Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Removed text

• Romania in Antiquity and in the Early Middle Ages

I'm not sure what point the following two quotations are there to support, so i'm removing them. Please feel free to return them to the article, but please do so in support of some point - don't just dump random quotations into the article for the hell of it! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

[Anonymous's] manner is much rather that of a romantic novelist than a historian, and his account of the Conquest of Hungary by the Magyars is replete with exciting and creditable episodes, very few of which can be substantiated from other sources. (...) [His] words (...) give no proof of the presence of Vlachs in Hungary at the Conquest (nor, be it emphasized, of their absence therefrom).

— Macartney, C. A. (1953)

The analysis of several fragments of [the Gesta Hungarorum] has demonstrated that this work is generally credible (...). The reliable data is confirmed by the archaeological evidence or by comparison with other written sources. (...) [The] most important conclusion is that the account about the conquest of [Transylvania] (...) combines data taken from oral traditions with invented facts.

— Madgearu, Alexandru (2005)

• Antiquity and in Early Middle Ages

More apparently out-of-context quotations removed per above:

The towns did not suddenly disappear. They were less peopled and they became ruralized settlements, but the life survived in most cases during the 4th century, and sometimes until the 6th century. (...) The ruralization was in fact a transition period, when elements of typical urban life [stonewalls and the use of mortar] continued to be present. (...) The archaeological evidence shows that the Daco-Roman Christian antiquities dated between 275 and the middle of the 5th century were found in the former towns or camps inhabited by civilians after the retreat of the army (l0 from the total of l4): Alba Iulia-Apulum, Moigrad-Porolissum, Răcari, Sarmizegetusa, Turda-Potaissa, Zlatna-Ampelum (...).

— Madgearu, Alexandru (2004)

One delicate moment for the national narrative is that of the end of the Roman province in AD 271. The withdrawal of the Romans is conceived in such a way that the poor, that is the "autochtons", the majority, the "demographic and economic basis," do not leave (...). (...) The entire archaeological construction of continuity of the local population is based on attributing everything belonging to the Roman tradition - artifacts, coins, Christianity, and so forth - to the "Daco-Romans" (...)."

— Niculescu, Gheorghe A. (2007)

Romanian archaeologists have provisionally identified a number of regional pottery groups, such as the Ipotești-Cândeşti-Ciurel Culture. The pottery groups of the area typically contain an intermixture regarded as representing Slav, "Romanized indigenous" and East Roman elements. The handmade pottery which represent these Early Slavs on the Danube plain differs from that in Moldavia and is somewhat more variable in style than the normal Korchak type of the Ukraine. The "Romanized indigenous" elements are represented (...) by a continuation of some types of handmade ceramic vessels related to the former Romanized Dacian Culture.

— Barford, P. V. (2001)

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Romanian language:

Removed because the first's point has already been made and 2nd introduces a point not yet mentioned in text.

The Roman technique of the fast wheel pottery, unknown to the Slavs (...) was preserved in Transylvania, Banat and Crişana (and occasionally in Oltenia and Wallachia) in 8th–9th century settlements. (...) In the same area (...) are attested words of Latin origin like: (...) arină < arena ("sand") (...), which are not used in other regions of Romania. They are concentrated on the territory of the former Roman Dacia, and this can reflect its continuous habitation.

— Madgearu, Alexandru (2005)

Since [Arumanian and Megleno-Romanian] do not betray the influence of Ancient Greek that they should if they had originated where they are spoken at the present, it is safe to assume that the speakers of these languages had moved to the south of the [Balkans] (...).

— Mišeska Tomić, Olga (2006)

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope that such statement as the last does not appear either implicitly or explicitly. Do these people not realize how they want to make Romanians danse around, so that they would not interfere with anybody local and poverish national mythology. Not allowed in the North for the ones, not in the South for the others, not in the Middle for the third. Stop the nonsense. It is the secret of Columbus egg. Why had the Romanians or Arumanians to DESCEND from either Greek or than Latin, or anything that the community owing the "interpretative monopole" agrees to accept? They spoke a language so close to latin, that they never had to go to school to learn the language of the Romans. And for this, they did not have to be either Greek, nor Hungarian or Bulgarian. They were Getae - wherever they lived. Is it so hard to think? I hope it is allowed to remove illogical aberations79.241.190.94 (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is hard to think. Since so little information we have on the language of the Getae excludes any comparison between it and other languages (see for intance, Fortson IV, Benjamin W. (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-0316-9. Page 24.) As to your first remark, please remember that the Balkan Peninsula is huge. Therefore a people could develop without meeting Greeks (who live in the southern part of the peninsula and once lived on the coastal regions). Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ciugud culture

By searching google book, I have found only one source (the one cited in the article) on the existence of the so-called "Ciugud culture". Are there other sources proving its existence? It is also unusual in the 2010s, that an archaeological culture is identified with a specific people (in this case, with Romanians). Why is it so clear that the bearers of the culture spoke the Romanian language?Borsoka (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Numismatic and silver hoards of Cârțișoara and Făgăraş

How can hoards of coints prove the presence of a specific nation? Do they contain coins with text written in the Romanian language? Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that any contributor here is an expert in numismatics/archeology. Ioan-Aurel Pop is a reliable author, so the information should be simply presented in the form the author puts it Raysdiet (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that we are not experts on this fields. However, WP is strange community: we do not accept POVs as facts just because HE or SHE states it. If Ioan-Aurel Pop is the only author who assumes that silver coins prove the presence of a specific nation in medieval Transylvania, this fact should be emphasized. Borsoka (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but which wiki rule affirms that a statement must be supported by at least 2 reliable sources? A single reliable source is enough. Raysdiet (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no such requirement. However, if Ioan-Aurel Pop is the only historian who connected those coin hoards and Vlachs, it is important to emphasize that this is his POV and it is not widely accepted by historians. Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea of the "Ciugud culture" is exclusively proposed by Thomas Nagler in the book cited in the article (which was edited by him and Ioan-Aurel Pop). The National Archaeological Record of Romania has no knowledge of the existence of this culture or sites at the village Ciugud [1]. Borsoka (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

National Archaeological Record of Romania is updated by archaeologists and it is not always up-to-date nor complete. Your statement related to RAN can be true but it cannot be used as an argument against acceptance.Saturnian (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

So, it is maybe "OR"? Fakirbakir (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, It might be the "Bjelo-Brdo culture". ".... A Gyulafehérvár-Mentőállomás II. temető az erdélyi Bjelo-Brdo-kultúra jellegzetes, a 10. század második felére keltezhető leletanyagát képviseli. Ţiplic az ún. Ciugud/Csügedkerámia jelenléte alapján bizonyítottnak látja (!) a szláv-romanizált csoportok továbbélését, melyek Hátszeg vidékén, valamint Kolozsvár–Gyulafehérvár térségében mutathatók ki....." [2] Fakirbakir (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure? Or is it a speculation? Saturnian (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure. I do not know. I am just trying to find it out whether Bjelo-Brdo is equal with "Ciugud Culture".... The Hungarian text above does not contain this statement however it mentions "Ciugud/Csüged type potteries" in connection with Slavs and romanized groups.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(1) Thomas Nagler wrote of the (according to him, "widespread") Ciugud culture in 2005 (2) In 2013, the National Archaeological Record of Romania does not make mention of this culture. I think we can assume that Nagler's idea of the specific "Ciugud" culture has not become widely accepted by Romanian archaeologist. All the same, the article refers to this idea. Borsoka (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Blakumen and Bolokhoveni

I'm a bit surprised that the article doesn't mention Blakumen and Bolokhoveni. Since they are counted as an early proto-Moldavian population in the 11th century, one would think their mention would be relevant. --Cei Trei (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your above remarks. Even if Bolokhoveni (who are only mentioned in connection with events occurring between 1231 and 1257) can hardly counted as an "early proto-Moldavian population in the 11th century". Moreover, their identification as a Romance-speaking population is not widespread in English language literature (I refer to Spinei, Victor (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century. Koninklijke Brill NV. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5. pp. 161-162.). The identification of the Blakumen of a runestone from around 1050 as Vlachs in modern Moldova is likewise debated, since the word can simply refer to "black people" and the runestone does not mention the place where these Blakumen killed a Varangian merchant. (For further details I refer to Pintescu, Florin (2001). Presences de l’element viking dans l’espace de la romanité orientale en contexte méditerranéen. Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica (Centrul Interdisciplinar de Studii Arheoistorice) VIII: 257–272. ISSN 1224-2284). All the same, I agree that both population should be mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I understand, from this Wikipedia article (which uses sources), Spinei identified "Blokumannaland ... "to a territory inhabited by Vlachs south of the Lower Danube"; and then this: "Accordingly, they propose that the Blökumenn of the Flatey Book, similarly to the Blakumen of the runic inscription from Gottland, were Vlachs from Moldavia or Wallachia." Although some scholars connect the name with the Cumans, my impression is that most scholars connect the name with Vlachs. "Furthermore, Bolechow (Bolekhiv, Ukraine), a settlement to which a Polish charter from 1472 refers as the "town called "the Vlachs'" can also be identified with Bolokhovo." Here's an interesting observation: "In the modern Icelandic language, the term Blokumannaland may refer either to Wallachia or to Africa." --Cei Trei (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. References to both populations were added. Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A new (unused) source for the article

A documented chronology of Roumanian history from pre-historic times to the present day

http://www.restromania.com/_sections/Origins.htm

Saturnian (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a nice copy of the version as of at 20:50, 24 July 2012 of this article with references to books mainly written in the early 1900s. However, as an external links it can be added. Borsoka (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Some interestings sources - and soo much indigested logics, in what these historians even tend to agree upon. Example: the Jercek line of demarcation of findings with Greek inscriptions and such ones with Latin inscription. It is somewhere in the Balcans, for reasons unknown - but certainly related to some number of findings. Assuming that this line realy is a demarcation line of latin versus greek influence - they assume this, let us assume this for a moment - they want to conclude the Arumanians never could have formed south of the Jerecek line. Why? Well, since they are latins and latins are not allowed south of Jerecek, don't you see? But wait, they are not allowed North, since the _others_ want them to come from the south. You see: it is clear, we must have come from Heavens, there was no place for us on earth, while all these thriving migrators poured into out space and were astonished how useless their swords were, since there was enough to live upon. But there memory does not want them to recall having encountered - and certainly intermarried - with our ancestors. So we came from heaven, who ever takes the time to quote all these absurd theories on wiki, can make life of the reader easire. Romanians came from Heavens, the day they were assured that neither Hungarians, nore Bulgarians, Serbs or other people will be gealous of their having been there and remained there, after arrival of migrations.

On a more serious tone though: We have Roman emperors and Caesars who had been Dacians, Thracians, from 280 to Justinian, without interruption. And LATIN emperors, the Hellenistic phase is after Justininan. They should not be allowed south of Jerecek. And again, since unfortunately we have no written testimony from the Aromanians - what could THEY care about Jerecek, since all Jerecek is about are written artefacts. The Aromanian space was Ohrida, Pind mountains to the Aegean (including Saruna/Thesaloniki, where the first Eastern Rome was moved: ola, latin inscriptions!). What do we do with these arguments which are not there to construct any understanding they are there only as prohibitive signs - do not think this way, do not think that way!79.241.190.94 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anon, you misunderstand what the Jirecek Line means: it is not a phenomenon which existed for ever. The Jirecek Line is a line which divides Southeastern Europe based on the dominance of Latin and Greek inscription in the 1st-6th centuries AD. The territory bordered by the Jirecek line from the south and the Danube to the north is rather huge encompassing, for instance, the northern part of Bulgaria, almost the whole territory of Serbia, relevant parts of the Republic of Macedonia (For a detailed map I refer to the map inserted between the pages 156 and 157 in Mihăescu, H. (1993). La Romanité dans le Sud-Est de L'Europe [=The Romans in South-Eastern Europe]. Editura Academiei Române. ISBN 973-27-0342-3). Accordingly, a huge territory was inhabited for 5 centuries by masses of Latin-speaking peoples, but the same territory is now almost entirely inhabited by Slavic speaking peoples. Therefore, there is no need to assume that the Romanians came from Heavens, since they had time to develop in these huge regions between the Jirecek Line and the Danube, and leave the same territories to the south (towards Thessaly, Epirus) and to the north (to Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia). Yes, there were many Latin-speaking Roman Emperors of Illyrian origin in the 3rd and 6th centuries: they were born in the same territories bordered by the Jirecek Line and the Danube, exactly in the regions where the masses of the speakers of Latin lived in the same period. So I think there is no need to assume "prohibitive signs" when scholars write their views. I suggest that you should read the books cited in this article: there is no mystery around them. Borsoka (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

On the use of sources

The old sources for the ethnogenesis - especially those referring explicitly to names that we still associate to Romanian, are very scarce. I think that some critical understanding of the relation of the author to the people should be used, such data can be found. As an example, Jordanes is known for his work on the Goths, but it is known that he also had good reasons to exagerate their qualities, and this was used for "rescaling" his claims.

Such rescaling is often very important in the history of Romanians. Since not many authors have looked carefully in this direction, I recommend an american historian who published also on the net: http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#fifth. Typical questions are such ones as 1) What happened within centuries with the population that Herodotus said to be more numerous than any other ones except the Indians (namely the Gets). Some typical answers are that we find them under various denominations, some of which are not recognized in their link to the Gets - or Thrako-Daks - any more. 2) Who were the emperors of Constantinople, that spoke latin - from Constantine to Justinian, for example. The answer: we should consider them as belonging to the ancestor groups of present Romanians and Aromanians - i.e. South East Latins, whose ethnogenesis is unserparable.

I would propose some modification of sources and text along these lines - any development responsible around here?91.48.104.99 (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your above remarks. I fully agree with you that "some critical understanding of the relation of the author to the people should be used". For instance, Herodotus' "belief in geographical symmetry caused him to place the mouth of the Danube due north of the Nile delta, effectively enlarging Thrace to India proportions and reducing Scythia" which caused that he wrote of the large number of Thracians. (I refer to Timothy Taylor: "Thracians, Scythians, and Dacians, 800 BC-AD 300", page 186. In: Barry Cunliffe (1994): The Oxford Illustrated History of Prehistoric Europe. ISBN 978-0-19-285441-4) For instance, the ancient geographer Pausanias wrote that the Celts outnumbered the Thracians (I refer to page 63 in István Schütz (2002). Fehér foltok a Balkánon: Bevezetés az albanológiába és a balkanisztikába [=Blank Spots in the Balkans: Introduction to Albanology and Balkanistics]. Balassi Kiadó. ISBN 963-506-472-1). Accordingly, reliable sources suggest that Herodotus' exaggerated report on the great number of Thracians has often been misunderstood. Although the article refer to a number of Latin-speaking emperors (including Constantine the Great) who was of Illyrian origin, I agree with you that other emperors could be added. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Great! My question had an obvious impact, since you landed in a total different area, being unwilling to reply directly, you suggest you can turn the direction of discussion, at your will. Sad sad song!

The errors you attribute to Herodotus are a regional interpretation, far from being a scientific common. The desctiption of the Danube is considered sufficiently accurate by others, and the fact you refer to is a misunderstanding of interpreters and not of Herodotus. Interpreters who want to discard some of his statements. We are for instance used to the tactics of twisting the statements of old sources which mention unwelcome facts, in order to discard those facts from debate. Example: the whole tribulation around the Cronicle of Bela's Anonymous. We do not want to enter this sad tactics here, do we?

I see of course what your desires are in citing Pausanias. There is a major problem there too: the fact that except for those interested in purpurting "scientific-political" dogmas, the demarcation line between Getae and Kelts is not an obvious one. There are attributions stemming from historians of the antiquity: but little is known about their criteria of attribution. Can we expect that Kelts were, for instance one linguistic family and Getae an other one, like Germanic versus Slawic, 1000 years later, for instance? Nothing less obvious, if we consider Helvets and Rets and compare to Irisch and Scotts. And how close or far apart were they from the Boii? Yet all are accepted as Kelts, without comments. Some try to add determination by means of material cultures. The degree of accuracy of all these various approaches is a fraction of 50%. They probably were quite distinct at the respective "center of gravity of their civilizations". But due to the large spread and lack of unifying structures, it is very likely, that towards the borders, a keltic tibe like the Boii resembled more their neighbouring Gets, than the Irish one. What more is, when Kelts reached East Europe, 3-200 BC, they appear to have cohabited with the Getae in a peacefull was - there was at least compatibility.

The wish of denial with "scientific sources" fails thus before it can even act. We assume, as modern people, that Kelts were something, Getae was something else, two perfectly distinguished and distinguishable notions, which knew each other appart, and who lived in areas of Europe that were less or more known to the Geographer - so we assume there was at least a well defined object of observaiton (Getae/Kelts) which could have been well determined, somehow constant along the centuries, provided good methods of observation. This is a very naive premise, which few historians, both serious or partinic ones, take into account. Simply because it would make things too complicated.

Do you really want to go that way? I won't take this worn out arguments of sharp and superficial logics so easily, we have both been around, I guess, to know. There is a positive outlook to history and the part we can undertand about it. 91.48.107.195 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Oh Freunde, nicht diese Töne! 91.48.107.195 (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a translation of Herodot: "For the Nile flows from Libya, right through the middle of it; and as I guess, reasoning about things unknown from visible signs, it rises proportionally as far away as does the Ister. [3] For the Ister flows from the land of the Celts and the city of Pyrene through the very middle of Europe; ". So he says that Nile and Ister are similar in LENGTH. Never that they are close to each other. The Nile is in Lybia (definitely Africa) and the Ister traverses the midth of Europa - and so it does. When people cannot accept facts, how twisted their mind can be. Judge for yourself, and search for other flaws in Herodot, if it pleases you. Not that it matters, I explained above why it does not: //www.maryjones.us/ctexts/classical_herodotus.html91.48.107.195 (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank for your above remarks. If those are based on reliable sources, please do not refrain from editing WP according to them. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You surprize me! I was talking about something completely different, you tried to put a no, jumping to a collateral argument about Herodotus and the Nile, which had little to do with what I had initially discussed, and I responded first to your deviation. Of course the translation of Herodotus is reliable, do you think people make their own translations? But it was NOT the subject, it was YOUR subject. Funny way of discussing here, I think I will go my way, then people can always state their opinion.

By the way, writing out regulations about "reliable sources" does not help much in history. What is reliable to the one, is deformation and abuse to the other. Very few are the shinning lights that anyone feels at ease with, history is not a science in the exact sense, all pretention it could be, leads to disasters. So please spear me formalisms, I know how to quote and what can be quoted, and I know how to explain to fellow humans the difference between irrefutable knowledge and meaningful deduction which best fits the data.91.48.121.140 (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not see your point. Nobody restrains you from editing. Nobody wants you to shut up. However your contributions have to be based on reliable sources. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anon, I think you are new in Wikipedia. I suggest that you should read what a reliable source means for our community's purposes. I think this link ("What Wikipedia is not") would also be helpful for you. I hope you will enjoy this community experience called Wikipedia. Best regards Borsoka (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Concise?

Surely the article can be made to read more economically ? At the moment, itsfrankly a little ugly. Seems many sections are duplicated. How about just one historiography section, then present all the arguements with the relevant evidence for a northern and southern Danubian homelands, resp Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Slovenski Volk, I agree with you that the article should be improved and shortened. Please specify the parts which potentially contain duplicated info. On the other hand, please read "Wikipedia:Pro and con lists". I think the present way of presentation of the facts is more neutral. Borsoka (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Dont get me wrong, i think editing parties have done a great job to collect the data and present it in a neutral way in waht is otherwise a controversial topic. However, for example, section 1) "theories on Romanians ethnogenesis" can be worked into and introduced in the historiography -> which should be section 1).

Then we can present all the evidence - including historical prelude/ background, literary, archaeological , linguistic as subsections; or individual sections, what ever is preferred. Then , perhaps as a concluding section, highlight which aspects of the evidence supports the most popular theories.

This is just a suggestion. I realize that it can often be difficult to streamline articles, as much as one might want. Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

As thus

Historiography

Evidence

Historical background

Literary sources

Archaeological data

Linguistic inferences

Conclusion/ Post-Modern discourse

Thanks for the above clarification. I am just thinking of what would be the subject of the last section? Do you have literature on the post-modern discourse on the origin of the Romanians? I must also admit that the merger of the first two present sections would be strange for me. How could we present the theory of the Romanians Bashkirian or pure Latin origin together with the continuity theory (the first two theories are not accepted by any historians, while the second is still a popular theory in Romania)? Otherwise as far as I understand the above suggestion follows the present sectioning of the article ((1) History (2) Written sources (3) Archaeology (4) Linguistic) Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

They can merely be listed , simply as that. Surely one would not need to dwell on fringe theories such as bashkirian ?

And no, unfortunately, there is very little good quality, post 1980s, non-nationalistic work on the question of vlach origins. There is V Spinei's book, Ill have to look at it again. The problems is caused by Hungarian scholars wishing to prove that Transylvania and northern Danubian lands were devoid of Romance speakers on the one hand; with Romanian scholars confusing the notion of population continuity with that of an ethnic one. Needless to say, both parties are wrong, and have long held back any real progress on the subject. Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we should merge "History of Romanian" and "Origin of Romanians" articles somehow (or at least their contents about early history of Romanian language). They are very close subjects. I think the Slavic influence on Romanians deserves more attention in this article. "Hungarian scholars wishing to prove" I disagree. Not just Hungarian linguists assume that roots of Romanian language derive from territories close to present-day Albania (or Kosovo), (See Substratum section, for instance.)Fakirbakir (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian scholars never denied existence of Romance speaker population in Transylvania, but, they never supported continuity of "Romance speaker population". Fakirbakir (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the subjects of the above two articles (History of Romanian and Origin of the Romanians) could hardly be merged. For instance, the history of the Romanian language begins when the formation of the Romanian people ended. Borsoka (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I could have chosen my words betterl however, the problem with Albanian connections is that the Albanians themselves are not a "fixed" location for comparison. Eg how do know that the Albanians are not from the north ? Eg Danubian region, rather than locals from Epirus ? No source mentions Albanians until 11/ 12th century . But what cannot be deined is the strong existence of Romance speakers in the central balkans (sth Serbia, macedonia, northern Greece). This is where Greek, Romance, and Slavic were spoken side by side for many hundreds of years, and hence this is where the Balkan spracbund originated Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed something. So far I have thought that a possible restructuring of the article is the subject of this discussion. Borsoka (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It is. I just replied to FB's Not just Hungarian linguists assume that roots of Romanian language derive from territories close to present-day Albania (or Kosovo) , slightly tangential, ye, but nevertheless pertinent. Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)