Re: [tied] Moldova [Re: cardinal points]

--- g <gs001ns@...> wrote:

>
> >GK: 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.
>
> (G)Indeed, that's the Romanian tradition or legend,
> trans-
> mitted by chroniclers. But is this a conclusive
> explanation?
> Because there are further Moldovas, e.g. Moldova
> Veche
> and Moldova noua, toponyms in the province of Banat,
> at
> the Romanian Serbian border; i.e. in a region which
> for
> the first time after the Hunnic and Avar kaganates
> came
> under the same jurisdiction with Moldavia only in AD
> 1919.

*****GK: Any idea as to when these villages(? since
you say toponyms) were founded?******

>
> (G)BTW, some people think the Slavic name of the
> fir-tree species Picea as the origin for "Moldova":
> I don't
> remember the Slavic form, but as a Romanian loanword
> it looks like this <molid.> Is this assumption worth
> taking
> into consideration?

*****GK: So that on this view "Moldova" would have
been named by the same process that gave us "Bukovyna"
? ******

>
> (Besides, among Hungarians there are many having
> the family names Moldvai and Moldov�nyi. I might be
> wrong, but I don't believe that everyone carrying
> such
> a name has some Moldavian ancestor.)

*****GK: A Ukrainian analogy is discernible in names
like "Lytvyn" or "Moskal'", which does not suggest
Lithuanian or Russian ancestry but something like
"involvement in commercial transactions with L." in
the first case and "ex-member of the Russian imperial
army" in the second.******

>
> >(GK)Why is it necessary to fantasize their being
> >descendants of 2nd c. Dacians?
>
> Because this has some tradition. And, ironically,
> a major initial role in this was played by...
> Hungarian (!) chroniclers of the 12th-13th ff
> centuries,
> who, along with contemporary or earlier foreign
> (Greek, French) scribblers, inspired later
> generations.
>
> The 2nd reason: even from the opposite point of view
> -- that states there was no Romanization whatsoever
> in north-Danubian Dacia --, there was possibility
> enough
> for Dacians to become Latin-speakers in Moesia
> superior,
> Dacia ripensis, Dacia mediterranea, Dardania,
> Pannonia,
> parts of Illyricum as well as in areas that,
> according to
> some administrative regulations in certain periods,
> rather
> belonged to Thrace. So, there's enough "substrate"
> (be
> it Thracian, be it Dacian-Moesian, be it Illyrian
> cum
> Pannonian) to take into consideration even if the
> North-
> Danubian territory is left out completely.

*****GK: Particularly since the 3rd c. out-migration
would have been largely directed to these areas.*****

On top of

> that,
> some ancient writers reported of free Dacian
> populations
> that crossed the Danube and settled down in those
> regions of SPQR's Empire -- after all, pursuing what
> modern
> immigrants pursue in the so-called Schengen
> territory.

*****GK: The Carpi fit this scenario of course. But in
this connection I'd like to verify something else. I
remember reading somewhere (perhaps on this very list
but the who or when escapes me), that there is a
depiction on Trajan's Dacian War column of some mass
out-migration by Free Dacians at the conclusion of the
war. Northward and northeastward I believe. Is this
so?****

>
> >GK: As pointed out to you,[to Alex] 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.).
>
> So, it seems they had plenty of time betw. 2nd-7th
> cent. for drills in "lingua nostra nova". :-)
>
> George
>
>

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