archive1, archive2

This article was polished a little in time. It has a style of arguind pro and counter arguments, like you can put them on a balance a d see witch one is more important. I would like more a structure like this:

• explaining the first possibility shortly, then describing it with all the implications it has supposing it is true (like things you can deduce supposing it true). At the end explain a little the counter-arguments.
• then do the same with the seccond possibility, explaining what this means for the history of the region, and what kind of history would have exited under this theory.

This is mostly about the forme, to alow the article to expand more. I will not recommand tto introduce the third theory... I would like to have twoo teories explained with all the implications, and not only arguments. it feels like we are at war, and we want to shot bullets. Well, arguments do have a bullet at the begining of the line, don't they? Moa3333 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was also suggesting a revision of the format. Instead of arguments pro- and con- presented in two sections, I was also thinking of a different approach; Origin of Albanians used to be formatted like this article, but I changed it to a different format. Alexander 007 08:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All pro-argumetns should be turned into counter-arguments for the oposite theory. Not very important arguemtns should be listed at the end. So there will be only counter-arguments. But on the other hand, we nead to construct a story for each theory (including things that are supposed to have hapend if the theory is true). I am thinking about a page that is on wikipedia in romanian. It was submitted by some very important writer, and has many details regarding the theory of romanisation. People are still editing it to be more encyclopedic. here. Moa3333 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Romanian version of the article appears to be lifted directly out of a history book, like many other articles on ro.wiki... For example, ro:Zoltes is copied word-by-word from "Dicţionar de istorie veche a României". bogdan 19:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive Roman colonization of Dacia. (fact)

Yes, it was extensive. The number of Latin inscription in Dacia was rather large (compared with Illyria or Moesia, for example) considering the small time of occupation.

"... though it may have also been propaganda."

Of course it was propaganda. All the titles given after victories were part of Roman propaganda. But the wars against the Dacians (allied with Goths) were real. I don't think I ever heard a historian disputing those wars.

" “Samus” [samus] (Dacian or Latin) => “Számos” [sa:moS] (Hungarian) => “SomesZ” [somES] (modern Romanian)"

It looks wrong. Please give a reference.

This argument doesn’t explain why the Romanians converted to an ‘Eastern Orthodox’ church instead of the Latin Church

I don't get what you want to say by this. They converted because it was closer and Byzantine allies had more value in the area than the Papal allies, which were rather far.

Even the toponymns listed come to Romanian in a modified form by way of Hungarian forms.

references?

It also says that the “Walachians” were in the service of the Bulgarians, whose center of power was ‘south’ of the Danube.

So, what? There were Bulgarians in Transylvania, too, remember? bogdan 20:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting question is why did Wallachians use Bulgarian for their liturgy and as an official written language? Why not Greek or Latin?--Kaloyan* 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. This question has been answered thousand of times: because we got the Orthodoxy from the Bulgarians. --Candide, or Optimism 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was just wondering myself why my signature wasn't coming up :) I'm not happy with this answer. Bulgarians got the Othodoxy from the Byzantines but that didn't prevent them from creating a new written language. Furthermore, Bulgarians exported Orthodoxy and the alphabet to "language-friendly" states. Lastly, who said Wallachia and Bulgaria were separate entities at that time? Asparouh founded Bulgaria while operating from Bessarabia. There is evidence to believe that his uncle Kii had control over these territories even before his march down south. Krum held all of present Romania. The alphabet was created under BorisI. Territorially, things remained largely the same. Same story under Simeon...Kaloyan* 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Amazingly what you call a new written language (I assume you mean alphabet though) is made of distorted Greek letters ... :) Daizus 14:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We were too dumb to write in Latin, so we took your alphabet instead, which had influenced us. And yes, I know that much of the Romanian land was vassal to Bulgaria. That's where the influence might have come from. --Candide, or Optimism 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dazius, Greek was a 90% copied alphabet from the Phoenician and so it goes. What is your point? Besides, the Cyrillic alphabet is less copied or "distorted" compared to the Greek. There were also Bulgar runnic symbols included. --Kaloyan* 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A really good work with the new section, named "Contemporary Sources", which is pertinent and accurate. Well done, Anitta !

As the author indicates, the section deals with Romanian presence in Transylvania and Pan­nonia as early as the 8th century. Since by that time the Romanian ethnogenesis - like those of the other Romance nations - is considered to be mostly concluded, a Romanian presence in Transylvania and Pannonia at that time is indeed a strong indication of an ethnogenesis in Transylvania as well, but not a stricto sensu argument for this.

I suggest therefore to make out of this section an article of its own, let's say Romanian presence in Transylvania and Pannonia in the Dark Ages, which should be than clearly linked to both Origins of Romanians and (History of) Transylvania. Reciprocally, at least the two mentioned articles should explicitly and detailed refer to this new article.

--Vintila Barbu 11:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to get some feedback from the person who started the article, but my request was ignored. I no longer care to contribute to this article, or any other articles started by that person. Thanks for your comments, tho. --Candide, or Optimism 20:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the argumentative style of the article, I added a Rebuttal section for both continuity and mygration. Some of the information it provides repeats itself in the article, but this is inherent to having a rebuttal, hence it rearguments and counterarguments whay has been said. It needs, to my appreciation, a great deal of polishing, but I thought it should be a bit insisted on. Maybe someone would care to make a rebuttal for the continuity theory and for the anti-mygration theory. It would be helpfull is someone would find statistyics of Romanian population in ancient times and further on through the centuries..this would clarify some heated points. as i am not logged right now, I sign with mkth :) I also found it necessary to explain why the leading authorities in anti-continuation are hungarian and why thereis this feud between Hungaria an dRomania over the whole issue. I thought the beginning could solve this matter well enough, though it might be moved to other part. And my enlgish needs polishing too :)

The mentioned sources are not contemporary. For example the DEO was written more than 400 years latter. I have changed the title "medieval sources".

The entire massive paragraph beginning:

There is an explication of why the Latin culture was so quickly and intensively inoculated to the population...

shows that regrettably some editors here are using Wikipedia like a chatroom or debate forum, droning on and on instead of concisely notating relevant issues in a proper encyclopedic tone. I can't help feeling that the article could only be improved by starting all over from nothing. CRCulver 11:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article isn't so bad. The droning passage you complain about was added by an anon on 30 April. I don't understand why it wasn't removed immediately, but I have done so now (it would have cost you three clicks to do the same). dab (ᛏ) 07:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say to redirect the article (or move big chunks of it) to The Roessler Theory. greier 11:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say doing so is nonsense. The Roessler Theory is just one of the several theories for ethnogenesis, and you can't group all of them under this name.

Exactly my point! You are free to make artcles for as many theories as you want, and put it here. greier 11:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no. This article covers several theories, not just that theory. It is you who should redirect it to here. Don't remove anything from this article! People have worked hard on the article. Just because you started a new article with a name of a theory doesn't mean you can do as you please, so please: back off! --Candide, or Optimism 11:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ego is more important than logic.. may it be as you wish. greier 11:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made two attempts to including amendments into your article, correcting a couple of very evident mistakes:

- it's MADABA, not MAGADA - it's GERMANIC tribes/languages, not TEUTONIC t/l

They have been quite promptly removed.

I seem to be too dumb to understand the rules of permanent editing - evidently, I don't mean the "sandbox"! Or could it be that the rules are too confusing...?

I leave it up to you to use these two 100% correct and needed amendments. Do whatever you please with them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.25.119.131 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 May 2006.

TO Crculver.

I do not understand your revert.

The influence of passing populations might have been minimal.

Gepides had their state in former Roman Dacia for 100 years. Besides, other Germanic tribes (Goths, Bastarnes, Wandals, Quadi) were direct neighbours of Dacia for about 500 years. I could not let myself to describe their presence as "passing". Yeti 22:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and deleted those two problematic sentences, but reverted your additions. They are in very poor English and I couldn't let them stand. CRCulver 22:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this version of the article has not preserved the balance between the two theories (i. e. the same proofs (like the Nestor Chronicle) are used repeatedly just to make the Daco-Romanian Continuity more credible.

• Exactly. Majority of arguments for daco-romanian continuity seem artificial and can not be taken seriously. I suppose that they are included only to make an inmression that there are many arguments supporting this theory. For example:

- Dacian toponyms were kept; examples are the names of some rivers (Samus - Someş, Marisia - Mureş, Porata - Prut) and the names of some cities (Petrodava - Piatra Neamţ, Abruttum - Abrud). - in eastern USA lots of Amerindian toponims are kept, what does not mean that the present population is of Amerindian origin.

You just brought up one of the best and clearest points. Having the same toponyms means CLEARLY that the area was continuously inhabited. This proves totally false the theory that states that the Magyars came and found an empty place, then Romanians migrated there. The arguments here are not even all! Do realize how stupid this sounds: the Dacians and Romans had some names for the rivers, cities, and mountains. Then they left, and the area remained empty (not credible!). Then the Magyars came and they had a revelation, and decided to call all that things with the same name. Then the Romanians came from the south and took the Hungarian name for that places. Wow, such a brilliant logic!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirc mirc (talk • contribs) 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nobody claims anything like that. But continious settlement does imply continious settlement of the same ethnicity. For example in SOUTHERN Ukraine old SCYTHIAN toponims are common even if ethnicity of the area changed a few times: scyhtho-sarmatian through Germanic, Turkic, Slavonic, Turkic again and Slavonic again. The presence of former toponims proves NOTHING. The same can be said about majority of other arguments supporting continiuity theory: it is nationalistic thrash. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.204.232.15 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is just simply untrue. There are no toponyms in Romania which can be linked to a Thracian-like language. The word Samum (only the genitivus preserved in Latin texts) is probably of Celtic origin (see the Somme in France), while Marisia is probably Iranian meaning "stony (river)", (see Sanskrit asmara, Iranian mara, "stone", the name of Marakanda (Samarkand)). The name Porata is doubtlessly Iranian (Sanskrit parathu - "wide", Avestan parata - "ford"). While in the name of Piatra Neamt, the word piatra has a Greek origin, and it is unknown where was Petrodava, so it is superficial to link the two. The same is the case with Abruttum and Abrud.

- Some morpho-syntactic, lexical and phonetical regional differences within Romanian indicate that in certain regions of Romania the language preserved more Latin substance than in the rest of the country [1]. The boundaries of these linguistic areas coincide quite exactly with the borders of the ancient Roman province of Dacia, encompassing modern Transylvania, Banat and Oltenia. - serious claim. Any references to SERIOUS scientific researches, please? The reference given seems to be irrelevant.

- The similarity between the current Romanian traditional clothes and the Dacian clothes, as depicted on Trajan's Column. - this one is really funny.

The Dacian clothing is practically identical to that of the Scythians.

- Constantine the Great assumed the title Dacicus Maximus in 336 just like Trajan did in 106, suggesting the presence of Dacians in Dacia even after the Aurelian withdrawal of 270-275. - I do not understand. This arguments seems to be irrelevant and may support the opposite theory as well.

- Numerous archaeological sites prove the continuity of Latin settlements north of the Danube after the evacuation of 271, including:

   * Daco-Roman ceramic artifacts from the 5th-6th centuries, found at: Bratei, Soporu de Câmpie, Verbiţa, Sǎrata Monteoru
   * Christian tombs and objects found at: Cluj-Napoca, Alba-Iulia, Biertan, Dej
   * Walls erected in the 4th century at Sarmizegetusa - HOW those sites prove the continuity of Latin settlements north of the Danube, please? Roman cultural influence do not prove anything. The same about christian tombs. Goths were christians before they crossed Danube. And how walls "prove" linguistic continuity?

- Many inscriptions in the Latin language: inscriptions on silver ring from Micia, ceramic objects from Porolissum, brick found at Gornea, inscription on bronze object found at Biertan (reading "EGO ZENOVIUS VOTUM POSUI"). - Many? Details? Inscription could be left by a prisoner or a trader or (if on an artifact) could be exchanged or bought.

According to me this article does not meet standards of Wikipedia and is full of POV.80.43.70.106 15:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there are three teories

It's more plausible that romanians came after the maghiars in alien ships coming from another planet. The invasion of the earth start in balkans. Considering that all the stuff written by Gesta ARE PURE FANTASIES, the alien theorie is one the most plausible theories. It is just a matter of days till an DNA research will solve this theory daco-continuity issue forever.CristianChirita

DNA has nothing to do with language or ethnicity. English was the language of a pasty white guys in northern island, but it's spoken now by plenty of people of African descent and Indians. Similarly, the Romance-speaking peoples are all considered Latins, but genetically they don't all come from Rome. If people in modern Romanian have DNA similar to that of the Dacians or pre-Magyar population, it doesn't mean continuity of language and culture, it means that a migration from the south may still have occured where the Vlachs imposed their language and ethnic identity on a substrate.

Historical linguists nearly universally consider DNA worthless for arguing about language and ethnicity. CRCulver 18:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with your ideas on genetics. it means you are aware that ethnicity is just a social construct, which changes over time.. and which becamed of major importance only during late 18th century (while national states were just a replacement for the previous form of organisation). however, i don't agree with the migration theory. i post a link below, this might be interesting for some and maybe somebody will use the scientific data (not just this article) to complete the article. the main reason i think the link below is interesting is the correlation between social status and the presence of N haplogroup (asian). also, the 2 in 27 samples having that feature in the 10th century (which could give some data about the genetic distribution at that time). the sample is small, error is big (~5%), but statistics still work, even for small samples. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17632797&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum -- Anonymous, 15:32, 27 July 2007

still the two mentioned theories, both of them were used for nationalistic propaganda. There are some historians that share a more common sense hypotesis , that the both theories are true, the Daco-continuty and the migration from the south. Talking about the substrate there is very little emphasis about the migrations from IIBA.D and XIIA.D. An DNA reaserch will prove or not the absortion of the migrating tribes.CristianChirita

I intend to include the third theory which imply Dacian ethnic continuity with Vlach collonization from present day Serbia (Diocese of Dacia) and romanization after 600 A.D. This which seems to be the most supported by facts and - to some degree - joins both sides. Someone against?Yeti 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. However at the moment the article is the mess. Possibly it would be better to change sections into the following ones: 1. Arguments for and against early romanisation of present day Romania (before 300 AD), 2. Arguments for and against late romanisation of present day Romania (after 600 AD), 3. Arguments for and against ethnic continuity of Dacian settlement in Carpatian mountains. I think that this would make the article more nice and tidy. Yeti 08:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

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.

In the Arguments Against Daco-Romanian Continuity section where the Vlach name is discussed, the article seems to be missing an important point that would simplify this discussion. According to dictionary.com (which cites the Modern Language Association and others as its sources) the term Vlach ultimately derives from the Germanic root *walh which meant "foreigner." This is also the root for Welsh/Wales, Cornwall, the German word Welshe meaning Latin, and others. This Germanic expression was in common used during the Roman period and was commonly applied to Romans and Latin-speakers in general. So it can simply be argued that few conclusions can be drawn about the ethnicity of a group given this label during the Roman period. I think mentioning this root and its being widely applied around the ancient world is a better way to make the argument than the way the argument is currently phrased. --Mcorazao 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great addition but shouldn't be there some words given on his views? I mean, without knowing what his theories really are (and I think some nice excerpts can be found even in that online site: e.g. "we do not have to look for ethnicity as an inborn characteristic, but as an "ethnic practice" that reproduces the ties that hold a group together", "ethnic terms are not classificational but operational terms; ethnic groups cannot be deliminated from each other clearly, and their reality has to be constantly reproduced by human activity" and on the Romanian ethnogenesis "even outside the Empire the Roman-Christian tradition in a variety of forms proved an important factor of ethnic aggregation") that paragraph makes little sense. Daizus 07:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that would be the professional way to present the problem. One should give an overview of published works on what is ethnicity then procede to the fundamental topic of how and whether ethnical borders can be determined when written sources are lacking with a description of the conflicting views of the Toronto and Vienna schools and then adress the particular matter in question. Unfortunately that would demand from wiki-editors a degree of professionalism which many Romanian and Hungarian historians fail to meet. With a few exceptions, for ideological reasons that I fail to understand, they mainly seem to adress the matter from a court lawyer's point of view rather than a scientist's. They have a pre-established conclusion which they subsequently defend rather then follow the steps of gathering data, investigating data and interpreting data. Plinul cel tanar 09:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any linked mention of this article in History of Romania. Can someone work it in? --Wetman 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]