Welcome to dextri.com on January 8 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Talk:Origin of the Romanians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Middle Ages      (Rated Start-Class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it.
WikiProject Human Genetic History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of genetic genealogy, genetics-based population history, and associated theory and methods articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Archives
1, 2, 3
About archives
This is a controversial historical topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Please also consider the particular importance of using proper citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents

[edit] aromanians

You had a map showing aromanians emigrating from romania!!! What are your sources? There is no serious proof about that.Is there? Aromanians were local people of south balkans latinized by the romans in the 3rd cent. b.c.

The first romanised local people were in north epirus when the greeks of the area of adriatic sea felt the pressure of the Illyrians:In 229 bc greeks from Kerkyra asked for roman help against the Ilyrrians.The romans accept to help, but they ask for the help of north epirotans (greeks) and greeks of adriatic sea cities against the Carchedoneans.To communicate at the battles they have to learn latin!!!

In addition,local people were used after the construction of via egnatia as soldiers around the main roads of the empire in the east and especially on important roads close to the mountains where many "rebels" lived.These groups of soldiers were given some fields for their offer.At that time they were called armati.The following centuries local vlach speaking people changed this word to armatulu and later it was used in greek as armatoloi (αρματολοί). Similarities between aromanian and romanian language can be found due to immigration from south balkans to north and NOT the opposite!

In the middle of 6th century Ioannis Lydos wrote: " Νόμος αρχαίος ήν, πάντα μεν τα οπωσούν πραττόμενα παρά τοις επάρχοις, τάχα δε και παρά ταις άλλαις των αρχών, τοις Ιταλών εκφωνείσθαι ρήμασιν. ου παραβαθέντος, ως είρηται, τα της ελαττώσεως προύβαινε. τα δε περί την Ευρώπην πρατόμενα, πάντα την αρχαιότητα διεφύλαξεν εξ ανάγκης δια το τους αυτής οικήτορας, και περ Έλληνας εκ του πλείστου όντας, τη των Ιταλών φθέγγεσθαι φωνή, και μάλιστα τους δημοσιεύοντας..". He speaks about latin speaking people in the areas of west macedonia and epirus.(especially on and around Pindos) that are greeks in their majority since ancient times!!!

518-527 the slavs first attack but they do not achieve much. Since 550ac the slavs achieve to conquer many areas for some years.

In 584ac as Ioannis efesios informs us, the slavs came and destroyed and burnt cities and slavered the local people.From this time they wouldn't retreat and leave the area. Since then and until the years of Herakleios(who made greek the official language)and later the aromanians were forced to stand alone on the mountains away from the cities and lived as shepherds, in order to stay away from the attacks of the slavs.So they didn't follow the rest of people of the empire who would officially speak greek. In 746-747 epidemic of pestilence holds the vlachs as well as all others isolated. I have a lot of evidence based on historical facts, but I don't want to write forever... --Geotol (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Info

I have removed some false info from the Romanian arguments but I've noticed similar false info on the Hungarian arguments section. This info even contradicts other info on the page (like the false statement that only Mures and Somes are preserved from Latin, when in fact there are other rivers like Cris and Olt, which are not mentioned). This whole article has gone from something concise to to a competition of who can list more evidence. Remember the intent of wikipedia is not to convince the reader of your own POV, but rather to show a balanced and unbiased perspective. Romano-Dacis (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such a statement that only Mures and Somes are preserved, Cris, Cerna and Olt rivers are also mentioned in the same paragraph. If you realised, no "pro-migration" and "contra-continuity" arguments have been added for several months; therefore, the competition (if any) is driven by the other side. I suggested that the whole structure of the article should radically changed.Borsoka (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
Actually, that's wrong. The genetic relationship between Latin and Romanian is clear: mother-daughter. Romanian is a descendent of Latin not of Dacian. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No, you miss the point and try to mix the things. We're not talking about the Romanian language’s origin, but about toponims. The toponimy is Dacian, and not Latin, so the local people inherited the original terms, not the Latinized ones.
Exactly the same happened with substratum words, considered of Dacian origin, they didn’t get trough Latin to come in Romanian language but directly.Morosanul (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I got your point, unfortunately it is not sound from a linguistical point of view and is a very common and misstaken belief among non-linguists. Romanian is a descendant of Latin, the substratum entered Vulgar Latin and should in principle follow sound-changes to Romanian. Here's a link to a linguist's site[1], the article concerns a different issue but the diagram at the bottom ilustrates what I mean. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly the sound-changes rules to Romanian is caused by the substratum, much probably there weren't 2 changes, this is the linguist's point of view. Sorin Olteanu is not a linguist, by the way. In any case, the names we are talking are from Dacian language, not Latin. What we can see in the chronicles are Latinized forms, which may have never been in common use. I will come back after reading the article. Morosanul (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'll stop here, I'm tired and wikipedia is not a forum. SO is a linguist (classical phylologist). Dacian words that entered latin should follow sound changes as any other Latin word, regardless of its origin. While I have already said that the problem of toponyms is far more complicated and had an entire debate here, your view is utterly wrong. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
For solving this issues is important to understand the process of evolution.
First of all, we cannot trace the toponymes form Latin chronicles as we do with the words. And second, there are exceptions even in the usual Latin words evolution. Is not the place and the time to show all these transformations here, but we should avoid making childish mistakes.
The names written in Greek or Latin documents are Graecized or Latinized spelling of the local pronunciation. The sounds Sh, Ch, Tz, Î, Ă are aproximated. Also some changes were made for names to sound less barbarian, to be worth beeng in a document.
Local pronunciation was used instead by the inhabitants – romanized Dacians and colonists who will develop the local form of Latin – later called Danubian Latin – this one also influenced by the substratum – the Dacian language.
From here, the names passed in proto-romanian and Romanian language, suffering from now on the normal course of changes.
In this process some names were influenced more then usual words by the passing migratory nations. One example is Bârzava from ancient Berzobis, in this case preserving the exact slavic variant. Other names were translitareated: Dierna became Cerna, or translated: Repedea became Bistra.
So there is a difficult task to find how a name came from Dacian into Danubian Latin, but we known for sure the sound changes from Hungarian into Romanian, and these do not confirm in any way this possibility.
But in Hungarian documents, can be traced the changes from Romanian version of the names to present day Hungarian names, for example the river Cris (Körös) --Morosanul (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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)
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)
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)
Unless you provide sound-changes and show they are regular this is pointless talk. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Is pointless because some guys here doesn’t have the basics in history, as you could see.
What is for sure, Hungarians didn't take the names directly from Latin cause it was not spoken any more in the area at that time, these names must have been taken from some local language. Morosanul (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Latin was no longger a spoken language but it was a chancelry one and the official language of the Apostolic Kingdom of Hungary. Scholastic borrowings directly from Latin are a possibility. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this what actaully happened to the toponyms, all I'm saying is that you are very haste to jump to conclusions. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I read the link you’ve talked about and I knew about that study, as I use to read some of Sorin Olteanu’s works. We’ve got anyway too deep in this, and might be not the right place for the discussion. What I am sure is that you have the knowledge and the authority to put an end to this controversy, but instead you prefer to keep in the middle to satisfy both parts.Morosanul (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
While you are right about this not being the right place for such a debate, you are wrong in assuming that I know more than I let transpire. I have no ideea how those toponyms entered Romanian. Note that Madgearu and Brezeanu [2] believe Arges to be of Patzinak origin having nothing to do with the ancient Ardesicus. While I may be personally unsatisfyed with the explanation (because Mures, Somes and Arges share the same suffix and any ethymological theory should treat them together and not individualy) it simply shows that things are far from meeting consensus even among Romanian scholars. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
I wouldn't know... Is Burdigala -> Bordeaux regular ? Plinul cel tanar 16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Thanks!

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hm, I don't know where you got your ideas about Egyptians willing to convert. Dpotop (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


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)

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.[3]
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.[4]
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)
... most religious terms are certainly not inherited directly from vulgar Latin, some are but not most, and it's not impossible that Romanians were still mostly Pagan in the eleventh century, please read A.A. Rusu's point view: [5]. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
the most important are, Biserica -> Basilica, Dumnezeu -> Dominus Zeus, Craciun -> Creatio etc Rezistenta (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Also, Hungary is the only place where the Migrationist theory is still somewhat accepted. So, yes, use only english references, since is a enlish language article. Morosanul (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

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 Hungarians (Romanians), 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 (you are too much affected by communism). Whatever is taught in universities and academical environment 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)

Therefore, if my understanding is correct, we agreed that academic sources and scholarly books qualify reliable sources. It is a perfect approach for me. If you read any English version of a Hungarian academic's work, you will be convinced that none of the academics in Hungary accept Daco-Roman continuity and all of them are in favour of the migration theory. I think you can use the following two works in English:
History of Transylvania (general editor: Béla Köpeczi; Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994, Budapest, ISBN 963-05-6703-2) - summary of the view of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Early Transylvania (895-1324) (author: Gyula Kristó; Lucidus Kiadó, 2003, Budapest, ISBN 963 9465 12 7) - a respected medievalist's work Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, there are no archeological evidences of a migration from South, and the studies show an uninterrupted inhabitance of this territory from antiquity. The only interruptions are seen in cities’ life, not in general. Also many archeological studies reveal a fusion of cultures of newly arrived migratory peoples with the local cultures (as in Dridu culture).

If you honestly can say that the main academics in Hungary support the migration theory, I’m sure you can check much better than me. I don’t say to exclude the migration theory from the article, (the same for others, because there is no just one alternative theory), just to state if one of them is most internationally accepted, as considered the most realistic. I can offer only US/Canada historical works references.

It is for me very strange, indeed, the interest of Hungarians in rewriting the Romanians’ history in some different way. Morosanul (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


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.

  • Migration is not a political question in Hungary, that is fact, I have not heard any of the politicians speaking of the "Dako-Roman continuity" or "Migration of the Romans to Transylvania" in Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we are not in the position to decide wether any of the theories are correct. For me, the theory of migration looks more logical based on the sources, but I really do not want to decide. Based on Wikipedia's policy, any major approaches should be reflected in the articles, provided that a proper reference to at least one reliable source is made. I think if we forgot this approach, Wikipedia would be impoverished. Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

P.S. Your English is obviously better than mine. Nevertheless, in some cases, if it is necessary, I can concentrate and improve it. Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits & suggestion

Following the above consenus (only academic and scholarly works can be referred and a preference is always made on English books), the "Arguments against" of the continuity theory and the "Arguments for" the migration theory were re-edited. The edit was necessery, because the former text of the article did not summarized the major topics of the argumentation and it failed to refer to reliable sources; therefore, nobody was in the position to checque whether the statements were verifiable.

I would like to suggest that the section "Ancient and medieval sources" should be improved significantly, because the order of its sentences seemingly neglects to follow any internal logic.Borsoka (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

negative. All sources are hungarian sources. Please do not disrupt and broke this article with your irredentist hungarian propaganda Rezistenta (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "irredentist propaganda"? Please do not move sentences based on reliable academic sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
What are your concerns about following the chronological order of the works cited in the section "Ancient and medieval sources"? At its present state, this part of the article cannot be followed, because the sentences are jumping from sources written in the 11th century to chronicles written in the 14th century and back, and again, and back. I suggest this should be significantly changed in order to help other users of the Wikipedia to read the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it cannot be followed by you because I didn't see anyone else complaining untill now. Please do not disrupt this article anymore. If you really feel like talking about this subject take your political views and hungarian sources sowhewere else like on forums, this is really not the place. Rezistenta (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain what your concerns are about following the chronological order? At recent stage, there are sentences cited from chronicles and other primary sources without following any order. I presume the article could be significantly improved if the sentences were reedited. Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, Rezistenta I have undone your edits and will continue to do so as long as you remove sourced material without adressing the problem on the talk page. Borosoka, before discussing your edits in general let me know where you stand on this: I believe that the organization of the article as a pro-con debate makes it very difficult to follow. We should rather organize it in three sections: written sources, linguistical aspects and archelogical evidence. For each of these sections we may illustrate the different points of view. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For me, your suggestion looks reasonable. Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking on your edits history a little and looks like your a fierce opposer of romanian history. First of all do not pose as a romanian, you may be living in Romania and know the language but this doesn't mean you necessarily romanian, second if we should rather categorise it in three sections, why you're not doing so instead of completely messing up this article and encouraging irredentist views ? Rezistenta (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezistenta, did you look the word iredentist up in the dictionary? Just so that we may get this out of the way, Transylvania is Romanian and that is a closed matter as far as international law is concerned and not an issue to be taken by historians or linguists. Second, acting agressively towards other users serves no cause, certainly not a Romanian one.Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Boroska, while I have no problem with Hungarian sources, I do have a problem with Illyés Elemér being cited extensively with respect to topics concerning medieval history and linguistics. Elemer Illyes' field of research is modern anthropolgy, minority ritghts, ethnical issues, he is neither a linguist nor a recognized medieval historian and as such he is not a reliable source with respect to such aspects. Moreover, even if you argue some credibility, citing him as extesively as you do certainly gives his oppinions undue weight. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The more I look into this the more I feel that all uncoroborated Illyes arguments should be removed.Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Elemér Illyés is not a linquist or a historian, but his book is based on the works of linguists and historians. I think that his book is an excellent summary of recent linguistic and historical approaches (although, he follows the migration theory). Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ, I believe Illyes' book to be very well written but more than bias and very selective in its sources. On a more personal note, I fail to understand why a scholar would venture into fields in which he is not competent in order to write an overview if his aims are purely scientific. All in all, Illyes is at best a tertiary source, like Wikipedia itself, he is not a relyable secondary source. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I think his book is an excellent summary of the "pro-migrationist" views in English. I think Wikipedia accept several terciary sources (encyclopedias, etc.), therefore using his work does not contradict to our policy. Borsoka (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Then you should look before thinking i'm the one insane...ins't it? Rezistenta (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm simply being civil and acting according to the guidelines. I'm not questioning the presence of Hungarian sources, I'm questioning Illyes's competence as a historian of the Early and High Middle Ages and I'm taking the issue to the talk page. I've also added the POV tagg as Borsoka does not present the views of his sources neutrally, particluarly since some are questionable and come in direct conflict with sources already cited in the article, but endorses their point of view. For example sources written about Romanians in Transylvania do exist before 1210 (Nestor's chronicle being the obvious one!) and further more 1210 corresponds to the dating of the Anonymus chronicle by Kristó Gyula, dating which has already been chalanged. The archeological evidence, Borsoka, is equally challenged, first and foremost by Szekely Zoltan whome, in my oppinion, cannot be accused of endorsing Romanian nationalism. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do not think that Nestor referred to Romanians in Transylvania (remember, he wrote that the Volohs had conquered the Slavs, therefore his Volohs must have been the rulers of East Francia). Moreover, neither did some other authors cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Even so, the statement becomes a matter of interpretation and not a fact. Again, on a more personal note, let's be reasonable, no other Russian chronicle ever reffers to "the rullers of East Francia" as Volohs, however the exonym is pratically the only way Russian authors designate Romanians untill the XVIIIth century. Further more note that we have one XIth source - the Gotland tombstone that attests vlah presence north of the Danube (read the Curta/Vasary link in the article) and Maurice's Strategikon which may be used to argue the presence of a Romance-language speaking population in the same century. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree that it is only a fact of interpretation. Remember, according to Nestor the Slavs arrived first, they were occupied by the Volochs and the Volochs were defeated by the Magyars. The Gotland tombstone says "Blakoman" which can be interpreted as "Black People" (the Swedish intepretation) or "Black Cumans" (István Schütz), as well. As far as I remember, the Strategikon refers to Vlachs living at the Sava and the Danube, it does not contradict to migration. Nevertheless, I think we should not decide, but we should ensure that the major views are demonstrated in Wikipedia. I think we could also follow your suggestion (written sources, archaeological evidences and linguistics). Borsoka (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the ethnonym on the Gotland tombstone (by the way it reads BLAKUMEN) is a matter of interpretation not a fact. Yet, that makes the written sources statement equally a matter of interpretation and not a fact. Concerning the Strategikon, you are reffering to Kekaumenos while I am reffering to Emperror Mauritius who mentions Rhomayoy living north of the Danube fighting alongside barbarians. He equally mentions refugees who seek shelter South of the river and calls them refugi although he is writing in greek which seems to indicate that that is how they called themselves. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
All his POV is structurated the same way and I'm glad you've reached my conclusion . Its never wrong to acknowledge or admit you've made a mistake, cheers Rezistenta (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

His edits contain a lot perfectly valid information. One of the most interesting aspects is the possible existance of a belief among Romanians in the XVIIthe century that their ancestors came from the South. This can be further illustrated by citings from the Metropolitan Dosofteiu. The Romanian historian Ovidiu Pecican also believes that (whether right or wrong) such a tradition existed. This is most paradoxal, since a belief in continuity or at least in Romanian precedence in Transylvania, whether right or wrong, may be attested among Hungarian Medieval and early modern scholars. It is extremly interesting for the reader to learn how the points of view may have shifted. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, his views are structurated in a very biased manner and i'm not saying all his statements are wrong but many of them are . There are thousands and thousands of arguments sustaining both theories and this encyclopedia it's not really the ideal place for such debates. It simply appears to have a politcal and irredentist connotation because of such unencyclpedic hungarian sources and I think it's alot better to take this dispute on forums and not over here. For understanding better my point it's enough make a parralel with articles regarding the origin of hungarians where is also place for many theories and biased opinions but despite this I haven't seen romanians involved and giving unencyclopedic romanian sources. Rezistenta (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Stop doing that! Removing sourced statements may very well qualify as vandalism! Let the man answer. While the wording should be reviewed Hungarian sources are valid and welcome, provided they come from actual specialists. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Fully The Young dude, I don't think you're very familiar with what it may or not qualify as vandalism since your only purpuse constitutes the disruption of this very only article. Rezistenta (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't have to put up with this, do as you may, I'm leaving this be. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
begging for others help proves the opposite Rezistenta (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think all parts of the article require serious cleanup. As a linguist, I'm particularly pissed off by the "linguistic" arguments in the pro-continuity part concerning the origin of some Hungarian words. Clearly, whoever wrote these arguments about the origin of "erdő" and "város" did not even have a basic understanding of Hungarian, let alone linguistics. This is just sad. Zigomer trubahin (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As a hungarian linguist you have the right to say whatever you want but let's not defy the reality, there's a clear explanation which clarifies each linguistic argument so that every regular mortal can understand, there's no need to be a linguist to see such obvious and detailed explanations . Funny how all the sudden miracly popped out from the sky hungarian linguists, historians etc. There are alot of hungarian articles waiting for your help, why wasting your precious time with romanian articles ? Rezistenta (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I hope now you do not want to remove encyclopedic and very well sourced statements Rezistenta (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You should take up arms and teach Hungarians on the battlefield what is what. It's a pity you've chosen to ruin Wikipedia instead. Don't worry, I've got better things to do than refuting your pseudoscientific nationalistic propaganda. Zigomer trubahin (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The first part of your sentence skipped unnoticed for me. I'm astonished that a person posing as a linguist and therefore as an intellectual instigates to ethnic and national hatred and violence. It's very sad indeed and the words are too much for your such a shamefull attitude. I’m sorry but you don’t belong in 21 century. Rezistenta (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about respect for others, it is chauvinistic and is not up to date from scientific point. It is referring to data from times where science was funded by dictators, and since then it was proven false. This article is also extremely long and it's aim is to list explanations for the Daco-Roman continuity. Science is not about explaining something but about INVESTIGATION. So do so, and drop your commmunist (school)books, and read some newer ones. Abdulka (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Szia to you too Rezistenta (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blakumen

In answer to Borsoka but also in view of a future edit of the article. The mainstream view held not only by Romanian linguists and historians (Decei, Brezeanu, Isbasescu althogh the latter also gives some less probable alternative interpretations) but also by most Scandinavian scholars (Jansson et all, Soderhjelm et all, Hannestad etc) is that Blakumen is an Old Norse rendering of Vlach. This is supported by the existence of the mention of a raid by Alexios Comnenos in Blokumannaland in the Heimskringla (a late Latin version translates it by "in Blachorum terram"). Another source (Flateyjarbók) also records the ethnonim blokumenn. Some scholars (the most prominent being Pritsak) do indeed identify the blakumen with Cumans (Pritsak's literal interpretation being the pale ones), but Schütz's view remains quite unique not in the interpretation but in the actual ethymological explanation and the attempt to identify the very ethnonim cuman in blakumen. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keep All the Viewpoints Intact with their Evidence

There are two things from the oral history of my family I'd like to add to these discussions, and to provide a backdrop to the article:

1. My grandmother's oral history has been many stories about how people near Cluj were extremely careful about who they married. There were many stories she told me about people who did not "marry the right person because s/he was from ---." So there has been a social resistance to intermarriage between the diverse groups. If she had lived, she would be over 100 years old now.

2. My mother's oral history is that she remembers the history teacher at school in Romania telling her that he must say certain falsehoods, but if he lies while lecturing, he will wink. He did a lot of winking. So I think the history books written during the communist period are quite suspect, and anything in them should be attempted to be corroborated using other sources. There can be no "official" version of Romanian history while scholarly study is bogged down with political propagandas.

There is a new Romania now, part of the EU, and it's time to let the impartial eye of scholarship take over. I think it's important that all viewpoints be preserved at this time. Destruction of a viewpoint or its evidence now would just be foolish. For the first time, Romanians can look at everything freely, and so, it's more helpful to keep all the viewpoints intact. The truth will come to the surface in time, we simply have to be patient and free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.145.192 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Stephan a romanian?

Woah i really laughed a big. So here are the problems:

1. We do not know who was/were Árpád's wife(s). 2. Mén-Marót ruled in Bihar. Bihar is west of Transylvania. Anyonymus writes that they were khozars(Of course some rom. will again prove it that the khozar is just a corrupted version of vlach :P) Also, we do not know that the full story about Mén-Marót is true or just one of Anonymus's fabrication. 3." Zolta brought wife from the land of the cumans for his son, Taksony" We know it that there were no cumans at that time, but there were the pechenegs. Probably Anonymus wrote this down because in his time cumans do were (+cumans did not live in SE Transylvania..). 4. Just because Mihály and several others were baptised in Orthodox rite, doesn't means they were Romanians. From Byzantine sources, we know it that after Termacsu and Bulcse, the transylvanian gyula aslo went to Constantinople to be baptised in Orthodox rite, and he took with him a monk named Hierotheos to help spread the Orthodox religion. 5.Gyula is an old Hungarian/Turkic title mentioned by several sources. There was no way he was a Romanian or a Cuman. 6. Sarolt is of Turkic origin, and it means "white queen". 7. Vajk is a Turkic name with the meaning hero/rich. Take a look: Hungarian "vaj" means butter. And butter was a symbol of wealth.

I hope now you can see that this argument in the article is totaly nonsense. Please delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.237.146 (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This whole article is messed up

The article is closed since June. Coudn't be this changed? Because it needs a lots of work. The arguments against for the migration are just the arguments for the continuity.

Also, many arguments for the continuity are like they were only written down to make that part longer. Many of them just states the Romanians are of Roman descendants, which was never disputed. The 16-18. century sources stating that Romanians are the anciest nation of Transylvania can be easily explained. They do know it that Hungarians didn't live there always, but they didn't know where from the Romanians came. So, the easiest way is to say they were always there (there wasnt anything like gesta valachorum so they didnt have any sources)

Some of the sources are also quite disputable. Procopius mentioning a slav who is speaking latin who learnt the language in the present-day Moldavia. However, this doesn't need to be acknowledged that Romanians were living there. There were many latin colonies at the coast of the Black Sea. Most of them were still existing in the 5-6th century. Emmerich of Elwangen's letter. The problem here is that he is mentioning Dacians, Germans, Sarmatians, and Alans! If we take out the Dacs, he couldn't met any of these people "north of Danube" in 860! Finally, most of the sources are only talking abour vlachs North of the Danube. Well, there are lots of things North of Danube... And again, the problem comes up that many later chronicle writer only wrote it that Romanians are living there because they also met them/or know it that there are these people. And the same think comes up again what i write down before. 82.131.226.84 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

On one hand the whole article is messed up; on the other hand, it contains several information that could be debated:

  • the Hungarian presence in Transylvanis does predate 1000;
  • the Diocese of Oradea was not established by King St. Ladislaus;
  • the word "the" exist in the Romanian language although it follows the noun (similarly to the Albanian, Bulgarian);
    • Actually it doesn't. Your knowledge of Romanian must be very poor.
      • un om > omul (a man > the man)
        • Ok, you just proved you have no idea what an article is. Adding a suffix to the back of the word is not an article, it is the exact opposite!
          • The meaning is the same "the" = "ul" (in this case). It is the same as in the Albanian language. Actually, in the Latin equivalent of "the" or "-ul" did not exist.
  • the name and origin of Grand Prince Árpád's wife is unknown;
  • Gyula cannot be of Cuman origin, because the Cumans did not appear in the region before the 1050s;
  • the first documented form of the Hungarian name of Transylvania (Erdély) is "Erdelw" or "Erdeelu" which literally meant "over the forest" ("erdő"+ ancient "-el" suffix);
  • the Hungarian word for gooseberry ("egres") literally means "with mouse" ("egér"+"-es" suffix); therefore, it was not borrowed from the Romanian language (and consequently, it is plausible that the Romanian word was borrowed from the Hungarian);
  • a significant part of the hydronyms, toponyms (with some exception) of Romania are of Slavic, Cumanic, Hungarian or German origin, and there are only a few hydronyms and toponyms that survived the Dark Ages;
    • Absolute non-sense. Even those which have Slavic names (Bistrita) also have Romanian names (Repedele).
      • It is not a non-sense. There are a plenty of examples: the Romanians borrowed the toponyms from the Slavic, Hungarian, Cuman (or Petcheneg), German languages.
        • They are the by far in the minority. BTW, some of the foreign toponyms (like Codrul Vlasiei = "forest of vlachs" in Slavic) in fact indicate continuity!
          • Just some examples: S l a v i c: eg., Baia (=mine), Bǎlgrad (today Alba Iulia, = white castle), Craiova (=the King's), Dâmbova, Dâmboviţa (~"with oak trees"), Târnava (~"with blackberry"), Zlatna (~"with gold"); H u n g a r i a n: Cǎpuş (="with door"), Nǎdaş (="reedy"), Arieş (="with gold"), Meseş (="limy"), Sebeş (="fast"); G e r m a n: Ghimbav (="Weidenbach")
  • voivode is a word of Slavic origin (e.g., Poland), Constantinus Porphyrogennetos mentions all the leaders of the Magyar tribes as voivodes;
  • the "veteranus" survived in other Romance languages, as well;
    • As the word for old man? Don't think so.
    • Yes.
      • Proof? Give me an example.
        • Albanian "vjetër" (=old)
  • Blokumenn may be identified with other peoples as well;
    • Nope, they actually can't. It's ridiculous to say so.
      • Black Cumans were a group within the tribal federation of the Cumans. The "people with black hat" is a well-known group of nomadic peoples who fought against the Kievian Rus' in the 11-12th centuries.
        • No they weren't. "Black Cumania" was the region of Wallachia and Moldavia, and the designation of Black/White in Turkic society is differentiation between direct rule and vassals. Black regions were only under vassalage or indirect rule.
          • Ok. We agree that Blakumen can be identified with other people, as well.
  • the Welsh is not a Romance language;
    • They had a significant amount of Roman influence, and were seen as "Romanized" by the Angles. They even have place-names like "Caius Didus" for crying out loud.
      • But they do not speak a Romance language. Albanian is also a language with plenty of borrowings from the Latin, but it is not a Romance language (although the ancestors of the Albanians lived under Latin rule for a longer period than the Dacians).
        • I'm pointing out that people can survive numerous barbarian invasions even without large forests and mountains like in Transylvania. Therefore, it is an argument for continuity.
          • But the text suggest that Welsh people speak a Romance language.
  • there are several documents from the 14th century mentioning the immigration of the Romans to the Kingdom of Hungary, nobody claims that the immigration took place during the reign of King Ladislaus IV (in the 13th century);
    • If you truly place it that far back then you have lost.
      • Documents (and chronicles writthen by Romanian authors in the 16th century) suggest this. The immigration of the Romanians may have begun in the 12th century, but the mass of the population arrived in the 14th century.
        • Total garbage. The majority of the population didn't arrive from anywhere. First of all, you chose the completely wrong century. In the 14th century we see an EMIGRATION OF ROMANIANS from Transylvania, going to Wallachia and Moldavia to create their own independent states. Bogdan I in 1359 even left with as many as 600 noble families from Maramures, and Basarab I must have left with at least as many.
          • In the course of the 14th century, the documents prove a moving Vlach population from the Balkan peninsula to Moravia, in Slavonia, from and to Transylvania. Yes, they were migrating from place to place or backward.
  • the Hungarian word for town ("város") literally means "with fortress" ("vár"+"-os" suffix);
    • only one possible etymology.
      • Hungarian people clearly feel this etimology "(a settlement) with fortress".
        • It could also come from "Baros" in Greek.
        • The Roumanian word can, but the Hungarian word is clearly an adjective that turn into a noun. It is a frequent phenomenon in the Hungarian language (My only question how and when could the Daco-Romans borrow this word from the Greeks?)
  • "Turri-Dava" did not originate from the Latin language, "dava" is a Dacian word meaning "town, settlement";
    • Point being?
      • The article mentions that "dava" originates from the Latin.
        • It says its origin is Dacian.
  • the Armenian cartographer Chorenatsi described that Dacia north of the Danube was inhabited by 24 Slavic clans;
  • Persian Gardizi (end of 11th century) did not speak about "a Christian Latinate people situated between Russians, Bulgarians and Hungarians", he described the Bulgarians ("nandors")"who are more numerous than the Hungarians";
    • Actually he described a Latin people (az Rum = lit. "from Rome"), therefore don't BS me.
    • Rum means "Byzantine" in Muslim sources (e.g., Rumelia) and Bulgarian people were Orthodox Christian. Moreover, Gardizi clearly mentions that when the "people from Rum" live on the southern part of the Danube.
      • The Bulgarians were not "from Rome", fruthermore Gardizi actually mentions the Bulgarians separately so your point is complete trash.
        • The Bulgarian were not "from Rum" (i.e., from the Byzantine Empire), but they followed the same faith (Orthodox). I am adding the text to the article, and everybody can judge what is the more probable interpretation. Gardizi called them "nandors".
  • etc., etc., etc.
    • Some arguments will be removed, but most of them will stay.Romano-Dacis (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I am sure that there are serveral real "arguments for" the Daco-Romanian continuity, therefore I suggest that the whole article should be significantly re-edited and re-written. I agree with the suggestion that we should give up the "arguments for"-"arguments against" principle when editing the article. My proposal is the following:

1. Historical events

2. Written sources

3. Archeology

4. Linguistics

5. Toponyms

I hope it would be acceptable for other editors, as well. Of course, I would be open to any other solutions, because at present state, this article is a shame for all of us.