Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Goths and Getae

Expand Messages
  • Sunny
    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,
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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,
    • faltin2001
      ... Hi Sunny, this book falls within the height of Scandinavian Gothicism, ie. Swedish nationalism based on the belief that they were some sort of heirs to the
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Sunny" <sunnyjat12002@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,


        Hi Sunny,

        this book falls within the height of Scandinavian Gothicism, ie.
        Swedish nationalism based on the belief that they were some sort of
        heirs to the Goths and most other ancient Germanic peoples. You
        should read this book with that in mind.

        Take for example the grand address to the king. He is called Carolus
        XI. Yet, another Swedish 'historian' had earlier invented a few
        Swedish kings, meaning that the counting to 11, is entirely wrong.
        Also, Karl was certainly not king of the Goths let along the Vandals.
        Neither was he the prince of Bremen, Verden etc. and especially has
        he never been anything remotely resembling a duke of the Bavarian
        mountains.

        The book is dedicated to legitimising Swedish intervention on the
        continent and aimed at agrandising the status of the Swedish nation.
        (At this time Swedish influence on the continent was in steep
        decline. In 1675, the Prussians had defeated the Swedes at Fehrbellin
        and in a few years time 1712, the Russians would do the same at
        Poltawa.) As such, this work is not useful for the study of ancient
        people like the Getae and Goths, but it is only useful for studying
        the extend and exesses of Swedish Gothicism during this period.

        Cheers
        Dirk
      • Francisc Czobor
        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.
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          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@yahoogroups.com, "Sunny" <sunnyjat12002@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,
        • faltin2001
          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
          Message 4 of 12 , Jul 4, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            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@yahoogroups.com, "Francisc Czobor" <fericzobor@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@yahoogroups.com, "Sunny" <sunnyjat12002@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,
          • Егоров Владимир
            Hi Dirk! Don t you overestimate the time period when Germanic tribes, especially
            Message 5 of 12 , Jul 4, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Dirk!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />



              Don't you overestimate the time period when



              "Germanic tribes, especially Goths and Gepids occupied
              the area of modern Rumania... some 300 years or so"?



              Real influence of the Goths in Dacia could not
              begin before Valentus, i.e. the end of the 4th c.
              and could not help finishing after Avar invasion
              in 6th c. Hence, we do not gather even 200 years.
              Further, the term "occupied" seems to be too
              pretentious. Visigoths, though having shattered
              Valentus, seized no towns. There are serious
              doubts that the Goths (plus the Gepides) really
              did occupy (!) Dacia and were there real rulers.
              As opposed to the Romans.



              Vladimir



              -----Original Message-----
              From: faltin2001 [mailto:dirk@...]
              Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 2:00 PM
              To: gothic-l@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [gothic-l] Germanic and Rumania was Re: Goths and Getae


              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







              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Francisc Czobor
              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
              Message 6 of 12 , Jul 4, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                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@yahoogroups.com, "faltin2001" <dirk@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
                >
              • faltin2001
                ... com:office:office / ... Hi Vladimir, possibly, but I simply took the 300 years from Francisc s earlier post and he repeated it in his last message. I
                Message 7 of 12 , Jul 4, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, åÇÏÒÏ× ÷ÌÁÄÉÍÉÒ <vegorov@i...> wrote:
                  > Hi Dirk!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-
                  com:office:office" />
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Don't you overestimate the time period when
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > "Germanic tribes, especially Goths and Gepids occupied
                  > the area of modern Rumania... some 300 years or so"?
                  >
                  >


                  Hi Vladimir,

                  possibly, but I simply took the 300 years from Francisc's earlier
                  post and he repeated it in his last message. I assumed that it was
                  approximately right.





                  >
                  > Real influence of the Goths in Dacia could not
                  > begin before Valentus, i.e. the end of the 4th c.
                  > and could not help finishing after Avar invasion
                  > in 6th c. Hence, we do not gather even 200 years.



                  I would have to check this now, but I was under the impression that
                  the first Dacia (i.e. the area of Romania) was given to the Goths at
                  an earlier date, I think in 275AD. The Romans then created a second
                  Dacia (Dacia Ripense). The Gepidic kingdom, also partly on Romanian
                  territory was defeated in about 565AD, which makes about 300 years.
                  In addition, the Bavarian mission record the existence of Gepids
                  still in the 9th century.









                  > Further, the term "occupied" seems to be too
                  > pretentious. Visigoths, though having shattered
                  > Valentus, seized no towns. There are serious
                  > doubts that the Goths (plus the Gepides) really
                  > did occupy (!) Dacia and were there real rulers.



                  There can be no doubt that Dacia, and other Roman provinces were at
                  least in the 5th century under the direct rule of Gepids, and
                  Ostrogoths.





                  > As opposed to the Romans.
                  >
                  >

                  The Gepidic rule over the region, under a succession of kings lasted
                  from at least 454 to 565, but Gepids had lived their for much longer

                  Cheers
                  Dirk





                  >
                  > Vladimir
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: faltin2001 [mailto:dirk@s...]
                  > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 2:00 PM
                  > To: gothic-l@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: [gothic-l] Germanic and Rumania was Re: Goths and Getae
                  >
                  >
                  > 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
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • faltin2001
                  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
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jul 4, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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@yahoogroups.com, "Francisc Czobor" <fericzobor@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@yahoogroups.com, "faltin2001" <dirk@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
                    > >
                  • Francisc Czobor
                    Hi, Dirk, ... In ... the ... Very interesting, I have the same point of view like you. Probably this is would be the conclusion of an objective observer. What
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jul 4, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi, Dirk,

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

                      Very interesting, I have the same point of view like you. Probably
                      this is would be the conclusion of an objective observer.
                      What is relevant for this Gothic list, the East-Germanic (Gothic &
                      Gepidic) presence in Dacia is documentary and archeologically well
                      attested for the 4-6th centuries (including such precious gold hoards
                      like the Gothic one from Pietroasa and the Gepidic one from
                      Szilagysomlyo / Simleul Silvaniei). But the linguistic traces are
                      very scarce (compared for instance with Italy, South France,and
                      Spain, where there is a significant number of words of Gothic
                      origin), fact which is variously interpreted in the different
                      theories.

                      Francisc
                    • faltin2001
                      ... the ... your ... me. ... area, ... hoards ... Yet, even in Italy, Southern France and even Spain the linguistic influence was marginal at best. The
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jul 4, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Francisc Czobor" <fericzobor@y...>
                        wrote:
                        > Hi, Dirk,
                        >
                        > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "faltin2001" <dirk@s...> wrote:
                        > > 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.
                        > >
                        >
                        > Very interesting, I have the same point of view like you. Probably
                        > this is would be the conclusion of an objective observer.
                        > What is relevant for this Gothic list, the East-Germanic (Gothic &
                        > Gepidic) presence in Dacia is documentary and archeologically well
                        > attested for the 4-6th centuries (including such precious gold
                        hoards
                        > like the Gothic one from Pietroasa and the Gepidic one from
                        > Szilagysomlyo / Simleul Silvaniei). But the linguistic traces are
                        > very scarce (compared for instance with Italy, South France,and
                        > Spain, where there is a significant number of words of Gothic
                        > origin), fact which is variously interpreted in the different
                        > theories.
                        >
                        > Francisc


                        Yet, even in Italy, Southern France and even Spain the linguistic
                        influence was marginal at best. The Visigothic kingdom in Spain
                        lasted some 200 years from about 507-711, but admittingly, for most
                        of the time the Visigoths had likely adopted Latin/Romance. The
                        Visigothic kingdom in southern Gaul lasted from 418-507, ie. almost
                        100 years, while the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy had a life-span of
                        some 70 years at most. Clearly, in none of the cases did the Goths
                        afford a language shift. Instead they probably veered towards Latin,
                        at least in some cases already prior to their settlements. Latin,
                        after all was the language of the Roman army, and both Visigoths and
                        Ostrogoths were essentially Roman federate armies. Upon their
                        settlement, they utilised the existing Roman administration, which
                        was of course based on Latin. So it is probably not surprising that
                        the the linguistic input of Gothic in any of these regions is small.

                        cheers
                        Dirk
                      • draket222
                        Isn t it possible to have Dacian tribes taking over the Nordic people at different times.Since Thracians were so aggressive and culturaly advanced, this theory
                        Message 11 of 12 , Jan 4, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Isn't it possible to have Dacian tribes taking over the Nordic people
                          at different times.Since Thracians were so aggressive and culturaly
                          advanced, this theory would make sense.

                          Mike
                        • faltin2001
                          ... people ... Hi Mike, this is not a theory but speculation, unless you have any evidence. All we know about Thracians and Dacians is that they were conquered
                          Message 12 of 12 , Jan 19, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "draket222" <draket222@y...> wrote:
                            > Isn't it possible to have Dacian tribes taking over the Nordic
                            people
                            > at different times.Since Thracians were so aggressive and culturaly
                            > advanced, this theory would make sense.
                            >
                            > Mike


                            Hi Mike,

                            this is not a theory but speculation, unless you have any evidence.
                            All we know about Thracians and Dacians is that they were conquered
                            by the Romans in the 2nd century AD, and that they vanished as
                            independend ethnic identities shortly thereafter.

                            Cheers
                            Dirk
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.