Иванко, ето моят принос към твоята идея. Става въпрос за едно изследване, което съм копнал от нета и сега видях голям зор да го прехвърля от PDF Foxit Reader формат в Word формат за да мога да го пейстна тук. Автора не помня кой беше, но ако настоявате ще ровя отново в нета докато го намеря.
Би било хубаво ако някой може да го резюмира на български, или ако има време и нерви да го преведе цялото. Аз време нямам, пък и около 5 - 10 % от текста на английски ми се губи, а не ми се рови из речници. Който разбрал - разбрал, който не е - да ходи да търси даки в Румъния. Със здраве!
Пействам:
Chapter IV
Dacia after the Romans –
Dacia before the Rumanians.
The territory of Dacia did not turn into a wasteland following
Roman withdrawal. We saw that its eastern areas were settled by
Karps. By the mid-13th century, Aurelian made a short-lived attempt
to restore the borders of the Province but it is unlikely that he would
have disrupted these settlements. After he relinquished the Sucidava-
Porolissum route (Celei - Mojgrбd), it facilitated the further expansion
of the Karps and created an opportunity for an influx of nationality
groups, which had been living on the northern and western borders of
the Province. Their immigration began after 271; a grave in Radnуt
attests to that. It has a large urn, typical of the Hungarian Great
Plains Region, which held a medal portraying Empress Severina
(271-275); it must have been interred subsequent to that date. The
settlers had a culture characteristic of the Great Plains and of
"Barbarians from the Imperial era". Examples of this culture could be
observed at settlements from (Batos, Sinfalva) and in cemeteries
(Maroscsapу). In addition to Karps and 'Great Plains Barbarians'
German populations appear from the north-eastern parts of the
Carpathian Basin, (Kisbбcs, Sepsibesenyх), as well as a small group
(Magyarszovбt, Csernбton, Kisekemezх) which is different: they do
not use cremation. In the meantime, the Karps occupy Oltenia (the
former Dacia Inferior) (Locuє teni, Reєca, Fгrcaєele).
This archeological mosaic conforms to the deductions we can
make on the basis of contemporary sources. Some time after 291
Mamertinus makes a speech lauding Emperor Maximian (285-308).
156
He says that the Tervingi - who belong to the Goths - and the Taifals
allied in attacking the Vandals and the Gepidae. (Tervingi, pars alia
Gothorum, adiuncta manu Taifalorum, adversum Vandalos
Gipedesque concurrunt - Genethl. Max. 17, 1). Ever since the
Markomann wars, the Vandals have lived along the northern borders
of Dacia, i.e. the north-eastern area of the Carpathian Basin and the
upper reaches of the Dniester river. However, on the basis of other
data, in this instance "Vandals" really must have been Victovals who
lived close to the Upper Tisza (Theiss) and in the valley of the
Someє rivers. In 248, the Taifali and Goths take part in the
devastation of the Empire's Black-Sea area; other sources place
them at the Danube-delta. Tervingi are the western group of the
Goths. Their name (forest dwellers) suggests that we look for their
habitat in the vicinity of the Carpathians (within Gothic archeological
context). In credible sources it is here that the Gepidae appear for the
first time. Iordanes also writes about this (the Fastida-Ostrogoth war)
and tells us that the Gepidae are locked in by mountains and forests.
They must surely have been living in the Carpathian Basin (Iord. Get.
XVII). In other words, all the nations who participate in this war have
lived along the border of Roman Dacia and around 290 AD, at least
the Victovals and the Gepidae in the territory of former Dacia. This
is one of the reasons why this war cannot be placed northeast of the
Carpathians, R. Harhoiu's contention notwithstanding. Eutropius
writes in 360 that Dacia in inhabited by Taifali, Victohali and Gothic
Tervingi (Eutr. Brev. 8, 2, 2 - nunc Taifali, Victohali et Tervingi
habent). Excepting the Gepidae, all of them are peoples which
participated in the war of 290 (or pre-290). In connection with this war,
Iordanes writes that the Gepidae suffered defeat and withdrew:
157
(Regrettably, only this much can be used of Jordanes story. The royal
name of Fastida is based on Latin fastidium (haughty, demanding)
(Fastida fuerat elationis erectus - Jord. Get. XVII. 100): "Fastiva was
bloated with arrogance". Thus, neither the town of Galtis nor the Auha
river can be used to pinpoint more closely the location of the war - for
all we know, it may have been near the Black Sea!). It is apparent
that the war was fought for the possession of Dacia; the victors
managed to grab a large portion of it, while the Victovali probably
only held on to the territory they already had. Indeed, from the end of
the 3rd century, a new archeological culture emerges in former Dacia,
for the time being only in Transylvania. This new culture has links
with the Goths and Taifali who have settled there. What Rumanian
research calls the Sfоntu Gheorghe culture and the (No. I) cemetery
in Bratei, may be the remnants of these peoples. A replica exists of
the trough-shaped graves of Bratei and the legacy of on-site
cremation in (Danиeny, Etulija) Bessarabia, in the region where
Taifali have presumably lived at an earlier time. One of the graves at
Sfоntu Gheorghe-Eprestetх can be linked to this legacy, while the
other graves with similar relics could be linked to Goth Tervingi. As a
result of the wars fought for the possession of Dacia, the Karps are
leaving their homes in the region between the Prut river and the
Carpathians and the area of their Dacian Conquests. Galerius leads a
campaign against them between 295-297. As per Eusebius (Historia
Ecclesiastica VIII. 17, 3.) he took up the title of Carpicus Maximus six
times and, at some point, during this time the Karps resettled withinthe
borders of the Empire. More correctly, they were being resettled;
Carporum natio translata Omnis in nostrum solum, Aur. Vict. Caes.
39, 43; Carporum gens universa Romania se tradidit, Cons. Const. ad
158
a. 295-MGH IX. 230). The Karps also leave their settlement in Oltenia
(the late Dacia Inferior); they are most probably replaced by Goths
(Almгj,Caracal). In spite of the emigration of the Karps which was
due to the wars around 290, it is hard to believe that only Taifali,
Tervingi and Victovali would have lived in the former Dacia. Written
records also dispel this assumption. In 367 Emperor Valens starts out
against the Goths from Daphne (in the Argyas-Danube delta). The
Goths took refuge in montes Serrorum. "Serrus' mountains" appear in
ancient references only once. However, as we learn of Sarmatians in
this area at a later date, we presume the Serri may have been
Sarmatians (the name corresponds to Avestic sairima). We already
know of these Sarmatians from the campaign of Constanine in 358
AD. They must have populated a portion of Dacia, specifically its
South-west area. We also think that the 4th century findings from
Micia (Vecel) can be attributed to them. We believe that they do not
relinquish this territory; after they suffer defeat in 376 from the Huns,
Athanaric retreats to the hilly, mountainous Caucaland (ad
Caucalandensem locum), chasing out the Sarmatians. Montes
Serrorum and mountainous Caucaland must refer to the Southern
part of Transylvania.
From written references and from other evidence, we can gain a
thorough understanding of the inhabitants of Dacia after 271. In the
late Roman province there are no Romans - Latin-speaking Romans.
We do not claim that no such individuals could have existed there; as
the result of the Barbarians' forays masses of prisoners were
abducted from the Empire. We do know, however, that on Dacian
territory there were no Latin-speaking groups which constituted a
community and which would have maintained contact with each
159
other. There was no ethnic group characterized by Romanism. No
evidence to the contrary is presented in written records or through
archeological finds. If K. Horedt is prepared to use the Daco-Roman
adjective, based on archeological finds post-dating 271, his error is in
not noticing how much of the same culture the Barbarians (from the
vicinity of Rome) acquired. Yet, a great deal of material originating
from the European borders of the Empire, from the mouth of the
Danube to the estuary of the Rhine has become accessible. We no
longer have to rely on calculated guesses - in most instances we also
have evidence. It is a fact that, after 271, there are Barbarians in
Dacia and that there is no trace of a Roman way of life and of Latin
speakers.
When the Huns appear on the scene, they become a
determining factor in the history of Europe. The Huns chased out the
western Goths, and later defeat the Romans at Hadrianapolis (Aug.
9, 378). The ethnic and political landscape of the erstwhile Dacia
changes during this period, and the same holds true for large sections
of the Roman Empire. After 376 the Huns settle in along the Lower-
Danube. They take possession of Oltenia (the late Dacia Inferior),
together with Muntenia. This is not only nominal rule; around 400,
and at the start of the 5th century this becomes the central seat of
Hun power. Numerous findings of cauldrons (in Sucidava, Desa,
Hinova, Hotгrani, 'Oltenia') and a richly appointed grave in Coєoveni
attest to this. There is a population-shift in other parts of Dacia, as
well. During the last quarter of the 4th century, the Ostrogoths -
presumably Arianus Christians - (Marosszentanna culture) reach
Transylvania. The Huns also resettle here Pannonian provincials at
the start of the 5th century (Gyulafehйrvбr, Kolozsvбr). In this period,
160
the knowledge of the Latin language may have been considerable in
the territories of former Dacia Apulensis and Porolissensis. In the
Christianization of the Goths a large role was played by those
prisoners from the Roman Empire, whom they took around 260,
during the time of their Middle-Eastern campaign. However, the
majority of these enslaved people spoke Greek or some Middle-
Eastern language, as demonstrated by the list of Goth saints (Sabas,
Sansalas, Arpyla, etc.). According to Auxentius of Durostorum, the
Goth Bishop, Vulfila (311-384) preached in Greek, Latin and Gothic.
This however, cannot imply that he preached in Latin north of the
Danube, because the Gothi minores, the people of Ulfila, settled in
the Empire in 348. Among the Goths the sermons were preached in
Gothic, as suggested by Vulfila's translation of the Bible into Gothic.
The inscription on the hanging lamp in Beretfalva was actually written
in Latin (Ego Zenovius votum posui - "I, Zenovius made the
donation"- but its nearest likeness bears a Greek inscription and
Zenovius also has a Greek name. Greek has as great a role in
Christian conversion as does Latin. The whole period was
characterized by polyglot nationalities. Priskos, in the court of Attila,
writes about the Scythians - who were Attila's subjects - that they
were a mixed population, speaking Gothic and Hun. Those, who
associated with Romans also spoke Latin. In the middle of the 5th
century, this was expected of the Huns, who ruled all of Pannonia by
the mid-5th century and was especially true at Attilaґs court, located
somewhere between the Danube and the Tisza (Theiss) rivers,
opposite Aquincum. (Numerous kettles found in the area also indicate
the location). It is noteworthy that Priskos makes no mention of
Latinized people beyond the Roman Empire. Among the Scythians
161
only those speak Latin who have more contact with the Empire. This
is what Priskos meant by "Romans". The rule of the Huns was a fatal
blow to the Romanism of the provinces along the Danube. The critical
event was not so much the period (432-434) when Pannonia fell to
the Huns. There, the provincials were able to live in relative security
albeit under changed conditions. It was the aftermath of the campaign
of 447. The Huns razed the territory along the southern banks of the
Danube, from Singidunum (Belgrade) to Nova (Sviєtov, Bulgaria);
some 200 km-s or a five days' walk. Naissos (Niє ) became the
Roman frontier-town. A wasteland was created along the frontier. All
of Dacia Ripensis and the northern area of Moesia Superior became
a no-man's land. Romanism, which flourished in the Danubian
territory was wiped out, except for small traces in Pannonia and, in a
few towns along the Danube in Moesia (which was primarily Greek).
The areas which the Huns razed came under Roman rule temporarily
one hundred years later, during the reign of Justinian. With respect to
Daco-Roman continuity, these circumstances are significant also in
terms of the Rumanian language. The ancestors of the speakers of
the Rumanian language participated in the changes of late Latin (4th-
7th Centuries), which do not appear even in the relatively isolated
Sard dialect. This could only be possible if the assumed Latin
language in Dacia had been in uninterrupted contact with Latin
spoken on the Balkan peninsula. There was no opportunity for such
contact between 447-551. Therefore, had the languages survived
which were spoken by those who stayed behind after the fall of Dacia
- or of Pannonian provincials, resettled here during Hun rule - this
would now be very different from contemporary Rumanian. It is
beside the point that neither Dacian, nor Pannonian Latin could have
162
been a predecessor of Rumanian - as we have seen earlier. The
relationship of Romanism to the local population in this era is
characterized by an object which came to light in Vecel. It was a ring
made out of an inscribed/fibula which originally bore a Latin
inscription, (Quartine vivas) an example of a behavior entirely
different from Roman mentality.
Attila died in 453. The alliance of his sons is defeated at the
battle of Nedao (the name of the Danube, distorted in a Goth epos to
Denao, Dхnaws), which was won by the Gepidae and their allies. The
Ostrogoths were in alliance with Attila's sons. They leave the
battlefield in defeat and, thus, once again a complete population -
exchange takes place on the territory of Dacia within a short time.
The Ostrogoth settle in Pannonia in 456 (for 17 years only), when
they leave we assume Pannonian provincials are leaving with them.
We have no subsequent information about them. Dacia is taken by
the victorious Gepidae. There can be no question about their
possession of the northern part of the province (including the former
Napocensis and Porolissensis). The family of Ardaric, King of the
Gepidae, establishes a burial ground along the Someє river, at
Apahida near Cluj, after the Goths are routed (Jord. Get 264). As
victors and as heirs of the Hun power, the Gepidae are granted
"peace" by the Imperium Romanum, i.e., the eastern Roman Empire
and the annual payments due to an ally. A relic of these events was
found in Ardaric's grave (I. grave in Apahida), a gold fibula. This
brooch clasped a paludamentum (military cape) - a gift from the
Roman Emperor. Ardaric's gold rings are also imperial gifts, one of
them inscribed with the abbreviation: O M H A R V S (Optimus
Maximus Hunnorum Ardaricus Rex Votum Solvit).... "Ardaric, the
163
mightiest king of the Huns, is honoring his vow"). According to
Iordanes, the Gepidae occupy all of Dacia (Nam Gepidi Hunnorum
sibi sedes viribus vindicantes totius Daciae fines velut victores potiti,
Jord. Get. L, 264). Numerous archeological sites attest to this in the
northern part of the province (Cege, Mezхszopor, Marosnagylak,
Kissink, Magyarkapus etc.). Our picture of the erstwhile Dacia Inferior
or Malvensis (Oltenia), is less clear. However, as some of the Huns
who were defeated by the Gepidae settled on the opposite side, in
Dacia Ripensis, in the territory bordering the Vit, Lom and Isker rivers,
it is conceivable that Oltenia was left as a barren borderland. The
northern part of Moesia was overrun by a mixed and scattered
population. Iordanes tells us about Mundo, a descendant of Attila.
(For reasons of chronology: it was more likely his father, Giesmos).
This 'Mundo' brought robbers (scamarae) and vagabonds to this
barren and uninhabited area from the vicinity and ruled as their King.
(Iord. Get. 301). This "kingdom" of Mundo's allies itself with the
Gepidae or the Ostrogoths - depending on the political situation - until
529, at which time Mundo offers his services to Emperor Justinian.
During this period, (prior to 535) an attempt is made to reestablish
Roman sovereignty along the Danube and we can find Roman towns
along its left bank (Litterata-Lederata, Recidiva-Arcidava).
Conceivably, Oltenia may have been under the rule of Giesmos and
Mundo. Mundo had a close relationship with the Herul people who
settled in 512 in Dacia Ripensis and the western part of Moesia
Inferior. Justinian resettled them in 535 in the vicinity of Singidunum
(Belgrade), at the time of the reestablishment of Roman power in the
area. The above reflects the ambiguous situation of Oltenia during
the second half of the 5th century. At the beginning of the 6th this
164
may also be the reason for the absence of archeological material in
the region.
While their Kingdom stood, the Gepidae have most certainly had
possession of Oltenia, and more than that. Going back to
Cassiodorus, Iordanes wrote (Iord. Get. 33-34) that 'in the western
part of Scythia lives the Gepida nation, surrounded by big and noted
rivers. The Tisza (Patthissos-Theis) flows along its N-NW part, the
mighty Danube along the South and the Flutausis river intersects it
from the east. Beyond, there is Dacia protected by steep mountains
which frame it wreath - like. - In quo Scythia prima ab occidente gens
residet Gepidarum, que magnis opinatisque ambitur fluminibus, nam
Tisia per aquilonem eius chorumque discurrit; ab africo vero magnus
ipse Danubius, ab eo Flutausis secat.... introrsus illis Dacia est, ad
coronae speciem arduis Alpibus emunita. This description reveals that
Gepida-land extended beyond the Carpathians up to the Danube and
the Flutausis rivers. The latter is frequently identified as the Olt, as a
truncated version of Aluta. Iordanus' text tells us, however, that this
river is to be found beyond the Carpathians. This is also what
Schuchardt and Daicoviciu declare. In various manuscripts the river
also appears as Flutaus, Flutausi, Flutasi and we assume this is the
Alanian name of the Prut river. Flut-av reflects customary Alanian
usage, av means 'water' (and 'river').
Gepida dominance continues to spread. They occupy the
majority of towns in Aurelian Dacia (Ripensis and Mediterranea)
(Procopius, De bello gotico III. 33, 8). This occurs after 535 and is
probably related to Mundo's death in 536. The Gepidae gained as
allies the Heruls who had been resettled in the vicinity of Singidunum.
They also took possession of the northern area of Moesia Superior,
165
which they held until 551. Between 473-504 and 536-567, the
Gepidae also ruled the territory between the Drava and Sava rivers,
(in between it was under the Goths of Italy) the possibility exists that
Latin-speaking groups would enter the Gepida Kingdom, the former
Dacia. This deserves serious consideration. Gepidae occupy an area
which is under the hegemony of the archbishopric of the Justiniana
Prima, founded in 535. It encompasses the provinces of Dacia
Mediterranea and Ripensis, Moesia Prima, Dardania, Praevalitana,
Macedonia Secunda and Pannonia Secunda. M. Friedwagner sees
the possibility of the emergence of a new neo-Latin language within
the archbishopric; the Gepidae occupied an area of this very region.
In the charter of the archbishopric, we note the expectation that " both
banks of the Danube would be populated with our citizens and that we
would again rule over Viminacium, Recidiva and Litterata which are
beyond the Danube. "(... ut utraque ripa Danubii iam nostris civitatibus
frequentaretur, et tam Viminacium quam Recidiva et Litterata, quae
trans Danubium sunt, nostrae iterum dicioni subactae sint'... Cod.
Iust. Nov. XI.).
All of this remains an expectation. At best, we might conclude
that this was the central seat of power which Mundo relinquished. The
Gepida-occupation resulted in a further southern shift of Romanism
from the central portion of the Balkan Peninsula. Friedwagner may be
correct in assuming that the founding of the archbishopric (in the
context of Gepida campaign thrusts) started the development of the
Rumanian language.
We also possess archeological evidence pertaining to the
expansion of Gepida power south of the Danube (Arиar, Iatrus, etc.).
It is more surprising that no such evidence comes to light in the area
166
between the Lower-Danube, the Carpathians and the Prut. Except for
one shard from Є imnic there is no trace of the characteristic Gepida
relics from the Great Plains region and from Transylvania. We know
of an Ipoteє ti-Cоndeє ti culture in the region; even Rumanian
researchers link it to the Transylvanian Gepida culture. The object
which came to light (ceramics, lanterns and metal objects) also reflect
this connection, - in addition to evidence of local characteristics. To
illustrate: a bronze strap-end found at the site of the Ipoteє ti-Cоndeє ti
culture's site at Soldat Ghivan, has an exact duplicate in the Gepida
cemetery at Tiszaderzs; a similar object was found at
Marosveresmart and in a Pйcs (Hungary) cemetery from Avar times
(public cemetery - Pйcs). Pieces unearthed in Cariиin Grad
(Iustiniana Prima) and Kizlev (at the Dnieper) attest to a more distant
relationship. We are led to this region by additional characteristics of
this archeological material. In 594, a Christian Gepida guides the
Byzantines who are ready to attack the Slavs inhabiting the Ialomiю a
(Ilivakia) region. In the Ipoteє ti-Cоndeє ti culture there definitely are
traces suggesting a Christian presence; we can assume that in a
wider context, the peoples of this culture can be considered Gepidae.
They cannot be assumed to be Slavs; with their objects-relics we are
familiar. The assertion that the peoples of this culture are "Roman"
(i.e. Neo-Latin), because they show Dacian traditions and Byzantine
connections (!) is obviously false.
The post-Hun, Gepida era is characterized by the retreat of
Romanism along the Danube; South of the Danube in particular. We
do not deny that Latin speakers may have entered Gepida territory in
former Dacia. They may have come as prisoners or as merchants
etc., but Gepida archeological findings of bent-legged fibulae or iron
167
pins are no evidence of their legacy. Regarding the Romans of the
Balkan peninsula and their alleged contact with Dacia: the fact that
Moesia Superior and the areas along the Danube of Dacia Aureliana
were, between 447 and 551 AD, wastelands or dominated by
Barbarian peoples, excludes a continuous connection during the late
Latin period between the north and the south. In a language which
developed along separate lines for 100 years, we cannot search for
the characteristics of Balkan-Latin, - yet, these do exist in the
Rumanian language.
In the vicinity of former Dacia, the expansion of east-European
populations dominates during the period which follows the Gepida
Kingdom. In 567 the Avar-Langobard alliance defeats the Gepidae.
Thereafter, for 350 years this was a territory which is known as
Avaria, land of the Avars, - up to the early 9th century. However, we
do not note significant changes in the former Roman province at this
time. Although early Avar findings make their appearance here by the
end of the 6th century (Korond, Erzsйbetvбros), long-time Gepida
settlers have stayed put. Cemeteries of the Avar-age up to the 7th
century bear such evidence - Mezхbбnd, Marosveresmart. There are
numerous findings in Oltenia - the former Dacia Inferior - of the
Ipoteє ti-Cоndeє ti culture which seem to date from the post-Avar
occupation (Fгcгi, Fгrcaєul de Sus, etc.). As the same time, the
Slavs make an appearance in Wallachia's eastern and Transylvania's
south-east. region. We have no archaeological data on the Slavs
from the territory of former Dacia prior to the middle of the 7th
century (Nagyekemezх). However, thereafter they will become long-
term, continuous settlers of the hilly, mountainous region. Ethnic
interrelationships of the era are revealed to us by written records and
168
through archeological finds. A geographer from Ravenna describes
Dacia in 800, using data from Iordanes as well as more ancient
references. He writes that "Dacia which is now known as Gepidia, is
populated by the Huns ....". Datia ..... que modo Gipidia ascribuntur; in
qua nunc Unorum gens habitare dinoscitur' - An. Rav. I, II). He goes
on saying: "Dacia, also called Gepidia, is now inhabited by Huns who
are also called Avars".. Datia .... que et Gipidie apellatur, ubi modo
Uni, qui et Avari inhabitant' - An. Rav. IV. 14). This agrees with
archeological data which substantiate the settlement of the peoples of
the Avar Empire on the territory of the former Dacia. We have
evidence as to the identity of those peoples. In 600 the Byzantines
initiated a campaign in the area of the Tisza river. During this foray
they destroy three Gepida villages and take 3000 Avars prisoner: 800
Slavs (according to the 'Historia' of Theophylaktos Simokatta the
number was 8000) 3000 Gepidae (none, according to the above
source) and 2000 Barbarians (6200 as per T. S.). Independent
sources validate this picture, augmenting it with Bulgarians. We might
add that, in this age, Huns and Avars were considered to be eastern
nomads, Bulgarians included. The 'Barbarians' showing up on the
roster of prisoners cannot be identified as Bulgarian; they are the
'byproduct' of the final tally of prisoners taken. But then, we cannot
turn them into anything else, either. To see them as "ancient
Rumanians" would exceed the limits of any hypothesis.
There are some changes in ethnic inter-relationships in Avar
times; as we understand them, these changes result in the
strengthening of the Turkish element from the east. When Byzantine
frontier-defenses collapse along the Danube in 602, these events
help to eradicate the last remnants of Romanism which had managed
169
to survive in a few towns of the territory, most of which have become
Hellenized. Let us note that there existed groups speaking late-Latin
within the Avar Empire, - but not in Dacia. This has been supported
by archeological evidence from the vicinity of Keszthely, Hungary. In
addition, we have the legacy of place-names in Trans-Danubia's
western and south-western area (of Hungary) - Zala, Zцbern, Lafnitz,
Rбba - (names of rivers). We can include in this group those Romans
who were made captive by the Avars in course of their Balkan
campaigns and who repatriated to Byzantine territory in the 630's.
However, many of them were Greek. The defenders of Sirmium also
prayed to God in Greek when the Avars occupied the town in 582.
The Avar occupation of the Carpathian basin ends - for a long time to
come - free contact between territories lying north and South of the
Danube (military campaigns and the repatriation of prisoners of war
do not count as 'natural connections'). The process is also
strengthened by the immigration of Bulgarians and the establishment
of their statehood in the northern part of (contemporary) Bulgaria in
681.
The territory connects the northern and southern banks of the
Danube but creates a final separation between the territories of the
eastern Roman Empire (originally: Imperium Romanum) and
"Barbarian" Europe. It is at this time that the Roman Empire becomes
Byzantium, and is obligated to acknowledge the 'de facto' emergence
of another power within its borders. The period between 567-795 (or
to 803, when the Avar empire actually ceases to exist) brings about
the complete liquidation of Romanism along the Danube. For the
beginning of the epoch G. Schramm also concurs with this view and
170
substantiates the retreat of Romanism from the whole of the Balkan
Peninsula to merely its Southern tip.
In 811, following the collapse of Avar hegemony in the
Carpathian basin the former Dacia comes under Bulgarian rule
(Dacia Inferior - Oltenia - was already theirs) and will remain so until
the time of the Hungarian conquest of the territory. The conditions in
existence among different folk groups - as we knew them - underwent
a change in response to the determined and aggressive resettlement
policy of the Bulgarians and the transformation generated by their
institutions. The Bulgarian Krum Khan resettles 12,000 men and their
families (different sources quote different figures) across the Danube
( Впхлгб н ф Йуфсп ) after he takes Hadriananpolis in
813. This comes to 40,000 people - according to the source with the
highest quote. Even without this reference, we could ascertain from
archeological evidence that ethnic groups from Bulgaria - south of the
Danube - migrated to Wallachia and Transylvania. The bi-ritual
cemetery at Bratei is a relic of these times, and so is its replica in
Oltenia (Izvoru, Obоrєia, etc.). This cemetery reflects the coexistence
of the old-time population and the large number of Slavs who
migrated to this region or were resettled here from the Danube delta.
(The former were identified by their characteristic 'avar' graves.) The
migration also points to a N.W. shift (from S. E.) of the population
and also of these ethnic groups. Along with the Slavs, who are
resettling here, Bulgarians also arrive: the Onogundurs (Maroskarna,
Kйzdipolyбn) who still speak Turkish at the time, a so-called
Bulgarian-Turkish. In the 820's a sizable Slav group arrives from
eastern Europe. They settle along the Szamos River. These were
originally western Slavs (Abodrits) and were later known as
171
Predenecent peoples (Szilбgynagyfalu, Szamosfalva, Apahida). Their
name comes from the Donyec river. A significant ethnic mix has
taken place in the former Dacia. The remaining population of the
Avar Empire, Bulgarians and different Slav groups intermingle in the
former Dacia, and here we can enumerate three groups: those
already here, those who were resettled from the vicinity of the
Danube-delta and the Abodrits. It also is possible that ancient
Rumanian groups - from the Southern part of the Balkan peninsula -
were among them. They might come with those who were resettled
by the Bulgarians, or simply as a result of opportunities for travel and
movement within territory under Bulgarian rule. K. Horedt and L.
Makkai assume that Rumanians migrated and settled northward in
the 9th century. They engaged in transhumance between the Danube
and the Carpathians. These assumptions are well-intentioned but lack
substantiation. Completely so in the case of Makkai whose starting
point is the Latin identity of the cities along the Danube during
Iustinian's reign but such settlements did not occur. At any rate such
settlers would not have become shepherds; we also know that
transhumance is bound to a given locale, where summer and winter
grazing areas are interchangeable. Thus, more distant settlements
are not logical. Horedt refers to Hungarian sources, Kйzai and
Anonymus. He misinterpreted Kйzai who acknowledged Szekler
presence in the Carpathian Basin prior to the Hungarian conquest, but
he also stated that they settled in Transylvania only after the
conquest (SHR I. 162-163). This is important, inasmuch as Horedt
ties Rumanian presence in the region during the 9th century to
Kйzai's comment that the Szeklers and the Rumanians (blacki) lived
together in the alpine region. Anonymus is harder to explain. Not only
172
because of the anecdotal narrative of the 13th century chronicler but
because his unsubstantiated statements spawned a large volume of
literature. Many researchers have viewed his work as an accurate
source for the 9th century. Anonymus claims to have knowledge of
Rumanians (Blaci) along the Szamos river at the time of the
Hungarian conquest in 896. However, he also claimed to know of
Czechs in Nyitra, Bulgarians in Zemplйn, Greeks in Titel and Belgrad,
Kumans in the Bбnsбg, Germans (Romani) in Veszprйm, Hungary.
Contemporary sources - i.e. close to the time of the Conquest -
assure us that none of these peoples were in the area to which
Anonymus attributes them, not even the Germans and the
Bulgarians. How did this 13th century chronicler come to identify
these groups as inhabitants of the area at the time of the Conquest?
According to J. Deйr, (and I. Z. Tуth, Gy. Gyхrffy and L. Makkai
agree): the writer "populated" these areas with nationalities who were
neighbors of 13th century Hungary. We would like to modify Deйr's
premise with the observations that Anonymus only selected
nationalities with whom Hungarians had waged war. Russians, Poles,
and Serbs were not included. In other words if Anonymus lists the
Blaci (Rumanians) as 9th century inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin
that could only mean that, in the 13th century they were not a
significant population in that region. Credible sources substantiate this
- in the mid 13th century they only know of Vlachs (Rumanians)
beyond the Carpathians.
During the period of Bulgarian rule in the 9th century we are
therefore unable to verify that groups of Rumanians would have
entered the former Dacia from the Southern region of the Balkan
peninsula. Some findings were made in a Wallachian settlement
173
(Bucov) which had Glagolite and Cyrillic letters and so-called
Murfatlar symbols. It seems to be without foundation to attribute these
to (rural) Rumanian writings, when we know that these symbols were
being used by the Bulgarians at the time. Today we already know that
the Murfatlar writing came into being in 893, or very soon thereafter.
It was the by-product of anti-Greek measures taken by Simeon, and
(legible) inscriptions were, therefore, written in the Bulgar-Turkish of
the Danube region. One cannot take a 10th century vessel from
Dobrudja (Capidava) and identify thereon the 'Rumanian name' of
Petre - read left to right - when all the inscriptions on the object are
written right to left and the above is meant to be read as ertep. The
word means 'I write' in (Danubian) Bulgaro-Turkish. An ethnic
identification of archeological finds is frequently difficult to make, and
when this happens with the sole aim of showing Rumanian origins
then we must disqualify both hypothesis and results. Verifiable data
have not established the resettlements of ancient Rumanians from
the Balkan Peninsula to the former Dacia; the groups resettled by
Krum from Hadrianapolis did not stay either. Given the first
opportunity - after 25 years - they returned to their original home, with
Byzantine (and Hungarian) military assistance. Other groups which
were made to resettle there may have had similar histories.
At the time of conquest of this territory in 895, Hungarians found
Danubian Bulgaro-Turks, eastern and Southern Slavs in the former
Dacia. The tribal population of the late Avar empire may have
dominated the region's southern area, Oltenia. (Izvorul, etc.) The
defeat of Bulgarians enabled the Hungarians to occupy Dacia's
Transylvanian area in the late 9th and early 10th Centuries. Their
cemeteries date back to the first half of the 10th century on Zбpolya-
174
St. in Kolozsvбr (Cluj), and in Marosgombбs. Early Hungarian
chronicles attest to the occupation of Transylvania, which was among
the first such areas in the Carpathian Basin. We learn that "they
reached the borders of Hungary, i.e. of Transylvania" (a.k.a. Erdйly)
deveniunt in confinium regni Hungarie scilicet in Erdely, SRH I. 286.).
Apparently, Anonymus was unaware of this reference. After the
fighting for the new land died down, the allied Kavars settled in
Transylvania. Place-names in the area do not reflect the names of
the conquering tribes, and the only places where these can be absent
in conquered territory would be those where the allied Kavars lived.
Transylvanian cemeteries dating from the period of the Hungarian
Conquest indicate a burial ritual (stones under the head) which
differed from those in Hungary, and this implies that we must view
this population as unique in the Carpathian basin of the 10th century.
As additional verification, we can point to the inscription in the Kazar
style and language about a process of construction in
Alsуszentmihбlyfalva, near Torda. The Kavars were Kazars and the
inscription has probably come from their ruler, the "gyula". In the first
half of the 10th century this was the site of his headquarters. The
oldest Transylvanian fortress, Tordavбr (Vбrfalva), was built here, but
transferred in the middle of the century to (today's) Alba Iulia.)
Acharacteristic of the period: the ruler transfers his seat of power from
one Roman center (Potaissa) to another Roman site (of ruins):
Apulum. In 952, the then ruler - or "gyula" - accepts Christianity in
Constantinople and is assigned a bishop (Hierotheos) who erects in
Gyulafehйrvбr (Alba Iulia) the first house of worship, known as the
"round church". It is unlikely that Hierotheos would have come by
himself. We do not know who accompanied him but we do know that,
175
at this time, a segment of the local population came from the
Southern territories of the Balkan Peninsula. An eastern-rite Christian
cemetery in (Csombord near Nagyenyed) is the counterpart of others
from the turn of the 9th-10th Centuries found in today's South-
Bulgaria south of the Balkan mountains; the inhabitants of Csombord
must have immigrated from there. This population might have been
Rumanian, - or there could have been Rumanians among them. They
came from that portion of the Balkan Peninsula which has written
evidence of the existence of Rumanians there. However, Csombord
is too far removed from the Barcasбg in the Carpathian Basin, where
Rumanians appeared between 1202-1209. They must have been
there earlier, though: (the land which was given to the Cistercian
monastery at Kerc was taken from them). Also, the period from the
second half of the 10th to the end of the 12th century is too long a
time to establish a connection between the Rumanians of the 10th
century and latter-day ones. In addition, those words in the Hungarian
language which are of Bulgaro-Slav origin (rozsda-rust; mostoha-
stepparent; mesgye-lane) are too numerous to infer a connection
other than a direct Bulgaro-Hungarian one. As this Bulgaro-Slav
language initially was only in usage South of the Balkan mountains,
the presence of their words in the Hungarian language suggests a
settlement of Bulgarians in the territory. Some of the words, which
became part of Hungarian usage (pap-priest, kereszt-cross) have a
religious connotation. These we can attribute to Christian conversions
taking place in eastern territories such as the baptism of the 'Gyula'
(Chieftain). Therefore, the newcomers from Csombord must have
been Bulgaro-Slavs but we wish to repeat: the arrivals could have
included Rumanians. This can neither be proven, nor disproved.
176
In 1003, St. Stephen, King of Hungary goes to war against the
Supreme Chief (Gyula) Prokuj (who was his uncle) and occupies his
land. Transylvania becomes an integral part of Hungary of the Middle
Ages, but the separate development of Transylvania during the
preceding 100 years left its mark. The suzerain lord of the territory
retains the inherited title of Vajda (voivode), originating in the 10th
century, as were the Supreme Chiefs - including the Gyula - in earlier
times. Populating this voivodship, which suffers repeated forays from
eastern nomads - the Petchenegs, Uzes and the Kumans - continues
to be difficult. There is no other territory within Hungary in the Middle
Ages with such a large portion of the colonized population: the
Saxons, the Szeklers and - temporarily - even the German Order of
Knights (Knights Templar). It almost resembled Trajans' forced
resettlement of his veterans into Dacia. This diverse group of settlers
is augmented at the end of the 12th century by Rumanians as frontier
guards along the Southern Carpathians. The number settling in the
Transylvanian Basin is small, and in 1290 the Hungarian King,
Andrбs III, intends to gather all Rumanians on royal property but three
years later he relinquishes the plan.
The above illustrated that we cannot ascertain a legacy of
Romanism in Dacia subsequent to the cessation of Roman
hegemony. There are no communities left - large or small - where
Latin is spoken. By the end of the 3rd century, the new settlers drove
out even the Karps; the population has completely changed in the
province. The same thing happens one hundred years later, after 375;
with the arrival of the Huns, the earlier inhabitants leave the territory.
They are replaced by Ostrogoths, resettled by the Huns (or they might
have come on their own). Following the Battle of Nedao in 454 a third
177
population-exchange takes place. The Ostrogoths move to Pannonia
and Dacia is occupied by the Gepidae. Only from this time on can we
consider any continuity in the region; the presence of the Gepidae in
the Carpathian Basin is recognized for a long time, up to the 9th
century. We do not know what effect the Hungarian conquest had on
the ethnic relations in the region. Archeological data is sparse but we
cannot exclude the possibility that once again it brought about a
population displacement in Dacia.
These historical events reveal that, in this territory, we cannot
assume the existence of Roman - Rumanian continuity - or up to the
end of the 5th century, that of any other peoples. This may be clear
by now. With regard to additional references: rivers, which do not
leave Transylvania do not bear names of ancient origin. The name of
smaller rivers have Hungarian or Slavic origins. The largest among
them, the Kьkьllх has a name of Turkish origin. As it cannot have
derived from Bulgaro- Turkish, Petcheneg or Cumanian, the process
of elimination leaves the Kavars who could have named the river
Kьkьllх, which means Kцkйnyes in Hungarian or Tоrnava in Rumanian
(which is a word of Slavic origin). This bears witness to the likelihood
of population movements in wake of the Hungarian Conquest. On
Dacian territory we may assume to have witnessed four such
migrations, i.e. population exchanges. Romanism could only be a
recurrence in this region, as indeed happened 900 years later when
Rumanians made their presence known on the borders of the former
Roman Province.
178
Chapter VI
Dacians, Romans, Rumanians
It may not be necessary to reiterate all the conclusions we
reached on the basis of the evidence examined in previous chapters.
We only have "negative" data pertaining to the Romanization of the
multi-ethnic, multi-lingual indigenous population of the Dacian
Kingdom. Therefore, we cannot even hypothetically discuss Daco-
Roman continuity. Our sources also revealed that the Latin spoken in
Dacia could not have been the forerunner of the Rumanian language
but it could well have been the basis of Dalmatian. Yet, historical data
preclude this possibility. Of course, we do not claim that no single
Dacian Roman could have become part of Rumanian ethnogeny, but
a Sarmatian or Germanic individual could have done the same thing.
Specific cases can be examined historically but they will prove the
exception, rather than the rule.
As we could see, there were frequent population exchanges
within the territory of the former Dacian Kingdom, or Roman Province
in the 270's, 370's, 450's and probably, something similar occurred in
the 890's. Yet, these movements do not support the survival of an
earlier population, even if we were to assume that this might be the
case. There is no ground for such assumptions. The geographical
designations of the former Dacia do not include a single Roman place
name and, the Rumanians who settled here in the Middle Ages,
adopted the overwhelming majority of their waterway and place-
218
names from Hungarians, Slavs and even Saxons (excepting a few
insignificant waterways and names of villages which were late
settlements). This could not have come about, had they been
continuous residents of the region from Roman times. One can try to
refute the evidence reflected by place names (such as claiming "they
were translated") but to translate the names of waterways and place
names which have no meaning is not only not customary but also
impossible.
Let us assume that - contrary to all data at our disposal - a
Romanized population continued to exist on Dacian territory during
the period of the Great Migrations, who would have been the
ancestors of Rumanians. In this case, we would find in contemporary
Rumanian a large number of words of Germanic (Gothic and Gepida)
as well as of Turkish (Avar and Bulgarian, later Petcheneg and
Cuman) words. Furthermore, these words would have to be present in
at least as large numbers as those which the Rumanian language
shares with Albanian. Yet, such are not found, which is illustrated by
the unsuccessful attempts of K. Gamillscheg, who tried to show Old
Germanic words in the Rumanian language. Especially striking is the
absence of Cuman words; this suggests that Cumans were no longer
present in large numbers in the territory by the time Rumanians
arrived in significant numbers. This happened in the period following
the Tartar invasion, thus the settlement of a substantive number of
Rumanians north of the Danube can be traced to the second half of
the 13th century.
We are left with negative data regarding the survival of
Romanism in the former Roman territory of Dacia. However, a wide
219
variety of data exists to substantiate how the ancestors of Rumanians
evolved into a nation in the southern region of the Balkan Peninsula.
We also ascertained that the ancestors of the Rumanians did have
some links with Dacians; they did live together for some time with
their tribal kin, the Karps, in the area between the lower-Danube and
the Balkan Mountains. The Rumanian and Albanian languages
constitute proof of this earlier intermingling. Latin-speaking Romans
from Moesia Inferior who were the ancestors of Rumanians inhabited
a territory, the original population of which spoke Geta: a language
related to Dacian. Thus, a connection between Dacians and
Rumanians does exist, but it is a tenuous connection. Therefore a link
can be acknowledged but under no circumstances does this support
Daco-Roman or Daco-Rumanian continuity. The humanistic theory of
such continuity belongs to the history of science.
Nevertheless, we realize that this humanistic theory - and the
sequels that followed - is not likely to be soon discarded. There will be
those who will continue to consider Anonymus an authentic and
reliable source. Likewise, credit will be given to the reference in
Russian annals, pertaining to ancient history, wherein white Ugrians
(Ugri bм lii) chased the "Volochs" from the land of the Danubian Slavs.
They will fail to note that this confusing story in Russian annals
speaks of 'Norici' (Norci). These Norici are described as Slavs. It is
true that these Slavs were attacked by the Voloch (Romans). If white
Ugrians drove them away they must have been Huns, considering the
modernized use of names employed by this source. From this same
source we also hear of Hungarians (Ugri) chasing out Volochs at the
time when they conquered the territory. We believe this assumption is
220
based on the tendency to link a well-known event to a similar name.
Analysts of historical data know of many such examples. Thus, the
existence of Rumanians along the Danube during the period of the
Hungarian Conquest was not mentioned by late-Russian chronicles.
Facts can be misrepresented through rationalization but they
nevertheless remain facts. Even if we are reluctant to acknowledge
them.
Това сигурно е огромен проблем за идентификацията на власите, особено като се има предвид че не са запазени никакви следи от дарданския език, с изключение на имената на някои троянски царе, за които се знае че са били дардани. Например ето дарданската генеалогия от цар Дардан, до Еней, синът му Асканий/Юл и внукът му Силвий: Атлант & Плейона Зевс & Електра--- Майя & Зевс Дардан --- Хермес--- Ясион & Деметра--- &Кибела--- Скамандър/Ксант & Идея--- Оикъл & Хипермн-ра Ерихтоний &Астиоха Ил Хармония (& Кадъм) Корибант Тевкър (зет на Дардан) Трос & Калироя Ил--- Ганимед-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Асарак Лаомедонт------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Капис & Темида Приам & Хекуба------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Анхиз & Афродита Хектор, Деифоб, Парис, Хелен, Полидор, ---------------------------------- Еней & Креуса Троил, Креуса, Лаодика, Касандра, Поликсена -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Асканий/Юл -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Силвий Божествата участващи в генеалогията са подчертани и в италик. Потомците на Дардан и брат му Ясион по права линия, както и те самите, са в болд. Както и да е, но предполагам че нещо не се доразбрахме, защото ти вероятно имаш предвид не дардански, а албански. Ако е така, то тогава кой може да докаже, а не просто да твърди, че има някаква връзка, камо ли пряка между албански и дардански? И последно - албанците са илири или дардани? Защото не е едно и също. Ако те учудва наличието на албанско-румънски паралели, служещи за доказателство на "автохтонността" на румънците и обясняващи тяхната романизация, защо не те учудва липсата на гърцизми и романизми в албанският език, а наместо тях имаме изобилие на иранизми? И как именно това обстоятелство относно албанския език може да послужи за доказателство на "латинството" на един народ, претендиращ да е автохтонен, при положение че даже и да е, то няма доказателства че въпросният автохтонен народ изобщо е бил романизиран повече от повърхностно? Или че остава романизиран и след отттеглянето на римляните (твърде скоро впрочем), и че въобще остава нещо от него след това, понеже няма никакви такива сведения. За албанците - виж статията на Иван Танев Иванов, която съм публикувал в папка "Произход на албанците" към подфорум "Българска средновековна история". Тези въпроси там са изчерпателно изследвани от него. Междудругото, власите имат много повече езикови паралели с нашия език, отколкото с албанския. Успех!
