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

Fri Jul 4 11:38:57 UTC 2003

Hi, Dirk,

Again off-topic, sorry.
This is indeed the very big problem of Romanian history.
In fact, there are two theories:

1. The "Continuity" theory.
Claims that after 271 AD, when the Roman legions and administration
left Dacia, a numerous Daco-Romanian population remained in place and
endured the passage and rule of various migrating peoples (Goths,
Huns, Gepids, Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans,
Tatars), eventually assimilating those settled among them, and
finally giving birth to the Romanian nation.
Arguments: being a province of strategic importance, Dacia was
strongly colonized by Romans, explaining thus the complete
romanization of Daco-Getae during the approx. 170 years of Roman
rule. The archeological findings attest a very strong Roman presence
in Roman Dacia and there are indications of Roman presence even some
centuries after (e.g. the votive object of the 4th century with the
Latin inscription EGO ZENOVIUS VOTUM POSUI, or the testimony of
Priscus, Byzantine messenger at the court of Attila, the Hunic king,
who writes that north of Danube he found many "Romans" speaking
Latin).
Despite the passage of so many migrating peoples, the population of
Romania is majoritary Romanian, suggesting thus that there was in
place a numerous Romance population, that assimilated the numerically
much smaller foreign rulers/settlers. Among these, the most numerous
were the Slavs, who left many words in the Romanian language, as well
as many personal and geographical names in Romania. There are also
some family names and fairly numerous geographical names of Pechenego-
Cuman (Turkic) origin.

2. The "Immigrationist" theory
Claims that after 271 AD, the whole population of Dacia left this
province, together with the Roman armies and administration, and the
migrating peoples found here an empty land. According to this theory,
the Romanian people formed somewhere south of Danube, and begun to
immigrate on its today territory after the 10th century.
Arguments: 170 years of Roman rule were not sufficient for a thorough
romanization of the Daco-Getae. According to some ancient authors (I
can't remember now who), after the war of 105-106 the whole Daco-
Getian population was exterminated. Thus, this theory concludes that
the population of Roman Dacia was composed exclusively of Roman
colonists, who all left the province together with the army and
administration, leaving it unpopulated.
When the Romans left Dacia, two provinces named "Dacia" were created
south of Danube (Dacia Ripensis and Dacia ... I don't remember how),
suggesting that there was relocated the population of the former
Roman province.
The period of the 4th-10th centuries in Dacia represents an
archeological "black hole". The migrating peoples left many traces
(cemeteries, hoards), but no Daco-Roman cemetery was found, nor other
convincing traces of the presence of a massive romanized population.
The Romanian geographical names in Romania are mostly recent. The
older ones are mostly Slavic, Turkic (Pechenego-Cuman or Old Bulgar)
and, in Transylvania, also Hungarian (Magyar). Only the names of the
major rivers seem to date from Daco-Getic / Daco-Roman times, but
their phonetic shape strongly suggest a Slavic intermediate.
There is a number of non-Latin words in Romanian similar to Albanian
words. For the "Immigrationist" theory, this is an argument that the
Romanian people was formed in south of Danube, somewhere in the
vicinity of the ancestors of the Albanians (the "Continuity" theory
argues in this case that these words are from the Daco-Getic, i.e.
Thracic substratum, being thus similar with Albanian, a language of
Thraco-Illyric origin; the fact that they are substratum words is
suggested by the fact that most of them are related to the local
flora & fauna or to very old traditional activities like sheep
breeding).
Goths and Gepids ruled together more than 3 centuries over Dacia,
about twice so long as the Romans. But their traces in the Romanian
language are very few and discutable. This would indicate that in
this period (4th-6th centuries) the ancestors of the Romanians were
not in Dacia, but somewhere else (this is indeed a very strong
argument of the "Immigrationist" theory, and very diffcult to be
fought by the adepts of "Continuity").
The strongest adstratum of the Romanian language is Slavic. But this
could be obtained both north and south of Danube.
Another argument is the presence of Romanian population in the Balkan
Peninsula south of Danube until today (and more numerous in the
Middle Ages). The "Immigrationists" consider that they are the
Romanians left behind after the immigration in former Dacia, whereas
the adepts of "Continuity" consider that they immigrated here from
north of Danube (in present, however, it is considered by several
Romanian and foreign scholars that the Romanian people was formed on
both sides of Danube, in Dacia and Moesia. After the arrival of the
Slavs in the 6th century, the Romance population of Dacia assimilated
the Slavs, but in Moesia the Slavs were those who assimilated the
Romance population, and those who were not assimilated were displaced
into their present-day locations in Macedonia and Istria).

Both theories have weak points. From obvious reasons,
the "Continuity" theory is the official one in Romania, whereas
the "Immigrationist" theory is very strongly supported by the
Hungarians. The very long (almost 200 years) dispute between the
Romanian and Hungarian historians around this aspect has a very
strong political implication, being connected with the question of
Transylvania. The question is: who was the first in Transylvania,
having thus the historical rights to own it? The Romanians claim
that, at their arrival in the 10th century, the Magyar (Hungarian)
tribes found here a numerous Romance population and subdued it. The
Hungarians claim that, at their arrival, the Magyars found and
settled an empty land (or with a tiny Slavo-Bulgarian population),
where the Romanians begun to immigrate later.
Of course, this political implication affects negatively the
objectivity of historical research, and unfortunately no definitive
answer is available today.

With best regards,
Francisc

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "faltin2001" <dirk at s...> wrote:
> 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
>

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Save on Coral Calcium. Get Better Health and
Stronger Bones. Seen on TV
http://www.challengerone.com/t/l.asp?cid-2805&lp=calcium2.asp
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9gf46B/EfUGAA/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/