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

Germanic and Rumania was Re: Goths and Getae

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Jul 4, 2003
      Hi, Dirk,

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

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

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

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

      With best regards,
      Francisc


      --- In gothic-l@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 2 of 12 , Jul 4, 2003
        --- 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 3 of 12 , Jul 4, 2003
          Hi Francisc,

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

          Again, thanks for answering this for me.
          Dirk





          --- In gothic-l@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 4 of 12 , Jul 4, 2003
            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 5 of 12 , Jul 4, 2003
              --- 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 6 of 12 , Jan 4, 2004
                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 7 of 12 , Jan 19, 2004
                  --- 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.