Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

More balanced Roman Dacia section, Romania in the early middle ages page

I've added more of Oltean to the Roman Dacia section. I believe, with the fairly new, rather elaborate and erudite Romania in the Early Middle Ages page it is only approprate to put a bit more emphasis here on Dacia Romana.

Also, since about January of this year the Thraco-Roman page has become quite elaborate, reflecting some of the newer thinking about early Romanian history.

Eravian (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagging without discussing ; Due diligence on our sources

Well, I am glad that here we are at least following Wikipedia procedure in terms of tagging and allowing reasonable time for other editors to respond. On the other hand, I am not too thrilled by this editor's tactics of not discussing and debating what his/her problems are with these absulutely impeccable secondary sources of the highest standards anybody can find anywhere in the scientific literature of today. Therefore, I am removing these tags. If this editor continues to have a problem with these sources, he/she should continue to tag, give reasonable time for a response and most importantly discuss, debate the problem he/she has with the particular citations. Tagging without discussing is simply not acceptable by Wikipedia. I must add: It does take some audacity to question Bryn Mawr Classical Review which is the GOLD Standard today of scientific journals dealing with history and archeology. What are the qualifications of this editor to label dubious such outstanding living scientists as Dr.Neil Faulkner and Professor Dr.Livio Zerbini?

I tagged one sentence attributed to Oltean. I do not believe she ever specifically mentions the Carpi. It would be best to quote something more directly from her, such as the statement about the military sites contributing to the rapid romanization of the territory (p.219).

I would still prefer not using Paul MacKendrick as a source. I've done some DD (due diligence) on this source. I contacted the University of Wisconsin, Madison where professor MacKendrick had worked for twenty five years at the classics department. Emeritus Professor Barry Powell wrote back:

I first met Paul in 1973, but I would be confident that he visited sites in Romania personally. It was his modus operandi always to visit sites on the field before writing them up. Paul was a fairly old fashioned kind of scholar and I would never call him a historian. His gift was for digesting excavation reports and putting them in a form accessible for a wide public. So you will have to depend on your own devices, but surely Paul read the usual accounts. He was a ferocious anti-communist I'd say, having seen it up close, and held to the liberal ideals of the democratic party.

As I noted before, the problem I see with MacKendrick's statements about the Dacians is the time-frame, the historical circumstances in which he wrote his book (The Dacian Stones Speak). He was a competent archeologist, but not a historian at all. When he makes this overriding general statement about the Dacians becoming completely romanized "within five generations", "remaining so today (i.e. in 1973)" and "Romanian cultural commitment to the west", this was just using standard US political language prevailing then towards Romania, because of the "independent" (anti-Soviet) foreign policy of the Ceausescu regime. MacKendrick gives no explanation, no reasoning as to how Dacians became romanized, he just "read the usual accounts" about this, because that was what the American public needed to read at that time about Romania.

MacKendrick is simply not the best source to use today. For example L.Ellis' treatise in World Archaeology "Terra Deserta. Population, Politics and the (de)Colonization of Dacia" from 1998 would be a much better source. Ellis, despite of the title of his article does not believe that Dacia was "Terra Deserta" and supports a survival of the Dacians in the country-side.

Eravian (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Unfortunately, Octavian is engaging in edit-warring. He has applied 4 tags now two times in a row without discussing it or having given any reason for these here on the discussion page or on any of the user pages.

I am perfectly willing to discuss and debate the merits of each and every respectable secondary source which I have selected after a lot of work and careful consideration.

If an editor disagrees with these sources he should find equally qualified erudite secondary sources, not tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, travel guide-books, multi-country historical compendiums. If such sources can be found I am perfectly willing to accept them, but I will do due-diligence on them to make sure they really measure up to Wikipedia standards.

Eravian (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is very funny, and tels a lot about user Eravian. Just check the listing of this discussion page and don't read only the section called TAGS, but also some of the others like Verbatim citations and Edits by Eravian, to see how old the discussion related to these sources is.Octavian8 (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have added the book citation from Zerbini where all his ideas are spelled out exactly the way they are summerized in his science film. I also changed the citation on Bryn Mawr to emphasize the fact that we are talking about a book by W.S.Hanson and I.P. Haynes. Calling the reviewer, a respected university lecturer from DePauw University or the authors as having a "malicious understanding" is the same category as your having called me a thief on your talk page.

I guess ultimately the problem for you, Octavian, is that you cannot accept the consensus of the 7 authors mentioned in the Hanson and Haynes' book: "the indigenous population did not play a significant role in the creation of a new Roman society in Dacia". These scholars managed to "disentangle the discussion from the issue of Romanian national identity". Unfortunately, you do not seem to be able to do the same thing.

I will take my chances with Dr.Faulkner and remove that tag. I leave the original research tag there for a while even though I fail to see where I am doing any original research.

Eravian (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Eravian,

• Then cite the book by Zerbini verbatim and I hope it is in english, otherwise it can be accepted only in the italian Wikipedia. The TV show is not acceptable.
• The article in Bryn Mawr is still a review, I can think about accepting it if you come with something like impact factors for it in comparison with impact factors of renowned journals as well as credentials for the authors.
• For Faulkner you've solved none of the problems, so the tag remains. If you find no article by him to state the same thing, the corresponding text must disappear.
• As long as your sources are questionable, the text you compose can be seen as "original research".
• You have no idea what I am thinking, so STOP putting words into my mouth. I never said that I believe the Dacians played a major role on the formation of the Romanian people. If you would have bothered to read my edits (not the edits of other authors that for the sake of a civil discussion I've tired to save from your edit spree) you would have seen that I do not support this idea. Conversely I don't think that they had absolutely no influence whatsoever either. The Romanian people formed around the latin language that united the many different people living there after the Roman administration departed. This is the idea, which is not necessarily mine, but I along many modern Romanian historians sustain. To make room for this in Romania you have to first make people understand, that it is not the Dacians and the Romans that were their exclusive ancestors. This is where Oltean, Boia, etc. play their part. Read their books properly and you will see where they are pointing. So, QUIT lecturing me about Ceausescu and a free society, I know very well, perhaps better than you, what this means.
• The problem with you is that you - for whatever reason - can't understand written text. This thing with me calling you a thief is like the issue before with the Tags section. You delete the tags and yell that there is no discussion when the discussion had even an own section... On my page I've used a 'saying' or 'figure of speech' to make this point clear, that's why it had quotation marks, but again you didn't bother to read properly or you can't understand what's written and jump to conclusions. My advice to you, first read, be certain that you interpret the text correctly and you've missed nothing, THEN start commenting.

Regards,Octavian8 (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

With some dilligence, knowledge and imagination, one can read online some fragments from Roman Dacia, here's Neil Faulkner's article, and for Ioana Oltean's opinions read also this paper. Daizus (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the issues rised with respect to the citations by Faulkner were solved, so the citation will be deleted. Particularly when dealing with such a heated and sensible topic we MUST stick to credible reliable sources. An article on an internet site of some news organization is just not good enough in these circumstances even if it is allowed by wikipedia standards in extremis.

Wikipedia: reliable sources; Wikipedia. Citing sources

Dear Octavian, I really appreciate your detailed descussion of the citation problem in Wikipedia because it does go to the very core of what Wikipedia is and what it should be about. This is a learning process for all of us and we should read and reread all pertinent Wikpedia guide-lines about this. May I bring to your attention Wikipedia: Reliable sources as well as Wikipedia: Citing Sources. Wikipedia accepts as citions:

• books
• journal articles
• newspaper articles
• web pages

"However, audio, video materials broadcast by a reputable third party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered a reliable source"

The emphasis is on the authors, who "are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

In terms of non English sources Wikipedia states: "However, do use other languages where appropriate. Provide a qoute in the original language and the English translation."

In terms of criticizing Bryn Mawr Classical Review may I bring to your attention this Wikipedia template:

This template states: "Please replace inadequate primary references with secondary sources such as SCIENTIFIC REVIEW ARTICLES.

If it is not clear, let me clarify the circumstances of this particular Bryn Mawr science review article. In 2001 there was a scientific conference at Glasgow University organized by Professor W.S.Hanson. There were Romanian participants including Oltean. Five papers were delivered and versions of these and two others were published in a book in 2004 entitled "Roman Dacia, The Making of a Provincial Society" with main authors W.S.Hanson and Haynes. This book then was reviewed and summarized by Jinyu Liu of DePauw University for the 03/12/2005 issue of Bryn Mawr Classical Review.

Now, may I say, this is how science works, this is absulutely the highest, most respectable science there is. This is how science is done not just in this but in every other field. It is called peer-review. And this type of science review article is exactly what Wikipedia wants because it reflects the views of not one author but the consensus of a bunch of scientists working on the problem.

A similar conference about the Lower Danubian Provinces of Rome will take place this fall organized by Professor Dr.Livio Zerbini at the University of Ferrara, Italy.

So, please leave these citations alone because if we start edit-warring and have to go to the editorial notice board, I am absolutely convinced that these sources will be allowed based on the fact that there are simply very few reliable sources in this field. It is a small field and only a few university researchers, archeology magazine editors - such as Dr.Neil Faulkner - have anything to say about Roman Dacia or the problem of Romanization.

I sympathize with your objection to my constant references to the Ceausescu era. However, if there is anything that I am convinced of based on Boia, Niculescu in particular, it is the fact that anything from the Ceausescu era is tainted by the prevailing official views of that era. For this reason I would also argue against using MacKendrick. There are these more recent sources and especially the Bryn Mawr science review article expresses the currently prevailing view on the subject.

Eravian (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also appreciate if somebody could provide here on the discussion page an exact quote with page numbers supporting these claims:

Oltean: Statement about Carpi (and Costoboci) Mitchell: Statement about romanozation further increased by captives brought north by barbarian tribes.

Eravian (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have Ioana Oltean's book in digital format. There's no statement on Carpi and on Costoboci there's only one, p. 46: " According to Ptolemy, the northernmost tribes starting from the West were the Anarti, the Teurisci and the Coertoboci (Costoboci)."

For Stephen Mitchell I have only Google Books, on population movements across Danube check this and on prisoners north of Danube check this, this and this. Daizus (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oltean on p.46 is quoting Ptolemy's listing of various population groups of Dacia in the middle of the second century AD. Apparently she is not speculating on the effects of Carpi attacks on romanization. Thus I have removed that sentence as being an erroneously attributed claim.

From Mitchell I am only able to read pp200-201. These pages are about Attila the Hun in the 5th century AD. It is hard to see how this book could be qouted to support claims of romanization of Dacians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. I do not see any chapters dealing specifically with Roman Dacia. The book encompasses the huge area of the western and eastern Roman Empire over a huge time frame from 284AD to 641AD. Claims derived from this book for an earlier time period would seem ex post facto. The book is very good, Professor Mitchell would be a reliable source. See this Bryn Mawr review of his book:.http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2007/2007-06-13.htmlEravian (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is what I've noticed a lot from the Pro-Continuity section: It's chocked full of blind assertions; claims, quotes, or both are non-sequiturs; out-of-text quote-mining; circular reasoning, question begging, inaccuracies and some outright falsehoods. Although the continuity theory is viable, yet why does it seem to fall apart when put through the fire by independent (non-romanian, non-hungarian) historians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypothetical BS (talk • contribs) 17:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

European Genetic Map by Manfred Kayser

According to a new study by geneticist Manfred Kayser of Erasmus Uiversity in the Netherlands, Romanians from the extreme south are related to fellow Balkan populations such as former Yugoslav republics, Hungarians, Greeks and even overlaps the Italians as well meaning that Roman colonisation was an important factor in ancient Romania and that there is credibility to it. Of course, there will be overlapping with Hungarians to the proximity of Hungary and Greece, just like the Italians overlap other historically Roman nations, such as the Portuguese, Spanish, and some French people; also which includes the Romanian ethnic group as well. What surprised me was the southern Italian sample, often considered to be the cradle of Greek civilisation in southern Italy, does not even touch Greek samples.[1] 24.36.33.146 (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Galati

• Yes, I also think it is a remarkable map. Romanians practically seem to be identical to ex-Yougoslavians with some mixture with Greeks and a minimal North-Italian heritage. But it is also interesting that French has no Latin heritage according to the map, while based on the map, Hungarians did not migrate from the steppes (in contrast to the Romanians who had some non-European heritage). I think we should be careful before concluding anything based on a sole genetical map. Borsoka (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I also agree with both of you. My interpretation, and I would like to underline that this is my interpretation, is that ex-Yugoslavia, most of Romania, northern Greece, some smaller areas of Hungary and, I am guessing this because Bulgaria is not on the map, Bulgaria formed in old antiquity (before Roman conquest) a relatively homogeneous generic mass. This mass was culturally Romanized, but with very little generic inflow. Also my interpretation is that modern Hungarians are generically more of common origin with Poles, Czechs and Slovaks. They in turn were culturally Magyrized, but in the entire mass that was a relatively small generic inflow. So, recent Slovak-Hungarian troubles are between brothers (literally) that adopted different cultures. I think I would agree to the assessment Borsoka gives that Romanians would have to have some more non-European gene influx than say ex-Yugoslavians and other people of the Balkans, but where exactly do you read that on the map? Word of caution: just as Borsoka said, I think scientists should do the interpretations, too, not us. My personal interpretation is one thing, it can help get a vague idea of what is probably the truth, but no more. Dc76\^talk 19:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, if my above remark was misunderstandable. I only wanted to note that a sole genetic map does not and cannot prove anything, especially one cannot conclude that the map suggests that "Roman colonisation was an important factor in ancient Romania". The map suggests that there was a non-significant Latin (or North-Italian) element among the ancestors of the Romanians, and there is a significant Greek heritage within the Romanian population; moreover, based on the map we can also realize a significant genetic heritage within the Romanian population which is not shared with the individualized European nations. At the end of the day, I also would like to suggest that we should refrain from providing any interpretation for a genetic map if our interpretation is not based on a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure whether the map shows France having no Latin heritage. Firstly the southern Italian sample touches the French Lyon based sample. Imagine if the Italian sample was closer to Rome, or Tuscany, or Liguria. There would be much more overlap with the French samples, considering that the samples taken from Spain were from the northern and central parts of the country. Therefore, France does show some Latin heritage, considering that the French sample shows similarities to the Portuguese, Italians, Spaniards, and not so far from Romania.

The sample taken from Campania (the southern Italian sample) overlaps with the Romanian. What if the Italian sample had been taken from the Veneto, or Friuli. It would show much more similarities to that of Balkan and Romanian samples surely. That is just my interpretation mind you. Another thing I appreciate about this map is that it defeats the stereotypes that northern and southern Italians are largely different; in fact it shows that both populations are similar, and it debunks the idea that Greeks majorly impacted the Campanian region.

I think the map does show a Latin element in the Romanian population considering that in a sea of Balkan and Slavic nations, Romania still has a Latin element why it can overlap Italian the southern Italian sample. Overall, it shows that all Europeans, from north to south, east to west are all quite similar with small genetic differences due to location. 24.36.33.146 (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Galati

24.36.33.146, may I suggest you make a WP account and edit this and related articles. You would clearly be able to do that better than I do. Dc76\^talk 12:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I have one (Galati), I just forget to sign in!Galati (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Galati

Have you all actually looked at this haplogroup map of Europe?http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml Why should this Eupedia page be any less reliable than any other info on haplogroup genetics? The only thing which is clear from this map is that Eastern European (interestingly included Austrians and Czechs and even Southern Germans) are very similar to each other and quite different from the people in the West of the continent. Drawing far reaching conclusions from haplogroup genetic studies would seem very premature.Eravian (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand your frustration. Perhaps no one had bumped into this map why it was not regarded. No one is discounting its credibility. And all European peoples are still very much related with some differences. Galati (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Galati

Vandalistic edit by editor 142.167.79.96

Dear unknown editor! Please, observe a bare minimum of Wikipedia editing standards! If you have any objections to any section, any statement or claim, please tag it as , or and describe your objections in detail on the discussion page. As Wikipedia editors, we are all open to civilised debate and compromise. Your specific objection to this section is that the quest for Romanian national origins started in the renaissance rather than in the 18th century. This is a legitimate point, however, if you read romantic nationalism, it really came into fruition in the 18th century and as far as I know the first more significant Romanian who got involved with Trajan's column and the Dacians was Micu Klein who was in Rome to study in the middle of the 18th century. However, this is beside the point. If you have a claim and it is contested it must be backed up with reliable secondary sources.

Even if we were to modify the time when the Romanian quest for national origins started that is no reason to remove reliable sources such as Lucian Boia. So, please, whoever you are, log in, tag, discuss and be ready to compromise!

Eravian (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear editor 142.167.90.125! Would you, please afford us the curtesy of tagging the text objected to before making gross and drastic changes? Are you hiding behind different URL numbers using sockpuppets or proxy servers? Please, describe your objections here. Why do you deem quotes from Lucian Boia unnecessary? Are you one and the same with 142.167.79.96?

Eravian (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not logged in when I made those previous edits, but the entire section is almost pure garbage the way you and co wrote it. Here's just a few examples:

• You claim people only started looking into the origin of the Romanians during the 18th century and nationalist era? I strongly suggest you read Antonius Bonifini or some other medieval humanists. Armbruster's book is a good compendium of a huge amount of sources that cover the origin of the Romanians long before the 18th century.
  • I did not claim such a thing, but Romantic nationalism came into full fruition in the 18th century and no nation in Europe, including Romanians was immune to that. Anybody interested in the history of Romanian historiography can read Lucian Boia's book and I did make a reference to that. This is not a major point though.
    • Lucian Boia is not the only source and furthermore it is factually incorrect to say people only started looking into the origins of the Romanians in the 18th century. It is simply not true when we read the works of Francesco della Valle and others, from the age of Humanism.
• "Romanian historians" yet Roesler is "international"? The connotation of the entire text is obvious: you wish to make a "Romania vs. the world" portrayal, even though the Daco-Roman Theory was developed FIRST by foreign historians, including Mommsen and others. Please, keep your nationalist trash-talk to yourself; this is Wikipedia.
  • Roesler was an international lingiust in the sense that he studied and compared a number of languages. Unfortunately "Romania vs. the world" is still true to some extent especially if we look at historians, archeologists who published most of their work in Romania during the Ceausescu dictatorship. Several Romanian historians have been recognized though internationally in recent times such as Boia, Oltean, Niculescu, Florin Curta, Mutu.
    • Actually it's more like "Hungary vs. the world" if we are to go by the vast majority of academic sources available. Just look at the citations mage; almost all of the anti-continuity arguments come from 3 Hungarian sources, one of them by a political lobbyist ("Ethnic Continuity in the...")
• The quotes by Lucian Boia have nothing to do with 'Dacomania' and his opinion is not as "esteemed" as you may think. The entire sentence "of our time" is laughable. He's not as well cited as Alexandru Madgearu, Ion Aurel-Pop, or yes, even Armbruster who you seem to dislike. Lucian Boia wrote two controversial books; does that make him an authority on everything now? Does that make him the only Romanian historian in this article who deserves blockquotes? Sorry, but no. His quotes are superfluous.
  • Lucian Boia is apparently the currently most internationally recognized Romanian historian exactly because of his, as his Wikipedia page states, debunking Romanian nationalist historians. I do not insist on block quotes, in line qoutes are fine, but I think Boia's statement about Roesler and his warning about the limitations of archeology are absolutely relevant.
    • Please provide one source for this statement; otherwise it is trash. I have never seen Boia referenced by any other academic. Furthermore, Boia's books recieved a lot of criticism simply factually. He's one of those trendy new "objectivists" that are in fact not objective because they are like a pendulum that swung the other way.
• Theories are not "born" but "created".
  • Born or created is only a figure of speech, it is a minor point, it does not change the meaning.
• Several parts of it were ambiguous ("the conquest"? At least say "the Roman conquest").

So I was perfectly correct in adjusting what was written there. So that entire section is divided into ambiguous information, superfluous information, and purposefully misleading information.

• • The conquest of Dacia and its aftermath i.e. the creation of a new Roman society in Roman Dacia is a well studied and defined period of history ending with the evacuation of Dacia by the Romans in 271AD. We must use sources for this time period which deal specifically with this time period. As I discussed before using sources which deal with later time periods results in ex post facto conclusions. Ex post facto conclusions would constitute logical fallacies. I do not object to your new sources, I will study them further to verify their reliability. However, logic requires that we separate Roman Dacia and post-Roman Dacia citations. There is a definite chronological order we should keep.Eravian (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It's impossible to talk about Romanian ethnogenesis if you do not talk about what happened after the conquest. It is like talking about the origins of the French but ending your study at Vercingetorix.

Romano-Dacis (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Romano-Dacis, Thank you for identifying yourself. I appreciate your comments and remarks, but could you, please refrain from offensive language such as describing my contributions as "garbage", "nationalist trash-talk" etc,. My intention is certainly not to create "garbage" or "trash". My intention is to study the subject and use the most up-to-date, most reliable sources there are. As I stated above I am letting your post-Roman Dacia citations stay under the next heading, but in return I insist on the two qoutes from Boia, and Dr.Neil Faulkner and I take out McKendrick because it was written in 1973 during the Ceasescu dictatorship.

Eravian (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The new sources quoted by Romano-Dacis, namely Julian Benett, Michael Lapidge, Pat Southern and Alaric Watson deserve to be examined for reliabilty. One problem I am already seeing with Julian Benett is the persistent use of the terminology Gato-Dacian. As Nuculescu, Boia, desribe this question this is a terminology not found in ancient sources and was coined by Dacianist historians. Even Oltean refrains from using this term. The use of this term in and of itself shows some bias in julian Benett's argumentation.

Eravian (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• • You are just wrong on Bennett. The author uses Geto-Dacian because it is a useful archaeological term for a cultural that is largely homogenous. The Getai, Dacians, Tyrasgetae, Costoboci, Carpi etc. are all "Geto-Dacians", a subgroup of the Thracians. I can't believe you would claim Bennett is biased; as if the Hungarian sources aren't that we readily accept ("Ethnic Continuity..." for example).
    • The question of Geto-Dacians is a minor one for Benett, he is a balanced, competent author. Nonetheless, this term is only sparingly used by Oltean who point out the differences between them, while the Carpi and the Costoboci are entirely separate groups whose language has not conclusively been established.Eravian (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, stop with this facade. There is nothing wrong with Bennett, or any of the sources I've posted. They are all readily available in any university library, which is actually where I got them from. Romano-Dacis (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

removed false claims

"According to Strategikon of Kekaumenos (1066), the Vlachs of Epirus and Thessalia came from north of the Danube and from along the Sava.[28] . This argument is against the continuity north of the Danube. The Sava region [...] is a region which belonged to the diocese of Dacia, south of Danube."

i consider the paragraph in bold as demagogy and manipulation. That Kekaumenos knew of the Vlachs from Greece as coming from south of Danube does not constitute argument in a demonstration that there weren't vlachs living north of Danube. (e.g. English settlers in Florida coming from New York does not prove that there were no English people in England.) criztu

Eutropius source

on Eutropius mentions that[97]"Dacia lost all its men in the long war of Decebal." (Breviarium historiæ Romanæ) i would like you to read this: Population and Demography - by Stephen Shennan - 1998 quoting ''Terra deserta' : population, politics, and the [de]colonization of Dacia - by L Ellis . Essentially it says that, of the 24 medieval codices reproducing Eutropius' note on Dacian wars aftermath, the 7 codices which have the version "Dacia [...] res fuerant exhaustae" (Dacia drained/depleted of resources) and "Dacia [...] vires fuerant exhaustae" are consistent in syntax and grammatical agreement, unlike the 17 other copies which contain the variant "Dacia [...] viris fuerat exhausta" (drained/depleted of men). meaning that the argument "Eutropius said that Dacia was drained/depleted of men" is based on poorly made copies. criztu

Arguments agains Daco-Roman - Toponyms - rivers

"[2] says "In Dacia, only the names of a few rivers have been preserved: the Someş and the Mureş" . this is dubiouss, as all the major river names in Romania are preserved from antiquity: Olt-Alutus, Cris-Crisia, Tisa-Theiss, Timis-Tibisis, Prut-Pyretus, Arges-Ordessus, etc criztu

Julian Benett

Julian Benett is a reliable secondary source. He has a Ph.D. in archeology, teaches at Bilkent university in Turkey, wrote many books and publications in the field. His book "Trajan etc." is very thorough and I duely added some important passages from him. I have not studied the other new secondary sources for reliability but I will in due time.

The next section about the controversy cites US congressional "country studies". I looked at these studies and their source material is from the summer of 1989. It is very dated, from the Ceausescu era and it is a classical example of a tertiary source which probably should not be used. Eravian (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because a book was written before 1989 does not make it dated. Most of the Hungarian sources here predate the 89 era ("Ethnic Continuity..." etc.) yet they are still kept. We should keep the Country Study as it is first of all an attempt at UNBIASED scholarship. If anything, the fact that it predates 1989 would make it too anti-continuity, as the authors did not have access to the archaeological discoveries made in Romania from 1945-1989, which were extensive by any definition.

the Library of Congress presents the "Controversy between romanians and hungarians" pretty accurately, it presents the hungarian and romanian POVs, so i don't see what is dubious about that. Criztu (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we should put Watson, Bennett, and all of these academic sources under so much scrutiny when you seem to accept an Italian TV show on RAI as a valid source for this page. Romano-Dacis (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Romano-Dacis,

• 1. Roesler: I cited Ellis by way of Shennan, stating: "Robert Roesler a Moravian philologist trained in Vienna, Lvov and Graz ...". Now, you can't get any more international than that.
• 2.I added back Benett's statement about Crito. You cannot just remove that and have selective quotes. He is your source, plese, accept quotes from this source as they come. Benett is a balanced author and has the intelligence to see both sides of the issue.
• 3.Moved Bryn Mawr back to its proper, logical position. We must give weight to the position expressed by Bryn Mawr, because it reflects a scientific consensus of seven respected authors who appeared at the 2001 Glasgow conference.
• 4.Eliss' Terra Deserta: Only 3 of those 9 counties are listed in his table referring to the area of former Roman Dacia.
• 5.You keep complaining about RAI and Zerbini, maybe because you do not like Italian sources. I keep repeating: Professor Zerbini teaches Roman history and is the head of the archeology department of the University of Ferrara, Italy, a university probably equally as prestigious sa the one where you are getting your books from.

And as far as RAI is concerned: I already qouted Wikipedia:Reliable sources stating that video and audio materials, as well as foreign language sources from respectable news organizations are allowed.

Are you doubting the respectability of RAI or BBC? Let us pose some questions about them:

• Have the RAI or BBC engaged in the promotion of fringe ideologies or unscientific nonsense?
• Have the RAI or BBC engaged in nationalistic propaganda?

The answer to these questions is NO.

• • Actually yes, in numerous cases, especially regarding the Vikings and the Middle Ages. Have you ever seen any of Terry Jones' material for the BBC? Almost all of it is revisionistic and fringe.

Now, let us pose these same questions about the Ceausescu regime:

• Did the Ceausescu regime engage in the promotion of fringe ideologies and unscientific nonsense, such as Dacomania and Protochronism?
  • Protochronism somehow proves Daco-Roman Continuity is wrong, even though the theories are antithetical? :D
• Did the Ceausescu regime engage in strident nationalistic. chauvinistic propaganda?

The answer to these questions is a most emphatic YES.

• • No more than the Hungarian state used its state-funded academy to engage in propaganda.

That is why we should not use any tertiary source, such as the US Congressional country studies from 1989, whose source material can be traced back to the Ceausescu regime.

• • It is LOGICAL to use evidence provided by SPECIALISTS from the area. The Library of Congress is a useful source and it deserves mention. The only reason you do not wish to include it anymore was because people provided quotes from it that you didn't like (like how the Dacians were Romanized). You seem to have had no problems including it when its only quote was "no architectural or written evidence." And you say I try to use selective quotes...Romano-Dacis (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

One reason I'm not editing Wiki's mainspace is because I believe it's a waste of time to argue endlessly (especially in humanities) against so many different flavors of agenda pushers, and that in general such efforts deserve better causes. However I may be wrong and articles like this one (almost hopeless, in my opinion) to come one day to some light. With this dim hope, here are some quotes from Romanian scholars about Romanian scholarship (with focus on Roman Dacia), leaving however Lucian Boia and Gh. A. Niculescu aside, for they are famous enough for most debaters (though the latter is missing from the article):

Dan Dana, "Les Daces dans les ostraca du desert oriental de l'Egypte: Morphologie des noms daces", ZPE (2003), 166-186

• p. 167-168: Car l'onomastique dace était en général mal connue (quelques dizaines de noms, souvent douteux), par rapport aux quelques 700 noms thraces, qui sont facilement reconnaissables. Dans la province romaine de Dacie, l'absence des noms daces typiques est presque totale, un fait déconcertant pour l'historiographie roumaine qui a fait du dogme de la continuité son étendard; la majorité absolue des noms revendiqués par les historiens roumains, intéressés à insister d'une manière obsessionnelle sur la continuité dace, est composée de noms thraces typiques, et leurs porteurs sont surtout des militaires venus de Thrace. Par contre, dans l'empire, l'épigraphie atteste des dizaines de Daces, parfois avec des noms caractéristiques (Decibalus, Diurpaneus), mais, le plus souvent, avec des noms romains; dans leur écrasante majorité, ce sont des militaires, des esclaves ou des affranchis. Cette situation semble refléter les conséquences graves des guerres daces (les esclaves envoyés surtout en Italie), ainsi que le nombre élevé de militaires daces (recrutés soit par la force, soit, plus tard, comme un moyen d'intégration).

Ioana Oltean, "Just a game? Dictatorship, nationalism and modern politics in Roman Dacia"", paper presented at Critical Roman Archaeology Conference, Stanford University (2008)

• Meanwhile, mythical interpretations of history are freely exposed and various aspects of the theory of Daco-Roman continuity have been challenged in the 1990s also by Romanian scholars, especially archaeologists. Unfortunately, the ideas from "new scholars" can rarely circulate more widely outside national boundaries in order to be included in the wider debates on specific subjects. Before 1990, most publications other than politically-sound, propagandistic, texts were inaccessible to foreign researchers because they were published in Romanian. Now the financial constraints in place for academic text publishing in Romania rarely allow the publication of new research (particularly coming from the younger generation of academics) and the conditions for publication (small publication grants) confine the information to be circulated to small audiences.

Florian Matei-Popescu, "Imaginea Daciei Romane în istoriografia românească între 1945 şi 1960", SCIVA (2007), 265-288

• p. 270-271: ... problema civilizaţiei romane din Dacia până în acel moment şi, aş adăuga, până astăzi. Este vorba despre obsesia continuităţii populaţiei de origine dacică în epoca romană şi apoi a continuităţii populaţiei daco-romane pe teritoriul fostei provincii după retragerea aureliană, elocvent sintetizată de M. Macrea în primul volum al tratatului de Istoria României, din anul 1960: "Departe de a fi fost exterminaţi, dacii se romanizează în timpul stăpânirii romane în Dacia şi contribuie nu numai la formarea unei culturi populare, care se va prelungi şi după părăsirea provinciei de către imperiu, ci şi la viaţa provinciei şi la alcătuirea romanităţii de la nordul Dunării. Această romanitate nord-dunăreană, rezultată din asimilarea dacilor şi a culturii lor, constituie elementul de bază în procesul formării poporului şi a limbii române". Pretinsa înlocuire a paradigmei naţionaliste cu cea internaţionalistă, după 1945, nu a schimbat aproape deloc discursul, cu excepţia diferenţelor de încadrare: dacii au devenit după 1945 principala clasă exploatată a provinciei Dacia. După 1960, sclavii dispar cu totul din istoriografie, conceptul de continutate a populaţiei autohtone a rămas, rolul acesteia fiind exacerbat progresiv până la derapajele daciste din anii '80.
• p. 284: După 1960, atenuarea condiţionărilor specifice epocii staliniste a permis arheologilor şi istoricilor români să revină în general la abordarea tradiţionalistă din perioada interbelică. Astfel, au renunţat repede la sclavi şi la răscoale, dar au păstrat conceptul cheie al continuităţii populaţiei autohtone în provincia Dacia şi apoi continuitatea populaţiei daco-romane după retragerea lui Aurelian. Romanizarea a fost lăsată în plan secund, fiind exprimată mai degrabă implicit (conceptul de daco-romani), decât explicit. Naţionalismul-stalinist de după 1971 a creat un câmp propice dezvoltării acestui concept, care a devenit dogmă, şi care nu a permis nici o discuţie în jurul lui. Acest mod de a judeca lucrurile s-a perpetuat până astăzi, noul tratat de Istoria Românilor nefiind decât una din multiplele lui expresii.

There are plenty of other Romanian scholars writing in similar terms. I don't expect many Romanian editors, with their obsession for historical continuity (paraphrasing two of the scholars I have just quoted), will actually be bothered to contribute to a fair article where such opinions will not only be presented, but also be meaningful in the overall discourse. You're fooling yourselves if you believe that if you write ignorant statements then this is how things really are. You also fool a lot of innocent readers, and that's what's unforgivable. Daizus (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Eravian (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bennett's claims are misinterpreted anyway. He is credited for continuity (the editors' summary is "that only the native aristocracy was dismantled"), while he also holds that "the documentary evidence already adduced that the process of conquest had considerably reduced the size of the aboriginal community". This evidence is corroborated with the "apparent dominance and subsequent vigorous development of Latin" which suggests "a near-complete replacement of the local Geto-Dacian", not only the "complete loss or suppression of the local culture and a lack of political or social will for its maintenance" but it "might also attest just as surely to the effective displacement of large numbers of the indigenous population by Latin speaking immigrants". Daizus (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And btw, Linda Ellis is a she ;) Daizus (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Arheogenetics=

The Arheogenetics part is lacking references. I've found and intersting study at http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5868/1/Varzari_Alexander.pdf Sine I'm not an expert I cannot compile information :) CristianChirita (talk) Also: http://www.scribd.com/doc/326027/PaleomtDNA-analysis-and-population-genetic-aspects-of-old-Thracian-populations-from-SouthEast-of-Romania And a collection of links at http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Romania/default.aspx