case). It is the same as in the Albanian language. Actually, in the Latin equivalent of "the" or "-ul" did not exist.
  • the name and origin of Grand Prince Árpád's wife is unknown;
  • Gyula cannot be of Cuman origin, because the Cumans did not appear in the region before the 1050s;
  • the first documented form of the Hungarian name of Transylvania (Erdély) is "Erdelw" or "Erdeelu" which literally meant "over the forest" ("erdő"+ ancient "-el" suffix);
  • the Hungarian word for gooseberry ("egres") literally means "with mouse" ("egér"+"-es" suffix); therefore, it was not borrowed from the Romanian language (and consequently, it is plausible that the Romanian word was borrowed from the Hungarian);
  • a significant part of the hydronyms, toponyms (with some exception) of Romania are of Slavic, Cumanic, Hungarian or German origin, and there are only a few hydronyms and toponyms that survived the Dark Ages;
    • Absolute non-sense. Even those which have Slavic names (Bistrita) also have Romanian names (Repedele).
      • It is not a non-sense. There are a plenty of examples: the Romanians borrowed the toponyms from the Slavic, Hungarian, Cuman (or Petcheneg), German languages.
        • They are the by far in the minority. BTW, some of the foreign toponyms (like Codrul Vlasiei = "forest of vlachs" in Slavic) in fact indicate continuity!
          • Just some examples: S l a v i c: eg., Baia (=mine), Bǎlgrad (today Alba Iulia, = white castle), Craiova (=the King's), Dâmbova, Dâmboviţa (~"with oak trees"), Târnava (~"with blackberry"), Zlatna (~"with gold"); H u n g a r i a n: Cǎpuş (="with door"), Nǎdaş (="reedy"), Arieş (="with gold"), Meseş (="limy"), Sebeş (="fast"); G e r m a n: Ghimbav (="Weidenbach")
  • voivode is a word of Slavic origin (e.g., Poland), Constantinus Porphyrogennetos mentions all the leaders of the Magyar tribes as voivodes;
  • the "veteranus" survived in other Romance languages, as well;
    • As the word for old man? Don't think so.
    • Yes.
      • Proof? Give me an example.
        • Albanian "vjetër" (=old)
  • Blokumenn may be identified with other peoples as well;
    • Nope, they actually can't. It's ridiculous to say so.
      • Black Cumans were a group within the tribal federation of the Cumans. The "people with black hat" is a well-known group of nomadic peoples who fought against the Kievian Rus' in the 11-12th centuries.
        • No they weren't. "Black Cumania" was the region of Wallachia and Moldavia, and the designation of Black/White in Turkic society is differentiation between direct rule and vassals. Black regions were only under vassalage or indirect rule.
          • Ok. We agree that Blakumen can be identified with other people, as well.
  • the Welsh is not a Romance language;
    • They had a significant amount of Roman influence, and were seen as "Romanized" by the Angles. They even have place-names like "Caius Didus" for crying out loud.
      • But they do not speak a Romance language. Albanian is also a language with plenty of borrowings from the Latin, but it is not a Romance language (although the ancestors of the Albanians lived under Latin rule for a longer period than the Dacians).
        • I'm pointing out that people can survive numerous barbarian invasions even without large forests and mountains like in Transylvania. Therefore, it is an argument for continuity.
          • But the text suggest that Welsh people speak a Romance language.
  • there are several documents from the 14th century mentioning the immigration of the Romans to the Kingdom of Hungary, nobody claims that the immigration took place during the reign of King Ladislaus IV (in the 13th century);
    • If you truly place it that far back then you have lost.
      • Documents (and chronicles writthen by Romanian authors in the 16th century) suggest this. The immigration of the Romanians may have begun in the 12th century, but the mass of the population arrived in the 14th century.
        • Total garbage. The majority of the population didn't arrive from anywhere. First of all, you chose the completely wrong century. In the 14th century we see an EMIGRATION OF ROMANIANS from Transylvania, going to Wallachia and Moldavia to create their own independent states. Bogdan I in 1359 even left with as many as 600 noble families from Maramures, and Basarab I must have left with at least as many.
          • In the course of the 14th century, the documents prove a moving Vlach population from the Balkan peninsula to Moravia, in Slavonia, from and to Transylvania. Yes, they were migrating from place to place or backward.
  • the Hungarian word for town ("város") literally means "with fortress" ("vár"+"-os" suffix);
    • only one possible etymology.
      • Hungarian people clearly feel this etimology "(a settlement) with fortress".
        • It could also come from "Baros" in Greek.
        • The Roumanian word can, but the Hungarian word is clearly an adjective that turn into a noun. It is a frequent phenomenon in the Hungarian language (My only question how and when could the Daco-Romans borrow this word from the Greeks?)
  • "Turri-Dava" did not originate from the Latin language, "dava" is a Dacian word meaning "town, settlement";
    • Point being?
      • The article mentions that "dava" originates from the Latin.
        • It says its origin is Dacian.
  • the Armenian cartographer Chorenatsi described that Dacia north of the Danube was inhabited by 24 Slavic clans;
  • Persian Gardizi (end of 11th century) did not speak about "a Christian Latinate people situated between Russians, Bulgarians and Hungarians", he described the Bulgarians ("nandors")"who are more numerous than the Hungarians";
    • Actually he described a Latin people (az Rum = lit. "from Rome"), therefore don't BS me.
    • Rum means "Byzantine" in Muslim sources (e.g., Rumelia) and Bulgarian people were Orthodox Christian. Moreover, Gardizi clearly mentions that when the "people from Rum" live on the southern part of the Danube.
      • The Bulgarians were not "from Rome", fruthermore Gardizi actually mentions the Bulgarians separately so your point is complete trash.
        • The Bulgarian were not "from Rum" (i.e., from the Byzantine Empire), but they followed the same faith (Orthodox). I am adding the text to the article, and everybody can judge what is the more probable interpretation. Gardizi called them "nandors".
  • etc., etc., etc.

Nevertheless, I am sure that there are serveral real "arguments for" the Daco-Romanian continuity, therefore I suggest that the whole article should be significantly re-edited and re-written. I agree with the suggestion that we should give up the "arguments for"-"arguments against" principle when editing the article. My proposal is the following:

1. Historical events

2. Written sources

3. Archeology

4. Linguistics

5. Toponyms

I hope it would be acceptable for other editors, as well. Of course, I would be open to any other solutions, because at present state, this article is a shame for all of us. Borsoka (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Key policy

The article violates key policy such as NPOV and CIVIL

These references can not be checked


ref name="daco-romanian"> 1) Jocul Periculos al Falsificarii Istoriei coordinate de Stefan Pascu si Stefan Stefanescu

a. "Dovezi de Ordin Lingvistic ale Continuitatii Poporului Roman in Mileniul 1 al Erei Noastre" de Virgiliu Stefanescu-Draganesti, p. 49 b. "Rastalmaciri si Falsificari ale Istoriei" de Stefan Pascu p. 56


i. Transylvania sive Magnus Transsilvaniae Principatus olim Dacia Mediterranea dietus, Benko Jozsef, 1777. ii. O es uj Dacia, Huszti Andras, 1791 iii. Registrul de dijme Papale, 1332-1337. iv. Erdely oraszag tortenete teknitete muvelodesere, Szilagyi Sandor, I, p. 66 c. "Intre Ignoranta si Eroare Voita" de Mihail Diaconescu

d. "Jocul Periculos al Falsificarii Istoriei" de Vasile Cristian i. Fontes Historiae Daco-Romane, vol II, p. 279 ii. "O mentiune inedita despre romanii din secolul al IX-lea in 'Oguzname'", Mehmet Ali Ekrem, Revista Arhivelor, nr. 3/1980, p. 298-294. iii. Rus chronice, Nestor e. "Revizionisti si Sovinisti Unguri din nou la Lucru" de Stefan Stefanescu i. Voievodatul Transilvaiei, Stefan Pascu, vol 1, p. 232ii. Erdelyorszag tortenete, Kovari Laszlo, p. 176

2) Continuitatea Romanilor In Dacia (G. Popa-Lisseanu, 1944)

3) Istoria Rominiei, Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romine, 1960, vol I, p 775-806 a. Pentru asta, puteti sa va uitati in bibliografia capitolului, ca sint cam 20 de citari. 4) Istoria Rominiei, Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romine, 1960, vol II. a. De administrando imperio, C. Porphirogenetus, cap. 40, p. 174-175 b. Legenda sancti Stephani Regis ab Hartvico episcopo conscripta, p. 389 c. Legenda sancti Gerhardi, cap. 8, 0 490-492 d. Historia Polonica, I. Dlugosz, I, p. 265 e. Chronicon Pictum Vindobonense f. Others in bibliography on page 135-139 g. Codex Diplomaticu Arpadianus continuatus, G. Wenczel, VI, p. 486 h. Zayn al-acgbar, Gardizi i. Historia, III, Kynnamos j. Historiarum compendium, Kendrenos k. Historia, Nicetas Choniates. 1835


5) es uj Dacia, azas Erdelynek regi es mostani allapotjarol valohistoria (Andras HusztiVienna, 1791, p. 135)


6) Istoria Limbii Romane (G. Ivanescu, 2000)


7) De La Statul Geto-Dac La Statul Roman Unitar (Mircea Musat, 1974)


8) Cum S-a Format Poporul Roman (Eugen Georgescu, 1983)


9) Aratarile Arheologice in Moldova (Radu Cobzaru, 1962)


10) Culturile Geto-Dacice (Bogdan Simion, 2000)


11) Societatea Carpato-Danubiano-Pontica in Secolele IV-XI (Stefan Olteanu, 1998)


12) Etnogeneza Romanilor (I. Russu, 1981)

13) Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500-1200, Florin Curta, Cambridge University Press. P. 303,

14) O scurta Istorie a Romanilor povestita celor tineri, Neagu Djuvara, Humanitas, Bucharest, 2006


15) Dictionarul Etimologiei Daco-Romane (Alexandru Cihac, 1882) </ref>

  • If the Romanians had been living alongside Albanians before the Xth century, they would have more in common than a few words: they would have a communal language (as affirmed by the Bulgarian linguist Decev). The phonological disunity between the shared words also evidences that these words are inherited from a common sub-stratum (Thraco-Illyrian) and not the result of having a shared geographical region of origin. ref name="daco-romanian"/> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sólyomszem (talk • contribs) 15:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Sólyomszem (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Gutza T T+ 15:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

karácsony

The ethymologicall origin of the Hungarian word for Christmas is the slavic word korcun. The linguistic "facts" in this article are highly incorrect As well as many other unsourced claims. Sólyomszem (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What means korcun in slavic ?


Rezistenta (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Meaning step over, pass through – (solstice) as the winter date (day) when such a passage happens. The start of a new period, new light. Sólyomszem (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

really ? and what does this have to do with Christmas ? Tell me any Slavic population which is using this word when refering to Christmas if you're saying you took it from the slavs Rezistenta (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Really. It is the ancient origin of the word, used lately för the religious holiday, the name of the pre-Christian winter festival from which the current Hungarian word is derived, similar to the process for the English word for Christmas = 'Yule' .

Now it isn't derived anymore from Slavic, it's an ancient hungarian word ? Rezistenta (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Rezistenta, see Korochun. bogdan (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Member of the Romanian WikiProject Rezistenta is reverting and tags and citation needed tags, on 16:14, 23 September, using frets and possible profanity (Using definitely profanity “Tired of idiots” on her or his own user page) on highly disputed article on disscussion page, where a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree on the .Origin of the Romanians. Article has references based almost entirely on Romanian texts. The article is suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic. Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms. This article should be deleted or challenged because of the lack of the valid references and the violation of NPOV. If is not possible since the problem persists, than the article should be nominated to be checked for its neutrality and its sources. Sólyomszem (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


you will be banned soon don't worry MagyarTurk Rezistenta (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong adress

please check

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

"No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means: No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it. Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you".

Sólyomszem (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why?

I can understand that facts that contradict to the theories we learned in school may be surprising, but they still remain facts. However, I do not understand what is the problem with a Romanian chronicler who wrote (in the 16th century) that the Romanians migrated from the Balkans to the territory of present-day Romania. I neither understand why any reference to the non-Latin (non-Dacian) origin of several toponyms have been deleted. Personally, I thought that any type of a uniform history has disappeared from our region in 1989, but I may be wrong. Borsoka (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Some remarks

  • I think the citation of the text written by "a biographer of the Roman Emperor Aurelian" is misleading. This part: "However, a large number of settlers who had lived there for a long time and maintained good relations with the Goths did not have a single reason to evacuate the province. In this sense, a complete withdrawal of Dacia could not be possible without a new war, as the Goths would not have allowed these settlers to leave" is probably the interpretation of the original text written (I guess) by Eutropius, therefore it must not be referred as part of the original text.
  • I assume that "Kendros" is a mispelling of Kedrenos.
  • Sarmatians, and Alans did not live north of the Danube in the 9th century; therefore, Emmerich of Elwagen (who is he?) probably used an old chronicle when described the people (together with the Dacians). (But this sentence is a typical original research).
Don't rush, whether performing original research or not. Unsing ancient names to designate medieval peoples was not uncommun. While we don't really know for sure what Emmerich means by Alans, Sarmatians and Dacians we have even later sources who call Romanians "Getae" or "Dacians" (on geographical consideratios if nothing else). Moreover, it is highly unprobable that Emmerich is simply reproducing ancient authors. His letter is adressed (if I'm not misstaken) to the Abbot of St. Gall and is clearly ment to inform the latter about a present situation. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
        • May be that is the case, and thus, he was the only person who realised the presence of Sarmatians and Alans on those territories. The Bavarian Geographer, Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos, Bishop Pilgrim of Passau missed them when wrote about the peoples living there. (But this is original research) Borsoka (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
          Maybe I was not clear enough. There certainly were no Sarmatians, Alans and Dacians north of the Danube at the time Emmerich was writing his letter, there is no point bringing sources to prove the contrary. But just like Anna Comnena used to call the Turks - Persians, the Normans - Celts or the Scandinavians - (Tauro-)Scythians, Emmerich may be using ancient names when refering to people who actually did live north of the Danube in the IXth century. As I said, we cannot possibly be sure what he means by those names, but we do know that Vlachs have been refered to as Dacians in documents as late as the XIV century and beyond. While blunt and uncertain, the issue is of some interest, particularly given the nature of the document. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • When the Emperor Constantine VII mentioned a population that reserved the name "Roman", he referred to the Romance-speaking people of Illyria. (Chapter 29 of De administrando imperio)
  • Gardezi did not wrote of a Latinate people, he did not mention Russians and he referred to the "people of Rum" as "nandors".
  • The inscription on the "runestone from the Njoshem" should be cited.
  • The relevant part of "the early 13th century biography of St. Olaf of Norway" should be cited.
  • Kekaumenos wrote that the Vlachs had lived where the Serbs lived in his age. The Serbs did not live north of the Danube at that time.
  • The Nibelingenlied mentiones not only the Romanians, but also the Russians and the Poles who neither formed a nation during the reign of Attila the Hun.
  • Valahia is always located to the Balkan Peninsula before the 14th century. (e.g., the Asen brothers who ruled in Bulgaria, the Valachia in Thessaly). (But this is a typical original research, because I cannot remember its source.)
  • Thomas of Spalato does not mention the same thing as Anonymus. He only refers to the "pastores Romanorum". Anonymus spoke of Vlachs and "pastores Romanorum".
I tend to agree with you on this one, however it goes to the credibility of the Gesta Hungarorum (and several other documents may be brought forth along that line). Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Jansen Enikel mentioned the Hungarians in connection with Attila (similarly to Simon of Kéza), therefore, the reference should be deleted.
I'm sorry, but no. While they may be unaccurate they both attest the same tradition found in the Gesta, that Hungarians battled (or at least met) Vlachs when they reached Transilvania. For some strange reason this "legend" had gotten into a certain number of Medieval chronicles, mostly independent, from Nestor to Enikel and its existance is relevant. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The Ruthenians were Orthodox in the 14th century, how their immigration could cause any decrease in the Orthodox population in Hungary?
It should be cited, although the migration story has also been interpreted as reffering to the first Roman colonists. A much more interesting and explicit note is contained in one of Metropolitan Dosofteiu's writings in which he reffers to the southern Vlachs as "Romanians of the old trunk". Ironically for XVIIth century orthodox Romanian scholars a southern origin, closer to Byzantium was very appealing. Note that pretty much in the same lines, the XVIth century Hungarian scholar Szamosközy described the Romanians as being descendents of Dacians who had learned the Latin tongue (origin he considered demening). None of these sources constitute an argument, but should be cited at least to attest the position Romanians and Hungarians have taken over the centuries on the issue. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Unforunately this article is turning into a Hungarian-Romanian crossfire, with a lot of very questionalbe evidence being added on either side. Ilyés is used a lot with some of the paragraphs based exclusively on his work, however he is not a reliable source, he is not a medieval historian and certainly has no formal or recognized expertise in linguistics. Djuvara is a historian but using him as a source in linguistics is questionable, particularly when the cited title is not a research book but a "vulgarized" work dedicated to "the young". Goma is neither a historian not a lnguist and should not be used at all. All this information is based on un-reliable sources and should be removed. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And now you've realised this ? when I was trying to keep the article neutral even against you what you were doing ? Rezistenta (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Whatever do you mean: keep the article neutral against me? Could you please hold your temper? Adding questionable information is not keeping the article neutral. You and Borsoka should talk things out and try to reach consensus on the talk page, I'm not getting into the wasp nest at this point. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The questionable info was not added recently but since Barsoka first came with his hungarian questionable references , I proposed we whould only use neutral sources, not hungarian not romanian, and you were against my proposal, do you remember ? Now look what happened with this article Rezistenta (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Your suggetion makes no sense, Hungarian and Romanian academic sources are acceptable (of course using sources from the 1960s is a debatable matter, but be that as it may). Descriminating against authors based on nationality is monstruous. Further more 90% of anything written on the subject has Hungarian or Romanian authors. Ilyes or Goma are not accptable because they are not professionals, not on grounds of their respective nationality. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear All. If you have realised, no "pro-migration" or "anti-continuity" arguments have been added during the last months, moreover no "pro-continuity" or "anti-migration" arguments have been deleted during the same period. Therefore, I think that one of the sides have not driven any competition for months. I think adding the cited sentences to the article without any interpretation should not qualify as "driving the competition". A suggestion was made some month ago that the whole structure of the article should be significantly changed, because the article is a total mess up now. Illyés is not a linguist, but his book is an excellent collection of the "pro-migration" theory; tertiary sources can be used when editing wikipedia. As to questionable arguments, I really do not know what are you referring to. Borsoka (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Borsoka, bottom line Ilyes is not a reliable secondary source. The guideline sais: "Tertiary sources such as compendiums, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Ilyes' book is not just a collection. While sourced, Ilyes' book is arguing migration sometimes synthesising information. I'm sorry but I don't agree to the use of uncoroborated information from a debatable tertiary source on such a controversial topic. I hold my ground: no Ilyes, no Goma, no Djuvara on linguistics. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Accepted. Borsoka (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

According to me this article is a crap and shame for Wikipedia. It has a form of loose discussion, is messy and huge majority of arguments are based on the same sources, which are not verifiable for anyone who does not read in Romanian. I would like to ask creators of this article - where are any works in English, which cite the books cited in article? The mentioned "discoveries" are so unusual that international scientific community should be very interested in them. The article should be rewrited from beginning. Majority of arguments given are absolutely pointless. In the same way someone can "prove" that Vampires live amongst the people or that the Earth is flat. It is really tragic.Yeti (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that the sources in Magyar language are not a problem for you, only those in romanian Rezistenta (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not speak a word in Hungarian. But compare amount of unverifiable claims based on Romanian and Hungarian-language sources in this article. Sorry, but a source, which is not cited in international SCIENTIFIC literature on the subject is unreliable. For example I just have finished reading a book of ROMANIAN historian Florian Curta issued by University of Florida in English about history of Balkans in Early Middle Ages. He neither mentions a word about these "discoveries" nor claims "Romanian continuity". Mayby because he is a SCIENTIS and his work is based on evidence, not biased claims?Yeti (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Be more specific, don't throw words in wind. About what kind of discoveries are you talking about ? More then half of the hungarian arguments are non-encyclopedic as proven regarding Illyés Elmer.. and please don't pose as someone neutral, your edits and discussions regarding this subject are proving the opposite Rezistenta (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the "anti-continuity" arguments are based exclusivelly on literature available also in English. It does not mean that the "migration" theory is more probable than the "continuity" theory, but most of the sources the article is citing now to prove the continuity theory are not reliable (for further details, read the above sections of the discussion page). The suggestion that Illyés cannot be used was accepted. Borsoka (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of being not neutral, you have no grounds. I am not Hungarian, have nothing to do with Hungaria. But I am very interested in history of middle ages I am pissed of with rivers of scum flooding Wikipedia. As you see I do not edit the article as I do not want to engage in pointless edit wars. But amongst thousands of articles in Wikipedia I have read this one is undoubtly the most messy, ethnically biased, unscientific, with huge majority of text not related to the subject. The article should be re-edited from beginning and all "arguments", which do not consititute a form of evidence related to the subject and based on credible sources should be removed. But it is just my opinion, I do not intend to enforce it.Yeti (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
And in your opinion all these "arguments" are exclusively made by the romanian part ? Please read the sections where I was trying to prevent this article of becoming a mess, Rezistenta (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Rezistenta, please try to understand that an article containing the "pros and cos" of the two theories cannot be neutral if all the sources we use follow one of the theories. Some months ago that was the case, and the most relevant arguments of the "pro-migration" theory (toponymy, archaeology, linguistic) was not even mentioned.Borsoka (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that reorganizing the facts and presenting them so that they give a neutral picture of the story is not at all a bad thing, and Rezistenta should act more reasonably. However, Yeti, I'm glad that you mention Curta, I am also an admirer of his, did you also read his polemical exchange with Vasary in the Medieval Review? You will find a link in the article. Also, if you read his books than you should know that despite his agnostic position on Romanian ethnogenesis he clearly critices the thesis of a late migration (post 10th century). And that is the oppinion of most Western, non-Hungarian and non-Romanian historians (do follow the other link in the article - The Vlach Connection): if a migration took place it was an early one and from an area bordering today Romania. This, in my oppinion, a major flaw of this article, it does not distinguish between late migration and early migration. And it should, explicitly. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should be bold, and forget the present structure of the article.Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think we should go for the same solution as for the Origin of the Albanians. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Why not? Borsoka (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Constantinos Porphyrogenetos

The article contains a reference, that "the Byzantine Emperor Constantine the 7th Porphyrogenetes" "speaks in his last work about a population, calling them Romans : "They are called Romans and they have preserved this name to the present times" [55]" The reference is cap. 40 of the "De administrando imperio", but section 40 of the work describes the Magyar and Kabar tribes and no reference to Romans is made. Section 29 of the work contains the cited sentence with reference to Dalmatia. Borsoka (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Romans from Dalmatia are the Istro-RomaniansRezistenta (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they were not. They were Dalmatians who spoke a Romance language and lived in several towns of Dalmatia. Please read the sources before citing them; I am sure that they might be surprising sometimes. Nevertheless, the reference to Constantinos VII and the sentence should be deleted or properly cited.Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The reference speaks about Romans settling in Dalmatia, am I right ? Rezistenta (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes: "The surviving Romans fled to the towns on the coast, and until now, they have been possessing them, i.e., Kotor, Dubrovnik, Split (...)". Borsoka (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so how we can conclude he wasn't referring to the istro-romanians who speak a romance language and they live exactly in that area ? Rezistenta (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
And what about the Dalmatians who spoke the Dalmatian language? The Istro-Romanians live in Istria. (And according to the migration theory, they are the descendants of the Vlachs who did not immigrated north of the Danube in the 12-14th centuries). Borsoka (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Because the Dalmatians didn't call themsleves "Romans". It was only the Romanians and various other Romanian groups (Aromanians, Istroromanians) that preserved this name, as well as the Romanch of Switzerland. Romano-Dacis (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they called themselves "Romans". Nevertheless, the Emperor Constantinus referred to people living south of the Danube; therefore, his whole sentence should be cited. Borsoka (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we stray from the sources. However, Borsoka, this is one of the most important misstakes Ilyes makes in his book. Dalmatian is (or rather was) a Western Romance language and the nearest common parent it has with Romanian is Latin. It is thus highly unlikely that that Romanian appeared anywhere too near to Dalmatian, because two languages of the same family, formed in the same region, subject to the same influences would have been much closer. In fact it is the area where Dalmatin was spoken and the Jirecek line which strictly restrict the space where Romanian appeared. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but actually Illyés does not mention that the Romanian language developed in the region where the Dalmatians lived. Moreover, none of the followers of the migration theory suggest this. In the above discussion, I only tried to note that if Constantinos' sentence referred to the Romanians, then it suggest the validity of the "migration theory" (but I am sure that he did not refer to the Romanians, because he wrote of the towns of the Dalmatians.) Therefore, the whole sentence should be cited or this part of the sentence should be deleted, otherwise the part of the sentence is misleading. Borsoka (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If I remember well (I actually did read Ilyes some time ago) he does suggest close relationship between Romanian and Dalmatian. I may be wrong, that's less important. I cannot help with Porphirogenetus, not now anyway. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference 18

At this time, the so-called reference 18 is not a reference, it's unusable junk. Could the people who added it and use it please try to provide one or several clean, readable bibliographical titles so that all this may actually serve its purpose? Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Using tags

I do not want to refrain anybody from adding tags to the "anti-continuity" parts of the article, but I think the reasoning always should be added also. For the former tags, the reasoning was added in the edit summary. Just for easier work, please find below the list:

  • "Romanian is the only Latin language to keep the true original grammar of the Latin language."

What does this sentence means. As far as I remember, Latin language was a sophisticated language with several rules of conjugation, several declinations of the nouns, it did not use adjective, ... etc. Nevertheless, Romance languages (including Romanian) are more simplicised.

Romanian is not as simplicised as you believe it is. Romanian for instance still retains all seven cases, it retains the neutral geneder, it retains the suffix alterations etc.
Thank you for your notes. Therefore some examples could be added to the statement.Borsoka (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Romanians share the name Vlach/Voloch and Olah/Olasz with the Italians meaning the Hungarians and Slavs thought are one and the same populace."

"Oláh" has been only used when referring to Romanians, "Olasz" used to refer to French people as well (until the 14th century), but now it is only used when referring to Italians; and it was never used when talking about Romanians.

The sentence should be rewritten. What is intended to say is that the similarities between the ethnic term for Romanian and Italian shows these people were percieved as being very similar by the people who encountered them and were encountered at roughly the same time. Thus the Poles call Romanians Wolochy and the Italians Wlochy.
Nobody denies that the Romanian is a Romance-language.Borsoka (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "There is no historical document which attests to some sort of migration of Romanians from the Balkans to the North."

But there are several documents. The oldest Muntenian chronicle, charters of the Kings of Hungary.

None of these attest any migration from the Balkans. The "oldest Muntenian chronicle" (which you would do well to learn its title) only says the Romanians, naturally, came from Rome, and since Rome is South of the Danube they must have crossed it at some point. It never states the Romanians came to Hungary in the 14th century from Albania. There is actually no document which refers to the Romanians migrating, all which are made are suppositions based on recorded settlement; no movement of population into Transylvania was recorded in the 13th century.
Yes, I managed to understand that it is claimed that when the chronicle writes of their northward migration it refers to the occupation of Dacia by the Romans. Borsoka (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "The Hungarian word for Christmas, Karacsony, is derived directly from the Old Romanian word for Christmas “Cracion” which is itself derived from the Latin “creation” meaning “birth""

"Creation" does not mean "birth" in the Latin.

  • "Phonology then also caused the “ci” to be replaced by “cs”, while still retaining the “ch” phoneme, and finally, a “y” is attached at the end in order to have the word be more homogeneous with the already-existing Hungarian vocabulary."

Sorry, but "y" in the word "k-a-r-á-cs-o-ny" is not a separate letter in the Hungarian alphabet; i.e., the Hungarian alphabet uses "double letters" (cs, dz, gy, ly, ny, sz, ty, zs).

  • "The 7th century hagiographic work "Miracula Sancti Demetrii", when refering to events in 620, speaks of the Avars taking a large number of Roman prisoners from the Eastern Balkans and transferring them North of the Danube. There they became a great and numerous people by mixing with the other populaces there while keeping their way of life "based on Roman mores but especially on their Christian faith." They eventually gained their own leader and some would move back South of the Danube."

I found that there are no sentences similar to the cited above in the Miracula Sancti Demetrii.

Try www.istoriatransilvaniei.ro/vol1/v1c3.pdf
    • And if one reads the sentence (I read it in Hungarian) it is obvious that the population had no connection with the territory of present-day Romania, but with territories south of the Danube; therefore it could prove the migrationist theory, but it cannot prove the continuity theory. It should be clearly mentioned in the text of the article. Borsoka (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Gentes innumeras... Sunt his Germanique truces et Sarmata bellax-atque Getae nec non Bastarnae semina gentis-Dacorumque manus et Martia pectori Alani."

This is the English version of Wikipedia.

And what, quotes from the original texts are now not allowed? They are quite prevalent in any article on the Roman Empire I assure you.
Sorry, but most of the readers of English Wikipedia (I assume) cannot read Latin. Otherwise, the sentence itself is interesting because it can prove the presence of the Transylvanian Saxons in the 9th century, and also the Sarmatians - beautiful new ideas. Borsoka (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "They are called Romans and they have preserved this name to the present times"

The sentence of the Byzantine emperor described the Dalmatian towns. For further details, see the above section.

  • "In the 11th century, Abu Said Gardezi wrote about a Christian Latinate people situated between Russians, Bulgarians and Hungarians."

Gardezi did not mention either "Latinate" people, or "Russians", and actually, he described the Bulgarians (called also nandors before the 11th century).

Actually he was talking about Romanians because he had mentioned the Bulgarians earlier.Romano-Dacis (talk)
Volga Bulgars. Nandor is the ancient name of the Danube Bulgars (for example the ancient Hungarian name of Belgrade was Nándorfehérvár - "The Bulgars' White Castle") Borsoka (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
16:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Borsoka (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tags may help to improve Wikipedia. E.g., My favourite sentence ("Examples of similarity include embroidery of clothing and the wearing of opinci sandals as portrayed on the Arch of Constantine") would not be added without an [original research?] tag. I love this sentence, it is remarkable. 213.134.2.15 (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I suggest that this part of the article should be summarized. The article is too long and this part of the article contains a plenty of Latin and old German sentences. Otherwise, most of the sentences is not relevant to the topic. Borsoka (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

proposal to rewrite Origin of the Romanians in a non-adversarial manner

The present "Origin of the Romanians" page violates several Wiki policies: WP:U ; WP:NOR ; WP:SOAP ; WP:NPOV.

For the English speaking reader there should be an intro in the most concise and general terms only on which everybody agrees. E.g. The earliest ancestors from whom modern Romanians got their langauge were a Roman or Romanised population living in the area of the Eastern Roman Empire. Which population of the ethnically diverse population of the Eastern Roman Empire was the one which was Romanised or just survived as a Roman population and where in the area covered by the Eastern Roman Empire the survival of this Roman or Romanised population took place is still being researched and discussed amongst historians. Several hypotheses have been put forward, the most well known ones of these are as follows:

-Daco-Romanian; -Thraco-Romanian; -Migration;

Here each of these theories must be described in the most concise manner as their original creators and internationally notable proponents present them. All citations must be by name without references to their nationality. No arguments should be presented, that is against Wiki policy and the English speaking reader would be better informed if each of these theories had their own wiki history pages. E.g. History of Daco-Romanian continuity theory, etc.

Eravian (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. I just reorganized the article a little bit structurally in order to be uniform and logical: sections must be sections, subsections - subsections, enumerative items must be enumerative items. I did not edit any text.
  2. I think the Overview section can be expanded and clarified. The rest of the article should be a detailed explanation of what the Overview section would be telling. Hence, I invite everybody to concentrate on writting a good two-page Overview section that would describe what facts are known, what interpretations these facts are given by historians, what theories exist. I am a proponent of being exhaustive in the Overview section in the sense to mention things. I would however suggest not going into too much detail, as the other sections would simply be collections of those setainls. If while editting you (any editor, whoever you are) feel like the Overview section contains too much of some detail, please show respect to other editor and rather than removing that info altogether, move it in the lower sections, while leaving 1-2 clean sentences. Dc76\talk 10:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. I am against an article History of Daco-Romanian continuity theory, because that would be content fork. The fewer articles, good articles, the better. We don't need articles retelling the same story again and again. Dc76\talk 10:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the article should be rewritten, because there is nobody who can follow its present structure and the reliability of most of its parts cannot be chequed. I suggest that when we try to rewrite it, we should rely on reliable sources and always cite them. Because, if we try to rely on exclusively on our memories we could mislead ourselves and the readers of the article. In order to mitigate the controversial nature of the article, I suggest the following structure:
1. Overview (the summary of the divergent theories)
2. Historical background (just a very short summary of the historical facts - before Rome, Rome, migration period)
3. Sources
  • 3/a. Written sources (just a summary of the sources and their interpretations - e.g., Ausoni, phoney Byzantine generals)
  • 3/b. Archaeology (wheel-turned pottery, vatra, villages, Christian objects, bronze coins ...etc)
  • 3/c. Linguistic (substratum, Latinization, Albanian connections, Slavic connections ... etc)
  • 3/d. Toponymy (Mures, Somes, Repedele ... etc)
  • 3/e. Other (shoes, dances, ... etc)
4. Historiography (Byzantine authors, Italian humanists, Transylvanian School, Roesler...)
The above is just one suggestion and only one possible structure, but some logic should be followed in order to avoid a new collapse of the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Should the article be improved so that reliability could be clearly checked soursed? Yes! Can the article take imporovement? Absolutely! Is it true that nobody can follow the present structure? Absolutley not! On the contrary, this structure has the major advantage of being easily to follow. It has other shortcoming, perhaps, but not about clarity. Clarity is its strong point.
The new suggested structure has some pros and cons. Major con is that we again are going to talk in dychotomy in each section. Which would be a total mess, total confusion, nobody could follow. How about not giving any interpretation to sourses in section 3? Also, Byzantine authors, should be mentioned in 3, not in 4. Instead, current sections 2 and 3 should become future sections 4 and 5, but somewhat shorter. Dc76\talk 22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
1. Overview
1/a. Introduction, based on Library of Congress and Britannica
1/b. Summary of the divergent theories
2. Historical background (a summary of the historical context - before Rome, Rome, migration period)
3. Written sources (incl. Byzantine authors and Italian humanists, basically current section 4)
4. History research (without a dychotomic presentation, and without any interpretation if possible)
4/a. Archaeology
4/b. Linguistic (substratum, Latinization, Slavic connections)
4/c. Toponymy
4/d. Ethnic and other
5. Theories supporting Daco-Roman continuity
6. Theories supporting a migration of Vlachs from the south

This structure would automatically lessen the length of sections 5 and 6, as some material would be moved elsewhere. Once this structure is established and article improved, we can reconsider more reorganization at a later time. Rather than making a revolution, we can try a reform. If reform is insuficient, we can widen it. If it is too much, we can reverse some of it. Revolution is not good when there is dialogue. Dc76\talk 23:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion this structure will conform the standards and ca significantly reduce the contradictions. This solution should be acceptable for everyone, and I will support it.
--Morosanul (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's try it, although for the time being, I cannot imagine how facts would be presented without any interpretation: village - Daco-Romanian or Gepid; substratum words - Dacian or other; Mures - inherited or borrowed name. I propose that the written sources section (point 3 above) should be shortened and rewritten in a summary style. And I would suggest that copying from Britannica and Library of Congress should be minimanized - I assume that there is only one important sentence to be cited for other editors: "Mainstream historians follow the continuity theory"; if it is enough, I would accept that sentence. Actually I read an excellent summary on this topic written by a French historian (who actually, "by nature", follows the continuity theory). Borsoka (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Duly noted. We are moving somehwere when we really want it. :) Dc76\talk 13:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Dacians spoke a language close to Latin" theory

I know this theory isn't too popular, but I don't think it should be ignored (and I don't really believe it myself too much, although I don't deny its possibility). I do not understand why it was removed, since it was in older versions [6]. Wikipedia should show all theories, maybe there could be a separate smaller section called "Other theories", which should mention this as well, since there are indeed some people who believe it [7], [8]. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

that is pure speculation. dacians spoke thracian. thracian is part of the satem group of indo-european while latin is part of the centum group. the fact that the dacians, or at least part of them, spoke latin as a second language is very likely to be true. but the fact that they spoke a language close to latin is nothing but idle speculation. Adijarca (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The only place for this fringe theory is the article on protochronism. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as we present migrationist theory, any other theory will find a place here. Othewise, we should present only scientific POVs, and internationally accepted. --Morosanul (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Based on reliable sources. As far as I know there are no more than 100 words (plant-names, names) whose Dacian origin is documented and based on those words the Dacian origin of about 400 (other) modern Romanian words is claimed. Similarly, the Romanized population of the Balkan provinces is claimed to have disappeared without traces although they had been under Roman rule for more than 500 years, while the Romanized population of Dacia is supposed to have Romanized the Free Dacians and the Slavs (but only north of the Danube) although they had been under Roman rule for less than 180 years. And although the presence of Goths, Gepids, Slavs (and the former's Christianity) is well-documented in early sources, but villages, pottery, Christian objects north of the Danube cannot be imagined without "Daco-Romans" who had become Christian hundred years before that the countryside population (the "pagans" ) of the Christian Roman Empire received baptizm (around 450-500). Moreover, although the first references to the ancestors of the Romanians (Vlachs) unanimously describe them as a migrating people (nomads), and the Goths were described as a sedentary population, but in reality the Daco-Romans were sedentary people and the Goths were nomads. However, as the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity is followed by many scholars and is described in peer-reviewed books, we should accept that it is an existing theory even if its basis does not seem really strong. :) Really sorry, but I only tried to emphasize that I think that "migrationist" theory is not at the same level than the "Dacians spoke Latin" theory (exclusivelly based on the story of the mushroom and one picture of Trajan's Column). Borsoka (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

None of them are actually scientifc theories. Both starts from some logic deductions, but has no proofs and no support among hystorians. One is popular only in Romania, the other only in Hungary. So there is no point in introducing them in any article with minimum pretentions of reliability. --Morosanul (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that there is a major difference between the two above theories. The migration theory is based on early written sources (which unanimously suggest that the territory of modern Romania was inhabited by Goths, Gepids, Slavs, etc. before the Romanians migrated there), historical facts (Romanians used Old Church Slavonic which was introduced only after 863 in Bulgaria, and was used only in the territories of the First Bulgarian Empire - on the Balkans), archaeology (findings from the 3rd-11th centuries can be interpreted without the presence of proto-Romanians), linguistics (there is no explanation why the Romanian language contains all the changes of the Late Latin, what are the reasons of the similiraties of the Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian languages, ...), toponyms (why the Romanians borrowed the overwhelming majority of the place-names from Slavs, Hungarians and Germans in Romania, in contrast to Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro where hundreds of place-names were borrowed from Romanian). Moreover, the latest books written by German, American, English scholars on the history of this part of Europe in the Early Middle Ages do not even mention the presence of any Romanized population on the territory of present-day Romania (because there is no need to mention them, since written sources and archaeological findings can be interpreted without referring to them); some of the American, German scholars even point out that the Daco-Romanian continuity theory is the last "mamouth" of the continuity theories flourishing in the 19th century (Illyrian-Croat, Hun-Hungarian, Sarmatian-Polish, Dacian-Transylvanian Saxon, ...etc). Therefore, I still think that real differences exist if we compare the two above theories, and the migrationist theory do not need any auxiliary explanation to describe the historical events (may be Anonymous' Gesta Hungarorum is the only exception, which have to be explained, if somebody denies the presence of Romanians north of the Danube before the 11th century). In contrast of the migrationist theory, for example,
  • the followers of the Daco-Romanian continuity theory have to deny that the Goths, Gepids, Slavs lived in villages, used wheel-turned pottery (which is proven by archaeological findings from Ukraina), because otherwise the presence of the Daco-Romans would not be necessary to describe findings from the 3rd-8th century;
  • they also have to deny that many of the Goths and Gepids were Christian, because otherwise Christian objects could be explained without mentioning Daco-Romans (who, of course, had became Christians even before the Roman Empire adopted the new faith);
  • they also have to suppose a substratum language spoken on the enourmous territory from Macedonia to the river Dniester, because without such a language the similiarities of the Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian languages could not be explained;
  • they have to assume that the proto-Romanians lived isolated from the Goths and Gepids, because without this isolation the lack of early German loanwords in Romanian could not be explained (but, of course, in the court of Attila the Hun, the Latin was spoken because of the presence of the masses of Daco-Romans);
  • they have to assume that place-names were translated by the Slavs from the proto-Romanian language, because otherwise the lack of pre-Slavic toponyms in Romania cannot be explained properly;
  • they have to suggest that the Dacians (whose Romanization lasted for maximum 170 years) could Romanize the Free Dacians and the Slavs north of the Danube, in contrast to the autochtonous population of the Balkan Peninsula (whose Romanization lasted for more than 500 years) who became Slavicized;
  • they have to assume that spurs (a typically Slavic object) prove the presence not only of the Slavs, but also of the Romanians, because otherwise no incipient state of the Romanians in the 9th century could be proven based on archaeology;
  • they do not answer the question where the masses of Vlachs who had taken part in the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire disappeared in the 13th century, because there is a possible answer: they migrated across the Danube, and if one northward migration were mentioned, there could be a possibility, that the history of the territory of present-day Romanian could easily be described without mentioning any (proto-)Romanians, Daco-Romans until then.
Sorry, my only purpose was to point out that none of us is in the position to deny the scientific nature of a theory (e.g., the Daco-Romanian continuity theory) followed by many scholars who are experts on the history of the Early Middle Ages, even if those scholars have not been able to reach an agreement.Borsoka (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

actually Boroska you are wrong. and here is why:

  • the migration theory first appeared in the 15th century and it was a political theory trough and trough. it was initiated by the enemies of mathias corvinus who sought to deny him his roman heritage, him being half romanian, by claiming that romanians were actually dacians who migrated from moldavia to transylvania. roesler, who was a geographer and had no connection to history prior to him publishing his theory, adopted that theory and tailored it to the political situation of the time. needless to say that compared to the 50 words that are common between romanian and albanian that roesler found, the 500 words identified as being of dacian origin seem quite numerous.
    • What about the Oldest Muntenian Chronicle written by Romanians?
  • there is no ancient source that says romanians migrated, most sources mention romanians as native to transylvania all you have to do is check the ancient and medieval sources article presented on this article.
    • What about the Oldest Muntenian Chronicle? What about some Russian Chronicles (saying that the Romanians migrated to Hungary during the rule of Ladislaus I) from the 15th century? What about the charters of the Hungarian kings from the 13th-14th century? What about Anna Komnena (the Vlachs are nomad)? What about Kekaumenos who mentioned that the ancestors of the Vlachs used to live where the Serbs lived at that time?
  • romanian contains the changes of the late latin because the area identified as romania today shared a common border by the byzantine empire for almost 1000 years, and until the 8th-9th century the official language of the byzantine empire was latin.
    • therefore, they had contacts with the Byzantines, but they did not speak with the Goths, Gepids.
  • who said the romanized population of the balkans disappeared? they are still there, they are called aromanians, menglenoromanians, istroromanians and morlachs.
    • so the masses of the population of the Balkan provinces (Romanized for more than 500 years) became the aromanians, meglenoromanians, istroromanians (maximum 1 million people), while the masses of the population of a sole province (Dacia) which had been Romanized for less than 170 years turned into the 20 million Romanians;
  • christianity first entered dacia through saint andrew, who preached in Scythia minor (now dobrogea), the roman empire adopted christianity because the majority of its population was christian not the other way around, also the goths became christians when they settled in dacia, who do you think the goths got Christianity from? (note that they were arian christians a form of christianity which was not tolerated in the roman empire). romanians adopted orthodoxy from the bulgarians, nobody ever said romanians adopted Christianity from the bulgarians.
    • so sources suggesting that the majority of the population of the Roman Empire was pagan even in the 360s are misleading, and the Daco-Romans adopted Orthodoxy although the Goths were Arians (because they followed the offical creed of the Empire in the 340s).
  • there was no need for proto-romanians to use loan words from gothic because they were more numerous than the goths (the few never assimilate the many unless one culture is clearly superior to the other) and because unlike the romans goth culture was not superior to daco-roman culture (which was mostly based on roman culture), the same pattern can be seen in spanish and italian which also lack clear germanic influences (modern loan words excluded), yet italy and spain were occupied by the goths far longer than dacia was.
    • therefore the Dacians (whose Romanization had lasted for maximum 170 years) became more advanced than the proto-Italians, proto-Spanish people and proto-French people (whose Romanization had lasted for more than 500 years), because there are some (c. 100) loandwords in Spanish, Italian, French borrowed from the Goths and the Franks.
  • there was a common substratum language that was spoken from macedonia to the river dniester, it was called thracian. dacian (or getae) was the name given by the romans (and correspondingly the greeks) to the thracians living north of the danube.
    • yes, in order to support the continuity theory, this assumption have to be accepted: therefore, while in Italy about 10 languages were spoken before the Roman conquest, in the Balkan Peninsula (although there did not exist any uniform state) the population spoke the same language.
  • most toponyms in romania are of pre-slavic origin: napoca castrum clus - cluj napoca, maris-mures, crissium-cris, tamis-timis, olt-alutus to name just a few. the difference in names are just natural sound changes: see massillia - marseille, brundisium - brindisi, toledo-toletum, tajo-tagus. also some the names of various places change with the passing of the time see: rubicon - rubicone (old name), fiumicino (new name)
    • Cluj-Napoca was solely Cluj before the 1950s, and it is from a Slavic language; Marissus could not turned into Mures based on the rules of changes in the Romanian language, ... etc.
  • the masses of vlachs that participated in the forming of the second bulgarian empire lived north of the danube. the capital of the empire was situated north of the danube. no one ever mentioned vlachs and bulgarians being homogeneously. also you make the same confusion most hungarians do. vlach does not refer strictly to romanians, it also refers to other latin speakers living in the balkans.
  • the gothic and slav archeological remains found in modern romania does not affect the continuity theory in any way. you clearly ignore the archeological remains that point in favor of the continuity theory such as: roman style cemeteries (if the province lacked a massive romanized population there would have been no reason for such cemeteries to be built, especially considering the fact that most populations were not christian upon entering dacia, and did not stay long enough to be christianized), walls built around roman cities in the 4th and 5th centuries, various post aurelian withdrawal monuments bearing latin inscriptions, etc.
    • yes, there were Roman style cementeries in 3-4 settlements until the end of the 3rd century
my objective was not to bash you in any way, only to point out your errors. you say one can not deny the scientific nature of a theory yet you attempted (consciously or not) to deny the scientific basis of the continuity theory.Adijarca (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the information above, see my remarks above. Actually, I do not want to deny the scientific nature of the continuity theory, I only would like to point out that even the most scientific theories in history could be challanged, and to state that theories which contradict to our understanding are non-scientific is not the best way of editing Wikipedia. At the end of the day, we should rewrite this article, because it is a shame for all of us, and if a non-involved reader try to understand it, he/she will think that the Daco-Romanian continuity theory has to be over-pushed because it has no real basis. Please read some remarks above written by neutral users. Borsoka (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Boroska, I already know your point of view, but it contains some unscientific parts. I do not want to contradict on this point over and over, because there are forums about that subject, with thousands of pages (most popular in Romania has 24951 posts on this subject !) If you really want to believe one specific theory, you are free to do it.

I only want to point some of the surprising mistakes. Here I will show real facts, which are generally known.

  • The archeological foundings shows very clearly the continuity of the Romanized population, especially in 3-5 century, because of the typically roman style pottery, metal craft, inscriptions and other artifacts. Only in 5th century, with the arriving of the Huns, there is a break. (Here you only can point a meltdown of the Romanized population in the mass of migratory peoples, who instead learn the roman techniques)
  • The toponimy has an important Slavic component, but not in its majority, and involves smaller rivers or relief forms. In any case old Dacian names are frequent and found on the most important parts: big rivers (Danube, Mures, Somes, Olt, Prut, Tisza, and many others) or mountains, like Carpathians. Cluj is not Slavic at all, comes from middle age Latin Castrum Clus, which means Closed City.

The preserving of the ancient names surely proves a continuity of population, you only can point again the assimilation of the Romanized population by the migratory ones.

    • As far as I know "cluj" (or a similar world) does not mean "closed" in Romanian, moreover "cluj" only means "Cluj", therefore even if it would be of Latin origin (although it is not documented, only a theoretical form which contradicts to the name-giving practise of the Ancient Romans, and therefore I still think that that is not the case), the name of Cluj would not prove that the Latin form was reserved by early Romanians. Actually, and I really do not want to be rude, the above sentence reminds me to some Hungarian "scientiests" who prove that the Shumerians spoke Hungarian, because there are a couple of Shumerian words which are similar to Hungarian worlds. Their theory, of course, is treated as fringe theory in Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Try not to think too much in patterns. If you read again the phrase before, I said middle-age Latin, not antiquity Latin, which means the name comes from chancellery language, and the meaning of Closed City is in Latin not Romanian. And it really means that, is not Slavic at all. --Morosanul (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your remark. It is clear now: the chancellery of the Hungarian Kingdom used the Latin expression Castrum Clus in the 11th-14th century which proves the continuity theory. It is an interesting approach. I have never heard that the clercks working for the Chancellery of the Hungarian Kingdom created brand new Latin names for settlements: e.g. Gyulafehérvár (the White Castle of Gyula) or Balgrad (White Castle) became Alba Iulia (Julius' White) in medieval Latin documents, Kolozsvár (the Castle of Kolozs, became Castrum Clus. Interestingly, the Slavic origin of the name is proposed by an English historian (Barley, The Early Slavs); in Hungary, the Hungarian origin (from the Hungarian name Kolozs) is suggested. Borsoka (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • There are many hypothesis for many others name, we can find even proto-ido-european roots. But it is widely accepted as a derivation from the Latin term clausa – clusa, meaning "closed place", "strait", "ravine”, as the first mention is Castrum Clus in 1213. This was not to prove the continuity, but regarding to your statement that is slavic. And if we got to this point, you should find out that most of the Slavic toponimes in Romania are not so old as you imagine, most of them are have only a few hundred years and comes from Romanian language words, which has incorporated an important number of Slavic origin words. --Morosanul (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your remark. I try to understand it. The proto-Romanians borrowed words from a Slavic language spoken by the Slavs who used to lived on the territory of present-day Romania. Shortly afterwards, the Romanians used those loanwords when they named places in present-day Romania, therefore toponyms of Slavic origin prove the Daco-Romanian continuity. Exactly that is I try to explain: in order to support the continuity theory, auxiliary explanations are needed (the Slavs translated the Daco-Romanian hydronyms, and later the Romanians borrowed them, OR the toponyms of Slavic origin are toponyms of Romanian origin, because the Romanians borrowed Slavic words). Yes, there are theories: toponyms of obviously Slavic and German origin are sometimes interpreted as toponyms of theoretical proto-Indoeuropean origin - I understand, it is not so comfortable that written sources, archaeology researches and toponymy unanimously suggest that present-day Romanian was inhabited mainly by Slavic tribes from the 6th century, and they disappeared only in the 13th century. Actually, when toponyms are studied mainly place-names documented before the 15th century are used. Borsoka (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • the name of the Thames, London, ... etc are of pre-Anglosaxon origin, but based on them we cannot state that English people speak a pre-Anglosaxon language. The present Romanian (and Hungarian) name of the rivers Mures, Somes,...etc cannot be explained based on their Latin, Dacian form without a Slavic mediation, or if we want to prove that they are words inherited directly from Latin, Dacian we have to assume that they are irregular words and the rules of the vowel-shift were not followed. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • As I shown above, the names do NOT follow always the usual sound changes of a language. I know you need to be some deep in linguistics to understand that, but most of the sound changes has exceptions even for usual words. There is not rigid rule as in mathematics. I can show you many examples only for Romanian language. I will copy the explanation here, if some may be interested:
For solving this issues is important to understand the process of evolution.
First of all, we cannot trace the toponymes form Latin chronicles as we do with the words. And second, there are exceptions even in the usual Latin words evolution. Is not the place and the time to show all these transformations here, but we should avoid making childish mistakes.
The names written in Greek or Latin documents are Graecized or Latinized spelling of the local pronunciation. The sounds Sh, Ch, Tz, Î, Ă are aproximated. Also some changes were made for names to sound less barbarian, to be worth beeng in a document.
Local pronunciation was used instead by the inhabitants – romanized Dacians and colonists who will develop the local form of Latin – later called Danubian Latin – this one also influenced by the substratum – the Dacian language.
From here, the names passed in proto-romanian and Romanian language, suffering from now on the normal course of changes.
In this process some names were influenced more then usual words by the passing migratory nations. One example is Bârzava from ancient Berzobis, in this case preserving the exact slavic variant. Other names were translitareated: Dierna became Cerna, or translated: Repedea became Bistra.
So there is a difficult task to find how a name came from Dacian into Danubian Latin, but we known for sure the sound changes from Hungarian into Romanian, and these do not confirm in any way this possibility.
But in Hungarian documents, can be traced the changes from Romanian version of the names to present day Hungarian names, for example the river Cris (Körös)
That was exactly I tried to explain yesterday: in order to prove the Daco-Romanian continuity, irregularities have to be assumed.Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Romanized population existed both north and south of Danube, so the existence of Vlachs in Balkans, in the Bulgarian empire or those Vlach shepherds do not imply the absence north of Danube.

Vlach shepherds are mistakenly called nomads by those who do not know the process of herding activity. They have a stable home, but move up and down the mountain with the herd, according with the season, but do not change the routes or the region.

  • Christian objects found beginning with 4th century are in roman style, which shows the connections with the Roman Empire (now Byzantine) were not interrupted. In fact Constantine and Justinian recouped parts of old Dacia.
    • Oil lamps with crosses, Biertan donarium and rings with Latin inscription may prove the Christianity, but there are similar findings in Sweden, in Ukraine where no Romanized population has been assumed until now. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • There are many chronicles telling about Romanians fund here at the arrival of Hungarians: Anonymus, Nestor Chronicle, and so on. This cannot be about the vlachs south oh Danube, cause Hungarians haven’t cross Carpathians there.
    • As to Nestor, if we accept that he refers to the Romanians (instead of the Franks), we have to also accept that the territory ruled by the proto-Romanians had been inhabited by Slavs before the proto-Romanians arrival. As to Anonymous, who wrote of events happening around 900 after 1196, he also mentions Czechs, Cumans and Pechenegs in the Carpathian Basin (actually the Czechs lived in Bohemia, the Cumans somewhere east of the Volga, and the Pechenegs arrived to Moldavia around 900), but he does not mention Moravians and Franks (against whom the Magyars were fighting when conquering the Carpathian Basin - according to sources written in the 9th-10th centuries); he mentions Gelou, Glad and Menumorot, but he had no knowledge of Svatopluk, Arnulf (against whom the Magyars fought according to the contemporary or nearly contemporary sources). Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of mentions for every small migration in this area in the contemporary chronicles, is strange that for such a huge migrations, which give birth to the biggest nation in the area after Russians, we don’t have any mention.
    • Actually there are: the Chronicle attributed to Stoica Ludesco (Istoria Tierei Romanesci de candu au descalicatu Romanii. Magazinu Istoricu IV, 1847); Joannis Lutii: De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae; the Russian Anonym Chronicle (I. Bogdan: Vechile cronici pana la Ureche, Bucharest, 1891); some charters of Hungarian kings mentioning that masses of Romanians migrated to Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Those are not about “masses of Romanians”, but refers to small groups, similar to those passing out from Hungarian Kingdom, towards Walachian Principalities or even Poland during middle ages. These usual population flow do not bring significant changes in the ethnic structure.
  • The other chronicles mix the period of Roman Empire with those of Hungarian Kingdom, and the so called “migration” refers to the Roman conquest.--Morosanul (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
So when a charter refers to the migration of a group of the Romanians which lasted for 6 months, it refers to a small and slow group. When individuals were entitled by the king of Hungary to settle Romanians on their empty properties and later 20-30 villages inhabited by Romanians can be found on the same territory, it does not refer to a mass of Romanians, because about 400 people (the inhabitants of the new villages) do not qualify as a mass.
Therefore, when the Chronicle attributed to Stoica Ludesco mentions that the Romanians descended from the Romans and migrated northward to the Kingdom of Hungary it refers to the Roman occupation of Dacia. And when the Anonym chronicle narrates that King Ladislaus I of Hungary invited the Romanians to Hungary and they settled there, it also refers to the Roman occupation of Dacia. Fascinating theory, I really enjoy it. Borsoka (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Most of the common words with Balkan languages: Albanian and Bulgarian (some with Greek and Serb-Croatian) are considered substratum words, not by myself but by specialists, based on a serious argumets. Anyway, some of the rest could be borrowed by the Romanized population south of Danube and spread out to the north, since there was no separation between these Latin speakers.
    • That is exactly what I mentioned yesterday: in order to prove the Daco-Romanian continuity theory a substratum language spoken on enourmous territories have to be assumed. Otherwise, not only words, but other features of the languages are very close (e.g., the article follows the noun, om+ul). Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The slavization of the Balkans is not a mystery, most of the Slavic tribes entered Roman empire as the Goths did some 300 years before, because the roman wealthy was the atraction for them, not the poor villages in the Carpathians.
    • Therefore the Slavs Slavicized a huge territory in East Europe from the Elbe to the Volga, from the Baltic Sea to the Agean Sea, but they left a corridor in Moldova and Wallachia for the proto-Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • ...and one for Latvians, Prussians, Mordvins, and some other finnic small peoples, which are actually much smaller. We can include here the Aromaninas and Albanians in the Balkans. The slavization was not as total as it looks. --Morosanul (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I think the Latvians, Prussians, Mordvins may be not the best examples here, because they lived (and some of them still live) on the territories bordered by Slavic peoples. But the Romanians (and the Hungarians who migrated to the Carpathian Basin in the 9th century) live on the territory which was invaded by the masses of the early Slavs when they were migrating towards the Balkan Peninsula. Borsoka (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Before you wrote: “from the Elbe to the Volga, from the Baltic Sea to the Aegean Sea”, remember  ? How do you imagine the slaves got to Baltic See or Scandinavia without noticing the Baltic populations near by ? --Morosanul (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but the shores of the Baltic Sea are rather long, and only the eastern part was inhabited by Prussians and Latvians. Actually, as far as I can remember, Scandinavia was never invaded by Slavic peoples. Borsoka (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • East of Finland, see the maps. You can also notice the other pleslavic islands: Karelians, Komis, Mordvins, Maris and others.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/media/places/u/ussr/1982/nationalities.jpg

http://www.top40-charts.info/?title=File:USSR_Ethnic_Groups_1974.jpg

--Morosanul (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Remains a question about how such a territory north of Danube could be Romanized in 170 years, but only this fact and the lack of sources about Romanians for 600 years cannot build a theory.

        • So the basic question is not answered by the continuity theory.
      • If this is the basic question, this is not answered by any of the theories. If you accept that a bunch of shepherds from Balkans could came from a distance create a population on such a big territory, why is difficult to imagine the Romanization spreading on the rest of Dacia, which was not roman province, but for sure influenced by the vicinity of the empire ? --Morosanul (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, there is an answer: they migrated from the Balkan Peninsula where masses of a Romanized population used to live. Similarly, the Slavic tribes could colonize a huge territory from the Aegean Sea, to the Baltic Sea, from the river Elbe to the Pacific Ocean, although for example the Slavic migration to the territory of present-day Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia is not documented by written sources. Actually, a bunch of shepherds (the Hungarians - maximum 200,000 people) could assimilate the masses of the Slavs who used to live on the territory of present-day Hungary. Why is it so difficult to imagine that the Romanized shepherds of the Balkan Peninsula (whose presence in Northern Bulgaria around 1185 and in Serbia in the 13th century is well documented) crossed the Danube and settled on the scarcely inhabited territories of Wallachia and Moldavia (and the Transylvanian Mountains), they borrowed the Slavic, Hungarian, Cuman, German toponyms; and on the plains they settled down, assimilated the sedentary local Slavic population in Wallachia and Moldavia and finaly they also gave up their nomadic lifestyle. Borsoka (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The theory of migration is not built on the lack of written sources, it is based on the lack of any (archaeological, linguistical, geographical) sources which prove the continous existence of a Romanized population north of the Danube, while on the territories south of the Danube written sources, linguistic researches and toponyms suggest the continous presence of the Romanized population until the 13th-14th century.

The sources suggested by the continuity theory to support its claim could be interpreted without mentioning the Daco-Romans (because Goths, non-Romanized Dacians, Slavs lived in villages, used wheel-turned pottery, were or became Christians ... - and the descendants of non-Romanized people would not speak a Romance language with clear Latin connections). Borsoka (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

    • I think this is a really interesting question. Yes, because it would be suggested that the masses of the Romanized population of the Balkan Peninsula (whose existence is well-documented by early sources) migrated northward in the 11th-12th century, the question would arise: is there any need to assume proto-Romanians north of the Danube before the 11th-12th century, or all the well-known facts (archaeology, toponymy, linguistic, early sources) could be interpreted without them. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

--Morosanul (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This argument is futile. Migration and continuity offer historical models for a phenomenon we do not fully understand. To this day none manages to answer all questions without actually bringing up more. On the other hand, the dacomaniac nonsense of Dacians speaking a centum language close to Latin is nothing but pseudo-science. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Even if it is a pseudo-science, it should be mentioned. Personally, I cannot accept the theory that Hungarians descended from the Schytians (although the Chronicle of Simon of Kéza mentions it, and Hungarians were frequently referred to as Scythians by Byzantine sources), but the theory exists. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Some have problems to distongush between historical and targeted theories. In the same way, Migration is a revisionist-maniac nonsens about romanians going forth and back as many times as they want to accord to their interest. The arguments for both are at the same level. --Morosanul (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, a summary of the migrationist theory: The Romanians descended from the Thracian or Illyrian population of the Balkan provinces of the Roman Empire south of the Danube. Their Romanization lasted for more than 400 years. When the Huns and the Avars invaded the East Roman Empire, they had to migrate southward to the Balkan, Pirin, Rhodope and other mountains (where hundreds of toponyms prove their presence). They lived in close connection of the ancestors of the Albanians and later with the Slavs. In the First Bulgarian Empire and under the jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Ochrid, they adopted Old Church Slavonic as their liturgical language. They were migrating in the Balkan Peninsula (Kekaumenos, Anna Comnena, Benjamin of Tudela) from Larissa to Bulgaria. They allied with the Bulgarians and the Cumans, and established the Second Bulgarian Empire and they commenced their northward migration to the scarcely habited territories of Moldova, Wallachia and Transylvania, where they lived together with Slavic peoples, Hungarians and Germans and borrowed their place-names. They also assimilated the remnants of the Slavic and Cuman population of the territory. By the end of the 15th century, they left the Balkan Peninsula and established their own principalities.
Yes, it is a fact that (similarly to the continuity theory) the migration theory was also utilized for political purposes as well. But evolutionism is still the most-accepted theory, although it was used by Hitler for his disgusting political purposes. Actually, although I think that the arguments of the migrationist theory are more convincing (and the theory needs less assumption to "fill the gaps"), but I am not either chauvinist or revisionist or irredentist or .... Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Honestly, I do not consider you having ill intentions, I’m just against Migrationist theory because I do not consider it well fundamented.--Morosanul (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Personally, I am not against continuity theory, although I have been more and more convinced that it is not the best-established theory (there are too much "let's assume that", "let's forget that"), but my personal convinction (which may change in the future) is not interesting. I think we should enjoy the diversity of approaches.

Borsoka (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC) I'm glad to know that you will stay open minded. All the best for the future ! --Morosanul (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Morosanul, first let me remind you that wikipedia is about verifiability not about truth. You do find peer-reviewed sources who at least acknowledge migration as a possibility thus it belongs in wikipedia. The Dacian-only nonsense is fringe and widely denounced as pseudo-science, thus it does not. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My argument was actually not in favor of introducing a Dacomaniac theory in the article, but an irony addressed to Migrationism. As I stated before, I’m not against mentioning it as an alternative theory, but I do not agree to place it at the same level with the mainstream theory. This approach transforms the article in a Pro/Con list of arguments.

Considering there is a Wikipedia policy to concord with other encyclopedias, here are some references:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/508461/Romania The ethnogenesis of the Romanian people was probably completed by the 10th century. The first stage, the Romanization of the Geto-Dacians, had now been followed by the second, the assimilation of the Slavs by the Daco-Romans. 

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559516_7/Romania.html#s78

"In about 270 Roman Emperor Lucius Domitius Aurelian decided to withdraw the Roman legions and colonies to an area south of the Danube; some Roman civilians chose to stay, however. Under the influence of the Romans, the people of Dacia adopted the Latin language. For the next thousand years, the Daco-Roman people were subjected to successive invasions by the Huns, Avars, Slavs, and Bulgars... Its inhabitants developed into a distinct ethnic group, known as the Vlachs, a name designating Latin-speakers of the Balkan Peninsula."

--Morosanul (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

friend boroska anna comnena does not mention vlachs as being nomads, from as far as i know anna comnena, in the alexiad, only briefly mentions vlachs as being the descendants of the roman colonists that settled north of the danube.

Please read Comnena, Anna: The Alexiad (Penquin Group, 2003, London; ISBN 978-0-14-044958-7.); she explicitly uses the word "nomad" when referring to the Vlachs. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

i do not know what muntenian chronicle or what russian chronicles you are talking about. the oldest russian chronicle, that of saint nestor, mentions hungarians fighting romanians and slavs on both sides of the carpathians (i.e: east and west of the carpathians).

Please find the books referred above. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

you have misinterpreted what i said. i did not say the local population did not have contact with the goths and gepids, is said that the proto-romanians did not need to learn gothic but the goths needed to learn proto-romanian. example: if 500.000 hungarian migrate to spain, and settle there in scattered small comunities sorounded on all sides by spanish settlements which is more likely to happen: the spanish learn hungarian or the hungarians learn spanish? also as i have said early spanish and itlian also lack germanic influences and yet the goths stayed in italy for 200 years and in spain for over 300, while the gothic kingdom in dacia barely lasted 107 years.

Actually there are several words of Gothic origin in Spanish, of Lombard origin in Italian. For example, "orgulloso" (meaning "proud") in Spanish is of Gothic origin. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

dacia witnessed the most intensive romanization effort in the history of rome. 3 full legions and thousands of settlers from across the empire were settled in dacia, while only one legion was settled in the balkans and 2 legions in france, both areas were about 5 to 10 times larger than roman dacia. in these conditions it does not matter that the romanization period was short. also please note that there is evidence that the romanization continued well after aurelian's withdrawal. justinian reintegrated dacia in the byzantine empire on the claim of reuniting all romans and took the name dacicus maximus. now why would he do that if dacia was empty or inhabited by a non-roman/weakly romanized population? please check the works of french historian V. Duruy regarding romanization.

Please read Oltean, Ioana A.: Dacia - Landscape, Colonisation, Romanisation (Routledge, 2007, London and New York; ISBN 978-0-415-41252-0); MacKendrick, Paul: The Dacian Stones Speak (The University of North Carolina Press, 1975, Chapel Hill; ISBN 0-8078-1226-9) - actually they mention maximum 2 legions and only for a shorter period, because for more than 100 years only 1 legion stationed there. Wilkes, John: The Illyrians (Blackwell Publishers, 1992, Oxford UK & Cambridge USA; ISBN 0631 14671 7) - the intensive colonization in present-day Slavonia and Pannonia. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

the serbians first settled in what it today banat and the southern tip of crisana. the vlachs kekaumemnos mentions are know today as the istro-romanians, it is a known fact that they moved to istria (croatia today) from modertn day banat (or vojvodina according to a more disputed theory) to escape the invading slavs.

Please read Cecaumeno: Consejos de un aristócrata Bizantino (Alianza Editorial, 2000, Madrid; ISBN 84-206-3594-4) - he mentions that the Dacians a n d Bessi used to lived along the Sava and Danube rivers where the Serbs at his time (in the 11th century) lived. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

you forget about assimilation. assimilation still continues to this day in the balkans. the best example are the istro-romanians. there is a serbian chronicle that in 1329 "the "romans" living in istria outnumber the italians and slavs". for such a thing to happen the istro-romanian population had to number over 1 million people. also there is the example of the dalmatians who were romanized illiryans, the last dalmatian speaker died in the 1850's, yet they appear in most byzantinee chronicles as inhabiting the whole dalmatian coast (serbia + montenegro + northern albania + parts of croatia). further examples are the aromanians in greece and macedonia who are slowly but surely assimilated, their numbers dropped by 25% in the last 40 years.

Sorry, I am afraid that I missed your point. Therefore, the masses of the Romanized population of the provinces of the Balkan Peninsula became assimilated, but the Romanized population of a sole province could reserve its identity? So the Slavs migrated across the territory of present-day Romania without assimilating the Daco-Romans but they managed to assimilate the masses of the Romanized population south of the Danube? Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

cluj is not from a slavic language, or dare you trying to say that the romans spoke a slavic language? napoca castrum clus was built in 107 Ad and it was the headquaters of legio XIII gemina.

Please read my remark above.Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

yes there are sources sources that say vlachs lived south of the danube, neither of them say that they strictly lived south of the danube. and as far as i know the existence of vlachs south of the danube was conditioned on the lack of vlachs north of the danube or vice-versa. also you once again confuse vlachs with romanians.

Sorry for confusing them, but Kekaumenos's record on the Vlachs living near Larissa is always referred to prove the Daco-Romanian continuity (because he is the first and until the 18th century, the only author who mentions Dacians in connection with Vlachs). Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

again you are mistaken. there are roman settlements and archeological remains dating up to the 6th and 7th centuries: here are just a few of them:

3rd-4th centuries Inscription on a brick discovered in the area of Gornea village, Schevita commune, Caras-Severin County(Banat), from which one can see the changes made in the Latin language spoken by the population north of the Danube.

3rd-4th centures Monument dedicated to Emperor Caius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus (284-305) by the People`s Council and Assembly of the City of Tomis

In Dubrodja, south of the Danube. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The 4th century Votive inscription discovered at Biertan, Sibiu County (Transylvania), with the text Ego Zenovius votum posui: it attests the existence of a Christian community, whose people spoke a Romance Language, proving the continuity of the Dacian-Roman population

Similar objects were found in Gotland, Germany, as well.Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The 4th-8th centuries In Sucidava (today, Celeui, a district of the town of Corabia, Olt County, Oltenia) there is a settlement attesting the continuity of the autochthonous population who inhabited these places.

On the Danube, in a fortress of the Roman Empire. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

4th-6th centuries Inscription found on the martyry of Niculite, Tulcea County (Dobruja), mentioning martyrs with autochthonous names, Zoticos, Attalos, Kanasis and Philippos. Pattern ornament carved on (or above) the front door of a church in Dobruja, with a Paleo-Christian text from 360-369, attesting the continuity of Dacian-Roman population.

South of the Danube, in Dubrodja. If my understanding is correct, the autochtonous population (the Dacians) spoke Greek (Philippos, Attalos, Zoticos). It is a new theory.Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

i see no need to the change this article as it is well structured. presenting both theories separately with arguments for and against is the only way to go in these cases. mixing them up by presenting both theories concomitantly would only add to the confusion. the fact that there is more evidence in favor for one theory than there is for the other does not mean that the respective theory is being over-pushed. one can say many things about this article but not that it lacks material evidence.

The article is a nightmare now. I think it is a shame primarily for Romanian editors, because this article tries to describe their ancestors history in a pushy, non-scientific manner without proper citations. It may suggest that the Romanian editors are not able to summarize their ancestors' history in a Wikipedian way. I am sure that it is not true, and I think Romanian editors should concentrate on how to improve this article significantly. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

cheers Adijarca (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. It was not my intention to start a "Daco-roman continuity" VS "Migration" conflict, I have not claimed that the "Dacians spoke a language close to Latin" theory should be shown on the "same level" as the others, but rather that it should be a small mention as an alternative (since there are some people who believe it). As far as I know, the question whether Dacian was a centum or satem language, is not yet settled, it is still open to debate (and "speculation"), these wiki articles already say this [9],[10], (and there is also something here, although incomplete, [11], [12], [13], [14], I'm not trying to say that Dacian was centum, but only that it is still debatable). What I'm trying to say is that while there is no clear evidence (except for some assumptions based on some coincidences) for its support, there is also no decisive evidence against it. The origins of Latin, Thracian and Dacian languages will probably remain shrouded in mystery and open to "speculation". In my opinion, I don't think it is our right to decide if this is a "Dacomaniac theory" or not, it may be, but that is not an argument, but our subjective opinions, which should not influence the readers of wikipedia, we should simply show information and leave the readers make their mind about it. However, I don't plan to insist on this, if no one else supports its inclusion. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Origin of the Romanians page still violates WP:U,WP:NOR,WP:NPOV,WP:SOAP. This discussion page is bogged down in detail. A rewrite is still proposed as outlined above using as an introduction the least common denominator in the various theories. The early history of the ancestors of modern Romanians encompasses two stages: One: Romanisation, Two: Survival of such a Romanised or Roman population through the Dark Ages, The Great Migrations. Where exactly within the area of the Eastern (European) area of the Roman Empire, later on the Eastern Roman Empire such Romanisation and survival took place is not of such intense interest to the average English speaking user of Wikipedia who is located for example in Canada or the US. The detailed discussion of the minutea of these long historical processes is better left to historians of some international standing and well reasoned scholarly writings on the subject belong on the pages of appropriate peer reviewed publications. On this Wikipedia page we cannot possibly hope to present such scholarly discussions therefore a bare minimum must be agreed upon as an introduction something akin to what is described here above. The individual theories should be presented in the briefest possible manner citing only their original creators and most internationally notable proponents by name (and not nationality, (NPOV)).

As far as the histories of the individual theories are concerned having separate pages on them would not constitute a Wiki fork since they did have their own histories as they were being used over time for example by Ceausescu's dictatorship or his opponents.

Eravian (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is quite some overlap with Romania in the Early Middle Ages. I believe that the way we structure the entire issue has to be decided, and then followed faithfully. Otherwise we risk having different articles supporting different POVs and talking about the same thing: something that volates both FORK and POV. Is this page too large that it requires separate articles for each theory? Which are these theories, how many, 2 ,3, 5, 6 ?
Perhaps, we can structure Romania in the Early Middle Ages to talk mostly about facts and accepted interpretation given by historians to those facts, but without going into continuity vs. migrationist dychotomy. An overview of that could constitute Section 1 of this article. Other sections of this article can be structured as a separate section for each theory, plus a final section about mention in sourses. However, we can keep in mind that if some individual section about some individual theory grows too large, we can make a separate article for it. However, I wouldn't rush making separate articles right now: it is very simple to copy a section into an article. It is rather more complicated to keep the presentation of the entire issue on WP without self-contradictions, when one article says white and another says black.

Dc76\talk 22:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still think that the Origin of Romanians is the article dedicated to describe the facts and their interpretations concerning the origin of the Romanians (what a surprise). The article Romania in the Middle Ages is dedicated to describe the history of the territory of Romania. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! That's exactly what I am saying. Dc76\talk 22:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
As for "Dacians spoke Latin", we can make a section "Other theories", and among other fringe theories mention this as well. But I would only describe it in one sentence, for it is common knowledge that "Dacians spoke Latin" is total non-sense. In fact, more is known about the mental stability of the people who supported it. We can add a link to schizophrenia. Dc76\talk 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Based on the above-described argument, I would like to suggest again to rewrite the whole article. It needs significant improvement. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully, we can first see a plan in the talk page, please. Dc76\talk 22:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Daco-Roman v. Thraco-Roman continuity

"Daco-Romanian continuity in Dacia, Moesia and some adjacent regions." "Thraco-Roman theory by leading Romanian theorists, a less strident, more plausable and more liberal view of the origins of the Romanian language and people (q.v.)."

  • Sorry, I do not understand the difference between the more strident, less plausible and less liberal view (the Daco-Romanian continuity) and the modern Thraco-Roman theory. If my understanding correct, both theories claim that the Romanians' ethnogenesis occured in the former provinces of Dacia Traiana, Dacia Aureliana and Moesia. Now, I know that the Thraco-Romanian theory is the best, the winner, the newest, but I have no knowledge what it claims and based on what studies. Therefore, I think the main points of the Thraco-Romanian theory should be described (based on reliable sources) in a summary style and we should forget the adjectives "liberal", "plausible" ... . Actually, which are the leading Roman theorists (I enjoy this expression, it reminds me to my youth in the 1970s-1980s in Hungary, please do not change it) who follow this modern theory? Borsoka (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Need to shorten, rewrite and include primarily more current historiography

The tone of the Origin of the Romanians page is still very argumentative, in fact advocating. It is unnecessarily burdened with a myriad facts or factoids whose origins and citations are uncertain and debatable. Why such more current Romanian historians as Lucian Boia or Dr. Florin Corta are not given greater scope? In the current long list of arguments only a very short passage is quoted from Lucian Boia even though he is cited on his Wikipedia page as the one who debunks the nationalism and mythology of Daco-Roman continuity. In the introduction of his book "History and myth etc." page 23, he states: "the obsessive problem of the origin of the Romanians is principally a matter of mythology and ideology (and not of incontestable scientific reality);". This is a book which I would highly recommend as a first reading for anybody attempting to write a page on the origin of Romanians. Or Dr. Florin Corta in his "Review of "Cumans and Tartars etc. "" in The Medieval Review: "The "Official Daco-Roman theory" has long been denounced, although not completely eradicated from the scholarly and political discourse." Even for the casual reviewer of the English language literature available on the internet it is becoming more and more evident that Ceausescu style Dakomania has been discredited in fact it is a disgrace to Romanian historiography. The question then is where do we draw a line between Dakomania and Daco-Roman continuity? Because it is a very thin line indeed. What also emerges from this casual review of current literature is a more scientific, broad-based, inclusive concept of ethnogenesis. This ethnogenesis concept vastly expands the time horizon, the possible area and the pool of constituent groups for the development process of a nation. This concept holds true for virtually any modern nation in the world but in particular for the nations of Europe and even more so for the nations of the Balkan penninsula. I believe this should be the first concept listed in the Origin page with older theories followed only briefly after that. If there is a need at all for an Origin of the Romanians page. With the exception of Albanians I do not see any other Origin pages for other European nations. There is no Origin of Swedes, Bulgarians, Poles etc. They are simply described at their appropriate country and nation pages.

Eravian (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I think there are several "Origin of the ..." articles in Wikipedia, even they bear other names. E.g., the History of England is clearly different from the history of the English people (whose ancestors lived somewere in Schlesvig, as far as I can remember) before the 6th century; the History of Hungary (i.e., the history of the territory of present-day Republic of Hungary) have to be described (until the very end of the 9th century) separately from the history of the Hungarian people; the origin of the Bulgarians is described in several articles, because the modern Bulgarians are descendants of the "autochtonous" Thracians, the immigrant Slavs and the Turkic Bulgars. So I think, it is not a peculiarity of the history of the Romanians (and their origin) that it is described in separate articles. Borsoka (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

indeed this page is somewhat pointless, i wonder who created it. however it exists an thus we must strive to improve it. given both the type of the article and its purpose: to present both theories in comparison and allow the reader to form his/her own personal opinion, shortening it would only mess it up even further. this article needs to be restructured but without deleting any information, least it becomes completely confusing/biased. about boia i consider him to be a clown and nothing more. his main, declared, purpose is to combat everything the communist party believed in no mater if it is just propaganda or actual historical fact. and sadly i think that purpose affects his work, he contradicted himself more than once in a short time span. however if you want to add quotes by boia, in the appropriate section, don't let me stop you. Adijarca (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with feelings of impatience about how this page may always be a perpetual point of contention for competing nationalist theories, but on the other hand, there are certain mysteries connected with the origins of the Romanians which do not really occur in the case of Swedes, Bulgarians, and Poles. To start with: where were the Romanians ca. 700 A.D., when the western Balkans had been overrun by Slavs as far south as the Peloponnese, while the eastern Balkans and the area of current Romania were a battlefield between Byzantines, Avars, and Bulgars, with Magyars soon to arrive? The ancient Dacian language of pre-Roman times certainly did not closely resemble Latin (since even languages which are known to be in the same sub-family as Latin, such as Oscan, Umbrian, and Sabellian did not closely resemble Latin). But there still seem to be some significant unresolved issues... AnonMoos (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  • May be it is strange, but I am convinced (and even the scholars who reject the continuity theory seem to be convinced) that the fact that there is no reference to Romanians or a Latin-speaking population north of the Danube before the 12th-13th century in itself does not prove (and cannot prove) that the Romanians migrated to the territory of present-day Romania. The "migratory theory" is based on archaeological and linguistical evidences and toponyms, and its followers only use the early written sources mentioning Vlachs, Latin-speaking individuals in order to demonstrate that none of the sources contradicts to their theory. They also use other sources to demonstrate that they also suggest unanimously (but themselves do not prove) that the territory of present-day Romania had been inhabited by non-Romanized Dacians, Sarmatians, Germanic and Slavic tribes, Magyars, Pechenegs, Germans, etc. before the first reference to the ancestors of the Romanians was recorded. Borsoka (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

An article to be rewritten

I still suggest that the article should be rewritten without much delay:

  • it does not use the most current sources;
  • the sources used cannot be verified, because there is no proper citation;
  • it contains too much fringe theories: King Stephen is of Romanian origin, Greek martirs as Daco-Romans, footwear with a name of Slavic origin proving Daco-Romanian continuity, words of Slavic origin (voivode, kneaz) proving Daco-Romanian continuity ... (of course, they could be mentioned, but based on reliable sources);
  • its structure is a nightmare, nobody can follow it;
  • this is English Wikipedia, therefore Latin, Old German text should be avoided;
  • there are several obvious misinterpretations of the primary sources (Constantinos Porphyrogennetos - he spoke of the Dalmatians not of the Romanians, Anna Comnena - she wrote of the Hungarians not of the Romanians);
  • totally unbalanced;
  • etc, etc

Borsoka (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

i vote against rewriting, but of course you already knew that. here is why:

  • the article uses the sources available. this topic is not so popular in western scholarly work and thus there are very few new sources, but if you have knowledge of any feel free to add them.
    • even the sources used by the article cannot be verified because of the improper citations
      • then open a discussion section naming the sources which can not be verified and/or which citations are improper. still that does not consitute reason for a rewrite.
        • Please write the above parts of the Talk page. Reference 18.
  • most of the sources used in this article are medieval or ancient well known sources, thus they can be verified in any major library around the world. the only sources that cannot be verified are those written in romanian and hungarian.
    • Therefore, at least 15% of the article is original research
      • how did you come up with that? as long as an information is sourced it can not be classified as original research. also original research can be tagged and/or removed. still no reason for a rewrite.
        • Non-properly referred sentences qualify themselves original research. Primary sources peculiar interpretation is also a clear original research. I already followed your suggestion, and please find a "short" list above.
  • it is true that the theory that states that vajk was romanian is a bit extreme, he could just as well have been a hungarian or a slav (the name vajk is slavic though), however it is not a good reason for rewriting a whole article; the modern name of the respective footwear is irrelevant (i'm guessing that you are talking about opinci, if so i am very interested how you came to the conclusion that opinci is a slavic word), for example sandals exist since 10.000 BC yet today most people use their latin name instead of their much older Greek, Egyptian or Persian names. upon rereading the article i have not found a single sentence that mentions the words kneaz or voievode as proof of the continuity.
    • Vajk may be either of Hungarian origin ("vaj" is the Hungarian word for "butter", "-k" was an ancient diminutive suffix in Hungarian) or of Turkic origin (meaning "brave"), but it cannot be of Romanian or Slavic (although several Hungarian tribe-leaders and kings bore names of Slavic origin - Prokui gyula, the kings Bélas, Lászlós). Opinci means a typical footwear used by the Bulgarians, Serbs, Macedonians ... Yes, I know ancient Daco-Romans were a really interesting people: they insisted on using their traditional footwear but they wanted to rename it (similarly to the river-names: they let the Slavs translate them and later they borrowed the rivers' Slavic names). :)
      • vajk in slavic means warrior (see vojvoda/vajvoda meaning warrior lord/prince). it may also come from turkish. i don't care if he was hungarian, slavic, cuman, turkic or even a martian. pretty funny idea though: the first hungarian king being named butter. opinci was a traditional dacian footwear, it can even be seen on trajan's column and constantine's arch. if the dacians were killed off who did the slavs adopt the footwear from? also i do not know what rivers you are talking about. at least 75% of romania's river names have a clear latin root.
        • Yes, it is a funny idea, but it may be true (actually, mainstream history in Hungary follows the Turkic origin idea).
        • Nobody claims that the Dacians were killed off (the presence of non-Romanized Dacian tribes may be proved until the 5th century). Why do you think that only Dacians used opinci? Opinci with similar name is also used by Bulgarians, Serbs, Macedonians and Albanians.Borsoka (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Google "Dacian prisoners". The second image you get is one of a long-haired comatus and his footwear is evidently opinci.
            • I do not and did not deny that Dacians wore opinci. I only mentioned that other peoples in the Balkan Peninsula wore this type of footwear as well. And by now I have been able to understand that "Daco-Romans" were interesting peoples: they continuously used opinci but they borrowed its name from Slavic peoples (who borrowed opinci from the Dacians), they borrowed words from Slavic peoples in order to use them to name rivers in their territories, or sometimes they borrowed the Slavic names of the rivers, because the Slavic names of the rivers are translations of their Dacian (Daco-Roman ?) names. Borsoka (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Could you please mention some of the rivers in Romania with clear Latin root?
          • Olt-Alutus, Cris-Crisius, Mures-Marisus, Somes-Samissus, Harsova-Carsium etc.
            • Sorry, but those names are probably of Dacian (and not Latin) origin. And their modern forms (Criş - Körös, with an "sh" ending; Mureş - with an internal "u" and an "sh" ending) suggest that they were not continuously used by the ancestors of the Romanians, but they were probably borrowed by the Romanians (from Slavic or Hungarian peoples). E.g., the name of the Danube in Hungarian (Duna) is probably of Celtic origin, but in itself it does not (and cannot) prove a Celtic-Hungarian continuity. Borsoka (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • while overall the structure is ok (both theories presented separately with arguments and counterarguments) the article could use a bit of restructuring here and there, however this can be done without rewriting the whole article.
    • Actually, there are more than two theories.
      • there is the continuity theory and the migration theory, all other realistic theories (i heard some pretty fantastic theories that said the dacians were the ancestors of the romans or that the romanians came from the middle east, and i suggest we live out such para-historical theories) are variations of the of the respective two major theories.
        • Actually, there is a mixed theory: there were always some traces of a Latin population north of the Danube, but the masses of the population lived south of the river and migrated northward.
  • true, this is english wikipedia and any phrases in german, latin, etc. should at least be accompanied by a proper translation, however this does not require a rewrite.
    • So the article should be rewritten, because an average English reader should not be supposed to read Latin, Old German texts.
      • so you are suggesting that we rewrite a whole article just because of 3-4 phrases in latin or german that require a translation. translating those phrases couldn't even be considered a minor edit, not to mention a reason for a rewrite.
  • Porphyrogennetos couldn't have mentioned the dalmatians considering the fact that he speaks about the north of the danube. Anna Comnena distinctly mentions the words dacian and vlach, how you came to the conclusion that she is talking about hungarians is beyond me.
    • Please read: Constantinos Porphyrogennetos: On administering the empire - chapter 29 (the sole part of the emperor's work which refers to Romans who were still called Romans at his time, and this part describes the towns of Dalmatia; as far as I can remember, Dalmatia lies south of the Danube). Yes, the emperor also describes the territories north of the Danube and he mentions that Hungarians and Pechenegs live there.
      • i thought you said poprphyrogennetos cannot be verified. whatever. indeed porphyrogennetos does mention dalmatia, because it was part of the empire, the part reffrenced in the article mentions roman colonists living north of the danube.
        • Please read the emperor's work, he does not mention any colonists or Romance speaking population north of the Danube.
    • Please also read: Anna Comnena: The Alexiad (Penguin Classics, 1969, ISBN 978-0-14-044958-7) pp. 122, 217, 309, 434 (Hungarians mentioned as Dacians, King Solomon of Hungary and King Ladislaus I of Hungary mentioned as kings of the Dacians - maybe the Daco-Hungarian continuity could be proved based on the sentences :) ); pp.168, 252, 298-299 (Vlachs living south of the Danube as nomads, Vlachs living south of the Danube as allies of the Cumans)
      • i have read the alexiad, thank you for your recommendation though. how could anna confuse hungarians or the cumans with the dacians when they (the hungarians and the cumans) are both mentioned in other parts of the alexiad?. the byzantines had enough knowledge of the hungarians and the cumans not to confuse them with the indigenous people that lived north of the danube, especially if you consider the fact that they brought both people in europe. yes she does mention nomad vlachs living south of the danube, but that does not mean those vlachs had to be romanians now does it? they could have been dalmatians, morlachs, aromanians, menglenoroamanians, etc. and if she says that the cumans were aided by a band of nomadic vlachs that does not mean all vlachs were nomadic now does it?
        • Please read her work again and more carefully (the work's index may help) - she does not even use the word "Hungarian". When she writes of the Hungarians she always refers to them as Dacians. In Byzantine authors' work (because the "trendy" style of that age was the clasicization) the Hungarians are mentioned under the names Scythians, Turks, Dacians ... Similarly to another Byzantine author (Cecaumenos), and actually he was the only one, who referred to the Vlachs living near Larissa (in Greece) and in the Bulgarian Mountains as "Dacians a n d Bessi".
      • Dalmatians lived in towns, the other Eastern Romance groups were mainly nomads. If my understanding is correct, you suggest that all literary references to Vlachs living south of the Danube should be forgotten when we are speaking of the "Daco"-Romanians. Although this approach would be different from the one mainstream historians in Romania follows (they always refer to Cecaumenos' text), but I am not in the position to decide which one is proper.
    • Therefore, even the sentences of the article that look to be based on "sources" can easily be challenged.
      • yes they can be challanged but trough a sophism not trough a logical argument. a sophism is a logical error and therefore it is considered invalid in any argument. i can even challenge the fact that you are human being by using a sophism. observe: a dog is alive, you are alive, therefore you must be a dog. you made the exact same logical error when you said that she confused hungarians with dacians
        • Please read her work again and more carefully. She did not confuse the Hungarians with Dacians, but she followed the stilistical requirements of her own age: she referred to all the peoples of her age using ancient names (e.g., she referred to the Normans as Celts, the Pechenegs as Scytians...).
  • the article is mostly balanced. it can not be perfectly balanced because the topic itself implies a certain degree of subjectivity and nationalism from both sides, thus it would be impossible for anyone to rewrite the article and remain completely neutral. as i have said the article is pretty much as balanced a it could get both sections have arguments for and against, any difference between the 2 sections regarding the contents is just a matter of availability, there are more arguments and counterarguments available for one section than for the other. it would be absurd to demand that both sections have the same amount of arguments and counterarguments. however if you feel that it is unbalanced fell free to balance it by adding more content.
    • Actually, the article is totally unbalanced, but in itself, it is not an issue and it would not be a reason to rewrite it. I think the major issue is that it cannot be read, cannot be verified and cannot be understood. I think nationalism should be avoided and it can be avoided; if it is not the case, we should give up editing this Wikipedia. My concern is that now the article pushes one of the theories in a non-encyclopedic, childish and chauvinistic way. Unfortunately, I am convinced that even I myself could summarize the arguments of the Daco-Romanian continuity theory more convincingly, because I read some books on this subject which are less biased, less driven by pure ideology (most of the sources were written in the 1980s). I think Romanian editors should read the above remarks made by neutral (I mean non-Hungarian) editors - if I were a Romanian editor I would like to present the history of my nation in a way that anybody could read it without getting upset.
      • you are right nationalism should be avoided, i couldn't agree more. however it cannot be avoided 100%, especially in delicate matters such as this. you can try as hard you want to avoid it but you can't. it does not matter how much you read you will always be influenced by your environment, your education, and your own personal subjectivity. to present such a topic with enough objectivity as to be completely unbiased is nigh-impossible even for a neutral person (who is not hungarian or romanian). when you think about it history itself is subjective. however putting nationalism aside should be the only way to go in this modern age, and especially when here on wikipedia, sadly very few people think like you. but i am deviating from the topic. why is this article unbalanced?
        • I do not understand why should anybody be driven by nationalism when editing an article. Of course, we are human beings and we cannot be objective, but we can try to be objective, and being subjective does not lead nationalism.
        • I neither understand why is this topic is so delicate.
        • Unbalanced: there are plenty of declarations without any argumentation, and there are several sentences whose context totally differs from the interpretation the article provides (Constantinos Porphyrogenytos, Anna Comnena). Borsoka (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Actually Porphyrogenytos mentions the Vlachs in Dalmatia came from Dacia, and Anna Comnena speaks of Dacians forcing the Sarmatians North of the Danube Southwards into the Empire (using anachronistic labels, this means Romanians vs. Pechenegs). 06:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Adijarca (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

            • Therefore, when she mentions "the ambassadors who came from the Dacians on behalf of the kral, kisnman of the Basileus John's wife", she does not refer to the king (in Hungarian, király) of Hungary (who was a relative of the future Emperor John Comnenos' wife who was a daughter of King Ladislaus I of Hungary), but to the proto-Romanians who were ruled by kings (Anna Comnena, op. cit. above p. 434). Or when she describes the itinerary of the first crusaders followed mostly through Dacia she does not refer to the Kingdom of Hungary, but to the territory of present-day Romania (Anna Comnena, op. cit above p. 309.), because the crusaders wanted to make a long journey, and therefore they did not enter the Kingdom of Hungary, but they went through the territory of present day Romania towards Constantinople. I think these fascinating alternate theories can also be mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above-arguments, I maintain my above suggestion: the article should be rewritten. Borsoka (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry, the above remarks are also mine. Borsoka (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

my opinion is: yes this article does have structural problems and badly needs a structural rehash (in fact i support the structure presented by dc76 on this page), it does have some content problems. but a total rewrite is a bit extreme, not to mention incredibly time consuming. these issues can be fixed without rewriting. however seeing as how talk gets us nowhere fast i propose the following: someone, with more experience in editing than me, should organize a poll regarding a possible rewrite of the article. every registered user gets one vote. and after a couple of months we count the votes and see what the majority has decided. what say you fellow editors? Adijarca (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we agree to reorganize the article [15] and then to try to work for a while on a section by section basis? At least that was my understanding. This article is not very clear, esp. at the begining. Before more complicated things, we must ensure readers can read this without having to guess what was in the author's mind. I agree we need to re-write, but first of all for clarity, so that we can first understand what else needs re-writting. Dc76\talk 22:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


I rewrote the first sentence of the first passage just to show how the rhetoric can be toned down and mentioned the mythology and ideology peaking during Ceausescu because it contrasts nicely with the following passage about the more modern concept of ethnogenesis. Modern ethnogenesis merely acknowledges the fact that practilcally all modern nations and particularly European nations have a complex genetic and linguistic make-up which is caused by the equally complex historical processes each of these nations have undergone. The problem with calling Lucian Boia a "clown" is that he is one of only a handful of Romanian historians with some international standing. Unfortunately many of the citations in the pro Daco-Roman arguments of the Origins page are exclusively from Romanian sources and those which have not been internationally properly published and peer reviewed particularly those written during the long reign of the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu are simply not acceptable.

  • Um, have you looked at the Hungarian part of the page? Almost all of the citations come from one Hungarian book Illyés Elemér, who is a MINORITY RIGHTS ACTIVIST! In other words, it is a political source being passed off as a historical one! The second source is "History of Transilvania" by another Hungarian author Barta Gabor. It comes from the same publishing house as the book above. So please, go check the citations for both parts before making allegations. The Romanian section has far more diverse and far greater number of foreign-authored articles than the Hungarian one. Romano-Dacis (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree that the part of the article that describes the migrationist theory could also be improved significantly. On the other hand, I do not understand why MINORITY RIGHT ACTIVISTs are not acceptable for Wikipedia purposes. Actually, the "History of Transylvania" is a book written by leading scholars in Hungary, and it was issued by the Hungarian Academy of Science. Borsoka (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Origins page as it is now is extremely unbalanced. More than three quarters of it is simply an advocacy of a very strident Daco-Romanian ideology and this simply cannot be tolerated on English Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy WP:SOAP states: NO PROPAGANDA, NO BATTLE GROUND. We cannot have the English speaking reader being overwhelmed with a myriad minor facts, factoids most of which are highly contentious anyway. For example in the case of toponyms it would be enough just to list the various names of the few major rivers and towns with the differing explanations. It is hard to understand for example what the origin of the Hungarian word for Christmas has to do with the question as to what extent and where the Dacians were Romanised or how and where these Romanised people survived untill their reemergence as vlachs. For the page to be balanced and useful it must be shortened substantially and the differing theories must have roughly the same length in terms of word count. If we are not willing to get past a Ceausescu style time-warp we may have to contemplate whether this page is worth preserving.

  • Please, stop pretending as if somehow Hungarian historiography is not tainted by nationalism in this argument. The entire argument by the Hungarians was made in the late 18th century as a result of the Supplex Libellus Vallachorum, the demand by Romanians for their rights. It has always been a political argument coming from them. Take the stance by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences on archaeology: "For a century, Hungarian archaeologists propounded a theory that was inspired by the dominant nobility: that only a free warrior who had been buried with his horse could be regarded as one of the Hungarian conquerors, and that other graves must have belonged to their servants or their new subjects. According to this essentially distorted view of history, the authentic settlers consisted of a few thousand noble warriors, and thus the archaeological legacy of the Conquest was limited to the graves of some 150–200 knights, with swords, sabres, and horses. Seldom has nationalistic bias done more damage to the interests of a nation."

"Interests of a nation"? Oh, so now we must distort what is seen in a grave because it damages "national interest" of the Hungarians! A grave doesn't have Hungarian items in it? Too bad, guess the guy was burried with stolen goods (this is actually one of their arguments in a Hungarian source here!). So please, cut the crap and pretentions to neutrality, and especially the one-sided labelling. Romano-Dacis (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

    • Nobody claims that none of the Hungarian historians were (or are) driven by nationalistic feelings. On the other hand, nobody can claim that all the arguments written by Hungarian and non-Hungarian historians against the continuity theory are driven by chauvinistic purposes. I think our purpose is to provide a full picture of verifiable theories on this subject and migrationist theory is a valid, verifiable theory followed by mainstream historians. Actually, the Daco-Romanian continuity theory (similarly to other continuity theories in our region) was innovated in the 18th century in order to prove the political rights of the Romanian nation in Transylvania (before the 18th century, there is only one reference to the Dacians in connection with the Romanians, and Kekaumenos also refers to the Bessi, an ancient people living south of the Danube, in connection with them). Nevertheless, the fact that the theory was driven by clear political purposes in itself cannot challange its validity. Borsoka (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
      • You are so wrong on this. First of all, the Hungarian migrationist theory was invented in the late 18th century by Roesler, Hunfalvy et al. due to the demands by the Romanians for their rights, not the other way around. As can be seen from the quotes of people like Kekaumenos, Kinnamos, Bonifinius, or even for example the more recent Dimitrie Cantemir (who lived long before anyone even considered a unified Romania) show that the Daco-Roman Continuity is a long-established notion of historiography and was indeed only question by surprise surprise AUSTRIANS AND HUNGARIANS IN THE 18TH CENTURY. Therefore, it is the Migrationist theory which is politically motivated and has its origins deeply connected with nationalism, not the other way around. I'll even give a concrete example: in 1600 Istvan Szamoskozy wrote that the Romanians are descended from "barbarian Dacians" who had been taught Latin by the Romans. I cannot believe you would deny the DRTC as it is an established part of historiography since the Middle Ages, even in Hungary..Romano-Dacis (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your above remarks, I think they are remarkable. Just some remarks: 1. why the migrationist theory is Hungarian when it was suggested by Roesler? 2. what was the political purpose of an Austrian scholar when suggesting the migration theory? remember the Austrian-Hungarian relationship was rather tense in the end of the 18th century, and the Habsburgs tried to assist the Romanian Greek Catholics against the mainly protestant Hungarians in Transylvania 3. sorry, I may missed the century, and I did not want to use the argument that several Roman romantic nationalists in the 18th century thought that the Saxons had descended from the Dacians and had denied the Daco-Romanian continuity 4. DRTC is not an established part of historiography since the Middle Ages: Romanians descended from Trajan's colonists was the general belief (and all the Dacians were killed by the Romans as Eutropios wrote it) 5. until the 19th century, nobody denied that the Hungarians had descended from the Scythians - nowadays there is no academic historian who would accept this theory. Borsoka (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Eravian (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Just some remarks: 1. I think the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people is a subject whose sources are mainly written ("by nature") in Romanian language - therefore, I think Romanian peer-reviewed books should be used (even if they seem to contradict to mainstream international literature in several aspects) 2. Unfortunatelly, Lucian Boia is not a representative of today's mainstream history in Romania (his case may be similar to "heretic" Hungarian, Polish, Croatian ... historians in the 19th century who denied the Hun-Hungarian, Sarmatian-Polish, and Illyrian-Croat continuity respectively); therefore, I think his opponents views should also be reflected in the article. Yes, I agree that several books written by mainstream Romanian historians can easily be challanged, because one can find several statements in them whose base is weak and contradict to the referred source ("masses of the Huns' subjects spoke Latin", "Byzantine sources prove the existence of Romanian states north of the Danube", "the four martirs spoke Latin", an Armanian geographer, who actually wrote of 25 Slavic tribes, "prove the existence of 25 lands of Romanians"). But they are mainstream sources therefore they can be used when editing an article in Wikipedia 3. Being the Hungarian word for Christmas of Romanian origin (and it is not the case) could prove that the Hungarians adopted some elements of Christianity from the Romanians. I also think that the sentence should be rewritten or deleted, because it is based on a really strange statement (the Latin word "creation" means birth). Actually, the words for Christmas in the Slavic, Romanian and Hungarian languages are probably of Albanian origin - the Slavs adopted this word and later the Romanians and the Hungarians adopted it from the Slavs. 4. The early history of a nation of Europe is interesting enough to have a separate article; therefore, this article (which is a nightmare now) should not be deleted, but should be improved significantly (basically, it should be rewritten). I think sooner or later (in 1 month, 1 year or 2 years) the article would develop into a prime-class article - and Wikipedia have plenty of time at its disposal, we can work on it and we can wait. 5. I fully agree that ethnogenesis is really a specific process which cannot be described easily and whose several aspects are unclear. For example, about 90% of the Hungarians (who speak Hungarian language) is genetically of Slavic, German, Cuman, Italian, ...etc origin (therefore, genetically even a Pannonian-Hungarian, or Slavic-Hungarian continuity could, at least partially, be proven). But they speak a Finno-Ugric language whose speakers immigrated to the Carpathian Basin around 895, therefore the origin of the Hungarian people (or the Hungarian prehistory) have to be described separately. (Although, there are some fringe theories in Hungary claiming that the Hungarians are of Scythian origin - interestingly, the basic arguments of this theory are slightly similar to the Daco-Romanian continuity: medieval chronicle describing the Hungarians' Scythian origin; not only one, but plenty of medieval Byzantine sources referring to the Hungarians as Scythians; archaeological findings proving the continouos presence of a nomadic population in the Carpathian Basin since the 2nd millenium BC). Therefore, my suggestion is that the article should not be deleted, but it should be significantly improved based on modern peer-reviewed sources (including Romanian sources as well) - that is the article should be rewritten.Borsoka (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Although there are a number of issues I disagree with in the above argument by Borsoka, his/her main idea is perfectly logical and correct. I totally agree with him/her in that respect. I hope my recent resturcuring would generate edits that would help increase sections 1, 2 and 4, and re-write to be more concise the sections 3, 5, and 6. Also, it is important to artibute things. It's no harm to add from time to time "according to X". That would make the tone of the article more balanced. This "plan" would not "solve" all "problems", but it would solve some. There is a lot of editing that we can agree upon regardless of our personal oppinions about the different theories. Let's implement that! Let's reduce the amount of contentious text to some 10-12 sentences, no more. Then we can ask for more help from outsiders to formulate those 10-12 sentences. That's how civilized people proceed when they disagree. Dc76\talk 21:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that the research into the history of the Romanian people is the task first and foremost for Romanian historians, even though others may also be more or less intimitly interested in the subject. By alluding to Lucian Boia I was merely trying to indicate the fact that there has been movement away from dogmatic Daco-Romanian continuity in the post Ceausescu era. By Wikipedia standards Lucian Boia has international notability because of his numerous publications in different languages in recent years. Therefore, he might be better considered mainstream than any historian who published only during the reign of the dictator. Of course, at the other extreme, still there is the /lunatic/ fringe who disseminate dacomaniac propaganda /E.g. "Noi, Dacii", Messrs. Dragan and Savescu/.

Lucian Boia still sees a Dacian component in the Romanian ethnogenesis but he does not know how much Dacian, if any, is present in the Romanian geneology. Nor does he know with 100% certainty the location /North of the Danube, South of the Danube/ where the Romanization /if any/ of the Dacians took place.

I was also trying to point out the need to mitigate the rhetoric, to bring the tone of this page up to Wikipedia standards. The history of any nation cannot be a matter of "feuds" between historians of different nationalities. The feud aspect of the whole thing belongs to political ideologies and nationalistic aims.

All the Wikipedia pages connected to Dacians seem to have an advocating style. For example on the Dacian page about the "free Dacians" there is the statement: "Romanian historians believe...". This type of language is defined by Wikipedia as a WEASEL. /From "weasel words"/. When you say something like this: Historians of x nationality think, historians of x nationality believe that is a supportive personal opinion. When you say something like historians of y nationality claim, that is pejorative. These are unacceptable WEASEL statements. You might say: it is generally agreed or all historians agree if they really agree and really nobody challenges the theory or statement being described.

To better reflect the current state of Romanian historiography it would seem reasonable to postulate Lucian Boia's ideas rather than the classical dogmatic Daco Roman continuity at the beginning of the article and then proceed with the counter arguments and alternative ideas. Eravian (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Can comment threads about issues which are no longer under active discussion be moved to an archive page? AnonMoos (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference 18

Borsoka claims reference 18 cannot be verified. It can. The source is the book "jocul periculos al falsificarii istoriei" by Stefan Pascu and Stefan Stefanescu. It was published by Editura Stiintifica si Enciclopedica in Bucuresti, 1986. The reason why it appears "unverifiable" is because the book is actually a collection of articles and scientific papers combatting historical revisionism. Romano-Dacis (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A book sponsored by Ceausescu who obviously cannot be accused of falsifying history. Borsoka (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Under the Ceauşescu regime Romanian nationalism increasingly stressed the autochtonous origin of the Romanian people, and the presence of other peoples in this area has tended to be played down. Cemeteries with pottery of clear Slav affinities have been claimed to be of a native 'Dacian' origin and so on. Many important sites remain to be published. Unfortunately this policy has hindered a full appreciation of the nature of Slav settlement in this key area.

— Barford, P. M.: The Early Slavs, p. 281. (Cornell University Press, 2001, Ithaca, NY; ISBN 0-8014-3977-9)

Borsoka (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

OMG, please stop. As if your sources from pseudo-historian political activists for Szeckler rights are somehow bastions of academia. This is truly pathetic. And BTW, the book is only "sponsored by Ceausescu" in as much as it was published in Romania, nothing more. Romano-Dacis (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:CIV. The above source is English, reliable and neutral. Squash Racket (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not want to upset you when citing the views of a modern and neutral scholar on historians and their work under Ceauşescu. I did not mention that any political activist for Székely rights is a "bastion of academia"; I only mentioned that the "History of Transylvania" is a work issued by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. You may refer to an other work with the title "A Short History of Transylvania" (or something similar). And I fully agree that the part of the article which describes the arguments of the migration theory could also be improved.

Nevertheless, there are several "monsters" (sentences that cannot be verified or contradict to the cited source) in the part of the article which describes the pro-continuity arguments. For example:

  • “The Byzantine chronicler Priscus of Panium mentions in the year 448, the presence of a Latin-speaking populace North of the Danube. The populace was called by him "Ausoni". It should be noted that this was at a time before Slavic migration, so the exonym “Vlach” was not applied to this populace.” - Priscus of Panium does not mention a p o p u l a c e (population) speaking Latin, he refers to Huns who had commercial relationship with the Romans and therefore could spoke Latin. Please read: [16]
He refers to the Ausoni, which are a populace that speak Ausonic. He obviously gave this name because he felt it sounded similar to what was being spoken in Ausonia (Italy).
Thank you for your remarks. Therefore, the fact that some of the Huns spoke Ausoni (but only those who had commercial contact with the Romans) prove the existence of a Latin-speaking population on the territory of present-day Romania. Interesting approach - although the Huns occupied the former Pannonia province (which was Romanized for more than 400 years) and they took several Roman captives from the Balkan provinces, but the Ausoni term clearly refers to the Romanized Dacians (who were Romanizing the non-Romanized Dacians at that period). I enjoy this approach. Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Actally he did not speak of the Huns. He clearly speaks about a distinct latin speaking population living north of the Danube. If would have spoken about the huns he would have named them Huns, not Ausoni. The byzantines invented the name "Hun", it is an abbreviation of what the huns called themselfs: Hsiung-Nu. Why would anybody name a nation and then use a completely different name speaking about that nation? If the byzantines wanted to call the Huns Ausoni, they would have used that name from the start. Adijarca (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your remark. Please find below the text:

For the subjects of the Huns, swept together from various lands, speak, besides their own barbarous tongues, either Hunnic or Gothic, or - as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans - Ausoni;

— Priscus of Panium (5th century) [1]
Therefore when he speaks of the Huns, he does not mention them. Or I misunderstand something.Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes you misunderstood the text. it says that the SUBJECTS (those living in the territory occupied by the huns) of the huns speak either hunnic, gothic, their own native language (dacian) or latin. so tell me when did the huns become subjects (servants/serfs) of the huns?Adijarca (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification. Therefore, when he refers to the fact that some of the subjects of the Huns (those who had commercial dealings with the Romans) spoke Latin, he proves the presence of a Latin speaking population on the territory of present day Romania. Is my understanding correct?Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • “The 7th century hagiographic work "Miracula Sancti Demetrii", when referring to events in 620, speaks of the Avars taking a large number of Roman prisoners from the Eastern Balkans and transferring them North of the Danube. There they became a great and numerous people by mixing with the other populaces there while keeping their way of life "based on Roman mores but especially on their Christian faith." They eventually gained their own leader and some would move back South of the Danube.” - how this episode can prove the Daco-Romanian continuity north of the Danube (it refers to prisoners from Thrace)? (Sorry, I do not have a source written in English, but anybody can checque my statement in the Miracles of Saint Demetrios)
It shows that the Danube did not act as some impassable barrier for populations and furthermore that Romans CONTINUED TO COME INTO DACIA even after the withdrawals.
So any source that mentions that Roman prisoners (even if many of them spoke Greek) crossed the Danube (even the Upper Danube or the Middle Danube) prove the Daco-Romanian continuity, because the territory where the ethnogenesis of the Romanians ocurred on the huge territory north of the Danube from the Black Forest to the Delta. Actually, the source does not mention Dacia Trajana - it refers to the Roman (Byzantine) provinces south of the Danube and it also refers to Srem (today in Serbia).Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It is highly unlikely that those prisoners spoke greek, if you check any history book you will see that the eastern balkans were inhabited exclusively by thracians (or romanized thracians after the roman conquest), the eastern balkans beeing the area between the lower danube and thessaly. also please note that this is the 7th century, latin was still the only official language of byzantium as such it would be very hard for someone who never met a greek speak greek, especially in the 7th century when 99% of the population was illiterate. the text clearly mentions that the slaves moved north accross the danube, not east thus the article cannot be talking about Srem. also why would anybody raid the eastern balknas only to move the slaves to the north-west of balkans? it would be easier, cheaper and safer to raid the western balkans. also please note that the avars settled in dacia traiana not in modern serbia. Adijarca (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
As you seem to enjoy original research and Talk page might be the proper place to carry out such a research, I provide you the original text which clearly refers to Srem (today in Serbia), and which clearly mentions territories south of the Jirecek Line (e.g., Thrace, the region around the Walls of Constantinople). I think even excellent logic may mislead someone who does not read the primary source based on which he/she would like to establish a theory.

(...) we have previously provided information about the Slavs (...), and the Avars, and also about how they had ravaged almost the whole Illyricum (...), moreover (...) the towns and settlements of Rhodopia and Thrace, and of the region of the long wall surrounding Byzantium. And the (...) Khagan had the whole population (that is those who had been taken into captivity and thus thenceforward had become his subject) settled along the Danube river on the regions over Pannonia, in the province whose metropolis used to be the City of Sirmium. Thenceforward, they mingled together with the Bolgars, the Avars and other barbarian peoples; they begat children among themselves and thus they became a nation of immense multitude. Their children learned from their parents the customs they had brought with themselves and the nation’s morals also adjusted to Roman traditions.

/after some 60 years/ the Khagan of the Avars regarded them as a separate nation and appointed a leader named Kuber to them. He /Kuber/ learned from some of his intimate followers how the people were yearning for their parents’ towns. After considering this, he called upon the whole insurrectional Roman nation and also other peoples (...).

Afterwards, following his victory, Kuber and his men-at-arms crossed the (..) Danube river and arrived to our soil where they settled on the Keramésios Fields.

— Miracles of Saint Demetrius II (Szádeczky-Kardoss, Samu - Farkas, Csaba: Az Avar történelem forrásai 557-től 806-ig - Die Quellen der Awarengeschichte von 557 bis 806 /The Sources for the History of the Avars/; Balassi Kiadó, 1998, Budapest; ISBN 963-506-237-0.)
Nevertheless, any form of original research contradicts to WP policies, therefore I also provide you a verifiable interpretation of the above text written by a Romanian author: "In c. 680/1, a conflict broke between the qagan of the Avars and a group of rebels led by a Bulgar named Kouber. The rebels were descendants of a group of captives brought to the Avar heartland from the Balkan raids of the early seventh century and settled in the environs of the former city of Sirmium." (Curta, Florin: Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages - 500-1250, p. 106. /Cambridge University Press, 2006, Cambridge; ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4/) So, how can a source describing events that happened in the Balkan Peninsula and around Sirmium (today in Serbia) prove the Daco-Romanian continuity on the territory of present-day Romania? Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • “When ancient authors write of the leadership of the Avars, apart from the Khagan Kuber, they also had an archonte named Mauros who was fluent in four languages: Greek, Latin, Slavic, and Bulgarian. The languages spoken by Mauros suggest that these were the languages spoken by the ethnic groups that made up their subjects, but it is very likely that the language that they all understood was Latin – possibly, a vulgar Latin, which would also mix in words from the other languages.” - the ancient authors refers to the above Roman (=Byzantine) prisoners who did not have any connection with the territory of present-day Romania - they used to live in Thrace, then they were taken to Srem (today in Serbia), and finally they returned to Macedonia. (Sorry, I do not have a source written in English, but anybody can checque my statement in the Miracles of Saint Demetrios)
See above.
See above.Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
See above Adijarca (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
See above Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • “The Byzantine Emperor Constantine the 7th Porphyrogenetes (912 - 959) writes at the middle of 10th century "De cerimoniis", "De thematibus" and "De administrando imperio". Dealing briefly with the settlement of the Slavs in Balkans and with the events triggered by this, Constantine the 7th speaks in his last work about a population, calling them Romans.“ - he refers to the inhabitants of the Dalmatian towns; how this source can prove the Daco-Romanian continuity? Please read Chapter 31 of the emperor’s work (Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio; Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967; ISBN 978-0-884-02021-9).
Porphyrogenestes distinctly mentions the north of the danube. there were dalmatians nortth of the danube? interesting Adijarca (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
As the part of his book which clearly refers to Dalmatia (south of the Danube) was named above (I mean chapter 31 of his work), could you name the part of his works which refers to a Latin-speaking (or Romance-speaking) population north of the Danube? Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


  • “The Armenian cartographer Chorenatsi writes in the 9th century of "the country which is called Balak” (in reference to Blachs/Vlachs) North of the Danube.” - Chorenatsi lived in the 5th century (Please read the article Movses Khorenatsi)
It's a different author. It is not Movses Khorenatsi. See https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/24814/1/THE_ROMANIANS_A_HISTORY.pdf and look in the file for "Balak"
Thank you very much for the source you provided. It contains a sentence on page 32: "A ninth-century Armenian geography mentions the country "Balak""; therefore the above cited sentence of the text of the article is misleading (referring to Chorenatsi), and consequently its source is also misleading: pseudo-science. Borsoka (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It is to my knoledge that the cited sentence is not sourced to Georgescu's work. The fact that georgescu did not know Chorenatsi's name at the time the book was written is understanddable. Therefore the cited centence is not misleading. Adijarca (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we should read the comments before making new comments. The issue is the following (1) Chorenatsi lived in the 5th century (see the article Movses Khorenatsi - the date of his birth and death is sourced) (2) Georgescu refers to an Armenian geographer who lived in the 9th century. Consequently, we have to assume that Khorenatsi lived more than 400 years, or we have to assume that the 9th century geographer was not Chorenatsi. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • “The Alexiad by Anna Komnenos mentions "Dacians" crossing the Ister (Danube) from the North, going Southward into the Roman Empire, during the reign of Isaac Komnenos” - she refers to the Hungarians under the name Dacians, how her reference could prove the Daco-Romanian continuity? (Please read Comnena, Anna: The Alexiad pp. 122, 217, 309 and 434 /Penquin Group, 2003, London; ISBN 978-0-14-044958-7/).
Oh now you are just ridiculous. The Hungarians were called "Turkoi" by the Byzantines. There is and has only been one population which they called Dacians: the Romanians. See for instance the Byzantine accounts of Vlad Tepes.
Please read her work again. Actually the Hungarians were also called Scythians, Huns, Dacians in Byzantine authors' work.Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Everybody was hungarian, is that what you are saying? please stop being purposely obtuse. why would the byzantines call the hungarians dacians when the 2 people have no connection between them? Huns, yes it is understandable hungarians did settle near the former capital of Attila, but dacians? come on. let me see if i get this straight. before the supposed migration of the romanians whenever a byzantine chronicvle mentions dacians the actually talk about hungarians. however after that supposed migration whenever they mention the word dacian they suddenly stop talking about hungarians and instead talk about romanians (see vlad tepes, mircea the elder). is that what you are saying? also please note that many byzantine chronicles mention hungarians by their name, the byzantines had a deep knowledge of who the hungarians were, in fact it was the byzantines who first brought the hungarians to europe in the 8th century AD.Adijarca (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I think if we want to state something based on a book, we should read the book. Therefore, I suggest again and again that you should read her book (Comnena, Anna: The Alexiad pp. 122, 217, 309 and 434 /Penquin Group, 2003, London; ISBN 978-0-14-044958-7/). Yes, Hungarians, Normans, Bulgarians were mentioned unders several names in Byzantine authors' work. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Trust me i have read the alexiad more than once, yet i still cannot see how you came to the conclusion that she reffers to hungarians. anyway your whole "dacians=hungarians in byzantine chronicles" theory is original research because it is based on your own interpretation of the text. according to the guidelines one cannot edit a text based on original researchAdijarca (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your remark. Please remember that I referred to the reliable source above (even the pages are cited) - on page 122, the translator of her work clearly states that the Hungarians should be understood under the name Dacians. Could you please explain me how a statement based on a reliable source could qualify original research. And would you please provide us the reliable source you use when stating that Anna Comnena refers to Romanians under the name Dacians? Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • “According to Strategikon of Kekaumenos (1066), the Vlachs of Epirus and Thessalia came from north of the Danube and from along the Sava.” - he mentioned that the Vlachs used to live where the Serbs lived at his time, namely south of the Danube, how his reference could prove the continuity theory? (Please read Cecaumeno: Consejos de un aristócrata Bizantino p. 122. /Alianza Editorial, 2000, Madrid; ISBN 84-206-3594-4/).
Actually, his statement is that they are descended from the Dacians AND the Bessi, meaning that they come from both Transylvania and Pannonia. This is completely in tune with his own writings. Trajan conquered Transylvania, not Serbia. Kekaumenos himself mentions Trajan fighting with these Dacians and Vlachs, so the geographic area in question is quite obvious.
Sorry but he clearly states that the Vlachs used to live where the Serbs lived at his age, and the Serbs lived south of the Danube. Please read his work again. His statement, actually, may prove that the ancestors of the Romanians lived south of the Danube. Actually, the Bessi lived south of the Danube. If my understanding correct the Daco-Romanian continuity claims that Pannonia was also inhabited by Dacians - the more information I gather the more suprised I become Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It is true there were the area where the serbians first settled was inhabited by vlachs, however please note that serbians first settled in modern day banat and norther oltenia. they were driven out by the avars and sttled in modern slovenia and croatia forcing another group of vlachs (the istro-romanians) to move westwards. the serbians settled in modern serbia well after the hungarians arrived in panonia. as such both you and romano-dacis are right, there were valchs were the serbians first settled (banat, oltenia) and kekaumemnos is taslking about a romance speaking population living north of the danube.

In case you did not know panonia was inhabited by thracians. Burebista's empire streched all the way to central slovakia and the danube (in the west). his campaigns against the celtic tribes living in panonia (especially the boii) are well documented. when burebista was assassinated his empire split into five kingdoms. the romanized thracians that lived in panonia were named panonias, and yes thjey were another group of vlachs. Adijarca (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I desparately try to understand the above remarks. (1) When Kekaumenos mentions that the Vlachs used to live where the Serbs lived at his age (that is south of the Danube and all along the Sava river), he refers to territories north of the Danube (that is to present-day Romania) (2) Burebista occupied for some decades Pannonia and therefore the Celts became Thracisized, therefore the Thracisized Celts (the Pannonians) who later became Romanized participated in the formation of the Daco-Romanians (because the Dacians are also Thracians) - therefore when Kekaumenos mentions that the Vlachs (the Dacians and the Bessi) used to live where the Serbs lived at his age, he refers to the Romanized-Thracisized Celts who are the Daco-Romans and lived in Pannonia (in present-day Hungary), and therefore his remark is one of the best proofs of the Daco-Romanian continuity on the territory of present-day Romania. Which one is the solution? Or there are other approaches (e.g., the Dacians left the territory of Dacia during the reign of Burebista in order to be Romanized not only for 170 years, and when Dacia was occupied by the Romans, the former (by then Romanized) Dacians came back to Dacia in order the strengthen the Romanization of the province, but some of them stayed behind in Pannonia and became the ancestor of the Vlachs, therefore Kekaumenos' remark proves the Daco-Romanian continuity). I will probably enjoy the new and new pieces of a logic whose flying cannot be barried by a narrow-minded interpretation of facts and sources.Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Kekaumemnos does not mention the sava river nmow does he? the serbians first settled in banat and northern oltenia. look it up. nobody said that the celts became thracized. burebista's campaigns against the boii are well documented. as is the constant celtic retreat to the west. the panonians were recorded by some medieval german chronicles, their name escapes me at the moment, and a great deal of historians (not just romanaian) believe they were a mix of latinized thracians and illyrians. i suggest that you learn what vlach means because you misuse the term at every turn. better yet i'll give you a hand: "Vlach is derivative from the same Germanic word cognate to welsch in German and Welsh in English, both meaning Roman, whether the Romans be Latin-speaking or Celtic-speaking. Vlach itself is Slavic (taking that form in Czech) and could mean Italian or Romanian, though the same word, with appropriate case endings, turns up in medieval Latin (Blachi) and Greek (Blakhoi, pronounced Vlakhi), only applied to the Romance speakers of the Balkans. It also occurs in Polish as Wloch, in Hungarian as Olasz, in Russian as Volokh, in Yiddish as Walach, and in various other forms even in those same languages (cf. "Vlach," A Dictionary of Surnames, Patrick Hanks and Flavia Hodges [Oxford University Press, 1988], p. 558)." so tell me what was it that you said about burebista being the ancestor of the vlachs? i suggest you get your facts straight.Adijarca (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I only tried to understand how Kekaumenos' reference to a population who used to live where the Serbs lived at his time (that is all along the Sava river and south of the Danube) could prove the Daco-Romanian continuity north of the Danube. If you would like to find Kekaumenos' reference to the Sava river, you should read the above cited source ("Concejos de un aristócrata Bizantino"); you will find the reference on page 122. If we use the sources (instead of our imagination) we can find the reference we have been looking for.Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
As to the Latin population of Pannonia, Noricum - nobody denies that following the 400-year-long Roman rule a scattered Romance-speaking population survived the Roman withdrawal. This fact is proven by several medieval documents (in contrast to the survival of the Romanized Dacians following the maximum 170-year-long Roman rule). But, interestingly, nobody claims that the inhabitants of Bavaria, Austria and Hungary are descendants of the Romanized Celts (whose presence until the 10th century is documented), and interestingly even the population whose Romanization lasted for twice as much time as the Romanization of the Dacians disappeared by the 11th century (although they could have migrated to the Alps and the dense forest). Therefore, any reference to the example of the Romanized Pannonians suggest that any continuity on the territory of present-day Romania is highly improbable. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • “Kekaumenos writes in 1078 that the Vlachs were the instigators of a 1066-1067 rebelliong against the Byzantine Empire. He mentions that these Vlachs, anticipating military turbulence, sent their wives and children “to the mountains of Bulgaria”, suggesting the existence of permanent settlements in that region and transhumant pastoralism, contradicting the Hungarian point of view that the Vlachs were nomadic.” - he mentions that the family of the Vlachs live in the mountains from April to September (and its their habit that in summer they live in the mountains); if my understanding is correct, the fact that they have separate homes for the summer and for the winter does not prove a migratory lifestyle. (Please read Cecaumeno: Consejos de un aristócrata Bizantino p. 115. /Alianza Editorial, 2000, Madrid; ISBN 84-206-3594-4/).
It shows a TRANSHUMANT lifestyle. In other words, Vlachs were not NOMADIC pastoralists but rather TRANSHUMANT pastoralists. Furthermore, sending your family to the mountains is not unusual of sendetary people. When Wallachia was for instance threatened by Tatar or Turkish attacks many peasants left for the foothills until it was over.
Actually, transhumance is a form of nomadic lifestyle - they did not have permanent homes, but they changed their place of abode from season to season. Similarly to the classical nomads (Huns, Avars, Magyars, Pechenegs) who moved from their winter pasturelands to their summer pasturelands and back. Nomadism does not mean a permanent movement - nomad groups had their own territories, and they moved within the borders of their own territory, and they changed their place of abode from season to season. The only difference is that the classical nomads lived in the steppes and they had cattle and horses, while transhumant nomads lived in the mountains and they had sheep and goats. Otherwise, their lifestyle was the same. Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually transhumance does not imply a nomadic lifestyle. in fact it is still practice in romania in some places. see the article Transhumance. nomads move to one place and stay there until all resources are depleted then move to another place. transhumance implies a permanent settlement. in fact only the shepard goes with flock up the mountain during summer time, the shpeard's family stays at home and thakes care of the household while the shepard is gone.Adijarca (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Therefore, when Kekaumenos mentions that the Vlachs' families live in the mountains only from April to September, he refers to a sedentary population whose members does not move but disappear from October to March, or they could change their place of abode without moving. Fascinating theory. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow, i really enjoyed this one. obviously you know nothing about tranhumance. there are some shephards that still prectice transhumance in romania. does that mean they dissapear (as you said)? no. does that mean they are nomads? no. read the article on transhumance, i should shed some light on your confusion. but to make things short: transhumance is impossible without a sedentary lifestyle.Adijarca (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
"As described in late ninth century Moslem sources, for the winter they /the Magyars/ withdrew to dwellings in river valleys, especially at river mouths: these were the sites of permanent settlements or villages." - page 45, Kontler, László: Millenium in Central Europe - A History of Hungary (Atlantisz Publishing House, 1999, Budapest; ISBN 963 9165 37 9). As you see the nomadic Magyars were similar to the Vlachs, they have separate dwelling places for winter and summer. In case of the Vlachs, they migrated to the mountains for the summer, while the nomadic Magyars migrated to the river mouths for the winter. Moving populations are qualified as nomads. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • “Pope Innocent III (in a letter dated 1203): “Therefore we, who have been appointed by the will of God and Father, unworthy as we are, as vicars and successors of the Apostolic Sea, to prove by the force of facts our fatherly love for the Church of the Bulgarians and Romanians(Vlachs), who are said to be the descendents of the ROMANS, by their flesh and blood” - I do not understand how this letter written to Kaloyan of Bulgaria the leader of of the Vlachs and Bulgarians living south of the Danube prove the Daco-Romanian continuity north of the Danube. (Please read his article in Wikipedia)
This is a good point. It shows ethnic continuity with the Romans but it does not specify geography. It could be erased.
Therefore the sentence and the book on which it is based is misleading, that is pseudo-science which claims that a source referring to territories south of the Danube proves the continuity of a Romance-speaking population north of the Danube. Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Just because it does not specify the location, it does not mean it is pseudos science. don't be so quick to label things. but yes, it can be erased.Adijarca (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, just for clarification: if a book refers to a primary source which describes Vlachs who lived south of the Danube in order to prove the Daco-Romanian continuity north of the Danube, I think it is pseudo-science. The book is neither reliable nor verifiable. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • “The first ruler of Transylvania to be formally recognized by the Kingdom of Hungary was Leustachius, who had the title of “Voievod of Transylvania” as written in G. Wenczel’s Codex Diplomaticus (“Leustachius, waywoda Transilvaniae”). The position of “Voievod” as a formal administrative position was only preserved by the Romanians in the Middle Ages. Transylvania was the only region under the Hungarian crown which kept this administrative rank as the highest rank attainable, rather than being re-organized into Comites as the other regions of Hungary were, by using the title of Voievod, it is evidenced that the Hungarian crown was somehow necessitated to recognize an older political institution in Transylvania. Romanians had used the title of “Voievod” before Transylvania was conquered by the Hungarians and continued to use it afterwards in Wallachia and Moldova, only Romanians retained this title others adopting King, Tzar or Khan.” - therefore the voievod (a word of Slavic origin) proves the Daco-Romanian continuity
Actually yes, because we have to ask who was using this title of voievod when the Magyars arrived and who was in Transylvania. ;)
The Slavs were using the title. Whose presence is proven by early written sources, archaeology and toponyms. Why do we need to assume the presence of proto-Romanians (whose presence is not documented either by early written sources or by archaeology or by toponyms) if the Magyars invaded a territory inhabited by Slavic peoples. There are plenty of words of Slavic origin in the Hungarian language, therefore the word "vajda" (voivode) was also borrowed from the Slavs directly. Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Your argument would be valid if it wasn't a proven fact that the slavs adopted most of their place names from romanians. therefore the above sentece does prove daco-romanian continuity.Adijarca (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you share us which place-names were adopted by the Slavs from the Romanians on the territory of present-day Romania? Please other than Repedele-Bistrita (the only one I have found)Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Where did you get the ideea that most of romania's place names are of slavic origin when they are obviously not. lets see: Crish-Crissium

Muresh-Marissia Somesh-Samus Argesh-Argessis Prut - Porata (dacian) Abrud - Abruttum Deva - Deva (dacian) Olt-Alutus Dunare-Danubius (also note the romanian word danubian) above are just a few place names and their latin version. now regardin your theory that the letter sh at the end of various is a clear sign of the name being adopted by slavs from surviving dacians (though the fact that they were killed off by the romans is one of the corner stones of the migration theory), names that will later be adopted by nomadic romanians from said slavs and even later the hungarians would adopt the same names from romanians.

Dear Adijarca, these names were not adopted by the Slavs from a Latin-speaking population (because of the "sh", the "u", the "d"). Of course, nobody denies, that we can speak of a Pre-Slavic toponym substratum in Romania, but it was not inherited by the Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

well now while what you say is amusing it is also invariably false. the letter ş seldom appears in slavic place names. (you should know that all words adopted from other languages in romanian are written exactely as they are pronounced, for instance: Debrecen (in romanian pronounced debreţin - written debreţin; pecs: pronounced peci- written peci). also it is a know fact that long s in latin (sometimes spelled as "ss" though it is not a rule) becomes ş. try pronouncing Marissia (also spelled marisia). what do you notice? a long s. try pronouncing Argessis. what do you notice? a long s. try pronouncing alutus. does it have a long s? no. and before you go cataloging everything i say as original research please know that long s to ş is a basic rule of the romanian language. the only latin words that have a long s and are pronounced with an s in romanian instead of a ş, are the words that have no correspondent in romanian like bessi.Adijarca (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Adijarca, could you give some examples of Latin words with long "s", based on reliable sources? Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

for clarification here are a couple of place-names adopted from slavic: Bucovina-derived from the word buk meaning beech tree Bacau-derived from byk meaning ox/bull Pocutia-derived from the name Kuty which itself is derived from the word kut which meants corner Tarnava- derived from the word trn meanoing thorn none of these example end in ş. also here you can find the lists you required just look in the romania section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_exonyms#Romania_.28.D0.A0.D0.BE.D0.BC.D1.83.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.98.D0.B0_-_Rumunija.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_exonyms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_exonyms#Romania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_exonyms#Romania_.28Rumunjska.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_exonyms#Romania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_exonyms#Romania_.28Rumunia.29

  • Yes, I know and I did mention that the Romanians borrowed several place names from a Slavic population. But I still have to raise the question: which are the river names and place names which were borrowed from R o m a n i a n by the Slavs as you claimed above. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • “In the earliest documents which affirm the existence of Romanians in Transylvania, all the documents refer to the Romanians living in dense forests. A "charta" given to the Saxons by the Hungarians, the region of Fagaras is called "silva Blacorum et Bissenorum (forest of Vlachs and Pechennegs). If the Romanians were pastoral migrants from the South, why would they run with their sheep into dense forests?” - If my understanding is correct the Romanians were a sedentary population similarly to the Pechenegs - a fascinating brand new idea (in this case the history of the steppes in East Europe is the history of moving sedentary peoples)
Your understanding is incorrect because the Romanians were not colonized, as Hungarians claim, otherwise they would not be hanging out in the forests. In fact most documents in Transylvania referring to Romanians speak of EXPROPRIATION, not colonization. Now, if you believe people can own land before they live there and then having that land taken away from them is an incentive for more people to come in then you sir, are a revolutionary of sociology. :D
I made no reference to colonization. The source mentions "Romanians and Pechenegs" and its interpretation provided by the article claims that the source proves that the Romanians were not pastoral migrants, consequently the Pechenegs (who appeared in the Lower Danube region after the Magyars) obviouly neither were pastoralists. Actually, in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary lands were often expropriated: e.g., when the Saxons immigrated to Hungary the lands of the Hungarian-speaking Székely groups (a nomadic or semi-nomadic group at that time) were also given to them, and the Székelys had to move to present Székely Land. The source proves that there is no difference between the Romanians and the Pechenegs: both groups were new-comers who did not have stable homes and thus their lands could easily be donated to others who were ready to colonize it with a sedentary population.
Your logic is faulty. ther is no connection between the fact that some pechenegs chose to live side by side with the romanians does not mean that all pechengs were sedentary or that all romanians were nomadic. also in medieval hungary, and all the other medieval kingdoms, allpolitical and administrative decisions (including expropriation) were extremely discrtimantive twoards people who dsid not share the same beliefs as the king. romanians were not expropriated because thery were nomads, they were expropriated because they were othodox while the rest of the kingdom was catholic. also the sekely (who acording to the hungarian academy were not hungarians by the way) were settled in trnasylvania at about the same time as the saxons.Adijarca (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Therefore, if my understanding correct, although the primary source does not differentiate Romanians and Pechenegs, we have to differentiate them: the Romanians are autochtonous whose lands were expropriated and the Pechenegs are immigrants (although their land was also expropriated). Consequently, the primary source describing the "expropriation" of the "lands of the Romanians and the Pechenegs" proves both the Daco-Romanian continuity and the immigration of the Pechenegs. Fascinating theory.
But the source does differentiate romanians from petchenegs, it says: "silva blacorum et bissenorum". it was you who based on that differetiation tried to prove that the romanians were nomads. now you say that the source is faulty because it forces you to make the same differentiation which you made willingly earlier?
Ok, I try to understand. When the source refers to "the forests of the Romanians and the Pechenegs", it proves both that the Romanians had continuously been living in the forest and that the Pechenegs (who had lived east of the Volga River before the end of the 9th century) moved later to the same forest? Sorry, I cannot understand your approach. How this reference could prove Daco-Romanian continuity and deny the Daco-Pecheneg continuity? Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the Székelys are probably of Turkic origin. They settled in Translylvania before the Saxons which is suggested by the fact that their "seats" (sedes) are named after settlements on the territory of the Saxons.
Expropriation did not depend on the faith, Hungarian kings even made donations to Orthodox monasteries (e.g., King Béla III). Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Really he did? show me where is such an enormity mentioned. in case you did not know it was a unforgivable sin for a catholic/othodox to even enter the other confessions curches until the 1960's, and here you have a a catholic, and a king of all people, donating to an orthodox monastary. why the pope must have been furious. supporting the heretics? that would have been sufficient reason not just for excommunication but to burn him at the stake. also expropriations happened after king Bela the IVth's religious "reformation" which stated that all heretics (orthodox) would be stripped of rights and position. that usually included wealth as well.Adijarca (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • “Romanization could not have been possible South of the Jirecek Line, which runs through Bulgaria, Serbia, and the upper part of Albania, as that region was historically Hellenized, whereas only regions to the North of this line were Romanized (this due to the strong standing of Hellenic culture South of this line). The formation of the Romanian people South of this line (in modern Albania) is nigh impossible.” - nobody claims that the Romanization of the ancestors of the Romanians occurred south of the Jirecek Line, but between the Jirecek Line and the Danube (but south of the river) there is an enourmos territory (which was under Roman rule for more than 400 years) where their Romanization could take place.
Actually, Hungarian historians insist the Romanian nation formed very close to Albania. Therefore, yes, that is South of the Jircek line and it is impossible.
Just for clarification and avoding the above misinterpretation of the migration theory (which is not a "Hungarian" theory), please find again its summary (the summary is based on Gottfried Schramm's work and he is not Hungarian, and even he is proud of not using Hungarian scholars' works): the ancestors of the Romanians used to live in the Balkan provinces of the Roman Empire south of the Danube but north of the Jirecek Line (inscriptions, written sources prove that the masses of the population spoke Latin); their Romanization lasted for more than 400 years (written sources, archaeology); in the 5th-6th century, they had to move to the Balkan, Pirin, Rodope mountains and the mountains of Macedonia because of the Hunnic invasions and the Slavic migration (early written sources refer to their southward movement); they adopted a nomadic lifestyle (specific for the mountainous areas - transhumance) and they were migrating on the Balkan Peninsula from Larissa to today Bosnia, Serbia, Bulgaria (written sources, toponyms of clear "Danube-Romanian" features); in the First Bulgarian Empire and under the jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Ohrid they adopted Old Church Slavonic (written sources); in the 11th-12th century they crossed the Danube (because they have excellent and close relationship with the Cumans), and they commenced their migration to Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania (toponyms adopted from Slavic, Hungarian and German, early written sources); around 1185, the masses of the ancestors of the Romanians participated in the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire, which was often referred to as Wallachia by its contemporaries (early written sources), but later their masses practically disappeared from Bulgaria; after the invasion of the Tatars (whose invasion lead to intensive depopulation of the territory of present-day Romania) masses of the Romanians moved to the scarcely inhabited territories of Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania in the 13th-14th century (charters, toponyms which were borrowed from the Slavic, Hungarian, German languages). On the other hand, early written sources, archaeological findings and toponyms unanimously suggest that the territory of present-day Romania was inhabited by non-Romanized Dacians, Iranic and Germanic tribes, and later by Slavs and several nomadic tribes after the 270s until the 13th century. Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
actually one of the corner stones of the migration theory is rrepresented by the common words between romanian and albanian. in fact the original theory proposes that romanians migrated from southern albania and it brings as sole evidence the 100 words sahred beween romanian and albanian, the rest of theory was added/modified later 9in the 20th century)Adijarca (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Please read the above summary again. Just for avoiding any misunderstanding: the migratory theory based on (1) written sources (references to Latin-speaking population south of the Danube and lack of such references north of the river) (2) linguistic (close connection between the Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian languages, the adoption of the changes of the Latin that occured only in the 6th century in the Romanian language, the lack of Germanic loanwords in the Romanian language, the Slavic loanwords in Romanian were borrowed only in the 7th-9th century ... etc) (3) toponyms (no place-names on the territory of present-day Romania which was inherited directly by the Romanians, several place names on the Balkan Peninsula with clear Romanian origin); ... etc Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Please read roesler's original theory. it states that: romanians migrated from albania (this was meant as an insult, because back then albanians were considered the lowest of the low being the only europeans that willingly adopted islam) and he shows several hundreds of words common between the 2 languages as evidence and that romanians could not have been the descendants of dacians bacause the dacians were completely wiped out by the romans. now retuning to the modern version which has been "tailored" to suit the status quo. if you look at a map of the jirecek line you will see that there are only 100 or so kilometers between the danube and the line. that area is insufficient for a whole nation to form: it cannot sustain the grwing number of people and because the area is so small it cannot block out "interference" from the neighbours and thus the cultural identity of that nation cannot form. thus sohuld have romanians formed south of the danube as the theory states but north of the jirecek line as modern lingustics state romanians today wouldn't have existed bacause due to the few numbers that can bne supported by the respective area and the strong cultural influences of the bulgarians and the greeks they would have been assimilated (the best example are the artomanians and the meglenoromanians, who lived south of the danube from over 1000 years and are alsmost extinct today due to assimilation). thus my point is: if romanians would have formed south of the danube there would be almost no romanians left today.Adijarca (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but you should read some modern books written by the followers of the migratory theory. Otherwise, I have managed to understand that the continuity theory's followers claim the ancestors of the Romanians survived the 1000 years of nomadic invasions, in contrast with the Romanized population of the Balkan Peninsula who did not manage to survive the 300 years of the invasion of the Slavs. For me, it is a surprising theory, but it is not an issue. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • “The survival of the Romanians North of the Danube is not surprising especially when we consider another example of such survival, in Wales. When the Romans left Britain, a certain portion of the Roman population was resettled at Brittany in France, but some remained. These people became known as the Welsh, which is a Germanic word for Latin-speakers, and is also the root-word for the term “Vlach”. When we consider the current geographical region of Wales, we find them behind the only mountains in Roman-occupied Britain, where Roman culture was still preserved (though with extremely strong Celtic influences). These mountains acted as an effective shield against the Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Picts, Angles, and other barbarians which ravaged the country. When we consider the topographical realities of Transylvania, it is impossible to assume that no trace of Roman civilization could have survived there while it did in Britain. The Carpathians at Transylvania dwarf the Welsh mountains, and Transylvania also has the advantage of having dense forests, and a very hilly topography.” - how the example of the Welsh people (whose ancestors lived for more than 400 years under Roman rule but who were not Romanized, therefore now they do not speak a Romance language) can prove the Daco-Romanian continuity?
It's a matter of people not being erradicated by invaders. Transylvania was colonized far more intensively than Britain (sorry, there are no documents in speaking of Britain being colonized "ex toto orbo" so the argument stands. This is supposedly after the Dacians were already Latinized but are abandoned in Dacia. It is showing the chance of these people being annihilated by barbarians is indeed very small.
I try to understand: the intensive colonization of Dacia (therefore the migration of non-Dacians) ensured the Daco-Romanian continuity. In this case, we should assume the Pannonian-Slavic-Hungarian continuity (because there was an intensive migration of Slavs and later Hungarians to the territory, and there must have been some intermarriages between the several ethnic groups). Hoops! I begin to understand: although in Britain hundreds of toponyms survived the Roman period (e.g., London, the Thames, all the city-names ending with "-chester" from "castrum"), but Britain was an under-Romanized province in contrast to Dacia (where intensive colonization ensured the survival and the Romanization of the Dacians who had been killed in order to ensure the necessity of intensive colonization). The "Daco-Romans" (the descendants of the surviving Dacians and the Roman colonists) stayed behind after the Roman withdrawal (because they hated Roman rule because of the taxes and they preferred the Goths). But in the meantime, they became Christians which ensured the Romanization of the non-Romanized Dacians (free Dacians, Carpians), and the intensive relationship between the Empire and the former province until 380 also ensured that the Romanization continued on the territories under Gothic rule. Later they moved to the mountains and forests of Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia (in order to avoid any relationship with the Goths, Gepids, because they did not want to borrow words from those languages - in contrast to the ancestors of the Italian, French and Spanish people). Consequently, when they came back from the mountains and the forests, they had to use Slavic loanwords to name the rivers of their former territory or to borrow the Slavic names of the rivers (which were a pure translation of the Daco-Roman name of the same rivers). They also used Slavic loanwords to describe the major institutions of their society (cneaz, voivode, boieri) and during the period of 865 and 895 they adopted Old Church Slavonic in the territories of Transylvania under Bulgarian rule, although they have been assimilating the Slavs of Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia for centuries. They also created independent states (or states which were controlled by the faraway Byzantine Empire). Unfortunatelly, later the Hungarians expropriated their and the Pechenegs' lands in Transylvania, and therefore they had to adopt the Hungarian names of their settlements, because the Hungarians (who were new-comers which is proven by the fact that they had adopted hundreds of Slavic toponyms similarly to the autochtonous Romanian population) cunningly began to use Hungarian place-names and refrained from adopting Romanian toponymy. Is my summary correct :)? Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
You may have tried but you have failed to understand. The purpose of every colonization effort was not to replace a whole population (like you claim happened with the migration of non-dacians into dacia) but rather to assimilate to indigenous population. it would have been nigh impossible for 100.000-200.000 roman colonists to replace the whole dacian population which consisted of several millions. also please note that herodotous wrote of dacians as being the most numerous population in the world so the sole ideea of the mbeing killed of and repalced by roman colonists is ridiculous, second only to the indians. therefore the continuity theory is explained through the massive colonization of dacia wich led to the romanization of the autochtonous population (the dacians). in fact if you study the map of the roman empire you will see that the only regions inhabited by romance speaking nations today are the regions which saw the most intense roman colonization. also less than 10% of romania's placenames are of slavic origin. the rest of them either have a clear latin root (see: cris-crissium, timis-tamis, olt-alutus, bacau-bacoviensis, mures-maris, somes-samus, drobeta-dreobeta, cluj napoca-napoca castrum clus, etc.) or of dacian origin (piatra neamt-petridava, deva-deva, suceava-sucidava, etc). i havbe no ideea where you keep coming up with these weird ideas.Adijarca (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Just some remarks (1) Herodotus wrote of the Thracians not of the Dacians (the Dacians may have been a Thracian tribe, but only one of the several tribes) (2) Cris, Timis, Olt, Mures, Somes are of Dacian origin (and not of Latin origin) - otherwise please see my above remark (their present form /with the "-sh" ending, or with "u" instead of "a"/ suggests that they were not inherited directly in the Romanian language, but they were borrowed from the Slavs or Hungarians) (3) Castrum Clus is the medieval Latin name of Cluj, because there is no word in Romanian which is similar to "clus", Suceava and Deva are more probably of Slavic origin (4) based on your above statements I understand that the intensive colonization of Dacia (described by Eutropius) was not the consequence of the murder of the Dacians (as Eutropius described it), but the Dacians (the most numerous people of the world after the Indians) were ready to be Romanized because they loved Romans following the short wars against the RomansBorsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • etc, etc, etc ..............................
Heredotous says the following: the dacians are the bravest and strongest of the thracians" how did you come to the conclusion that he did not write of the dacians when he clearly mentions them? or could he have spoken about the hungarians?Adijarca (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes Herodotus mentioned that the Dacians form a tribe of the Thracians, and he also mentined that the Thracians (not the Dacians!) are the most numerous population in the world after the Indians. I have never mentioned other interpretation. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think the above-cited sentences prove that the sources used by some editors when creating the part of this article which describes the "pros" of the continuity theory are not verifiable. Borsoka (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes they would prove that, if the were based on valid arguments, but seeing as how they aren't.
      • Actually, Welsh people provide the best example that the autochtonous population (the Brits) of a Roman province (Britania) was not Romanized although they were under Roman rule for 400 years. Based on their example, scholars who reject the Daco-Romanian theory (e.g., Gottfried Schramm) point out that the short period (maximum 170 years) of the Roman occupation in Dacia could not ensure the Romanization of the indigeneous population (the Dacians); therefore, when the Roman legions were withdrawn the remaining population of the former province spoke Dacian (not Latin) - similarly to Britania where the majority of the population reserved its original (Celtic) language. Toponyms also suggest this theory: the Goths, the Slavs did not borrow the Latin but the Dacian form of the names of the rivers ("Moresh" - instead of "Maris", etc), and the Vlachs (the population of Illyricum, Thrace, Macedonia whose Romanization had lasted for more than 400 years) borrowed the Slavicized or Hungarized forms of the names of the rivers when they migrated to the territory of present day Romania in the 11th-13th centuries. If we do not speak of Thracian-Bulgarian continuity or Illyrian-Croatian continuity (although the territory of present-day Bulgaria, Croatia was inhabited by Romanized, semi-Romanized and non-Romanized Thracians or Illyrians when the Slavs migrated there), how can we speak of any form of Daco-Romanian continuity on the territory of present-day Romania which was invaded by several waves of different peoples for 1000 years? Or, if we assume a Daco-Romanian continuity, we should also accept the Thraco-Bulgarian, Illyrian-Croatian and even the Pannonian-Slav-Hungarian continuity, or the Scythian-Sarmatian-Gothic-Slav-Cuman-Ukranian continuity. Borsoka (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yet Britain was never colonized to the same extent as Dacia. Indeed, no Roman province was ever colonized to the same extent as Dacia. Similarily Syria, Greece, the Pontic regions, and North Africa was held for over 100 years longer than Gaul, yet Syria is not Latin but the French are. As you can see it is not a matter of time but of RESOURCES. Dacia was considered the largest colonial effort in ancient history. The toponyms in fact work to your disadvantage since even when the Romanians took Slavic names those names were often different from the Hungarian ones. The Slavic population of Transylvania was very small by 1210, so who could have given these names to the Romanians? Romano-Dacis (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course the Romanians adopted those names from the Slavs of Transylvania in the 12th-13th century. Early written sources (I mean charters) prove that there were Slavic groups in the Carpathian Basin (and even in Transylvania) when the Hungarians invaded the territory, and they survived the invasion. E.g., when the Székelys moved to the Székely Land sometime between 1160 and 1223, they meet a Slavic population on that territory. Otherwise please find my above summary. Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Nobody denies the existence of slavs in transilvania in the 13th century. however they were very few in number. the slavs that settled in the balkans preffered to settle south of the danube rather than north of the danube. how come? you might ask. the answer is simple. the slavs were given land at the edge of the empire in order to act as a shield against all the raiders that crossed the danube (just like the sekely were given land at the edge of kingdom of hungary to protect it from raiders). it is only natural that they accepted the offer instead of attempting to colonize an area that already inhabited by several nations (goths, romanians, avars, sarmatians, etc.) and on top of all that severely open to invasions and raids. therefore the slavs did not settle in transilvania en-masse, but rathner in sparse communities. also your statement that roamanians adopted the slvaic names for rivers, mountains, etc when they migrated from macedonia (south of the jirecek line btw) is invalid because it explains the migrration theory through itself by considering it 100% accurate history (the romanians had to migrate from the balkans in order to adopt the slavic name that would later be considered as insubstantial proof for a supposed romanian migration from the south) Adijarca (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I managed to understand that according to the Daco-Romanian continuity theory the fact that there are much more place-names of clear Slavic origin than place-names of supposed Daco-Roman origin proves that the Slavs were in minority in Transylvania. I really enjoy this. As to the Jirecek Line, please read the above summary of the migratory theory (the ancestors of the Romanians used to live north of the Jirecek line, but they were obliged to move to Macedonia because of the migration of the Slavs and the attacks of the Huns). Could your provide the sources which suggest that the Slavs were given lands at the edge of the empire. The next books I have read on this topic seem to contradict to your original researches:
Barford, P. M.: The Early Slavs - Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe; Cornell University Press, 2001, Ithaca, NY; ISBN 0-8014-3977-9;
Curta, Florin: Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages - 500-1250; Cambridge University Press, 2006, Cambridge; ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4;
Fine, John V. A.: The Early Medieval Balkans - A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century; The University of Michigan Press, 1991, Ann Arbor; ISBN 0-472-08149-7.
Pop, Ioan Aurel: Romanians and Romania: A Brief History; Columbia University Press, 1999, New York; ISBN 0-88033-440-1;
Treadgold, Warren: A History of the Byzantine State and Society; Stanford University Press, 1997, Standford, California; ISBN 0-8047-2630-2
The above scholarly sources unanimously describes that the Slavs invaded the Balkan provinces of the Byzantine Empire, therefore they occupied lands and they were not given lands by the emperors. Moreover, most of them (Barford, Curta, Fine) also refer to the intensive Slavic presence on the territory of present-day Romania. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
One question for you: what is appeasing? by the time of the slavic migrations the byzantines were so weak that they had to appease the invaders by giving them unvanted lands at the edge of the empire thus turning what was initially an invasion into a profitable arrangement, the slavs would settle the unvanted lands at the edge ofd the empire and protect the empire from raiders while filling the byzantine coffers by paing taxes and the slavs had a place to call their own. this policiy of apeasement existed since before the empire even splited into east and west. the slavs were not the first barbarians that were given lands in the empire in exchange for protection, for further reading look up the goth migration south of danube during the initial hun invasion. also the eastern roman emperor tried to apease attila by offering him the same deal his descendant would offer the slavs, obviously attila rejected the deal. look it up.

here is a book that will confirm everything i said: "History of the Byzantine Empire, A.A. Vasiliev, University of Wisconsin Press, 1964", as for tyour wacky toponyms thoery see aboveAdijarca (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case you can use that source when editing Wikipedia. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
If my understanding is correct the reference to the Welsh people should be deleted, because its source is not verifiable, that is its source is pseudo-science which claims that Welsh people speak a Romance-language. Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
the reference regarding the welsh is the most verifiable of all references, if you want to verify it please google for the vlach connection or contact the author of the article professor Kelly L Ross (member of the philosophy and former member of the history department at UCLA). if you want to contact the author don't bother googeling his name, try his homepage: friesian.com. therfore the refference is verrifiable and not misleading thus it can't be deleted.Adijarca (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Please read my above remarks again (1) the Welsh people does not speak a Romance language although their ancestors lived under Roman rule for more than 400 years, and therefore (2) the example of the Welsh people cannot prove the Daco-Romanian continuity which claims that the ancestors of the Romanians (a Romance-speaking nation) were the Dacians who had been under Roman rule for maximum 170 years. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The language spoken by the welsh is unimportant. the source proves that the original inhabitants could survive through several waves of migrations and not lose their identity. as far the welsh language is concerned. brittania was not colonized to such an extent as dacia was. as such brittania (which was about 5 times larger than dacia, more or less) was only guarded by one legion. while dacia was guarded by 2 full permanent legions (XII gemina, and macedonica) and one more legion who's location would shift between dacian and moesia. also the existence of military camps with dacian names in brittania (see deva) dated to 150 AD suggests that there were entire cohorts made up of dacians. if you study the roman military you'll see that only those who had full citizenship could join the army.full citizenship was granted only to romans while barbarians of the conquered provinces that willingly accepted the roman law, religion and lagauge (and thus became latinized) and were granted partial citizenship, their sons being eligible for full citizenship. the existence of such camps 50 years after the province was conqured speaks speaks volumes about the intensity of the romanization about the intensity of the romanization process in daciaAdijarca (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I desperately try to understand your above remark. The "language spoken by the Welsh is unimportant"? The fact that the Welsh people (whose ancestors lived under Roman rule for more than 400 years) still speak an autochtonous language suggest that the inhabitants of Dacia also spoke an autochtonous language when the Romans left the province (as it is suggested by early written sources, toponyms, archaeology). Or, you want to suggest that the Dacians were killed off by the Romans, and therefore nobody spoke Dacian when the Roman troops were withdrawn? In the latter case, how we can speak of a Daco-Romanian continuity? Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day, we have found at least 3 sentences (the Armenian geographer, Kaloyan of Bulgaria, Romance-speaking Welsh people) based on a source which is misleading, which contradicts to facts and therefore which is not verifiable. Actually, I could find some other examples in the text, but I think we do not need more than 3 examples. Therefore, the article should be rewritten based on verifiable sources. And of course the part of the article which describes the "anti-continuity" arguments could also be improved. Borsoka (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've rpoven that all of your examples are not misleading. no need for a rewrite. also even if they were misleading that still wouldn't be grounds for a rewrite of the whole article. in fact considering the scope of thee article it would barely classify as a reason for a minor edit. anyway have a nice weekend.Adijarca (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I enjoyed your excellent logic (although I think you should read the sources based on which you try to use your logic), but I maintain that the sentences mentioned above are neither reliable nor verifiable. Therefore, the article should be rewritten. Otherwise, please share your original thoughts with us. I will be really depressed when one of the Romanian editors manages to arrange your banishment from Wikipedia. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The Welsh argument is not based on that book, the Kaloyan argument is actually based on Adolf Armbruster's "The Romanity of the Romanians" (can be found online at www.bjmures.ro/publicatii/carti under A section), and the Balak argument is already verified by Georgescu so it is verifiabe. Anyway I propose a complete restructuring of the article (see below) because this format is hostile, unproductive, and divisive. This is probably the worst-written article on wikipedia since it has deteriorated into a debate with each side trying to out-do the other with the mentality "shove in more facts, more facts, more facts!" Even a stub would be better to this excuse for an article.
Thank you for your remarks. Now I understand that there are more than one source used when describing the arguments of the continuity that are not reliable or verifiable (Welsh people, Kaloyan, Kouber, Khorenatsi the 400-year-old geographer). Actually, Georgescu does not verifies that Khorenatzi writes of the country of Balak, because the latter lived in the 5th century, and the former refers to a 9th century author. As far as I can remember the country of Balak is represented on the map prepared in the 13th century based on the book of Ananias of Shirakatzi ("pseudo-Khorenatzi") who himself does not write of the country of Balak but writes of the 24 Slavic tribes living in former Dacia Trajana province (but because I do not remember the source of this statement, for the time being, it is a pure original research). I fully agree that the article should be rewritten, because it misleads its readers. Borsoka (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what you find so unreliable about the Welsh people argumentation. The argumentation is not pro-Romanization but rather pro-survival of autochtones. If the Welsh could outlast the countless invaders (and let's face it, Saxons, Angles, Vikings, Normans; there is quite a number of them) there is no reason why the Romanians would not survive in a much more inaccessible region. The argument about Kaloyan seems pretty verifiable given that we are talking about the pope confirming Kaloyan's Roman origin. The pope doesn't say "oh, you a vlach, who migrated from Albania." The Balak argument is the only one which needs clarification. Anyway, rather than continuously building the page in this style I'd rather re-roganize the page, as you've seen from my writing below. Right now I'm strapped for time but I will try something next weekend. Romano-Dacis (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The example of the Welsh people (who do not speak a Romance-language) suggests that even on the territories under Roman rule for more than 400 years not a Romanized, but the autochtonous population survived following the Roman withdrawal. Consequently, on a territory where the Roman rule lasted less than 200 years (i.e., in Dacia Trajana) a non-Romanized population must have stayed behind when the Romans were withdrawn. Exactly, this is what the followers of the migratory theory states: the overwheliming majority of the population of the former Dacia Trajana province spoke Dacian (as it is suggested by the modern form of the rivers Mures, Somes, Olt ...) after the Romans had been withdrawn, therefore, they probably were not the ancestors of the Romanians who speak a Romance language. Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Nobody denies that the Romanians speak a Romance-language. The followers of the two major theories cannot agree on the t e r r i t o r y where their ancestors used to live, that is there is no consensus on the place where the ethnogenesis of the Romanians occured. Therefore, if a follower of the continuity theory cites an early source that suggests that a Romance-speaking population lived in Bulgaria in the 12th century in order to prove that the ancestors of the Romanians continously had been living on the territory of present-day Romania until the 12th century, he/she misleads his/her readers. A source proving the presence of the ancestors of the Romanians south of the Danube cannot prove their continuous presence north of the Danube. Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Restructure and Rewrite: Too Much Argumentation on factoids, not enough on whole picture

The problems with this page started largely when Borsoka brought in a wide variety of factoids which now form the majority of the counter-continuity section. Rezistenta then replied with a list of factoids pro-continuity. The end result is that we have just a list of tiny "facts", lots of opinions from maybe 1-2 authors passed off as "consensus", and in general a lack of the whole picture.

  • Thank you for your suggestion. Just one remark: the "before me" status of the article was a totally biased text, which did not mention several of the basic arguments of the migration theory, or described them in a totally misleading way. The article did not provide a full picture of the subject, therefore it had to be improved. I think when one describes the argumentation of a theory, books written by the followers of the theory should be used instead of the books written by the opponents of the theory. I think it is not my fault that a neutral description of the argumentation of the migratory theory provoked some teenagers to use non-reliable, non-verifiable sources to describe the argumentation of the continuity theory. Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we restructure the page so that it is less like a "this vs. that" page and more about the development of the theories. We don't need a list of all the arguments used by historians; we are supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a massive journal article. Instead I propose we restructure the page as follows:

  • Historical development of theories: We could mention how the DRCT was developed, how the Roesler Theory was developed, bring up how the theories have been politically charged.
  • Shorten the argumentation section to just a brief synopsis of how evidence is used: for example we say "Both sides have called upon archaeological evidence to support their claims. While it is irrefutable that there was a material continuity in Dacia [ref. Lucian Boia] archaeology does not evidence what language the inhabitants spoke." Similarily we could write "while there is an evident continuity of toponyms in Romania (e.g. Mures, Somes, Olt, Arges, Cris, Carpathians etc.) some historians believe [reference needed] that the morphology of the words shows that the Slavs did not inherit the toponyms from a Romanized populace." In this sense we just create a section called "Argumentation" which we divide into sub-sections of archaeological, linguistic, toponyms etc. We keep these sections at 1-2 paragraphs in length and SUMMARIZE the argumentation. Page 48 and 49 of Lucian Boia's book here (http://books.google.ca/books?id=zHTN-TQkd3cC&pg=PA48&dq=romanian+continuity+dacia#PPA49,M1) gives a good example of what I'm aiming for.
  • Keep the primary quotes since they are useful.

The problems with the current format is that the argumentation is often

  • contradictory: you read in the pro-continuity section that there is a clear continuity of toponyms or archaeology and then in the migration theory section you read the exact opposite. It is confusing for the reader. This is not a court room!
  • too long: it really loses all purpose. The point is not to convince the reader of your own theory but to provide a synopsis of the different historiographical developments.

We should focus more on summarizing theories rather than individual arguments. We should have a structure more like "People arguing against continuity point to the brief duration of colonization (165 years) while those in favor of continuity point to the intensity of the colonization process itself (e.g. over 3,000 Roman inscriptions discovered etc.)." We honestly can't keep building on this wobbly and illogical foundation. We can't make an unbiased and unpolemic wikipedia page by writing the article in a "pro vs. anti" style. Romano-Dacis (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I think your approach is acceptable for working purposes. I hope that the suggested approach in itself could improve this article which is one of the worst in Wikipedia. And I hope that the pro-migratory part of the article would also be improved. Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Romanisation: The process of becoming Roman

There is scant information on the internet from independent experts on the subject of Dacia. Dr. Neil Faulkner is a British university lecturer, editor of Current Archeology, author of several books on the Roman Empire. In 2006 the BBC presented a short piece from Dr.Faulkner on Romanisation, which can be accessed on the internet:

[17]

In this article Dr.Faulkner writes:

The difference between collaboration and resistance can be seen in comparing two cases: Pergamum in Western Turkey, which was bequeathed to the Romans by its last independent ruler in 133 BC; and Dacia, the ancient Romania, whose king resisted fiercely in three hard-fought wars between 85 and 106 AD. The result was that whereas the long established Hellenistic culture of Pergamum survived and flourished under the Romans, Dacia appears to have been laid waste, ethnically cleansed, and re-settled by foreign colonists.

The question is then: If Dacia was ethnically cleansed, how would this ethnically cleansed population be gradually included in the society of the foreign colonists? Dr. Faulkner seems to be suggesting that Dacia was rather the exception than the rule in terms of Romanisation of native populations. Eravian (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that Dacia was probably not ethnically cleansed. I know that there are some authors who claim that the overwhelming majority of the Dacians was killed by the Romans (e.g., Gábor Vékony). And their views are actually based on the unanomious report of the early written sources (Eutropius, Julianus the Apostata, Criton). However, according to my experience, the majority of the scholars who are engaged in the study of the ethnogenesis of the Romanians are convinced that archaeological findings suggest the survival of at least some parts of the "autochtonous" population (e.g., Dacians, Celts). Moreover, the modern Romanian, Hungarian, Slavic form of hydronyms (e.g., "MUreSH", "SOmeSH", maybe ArgeSH) also suggest that a non-Romanized (non-latinophone) population survived the withdrawal of the Roman troops from Dacia Trajana province. On the other hand, a non-latinophone population was probably not the ancestor of modern Romanians who speak a language with clear Latin roots. Borsoka (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Miracles of Saint Demetrios

"In c. 680/1, a conflict broke between the qagan of the Avars and a group of rebels led by a Bulgar named Kouber. The rebels were descendants of a group of captives brought to the Avar heartland from the Balkan raids of the early seventh century and settled in the environs of the former city of Sirmium." (Curta, Florin: Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages - 500-1250, p. 106. /Cambridge University Press, 2006, Cambridge; ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4/)

The above statements are cited from a reliable source written by a Romanian author. Based on the Miracles of Saint Demetrios, he describes that (1) Romans (=Byzantines) were taken captives by the Avars (from present-day Bulgaria, Turkey, Macedonia) (2) they settled around Sirmium (in present-day Serbia). Therefore, the source does not prove that there were any connection between the Byzantine Empire (south of the Danube) and the territory of present-day Romania (north of the Danube). The source may prove that there was a moving of people between the territories of present-day Bulgaria, Macedonia ..etc and Serbia, but it has nothing to do with Daco-Romanian continuity. Borsoka (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Strategikon of Maurikios

(1) The Strategikon of Maurikios (in contrast with the cited source) was not written in the 8th century; see page 73 of Curta, Florin: The Making of the Slavs - History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500-700 (Cambridge University Press, 2001; ISBN 978-0-521-03615-3) and page 7 of Barford, P. M.: The Early Slavs - Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe (Cornell University Press, 2001; ISBN 0-8014-3977-9). Therefore, the source cited in this article looks unreliable.Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(2) Dear Alensha, could you please refer to the text of the Strategikon which refers to Romans living north of the Danube. Because, I think there is no reference in the book. Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The introductory section has greatly improved, yet I still do not see where mainstream Romanian historians let alone others endorse a "mainly Dacian" descent. Lucian Boia specifically states on page 122 of the original Romanian edition of his book "Istoria si mit in constiinta romaneasca. Humanitas 1997, Bucarest": Romanians are neither Dacians nor Romans nor Slavs and they cannot call themselves a combination in any proportion of these three either, they are simply Romanians. What did Romanians of the middle ages have to do with Dacians or Romans?"

If Dr. Boia is not a mainstream Romanian historian, whom do we propose as such? The people who published all their "research" under the watchful eyes of the great thinker, the genius of the Carpathians?

Similarly, there is a problem of citing the US Congressional Library's Country Studies. Even today it is clearly stated that their source material is from July 1989, which was the height of Causescu's Sytematization program. Encyclopedical sources have allways respected the sensitivities of the countries' respective governments, no matter how oppressive these governments were.

Similarly the Encyclopedica Brittanica states unequivocally: "the account that follows expands upon the latter (i.e. official Romanian /from what year is not stated/)interpretation."

Focusing on the feud aspect of this whole thing is not fortunate. (The expression "feud" is from the US Congressional Library's Country Studies, and indeed in the 1980-es with Causescu's maddening Dacomania the debate did get acrimonious as others tried to counteract his obsessive nationalistic propaganda). Today if we are interested in this subject at all, we would like to know the truth if possible. I rather suspect it may never be possible to know the exact truth. In leiu of that we have to accept a degree of uncertainty and just simply present on Wikipedia what internationally notable and quotable sources believe and have published.

Dr. Faulkner's essay on Romanisation published by the BBC in 2006 is an example of an outstanding, eminently quotable, erudite source material from a neutral scientist of today. He does use the qualifier "apparently" before the term "ethnic cleansing". But we, all having witnessed the Bosnian and Kosovo wars on our television sets, should not assume that Dr. Faulkner uses this term lightly. He is an absulutely disinterested party to the "feud", if he uses the term "ethnically cleansed" for what happened to the Dacians during and after the Roman conquest, he probably has very good reason to do so. Eravian (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The secret tale of Trajan's column

RAI Italian television in their highly popular popular-science series ULISSE aired in December 2008 a program entitled "Il racconto segreto della colonna Traiana" i.e. "The secret tale of Trajan's column". (This is what got me interested in the subject of Dacia in the first place.) This one and a half hour presentation is based on a most thorough analysis of what the column itself describes: The Dacian wars and Trajan's conquest of Dacia. The author and narrator of the program is Mr.Alberto Angela, a very popular Italian television presenter of the ULISSE series. Since Mr.Angela himself is not a historian, yet this film is as scientific as possible for a popular-science program to be, one must assume Mr.Angela had consulted with Italian experts on the subject and possibly with Romanian ones as well since a lot of the film was shot on location in Romania (Sarmisegetuza and other locations).

I highly recommend for all participants on this panel to try to obtain and view this very entertaining yet informative program. You may try to download it from legitimate sources. Alternately you may want to contact the editors of ULISSE at: ulisse@rai.it and ask them to publish it preferably with English subtitles. I recorded it for my own use off of the original transmission which I receive over satellite. If you do not speak Italian ask friends who do. I am working on the English translation of some of the more relevant sections to these discussions.

Why is this program important? Because yet again we have a disinterested party, the Italian historical community, living today, providing their own interpretation about the very core, the very heart of the Origination question of Romanians: Who were the Dacians, how did the Romans "handle the situation" which arose with the Dacians, did Dacians really have a chance to survive the conquest and its aftermath in significant numbers etc.?

Admittedly, this program is somewhat self-glorifying for the Roman legions as was the column itself for Trajan. Yet Trajan's column is still the most detailed and authentic source of information about the Dacian wars and ultimately isn't it Trajan's column which started off the whole Romanian quest for ancient ancestors?

Eravian (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Anna Comnena

When the author of "The Alexiad" mentions the Dacians he obviously refers to the Hungarians under that name. See page 122 of the source cited in the article. She does not mention that the Dacians (=Hungarians) crossed the river Danube, because she mentions that the Sarmatians (=Pechenegs) crossed the river. Borsoka (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ.In book 7 Anna Comnena says: "At the approach of spring Tzelgu (the supreme commander of the Scythian army) crossed the passes above the Danube with a mixed army of about eighty thousand, composed of Sauromatians, Scythians, and Dacians (over whom the man called Solomon was leader), and plundered the towns round about Chariopolis." she does say the dacians crossing south. by solomon she refers to Solomon of Hungary, who according to several hungarian authors (you will find some hungarian titles at the end of the wiki article on solomon of hungary): "was forced to abdicate and moved east to the lands ruled by the cumans (the future principality of moldavia) where he raised an army of cumans, pechenegs and VLACH LOCALS to make war on Ladislaus I" also if you check hungharian history books that study the period in detail you will see that he was forced to abandon his plan due to the lack of money and troops. and he raided the romanian-bulgarian duchies that existed north of the danube and the byzantine empire. also if memory serves me right the kingdom of hungary did not reach the carpathians until the late 1100's/early 1200's and even then in name only. so i do not see how hungarians can become VLACH LOCALS of moldavia. i shall have to ask you to post the book number (i searched in books 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 but i did not find anything) and the chapter (or at least the book) where the phrase: "The names of the witnesses present, who signed beneath and before whom the treaty was concluded, are as follows: (…) the ambassadors who came from the Dacians /the Hungarians/ on behalf of the kral /the king of Hungary/, kinsman of the Basileus John’s wife // (they were the župans Peres and Simon), (…)" i am talking about the alexiad of course. while i appreciate you posting the page number it does little for me seeing as how i have a different edition of the alexiad. when you say the danube is a long river you are correct, however we are talking about the section of the danube that constitutes the border of the byzantine empire, not the whole river. i find it hard to believe that solomon raided the byzantines by crossing the danube south through the black forest in germany, or through bratislava Adijarca (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Adijarca, thank you for your above remarks. Please find my comments.
  • Book 3 of the Alexiad: "When the Dacians /the Hungarians/ refused to observe any longer the ancient treaty with the Romans and deliberately broke it, the Sarmatians /the Pechenegs/ (who used to be called Mysians in the old days) heard of their action and became restive themselves. They were not satisfied to remain in their own territory (separated from the Empire by the Ister) and when a general uprising took place they crossed the river to our lands. The reason for the migration was the deadly hostility of the Getae /the Oghuz Turks/, who were neighbors of the Dacians /the Hungarians/ and plundered Sarmatian /Pecheneg/ settlements." I think it was the Sarmatians /the Pechenegs/, not the Dacians /the Hungarians/ who crossed the river Danube which separated their (the Pechenegs') territory from the Empire. Therefore, there is no reference to Dacians crossing the Danube in the text. (Not only the cited English edition, but my Hungarian edition of the Alexiad suggests this interpretation)Borsoka (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Book 10 of the Alexiad: "At the beginning of the spring /in 1087/ Tzelgu, the supreme commander of the Scythian /Pecheneg/ army, traversed the upper Danube valley at the head of a mixed force. He had about 80,00 men, Sarmatians, Scyths /Pechenegs/ and a large contingent of Dacians /Hungarians/ lead by one Solomon /the former king of Hungary/." The Alexiad refers to Dacians /Hungarians/ crossing the Danube, but it also cleary mentions that they were lead by the ex-king of Hungary, Solomon, who had fled to the territory of present-day Moldavia when he was dethroned. Therefore, I think the source refers to a Scythian /=Pecheneg/ attack against the Byzantine Empire with the participation of some Hungarians /=Dacians/ who had to flee from the Kingdom of Hungary and thus they joined to the Pechenegs. The Alexiad does not refer to Vlachs, Bulgars, therefore I think it does not prove that either Solomon plundered "Vlach-Bulgarian" principalities, or that his army was composed of Vlachs.Borsoka (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Book 13 of the Alexiad: "The names of the witnesses present, who signed beneath and before whom the treaty was concluded, are as follows: (…) the ambassadors who came from the Dacians /the Hungarians/ on behalf of the kral /the king of Hungary/, kinsman of the Basileus John’s wife // (they were the župans Peres and Simon), (…)" This text clearly refers to the king (kral) of the Dacians (Hungarians), that is Coloman of Hungary, whose niece was married to the future John II of Comnenos.Borsoka (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Based on the above texts (and on the footnotes of the reliable source cited in the text of the article) we can agree that Anna Comnena refers to Hungarians under the name Dacians. Therefore, her text cannot be used in favor of the Daco-Romanian continuity.Borsoka (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no reference to Vlach-Bulgarian principalities on the territory of present-day Romania in Byzantine sources before the 14th century.Borsoka (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know that Romanian scholars claim that Transylvania was not occupied by the Magyars before the end of the 11th century, but it is only a claim.Borsoka (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

transilvania was occupied gradually over the course of 200 years, more or less. this is not a claim made by a romanian historian, this is the official position of the hungarian academy. there is evidence of romanian and bulgarian duchies north of the danube, in fact the best evidence is menumorut's keep near oradea (more of a mount an bailey actually) dated to the early 1000's. the second bulgarian empire at its height included most of wallachia and moldavia. in fact even frederic barbarossa says, in 1189 while on his way to the crusades, that the bulgarian empire is constituted of romanians north of the danube and bulgarians south. anyway thank you for the book numbers. i shall reread them carefully in the following days.Adijarca (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your original thoughts. Just some remarks in order to clarify some facts: (1)Hungarian scholars (including the members of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) think that Transylvania was gradually colonized by the Hungarians, the Saxons and later by the Romanians, because it had been a land scarcely inhabited by Slavic tribes in the 10th-11th century. Please read the book "History of Transylvania" cited in the article. (2) Menumorut was not a Romanian duke; even the Gesta Ungarorum describes him as a duke who ruled over Cozars, and his land was also inhabited by Székelys according to the anonymous writer of the Gesta. Please read the Gesta Ungarorum's relevant chapters (11, 19, 20, 28, 50-52). (3) The Second Bulgarian Empire was established after 1185; nobody denies that by that time the ancestors of the Romanians had already migrated to the territories of present-day Romania. (On the other hand, the territory was not part of the Bulgarian Empire, since the Banate of Severin was ruled by governors appointed by the king of Hungary, and several Cuman chieftains accepted the suzerainty of the Hungarian monarchs - please read the sources cited in the article Romania in the Early Middle Ages) (4) Frederick Barbarossa does not mention that he met Romanians north of the Danube (although he could have met them in 1188), because he did not crossed the Danube on the territory of present-day Romania (please read any books written of the Crusades or of his crusade). Borsoka (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

i have analyzed the alexiad and apparently you are right it does speak of the hungarians. i apologize for the trouble i caused you, as you may see the text is gone. now for clarification: there is no doubt that menumorut's kingdom contained cozars and seklers however when referring to menumorut, gelu and glad gesta describes them as being romanian. i never said that Barbarossa met vlachs, though he might have encountered aromanians and dalmatians on his way to the crusades. Barbarossa wrote about the second bulgarian empire which was comprised of 2 people vlachs to the north and bulgars to the south, one does not have to visit all parts of a country to write about them. the second bulgarian empire at its apogee occupied most of wallachia and moldavia, please visit the article referring to the second bulgarian empire. there are elements in the hungarian academy that refute the migration theory in view of the recent discoveries regarding the massive differences encountered between the DNA of early and modern hungarians.Adijarca (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks. No problem and there was no problem. I am pretty sure that I will be also surprised in the future.Borsoka (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Anonymus does not refer either to Menumorut or to Glas as being Romanian (please read the Gesta Ungarorum relevant chapters). He also clearly states that the Székelys are the descendant of Attila's people, therefore they cannot be Romanians.Borsoka (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The Second Bulgarian Empire may have expanded its authority over territories north of the Danube (although it is not probably taking into account the fact that several parts of those territories were annexed to the Kingdom of Hungary), but when 12th-13th century authors wrote of "Wallachia", they clearly referred to the territory between the Stara Planina and the Danube – e.g., Robert of Clari: The Conquest of Constantinople (Medieval Academy of America, 1999; ISBN 0-8020-7823-0), Geoffrey of Villehardouin: The Conquest of Constantinople (Joinville and Villehardouin - Chronicles of the Crusades; Penguin Classics, 1963; ISBN 978-0-14044124-6), William of Rubruck: The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck: His Journey to the Court of Great Khan Möngke, 1253-1255 (Hakluyt Society, 1990; ISBN 978-0-904-18029-9).Borsoka (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am well aware of the fact that most of my ancestors must have lived in the Carpathian Basin already in the 2nd millenium BC, and I know that some of my ancestors migrated to Hungary from Italy, Austria, Bavaria and Poland only in the 16th-19th centuries. On the other hand, I speak a Finno-Ugric language whose original speakers moved to the Carpahtian Basin only around 895 AD; therefore, when speaking of the ethnogenesis of the Hungarian people we have to take into account the fact that they speak a language whose original speakers are immigrants on the territory of present-day Hungary (similarly, for example, to the English people, the French and the Romanians who does not speak the language which was spoken by the "autochtonous" population of present-day England, France and Romania). Borsoka (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The secret tale of Trajan's column; Italian views of the conquest.

Nobody here seems to be overly interested in what the Italians think about the conquest of Dacia and about what happened to the Dacians. Yet this is important because no matter what participants in these discussions here think what is really important is what the world thinks of the issue. Nobody can accuse the Italians of being anti-Romanian, on the contrary, because of the close linguistic relationship they are looked upon like one of their own. Yet as it will be evident from the following exerpts they just do not believe the Dacians survived to Romanize themselves. On the contrary, they resisted the Romans to the bitter end, which is exatly what the Romans meted out for them. The program by Mr. Alberto Angela "Il racconto segreto della colonna Traiana" i.e. "The secret tale of Tajan's column" aired on RAI Italian National Television several times in November and December of 2008 and was viewed by millions of Italians at home and around the globe. Here are then some exerpts in English translation of what Mr. Angela was telling Italian audiences. At 41 minutes into the film Mr. Angela starts to describe the bas relief panel of Trajan's column depicting scenes after the First battle of Tapae:

The legions defeated the Dacians. It was a great victory for Rome after so much bitterness. Trajan was proclaimed Imperator by his troops. This proclamation was given only to great commanders who were victorious in the field. The clash had been most violent. And the Dacians retreated orderly carrying their wounded with them. But the Romans did not stop. Proceeding along the valley they burned up all the villages and enemy encampments they found. Here Trajan is shown planting a lance into the ground, an ancient gesture indicating the taking posession of the territory. He did this facing a horrific sight. Look, there are the walls of an enemy city, and there in front are the famous wolf's mouths, that is, holes with sharp pointed stakes designed to halt Roman cavalry. And not only that. Just above high up on the walls one can see impaled skulls of the heads of Roman legionaries or prisioners. We can also see Roman insignia perhaps taken from Damatian's legions who had been defeated in this area 15 years before. Representing these impaled heads on those stakes was, well, in a word, a clever propaganda move of Trajan's column to justify what happened afterwards. In effect, what happened afterwards is that the auxiliaries, obviously not the legionaries, proceeded with massacres, devastations, burning up villages, killing people, animals, a real genocide. Dacians were fleeing with their children. Women and infants came to be deported by Roman soldiers. Trajan himself is shown as he points a noble woman witha newborn baby to the bridge of embarkation. There are ships which will carry them to places of deportation. These are terrible images of ethnic cleansing (pulizia etnica). And we shall never know how many tens of thousands of civilians, perhaps more, were deported or slaughtered. This is indeed the dark side of all the conquests of Rome and not only that of Rome. But in that age all of this was considered the logical cosequence of a defeat.

A later passage sheds some light on the ethnic composition of the general area and vicinity. This part describes the Barbarian attacks preceeding the battle of Adamclissi:

But the Dacians did not sit idly by. Decebalus made a surprise move which left Trajan dumbfounded. To relieve the pressure of the Romans Decebalus convinced his Barbarian allies to launch a colossal offensive in the south-east in a sector undefended by the Romans. The astonishment of the Romans was immense also because by now it was winter. Nobody expected this. A horde of warriors composed of Sarmatan-Roxolani of the eastern plains, Thracian tribes of the north-east and the Germanic Buri of the Northern Carpathians poured into Moesia Inferior where today there is the border between Bulgaria and Romania, raviging and plundering everything they found.

The most relevant part to these discussions here are the last few minutes of the film describing the siege of Sarmisegetuza and the aftermath of the final conquest:

Now the battle became real violent. Finally the troops managed to reach the top of the walls, swept away the defenders, spread out over the city and started to destroy everything.

Further on, the aftermath of the fall of Sarmisegetuza is narrated this way:

Because for the vanquished there is no choice. Knowing the fate awaiting them the defenders of the city started to burn the buildings. In this Trajan's column is precise in every detail. Look, one of the chiefs is distributing a bowl full of poison in a real mass suicide. One can also see an aristocrat weeping over his son who is already dying. But not all commited suicide. On the contrary, many attempted a desperate escape.

Still later, from location at the ruins of Sarmisegetuza Mr.Angela remarks:

Only having come to this hardly accessible, faraway location can one clearly appreciate the determination and the tenacity of Trajan and his legionaries to finish off Decebalus once and for all.

After the bas relief panel depicting the scene where Decebalus' head and right hand were delivered to Trajan on a soldier's shield, Mr.Angela talks about the finding of Decebalus' treasure and the riches of Dacia, then he goes on to tell us about the 117 days of victory celebrations in Rome.

Trajan's triumph will remain memorable for centuries to come. Eleven thousand wild animals - a record never surpassed - will find their deaths in the arenas. But the most horrifying thing is that many Dacians will fight in the Colosseum and the vast majority of them will meet the same fate as the wild animals. Prisioners of war and wild beasts in the eyes of the Romans were considered the same way: Prey destined for the same cruel spectacle. The games started with the venationes, hunting of animals and fights between wild animals. They continued with fights between unarmed prisioners and animals especially trained as pit-bulls to tear to pieces human beings with their fangs. All of this was followed by mass executions in which Dacian prisioners were used as stuntmen in these macabre spectacles.

After talking about the gladiator fights, the narrator adds:

In a society, such as the Roman society, so ruthless with the defeated and prisioners of war, those could be considered more fortunate who were destined for the slave markets or sent to hard-labor in the quarries or mines scattered in the four corners of the Empire.

Towards the very end Mr.Angela talks about a "truely surprising phenomenon" which started in Dacia. To start off on this section, he asks the question: Why is the Romanian language so similar to Italian? "Almost like a dialect of our own."

The reason is what happened after the battles of the legionaries. In effect, the war was traumatic and invasive to such an extent that the autochtonous population, that of the Dacians became so strongly debilitated and demoralised that it was just swept away. To this we must add: The survivors in large part emigrated elsewhere. The consequence was: The territory was completely depopulated. And Rome filled it up by starting an influx of great masses of people from the Empire. The colonists were treated to a degree as volunteers but in another way it was an obligation to come this far. And the influx of migrants came primarily from Italy and areas of Gaul and from Germany. Thus we are speaking fundamentally about a people of Celtic and Italic origin who esatblished themselves in what is today Romania.

Mr.Angela touches briefly on further conquests of Trajan in the Middle-East. Then from the top of Tajan's column he finishes:

In the turn of a century and a half the major part of the most distant territories were abandoned. Today, of that moment which signalled the apogee of the Roman Empire there remains only the name of a nation, Romania, called so only because of the men who pressed their way into those lands, areas of the planet in order to conquer them.

Eravian (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis of Romanians

There is no word about migration period and ethnogenesis.CristianChirita (talk) If this remark refers to Mr.Angela's film about the conquest of Dacia by Trajan and its aftermath, the answer is: The film only deals with the historical time of Trajan and its immidiate aftermath. No speculation of any kind is proferred or inferred about later time periods. One thing seems certain though. The denial in unequivocal terms of the idea that Dacians survived this brutal Roman conquest and ethnic cleansing in Dacia Traiana and that they would have been in any way a part of the Roman society of Dacia Traiana. Think of the modern equivalent of the colonization by European settlers of North-America. Were, are native Indians part of the US society? Even though some people might argue that the American English language has an Indian substrate just because it has many Indian words, there are thousands of Indian toponyms in North America and even some Indian expressions in American English. Eravian (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think (based on the secondary and primary sources I have read on the subject) that the theory that all the Dacians were killed by the Romans is exagareted. Actually, there are archaeological findings which prove the survival of the autochtonous population (Dacians, Celts, Sarmatians). E.g., Oltean, Ioana A.: Dacia - Landscape, Colonisation, Romanisation (Routledge, 2007, London and New York; ISBN 978-0-415-41252-0.). Moreover, early sources prove that Free Dacians and Carpi (a probably Dacian tribe) migrated to the Roman province of Dacia in the 2nd-3rd centuries. Therefore, we can speak of a Dacian population in Roman Dacia - on the other hand, nothing prove that they were Romanized during the 170 year of the Roman rule (similarly to the Celts of Britannia province who survived the 400-year-long period of Roman rule without changing their language). Interestingly, the theory your sources imply is the same that the earliest sources referring to Romanians' origin suggested: the Romanians are descendant of the Roman colonists (and not of the Dacians) who settled in Dacia province. Before the 18th century, only one author (Kekaumenos) suggested that the Romanians are descendandts of the Dacians but he located their ancestors' homeland to the territory of medieval Serbia; other medieval authors did not even mention Dacians in connection with the Romanians. More interestingly, several scholars used to think that the Transylvanian Saxons originated from the Dacians based on Jordanes' report who claimed that the Getae and the Goths were the same nation and (from his point of view, logically) he also stated that only the Roman legions were withdrawn from Dacia, the autochtonous population (that is the Germanic Goths) stayed behind. At the end of the day, I would like to mention that the above theory is just one of the theories on the origin of the Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Bold text==The Albanian origin of Romanians==

those videos are so incoherent and have so many flaws that they couldn't even pass for a decent work of fiction. instead of promoting such stupidity you should instead use your energy by doing something constructive and help improve this article. sadly youtube is full of propagandist videos that try to coax the simple minded people into believing one thing or another, no matter if that respective thing is true or not. therefore such videos go against several wikipedia policies, especially the NPOV policy. thus it is my opinion that such videos do not belong here, not even on the talk page.Adijarca (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree the above remark, and therefore I deleted the link inserted by an unsigned editor. If we would like to follow Wikipedia's guidlines, we should avoid any form of propaganda on these pages. Moreover, I have never read a reliable source claiming that the Romanians originated from the Albanians. Yes, several scholars point out that the two languages share much more than one feature, but it may also be the consequence of an intensive cohabitation. As far as I can remember, the substratum words of the Romanian language which are unique suggest that the Romanians and the Albanians did not descend from the same people. Nevertheless, if there were a reliable source which suggest that the Romanians descended from the Albanians, that source should be cited, but youtube cannot be used for such purposes. Borsoka (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if by referring to "those videos" you are referring to Mr. Alberto Angela's film "Il racconto segreto della colonna Traina". This film is not an incoherent film of fiction, it was aired several times not on "youtube" but on RAI Italian National Television, a respected international news organization, and it was viewed by millions of people in Italy as well as around the world. This film is part of the highly rspected popular scientific series "Ulisse". It is of high scientific standard. The views expressed by Mr.Angela are consistent with the conventional views of all historians including Romanian historians up to the point of the question of the survival of the Dacians.

Please, download the film, view it before you form an opinion about it.

Mr.Alberto Angela lists as the consultant for the film:Livio Zerbini. Livio Zerbini is a teacher of Roman History at the University of Ferrara, Italy. In recent years professor Zerbini has published a number of books about various aspects of Roman civilisation and history. Among these, he wrote one with Romanian co-author Radu Ardevan, entitled "La Dacia Romana", published by Rubettino, Italy, 2007. I have not read this book and I do not know how this book treats the later developments in "Roman Dacia", especially after the evacuation and abandonment of this province by the Romans. Nonetheless, because Professor Zerbini was the consultant in the writing and making of the film "Il racconto segreto della colonna Traiana", one might assume that the views expressed in the film are those of a highly respectable scholar of Roman History that is Professor Livio Zerbini of the University of Ferrara Italy.

And it is interesting that Mr.Angela having consulted with Professor Zerbini would use such strong language in regards to the conquered Dacians. He talks about "massacres, genocide, devastations, deportations and ethnic cleansing" of Dacians by Romans (from the areas conquered). Later on there are the graphic descriptions of the ruthless, cruel treatment of Dacian prisioners and slaves during the 117 days of Roman festivities following the conquest. and finally the words used by Mr. Angela for the events after the final conquest: "The autochtonous population, that of the Dacians became so strongly debilitated (si ha indebolita fortemente...e stata spazzata via), literally meaning swept away, figuratively meaning destroyed, wiped out". "The survivors in large part emigrated elsewhere". The consequence was: the territory was completely depopulated (completamente spopolato).

From this strong language any sensible reader or viewer might conclude that the Dacians played no part or only a minimal part in the society of "Roman Dacia".

I would add that the book "La Dacia Romana" by Radu Ardevan and Livio Zerbini might make an interesting reading especially if it were available in English.

Eravian (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your summary. As I mentioned above I do not deny that there are scholars who think that the Dacians were totally exterminated by the Romans. (And actually this was the universally accepted view before the end of the 18th century. At that time, even the Romanian scholars denied that their ancestors had originated from the Dacians because they wanted to prove the "pure" Latin origin, and they thought that the Dacians had been barbarians, inferior to the Romans.) I just would like to note that this is only o n e view. There are several scholars who do not accept this theory. Borsoka (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Admittedly, there may be some self-serving interest in the Italian viewpoint since their relationship to Romanians might be comparable to that of a mother and a long lost daughter. Considering that this book "La Dacia Romana" was written by Livio Zerbini with a Romanian co-author Radu Ardevan, it would be interesting to know whether they see, perhaps, a later Dacian involvment in Roman Dacia after the initial "complete depopulation" and colonization. It is also interesting that, if Mr.Angela's and Prof.Zerbini's views may be considered the currently prevailing Italian views on the conquest and colonization of Dacia, then those views have apparently not changed too much in the past 200 years despite great propaganda efforts during the Ceausescu dictatorship.

Eravian (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    • Eravian, should you have the time, look for Paul Cristian Damian's PhD Thesis online. From an archeological point of view it takes a similar position, basically Dacian influences are barely traceable in Roman Dacia. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Manipulation

I have removed the following:

  • Historical accounts such as Byzantine chronicler Kakaumenos, in his Strategion. He mentions the "Dacians and Bessi, who used to live near the Danube and Sava rivers.. in inaccessiblie and inhospitable places". From there they spread to out south to Macedonia, Epirus and Greece, and northwest to Romania.[2]
  • No medieval chronicle mentions any large-scale migrations of Romanic peoples from the Balkans to Romania; contrary to a south to north movement, a chronicle indicates rather a north to south movement: according to Cecaumenos' Strategicon (1066), the Vlachs of Epirus and Thessalia came from north of the Danube and from along the Sava.[3]

I believe above arguments are delibatery manipulation. In fact Kaukamenos cited by Florin Curta informs that Vlachs are related to "so called Dacians and Bessi, who used to live NEAR the Danube and Sava rivers, where now the SERBS live in inaccessiblie and inhospitable places". As we can see this citation clearly inform about origin of Vlachs SOUTH of Danube, from former province Dacia Ripensis. (present day Serbia and north-west BulgariaYeti (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Theories

Let me start that I have read the controversial article, and glanced at the long(ish) discussion. I am glad, however, that just about the extent of the Roman Empire during Trajan's reign and the migration of peoples later known as Hungarians isn't contested. It seems to me that too many of these theories (as presented here) have a POV of trying to reconcile today's realities. I am sure, as an avid student of history, that peoples migrated en masse and individually, assimilated, and influenced each-other (as is the case today). I am sure that borders on maps do not mean much, and that the various place names given to multiple parts of the Balkans throughout history have contained the reality of a Roman conquest, as well as, ample evidence of Romanised populations. Now, to say that a whole population migrated without actual proof is quite unhistorical and does aim to propagate various political aims. But this is not the first or last time people have altered histories to fit their wishes, theories, and political aims. RomânescEsteLatin (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear RomânescEsteLatin, there is one statement in your above remarks that I cannot accept: "a whole population migrated without actual proof". Actually, there are written sources (actually mostly written by Romanian authors) which suggest that the ancestors of the Romanians lived south of the Danube river and migrated northward in masses: chronicles from the 16th-17th centuries suggest that the Romanians crossed the Danube and immigrated to the territory of present-day Romania. I think the statement that a "whole population lived on the territory of present-day Romania before the 11th century" could also be qualified unscientific taking into the fact that all sources written before the 12th century, all archaeological findings from that period and all toponyms suggest that the territory was inhabited by peoples whose vernacular was not a Romance language. On the other hands, sources written in the 9th-13th century and toponyms suggest that masses of a Romance-speaking population (that is the ancestors of the Romanians) used to live on the territory of Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece at that time - and because "RomânescEsteLatin" nobody denies that the ancestors of the Romanian people must have been searched among a Romance-speaking population. Therefore, I think we should refrain us from labelling theories "unhistoric". Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Borsoka, I am glad that you also recognize that we are talking about mere theories, albeit seemingly contradictory theories. As many historians would, I sustain that both theories are true to some extent. In many literary works, also by Romanian authors, the implication and evidence is suggestive indeed of Roman populations emigrating to the province of Dacia, as well as, later migrations of Romance, Hun, Visigoth, Slav, etc., speaking peoples to what today is Romania. I do not see why both hypothesis (i.e. the migration theory and the continuity theory) can not be proven true. Supporting one in preference to the other "so called opposing theory" makes no historical, cultural, scientific, and/or empirical sense. However, I believe that the article needs a more unified content reflecting the population mixtures through the ages, and the simple reality on the ground. To focus only on these narrowly outlined theories is, well, unscientific and unhistorical. Indeed, having a separate article attacking the origin of a nation under the pretense of historical science is quite political. Therefore, I suggest incorporating this article in the main text on Romanians by a more experienced hand. - RomânescEsteLatin (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not see why both hypothesis (i.e. the migration theory and the continuity theory) can not be proven true. - it is not about making everybody happy, but about historical facts. Both CAN NOT be true, for example because of linguistic reasons. Amongst acres of text "supporting" continuity there is virtually no hard and verifable evidence of presence of romance speaking populations before 900 AD. Ergo "theory of continuity" is not a scientific theory but solely a politicaly based myth. It can be compared to "theory of continuity" of Slavonic population in Central Europe. Roots of both "theories" were similar - were supposed to support historical rights of the Polish and Romanians to corresponding areas in the view of conflicting aspirations of Hungarians and Germans. Anyway the article is out of control and is one of the most messy and unreadable in Wikipedia and its convention is ridiculous. 90% of those "arguments" have nothing to do with evidence acceptable in historical research. I suppose it should be written from beginning.Yeti (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why discount the already mentioned references in the article?

Examples: "In 545, Procopius of Caesarea mentions[14] "The trick played by an Ant (a Slav or Alan from present-day Moldavia) who is supposed to have passed himself off as a Byzantine General by speaking a form of Latin which he had learned in these regions."

    • The above sentence is not the original text of Procopius' work, its only an interpretation. The original text only says that the phoney Childubius spoke Latin like the real (General) Chilbudius (who was actually also of Slavic origin). Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"An ancient letter from one Emmerich of Elwangen to Grimaldus, abbot of St. Gall, written about 860 mention Vlachs, under the name of Dacians, living north of Danube together with Germans, Sarmatians, and Alans. The letter reads:[17]"

    • The above sentence is not the original text of Emmerich of Ewangen's poem. He mentions that Dacians, Alans and Germans live on the territory of former Dacia province. Because Germans and Alans did not live there at that time, we can take it sure that Dacians neither lived there. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"The chronicle Oguzname, the oldest Turkish chronicle in existence, mentioning a warlike expedition of the Cumans, affirms the existence of a “Country of the Vlachs” (Ulaqi) east of the Carpathians in 839[dubious – discuss], affirming that the region was well organized and with a powerful army.[18]"

    • The Oguzname was recorded in the 17th century, the Cumans lived east of the Volga in the 9th century; therefore, it cannot prove the existence of Vlachs on the territory of present-day Romania in the 9th century. Actually, the Ulaqi may have been a Turkish people living near Bashkiria. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Do these not indicate to a continuous existence of Romantic speaking populations in the region of present day Romania? Knowing that Vlach populations tend to be pastoral and semi-nomadic, do they disprove their existence or maybe only indicate at the scarceness of such materials and the socio-economic conditions of the inhabitants? Is written material the only acceptable indicator of the occupation of those lands by people? - RomânescEsteLatin (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    • No, I fully agree with you: the fact that there is no reference to Vlachs, Daco-Romans, Romanians, Romance-speaking population on the territory of present day Romania in sources written after 270 and before the 11th century cannot prove that they did not live there. However, the fact that archaeological findings also suggest that the territory was inhabited by Germanic peoples and later by Slavs during the same period strengthen the idea that the ancestors of the Romanians immigrated there. Moreover, the fact that the first stratum of the toponymy on the territory of present day Romania is of Slavic, Turkic, Hungarian and German origin, also suggest that the ancestors of the Romanians immigrated to the territory after the Slavs, the Turkic people (Pechenegs, Cumans), the Hungarians and the Transylvanian Saxons settled there. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Geto-Dacians or just Dacians and Getae?

Paul Cristian Damian's PhD thesis entitled "Geto-Dacii in configuratia demografica a Daciei Romane" despite its merits may be criticized for a fairly consistent use of the terminology "Geto-Dacians". Ioana A. Oltean in her book "Dacia: Landscape, colonisation...etc." is more cautious in her wording. She uses "Daco-Getae" only once, "Geto-Dacian (region)" only once, and "Dacians and Getae" many more times. Compare this to Italian Wikipedia's Dacia page discribing the populations of Dacia before the Roman conquest:

The oldest Greek historical sources mention the Getaens, settled in the south and west of Dacia (corresponding to today's Vallachia and Dobrugia); further north and west in today's Transylvania and Banat there were settled the Dacians who would have given the name to the region. The two populations, later on confused by the same Greek and later Latin sources probably belonged to the same Dacian linguistic family (perhaps a subset of Thracian), 'but the scarcity of testimonials renders all determination uncertain.' The classical sources also mention the Iazigs, a Sarmatan population settled in Oltenia, and north of the Carpathians the Costoboci, a group belonging to the Germanic race of Bastarnae, more or less intermingled with Dacian elements.

The problem with the persistent use of terminology such as "Geto-Dacians", "Daco-Getae" is that we are projecting into the distant past more of a national state then might have actually existed. The question is: just how linguistically, ethnically or even politically unified the Dacian state formations were either under Burebista or even under Decebalus? If something is uncertain it should be stated so. The term "Dacians and Getae" should be the preferred terminology. As Ioana A. Oltean in Dacia: Landscape etc. p15 cautions : "According to these scholars, who were projecting ideas usually connected with the concept of modern nations into the context of an ancient society...". And on page 7: "For a long time in Romania history itself was entirely subordinated to politics."

Eravian (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The tombstone of Decebalus' captor; Roman stelae; Romanization

Interest in these discussion pages seems to have waned. Nevertheless, it may be of general interest to quote here a segment of the film "Il racconto segreto della colonna Traiana" by Mr. Alberto Angela and Prof. Livio Zerbini. This segment is about a not too long ago major archeological discovery, the tombstone of the Roman officer who was about to capture Decebalus as he was committing suicide. Mr. Angela narrated it this way:

A truly incredible discovery exactly about this capture occured in 1970. It was one of those unbelievable coincidences in archeology.

In northern Greece at Philippi, in fact, they found the tombstone of the Roman officer who with his stretched out arm sought to capture Decebalus and stop him in his extreme act. For this reason we even know the name of this Roman officer. Here, you can see, his name was: Tiberius Claudius Maximus. He can be seen represented on the tombstone mounted on his horse standing close to Decebalus who, having fallen to the ground just committed suicide, just cut his own throat. You can see he has dropped the blade, that curved knife.

We can also see the decorations of that officer which he had received during the wars from Trajan himself. Two collars and two armillae that is those serpent shaped bracelets. Then the text describes his military carrier and also the capture. It reads: Tiberius Claudius Maximus cavalry officer and scout was decorated twice in the Dacian wars. Was also promoted for having captured Decebalus and having brought his head to Trajan.

This epitaph renders our story complete. He was one of those few soldiers on Trajan's column whom we know by name.

This tombstone and epitaph of Tiberius Claudius Maximus from Philippi in Macedonia is mentioned exactly the same way by Maureen Carroll in "Spirits of the Dead: Roman Funerary Commemoration in Western Europe", (p27), Oxford University Press, 2006, ISBN-13 9780199291076. This book, "Spirits of the Dead" is a major work on the Roman custom of erecting Necropolises just outside of town and the spiritual, cultural need to have constant connection between the living and the dead. These cities of the dead, these masses of tombstones also left to posterity the most convincing evidence of degrees of Romanization which was occuring in the adjoining towns, built or conquered by the Romans. Maureen Carroll writes:

Because the tombs reveal the attitudes , aspirations and ideologies of citizens and non-citizens in Roman towns, the cemeteries represent a visual cross-section not of all inhabitants, but of a collective of individuals and groups from many levels of society who already possessed or came to internalize Roman social and cultural values...... In some areas of the northern provinces it took several generations after the Roman conquest for local people to adopt the custom of setting up inscribed stones if they ever did...... On the middle and upper Rhine, where Italian and Mediterranian immigrants were numerous, the native Celtic population adopted the custom fairly early.

Not just on the Rhine but in other provinces as well such as Hispania, Noricum, Pannonia there have been found numerous stelae inscribed in Latin but with local names. Not only that but there are examples of Latin inscribed stelae which in addition to local names include statuettes or bas-reliefs illustrating local, ethnic people with their distinct hair-style, attire, and facial features. These people while still maintaining their local ethnic identity already embraced the Roman custom of saving up for and erecting probaly quite expensive tombstones, a clear step in the process of Romanization. As far as I know these type of tombstones in Dacia, unlike on the Rhine or in Noricum, Pannonia are rather conspicuous by their absence. This type of Romanization evidenced by Roman style stelae is perfectly consistent with the Romanization process described by Dr. Neil Faulkner already discussed above. Namely, it was the well-to-do, the aristocracy which had not only the desire but also the means of adopting Roman customs, Roman ways. The peasantry often times never did. It would be hard to argue that in Dacia any of the aristocracy or the well-to-do classes would have survived the Roman conquest. On the contrary, they were the first ones to be killed, deported or carried off as prisioners, slaves.

Eravian (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ James J. O’Donnell (2008-09-23). "Priscus at the Court of Attila". JO’D: gone south …. www.ccat.sas.upenn.edu. Retrieved 2009-02-15.
  2. ^ Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500-1250. Florin Curta
  3. ^ Ghyka, Matila, "A Documented Chronology of Roumanian History", Oxford: B. H. Blackwell Ltd. 1941.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians/Archive_4&oldid=789547139"