Re: [tied] Re: cardinal points

--- alex_lycos <altamix@...> wrote:

> 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: What does this comment have to do with the
Bastarnae being Germanic? Incoherent phrasings usually
indicate incoherent thought processes. What in the
world are you talking about?******

>
> >
> > 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: The Bastarnae were located in today's
Moldavia, and at the mouth of the Danube. The very
name of "Moldavia" is ultimately derived from a
Germanic root (a river name). But this (and other
hydronyms and toponyms) only confirms what we already
know from reliable historical sources.*****

> >
> > 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.
>
> (Alex)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?

******GK: I tend to agree with those scholars and
commentators who see the proto-Romanians as initially
inhabiting (in pockets) large areas of the Balkans
south of the Danube, i.e. in Roman territory later
breached by the Slavs. Why should they have borrowed
anything from Lombards or Franks? I don't see anything
mean or degrading about some of these populations
(with other elements assimilated to them)subsequently
trekking northward across the Danube and occupying the
lands of contemporary Romania, creating mediaeval
states there, and ultimately evolving into the modern
Romanian (incl. Moldavians) ethnicity. Why is it
necessary to fantasize their being descendants of 2nd
c. Dacians?*****

>
> >
> > 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.

*****GK: As pointed out to you, it is not necessary to
share "West Roman" innovations to have contacts with
the "Roman world" as long as there was one (I believe
Greek only became the official language of the
Byzantine Empire in the 7th c.).*******

it remains just

> only one explanation. They [Romanians GK] 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".

*****GK: I agree. I'm sure that there are indeed some
descendants of "North Thracians" (as you call them) in
the Romanian people. My problem is that I just don't
see these "Thracians" as the major ancestors of
Romanians.******


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com