Talk:Origin of Romanians/Archive1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bulgarian influence, not Serbian nor Greek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What many proponents of "complete" Daco-Roman evacuation don't seem to realize is that invading tribes generally did not penetrate the mountains of Romania. Daco-Romans could have easily established themselves in mountain communities, at least temporarily. Also, even if many or some Daco-Romans or Romans did remove themselves south of the Danube, they did not go to "Africa" or some distant land, they just went next door----literally. There probably was much or at least some cross-filtration: most likely many of the evacuees went back north, a few miles. Also, the Albanian connection: most of the words that Albanians have in common with Romanians are evidently or most likely words that Albanians took from Southern Vlachs---or---it's possible the Albanians migrated from the North (Dacia)& picked up Daco-Roman words while there---or, VERY LIKELY it's possible many of these words were taken directly from the Dacians by the ancestors of the Albanians in ancient times. Remember, the Dacians were not restricted to Dacia,& there is much evidence (particularly in ancient personal names)of Dacian penetration into Illyria. So if the ancestors of Albanians were in or near Illyria in ancient times, they would most likely have picked up Dacian (& Thracian) words. The Albanian cognates are not good evidence for the migration-theory. They can be easily explained by other scenarios. Also, there is enough difference between Daco-Romanian & Macedo-Romanian to argue for quite a sepration in space & time. And anyway, it's most likely the Macedo- & Megleno- Romanians migrated from the North & moved south at some early time (though from how far north, I can't say). This idea that Vlachs in Macedonia & Greece came from further north does not contradict what I said previously about the marked difference between Daco-Romanian & Macedo. I'm not saying the Macedos came from Dacian lands directly. Most likely the Macedo & Megeleno Romanians came from middle or upper Thrace. The Daco-Romanian language & people most likely originated in Dacia.