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

Fri Jul 4 12:30:41 UTC 2003

Hi Francisc,

thanks a lot for this very detailed and clear overview. Indeed, I
don't think this is off topic, since it gives us an idea about the
nature of Gothic and Gepidic influence in those regions. From your
presentation, the migrationist view seems somewhat stronger to me. In
fact, perhaps a combination of both theories might be closest to the
truth. Maybe some small groups of Daco-Romans remained in the area,
who were later supplemented by Romanic people from south of the
Danube.

Again, thanks for answering this for me.
Dirk

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Francisc Czobor" <fericzobor at y...>
wrote:
> 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 ---------------------~-->
Inkjet cartridges up to 80% off. HP, Epson, Lexmark--we have your brand.
Free shipping on every order to the U.S. and Canada! Excellent service.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QWB0QC/.eUGAA/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/