>But that does not diminish the fact that Schramm should have referred
>to it (which is the reason why I mentioned it) not does it diminish
>the fact that the book is a highly informative and competent piece of
>work from which one can learn a lot.
Du Nay book is written based on a single "thesis" :
"the Romanian arrived from a South Region of Danube around in sec.
XIV"
The entire book is written to sustain this 'pre-defined thesis' that
further try to justify a political Hungarian right on Transylvania.
For this reason this book cannot be considered a scientific book
(if you compare it for example with Rosetti and Densusianu books
that present the fact at an "academic level" (and in their books both
Rosetti and Densusianu point out a South Danube component of Romanian
Language)) even inside Dunay's book correct information are present
also.
The bigest issue of DuNay (Magh. Dunai) book is the supposed
timeframe of Romanian migration : Sec XIV. This is just a story in my
opinion based only on 'political reasons':
I can post you Hungarian attested Toponims in Transylvania from
sec. XI-XIII indicating Romanians settlements in Transylvania.
If you want to evaluate the situation you have to find a solution
that give answers to both pro & contra arguments so to all arguments
presented below (otherwise you can remain with a partial view on what
really happens)
So I post here the pro-contra arguments regarding 'Daco-Romanian
theory'(please note that there are also different 'nuances' here
like : a Dacian Substratum is present in Romanian Language however a
South Danube Romanian Component is present also) and also pro-contra
arguments regarding 'a possible South migration of Romanians'
((please note that there are also different 'nuances' here like :
what was the real timeframe of this supposed migration).
Regarding Daco-Romanian continuity theory here are pro&contra
arguments:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
After the Romans conquered Dacia in 106, a process of Romanization of
the local populations took place, Dacians adopting the Roman language
and customs. Romans left Dacia (about 273), but Romanized Dacians
continuously lived in Dacia since then and Romanians are their
descendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments for:
Extensive colonization of Dacia
1. The colonists came from different provinces of the Roman empire.
They had no common language except for Latin. In this multiethnic
environment Latin, being the only common language of communication,
might have quickly achieved the dominating position (American history
furnishes similar examples).
2. Dacian toponyms were kept (names of rivers: Samus - Someº,
Marisia - Mureº, Porata - Prut, etc; names of cities: Petrodava -
Piatra Neamt, Abruttum - Abrud) (It should be noted, however, that
the preservation of toponyms only indicates continuous settlement,
and not necessarily continuous settlement by the same people.)
Similarity in current Vlachian traditional clothes and Dacian clothes
as portraited on Trajan's Column
3. Constantine the Great assumed the title Dacicus Maximus in 336
just like Trajan did in 106, suggesting the presence of Dacians in
Dacia even after Aurelian Retreat of 270-275.
4. Numerous archeological sites prove the continuity of Latin
settlement north of the Danube after the evacuation of 273.
Arguments against:
1. The short time of occupation (only 165 years)
Romans conquered only about 20% of Romania (parts of Transylvania
and Oltenia); however, the Romanic people may have assimilated the
Dacians after the Roman retreat
Most colonists were brought from distant provinces of the Roman
Empire and they could not have spoken a language as close to literary
Latin as Romanian.
2. After the Roman withdrawal, a Dacian tribe (the Carpians - living
in Moldavia) conquered the abandoned areas and probably imposed their
language.
3. There are no written documents confirming that Romanic peoples
lived in Dacia in the period between the Roman evacuation of Dacia
and the 10th century.
4. There are no traces of Teutonic influence in Romanian and we know
that in the 5th and 6th centuries Dacia was inhabited by Teutonic
tribes.
5. According to Roman sources the population of Dacia was evacuated
south of the Danube.
II. Regarding Romanian migration from South here are pro/contra
arguments:
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Romanic population came from the south in the Middle Ages and
settled down in present-day Romania.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments for:
1. Common words with Albanian in Romanian, thought to be of Thracian
or Illyrian origin (some opponents claim that the Proto-Albanian and
Dacian languages were probably related and the common words could
have come from the Dacian language).
2. There are Vlachs living South of the Danube speaking a dialect of
Romanian (in Greece, the Republic of Macedonia, etc). They used to
live also in mountains of present-day Bulgaria. There are mentions of
their presence there from the early Middle Ages. Languages of
Southern Vlachs and Romanians are too close to suppose that they
evolved independently through 1800 years.
3. There are no traces of Teutonic influence in Romanian and we know
that in the 5th and 6th century Dacia was inhabited by Teutonic
tribes.
4. There are no written documents confirming that Romanic peoples
lived in Dacia in the period between the Roman evacuation of Dacia
and the 10th century (opponents point out that there are very few
records about this region in the Dark Ages). But many medieval
sources indicate presence of Vlachs in areas south of the Danube. See
also: History of Vlachs.
5. Romanian toponyms in Albania and Bulgaria. ([1]
(
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaHistory/history-map/toponym_eshte-
m.htm))
6. Vlach shepherds migrated northwards with their herds in search of
better pastures. For example they moved along the Carpathian
Mountains to present day Poland and even to the Czech Republic. They
influenced very significantly the culture and language of Polish and
Ukrainian highlanders.
7. According to Roman sources the population of Dacia was evacuated
south of the Danube in 270-275 (opponents allege that only a part of
the population was evacuated).
Arguments against:
1. Slavic languages exerted an enormous influence on Romanian. But
linguistic analyses of Romanian show that these Slavic languages were
dialects of the Bulgarian-Macedonian group. This narrows down our
search for the place where Romanian developed to the Romanic-speaking
parts of the Roman Empire which were subsequently inhabited by
Bulgarian-Macedonian Slavic tribes. These parts are: 1) Dacia (north
of the Danube River); 2) the lands situated between the Danube and
the Stara Planina mountains (currently northern Bulgaria); 3) the
region of Skopje (currently northern Macedonia); 4) Albania (between
the Drin River and the Vjosa River).
2. Romanian is very different from Dalmatian, so they probably
developed in distant regions. This suggests that Romanians could not
have come from the western part of the Balkans (including Albania).
Romanian lacks any Greek loanwords for religious terms. Romanians
used Old Church Slavonic as their liturgical language, so they were
probably Christianized by Bulgarian Slavs. It shows there was a
Slavic buffer zone between Greeks and Romanians.
3. Dacian toponyms were kept (names of rivers: Samus - Somes,
Marisia - Mures, Porata - Prut, etc; names of cities: Petrodava -
Piatra Neamt, Abruttum - Abrud). (It should be noted, however, that
the preservation of toponyms only indicates continuous settlement,
and not necessarily continouos settlement by the same people.)
4. A 12th century Hungarian chronicle, Gesta Hungarorum, affirms that
when the Magyars arrived in Pannonia, surrounding areas were
inhabited by Vlachs (Romanians). However, this chronicle was written
250 years after the described events and does not have to be
accurate.
5. A chronicle by Venerable Nestor (1056 - 1136 AD) mentions
Walachians fighting against Magyars north of the Danube in 6406
(898). See also: Nestor Chronicles
(
http://www.users.bigpond.com/kyroks/nestor.html).
6. No medieval chronicle mentions any large-scale migrations of
Romanic peoples from the Balkans to Romania.
As you can see both pro & contra arguments are important and should
be addressed in detail for a final conclusion.
Only The Best,
Marius