Jump to content

Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Emperor Joseph, French travellers

Is there any point in repeating that already in the 15th-18th century there were scholars and other people who accepted that the Romanians descended from the Romans. The article refers to this fact, moreover nobody denies that the Romanian people descended from the Romans. I suggest that the latest additions that do not add any further information in comparison with the former version should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There are only a few extra lines and moreover i consider it is important that the Habsburg Emperor supported the Daco-Roman theory(79.117.143.123 (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC))
I do not oppose it, even if I cannot understand its importance. The same Habsburg Emperor also believed in the Hun-Hungarian continuity theory, but I fully agree with you that the Daco-Romanian continuity theory needs official, at state level supported, supporters in order to substantiate its credibility, because based on pure facts one can easily conclude that its not one of the best substantiated theories. Borsoka (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is such a shame that so many historians, including the authors Encyclopedia Britannica, believe the daco-roman legend(79.117.159.171 (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC))
Reading the sources used by Encyclopedia Britannica, one can realize that the 90% of the article is based on The History of the Romanians, written by Vlad Georgescu in the 1990s. And comparing Georgescu's claims to works written by Romanian historians (e.g., by Florin Curta, Victor Spinei, Alexandru Madgearu) in the first decade of the 3rd millenium, one can find remarkable differences. For example, instead of a reference to a 9th-century Armenian historian writing of the country of the Vlachs to the north of the Danube, one can read of an Armenian book of geography from the first centuries of the 1st millenium; instead of clear archaeological evidence of the continuos presence of the Dacians - Daco-Romans - proto-Romanians - Romanians in the territory of present day Romania, one can read of the presence of a sedentary population which could be qualified as either Slav or Romanian, and the latter claim can solely be suggested based on the names of 2-3 rivers (Cris, Repedea). So I think it is not a shame if one accepts the theory of the Daco-Romanian continuity, but I fully understand why he/she thinks that the reference to the fact that the Encyclopedia Britannica shares his/her views is not enough, and therefore a further reference have to be made to Kaiser Joseph's views on the Romanians' origin from the 18th century. Nevertheless, I hope that no one would follow this precedent when editing the article on Hungarian prehistory in order to prove the Hun-Hungarian continuity theory which had also been accepted by all the emperors, kings, princes, barons, landgrafs, politicans and historians of Europe and the New World before the 19th century. Borsoka (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

|Borsoka, I am interested in your claims about curta, spinei and madgearu with regards to the daco-romanian continuity theory. Reading the archives of this discussion page, I was under the impression that curta in particular argued *for* the continuity theory with archeological evidence, judging by the arguments from the user Dazius. Bear in mind that I have yet to begin reading either the romanian or hungarian scholarly works on this topic, but I am nonetheless interested in beginning so.|CormanoSanchez (talk)

Ureche's Chronicle

In Romanian historiography it was Grigore Ureche (c. 1590-1647) who first noted that the origin of the Romanians was in “Rîm”

I think it is possible this name to refer to the Byzantine Empire (in Greek: Romania), not to Rome:

From Chronicle of Moldavia "Şi împingăndu pe unguri din ocinile sale, n-au mai putut suferi, ce singur Laslău craiul ungurescu, cari-i zic filosof, s-au sculat de s-au dus la Împăratul Râmului, de ş-au cerşut oaste întru ajutoriu împrotiva vrăjmaşilor săi"

It is written that a Hungarian king. Laszlo has asked for help against the tatars to the Emperor of Râm. Could he be the Byzantine Emperor? (MSKZilina (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

I tend to accept the above view (Rîm = Byzantium in Ureche's text), but the reliable source based on which the sentence is written does not state this. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Pierre Lescalopier

Hello...I don't understand very clear what is wrong with the quote from Pierre Lescalopier. It is referred for example in The making of the Romanian unitary national state 1918, Ştefan Pascu, 1988, which is a secondary source

And what is the additional interpretation = OR? Are you talking about the equalization between "romanechte" and româneşte(Romanian)? The connection seems obvious for me...(79.117.166.157 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC).

Any interpretation of a primary source which is not based on a reliable source (academic work) qualifies OR. Borsoka (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Are we sure that we should expand the article with citations from century old persons who suggest that the Romanians descended from the Romans? As nobody denies that the Romanians speak a Romance language therefore they must have descended from the Romanized inhabitants of Southeastern Europe the repetition of this claim adds no value to the article. Borsoka (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way, why are preferred secondary sources such as (for example) Vékony and Illyés and not (for instance) Ernst Gamillscheg's own text? If it can't be procured and/or if that editor can't read in German s/he shouldn't apply reverts as soon as other editors add more appropriate references/quotations/notes. - Ralsog Iref (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Gamillscheg

I deleted one remark (reference given in the footnotes: Illyés) referring to Ernst Gamillscheg's pointing out that there were additional "Kerngebiete" along the Danube. This is superfluous, since, as the most Hungarian contributors to these things might not know (I'm sure they don't :-)), Rumanian historiography does not see only the north-Danubian territories as the "cradle" of the Romanians (and of the Romanian language), but also all the relevant territories south of the Danube (i.e. in the former Roman provinces Illyricum (incl. Dalmatia), Praevalitana, Pannonia, Dardania, Moesia Superior, Dacia ripensis, Dacia mediterranea, as well as Moesia inferior, way south to the main West-East road "via Egnantia" and/or to the linguistic lines proposed by the scholars Skok and Jireček). Even in the years of Ceausescu's era, Romanian historians mentioned these territories, they never restricted the area for discussing the origins to northern Dacia, and adjacent northern territories (and even in such history books, full of propaganda, that were sponsored by Ceausescu's own brother, general Ilie Ceausescu). Moreover, various great historians proposed "admigration" theories as well (both in the 19th and 20th centuries; e.g. Dimitrie Onciul).
NB: The Linguistic Map of the Romanian Language, published by Sextil Pușcariu (et al. professors), was the result of lexical research (starting in the middle of the 19th century) performed throughout the entire area, i.e. in all south-Danubian regions where Romanians, Aromanians and Istro-Romanians (have) lived, and not only north of the Danube. (As any such academic work, the linguistic map is a vast collection of lexical dialectal occurrences. The German scholar Gamillscheg, mentioned in the article, based his considerations on this work, in the first place, whatever Pușcariu's own conclusions and speculations might have been!) -- Ralsog Iref (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oldest sources and other staff

I do not deny that Jean W. Sedlar in his work writes that "The oldest extant documents from Transylvania, dating from the 12th and 13th centuries, make passing reference to both Hungarians and Vlachs." However, this sentence contradicts to the first sentence of the next paragraph ("The first mention of Vlachs in the royal charters of Hungary is in the grant of King Andrew II of Hungary (1205–1235) to the Cistercian Cârţa Monastery.") which is based on Florin Curta's cited work. Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I deny that the above author also writes that " Vlachs constituted about two-thirds of Transylvania's population in 1241 on the eve of the Mongol invasion". However, this sentence contradicts to the last sentence of the next paragraph ("In 1293, King Andrew III of Hungary (1290–1301) decreed that all Romanians in Transylvania who had settled on private land be relocated on crown lands along the river Secaş.") which suggest that at the end of the 13th century the number of Romanians living in Transylvania was not very high - they could have been settled in a small territory along a not too long river. Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but if statement A contradicts with statement B, does it mean that only statement A is dubious? Maybe stament A si correct and B is wrong... (79.117.139.14 (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC))
Yes, but if a misty statement ("oldest extant documents") contradicts to a statement which exactly refers to the document based on which it is made, we should prefer the latter one in order to avoid using weasel words. Borsoka (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
"all Romanians in Transylvania who had settled on private land" - maybe the rest of the Romanians were not on private land (79.117.139.14 (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC))
Please read: Pop, Ioan-Aurel; Bolovan, Ioan (2005); History of Romania: Compendium; Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies). ISBN 978-973-7784-12-4. By that time most of the crown lands had been granted to private owners. Borsoka (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
"The first mention of Vlachs in the royal charters of Hungary" - maybe the 12th documents were not from the royal charters of Hungary, it is not specified what kind of documents were they (79.117.139.14 (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC))
Maybe... So it should be clarified what are those documents in order to avoid such doubts. Borsoka (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I can show you other estimates about Transylvania in the middle ages and that source cites opposite rates. "Two-thirds of the inhabitants were Hungarians". http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=afPVAAAAMAAJ&dq=editions%3AtrgQAAAAIAAJ&q=two-thirds#search_anchor But if i used it the citation would cause the same problem what Borsoka mentioned beforehand.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Place names/Surnames

I am just wondering,a lot of sources exist about first emergence of Romanian settlements in Kingdom of Hungary from the 13th. We should demonstrate them. Sources are existing about settlements like Terram Blacorum (1222/1280), Olachi(1285) or Olahteluk(1283). Or 'Ola' was the first 'romanian' surname from 1258 (source is a charter) or the first common noun 'Olah' derives from 1456 (source is a codex of Budapest). Could anybody show us English sources about that? Hungarian sources here (but English would be better): [1] Fakirbakir (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I inserted that into the article (Romania in the Middle Ages).I found English, Latin, German sources, but I am trying to seek more data about that because I had to use Hungarian citation as well (and I want to avoid that). Fakirbakir (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Letopiseţul Cantacuzinesc

Stoica Ludescu, "Letopiseţul Cantacuzinesc is a secondary source from 17th century, why is is cited here? (79.117.169.117 (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC))

you're right, my mistake (79.117.193.39 (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC))

I have read an interpretation that the northward migration could refer to the Roman colonisation, with the crossing point being Traian's bridge (the one build byAppolodor of Damascus) (79.117.145.250 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Based on the fact that the "Romanians" crossed the Danube in the same place where Romans crossed it and that they "settled" roughly the same area as the romans did. Now considering that Stoica Ludescu doesn't give any date between 6798 (1290) and the making of mankind what makes us situate this migration in the VI/VII/VIII/IX/X/XI century ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.196.175 (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the theory that the text which describs Romanians first seceding from the Romans then wandering to the north and crossing the Danube at Turnu Severin refers to the Roman colonization of Dacia is really interesting. Taking into account that the text clearly refers to Hungary, one can also considering the existence of Hungary in Roman times. Moreover, the text explicitly describes the election of Basarab to the "banship" after the Romanians' crossing of the Danube. Maybe classical authors whose works has been preserved to modern times failed to mention Hungary and the election of Basarab by the Roman colonists at the time of the Roman conquest, but Stoica Ludescu had the opportunity to read older sources. Borsoka (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

pike-heads?

Someone please fix this link, which currently points to a disambiguation page. I'm guessing it should actually link to either pike (fish) or pike (weapon), but it's pretty hard to tell from the context. -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA 2010

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/508461/Romania

History topic

"The fate of the Romanized, or Daco-Roman, population north of the Danube after Aurelian’s withdrawal has been a subject of great controversy. Many scholars, especially Hungarians, argue that Romanization in Dacia was, in fact, modest and that the later Romanian population living north of the Carpathians was not native to the region but migrated there from south of the Danube. Other scholars, including the majority of Romanians, insist that a substantial Romanized population maintained itself continuously in old Dacia and that the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people occurred precisely there. The account that follows expands upon the latter interpretation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.239 (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Tharticle clearly refers to the fact that the Britannica follows the Daco-Roman continuity theory. Otherwise Britannica's account follows the most Orthodox interpretation of the continuity theory, since it is exclusively based on Vlad Georgescu's book written in the early 1990s whose claims are highly debated even in books written in the last decades by Romanian historians. For example, according to Vlad Georgescu "an Armenian geographer" refers to Romanians living in the territory of modern Romania in the Migration Period - in fact according to the Armenian geographer (Ananias of Shirak), the territory of modern Romania was inhabited by Slavic tribes in the 7th century. Please compare Vlad Georgescu's book referred to in the article with the books written in the last decades by other Romanian historians (e.g., Victor Spinei, Florin Curta, Alexandru Madgearu) which are also referred to in the article. There are significant differences. Borsoka (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

between the presentation of the facts. Borsoka (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Grumeza

Is this author a classical scholar, historian or, broadly speaking, an academic whose work constitutes a reliable reference for this article? Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cited: "Ion Grumeza is a restoration consultant and contractor based in Connecticut who specializes in restoring old churches. He has also been involved in major restoration projects at Yale University."[2]Fakirbakir (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
More Grumesa books here:[3]Fakirbakir (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, so why is this book of his a reliable source? Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
He's also a self-entitled "historian and independent scholar". As he says, "[h]is particular area of study is geo-political events and their effect upon nations and territorial configurations." He says he has a "Masters degree at the University of Bucharest" (but he doesn't say what he studied there) and apparently no PhD. As you can see from the site, he's also a promoter of "effectology".
When I previously questioned that reference, the main author of this article replied: "Yes, I agree, he seems to be an extremest follower of the Daco-Romanian continuity theory, but he is the only author I have read who claims that the Dacians spoke a proto-Latin language (and if a theory exists, it can be presented)". But I don't think a non scholarly theory must be presented. Daizus (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Ion Grumeza, Ph.D. Philosopher Of Metaphysical Sciences. :-)[4]Fakirbakir (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
So, I think he is absolutely unreliable.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Right then, end of story. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I really feel sorry. I always enjoy reading Grumeza's thoughts. Borsoka (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
What is a non scholarly theory though? It seems a very subjective statement and akin of censorship. I don't endorse anyone and actually reading his book now, I am put off by some statements, while I some ideas are interesting. However, I don't see why not present all available theories on a subject and let the reader decide. Who has the authority to decides what theory is right or which book should be or not be cited? The Inquisition? I think each book has at least a few sections or phrases which can be useful and speak the truth, and should not be discarded as whole. Often, strange ideas find themselves being validated hundreds of years later. And not only "PhDs" and highly specialized people hold the truth or are the single sources of breakthroughs and science. At times, high-school dropouts can change the world. Stay open-minded. My 2 cents.. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources. And no, this is not about open mindedness, Flat Earth theory has no place in a geology article and Grumeza's theory has no place here, wikipedia is not a democracy. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Good points but to what section of those guideliness are you eluding? Be more specific. Everything can be deemed as non reliable when using subjectivity and not being neutral. Jordanes mess in Getica, mixing Goths and Getae, is cited all over Wikipedia. Grumeza is not even close to introducing such a mess. Would you remove Jordanes too? I don't endorse Grumeza's theory but there are plenty of sections of the book with validated historical facts which should be cited.Codrin.B (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
And I find it ironical, quite funny, that Flat Earth theory is cited in defence of an Inquisition-like attitude, when Giordano Bruno was burned at stake, and now we say he was right. Are you willing to commit sepuku if some of these controversial theories prove to be at least partially true, in your life-time of course :-) --Codrin.B (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We have to avoid 'non scholary' citations because if we do not do it (for example) Hungarians will derive from the Sumers/ people of Atlantis or they will be the native population in the Carpathian Basin from 10,000-40,000 BC or Jesus was Hungarian.....etc..... I know it sounds ridiculous, but there are thousands of sources about these themes. We have to be careful.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would really enjoy reading Grumeza's thoughts in the article. They are fascinating. But I am not in the position to decide whether his book is a reliable source or not. Nevertheless, I do not know, for example, why his proposal that the Dacian language was very similar to the Latin language is less established than the theories on the Dacian origin of the Romanian substratum (?) words (nothing proves any of the two theories), or why his idea that the Bulgarians copied their national costum from the Romanians is less credible than the theory that the Romanian national costum is inherited from the Dacians (he only tried to provide a possible explanation of the fact that the Romanian and Bulgarian national costums are extremelly similar). Borsoka (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Where are the 'official' Romanian linguists and ethnographers, they did not comment those 'researches'? Fakirbakir (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If you were a scholar would you take time to comment on that? Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe. :-), It would be helpful.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And to answer Borsoka: since there is quite a wide consensus among scholars that the same language was spoken in pre-Roman times on both banks of the Danube, so most of the Romanian substratum is quite probably Daco-Moesic regardless of whether the language was formed on the south bank, on the north bank or in the plain middle of the river. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Roman and post-Roman Dacia under debate

I find subsections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 quite unbalanced (and 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 are also to be discussed). Let me explain.

The debate is presented as a balanced dichotomy (and that's true for the entire section 4) whereas it is clearly well beyond that.

  • Sorry, I do not understand how subsections 4.1-4.3 can be unbalanced. They present the opposite approaches of the opposite schools, that is these subsections per definitionem present opposite sets of argumentation. Borsoka (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is undue weight ("Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject"). The theory that in Dacia the natives were not exterminated is not just POV, is mainstream, as it is the process of Romanization (reaching different degrees of success) in all the provinces of the Empire. Suggesting fringe or obsolete theories are important in a controversy is in my opinion not neutral and balanced. Daizus (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The theory followed by those historians is based on the unanimous testimony of independent Roman written sources from the 2nd-4th centuries. Why do you think it is a fringe theory? Just for clarification, personally I do not think that the natives in Dacia province were exterminated, but it is not a reason to qualify the opposite theory obsolete. The article refers to archaeological evidence which strongly suggests that the natives survived the Roman conquest, even if official Roman historians seems to deny it. Borsoka (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I call it obsolete and fringe because outside the Romanian-Hungarian debate, I found no scholars analyzing Roman Dacia (Faulkner claims only, there's no analysis in that short article) and finding evidence of complete depopulation, quite on the contrary.
We should use secondary sources when available, not primary sources. If the ancients believed the Caspian Sea was a bay opening in the Northern Ocean, we won't rewrite the articles on geology and ancient geography.
As for the Roman historians, here's from Ellis again:
The first critical edition of the Breviarium was published by Hans Droysen in 1879, using eight codices which contained the word viris in the final sentence of Breviarium VIII, 6: 'Dacia enim diuturno bello Decibali viris fuerat exhausta' (Dacia, in fact, had been depleted of men in the lengthy war with Decebalus). However not all existing manuscripts of the Breviarium are consistent and some contain copyists' errors. In 1979 Carlo Santini republished Eutropius' work using twenty-four codices. Five codices (dating to the ninth to thirteenth centuries) contain the variant res ('Daciae enim diuturno bello Decibali res fuerant exhaustae'): two codices (thirteenth and fourteenth centuries), the variant vires ('Daciae enim diuturno bello Decibali vires fuerant exhaustae'); and yet another group (also dating to the ninth to thirteenth centuries) contains the variant viris ('Dacia enim diuturno bello Decibali viris fuerat exhausta'). The variant vires may be an erroneous derivative from res, since the syntax is the same for both. The variant viris, however, has significant differences in syntax and grammatical agreement when compared to the other two variants. The variant res would imply then that Dacia was depleted of things or perhaps more appropriately, resources. Given that the Roman Empire's primary interests lay in the economic resources of its colonies, expecially Transylvania's gold mines. the transcription of res as opposed to viris, appears more logical to this author. But, more importantly. we as archaeologists must accept some degree of uncertainty when relying on copyists' versions of classical texts as sources for precise data on the ancient world.
Even if Eutropius wrote viris, there're lot of studies about Roman literary propaganda, so such claims should be taken cum grano salis. That's why, whenever possible, use secondary, not primary sources. Daizus (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as the article also emphasizes, there is a variant of Eutropius' work which uses the word 'resources' when narrating the need of intensive colonization in Dacia. Sorry, I do not understand the above reference to the use secondary sources. Is there any sentence in the article whose statements are based purely on primary sources? Borsoka (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So what happened to natives after conquest? Sorin Nemeti in "Scenarios on the Dacians: The Indigenous Districts" (Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai - Historia, issue 1/2006, 86-98) describes three scenarios:

  1. absence of civitates peregrinae reflecting a certain structure of the pre-Roman society (with Decebal’s kingdom seen as "a highly centralised system" leaving no elites after its collapse; thus Dacians in Roman Dacia were "a mass of dediticii under military control")
  2. presence of civitates peregrinae interpreting all Ptolemy's tribes from Dacia as "Dacian tribes organised by the Romans in the form of civitates peregrinae'"
  3. a more nuanced picture, with some of Ptolemy's tribes as mere tribes (Anarti, Teurisci, Coestoboci etc.), but others as simply derived from settlements (Predavenses, Potulatenses, Albocenses etc.). Similar tribes recorded by Ptolemy in Noricum, Dalmatia, Pannonia, Moesia are commonly considered "civitates peregrinae, indigenous administrative structures in Roman provinces". Most obviously "Tricornenses, Picenses, Dimenses etc. are designated some indigenous administrative structures developed around the settlements such Tricornium, Pincum or Dimum, garrisons of some auxiliary units"
I will once you acknowledge the problem. Daizus (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Another recent study is Ioana Oltean's "Dacian ethnic identity and the Roman Army" in The army and frontiers of Rome, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series, 2009, 90-101. On page 92 we can read: "The architectural tradition of domestic dwellings in the uplands (homesteads of tower-houses) is not moved into the lowlands, where the pre-Roman tradition of sunken structures continues and evolves into surface dwellings. The archaeologial record reveals a number of survivals in material culture and customs from the period before the Roman. Severe depopulation (probably forced) is visible only in the area of the Orăştie mountains.". Certainly not all settlements were destroyed, and as the author notes "[t]he archaeological confirmation of the disappearance of upper-status settlements, hillforts and tower-houses should come as no surprise".

I will once you acknowledge the problem. Daizus (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And here I reach a strange treatment of bibliography. Ioana Oltean's Dacia: Landscape, Colonisation, Romanisation is cited, but strangely not for the survival of pre-Roman society (sections 6.1 and 6.2 on the archaeology of Roman Dacia are arguing, but not emphasizing this). Similarly, Linda Ellis' "'Terra Deserta'" is cited, but not about this important issue (e.g. p. 229: "As to whether or not the native population continued in existence directly after Roman conquest, it would be difficult to envisage the annihilation of every person across terrain measuring 250,000 to 300,000 square kilometers. [...] Although speculative, the logistics of removing both settlements, as well as potentially recalcitrant populations from the southern Carpathians, would have been a daunting task for the Roman legions; even late twentieth-century military technology has been stymied in the mountainous regions of the Balkans.")

  • Sorry, I do not understand the above reference to Oltean's work. At least two sentences based on her cited book in the subsection contain clearly pro-continuity arguments: "Rural indigenous communities on their old location from pre-Roman Age were archaeologically identified in the south of Transylvania (e.g., at Slimnic and Şura Mică). Aspects of continuity have been detected in architecture, such as the persistence of traditional forms of sunken houses and storage pits in several locations where continuity of site occupation was not necessarily applicable (e.g., at Obreja, which is a post-conquest foundation)". Borsoka (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I said Oltean is quoted with arguments, but not with the proper emphasis. E.g. she said (p. 226): "The archaeological evidence for the period following the Roman conquest depicts a society of colonists and natives, which varied hierarchically and ethnically, involved in a sustained process of acculturation." So it's not about only aspects of continuity in architecture or continuity in south of Transylvania, but of a more important conclusion that the native society still survived under Roman rule and moreover interacted with Roman society
Moreover she's misquoted with "After the Roman conquest, Dacia faced the disappearance of the ‘Orăştie Mountains civilization’: all settlements ceased to exist due to violent destruction", as she is actually describing the disappearance of hillforts and tower-houses in Orăştie Mountains. The paragraph continues (on the same p. 226): "The sources also say that the population was moved into the lowlands. But the very particular type of architecture seen in the Orastie Mountains cannot be traced in any of the identified native-type settlements of Roman date." So it's only about destruction and depopulation in Orăştie Mountains, not throughout the territory of Dacia as the first paragraph from section 6.1 seems to suggest (not explaining the readers what "Orăştie Mountains civilization" is) Daizus (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Ellis is in the bibliography of the article and quoted several times. You don't have access to her article?
I have, but for the time being I am working on other articles. Borsoka (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not only about archaeology, because this discussion is also missing the now rich literature about Dacian soldiers in Roman army. See Dan Dana, Florian Matei Popescu, "Le recrutement des Daces dans l'armée romaine sous l'empereur Trajan : une esquisse préliminaire", Dacia, N. S. 50, 2006, 195-206. Of course, not all Dacians were recruited from Dacia, but some were. As it seems to be the case of Diurdanus, son of Damanaeus who was discharged in 131 after serving in cohors I Flavia Musulamiorum, somewhere in Mauretania Caesarensis (arguments: he is a Dacian, his first son is named Decibalus, he was recruited in 106, probably at the end of the war). See also the study of Werner Eck and Andreas Pangerl, "Neue Militärdiplome für die Truppen der mauretanischen Provinzen", ZPE 153, 2005, 187-206.

The above arguments are not presented by Ellis. Daizus (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I am a little bit exhausted now. Please do not refrain from adding the above argumentation. Borsoka (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


"Specific circumstances should be demonstrated in order to prove that the Dacians adopted the conquerors’ language in 165 years". The little evidence that is points out that conquered populations had no problem in learning Latin or Greek, at least as a second language (see also the great book of James N. Adams, Bilingualism and Latin Language). In Roman Egypt, only few years after their recruitment in the army, the Dacian soldiers were sending letters to each other written in Greek (which was the dominant language in Roman Egypt). The analogy with Britannia is actually a straw man, because it doesn't prove the British native society did not learn Latin, only that pre-Roman languages survived the occupation (as did Albanian and Basque, yet no one doubts the Romanization of most of Iberian Peninsula, Gaul and Balkans). The Romanization of natives it doesn't mean everybody forgot his ancestral language and learned Latin, only that many enough learned Latin.

  • Sorry, I do not understand the above remark. The above sentence from subsection 4.2 presents the argumentation of the followers of one of the theories. Should it be deleted in order to balance the article? Borsoka (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it should be balanced. I don't see why a theory should be presented as a rhetoric, when it's an entire literature out there which can provide answers to the question if the natives learn or learn not the languages of the conquerors. Daizus (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I still do not understand the above remark. Is there any obstacle to present the opposite theory? Borsoka (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If you don't mind me emphasizing the mainstream theory: that natives were Romanized (throughout the Empire), I guess not. Daizus (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the "theory" of Neil Faulkner is presented in a popularization material (with no argumentation or bibliography) and for this author Roman archaeology is only one of several interests, and with no focus on Roman Dacia.

I don't have the book by L. Zerbini and R. Ardevan, but I could read some fragments on Google books. Here is one of the fragments that made me wonder on p. 125: È possibile che i Daci autoctoni che non erano stati trasformati in dediticii, vale a dire sudditti apatridi, senza nessuna cittadinanza, godessero dello stesso statuto, perché nelle fonti appaiono unicamente come Daci, mentre tra gli altri peregrini vi sono nomi di varie tribù ed etnie, evidenziando anche condizioni giuridiche diverse. It seems to me there's more about this book than what the current citation seems to suggest.

Similar problems are with the presentation of the end of Roman Dacia. Again Ellis' article is not quoted in section 4 and improperly cited in section 6 (p. 230: "After Roman withdrawal likewise we do not see a terra deserta. neither in the provincial core zone nor in the peripheries.", whereas in the Wiki article this is mentioned only in the context of Roman decolonization in Cluj and Alba counties) Daizus (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No comments on the fact the "ethnical cleansing" of Dacia is supported by Neil Faulkner only? Zerbini and Ardevan are accounted to hold that "autochthonous population [...] was swept away", yet the excerpt above suggests quite the opposite. Should that reference be removed then? Daizus (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
In a couple of days I can add some more sources on the "ethnical cleansing". I have not read the book written by Zerbini and Ardevan. Borsoka (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the Daizus' observations. I think they are very pertinent. Those sections are undoubtedly unbalanced. Giving equal weight to a bizarre theory from Neil Faulkner, while removing an segment mentioning an equally controversial theory by Grumeza & Co. also raises a lot of questions on the neutrality of this article. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There's a slight difference. Grumeza is no scholar. Faulkner is, but clearly not an expert on the topic and holding a theory not many others agree with. Thus these two points of view should be presented with due weight. Daizus (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dacian language collaboration

Hello from WikiProject Dacia!

Since there are so many religious wars going on at the moment around Dacians and their language, we are proposing to all involved to use their creativity, knowledge and energy in creating separate articles for different language affinities. Stop deleting and reverting and start creating!

Instead, expand or create the articles listed at the WikiProject Dacia's Current Collaboration, using as much academic evidence you can gather.

Once these separate articles went through a lot of scrutiny and have reached a good article status, we can discuss the addition of links to the various theories and potentially even add sections about them in the Dacian language and Dacian tribes articles.

Let the Daciada begin! Thanks for your support! --Codrin.B (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not collaborate and create?

For the life of me, I would never understand how some of you guys can spend so much time, energy and effort in deleting, reverting and arguing, instead of creating. Can you step back and think about it for a moment? What agendas do you have? Spending all this time to push your ideas to the articles and all this censorship, instead of adding quality, new content? Why not join WikiProjects, communicate and collaborate with people? --Codrin.B (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is already too long. It should be more concise and focused on the most important aspects. New content is not the definition of quality. Daizus (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no known case of a Roman settlement built on the location of a previous Dacian one?!

A quote from Opreanu, in the Native Dacians in Dacia Traiana after the Roman conquest section Really?! Leaving aside the large amount of Roman castra in Dacia (many including settlements) built on top or very close to Dacian towns, and bearing their Dacian names, take a look a this interesting article, where archeologists found Romans and Dacians living together: Roman castra and settlement at Catunele and to Amutria.--Codrin.B (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not found a sentence in the article which states that any of the Roman settlements was built on the location of a previous Dacian one. The Roman settlements were built not far from previous Dacian ones, but not in the latter's site. Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

About the German tribes

I think it is a significant momentum in connection with Dacia, origin of Romanians etc.. And the article did not contain it. There was a massive German attack against Dacia. It lasted decades. I inserted a sentence about that, but it should be negotiated about more than it is.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But this article is not about German tribes, is it? Unless they are relevant to the arguments and theories presented, do we need more than a brief mention (as it is with Dacians, Sarmatians, Cumans and other populations?) Daizus (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not about German tribes you are right, however we want to demonstrate ethnic background, ethnic situations (for example) after the withdrawal without a sentence about German presence. What happened with them? Did they evaporate? We should know more about "the 'first' German phase". I think it is not enough to speak about only Daco-Romanians.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Then you can write an article about Germanic speakers in the ancient territory of Romania. This article is already too long, how it would be to ask: what happened to Celts? what happened to Gepids? what happened to Goths? what happened to Alans? what happened to Avars? what happened to Khazars? what happened to Pechenegs? what happened to Cumans? Did they all evaporate? :) Daizus (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
No they did not :) (hypothetically not, every groups have a dissimilar story), of course and this is the most important thing in reference to Romanians, but later 'yes' they vanished. We should make articles for them, because those are wee bit unnoticed themes. But, we have to mention the German element if we talk about origin of Romanians because it correlates to territory of Romania, history of Romania, ethnogenesis of Romanians etc. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Mention, yes. Write a long narrative, no. The article is already too long IMO, and more sections should be better summarized because it's really hard to follow. Daizus (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Caransebes/Turkic

I know that it looks like an original research what I have edited (Caransebes from Turkic+Hungarian) considering the sources, however there is a theory about that. See:[5] Unfortunately I could not find a perfect source yet. I have found sources about Slav+Hungarian origin as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the the site: The name of “Caran” is, probably, of Celtic origin and means “stone place”, and “Sebes” is the name of a river, word of Dacian origin. Another hypothesis is that the name of our city was Sebes and Caran (Cauran, Caravan, Cavaran) was added, imposed by the necessity to distinguish it from other cities with the same name in the country, Caran being situated 14 km north on the place where the Constantin Daicoviciu (former Cavaran) commune is today. Another opinion is that the name of the city comes from “kara” – black – in the language of the migratory peoples from Asia and “sebes” – meaning fast – in Hungarian.
The second part is somehow misleading, because we don't know if "migratory peoples from Asia" refers to Hungarians, as they are a migratory people form Asia too (Iaaasi (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC))
There are celtic/Dacian origin and the 'theory of Cavaran' as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


Genetics

Do we have some genetic research available on that matter? Research what compares the modern day Romanians genetic makeup with the genetic makeup of the Roman settlers or the settlers after the Roman evacuation. This could clarify a lot. Johann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.83.193.210 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

How would one get a numerically meaningful sample of "Dacian DNA" to do such research? You'd be totally limited to what has been preserved in a very, very few scattered gravesites at best. Such research would be completely speculative and highly contentious if based on a very small sample of Dacian/Getae remains, just as the current theories are that are based on interpretation of historical records, etc. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
Actually it would be very useful. It was done in many regions. I would be very curious if any continuity exists, if the dacians are related to the modern population of Romania. It can be carried out. Johann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.245.31 (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ilike this map concerning the origin of the slavs, and also Florin Curta book regarding the origin of the slavs too, i'm afraid to get any conclusions CristianChirita (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There have been studies of ancient Thracien remains which show similarities with modern Romanians, Bulgarians., etc. But the sample size was 6. No conclusive or meaningful generalization could be achieved with this other than there appears to be genetic similrity between the (6 studied) ancient Thracians and some modern Romanians, tentatively suggesting that some population continuity exists between people once called Dacians and modern Romanians. What the mystery is how social structures changed, how language changed, and how the perception of self-identity changed over the thousand years between what once were Dacians and what became Romanians. DNA has no role on solving this question Slovenski Volk (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The article refers to a study on the subject ([6]). Its conclusion is that the Italians, the Albanians and the Greeks show closer genetic kinship with Thracians than the Romanians and Bulgarians. Nevertheless, this result might be the consequence of the low number of samples. On the other hand, genetics is only one of the (possible) sources to determine the origins of a people. For instance, modern Hungarians genetically are much closer to their Slavic (Slovak, Polish) neighbors than to any Finno-Ugric or Turkic peoples - however, they spoke a Finno-Ugric (not a Slavic, even not an Indo-European) language, and the culture of the population that took this language to the Carpathian Basin was clearly a variant of contemporary Turkic tribes in the 9th century. Therefore, the fact that no close kinship has so far been demonstrated between Dacians and Romanians, in itself, does not and cannot prove "discontinuity". Those who suggest discontinuity (and consequently the migrations of the ancestors of the Romanians to present-day Romania) base their theory on the total lack of linguistic or archaeological evidence of continuity of a Romance-speaking population in the territory of Romania, and on written sources that clearly refer to Romanians migrating from the Balkan Peninsula first to Wallachia, Banat, Maramures, Transylvania and Moldavia. Borsoka (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
According to the genetic researches Hungarians are similar to Ukrainians and Poles. It is true, because they had the same genetic basis--->Eastern-Europe, their ancestors derived (mostly) from Eastern-Europe (from Carpathians to Caspian Sea, Ural). That zone was called Steppe.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
yep, that's the study. I wouldn't pay too much attention to it given such low sample size. As a scientific paper, it has little applicability. I for one find it nigh impossible to beleive the Dacians were 'wiped out' or moved away en masse. However, one must also distinguish population continuity from ethnic continuity: the two are different. There has been a population continuity in virtually all of Europe since at least the LGM. Ethnicities and language come and go. Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree with you, faith is important primarily in the field of social sciences. Borsoka (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sarata Monteoru

A large cemetery discovered at Sărata-Monteoru consists of 1536 graves holding cremated remains;[12] the cremation burials are either in urns (of the ‘Prague-Korchak’ type but with wheel-made pottery) or pit-graves without urns

This sentence is a bit confusing, and should state, for clarity, that most of the burials were actually inhumations. Only 1/4 or so were cremations. (The exact figures are in Teodor's paper in Borders, barriers and ethnogenesis Ed Curta.) Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Arcaeology - Trans-Carpathian regions

Hi guys. I think mention needs to be made of the so-called Carpic cultures in the eastern Carpathian fringes and the Militari-Chilia culture in Oltenia during the pre-Chernyakov era, ie C 1 - 3 CE. Obviously , these are important in the discussion of continuity Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction is more than 800 words long. The section is particularly heavy due to explanation that follows "the three sets of arguments" statement. This seems both inappropriate in the introduction and unnecessary in the article at all. The main text of the article already contains a complete discussion of specific theories of origin. The "sets of arguments" discussion in the introduction is confusing an already very complex subject and should, I believe, be removed.Flyte35 (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

From MOS:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." It is thus important to set out the main POVs in the introduction. Saying "the topic is controversial" is not enough. Sure it would be great to have the introduction shorter and better readable, but the information shouldn't be whimsically removed, but moved/merged in the appropriate sections. That's especially true for quotes: if you suppress them, make sure that point is made somehow in the rest of the text. For example, Walter Pohl's assessment that "the passionate discussion for or against Roman-Romanian continuity has been misled by a conception of ethnicity that is far too inflexible" seems an important point to make, even though at this moment is slightly misused, illustrating some other theory. Daizus (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
MOS:LEAD also says "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." Most importantly, however, "the lead should contain no more than four paragraphs...and be written in a clear, accessible style... to invite a reading of the full article."
The beginning of the introduction (the 3rd graf) already establishes that there's controversy. In the main text "Summary of theories" (first section) and "Origin of the theories" (second section) already pretty well address the nature of the controversies. Removing the last 6 grafs wouldn't be leaving out any crucial elements.
Granted, the last 6 grafs of the intro aren't poorly written or poorly sourced or anything and if you can find a way to integrate these into the main text that MIGHT be an improvement but it doesn't seem necessary to me. Although it's an interesting summary, it doesn't integrate well into any other part of the text because the rest of the article just isn't organized that way.Flyte35 (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The rest of the article is poorly organized. This topic is about continuities vs discontinuities and the scholars cited usually support one view or another. This is often visible in the rest of the text, even though not always spelled out clearly. This article is problematic not only because of the massive copy-paste, but also because the information presented is often an dubious selection of quotes, facts and interpretations, rather reflecting the previous edit-wars than the result of a careful synthesis. Thus we have the arbitrary geographical dichotomy "trans-Carpathian" vs "intra-Carpathian" (it's hard to argue on the "trans-Carpathian" Oltenia and Bucovina as two regions with a common history, but different from the "intra-Carpathian" one; the absurd of this artificial separation is most pregnant in the discussion about the archaeology of "Dacia Traiana" which only covers the territory of modern Transylvania and Banat), the symptom of obsessions with the history of Romanians in Transylvania.
As for unjustified emphases and digressions, I think it's better to have several paragraphs explaining the controversy than - let's say - two full paragraphs of text and two quotes on the pottery in "trans-Carpathian" regions in the 6th-7th centuries. To be sure, there are "crucial elements" in the lead which are not repeated elsewhere in the text. If you find the lead too heavy, you can move and merge some of the details in the "Summary of theories" section. However the lead must explain which are the main theories, this is the topic of the article! Daizus (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Ugh. I guess I could try to merge it into "summary of theories" section, though "the confrontation among scholars is based on three sets of arguments which are of historical, archeological and linguistic character" isn't going to integrate well into the "the theories which have been set up in order to explain the fact that a language of Latin origin (the Romanian language) is spoken in modern Romania can be simplified into four basic models." Are there 3 or are there 4?Flyte35 (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The 5th paragraph and the Opreanu quote (the first "set of arguments") cover the theories #1 and #3 ("continuity" and "admigration").
The 6th and 7th paragraphs and the Schramm quote (the second "set of arguments") cover the theory #2 ("immigrationist").
The Pohl quote (the third "set of arguments") should be related to the theory #4, though I guess it's not exactly the same theory described there, but it goes even further - Romanian identity (ethnic, linguistic, etc.) could have been "hidden" (i.e. about language: if the native Romanian speakers were bilingual or trilingual, we may have them attested as speakers of Slavic, Hungarian or whatever) Daizus (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Edited based on above suggestions.Flyte35 (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Migration POV

Flyte, this interpretation is not un-controversial, therefore it shouldn't be presented as fact: "when a certain 'Voivode Bogdan, son of Micola' moved to Hungary in 1334, he brought along so many people that the migration stretched over nine months".

Problem 1. The identification of Bogdan son of Micola with Bogdan I of Moldavia is spurious, the link is POV-pushing in my opinion, suggesting there might be more to that connection than it really is.

Problem 2. The document does not mention anything about large scale migrations stretching over months. It is about a resettling in Banat of Bogdan woyvode filii Mykula, coming de terra sua. The document mentions the archbishop of Kalocsa who spent nine months in this province. Some Hungarian historians argued he was supervising the settlement of endless streams of people. Some Romanian historians pointed out this interpretation is arbitrary and inaccurate. I'm not sure if any other scholars cared to discuss this relatively obscure document. Daizus (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

André Du Nay

Dunay András = André Du nay

[7]Fakirbakir (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

His full book is here:[8] or here[9] Fakirbakir (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Just read WP:SPS. The fact that this text was published somewhere by an anonymous author that writes under pseudonym: [10] does not make it automatically reliable 79.117.141.39 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Who cares about the pseudonym? It does not really matter. Lots of author have pseudonyms. It is a well established work by linguistics and historians. This book has two editions (1977 and 1996).Fakirbakir (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
As long as we don't know who stays behind the pseudonym, I think it is a problem, cause we can't evaluate his competence on this subject. Gábor Vékony, an accredited Hungarian historian, refers to this specific work of him and claims that "it has many printing errors and, at times, its conclusions seem to be based on inadequate information": [11]. 79.117.174.152 (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Vékony talks about the book of 1977. There is another edition. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
And the second edition is probably fundamentally different of the first one, isn't it? I wonder what reason was invoked this time for not revealing his real name, cause I don't think it was the case of "political circumstances" in 1996, when the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania was part of the governing coalition... 79.117.157.216 (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I was invited to comment here: I have made a similar comment at WP:RSN. The Du Nay book looks to me like self-publication by an author whose expertise on the subject is unknown. Before we treat it as a reliable source, we should consider whether the author has published on this topic in peer-reviewed journals or with academic publishers, also whether this book has been independently reviewed in peer-reviewed journals. If it has, that's good! If not, I think we should look for different sources. Andrew Dalby 12:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Andre Du Nay is "entrance requirement" at the ELTE (MA level).[12] or [13]
Scholars as (cited): "Hasdeu, Densusuşianu, Philippide, Puşcariu, Rosetti, Tamás Lajos, Gáldi László, André du Nay."Fakirbakir (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
There is another interesting work about Du nay's book. [14]Fakirbakir (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I am copying the following discussion from my talk page in case it is useful:
User:Fakirbakir found a review of the book: [15] but unfortunately the view of the document is not free. Do you happen to have access to it? The opinion of the American historian Keith Hitchins, honorific Members of the Romanian Academy would be really interesting 79.117.167.76 (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Nice find. I was able to look at this review (which says nothing about Du Nay's expertise or other work). According to Hitchins, Du Nay has argued one side of the case (well, as we know, that often happens on this issue!) and he has marshalled the linguistic arguments well. Du Nay has not dealt adequately with the archaeological evidence. No satisfactory conclusions could therefore be reached. Based on this review, my suggestion would be that Du Nay could be cited on our page for his linguistic approach and evidence, but, if citing him, we should give his name in the text. It would be better to find other sources for archaeological evidence and for general conclusions.
You're welcome to copy this opinion of mine if it's useful, but please copy all of it -- don't select words. Thanks! Andrew Dalby 09:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your answer. Is your suggestion to remove this table that could be not very accurate because of his inadequate use of archaeological evidence?
I'll answer that question here. My opinion is that the table looks tantalisingly useful but in reality we need to find a better source for this material. It was precisely the problem with Du Nay's work, according to Hitchins, that he had only taken account of a small sample of the rich archaeological literature. Du Nay was very strong on linguistics, very weak on recent archaeology. Andrew Dalby 10:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
A little supplement for Romanian archeology: [16] Fakirbakir (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
That link doesn't work for me. Andrew Dalby 11:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
You can try to read it here [17]. However, I don't understand how this article is relevant in the discussion about Du Nay's competence in archeology
On the other hand, do you agree with this note? 79.117.142.39 (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem of recent archeology in his work is not because of his name. So, I have removed the note because it is nonsense.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Fakirbakir that {{Better source}} is what's needed. We don't need to speculate on Du Nay's identity. I'm grateful, too, for the link to Niculescu's work, which looks sensible to me. I don't see that it relates specifically to Du Nay -- it is interesting, though, as a comment on the general atmosphere of competitive nationalism that has surrounded this subject, making it so difficult to produce a neutral survey. Andrew Dalby 12:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As we did with Grumeza above, we need to clearly establish who this Dunay András/André Du nay is and how reliable he is. Fakirbakir, you seem to know more about him. Can you list here what you know about his education, credentials and work? If he is indeed a qualified linguist, than we should only quote him for linguistics and not history or archaeology. But if he is not even a linguist with the right credentials, the references to his work have to be removed, as it was done with Grumeza at Roman Dacia and other articles. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

He indeed uses pen-name however the foreword of the second edition (1996) is by Adam Makkai, Professor of Linguistics, University of Illinois at Chicago. One of his cowriter in another book "Alain Du nay" is also a pen-name. Actually there are different theories about his real identity (French/Hungarian, Hungarian, Romanian/Hungarian). He has to be a professional linguist if his book is "entrance requirement" at MA level in the biggest Hungarian university and linguist professor wrote the foreword for his book. I am trying to find infos.Fakirbakir (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Some linguistic aspects of the work are discussed in Romanian Journal of Linguistics: [18][19], edited by the Romanian Academy, but unfortunately the access to the text is restricted 79.117.135.54 (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians/Archive_10&oldid=1050229335"