Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 1

• According to Roman sources population of Dacia was evacuated south of Danube (opponents allege that only a part of the population was evacuated).

I'll remove this from the list of arguments against the Romanization, because it's not an argument against the Romanization, it's just an argument for the migration. It's not a problem to reconcile the statement that Romanians are Romanized Dacians with the statement that Romanized people were evacuated south of Danube. One can say that Dacians were Romanized, later they were evacuated south of Danube and later they migrated northwards, thus coming back to the ancient Dacia. Boraczek 09:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

OK. Although, it was mainly the evacuation of the administration and the city population. Many other Romans lived in countryside as farmers, and they were most likely not evacuated.Bogdan | Talk 09:12, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

This is what opponents of the migration theory claim and we mentioned that. Boraczek 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Bulgarian influence, not Serbian nor Greek

However this is easy to explain as historical and archeological sources indicate that southern part of Romania has been colonized by Slavic tribes speaking dialects close to Old Bulgarian (6th century).

I don't know how this explains that there is no Serbian nor Greek influence.Bogdan | Talk 09:12, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite all that argument, because it doesn't seem clear to me. Boraczek 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

According to me it is clear. According to "classical" migration theory motherland of Vlachs is present-day nothern Bulgaria, Macedonia and southern Serbia (at that times solely Bulgarian speaking). Besides collonization of Vlachia by "Bulgarian-like" Slavic tribes (6th century) is very well documented. There is also very well documented the fact that Vlachs mixed up themselve with local Slavic population of the territory later known as Vlachia (after 12th century), taking its social and political structure and (in some extend) local, Bulgarian-like language. To summarise: The "Bulgarian-like" language and cutural influence on Vlachs (and lack of "Serbian-like") can not be considered as argumenet against theory about "allochtonic" origins of Vlachs.Yeti 13:16, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

---

• Romanian is very different from Dalmatian, so they probably developed in distant regions (however, it could be developed in distant from Dalmatia, Romanized provinces of Thracia and Moesia).

All my sources say that Thracia (unlike Moesia) was not Romanized and that it was a Greek-speaking province. This is the first time I hear another opinion. We can't present it as a generally accepted statement. Boraczek 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK, Thracians spoke a satem language, unrelated to Greek, but with some Greek influence. Bogdan | Talk 11:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

But Thracians didn't preserve their language. They were Hellenized or Romanized in the first centuries AD. Boraczek 11:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Thracia proper was hellenized, by other Thracian territories were Romanized. The border between Romanized territoires was along Stara Planina Mountains than central part of present day Macedonia and than to Vlora area in Albania. The potential motherland of Vlachs are these territories. So this argumetn is important and should not be removed.Yeti 20:45, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your description of the border. So, the Roman province of Thracia was Hellenized, not Romanized. The province of Thracia was situated south of the Stara Planina. Nevertheless, you're right about the northern Macedonia.

Again, the evacuation of Dacia is not an argument against the theory that Romanians originate from Romanized Dacians. Please try and think logically. There's no contradiction between being evacuated and being a Romanized Dacian. The evacuation of Dacia is an argument for the migration theory and it should be listed as such. But it's not an argument against the Daco-Romanian theory. If you think otherwise, please tell me what's your reasoning - the evacuation being the premise and the lack of connection between Dacians and Romanians being the conclusion. Boraczek 22:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I can not agree with you. We are talking about CONTINUITY of Dacian settlement in Romania from Roman times. Very well documentated evacuation of Dacia (proper) is an important argument AGAINST theory of "autochtonic" origin of Romanians. Besides argument that only higher classes of Romanized society were evacuated is barely a claim of Romanian historians and is not supported in sources. However, even supporters of migration theory do not claim that Vlach settlers in Romania were not descendants (at least some of them) of evacuated population of Dacia.Yeti 12:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, I think we can come to terms if we make clear what we are talking about. We should make the distinction between two statements:

1. Romanians originate from Romanized Dacians;
2. Romanic peoples continuosly lived in Dacia from the times of Romans.

The first theory, as presented in the article, corresponded to the first statement. And your argument wasn't relevant to that theory. But your argument is relevant to the second statement, which corresponds to the standard Romanian point of view. I've left your argument intact, but I've changed the description of the first theory. Now your argument makes sense indeed. Boraczek 18:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

---

• There are no written documents confirming that Romanic peoples lived in Dacia in the period between the Roman evacuation of Dacia and the 10th century, but there are very few records about this region in the Dark Ages. All historical sources prior 12th century indicate presence of Vlachs in areas south of Danube (in Thracia, Moesia etc). For example in 11th century Vlachs from present day Bulgaria (under Peter Asen) rose against Constantinopol to create the Empire of Bulgarians and Vlachs.
• A 11th century Hungarian chronicle affirms that when the Magyars arrived in Pannonia, surrounding areas were inhabited by Vlachs (Romanians).

There is an obvious contradiction here. Not only for this reason does the first argument require rewriting. I don't know how about the Hungarian chronicle. Anyway, the Peter Asen's rising was in the 12th century (see History of Bulgaria). I'm going to rewrite the first argument.Boraczek 10:11, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

According to the article History of Vlachs, the Hungarian chronicle dates from 1146. So I'll replace the "11th century chronicle" with "12th century chronicle". Boraczek 10:59, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's a 12th century Hungarian chronicle called Gesta Hungarorum that talks about events from the 10th and 11th century. see: [1] Bogdan | Talk 11:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Thx for the link! Now everything seems to be clear. Boraczek 11:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)