Volcae+Wallachia-Vlach

From: Rex H. McTyeire
Message: 1163
Date: 2000-01-26

I've been following this Wend Venedi Volcae discussion from a
respectable non-linguistic distance. Its not impossible: but to sell
me on a Volcae>Wallachia link, I think you have first to go from
Volcae to Vlach (Voloch?), which will be the hard part.
It is generally accepted that Wallachia (two "L's")is from Vlach, and
essentially means "Land of the Vlach". From there backwards there are three
main schools:
1) Vlach is a form of Slav _Voloch_ (for: foreigners) and is post Roman
(after 271 ad), and was applied to the Latinized Geto-Daci found here,
and actually referred to the broader nationality of composite Romanians
extending well across the Dneister and Danube rivers from the "Compromise
Principality" of Wallachia. The foreigner appellation coming from two
perspectives: a) non-Slavic, and b) the Latinization elements were from
civil Italian and military colony contingents (The latter being retirement
benefits for legionnaires; at this point as apt to be Gauls, North Africans
and Levantines as Italian)
2) Vlach is a pre-Roman "transhumance" Thracian tribe, and neighbor of
the Moesi, Getae, Daci, Costobocs and Karpidaci; simply gaining prominence
in usage for the Latinized Thracians of all stripes.
3) All folks listed above were killed, and Slavs called the intrusive
replacements foreigners (Volochs).

After 2 years here wandering around lost, studying and observing, I reject
3) out of hand, favor 1); but concede some evidence may support a composite
of 1) and 2).

Celts and Scythians were present in the Pre-Roman mix, as were small steppe
elements constantly dribbling west through the Dvungarian gate. (There is
_Galati_, the Black sea Harbor on the Danube mouth.) The Greek colony
influence was generally limited to the Black Sea coastal area. The single
most significant intrusive aspect post-Roman is Slav, particularly in
Moldavia and Moldova: but does not reach the "defining" stage as Russian
literature (even, I think, Alekseev) would indicate. Pecheneg, and Cuman
elements are also identifiable in the North and N.East. (Ogazi, Muslim,
Ottoman and Russian Jewish presence's were pushed out by various
influences.)

Transylvania gets a slightly different treatment, but one has to look past
the Political arguments of the last Century. Celts were there, with the
Karpidaci and Costobocs (pre-Roman), and probably got less Latinization
than the Danube basin. In the face of Hungarian arguments to the
contrary..(Yes..there are some towns with pockets of Hungarian settlers,
that speak 75% Hungarian..but the regional language is predominantly
Romaneste.): The tenth to thirteenth century Hungarian consolidation in the
(Transylvanian) Region was far from uniform..and many so called "Hungarian
Settlers" were actually Saxon and Szeckler tribes who had been allied with
the Hungarian military effort into the Pannovian Plain....these elements
became assimilated, while the Hungarians did not. The result of the
Saxon/Szeckler overlay on the previous Celt mix does produce a Transylvanian
cultural variance over Dacia/Romania at large (add also a dash of Goth):
The architecture is transalpine, and the moustaches are almost "Swiss", the
morphology lacks the eastern and latinization influences, and looks much
more Germanic.

The post Roman locals called themselves: Romani, Romeni, Rumeni, or Aromani:
but pockets expanding into Serbia and Thessaly retained the "Vlach" label.
(Not to be confused with the current "Romani" populations
of Yugoslavia, which are Gypsies..pushed from Bulgaria into Romania..then
moving west...all since the Bulgar intrusion.)

The evidence for 2) includes resilient and undatable place names scattered
all over Romania that seem to be derived from Vlach or Voloch: The
Hungarians called locals moving west "Olah", here are towns named:
Vlahi/Blacci/Valachi/Volohi/Olachi/Olahok/Vlah/Ilac/Iflak.

(-:Really; all I wanted to do was interview a few Scythians:-)

La Revedere;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania
<rexbo@...>