>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.
That wouldn't imply any problem, since there was
plenty of territory in former Dacia mediterranea,
Dacia ripensis, Moesia Superior, Dardania up to
Illyricum where that populace could have avoided
real coexistence with those Germanic tribes (the
Franks were though too far away, in Caranthania
i.e. Austria, so there's no need to bring'em
into discussion). Besides, in former Yugoslavia,
there exists very old Romanian (or quasi-proto-
Romanian) toponymy in certain regions whose
Romanian population was long ago assimilated in
the Serbo-Croatian environment. (A standard book
on this south-Danube Romanianness which the
Transylvanian historian and priest Silviu Dragomir
wrote almost a century ago is still worth
reading or browsing through.)
And then we shouldn't forget Romanians in the
Bulgarian realm: the second czardom was set up
by the Asan brethren (whom Bulgarian call Asen)
and who based their might on a significant
Romanian power.
>For Hungarians the explanation was simple. they came,
>they made a state, they adopted chatolicsm,
Initially, they opted for Christian orthodoxy.
Even king St. Stephen was first baptized as an
Orthodox. (The great schism took place anyway
several decades later: 1054.)
>Assuming a migration from South of Donau
Why Donau and not the Danube?
>we get trouble with the linguistic conclusion
>that there was no conntact anymore with the
>roman world begining with 3 century.
That's why it is seen as self-understood that
Romanian "newbies" had linguistic contacts with
the late Roman world 3-4 centuries longer,
namely within the realm of the Eastern Roman
empire - as long as Latin was still spoken.
(Although it's weird that only "basilica"
has been preserved for "church", while "ecclesia"
or "chiesa" is unknown. This might suggest a
mighty isolation...) After all, which were the
latinophonous population of those provinces?
The proto-Romanians and the Dalmatians
themselves. Nobody else. The Romeic, Rumelian
population has been... Greek. And the so-called
Romaniot population has been Jewish, that
speaks... Greek.
>The Romanians cannot be Huns
You never know (-: just think of the "Hunni fossatissi",
the Huns that became peasants in the N-W of the Balkan
peninsula up to Northern Italy. Also think of a second
Hunnic branch that settled down in the Byzantine empire:
what if these Huns got Latinized too? ;) And these were
only some of the "instants"up to the later encounter
with the Petchenegs and Cumans who were assimilated in
what's today's Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary.
George