george knysh wrote:
>
> *****GK: I am not just quoting any ancient writers,
> Alex, but writers who were in an excellent position to
> know what they were talking about. The Romans had
> frequent contacts with the Bastarnae on the Lower
> Danube. So the quality of this information is
> infinitely more reliable than Strabo's or
> Polybius'.****
The same did the Greeks begining with VI century BC; they have knew very
well the Thracians we should we not belive them?
>
> *****GK: You don't seem to have done this with respect
> to the Bastarnae. So here what you are doing is
> advancing not just a rumour but an unverified rumour
> as a counter-argument to very solid evidence. No dice
> I'm afraid.*****
You are right. I do not intend to give my own opinion about Bastarnae. I
mentioned some shcolars -beside what Tacitus sayd - they belive these
Bastarnae should have been Celtic. And as matter of fact in the north of
Danube but in South too, there are a lot of traces of celtic
denomination but no germanic one. (in thracian space, of course)
>
> *****GK: Yes. Various Germanic peoples (including the
> Goths and Gepidae) also "left" areas contiguous to
> those of Slavic settlements. But they left a number of
> loanwords as evidence of their earlier presence. One
> would have expected something similar in the case of
> Dacians turned Romanians (as per your theory). You've
> provided nothing yet.******
You are driving into one paradox. Assuming the ProtoRomanians have been
somewhere in Balkan or North Italy, tehy should have had at least
frankish or Langobard influence. Due missing these influences (as per
your theory), they are neither in Balkan, nor in North of Italy. Have
you a better place for them?
>
> The cronics are
>> silent regarding the
>> working population
>
> *****GK: They're also silent about any kind of
> proto-Romanian population north of the Danube before
> the 2nd millennium AD.*****
They are silent about any valah until the comming of the Hungarians in
the X century.
>
>> The very big help in the problem of Romanians being
>> in North of Donau
>> from all the time are simply the slavs and the
>> socalled slavic
>> continuum
>
> *****GK: How does that help? (Whatever you mean by
> it)*****
Hungarians and Romanians are making two entities in the so-called Slavic
continuum.
For Hungarians the explanation was simple. they came, they made a state,
they adopted chatolicsm, alliance with Germanic state, they could
survive.
About the romanians on the contrary: no state power, no catholicism ,
but as the slavs the orthodoxism. Having no state power, having the
religion in Slavic language, having all around slavs, and living with
slavs (as usual admited), a survey into such conditions can be just the
number. They have been much enough for resisting to the Slavic presure.
Assuming a migration from South of Donau, we get trouble with the
linguistic conclusion that there was no conntact anymore with the roman
world begining with 3 century. South of Donau and no contact with Roman
World. This is imposible.So they must have been outside of Empire. But
where?
I let your choise here. Take them from Black Forest where the Donau's
spring is, until Black Sea. Try to find a place for them. Keep in mind
that from IV century until X century are 600 years. In this 600 years
dissapeared the dacians and apperaed the Vallahians. In the time from
the last mention about Dacians until the frist mention of Valahians we
have just these migrators: huns, gepidae, avars.( I don't count the
Goths since they have been mentioned in the same time with the
carpo-dacians).The Romanians cannot be Huns, they cannot be Gepidae,
they cannot be Avars and the Romans withdrawed in the 3 century as the
carpo-getic tribes in alliance with goths re-entered Dacia Traina. Who
are they then? Slavs? They aren't. Excluding all these it remains just
only one explanation. They are the Thracians and more precisely they are
the North Thracians.
P.S. from all the folks enumerated here it is remained for sure
something geneticaly inside of the Rom. folk. The use of general therms
does not mean there is any intention to speak about a purity of race or
something like this. The therms are used just "grosso modo".