[gothic-l] Germanic and Rumania was Re: Goths and Getae

Fri Jul 4 10:00:14 UTC 2003

Hi Francisc,

Germanic tribes, especially Goths and Gepids occupied the area of
modern Rumania for a relatively long period of time. In parts I guess
maybe some 300 years or so. Yet, why do you think it is that the
Romance language of the previous population survived this period. The
Romans had occupied the area only from about 106AD to 276AD. Yet,
they had apparently a much more profound impact on the population. In
only 170 years they had afforded a language change, while some 300
years of Germanic settlement left no or few traces in the modern
Romanic language.

Now, this survival of the Rumanian/Romance language seems to indicate
that during the whole period of Germanic settlement in those areas
there remained a relatively strong local population. However,
historical source do not seem to report much if anything about them.
What is the view of Romanian historiography to account for this?

Thanks
Dirk

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Francisc Czobor" <fericzobor at y...>
wrote:
> Hi, Sunny
>
> This book of Lundius is based on two wrong identifications:
> 1. Getae = Goths
> 2. Goths = Swedes
> The first error is obviously inherited from Jordanes.
> The second one was current in Sweden until modern times.
> Even if we admit, with Jodanes, the Scandinavic origin of the Goths
> (which is largerly contested now), the Modern Swedes are not the
> descendants of the historical Goths, who ended up assimilated in
> Italy, Spain, Lower Danube, and Crimea.
> Now, regarding the wrong identification Getae = Goths.
> It is based on two aspects:
> 1. The coincidental ressemblance of the words "Getae" and "Got(h)i"
> 2. The fact that in the 4-5th century, Goths settled in Dacia, the
> territory of the Getae.
> In antiquity, the territory of Dacia (corresponding roughly to that
> of today's Romania, my country) was populated by Northern Thracian
> tribes. They were generically designated as Getai (in Greek) /
Getae
> (in Latin) and Daci (in Latin). The two terms were almost
equivalent,
> but Getae referred mainly to the tribes along the Danube, whereas
> Daci to the tribes within the Carpathian mountains (today's
> Transylvania, in central and western Romania). Now is admitted that
> Daci and Getae represented the same people and are referred to by
> many historians as "Daco-Getae".
> The Daco-Getae where Thracian (fact confirmed already by antic
> historians, like Herodot) and spoke a Thracian language, fact
> attested by the few remnants of their language. Thracian was an
Indo-
> European language group of the "satem" branch, being thus more
> related to the Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian and Phrygian-Armenian
> language groups, and fairly distant from the Germanic languages,
that
> belonged to the "kentum" branch of the Indo-European family
(together
> with Italic, Celtic, Greek, Hittito-Luvite and Tocharian).
> Even the name of Zamolxis, called by Lundius "first legislator of
the
> Getae", demonstrates these linguistic links. Zamolxis was in fact a
> sort of chthonian (earth-linked) divinity, his name containing the
> root zam-, related to Avestan zam- "earth", Slavic zemlia "earth",
> Lithuanian zemai (?) "earth". Generally speaking, all the Daco-
Getic
> personal and geographical names are not Germanic at all.
> Thus, linguistically it is a nonsense to identify the Thracian
Getae
> with the Germanic Gothi.
> Now, abot the history of the Getae and Goths in Dacia (I write from
> my memory, because in this moment I have no history book at hand).
> The Daco-Getae formed in the first century BC a kingdom joining the
> whole territory of Dacia and some surrounding territories under the
> king Burebista. After his death this kingdom disintegrated in
smaller
> political structures. In the first century AC, king Decebalus re-
> united them in a kingdom covering the whole territory of Dacia.
After
> his defeat in the war of 105-106 AD with the Roman Emperor
Traianus,
> Dacia became a province of the Roman Empire. Being a strategical
> province, rich in gold and salt and very important for the defense
of
> the Empire, Dacia was strongly colonized by Romans and became
quickly
> romanized. But in the following century, the pressure of the
> barbarian peoples (mainly Goths) increased, and in the year 271 the
> Emperor Aurelianus decided to live Dacia, the Danube being more
> easier to defend as a frontiere. Immediately after the departure of
> the two Roman legions that were stationed in Dacia (V Gemina and
XIII
> Macedonica), the Goths occupied the former Roman province. These
were
> the Visigoths, who ruled in Dacia (that at that time was called
> also "Gothia" - "Dacia ubi Gothia") only approx. one century, until
> they were defeated by the Huns and fled south of Danube. The Huns
> replaced them with their allies, the Ostrogoths, who remained in
> Dacia still approx. another century, until the Hunish empire
> disintegrated after the battle of Nedao. After this event, the
> Ostrogoths left Dacia and went to Italy, being replaced by the
> Gepids, close relatives of the Goths, who remained in Dacia approx.
> 150 years (if I'm not wrong), after that being replaced by the
Avars
> (a Turkic nomadic people coming from Asia). Regarding the Daco-
Getae,
> during the Roman rule they mixed with Roman colonists and becane
> romanized (in historic literature being known as Daco-Romans).
After
> AD 271, some of them left Dacia together with the roman legions and
> settled in south of Danube, some of them remained and suffered the
> rule of Visigoths, Huns, Ostrogoths, Gepids, Avars, etc., their
> descendants being the Romanians of today.
> In conclusion, if in 1687 it was still possible to make such name-
> based identifications like Gothi = Getae, now this procedure is
> largerly regarded as hazardous and unscientific.
> Briefly: Getae = Daci, lived in Dacia, became romanized, and their
> descendents are the Romanians.
> The Goths and Gepids stayed in Dacia altogether approx. 3 and 1/2
> centuries, then left it (Ostrogoths for Italy, Visigoths for South
> Gallia and then Spain) or became assimilated.
> Final conclusion: the equation Getae = Goths is wrong!
>
> With best regards,
> Francisc
>
>
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Sunny" <sunnyjat12002 at y...> wrote:
> > Hi Francisc and Dirk,
> >
> > Call me stubborn, but please your views on this 1687 Scandinavia
> work:
> >
> > http://www.dacia.org/lundius/clundius-eng.pdf
> >
> > Regards,

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/