Re: [tied] Re: Du Nay

alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> 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).

I am afraid the therm "extensive colonialization" is missleading and it is
false. We do not know about any Imperial program of colonisation and we do
know about the little time the cities founded by Romans have lived due the
Marcomanic Wars.

>
> 2. Dacian toponyms were kept (names of rivers: Samus - Some�,
> Marisia - Mure�, 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

the Dacian toponyms are kept and since the change do "a:" to "o" do not
apply to Latin words in Romanian it is selfevident the sound law "a:" > "o"
worked before Roman times. The traditional clothes of Valahian and the
Dacian clothes appears to be more fiction as reality.

>
> 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.

there are many shcolars who like to see here in the name "Dacia" just a
geographical denomination and the fights fo Constantince the Great being
fights against other folks but not against Dacians since these ( the
dacians ) should have been wipped out by Romans. However, it is hard to
believe in the 336 CE Constantine the Great could not make the difference
between Dacians and "other folks", thus apparently the suggestion with the
geografic denomination seems to be just a shcolar construct.

>
> 4. Numerous archeological sites prove the continuity of Latin
> settlement north of the Danube after the evacuation of 273.

not quite right. So far I remember, it is said the archeological sites
proves that the LAtin element melted in the "local" culture".

>
>
> 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.

the Romanistic School sustain Romanian is not fromed out of "literary Latin"
but on Vulgar Latin, doesn't it?

>
> 2. After the Roman withdrawal, a Dacian tribe (the Carpians - living
> in Moldavia) conquered the abandoned areas and probably imposed their
> language.

a language about we do not know anything.

>
> 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.

there are no written documents which confirm that Romanic peoples lived
south of Danube either. At least Prophyrogenetus which make an "inventur" of
his empire, do not mention any "Romanic people". And we know begining with
Heraclion ( VII century) the Greek became official languages of the East
Roman Empire with the motivation "none could not understand anymore Latin":
Even Justinian, half century before recomended to the officials to do not
force (!!!) anymore the people to speak Latin since it is useless, none
understanding that language.

>
> 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.

that is a false statement. "inhabited" is the wrong suggestion here. We do
not know about any city, about any dwelling of these germanic folks. Neither
the Goths, nor the Gepidae, apparently they did not builded something new or
they used the old settlemnts(name). They ruled the theritory, that is sure,
but inhabited? They have been migrators, the Goths have migrated laong until
Spain, the Gepidae have been destroyed and possible melted after this in the
mass of Markomans & Suebs.

>
> 5. According to Roman sources the population of Dacia was evacuated
> south of the Danube.

Not the population, but the administration. The tratate between Goths and
Aurelian mentions a lot of details about the way how the country was given
to the goths. A mention about moving of the population is now known to us,
but it is known about citisiens of Roman Empire running out of Empire to
North of Danube due several reasons, mostly being the army and the fiscal
obligations which made them to prefer to live outside of the Roman Empire.

>
>
> 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).

the linguistic data here speaks about a preroman contact between actually
Romanians and Albanians

>
> 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.

they are not mentioned in South of Danube before the arriving of the
Hungarians. As soon as the Hungarians conquested the Panonian Plains, the
Vlachs are noted at the border of the East Roman Empire.

>
> 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.

again, ruled but not inhabited. The Goths settles South of Danube as well in
the time of Decius. And there in the dialect od the Timocs Vlachs are not
Germanic influneces as well.

>
> 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.

so far I remember, the medieval sources do not indicate any presence of the
vlachs in South of Danube before X century as well if one makes abstraction
from the Blakorechinos from the time of Iconoclastic Wars and from Chronic
of Ragussa. These Blakorechinos are still dubious and questionable, one
needs to know more about. The Chronic of Ragussa speaks about a migration in
the VIII century of the Vlachs from Dacia to South of Danube.

>
> 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.

very significantly? I am afraid Piotr and George Knish will ask you what is
significant matter here.

>
> 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.

they Used the Old Church Slavonic but the christian terminology is not of
Slavic Church neither of Latin Church. The therminology is "home made". As
an observations: - the Latin terminology as "c�shlegi" ( < caseum legatus)
and "paresimi" (< quadragessima) do not match the phonetic rules established
for derving the words from Latin to Romanians. About "home made": - these
are words which are supposed to derive from Latin, but they are not used in
Latin as religious therms. meaning they have adapted "ad hoc" for
transalting the Latin/Salvic meaning of the religious therm.

>
> 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.)

there is the necesity to have some people there which gives to the new
commer the way how is spoken out the name of the toponims and hydronims.

>
> 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.

the events does not have to be accurate. The mention of the vlachs in a
chronic about arriving of the Hungarinas is enough.

>
> 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).

George Knysh suggested a scenario like the time'machine here. Nestor wrote
about facts in the time of Hungarians but he reflected older events and he
confounded the Vlachs with the Romans. For more explanations, ask Geroge:-)

> As you can see both pro & contra arguments are important and should
> be addressed in detail for a final conclusion.
>
> Only The Best,
> Marius

Alex