History of the Romanians and Vlachs (271-1310)

...Anton the Great!

    What you think, what happened with the Dacians?

The archaeology proved that the Dacian population continued to exist. The Dacian forms of pottery are present such late as 7th century and it couldn't be a cultural transfer to other populations because is a very clear continuation with the classical Dacian period.

The archaeological discoveries shows the steply romanization of the extracarpathic population in 2-7th centuries. I have seen photos of the archaeological cultures from these period and are convincingly enough.

    Is true, but when it's a constant phenomenon in all Romania's provinces and when it has a very good corespondence in the direction of spreading of the latin words in the teritory, you cann't think that all these are coincidences.

    

I doubt the invariability you claim, and also the perfect fit of coverages. There's no archaeological culture in the first millenium AD to perfectly cover the later territory where Romanian language was documented.

It's not a single culture but severals. Their Dacian and roman character is obvious.

I have only a Romanian page for that, maybe you could make an impression:

History of Romanians between 250 and 1250 AD proved archaeologicaly


I also want to ask some Bulgarian brothers what is the proportion between the Latin and Greek inscriptions on the teritory of Bulgaria, if they have an idea.

Originally posted by Menumorut It's not a single culture but severals.

I'd like to point out that I'm disapointed about this discussion we have. You probably haven't read the material I linked (you haven't even addressed it) and to me these are the symptoms I'm facing someone exposing his unchangeable ideas. However, I don't want to guide only by first impressions (though bitterly they are many times true), and attempt a real discussion.

Edited by Chilbudios - 17-Jul-2006 at 06:24

Originally posted by Menumorut I have read the conclussions of those materials. Not any clear idea, this is why I didnt reffered to it.

I think you mean no radical position as in "these are/are not our proto-Romanian ancestors", because otherwise I find the ideas very clear:

Edited by Chilbudios - 17-Jul-2006 at 07:27

Originally posted by Menumorut We should move such discussions on a Non-English topic. I`all answer you on private.

We shouldn't. The Romanian text posted by me in this thread (except the links) has a corresponding English translation/adaptation/summary 

You want say that the author says Ipoesti culture could belong to Slavs? I think not. I have read such an opinion of a Bulgarian author but is totaly ungrounded. Ofcourse, Slavs could have exceptional life style and material expressions, but in any case this could not lead to a culture like Ipotesti. See these links with photos from Vadu Sapat (Budureasca) archaeologicalsite

No, I don't. Please read carefully the material before replying.

Man, the people who made those cultures could be Slavs, Avars or something else?

You seem to think that there are few options. I must remind you that "if not A then B" type of argument works when we have detailed knowledge, which is not the case for the history of this time and space. There are premises for various ethnical structures to have developed during the first millenium in this space: Celtic, Thracian, Iranian, Germanic, Slavic, Turkic populations, not mentioning the Roman and Byzantine influences and colonizations.

you think, for example, that when Gepids are addressing Emperor about them or about Franks, its possible to be something else than Gepids or Franks?

How many original Gepidic accounts do you know? How many original proto-Romanian accounts do you know? How many accounts testifying a proto-Romanian ethnicity do you know?

I understand your prejudices, it's a new sort of preconceived ideas. Try to see the things with the eyes of a man of that times.

I fail to see what you mean.
To see with the eyes of a man of those times, means also to judge with his mind, i.e. not having strong and accurate informations. Of course we can add even some rhetorical arguments like what did he care about some historians of 20th-21st centuries arguing over his statements

But did Curta sayed the same about Goths or Gepids, for example?

Not much (from what I've read about estabilishing such identities) but he criticized Ipotesti-Candesti culture which he sees as being "invented"  by Romanian archaeologists to illustrate the autochtonous life of Romanic populations before the Avaro-Slavic invasion. Again, please read the above links (Eugen S. Teodor's thesis) where the argument against the same myth of "autochtonous Romanic" vs "migratory Slavic" is issued.

This theory is the only one which explain everything: the non-balkanic character of the Romanian language, the distribution of Latin origin words in the teritory of Romania, the "mistery" of Ciresanu, Costisa, Ipoesti and Brateiu cultures.

Niculescu's paper warns against this uncritical interdisciplinarity: "There is a high correlation between mixed argumentation (the indiscriminate use of results from other disciplines) and nationalist reconstructions of the past."

About what "archaeological misteries" do you talk about?
What about language? The non-Balkanic character refers to certain particularities, yet other aspects integrate the Romanian language in a Balkanic speaking space. The distribution of Latin words shows only some directions of propagation, what's exactly the point here?

Do you know that after 400 there is almost not any Latin inscription in Balkans, including today Serbia or the fortresses on the Northern bank of Danube (Sucidava-Corabia)? All are Greek. When do you think have took place that migration of romanic population from South to North of Danube?

What's this red herring and straw man? We were talking about north-Danubian archaeological cultures and I have now to defend South-North migrations?? And even so, there would be opportunities for such migrations. Some scholars pointed out that the Avaro-Bulgaro-Slavic invasions/migrations from 5-6th centuries forced a considerable part of the Balkanic populations to move their settlements (not necessarily towards North, but like I said: opportunities).
The movement of settlements is also covered in the above links. At a smaller scale, you can check the movement of Dulceanca settlement (as we kept talking about it) or the other considerations on the disapperance/fading of some north-Danubian cultures, which E. S. Teodor sees as a consequence not of extermination but of resettlement, i.e. from earthen/stone steady settlements to temporary settlements (wooden shelters, tents) which are hard to be noticed archaeologically. Of course, this doesn't prove a South-North migration, but it certainly shakes the "steady autochtonous population" myth.

I didnt afirmed that the Santana de Mures was continued by Costisa. I only afirmed that some settlements have a continuity of inhabitance from Santana period to Costisa.

I also only affirmed "partially continued". My interpretation would be slightly different but my formula covered also your understanding and still does.

But how Curta sayed, the classical forms of pottery dissapeared with the movement of the Goths.

Eugen S. Teodor said that. Maybe Curta said it too, I am not sure, but I haven't quoted him on that

The Roman-like forms of pottery of Costisa had other significaton, I allready sayed.

I may have missed it, which is their significance?

The Daco-Romans subjugated by Goths have adopted in the time of that domination the Gothic forms of culture. After the Goths left Dacia, they didnt used more that forms.

How do you know this is what happened? What is the evidence for "Daco-Romans" (whatever that means) in Moldavia in the first place?

Even the pottery forms in Moldavia were the most Roman-like, Moldavia remained the less latinized region.

So you're basically agreeing that a pottery having Roman characteristics has little to no consequences on the language

Not at all. I allready sayed Dridu was a culture common South and North of Danube, and even more.

It puzzles me how in the same paragraph you disagree and agree with what I say

Edited by Chilbudios - 17-Jul-2006 at 11:55

Originally posted by Menumorut I see that you mention 'Celtic, Thracian, Iranian, Germanic, Slavic, Turkic populations, not mentioning the Roman and Byzantine influences and colonization'. Why not Dacians?

In the same fashion I haven't mentioned "Goths" or "Gepids" but "Germanic", I haven't mentioned "Dacians" but "Thracian". I was listing populations by linguistic affiliation.

What do you think about Militari-Chilia culture?

If you'd have just bothered to read my sources (the thesis on Wallachian pottery, check the "diacronic references") you could have read about it and many other archaeological cultures. You also could have seen what aspects of the Dacian pottery morphology are considered in the later Wallachian and Moldavian cultures and integrating those informations in your knowledge you could have answered my challenges to correlate various cultures. Also you would have realized to what degrees we can identify "Roman" and "Dacian" pottery in these cultures, which was the crux of our debate.

I have read one or two year ago Procopius's Wars and have not a copy now. I remember about letters addressed by Barbarians to the Emperor. Also the Goths addressed letters in the name of their people.

Procopius is not an original Gepidic account. It's a Byzantine perspective. How do you know this perspective is accurate? How do you know to interpret such perspective (you'd have a double - at least - reflection of the identity: through a Gepidic and a Byzantine mentality)? You can't just assert Procopius reliability in every account you consult him for.

Do you believe that these Goths which in 6th century were still in Italy were not a homogenous ethnic group?

 
In their journey through Balkans, the Goths of Theodoric were joined by other Gothic bands (like the one led by his homonymous Theodoric Strabon). Before his open military conflict with Odoacer he also gathered the remnants of other Germanic populations (like the Rugi). After starting his rule as a king, he gathered in his sphere of influence and also in his armies, Germanic populations from vast areas - the Gepids, the Heruli from Pannonia, the Alamans defeated by Clovis, even warriors descending from Scandinavia. And finally, during his reign there was a continuous duality Germanics - Romans, so undoubtely, the interactions between these two cultures had not a very homogenous result. Also, during the Italian kingdom of the Goths there were two antagonizing factions: pro-Roman and anti-Roman. This was reflected in their values, education, customs, spoken languages, but also social interactions. It's hard to know how deep this separation went (it affected only the aristocracy?) or to draw a clear boundary (what exactly was similar/different), yet these degrees cannot be ignored.

Yes, is true that the archaeological aspects of romanic population in Southern Romania are not homogenous but that doesnt mean they belong to some migratory people. The migratory people were abiding in tents I think. And even they have some builded dwellings, they could not make such pottery we see in Ciresanu, Ipotesti or Costisa cultures.

I've already dealt with this false dichotomy and you seemed to ignore my claims and/or my sources.

I think what Teodor says are myths. He may convince only some diletant people, not a serious specialist.

 
First, you haven't read his work, though I have linked it above.
Second, he's a serious specialist:
http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/autori/teodor.html
You, on the other hand, are an anonymous, fueled by a nationalistic impulse, whose temple I profaned. Please have some decency and stop this mud-throwing. You don't have to do it.

I have read what this guy says. Are you somehow Niculescu himself?

No. Why do you insist in finding out my identity? You seem unable to argue and you embrace these cheap ad hominem tactics.

If yes and even if not (you think exactly like him) get mature and understant that the myths are these new theories which are unscientifical and fancy.

You realize that you offend me by asking me to get mature? You realize that you have a serious problem when you opposed with no arguments well-written (argumented but also appreciated by other scholars - it's called peer-review in case you'll have something against that!) materials, materials which mostly you haven't read?

Why do you reject from the starting point that the Romanic population could persisted?

But I'm not doing that, I'm questioning your evidence for a Romanic-speaking population starting from pottery. Though you repeatedly admitted that pottery can't prove that, you insist, for no good reasons apparently, on some points.

Why didnt dissapeared in France or Spain?

There are similarities but also huge differences between Roman Gaul and Roman Dacia, also between post-Roman Gaul and post-Roman Dacia. And yet, it actually disappeared partially in France, for instance northern Gaul knew a period of barbarization (Germanization) starting with 3rd century AD.

When did Dacians dissapeared and how?

I do not have a simple answer. Probably they were assimilated during the centuries. Though some authors postulated that Thracian languages were spoken less and less along the entire first millenium AD, I doubt after a "safe date" (let's say somewhere during the 5th or 6th centuries, before the new waves of migrations/invasions) we have any "Dacian" ethnicity, as similarily we don't have any "Sarmatians" or other ancient populations in the neighbouring areas.

What language do you think predominated in 6th century teritory of Today Serbia and Northern Bulgaria?

I have not enough evidence to give a strong-argued answer for this. Many say it was a Eastern Romanic language.
But again, what is your point?

The topic is about all the Vlachs, not just the Carpathic ones.

You seem not to know what a straw man is. The topic may be about Vlachs, my position was not. You shouldn't ask me to defend a South-North while switching from our previous lines of argumentation. If your arguments are over, concede on the points we debated before asking me to debate something else. Or just drop the discussion if you can't handle it.

But that Balkanic population may have been strongly helenized. [...] Is writen "God, please save Romania" dates from 580 and is in Greek. How such an intim addressing was made in Greek if there was a latin speaking population?

Sirmium was a large city, an important key to the Byzantine administration and defence in northern Balkans. This testimony (as you offered it in English) doesn't seem intimate at all, on contrary it reflects the new Byzantine (Imperial, Christian) political values, even may have/reflect a propagandistic/promotion aspect. Read Helene Ahrweiler or Stelian Brezeanu's works on this topic.
One more thing: I'm not a specialist in Byzantine epigraphy, yet this tablet seems to say more than what you've translated. Do you have a proper reading/interpretation of this text?

It's a sign of a population romanized or in process of romanization. It's a conscious adoption of a Roman style of pottery, like the Goths adopted Roman pottery as a sign of their orientation toward Roman civilization. Do we agree?

If you keep the analogy to Goths, yes. If you infer "Daco-Romans" not, unless you can point out some "Gotho-Romans" in the same time and space (north of Danube, earlier than the end of 4th century)

Is very clear that Goths adopted Dacian and Roman pottery style from Free Dacians, Costobocs and Carpians, who were in process of romanization as early as 2-3rd centuries (the Free Dacians from Muntenia were also in a similar process).

It is not very clear, but I'm tired and I can concede on that. Yeah, so?

About costisa culture, if you'll present the data to a foreign specialist he surely will say is of a romanized Dacian population.

Can you provide an analysis on Costisa culture (hint: you can start from the thesis I first linked - check "syncronic refences")?

I appreciate your efort to demolish the continuity theory as a manifestation of an "objective" Romanian scientist but you falled down in a trap.

The only things I attempted to demolish were your erroneous ideas

But the context shows that Costisa belong the romanized and romanizing Dacians.

I disagree. The context shows Costisa-Botosana belongs to some Romanized Aliens crashing their UFO in the sea (hence no archaeological remains) and swimming up the Prut until they found a proper place to land. Being smart, they learned quick and developed a new culture with parallels to various other cultures

Where exactly did I disagreed with you?

Your answer starts with "Not at all." Is this the way you agree?

Edited by Chilbudios - 17-Jul-2006 at 14:55

Originally posted by Menumorut Why not African or South American?

I will leave to you this important question as exercise.

Do you have anything more to say on this topic or you're just adding straws on the fire?

 

About the Slavs, how do you think their migration manifested? Do you believe that they were hundreds of thousands moving as a compact wave, or how?

See above. You showed a great deal of disrespect towards my arguments so far, why would I bring more? You're obviously not interested in my opinions but to promote your dogmatic view against anything that contradicts it. As we fail to have a discussion, why would I bother, right? Now I'm merely trying to correct some of your flawed views, as long as they refer to points I participated to.

 

Attending a faculty doesnt mean a man is serious. I can give the example of some historians that cannt be called serious at all.

I noticed several occasions where you failed to read (or at least to write here what you have read and understood). In that specific link you may notice (or if you don't I'll just tell you) he's "specializat �n ceramistică" i.e. a "pottery scholar".

Also a having a doctorate is much more than attending an university.

 

Anyway, let's speak about history, not about emploiees of institutions.

You're the one bringing this issue on and on. Also I sense some hypocrisy in this stimulus, as several paragraphs below you rant about a "Boia syndrome". In other words, if you want to give someone an advice, try to follow it yourself

 

You too are anonimous and are acusing Romanian historians of lack of objectivity.

I am not accusing anyone of anything (well, maybe you, as you disrupted this discussion with some of your interventions), I provided materials from scholars who do. I can understand their arguments and support/oppose them (the arguments).

 

I think you are wrong, the Romanian historians are not lacking objectivity. Also I think that the future belong to the Continuity theory. When the archaeological, linguistic and documentary evidences will be studied by larger groups of specialists, the Continuity theory will win.

  (emphasis mine)

 

The Boia syndrom (Boia is a historian from Romania who want to demolish something) is a manifestation of superficial understanding and prejudice.

You're just in denial. Anything that treads on your sacred values is loaded with derogatory epithets.

After you trashed E. S. Teodor and G. A. Niculescu, now you pick on Lucian Boia. I wonder who's next

 

I didnt afirmed that the character of pottery attest a Romanic population by itself. Some human groups made these cultures and the belonging to the autochtnous romanized Dacians is the best explanation in a larger context. Curta himself (or Teodor) says that Ipotesti culture is very different from other achaeological cultures of the epoch. Not any migratory people could create such a culture and their character, their delicacy (the hand made pottery) and their forms could not be atributed to others than romanized Dacians.

I don't see what can be discussed with you. You're merely repeating the same things without providing any relevant argument (unless you call "delicacy" an argument ).

 

So, to demolish the continuity theory you have to: [...] Actualy I dont know when you think that the migration of the Southern romanic people took place so I will not refer to later periods.

Straw man. I'm unwilling to follow.

 

Do you have an idea about the demographic proportion between Dacians (and their descendants) and migratory groups? If you have not any source, why did you adopted the idea that Dacians were asimilated?

Because all the evidences point to that? Their material culture becomes less and less represented, their language disappeared, etc.?

 

The fact that all the inscriptions are in Greek is an indication that the helenization was strong. Is hard to believe that the Greek was used in such extension and the population remained Latin.

You barely provided one inscription, what are you talking about? 

Hellenization probably resumed to cities. It is assumed that also many indigenous language survived in the early Byzantine period (as some Thracian dialects in the Balkans). There are accounts of people not knowing Greek, there are certain cases which illustrate along Greek also other spoken languages in the early Byzantine Empire as Latin, Syriac, Coptic.

 

I have not. I'm not a history specialist, just a passionated guy.

I could tell you're not a history specialist  However, if you can't provide a source/justification, how do you know that translation is correct?   If you can't provide a source/justification how can you use it as an argument?

 

Anyway, do you think that an official man, a Greek speaking, have written an official text on a piece of earthware?

What official text?

 

But what about the Dacian character of Santana de Mures culture? You have to adopt also the Gotho-Dacian formula.

You already mentioned cohabitation between Goths and Dacians and we all know about their neighbouring/shared habitats and conjugated raids in the 3rd century. However, the point was about the parallels between "Gothic Romanization" and "Dacian Romanization" north of Danube.

 

Sorry but I think my eyes are a better teacher.

I don't. Why don't you write in AE Tavern? I thought here we're discussing serious stuff.

 

Costisa is clearly a culture of a sedentary people and the Roman character of their pottery is surprising. Do you agree?

Not entirely. Only the prejudiced ones can be surprised

 

Even this demolishing atitude should be in indication for you that you are not proceding correct. Offer some better explanations and variants, not just contest the theory of continuity. Why are you contesting this theory?

Another straw man.

 

 

 

I guess there's nothing left to discuss ... (I'm not really expecting answers on the last questions)

Have fun!

 

 

 

 

Edited by Chilbudios - 17-Jul-2006 at 18:16