Re: [tied] Re: Moldova

tolgs001 wrote:

>
> I don't know. But it'd be anyway of less relevance,
> since the assumption that in the Trajan's wars the
> Dacian perished is anyway wrong (and abandoned for
> 1-2 centuries now). Because there are sources saying
> Dacians existed after the conquest, as well as "free"
> Dacian outside the occupied territory. After the
> Roman administration retreated in 271 under Aurelianus,
> those free ones, of course, had the upper hand
> What's OTOH striking -- and it should be to Alex,
> too -- is that, in spite of Dacians having regained
> freedom, they disappeared (as a distinct ethno-ling-
> uistic entity) 3-4 centuries later for good, leaving
> almost no valuable (I mean distinct) linguistic traces
> Since there isn't any account on an outstanding
> massacre or epidemiologic occurrence, common sense
> urges us to think of some assimilation or another
> (into the Romance-speaking or the Slavic-speaking
> masses - or both)
> ____

heh, this was an idea who broght the linguist there to think about a
daco-slavic which became extinct too very soon.
Of course the idea have had no basis, just the fact that the Dacian
reentered their old theritory in the IV century they have been there,
even under the vasals of Atilla they are mentioned. But somehow, they
dissapiered and are replaced with valahians in unknown conditions.