From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 35556
Date: 2004-12-22
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> 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 - 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
>
>
> 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 "câshlegi" ( < 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