Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Balancing the article

For the moment the article is biased towards the immigrationist point of view.

Most of the citations are given from Hungarian authors and other citations are given mostly from authors that support the immigrationist view.

Many of the important Romanian authors, are not included, just a few marginal ones.

Most of the sources are secondary.

Very few archaeological sources are included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.190.28.106 (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear IP,

• Please read more carefully the sentences and their sources: less than 20% is based on Hungarian authors' work, more than 30% is based on neutral authors' books.
• Why do you think that Romanian authors whose work has been translated into English are marginal ones?
• Using of secondary sources is one of the basic principles of Wikipedia.
• Please do not refrain from adding archaeological sources based on reliable sources.

Why do you think that the article is biased towards the migrationist theory? Which are the relevant arguments of the opposing theory which has not been presented? If there are any, please do not refrain from adding them (based on reliable sources). Borsoka (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How is this article going to account for recent archaeology and genetic findings?

The oldest known humans in Europe are in Romania (Cave of Bones - see articles on Romania). How can ethnic Romanians popped up only after the coming of the Romans (when the southern Italian peninsula isn't populated until at the earliest, 14,000BP - which is itself a dubious date that the Wiki on Rome can't substantiate. The second and third oldest known fossil humans are also in Romania. Romania has farming before Italy (2,500 years before), its own art, folklore, language and village life. They have sculptures that are arguably the oldest in Europe as well - and very numerous, by 17,000BP (before there are any Romans). So - does the coming of Romans suddenly define those numerous and prosperous people as Romanian? How does Rome accomplish that? They are the Vlach people, to themselves...Oh, anyway, these articles on Rome, Latin, historical linguistics, Indo-European, Romania et al., are all badly in need of more current citations - or citations that are proper.--LeValley 05:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dear LeValley, thank you for your remarks, but let me rais some similar questions. Where are the Sumerians who used to inhabite the territory of present-day Iraq and had farming thousand years before agriculture reached the territory of South-Eastern Europe? They disappeared. Where are the descendant of Samu who lived 350,000 years ago in the territory of present day Hungary? Should we suggest that the Hungarians descended from one of the most ancien population of Europe, just because they live in a territory which used to be inhabited by members of the homo gens before them? Similarly, the Romanians speak a language of Latin origin, therefore their origin can be traced back to a Romanized population which lived somewhere in South-Eastern Europe. At the end of the day, I do not fully understand your remarks. Do you suggest that we should trace back the Romanians' origin to the plains or highlands of Africa where the first homo species appeared? I think this approach would be quite unusual. But if you have any reliable source, please use them in order to improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Borsoka Manipulating Nestor

According to Hazzard-Cross's translation, Nestor stated: "To the lot of Japheth fell the northern and the western sections, including Media, Albania, Armenia (both little and great), Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Galatia, Colchis, Bosporus, Maeotis, Dervis, Sarmatia, Tauria, Scythia, Thrace, Macedonia, Dalmatia, Molossia, Thessaly, Locris, Pellene (which is also called the Peloponnese), Arcadia, Epirus, Illyria, the Slavs, Lychnitis and Adriaca, from which the Adriatic Sea is named. He received also the islands of Britain, Sicily, Euboea, Rhodes, Chios, Lesbos, Cythera, Zacynthus, Cephallenia, Ithaca, and Corcyra, as well as a portion of the land of Asia called Ionia, the river Tigris flowing between the Medes and Babylon and the territory to the north extending as far as the Pontus and including the Danube, the Dniester, and the Carpathian Mountains, which are called Hungarian, and thence even to the Dnipro [Dnieper]. He likewise acquired dominion over other rivers, among them the Desna, the Pripet', the Dvina, the Volkhov, and the Volga, which flows eastward into the portion of Shem."

Borsoka is saying "the northwest" to try to trick the reader into believing it means "Northerwestern Europe" but as we clearly see, the "northwest" means Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Galatia, Colchis, Thessaly... all realms within the Byzantine Empire. Therefore, Nestor was referring to Byzantines by his term "Roman", which is not surprising given that Slavonic texts often took inspiration from Greek works. 142.166.140.1 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Dear Anon, please try to cite Nestor's text properly, which says:

• • "To the lot of Japheth fell the northern and the western sections, including Media, Albania, Armenia (both little and great), Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Galatia, Colchis, Bosporus, Maeotis, Dervis, Sarmatia, Tauria, Scythia, Thrace, Macedonia, Dalmatia, Molossia, Thessaly, Locris, Pellene (which is also called the Peloponnese), Arcadia, Epirus, Illyria, the Slavs, Lychnitis and Adriaca, from which the Adriatic Sea is named. He received also the islands of Britain, Sicily, Euboea, Rhodes, Chios, Lesbos, Cythera, Zacynthus, Cephallenia, Ithaca, and Corcyra, as well as a portion of the land of Asia called Ionia, the river Tigris flowing between the Medes and Babylon and the territory to the north extending as far as the Pontus and including the Danube, the Dniester, and the Carpathian Mountains, which are called Hungarian, and thence even to the Dnipro [Dnieper]. He likewise acquired dominion over other rivers, among them the Desna, the Pripet', the Dvina, the Volkhov, and the Volga, which flows eastward into the portion of Shem. In the share of Japheth lies Rus', Chud, and all the gentiles: Merya, Muroma, Ves', Mordva, Chud beyond the portages, Perm', Pechera, Yam', Ugra, Litva, Zimegola, Kors', Let'gola, and Liv'. The Lyakhs, the Prussians, and Chud border on the Varangian Sea. The Varangians dwell on the shores of that same sea, and extend to the eastward as far as the portion of Shem. They likewise live to the west beside this sea as far as the land of the English and the French. For the following nations also are a part of the race of Japheth: the Varangians, the Swedes, the Normans, the Gotlanders, the Rus', the English, the Spaniards, the Italians, the Romans, the Germans, the French, the Venetians, the Genoese, and so on. Their homes are situated in the northwest, and adjoin the Hamitic tribes." - the citation clearly demonstrates that the list of "Varangians, Swedes, Normans ...." is not a full list of the peoples of Europe, it is only a list of the peoples living to the northwest. Borsoka (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

One more addition: Nestor doesn't say "Genoese" but Franks! Borsoka is trying to manipulate the text to make his "Frankish" argument more believable. 142.166.140.1 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you read the text cited in the article you will find, that you did not manage to find the part of the text which is cited in the article. That is why original research should be avoided. Please try to use the translation properly and checque again the text which says:

• • "In the share of Japheth lies Rus', Chud, and all the gentiles: Merya, Muroma, Ves', Mordva, Chud beyond the portages, Perm', Pechera, Yam', Ugra, Litva, Zimegola, Kors', Let'gola, and Liv'. The Lyakhs, the Prussians, and Chud border on the Varangian Sea. The Varangians dwell on the shores of that same sea, and extend to the eastward as far as the portion of Shem. They likewise live to the west beside this sea as far as the land of the English and the French (Волошьски). For the following nations also are a part of the race of Japheth: the Varangians, the Swedes, the Normans, the Gotlanders, the Rus', the English, the Spaniards, the Italians (Волохове/Волъхва), the Romans, the Germans, the French, the Venetians, the Genoese, and so on. Their homes are situated in the northwest, and adjoin the Hamitic tribes." [1] [2] Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hazzard-Cross's translation in that instance is wrong. If you checked the Google Books article I cited (http://books.google.ca/books?id=xnw-z5z25H4C&pg=PA155&dq=Nestor+Primary+Chronicle+the+Venetians,+the+Franks&hl=en&ei=aLbuS_DYNMH58AbLtNj9Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=)you will see Nestor clearly refers to Franks, not Genoese. This is also confirmed in your own source [3], section 4:14, Nestor stating "Frigove" as his second word, which could only be interpreted as Franks. This exact interpretation is also given in [4] where the Franks are listed on p. 3 of the book (p.31 of the document). The interpratation is again given by [5], p. 6.

In short: you didn't even read your own sources, or you only read Hazzard-Cross's bad translation. My Google Books source provides the cyrillic as well, where you can clearly see they are Franks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.193.169 (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • Thank you for the alternative translation, it could be used instead of the other one (which speaks of Genoese). Borsoka (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No original research

One of our basic principles, that none of the editors can carry on original research and present it as a scholarly theory. The practice some editors seems to follow, that they hide their own original thoughts under the name of well-known historians highly jeopardizes the above-mentioned principle. Therefore, I think we all should avoid this practice. In the article’s latest edit there are several examples of this dangerous practice. For example:

• „The first Romanian historian to note the Roman origin of the Romanians was Nicolaus Olahus who stated in the 16th century that "According to the tradition, Romanians are colonists of the Romans."”
  • In the source pretended to be cited there is no reference to “first Romanian historian”, and to “colonists of the Romans”.
    • Uhh, he was the first Romanian historian to note that. Or what was he in your opinion, Nigerian?
      • Would you please cite the source of the above statement. I do not deny that he was the first Romanian historian (because I do not know who was the first one), but the above sentence is not based on a reliable source - therefore it is original research. Borsoka (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Well since I apperantly can't state the obvious can we at least not erase Olahus? We could change the phrasing to "The Transylvanian-born Romanian humanist Nicolaus Olahus noted in 1536 that "According to the tradition, Romanians are colonists of the Romans."
          • Anything can be cited based on reliable source, but pretending to cite a reliable source which does not contain a reference to the facts we are writing is at least strange. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• “Not only are the Volochs and Franks listed in the same chronicle, but also in the same sentence, using different names.”
  • Unsourced statement
    • Aurel-Pop's document. Check it out.
      • Please use proper citations. Borsoka (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Pop, Ioan-Aurel. Românii şi maghiarii în secolele IX-XIV: Geneza statului medieval în Transilvania. CENTRUL DE STUDII TRANSILVANE, Cluj-Napoca, 1996. p. 77: "Apropierea volohi - franci este imposibilă, deoarece prin cel dintâi termen întotdeauna au fost desemnaţi de către slavii de est românii şi deoarece în cronica kieveană francii apar şi sunt desemnaţi cu propriul lor nume81" (not sure how well you understand Romanian).
          • Thank you for the above clarification. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• “According to Nestor Europe was populated by "Varangians, the Svear, the Normans, the Götar, the Rus, the Anglians, the Galicians, the Vlachs (Вольхва), the Romans, the Germans, the Carolingians, the Venetians, and the Franks (фряги). ”
  • The sentence is repeated in the next part of the article. Nestor did not write of Europe, but wrote of the “northwest” – the Byzantine Empire was situated to the south of Kiev. The Holy Roman Empire did not exist around 900 when the events described by Nestors (that is the Hungarian invasion of the Carpathian Basin occurred).
    • Again, read Nestor's chronicle before you comment. He is speaking of the Northwest of the world, the realm of Jafet, which included such domains as Cappadocia.
      • Please try to insist on the cited source. If the cited source does not refer to Europe, we should not interpret it, because we all have to avoid original research. Borsoka (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Should we then include the quote where Nestor specifies the realms inherited by Jafet, and therefore described as "the Northwest"? It's not as though Rome was any further north than the Byzantine Empire. What I want to see is that the quote is put in context. Simply stating "the northwest" gives the reader the impression that he is talking of Northwestern Europe, while BLOMKVIST, NILS. THE DISCOVERY OF THE BALTIC. Brill, Boston-Leiden, 2005) states that Nestor was talking about "the Western world."
          • • I think there is no need to cite the whole sentence. The alternative translation is acceptable for me, thank you for the suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• “Since Voloch was a term used for a variety of Latin people, the Volochs in chapter 1 would be the French, while the Volochs of Pannonia were Vlachs/Romanians.”
  • The first part of the sentence (Voloch as an umbrella term) has already been mentioned three times in the article, there is no point in repeating it. The second part of the sentence, including “Volochs of Pannonia” are not mentioned in the cited source.
    • Hazzard-Cross clearly interprets the Volochs of chapter 1 as Italians, but for chapters three and eight he only uses "Vlakhs." The Volochs of Pannonia is implied by the fact that they are fighting the Magyars. Where else were they "driven out by the Magyars" from, Nigeria?
      • • Please read the faraway sentences what are cited. If they were the Franks, they were driven out by Pannonia. The reliable source is Kristó, who suggest that the expression Vlach may easily be interpreted as Frank in Nestor's chronicle: the Hungarian historian points out to the fact that Nestor used the Voloch expression to describe several peoples (French/Frank, Italians), therefore in the context of the Magyar conquest it can also be interpreted as Frank taking into account that according to Nestor the Slavs had lived in the Carpathian Basin before they were conquered by the Franks and the latter were driven out by the Magyars. Borsoka (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
          • I do not understand what this has to do with my argument. Reading Hazzard-Cross's translation you can see he does not use Franks for Vlakhs. He freely interprets the Volochs in chapter 1 as Italians, but in 3 and 8 he calls them "Vlakhs", not Italians or Franks. I realize the argument is provided by Kristo, but Hazzard-Cross's argument must be that Voloch means multiple ethnicities in the chronicle.
• “This view, according the scholars who accept it, is also reinforced by the analysis of the Voloch name in the chronicle which lists “the Varangians, the Swedes, the Normans, the Rus’, the Angles, the Galicians, the Volhva, the Romans, the Germans, the Carolingians, the Venetians, the Franks” among the peoples whose “homes are situated in the northwest (i.e. Europe from Britain to Anatolia)”.
  • The reference to “Europe from Britain to Anatolia” is not included in the cited source, Nestor did not speak of Europe, but of “the northwest”. The Byzantine Empire was situated to the south of modern Ukraine where Nestor wrote his chronicle. The Holy Roman Empire did not exist when the events described by the chronicle happened (around 900, when the Hungarians invaded the Carpathian Basin).

Borsoka (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • He spoke of the Northwest of the world, and Nestor did speak of Europe from Britain to Anatolia, since he is speaking of Jafet's realm, which stretches from Britain to Anatolia. Read the first paragraph. So yes, it's not original research since it's backed by all of the references I gave you.
      • • Merging two sentences of a primary source if the merger is not based on a reliable source is original research. Borsoka (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Oh for &*%#s sake, they're one paragraph apart! He's still talking about Jafet's realm and "the people of Jafet." At the very least we should implement Blomkvist's interpretation of "Western world" 142.166.192.205 (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
            • • Please try to understand that if Nestor clearly states that the list of the peoples Varangians, ... covers only a part of the peoples of Europe, we do not insert a reference to Europe in his text. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality is disputed

Dear anonymous editor, it would be really appreciated if you added some comments on your above claim. And please do not refrain from adding information based on reliable sources which could provide a wider picture of the topic if it is necessary. Borsoka (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Original research

Dear anonymous editor, would you please list the sentences you think contain original research? Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Horedt's theory

I found here http://www.sibiweb.de/geschi/7b-history.htm the following theory:

Historian and archaeologist Kurt Horedt, who by background is not involved with the political aspects of the scientific arguments, offers a mostly non-prejudiced and sensible compromise: Withdrawing from Dacia, the Roman empire did not remove the entire population. The remaining Romans were slavicized during the 7th century. These slavicized Romans mixed with the romanized Thracians, a people of migrating shepherds in the 9th century, originating from the Balkan peninsula. The presence of these Romanians may date to the 10th century. A later migration during the 13th century is not probable.

Is it good to include it in the article? (DerGelbeMann (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Why not? Although I do not clearly understand it: the Romans who had been Slavicized by the 8th century mixed with the Romanized Thracians in the 9th century (actually, why in the 9th centuy)? What circumstances suggest that the Romans were Slavicized? What evidence substantiate the migration of the Romanized Thracians in the 9th century? Why were the Slavicized Romans re-Romanized in the 9th century? Why does written evidence suggest that the Romanized Thracians had not migrated to Transylvania before the end of the 12th century? Why place names suggest that the Romanized Thracians who migrated to Transylvania mainly met there a Hungarian and German-speaking population - maybe the Slavicized Romanized Dacians had been Magyarized and Germanized by the time the Romanized Thracians re-Romanized them? Borsoka (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

These questions are correct. Unfortunately I don't have a more detailed explanation of the theory(DerGelbeMann (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Actually, Horedt's theory is a subvariant of the 'admigration theory'. It tries to consolidate the lack of any archaeological or linguistic evidence with the Gesta Hungarorum: although there is no trace of a continous presence of any population in present-day Romania between the last decades of the 3rd century and the 11th century, but Anonymous, around 1200, wrote of Vlachs living in Transylvania around 900, therefore there must have been a migration of Vlachs (Romanized Thracians). Borsoka (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is (limited) evidence of settlement continuity in Romania between 3rd century (beginning of Chernyakov era) until the Cuman & Pecheneg arrival. This does not prove a lingustic continuity, much less one of Romanian identity. It is hard to fathom that Romanity somehow survived in Romania, which was only partly colonized (ie Dacia), and then only for a limited period, whilst in the rest of the Balkans (which had a far more substantial Romanization) Latin speakers virtually became extinct already by 7th century. It would follow that Romanian lands were non-Roman speaking, perhaps Slavic speaking. The catalyst for Latin speaking arrivals was probably much later, ie when the Pechenegs ravaged the lower Danube region - seen by a virtual cessation of settlements, and a subsequent movement of Vlachs from Bulgaria during the following centuries as they were involved in Bulgaro-Byzantine conflicts and interaction with the Turkic nomads in who occupied the lowlands of Romania. I think that is where Romanians need to look for their ancestry - not Dacians and Roman colonists, but Pechenegs, Cumans and Thracian Vlachs. Hxseek (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on my (obviously limited) knowledge, I cannot fully accept the above remarks. It is obvious that some parts of Romania's territory were always inhabited by some peoples - but it does not mean a settlement continuity. As far as I know there is not a single settlement or a smaller region where the continuous presence of any population between the 3rd and 9th centuries could be proved. That is why in Romanian historioghraphy the "ebb and tide" idea had to be invented: although the Daco-Romans and proto-Romanians are described to have been agriculturists but they periodically had to change their places of abode when the predatory, migratory, ... nomads came. Therefore, according to the followers of this theory, they constituted a moving sedentary population which could appear suddenly in any part of modern Romania at any time during the 1,000 years after the Roman withdrawal - and consequently any archaeological find excavated in any part of modern Romania which can be linked to a sedentary population or cannot obviously be linked to a nomadic population proves, according to these scholars, the continuity. Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you read Goths in the 4th century by P Heather, there is a good summary about the Chernyakov- Sintana de Mures culture which argues that a couple of settlements do exist which span this period. The problems is that there is discontinuity after this, ie after the 9th century. Moreover, settlment continuity does not equal linguistic or ethnic continuity. The facts are: the only identities we know of in Romanian lands between the 6th and 10th centuries are Sklavenoi, Antes and nomads. I'd agree with you the 'ebb and tide' idea is an invention aimed at proving a continuity when none objectively exists Hxseek (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the above clarification. I fully agree with you with only one reservation: settlement continuity ceased to exist after the Chernyakov-Santana de Mures culture, that is after the 430s. Afterward, "old" settlements were abandoned and new settlements (with new cultures) came to existence, and the new settlements were also abandoned. Borsoka (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that some have argued that some of the Chernyakov era settlments did continue into "Slavic" times eg Cotisa-Botosana, and a few sites in the upper Dniester region, although the inventory of artefacts diminished in quality. According to Volodymyr Baran, the Slavs originated from within the Chernyakov culture, in the northwest corner (ie upper Dniester region), and subsequently expanded as clasical Chernyakov settlements ended. This is, of course, debatable, depending on the dating of settlements, etc, but then again, everything is debatable. Moreoever, The Slavic style sunken featured buildings, Slavic fibulae and even the names of some Slavic chiefs show connections with Goth and/or Gaetic predecessors. Moreover, the pottery, although diminished in quality, shows antecendents from preceding Carpic and Sarmatian eras (as argued by Dan Teodor, a Romanian archaeologist)

There is no doubt that there was overall a decrease in settlements and 'emblemic styles' for a century between 450 and 550 . But this does not mean depopulation, but is a symptom of when established socio-cultural-economic networks become disrupted. The same thing happened when the la Tene culture ended and indeed - with the Roman Empire itself. From the 6th century to ~ 9th, there is very litle archaeological evidence for anything (pottery, settlements, etc) in the Balkans, Italy, Greece. Yet, there is no way that the population disappeared , even if there was some demographic decline due to famine, plagues, raids, etc

Hxseek (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have to bow my head. Borsoka (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure, friend Hxseek (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)