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

Re: Goths and Getae

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.