Talk:Origin of the Romanians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Morosanul (talk | contribs) at 11:28, 5 June 2008 (→‎Toponymy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

archive1, archive2

Article change

This article was polished a little in time. It has a style of arguind pro and counter arguments, like you can put them on a balance a d see witch one is more important. I would like more a structure like this:

  • explaining the first possibility shortly, then describing it with all the implications it has supposing it is true (like things you can deduce supposing it true). At the end explain a little the counter-arguments.
  • then do the same with the seccond possibility, explaining what this means for the history of the region, and what kind of history would have exited under this theory.

This is mostly about the forme, to alow the article to expand more. I will not recommand tto introduce the third theory... I would like to have twoo teories explained with all the implications, and not only arguments. it feels like we are at war, and we want to shot bullets. Well, arguments do have a bullet at the begining of the line, don't they? Moa3333 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was also suggesting a revision of the format. Instead of arguments pro- and con- presented in two sections, I was also thinking of a different approach; Origin of Albanians used to be formatted like this article, but I changed it to a different format. Alexander 007 08:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


All pro-argumetns should be turned into counter-arguments for the oposite theory. Not very important arguemtns should be listed at the end. So there will be only counter-arguments. But on the other hand, we nead to construct a story for each theory (including things that are supposed to have hapend if the theory is true). I am thinking about a page that is on wikipedia in romanian. It was submitted by some very important writer, and has many details regarding the theory of romanisation. People are still editing it to be more encyclopedic. here. Moa3333 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Edits by InFairness

The Romanian version of the article appears to be lifted directly out of a history book, like many other articles on ro.wiki... For example, ro:Zoltes is copied word-by-word from "Dicţionar de istorie veche a României". bogdan 19:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extensive Roman colonization of Dacia. (fact)

Yes, it was extensive. The number of Latin inscription in Dacia was rather large (compared with Illyria or Moesia, for example) considering the small time of occupation.

"... though it may have also been propaganda."

Of course it was propaganda. All the titles given after victories were part of Roman propaganda. But the wars against the Dacians (allied with Goths) were real. I don't think I ever heard a historian disputing those wars.

" “Samus” [samus] (Dacian or Latin) => “Számos” [sa:moS] (Hungarian) => “SomesZ” [somES] (modern Romanian)"

It looks wrong. Please give a reference.

This argument doesn’t explain why the Romanians converted to an ‘Eastern Orthodox’ church instead of the Latin Church

I don't get what you want to say by this. They converted because it was closer and Byzantine allies had more value in the area than the Papal allies, which were rather far.

Even the toponymns listed come to Romanian in a modified form by way of Hungarian forms.

references?

It also says that the “Walachians” were in the service of the Bulgarians, whose center of power was ‘south’ of the Danube.

So, what? There were Bulgarians in Transylvania, too, remember? bogdan 20:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Another interesting question is why did Wallachians use Bulgarian for their liturgy and as an official written language? Why not Greek or Latin?--Kaloyan* 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. This question has been answered thousand of times: because we got the Orthodoxy from the Bulgarians. --Candide, or Optimism 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was just wondering myself why my signature wasn't coming up :) I'm not happy with this answer. Bulgarians got the Othodoxy from the Byzantines but that didn't prevent them from creating a new written language. Furthermore, Bulgarians exported Orthodoxy and the alphabet to "language-friendly" states. Lastly, who said Wallachia and Bulgaria were separate entities at that time? Asparouh founded Bulgaria while operating from Bessarabia. There is evidence to believe that his uncle Kii had control over these territories even before his march down south. Krum held all of present Romania. The alphabet was created under BorisI. Territorially, things remained largely the same. Same story under Simeon...Kaloyan* 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Amazingly what you call a new written language (I assume you mean alphabet though) is made of distorted Greek letters ... :) Daizus 14:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We were too dumb to write in Latin, so we took your alphabet instead, which had influenced us. And yes, I know that much of the Romanian land was vassal to Bulgaria. That's where the influence might have come from. --Candide, or Optimism 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dazius, Greek was a 90% copied alphabet from the Phoenician and so it goes. What is your point? Besides, the Cyrillic alphabet is less copied or "distorted" compared to the Greek. There were also Bulgar runnic symbols included. --Kaloyan* 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent new section !

A really good work with the new section, named "Contemporary Sources", which is pertinent and accurate. Well done, Anitta !

As the author indicates, the section deals with Romanian presence in Transylvania and Pan­nonia as early as the 8th century. Since by that time the Romanian ethnogenesis - like those of the other Romance nations - is considered to be mostly concluded, a Romanian presence in Transylvania and Pannonia at that time is indeed a strong indication of an ethnogenesis in Transylvania as well, but not a stricto sensu argument for this.

I suggest therefore to make out of this section an article of its own, let's say Romanian presence in Transylvania and Pannonia in the Dark Ages, which should be than clearly linked to both Origins of Romanians and (History of) Transylvania. Reciprocally, at least the two mentioned articles should explicitly and detailed refer to this new article.

--Vintila Barbu 11:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to get some feedback from the person who started the article, but my request was ignored. I no longer care to contribute to this article, or any other articles started by that person. Thanks for your comments, tho. --Candide, or Optimism 20:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the argumentative style of the article, I added a Rebuttal section for both continuity and mygration. Some of the information it provides repeats itself in the article, but this is inherent to having a rebuttal, hence it rearguments and counterarguments whay has been said. It needs, to my appreciation, a great deal of polishing, but I thought it should be a bit insisted on. Maybe someone would care to make a rebuttal for the continuity theory and for the anti-mygration theory. It would be helpfull is someone would find statistyics of Romanian population in ancient times and further on through the centuries..this would clarify some heated points. as i am not logged right now, I sign with mkth :) I also found it necessary to explain why the leading authorities in anti-continuation are hungarian and why thereis this feud between Hungaria an dRomania over the whole issue. I thought the beginning could solve this matter well enough, though it might be moved to other part. And my enlgish needs polishing too :)

The mentioned sources are not contemporary. For example the DEO was written more than 400 years latter. I have changed the title "medieval sources".

Unencyclopedic tone

The entire massive paragraph beginning:

There is an explication of why the Latin culture was so quickly and intensively inoculated to the population...

shows that regrettably some editors here are using Wikipedia like a chatroom or debate forum, droning on and on instead of concisely notating relevant issues in a proper encyclopedic tone. I can't help feeling that the article could only be improved by starting all over from nothing. CRCulver 11:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article isn't so bad. The droning passage you complain about was added by an anon on 30 April. I don't understand why it wasn't removed immediately, but I have done so now (it would have cost you three clicks to do the same). dab (ᛏ) 07:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is completely unencyclopaedic and unprofessional. It's fucked up entirely, to be put it less delicately. People who feel they are compelled to pour a swarm of "arguments" in the face of readers, should check out a forum, because this kind of tone belongs to a forum, not an encyclopaedia. All you achieve that no serious people will take this article as giving any useful information. (Zigomer trubahin (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect

I say to redirect the article (or move big chunks of it) to The Roessler Theory. greier 11:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say doing so is nonsense. The Roessler Theory is just one of the several theories for ethnogenesis, and you can't group all of them under this name.
Exactly my point! You are free to make artcles for as many theories as you want, and put it here. greier 11:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no. This article covers several theories, not just that theory. It is you who should redirect it to here. Don't remove anything from this article! People have worked hard on the article. Just because you started a new article with a name of a theory doesn't mean you can do as you please, so please: back off! --Candide, or Optimism 11:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ego is more important than logic.. may it be as you wish. greier 11:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOW CAN I CONVINCE YOU TO ACCEPT CORRECTIONS?

I have made two attempts to including amendments into your article, correcting a couple of very evident mistakes:

- it's MADABA, not MAGADA - it's GERMANIC tribes/languages, not TEUTONIC t/l

They have been quite promptly removed.

I seem to be too dumb to understand the rules of permanent editing - evidently, I don't mean the "sandbox"! Or could it be that the rules are too confusing...?

I leave it up to you to use these two 100% correct and needed amendments. Do whatever you please with them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.25.119.131 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 May 2006.


TO Crculver.

I do not understand your revert.

The influence of passing populations might have been minimal.

Gepides had their state in former Roman Dacia for 100 years. Besides, other Germanic tribes (Goths, Bastarnes, Wandals, Quadi) were direct neighbours of Dacia for about 500 years. I could not let myself to describe their presence as "passing". Yeti 22:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and deleted those two problematic sentences, but reverted your additions. They are in very poor English and I couldn't let them stand. CRCulver 22:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balance between the two theories

It seems to me that this version of the article has not preserved the balance between the two theories (i. e. the same proofs (like the Nestor Chronicle) are used repeatedly just to make the Daco-Romanian Continuity more credible.

  • Exactly. Majority of arguments for daco-romanian continuity seem artificial and can not be taken seriously. I suppose that they are included only to make an inmression that there are many arguments supporting this theory. For example:

- Dacian toponyms were kept; examples are the names of some rivers (Samus - Someş, Marisia - Mureş, Porata - Prut) and the names of some cities (Petrodava - Piatra Neamţ, Abruttum - Abrud). - in eastern USA lots of Amerindian toponims are kept, what does not mean that the present population is of Amerindian origin.

True, however it does show that the ethnically diverse population that did colonize eastern USA did meet an Amerindian population which was already there. Note that despite the well atested history of violence and opression Amerindian populations didn't migrate in mass towards a far away land of salvation, neither did they dissapear. In fact toponymy cannot be an argument for strong continuity but it may be one for weak continuity. One of this article's greatest problems is that it does not distinguish between late migration and early migration neither between strong continuity and weak continuity. Plinul cel tanar 10:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just brought up one of the best and clearest points. Having the same toponyms means CLEARLY that the area was continuously inhabited. This proves totally false the theory that states that the Magyars came and found an empty place, then Romanians migrated there. The arguments here are not even all! Do realize how stupid this sounds: the Dacians and Romans had some names for the rivers, cities, and mountains. Then they left, and the area remained empty (not credible!). Then the Magyars came and they had a revelation, and decided to call all that things with the same name. Then the Romanians came from the south and took the Hungarian name for that places. Wow, such a brilliant logic!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirc mirc (talk • contribs) 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Nobody claims anything like that. But continious settlement does imply continious settlement of the same ethnicity. For example in SOUTHERN Ukraine old SCYTHIAN toponims are common even if ethnicity of the area changed a few times: scyhtho-sarmatian through Germanic, Turkic, Slavonic, Turkic again and Slavonic again. The presence of former toponims proves NOTHING. The same can be said about majority of other arguments supporting migrationist theory: it is nationalistic thrash. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.204.232.15 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is just simply untrue. There are no toponyms in Romania which can be linked to a Thracian-like language. The word Samum (only the genitivus preserved in Latin texts) is probably of Celtic origin (see the Somme in France), while Marisia is probably Iranian meaning "stony (river)", (see Sanskrit asmara, Iranian mara, "stone", the name of Marakanda (Samarkand)). The name Porata is doubtlessly Iranian (Sanskrit parathu - "wide", Avestan parata - "ford"). While in the name of Piatra Neamt, the word piatra has a Greek origin, and it is unknown where was Petrodava, so it is superficial to link the two. The same is the case with Abruttum and Abrud.

- Some morpho-syntactic, lexical and phonetical regional differences within Romanian indicate that in certain regions of Romania the language preserved more Latin substance than in the rest of the country [1]. The boundaries of these linguistic areas coincide quite exactly with the borders of the ancient Roman province of Dacia, encompassing modern Transylvania, Banat and Oltenia. - serious claim. Any references to SERIOUS scientific researches, please? The reference given seems to be irrelevant.

- The similarity between the current Romanian traditional clothes and the Dacian clothes, as depicted on Trajan's Column. - this one is really funny.

The Dacian clothing is practically identical to that of the Scythians.

- 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 the Aurelian withdrawal of 270-275. - I do not understand. This arguments seems to be irrelevant and may support the opposite theory as well.

- Numerous archaeological sites prove the continuity of Latin settlements north of the Danube after the evacuation of 271, including: 

   * Daco-Roman ceramic artifacts from the 5th-6th centuries, found at: Bratei, Soporu de Câmpie, Verbiţa, Sǎrata Monteoru
   * Christian tombs and objects found at: Cluj-Napoca, Alba-Iulia, Biertan, Dej
   * Walls erected in the 4th century at Sarmizegetusa - HOW those sites prove the continuity of Latin settlements north of the Danube, please? Roman cultural influence do not prove anything. The same about christian tombs. Goths were christians before they crossed Danube. And how walls "prove" linguistic continuity?

- Many inscriptions in the Latin language: inscriptions on silver ring from Micia, ceramic objects from Porolissum, brick found at Gornea, inscription on bronze object found at Biertan (reading "EGO ZENOVIUS VOTUM POSUI"). - Many? Details? Inscription could be left by a prisoner or a trader or (if on an artifact) could be exchanged or bought.

According to me this article does not meet standards of Wikipedia and is full of POV.80.43.70.106 15:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there are three teories

It's more plausible that romanians came after the maghiars in alien ships coming from another planet. The invasion of the earth start in balkans. Considering that all the stuff written by Gesta ARE PURE FANTASIES, the alien theorie is one the most plausible theories. It is just a matter of days till an DNA research will solve this theory daco-continuity issue forever.CristianChirita

DNA has nothing to do with language or ethnicity. English was the language of a pasty white guys in northern island, but it's spoken now by plenty of people of African descent and Indians. Similarly, the Romance-speaking peoples are all considered Latins, but genetically they don't all come from Rome. If people in modern Romanian have DNA similar to that of the Dacians or pre-Magyar population, it doesn't mean continuity of language and culture, it means that a migration from the south may still have occured where the Vlachs imposed their language and ethnic identity on a substrate.
Historical linguists nearly universally consider DNA worthless for arguing about language and ethnicity. CRCulver 18:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with your ideas on genetics. it means you are aware that ethnicity is just a social construct, which changes over time.. and which becamed of major importance only during late 18th century (while national states were just a replacement for the previous form of organisation). however, i don't agree with the migration theory. i post a link below, this might be interesting for some and maybe somebody will use the scientific data (not just this article) to complete the article. the main reason i think the link below is interesting is the correlation between social status and the presence of N haplogroup (asian). also, the 2 in 27 samples having that feature in the 10th century (which could give some data about the genetic distribution at that time). the sample is small, error is big (~5%), but statistics still work, even for small samples. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17632797&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum -- Anonymous, 15:32, 27 July 2007

still the two mentioned theories, both of them were used for nationalistic propaganda. There are some historians that share a more common sense hypotesis , that the both theories are true, the Daco-continuty and the migration from the south. Talking about the substrate there is very little emphasis about the migrations from IIBA.D and XIIA.D. An DNA reaserch will prove or not the absortion of the migrating tribes.CristianChirita

I intend to include the third theory which imply Dacian ethnic continuity with Vlach collonization from present day Serbia (Diocese of Dacia) and romanization after 600 A.D. This which seems to be the most supported by facts and - to some degree - joins both sides. Someone against?Yeti 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. However at the moment the article is the mess. Possibly it would be better to change sections into the following ones: 1. Arguments for and against early romanisation of present day Romania (before 300 AD), 2. Arguments for and against late romanisation of present day Romania (after 600 AD), 3. Arguments for and against ethnic continuity of Dacian settlement in Carpatian mountains. I think that this would make the article more nice and tidy. Yeti 08:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toponymy

The question of Romanian toponyms of Latin origin is extremely important, and unfortunately it is a question very rarely dealt with by experts from Romania or other Balkan countries. It seems that toponymy is very much a taboo in these coutries since doing research in it would reveal new facts in the very complicated ethnic history of this part of Europe.

The very odd thing about Romanian toponyms is the fact that superficially they look like dervations from latin forms, but if examined more closely they contain one or more unknown factors.

Toponyms, like any other words of a language, change in the course of time, as normal sound change happens in the language. Overall, sound change is regular, and possible exceptions usually turn out to be additional, and regular, changes, as science advances. We know very well the sound changes that happened from Latin to Romanian as well as their internal chronology (the "sound change machine"). In the case of Latin and Romanian the sound changes are relatively few and relatively simple.

However, if you use the toponyms of Latin Dacia as an input in the Latin-Romanian "sound change machine" Samus should turn out as *Sam, not Someş; Marisia should become *Merişia (or *Mereşia depending on the original length of the vowel), not Mureş; Porata should turn out as *Purata (or even *Prata), not Prut. Furthermore, Petrodava would possibly become *Pietrudaua, not Piatra; the output of Abruttum "ought" to be *Abrut, not Abrud - and so on and so forth.

Right, and this is because the Romans adapted a Dacian version of the name, so the romanian an latin versions have the same root, and doesn't come one from another.Morosanul (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hard to explain why these words have turned out so differently from what is to be expected. It must be admitted that sound change in toponyms is sometimes slightly different from the change in the word stock as a whole (for various reasons, an important one being that compound words which are common in toponyms are sometimes treated as unities rather than compounds by the speakers of the language). But the discrepancies between the expected outputs and the existing ones are not slight, but far too dramatic to be attributed to this factor.

What happened here? How did the Romanian forms come into existence? Clearly, the Latin names did not turn directly into Romanian ones.

Without wanting to choose between the continuity theory and the migration theory, any resonable and methodologically working scientist would suggest that the toponyms passed from Latin to another (unknown?) language and then into Romanian.

OK, let's try to figure out which was that mysterious "unknown language": Latin "Samus" to Hungarian "Szamos" (pron. sa(r)m-osh) to Romanian "Someş". Latin "Marisia" to Hungarian "Maros" (pron. ma-rosh) to Romanian "Mureş". Of course you can argue with this, it might be that Hungarian also took these names from another language. For place names in Transylvania read Historical names of Transylvania Gravy t 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed the man's point - listing cognates doesn't prove anything, you have to give the sound changes and show they are regular. Vowel transitions in Maros - Mures for instance don't make any sense; take another Transylvanion hydronym/toponym Sáros (this one is clearly Hungarian meening muddy) it gave Şaroş in Romanian not Şureş or Şareş. Plinul cel tanar 21:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Hungarian version for rivers names are closer to Romanian names because Hungarians didn’t take them directly from Latin, but from the language that evolved from Latin in this region, which is exactly Romanian language. Is interesting to trace this names in the documents – is visible the slow changing of the world, starting from Romanian version. Morosanul (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This need not be the case for all Latin toponyms on Romanian soil, but we certainly need examples of the opposite: Toponyms of Latin Dacia from well-documented sources turning into contemporary Romanian place-names problem-free without unknown factors. TPR

Unfortunately it's not that simple (and the problem has been adressed). The original toponyms are not Latin, neither Greek. We have Latin and Greek renderings of Dacian toponyms and hydronims. Take Argeş for instance. Attested forms are Ardeiscus (Cassius Dio if I am not misstaken) and Ὀρδησσός /Ordēssos. You can't simply take the Latin name and follow soundchanges to Romanian! The excercise is far more difficult. You have to backtrack to PIE and identify the *h2erǵ root meaning 'gliterring, silver-coloured' (it's pretty well attested) and then follow Proto-Indo-European to Dacian sound changes to (possibly) Arğesya which (probably) lead (how?) to Romanian Arğeş. As you can see this is pretty difficult stuff since you work with a very old level of the language. Plinul cel tanar 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer is very interesting. As you might guess, the assumption underlying what I have written above, is that the Dacian language was replaced by the Latin language on (parts of) Romanian territory in Antiquity, and that the place names passed into Latin (causing the latin rendering of the name to become the "native" form and input in further sound change) which then changed into Romanian. In that case the place names "should" have evolved from the Latin forms into the asterisk forms.
However, if this is not the case (if we assume that things are not so simple, as you put it), I am sure you are right that we cannot simly take the Latin name and follow the sound changes to Romanian. But why? Am I right assuming that your theory implies that the Dacian language somehow lived on for a period of time (next to Latin/Romanian) so the place names could have passed into the Romanian language at a later date, producing the actual forms?
Before entering any more complicated matters one should note that ancient toponims that did survive are quite often from sources written by authors who were neither Dacian, neither Dacian-residents so to speak, so how reliable are they from a phonological point of view? This is why I insisted that Latin sources are not the only ones to be considered on the simple grounds that Romanian is a latin language. We have Latin and Greek sources. Hidden beneath them is the actal name used in Dacia by its inhabitants.
I see your point. Am I right that the assumtion is that the place names seem to have had both an "official" latin (or even greek) form used in documents etc. by the authorities, and a different "local" form used by the local romans (future Romanians) with a more thorough knowledge of Dacian, which is the actual input to sound change?
You have my point. Athough I wouldn't really speak of anything "official" (Cassius Dio is not really an official person he is simply... not from Dacia). But anyway, you got my general idea.
Moreover, proper names, tend to stick to their original form even if the language of origin has fallen out of use/ dissapeared. I will take a quick example. The Breton name Le Floch (some times spelled Le Folc'h) will be read as "Flosh" by most French outside Brittany in accordence to common French rules. However those living in Brittany will most certainly read it (correctly) - "Flok" althoug very few are actually capable of articulating a simple phrase in the Breton language. Note that at no point am I implying that Dacian language utterly dissapeared after the Roman conquest. All I am saying is that names have a habbit of behaving quite differently from other words and reasoning exclusively on the evolution of names is deceiving. Plinul cel tanar 08:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The forms of the names still bother me, though. If a name passes from one language to another, although it can behave differently from the rest of the word stock of the (new) language, it still ought to obey to phonological basics. For example, the Breton name you mention is definitely pronounced closer to the "original" by the locals than it would be by other Frenchmen, but after all they use a /k/ instead of introducing a Breton /x/ which would be alien to French. Likewise, shouldn't the assumed form *arğesya enter into Latin with the stress on the second syllable (-ge-) complying to the Latin stress rule? (if /y/ is a consonant, the syllable is closed > stress on /e/, if it is a vowel, it is the penultimate syllable > stress on /e/; if /s/ and /y/ become a single phoneme, a /ş/ this early would be alien to Latin. Maybe I'm being too meticulous - of course languages might introduce new phonemes (eg. Romanian /h/ or medieval French /h/) or stress patterns (Polish matematyka with stressed -ma-) from other languages - but it is quite rare. Surely this would have to be supported by a larger influx of Dacian words into Latin than mere place names. But then again, I presume this is also the case...
On the contrary, you are right to be meticulous, but I fear your research may be cut short by the same problem your predecessors faced: the lack of attested Dacian words. Without extensive knoledge on Dacian to Latin soundchanges little can be proved. Concerning the stress, you are right; in my humble oppinion that may actually be due to Hungarian influence. I am Transsylvanian myself and most of us place the stress even in some common Romanian words on the first sylabal resulting into what Romanians from the former Kingdom call "hungarian accent". Note that back-and-forth borrowings are not to be excluded either in the case of toponyms. The scenario I'm suggesting is: invador arrives, native toponyms pass into invador's language, invador's language becomes politically dominant (i.e. "official"), "invading" form of toponyms passes into native language.
Doesn't this imply that the language change from Latin to Romanian did not take place in Roman Dacia/Transsylvania, Oltenia and the Banat (as far as I recall, the names dicussed are Transsylvanian) but somewhere else (the Carpathians, Muntenia or even south of the Danube, as some argue - I wouldn't jump to hasty conclusions on this)?
Well no. The only thing that toponimy shows is co-habitation by successive populations, like Native American names in the US. The Roman colonists settled lived along side conquered Dacians, learned the river names from them and passed them on to their descendents. The process must have been repeated with the later invadors/colonizers (including Hungarians). Why co-habitation? Because no marauding band of savage butchers actually learns place names from a population it completely exterminates. This is why I said above that while place names are not an argument for strong continuity they are one for weak continuity.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the last sentence.
I was reffering to one of my edits to a different section of this talk page. One of the flaws of the article (in my oppinion) is that it fails to destinguish between weak continuity (i.e. Amerindian - American) and strong continuity (Galo-Roman - French). The presence of Dacian toponims in today Romanian is a sound argument that the decendents of Romanized Dacians and colonists stayed put after the the withdrawel and that they co-existed with the invadors. It doesn't point to who assimilated who but it may show that no one got massacared in the process. This assertion can easily be coroborated with the fact that germanic invadors whether Goth, Frankish or Vandal never wiped out native populations in any other territory they conquered.
By the way, it would be highly interesting to know if there are any parallel examples in the rest of the Roman world, i.e. examples of place names whose origin, although they might resemble the Latin form to a higher or lower degree, cannot be drived from the "official" Latin form (or rather: the form found in Roman sources) but which in fact come from forms in the local Gaulish, Celtiberian or Iberian language (although I don't expect Iberian to be that well attested). This would be parallel to Dacian forms surviving in Romanian. I wonder how much research has been done in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.41.45 (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't know... Is Burdigala -> Bordeaux regular ? Plinul cel tanar 16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a thorough knowledge of the sound changes either, but it seems quite regular. The French form looks like a plural, but if the Latin form is a neuter plural it checks out OK. I suppose one will have to start looking for examples.
TPR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.41.45 (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did Dacian speakers and romanized Dacians/Romanians exist alongside each other, allowing the former to be assimilated to the Romanians at a later stage?
That is more that certain. It is historical and anthropological common sense. All of Dacia was not unde Roman rule, exchanges with free Dacian tribes must have existed and it is reasonable to assume at least a transitional period of bilinguism. Plinul cel tanar 08:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC) There is also recorded settlement of "free" Dacians in the Roman province under Commodus.[reply]
I am very interested in what is known about Dacian speakers and Dacian language in the centuries after the Roman withdrawal. Do you know of anything?
To my knoledge: there is no knowledge.
Are there any sources mentioning Dacians e.g. in Transsylvania in post-Antiquity?
I don't think we want to start discussing Jordanes' confusion of goths and getae, Constantin the Great's name "Dacicus" or even Emerich of Elwagen's letter so I would say no reliable source. But again, that is not necessarily relevant to place names. Plinul cel tanar 08:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not necessarily. But a reliable source mentioning this still would be great. By the way, I don't know Emerich of Ewagen's letter.
Emerich's letter is mentioned in the article.
You are right that it is difficult stuff, partly because of the PIE time span and partly because very little Dacian is attested. The reconstructed *Arğesya looks like an a(h2)-stem but it is apparently an o-stem according to Wikipedia, cf. the Latin and Greek renderings. It is strange, though, that Mureş (surely with the same suffix) is rendered as an a(h2)-stem, Marisia. Apparently the Romans were not that consistent.
Are you sure about Marisia, I don't have time to check but the form I was aware of was Maris?
Yes, Marisia exists, but I have also seen the form Marisus which fits better with Argeş (but which doesn't explain the /ş/ - but then again, this would be the "official" form, not the local)
Who has addressed the problems of Dacian/Romanian toponymy? TPR
Georgeiev among others, Sorin Olteanu more recently and if you look for his Traco-Daco-Moeso lanuaguage site you might find some info online, although maybe not about the precise problem you are interested in. Plinul cel tanar 08:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!

Vlach name

In the Arguments Against Daco-Romanian Continuity section where the Vlach name is discussed, the article seems to be missing an important point that would simplify this discussion. According to dictionary.com (which cites the Modern Language Association and others as its sources) the term Vlach ultimately derives from the Germanic root *walh which meant "foreigner." This is also the root for Welsh/Wales, Cornwall, the German word Welshe meaning Latin, and others. This Germanic expression was in common used during the Roman period and was commonly applied to Romans and Latin-speakers in general. So it can simply be argued that few conclusions can be drawn about the ethnicity of a group given this label during the Roman period. I think mentioning this root and its being widely applied around the ancient world is a better way to make the argument than the way the argument is currently phrased. --Mcorazao 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The root is not really relevant. Regardless o its original meaning, throughout the Middle Ages, this exonim, present in a great number of sources (most of them non-Germanic) designated Eastern-Romance speakers. Plinul cel tanar 09:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Pohl

It's a great addition but shouldn't be there some words given on his views? I mean, without knowing what his theories really are (and I think some nice excerpts can be found even in that online site: e.g. "we do not have to look for ethnicity as an inborn characteristic, but as an "ethnic practice" that reproduces the ties that hold a group together", "ethnic terms are not classificational but operational terms; ethnic groups cannot be deliminated from each other clearly, and their reality has to be constantly reproduced by human activity" and on the Romanian ethnogenesis "even outside the Empire the Roman-Christian tradition in a variety of forms proved an important factor of ethnic aggregation") that paragraph makes little sense. Daizus 07:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that would be the professional way to present the problem. One should give an overview of published works on what is ethnicity (when reffering to the Early and High Middle Age) then procede to the fundamental topic of how and whether ethnical borders can be determined when written sources are lacking with a description of the conflicting views of the Toronto and Vienna schools and then adress the particular matter in question. Unfortunately that would demand from wiki-editors a degree of professionalism which many Romanian and Hungarian historians fail to meet. With a few exceptions, for ideological reasons that I fail to understand, they mainly seem to adress the matter from a court lawyer's point of view rather than a scientist's. They have a pre-established conclusion which they subsequently defend rather then follow the steps of gathering data, investigating data and interpreting data. Plinul cel tanar 09:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mention?

I can't find any linked mention of this article in History of Romania. Can someone work it in? --Wetman 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Goths

This is from the "Goths" Wikipedia page:

"A year later, they suffered a devastating defeat at the Battle of Naissus and were driven back across the Danube River by 271. This group then settled north of the Danube and established an independent kingdom centered on the abandoned Roman province of Dacia. Both the Greuthungi and Thervingi became heavily Romanized during the 4th century by the influence of trade with the Byzantines, and by their membership in a military covenant centered in Byzantium to assist each other militarily. They converted to Arianism during this time."

Is it possible that the Goths got Romanized due to the contact with the local population in the abandoned Roman province of Dacia? Wulfila's Bible contains Latin and Greek words that they could have learned from the locals. At the same time the Romanian language could contain Gothic words. For example "a iubi" could come from the Gothic "liuba", not from Slavic, "gata", "a gati" from the Gothic "gata'ujan"-"to do". Anyway, I am no expert, someone who is better than me should take a look at that Bible. -- v 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked around for some sources and the one from McGill University states that Goths and the Dacians were in a war with each other, a perfect time for the Romans to attack. But another source I found states that the Goths and Dacians were allied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.75.246 (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2.47 % germanic elements in romanian language

According to the "Representative Vocabulary of romance languages, Ed. Şt. Encicl. Bucharest, 1988, p.19-79" there are present 2.47% germanic elements in Romanian Language Adrianzax (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of them are neologisms borrowed from Standard German, with some being borrowed from the Transylvanian Saxons. There are no words borrowed from Gothic or any old German language. bogdan (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't romanians saying "DA" to "Yes" Isn't "Da" a germanic word? This word was always used by romanians ... Adrianzax (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's Slavic. You know, like in Russian and Bulgarian да. bogdan (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jawohl! Turgidson (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A iubi (German "lieben", Gothic "liuban"), magar ("mare"), birlog ("bear lair")... These ones look old to me. 198.62.239.132 (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that iubi is also like Old Church Slavonic ljubŭ and Sanskrit lubhyati - this is probably because they all stem from a common Proto Indo-European root word stem leubʰ-. This is one of the pitfalls of etymology and analysing cognates - just because two words look similar might mean one is the root of the other, but it could instead mean that both stem from a different common root. It's often hard to find definitive evidence to pick the two cases apart. For "love" and "mare" it's probably the second case - the Romanian words are probably not a result of Germanic influence; instead both words evolved in parallel starting from the same stem (I don't know about birlog however). When you said they look old, you were right however! Knepflerle (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bârlog comes from the Slavic brŭlogŭ which gave barłog in Polish, brlog in Serbian and so on. And may I stress once more, as the previous editor did, the fact that two words look alike doesn't make them cognates. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read somewhere (maybe on the Russian language page) that birlog would be Germanic. 198.62.239.132 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are Common Slavic words of Germanic origin. For instance, the Old Slavic word for bread, "khleb" (cf. Russian Хлеб, Czech Chléb, Bulgarian Хляб, etc) is borrowed from a Germanic word *hlaib (cf. German laib, English loaf, Gothic hlaifs, etc). Nevertheless, the phonetism of the Romanian word "bârlog" shows clearly that it was borrowed from Old Slavic. bogdan (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magada Map Jordan Mosaic

It would be iterseting to get an image from Magada Mosaic, the only source I've found on the net is only the following one from http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/fine_arts/asp/student.html Foran, Debra dforan@chass.utoronto Byzantine Mosaics: "Identification of Mosaic Workshop at Madaba Jordan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by CristianChirita (talk

Still I'm pretty sure that map is from Umm Arrasas http://www.venus-tours.com/default.aspx?id=69&tar=default.aspx and the name of the loaction is maybe http://mosaicartsource.wordpress.com/2006/12/31/marble-mosaic-jordan/ therefore i'll correct the the link.

• contribs) 09:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion

It appears the main focus of the article is the continuity vs migration theory. As pointed out in the intro, the false dichotomies approach is inflexible, Furthermore, it limits the article. Becuase people are consumed in proving one or the other, it does not go into the details that romanians are probably very mixed. The Romanised Dacians may have provided the substrate from which the Romance language is evidenced, but surely all the Slavs, Cumans, Pechenegs, Bulgars that also settled the area probably mixed to produce what is now a modern Romanian.

The second point is that all the Romance people of the Balkans are diverse. The Balkan natives were a mixed bag of peoples, and groups such as "Thracians" and "Illyrians" themselves were heterogenous, with different languages and cultures. The Vlach peoples of the Balkans have the commonality of having acquired the use of Vulgar Latine during Roman times, however, they probably have a very mixed original background. So it is an oversimplification to suggest that they all fanned out of Wallachia. They were probably Latinised in situHxseek (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that serious advocates on both sides would agree that a change in the area where a language is spoken doesn't necessarily mean that there was a corresponding major population migration. However, even if this is admitted, it still remains something of a historical enigma as to where in the general Balkans region a substantial Romance-speaking society was hiding out from the 7th-century A.D. (when the Slavs overran the western Balkans as far south as the Peloponnese, and the eastern Balkans were split between Byzantines, Avars, and Bulgars) and for several turbulent centuries thereafter (with several waves of new invaders arriving from the east). AnonMoos (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A comment: Certainly there was a substantial native Latin-speaking populous in the Byzantine Empire until at least the 6th century (e.g. Emperor Justinian). Given the patterns seen in the West where the Germans took over administratively but left a lot of the existing Latin culture in place (with modifications obviously) it is not hard to believe that Latin-speakers could have lived on in the Balkans and surrounding regions with their language and much of their culture intact (the fact that the Slavs continued to be part of the Eastern Roman Church makes it obvious that they were preserving lots of Roman/Byzantine culture as they overran the territories). It is not implausible to believe that there was a substantial Latin-speaking populous in the Balkans region that, increasingly under pressure from the Byzantines, who were gradually trying to stamp out Latin in the Empire in favor of Greek, and the Avars/Bulgars who probably treated them as second class citizens, gradually migrated into a concentrated settlement in Wallachia perhaps displacing the Dacian/Germanic tribes there. In fact, it is not implausible that at some point the Latins may have revolted against their loss of status in the Byzantine/Bulgar/Avar lands and, suddenly being considered a problem, were relocated to a new homeland helping them run out the Germans in the process (pure speculation on my part, of course). Such an event might have been considered an embarrassment on both sides and so would not necessarily have been well documented.
Although I am not a historical expert I personally find the theory that some small group of Romans came and got the existing local Dacian or later German populace to widely adopt Latin instead of their local language to be improbable (look how long the Romans were in Egypt and yet Coptic was still a popular first language even by the time the Arabs came). There doesn't seem to have been enough time for them to exert that kind of long-term influence. It seems to me much more likely based on what the historical records say that a populace that was already thoroughly Latin-speaking and Eastern Orthodox migrated to the region from Byzantine or former Byzantine lands in the later part of the first millenium.
Just my opinions ...
--Mcorazao (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the Byzantine Empire theories is that Romanians were not at all influenced by the Byzantines/Greeks before ~900 AD, not even on religious matters: For instance, Orthodoxy was brought by the Slavs, it was not acquired directly from the Byzantines. Before that, Romanians practiced some form of Early Christianity, isolated from the rest of the Christianity for centuries. bogdan (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe a lot of what you are saying is unproven theories (i.e. theories espoused by prominent scholars but not theories considered proven by the general consensus). The notion that the Slavs brought Orthodoxy to the Romanians is a theory that is mostly only supported by the Slavonic liturgy. Granted that is some good evidence but it could also be explained by the Romanians gradually finding themselves cut off from the Greeks and deciding to transfer alegiance to their Slavic neighbors instead of the Constantinople. Is there other evidence supporting that connection?
Yes: The fact that many basic religious terms (such as Church) are not of Greek origin, but Latin. And what's funnier, is that the terms are not used by Western Romance people. Dpotop (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as when the Romanians began practicing Orthodox Christianity I am not clear on all of the evidence but my understanding is that the evidence mostly shows that the Dacians were practicing Christianity during the late "Roman" and early "Byzantine" period, the Goths practiced Arian Christianity, and then there were Latin-speakers practicing Orthodox Christianity as the millenium closed. But the connections between the Latins and the others are not proven as far as I understand and so it cannot be stated what type of Christianity the "Romanians" (i.e. the ancenstors of this ethnic group) were actually practicing nor is it established that they were not influenced by the Byzantines before this. To put another way, again if I understand the scholars correctly, their ancestry before the last century or two of the first millenium is not proven and so it cannot be conclusively stated what they were doing or who was influencing them before this time.
Also, when you talk of "Orthodox Christianity" you should talk about "Byzantine Rite". It's more precise, and even Catholics claim they are orthodox and the other not. :) Dpotop (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind also that, contrary to popular belief, in the early Byzantine period there were lots of groups in the Empire that did not practice Constantinopolitan Orthodoxy. Indeed it has been argued that part of the reason the Egyptians were so willing to be ruled by the Arabs and that so many were willing to convert to Islam is that they had major religious differences with Constantinople and so, to some extent, were willing to adopt the religious practices of their new "friends" partially out of spite. One could argue that that something similar happened with the Romanians which would explain how they became so closely affiliated with the Slavic religious tradition.
--Mcorazao (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I don't know where you got your ideas about Egyptians willing to convert. Dpotop (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am not doubting that some latin speakers remained somwhere in Danubia. I doubt that all the Latin -sepakers in the Balkans stem from Dacia. There were many "Vlachs" in Dalmatia/ former Yugoslavia. They probably were there since Roman times. Ie the Vlachs of Dalmatia, Macedonia/ GReece might have been Latin-speaking Illyrians and Greeks, respectively, whereas the forerunners of Romanians were Latin-speaking Dacians etc.

My criticims of this article is that it is far too simplistic. Firstly it tries to equate Romanis with all Vlachs. Secondly, it does not menton that Romanians are the product of mixing of Dacians- which themselves were quite disperate, "Romans" -again a wide varitey of people from all parts of the empire (from Gaul to Asia), as well as SLavs, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Cumans.

Third point: didn;t the ROmanians acquire BYzantine rite christianity from the Bulgarians which ruled much of Romania in the 9th an 10th centuries ? Hxseek (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. First, all other Vlach languages (which are 3, one of them almost exctinct) are mostly considered by scholars as "Romanian dialects". Check Brittanica
2. Second when you speak about Vlachs from Dalmatia, you're reffering to the Istro-Romanians which are in fact the closest ethnic group to the Romanians, and it is believed they left Maramureş, Transylvania about a thousand years ago and settled in Istria, Croatia. They consider themselves Romanians check their Webpage
3. Third Slavs, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Cumans in Roman Empire? LOL. When you say mixing you're reffering that Romanians (mainly peasants) assimilated much more military stronger populations like those? Romanian language doesn't show any traces of turkic elements, if an assimilation would happen I'm pretty sure it would happen in the opposite way. Romanians didn't had any military power untill 13 century therefore saying romanians could assimilate such populations is absurd.
Additionaly genetic studies show Romanians have a homogenous DNA structure similar to that of Greeks and Albanians and that ethnic contribution of the indigenous Thracian and Daco-Getic population have indeed made a significant contribution to the genes of the modern Romanian population and to the contribution to other Balkan (Albanians, Greeks) and Italian groups.[1]
Haplogroup J is mostly found in South-East Europe, especially in central and southern Italy, Greece and Romania. It is also common in France, and in the Middle East. It is related to the Ancient Romans, Greeks and Phoenicians (J2), as well as the Arabs and Jews (J1). Subclades J2a and J2a1b1 are found mostly in Greece, Anatolia and southern Italy, and are associated with the Ancient Greeks.[2]
And most religious terms in Romanian are directly inherited from vulgar latin, which means the Daco-Romanians were converted to Christianity in the Latin language, and as far as I know bulgarians didn't spoke or speak this language...isn't it? Rezistenta (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely messed up article

This article was composed only by neutral sources and was very well balanced until this Hungarian guy came with his aberrations. For example at the part were he says Mures, Somes, Abrud came in Romanian through Hungarian…. So the dacians actually lived until Hungarian came in the 9 century but were all immediately killed and the Hungarians took their toponyms, after that another populace from South of the Danube which shares substratrum words with Dacians have the same traditions, traditional clothers etc came in these areas and took the Dacian toponyms from Hungarians. One small question : if the dacians lived long enough to pass the Dacian toponyms to Hungarians which came in these areas in the 9 century, what on earth makes you think they all died suddenly after that ? Why on earth made the Hungarians took the toponyms from the Dacians or from the Slavs ?

It's an example of hungarian irredentist propaganda....This is getting absurd, this section is expecially for this kind of things, first present here the arguments seek consensus, give neutral sources (not one hungarian obscure source) ... ok ? Rezistenta (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rezistenta, my understanding is that the article is composed of two parts: one of them summarizes the "arguments for" the Daco-Roman continuity, while the other one records the "arguments against" this idea. Therefore, I presume that the continuity had been under debate before the last edits were made and adding "arguments against" the continuity, in itself, should not qualify as "an example of hungarian irredentist propaganda". I think, if all the editors follows the original composition of the article ("arguments for" and "arguments against"), all of us will be able to improve it by providing additional information for the use of other Wikipedians. It is well-known that mainstream historioghraphy in Hungary denies the Daco-Roman continuity, but, in itself, it does not mean that Hungarian historians have been following irredentist ideas. It is also well-known that historiography in Roumania follows the idea that the Romanians are Romanized Dacians, but, in itself, it does not mean either that all of them would like to annex the territories of the neighbouring countries "from the Dniester to the Tisza".
Therefore, I suggest that we should all accept the fact that different approaches of history may exist together, and if we let each other provide additional information to the article based on reliable sources, it will contribute to the success of Wikipedia. Under our policies, all the edits have to be based on reliable sources, and the last edits summarizing the Hungarian approach were based on academic sources that demonstrate the consensus of academic views in Hungary. I think a proper reference was always made to all the new sentences. As far as I know, the use of Hungarian academic sources is not forbidden, because ("by nature") Hungarian academic views are usually summarised in Hungarian peer-reviewed books (but of course, English language literature is also accessible, although it is not so detailed as the Hungarian one).
As to the neutrality of the article, my concern is that all the sources cited in the article follows the continuity theory, therefore they cannot summarize the "arguments against". For example, the "arguments against" based on toponyms or archaeological findings are not mentioned in the article.
As to the sources used by the article, my feeling is that many of the sentences of the article qualifies as "original research", because there are plenty of sentences where no citation was made to reliable sources.
So, I would like to suggest that all the editors should follow the present composition of the article; therefore, all the "pros and cos" of the Daco-Romanian continuity and the Romanian migration theories could be provided properly. I hope that this approach is acceptable for the majority of other editors.Borsoka (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should contain mainly the international official point of view, which states the Daco-Roman continuity, and at the end we could present also the alternative theories. In this form, it looks like a forum gathering opinions and arguments.

Thank you for your remarks. First of all, could you explain the expression "international official point", I do not understand it. I presume that all the articles in Wikipedia gather opinions and arguments, because there is no forum to decide whether a point of view is true. However, my view is that articles in Wikipedia should reflect all major and veriable aspects of their subject. In this specific case, there are two opposit approaches: continuity or migration, and I think that none of us is in the position to qualify one of them "alternate theory". Mainstream histographers in Romania follows the former theory, while academic historians in Hungary do not accept it. Internationally, German histographers are divided, Romance speaking histographers usually follows the mainstream view in Romania, while other historians use the academic source they found in their library. Interestingly, for example the article Goths suggest that Scandinavian histographers denies some aspects of the continuity theory (archaeological findings referred in this article as proving the continuity theory are connected to the Goths). Therefore, I suggest that the present composition of the article should be followed. Borsoka (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should remember that Roesler’s theory has a political, and not a scientific aim. Today no official history sustains the Romanian’s migration, not even Hungarian academics, even though some present this alternative idea.

As far as I know, the theory of continuity was and is being also used for political purposes: it is really remarkable that the frontiers of Decebal's empire tend to follow the actual borders of the Romania. However, politics, in itself, should not mean that "arguments for" the continuity are invalid or they are not based on reliable sources.
As far as I can remember, "official history" disappeared from Europe when the Communist regime collapsed; therefore, I cannot cite any official standpoints.
Mainstream (academic) historians in Hungary deny the Daco-Roman continuity theory. Not because they follow irredentist purposes, but because they think that several studies (e.g., archaeology, toponymy) and the primary sources suggest that people speaking a Romance language disappeared from the Carpathian Basin following the Roman withdrawal (they left the territory or they merged into the newcomers), similarly to the Roman population of Pannonia, Noricum, Africa; and the Romanians migrated to the territory from the 11th century. As their arguments are based on their scientific researches, I think that their view is valid and veriable.
As far as I know, mainstream history in Roumania follows the Daco-Roman continuity theory, and their views are also based on their scientific researches, none of the Hungarian editors could deny that their views had to be reflected in the article. In itself the fact, that historians are divided does not prove that any of the views they follow are invalid, but it proves that history is an exciting study. Borsoka (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The doubts are not related to Hungarian sources, but their credibility, and as long as these cannot be verified by non-Hungarian speakers we should stick on English sources. Morosanul (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no policy that only English sources are acceptable. Of course, we should refer to the English version of the books cited, if there is such a version available. Just for remark, one of the sources used when editing the article (History of Transylvania) has an English summary, while the other source (Blank Spots in the Balkans) containes an English, a French and a German summary. Therefore, English-speakers could checque the credibility of the sentences based on the majority of the sources used. Borsoka (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me begin by stating that I am Romanian, just to make one point clear. As I've previously stated, I find the article is weak and does not reflect recent research. However let me contradict the previous editor, classical Daco-Roman continuity (probably even more political than Roesler's theory) is far from meeting international consensus and has been abandoned even by Romanian historians, just like Hungarian historians (except some dinosaurs) have abandoned classical migration theory. By classical continuity I designate the theory stating that the Romanian people and language were formed exclusively north of the Danube and on a territory covering most of today's Romania. By classical migration I designate the theory that supports late proto-romanian migration (10th century or later) and from a region non-adjacent to current Romania. Anyway, my oppinion is that we have no reason to refuse a reference to a Hungarian academic source. Of course, I don't believe that a source from the 80's, Hungarian or Romanian, may do the article any good, but that's still not a reason to reject it. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your remark. I think any major theories based on academic researches are welcomed by our community.
The latest source used when editing the article was printed in 2002. "The History of Transylvania" was printed in 1988, but it is still the best and generally accepted summary of academic views in Hungary. Of course, academic views have been developing since 1988; e.g., the latest book written by a respected albanologist, tries to determine the territory (south of the Danube) where the Romanian language was developing during the centuries. Borsoka (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can use any academic references, but an English Summary is not enough to make the point. The problem is the difficulty to check the accuracy of a Hungarian source (or Romanian) by other then Hungarian (Romanian), to see if it is accepted or not by the mainstream historians. Another error is that "classical Daco-Roman continuity (probably even more political than Roesler's theory)", the comparison is anyway ridiculous. Daco-roman continuity was actually the most intuitive and accepted theory before Roesler. Maybe Boroska is closer to the reality: the theory of continuity might have been also used for political purposes. Two more things: Decebal’s kingdom was not an empire, that was Burebista’s. Official point of view refers to the scientific, not political matters. Whatever is taught in universities represents the widely accepted, in this way official, theory. I will check if the Hungarian historians support the Romanian migration in 12th century. For the moment allow me to doubt about that. Morosanul (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The migrationist hungarian theory is obvious a political one because historically is very hard to fiend arguments for it. For example is a non sens to say that romanians come in Transilvania in XIV century when they are named there since IX century (even in medieval hungarian sources) and are attested archeological much earlier. Did some one ever say that french, spanish, italians or other romance people moved in their today’s land from south? Did French come in France from Espania? Why should romanian be so different? I know why, because the hungarians would like to, end of the story.

P.S. Excuse my english —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porfirogenetul (talk • contribs) 09:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians&oldid=217284947"