From Geto-Dacians to Vlachs and Romanians

After the Romans conquered Dacia in 106, a process of romanization of the Dacians took
place. The Roman administration retreated from Dacia around 271, but the romanized
Dacians,later called Vlachs, stayed on, and have continuously lived in Dacia throughout
the Dark Ages. Romanians are their descendants.

History of the Term Vlach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_Vlach

Vlach (pronounced /ˈvlɑːk/ or /ˈvlæk/) is a Slavic-derived term from the Germanic word
Valah/Valach used to designate the Romance speaking peoples of South-Eastern Europe:
Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians.

While historically, it was used to refer to all Latin-speaking people of the Balkans,[1]
practically the remnants of romanized Illyrians, Thracians and Dacians, nowadays, this
term is only rarely used to refer to the Romanians, but is instead used to refer to the other
Eastern Romanic peoples, living outside Romania.

Origins of the word

• See also: History of the term Walha

The Slavic term in turn derives from Germanic: it originates with *Walha by which the
early Germanic tribes called their Celtic neighbours, possibly derived from the name of
the tribe which was known to the Romans as Volcae (in the writings of Julius Caesar) and
to the Greeks as Ouólkai (Strabo and Ptolemy).[2]

As the Celts of Gaul were Romanized, the word changed its meaning to "Romanic
people", as it is still kept in the name of the Walloons of Belgium, and in the German
exonyms:

• Welsche, often used in the German speaking part of Switzerland to refer to the
people of the French-speaking Romandy,
• Walsche, often used in the German speaking part of Italy to refer to Italians,
• Walsche, used in Switzerland and Bolzano-Bozen for various Rhaeto-Romanic
speaking peoples, and
• in numerous placenames (but also Walnuss "Walnut"), for instance Walensee and
Walenstadt, as well as Welschbern and Walschtirol (now almost always Verona
and Trentino), and especially Walachen/Walachei "Wallachians/Wallachia".
In English a similar form is used for (originally Romano-Celtic) Wales and Welsh, and
for the ending -wall in Cornwall.

The word in Slavic languages

This word for Romanic people was borrowed from the Germanic Goths (as *walhs) into
Proto-Slavic some time before the 7th century. However, the first source using the word
was the writings of Byzantine historian Kedrenos, from the mid-11th century.

Γάλα Βλάχας (Gála Vláhas) – 'Shepherdess's Milk' – is a well-known brand in Greece

Later on, the meaning of this noun in Slavic languages got narrower or just different:

Language Form Meaning

Βλάχοι Shepherd (occasionally
Greek
(Vlákhi/Vláhi) pejorative)/Romanian/Vlach
Bulgarian влах Romanian/Vlach
Bulgarian влах man from Wallachia
Bulgarian влах cattle breeder, shepherd
Czech Valach man from Wallachia
Czech Valach man from Valašsko (in Moravia)
Czech valach shepherd
Czech valach gelding (horse)
Czech valach lazy man
Czech Vlach Italian
Hungarian oláh Romanian/Vlach
Macedonian влав cattle breeder, shepherd
Polish Włoch Italian
Polish Wołoch Romanian / Vlach
Polish wałach gelding (horse)
Old Russian волохъ man speaking a Romance language
Russian валах Romanian / Vlach
Serbian Влах citizen of the Republic of Ragusa
Serbian, Croatian,
Влах, Vlah Romanian / Vlach
Bosnian
Serbian, Croatian,
Влах, Vlah man from Wallachia
Bosnian
Вла(х), medieval nomadic people from Stari Vlah
Serbian (Užice dialect)
Старовла(х) and Mala Vlaška
Croatian Vlah Istro-Romanian
Croatian (Dubrovnik
Vlah man from Herzegovina (pejorative)
dialect)
Croatian (western
Vlah Italian (pejorative)
dialects)
Serbian and Croatian влах, vlah medieval nomadic cattle breeder
Croatian (dialects of
vlah new settler (pejorative)
Istria)
Croatian (Dalmatian
vlah (vlaj) plebeian (pejorative)
dialects)
Croatian (Dalmatian
vlah man from the mainland (pejorative)
insular dialects)
Croatian (western and Orthodox Christian, usually Serb
vlah (vlaj)
northern dialects) (pejorative)
Croatian (Podravina Catholic who is a neoshtokavian speaker
vlah
dialects) (pejorative)
non-Muslim living in Bosnia, usually Serb
Bosnian vlah, влах
(pejorative)
Bosnian vlah Catholic (pejorative)
Slovak Valach man from Wallachia
Slovak Valach man from Valašsko (in Moravia)
Slovak valach shepherd
Slovak valach gelding (horse)
Slovak Vlach Italian
Slovene Lah Italian (pejorative)
Western Slovenian
Lah Friulian
dialects
Slovene Vlah Serbian immigrant (pejorative)
Ukrainian волох Romanian / Vlach

The word in other languages

From the Slavs, it was passed on to other peoples, such as the Hungarians ("Oláh",
referring to Romanians; "Olasz", referring to Italians, "Vlachok" referring to Vlachs,
generally) and Byzantines/Greeks ("Βλάχοι", "Vláhi") and was used for all Latin people
of the Balkans. It also acquired a secondary meaning, "shepherd" – from the occupation
of many of the Vlachs of Greece and Serbia. In Albania, the opposite occurred: çoban
"shepherd" (from Persian chopan, through Turkish) came to mean "Vlach". In German
the word "vlach" was a pejorative name for an Orthodox Christian, a Serbian immigrant.
Used also by Bosnian Muslims to denote an Orthodox Serb, considerd highly offensive.
In Spanish valaco is used as ethnonym[3].

A name used for the Southern Vlachs of Greece is "Kutsovlach" (literally "limping
Vlach"; possibly a reference to the way they spoke Greek), however the Aromanians
consider it quite offensive. Another name which was previously used to refer to the
Aromanians (mainly in the Slavic countries: Serbia, Republic of Macedonia and
Bulgaria) is "tsintsar", which is derived from the way the Aromanians say the word 'five':
"tsintsi".

Another Balkanic ethnicity is the Morlachs or Mavrovalachi (Greek for "black Vlachs"),
living in the Dinaric Alps.

Usage as autonym

The term was originally an exonym, as the Vlachs used various words derived from
romanus to refer to themselves (români, rumâni, rumâri, aromâni, arumâni, armâni etc),
but there are some exceptions:

• the Aromanians of Greece, almost always use "Βλάχοι" (Vlachoi) rather than
"Αρμάνοι" (Armanoi) in Greek-language contexts; in at least some communities
(such as Livadhi-Olympou), "vlachi" has completely replaced any "romanus"-
based ethnonym (likewise for designation of the language), even when speaking
in Vlach.

• the Megleno-Romanians use exclusively the word Vlach (Vlashi) for auto-
designation. The loss of the name derived from Romanus most likely concluded in
the early 19th century.

• the Romanian minority of Serbia living in Timok Valley (but not those of the
Banat, see Romanians of Serbia), although speaking the standard Romanian
dialect, are still referred as "Vlachs" in Serbian language. In the Yugoslavian
census figures, the Aromanians of Macedonia and the Romanians of Serbia were
both classified as "Vlachs".

See also

• History of the term Walha

• Etymology of Romania
• Origin of Romanians
• English and Welsh

Notes

1. ^ Kelley L. Ross (2003). "Decadence, Rome and Romania, the Emperors Who
Weren't, and Other Reflections on Roman History". The Proceedings of the
 Friesian School. http://www.friesian.com/decdenc2.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-13.
"Note: The Vlach Connection".
2. ^ Ringe, Don. "Inheritance versus lexical borrowing: a case with decisive sound-
change evidence." Language Log, January 2009.
3. ^ http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=valaco

References

• Orbis Latinus: Wallachians, Walloons, Welschen

• Victor A. Friedman, The Vlah minority in Macedonia
• Steriu T. Hagigogu, "Romanus şi valachus sau Ce este romanus, roman, român,
aromân, valah şi vlah", Bucharest, 1939

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_Vlach"

Categories: Eastern Romance people | Ethnonyms

According to the US Federal Research Division's country study, when the Magyars
arrived in the Carpathian Basin (9th century), they met local population and "there is little
doubt that these included some Romanians who remained faithful to the Eastern
Orthodox Church after the East-West Schism" [7] . According to the same source, no
written or architectural evidence bears witness to the presence of "proto-Romanians" in
the lands north of the Danube during the millennium after Rome's withdrawal from
Dacia. [7](sic)

The Library of Congress in its country study about Hungary simply points out that
"Romanian and Hungarian historians disagree about the ethnicity of Transylvania's
population before the Magyars' arrival". [8] These facts have fueled a centuries-long feud
between Romanian and Hungarian historians over Transylvania. [7] The Romanians assert
that they are the descendants of Latin-speaking Dacian peasants who remained in
Transylvania after the exodus of the Roman administration, and survived there during the
tumult of the Dark Ages. [7] Romanian historians explain the absence of hard evidence for
their claims by pointing out that the region lacked organized administration until the
twelfth century and by positing that the Mongols destroyed any existing records when
they plundered the area in 1241. [7] Hungarians assert, among other things, that the Roman
population quit Dacia completely in 271, that the Romans could not have made a lasting
impression on Transylvania's aboriginal population in only two centuries, [7] and that
Transylvania's Romanians descended from Balkan nomads who crossed northward over
the Danube in the thirteenth century and flowed into Transylvania in any significant
numbers only after Hungary opened its borders to foreigners. [7] The Hungarians maintain
that Transylvania was inhabited not by the ancestors of the Romanians but by Slavs and
point out that the first mention of the Romanians' ancestors in Hungarian records, which
appeared in the thirteenth century, described them as drifting herders. [8]

The origin of the Romanians has been a matter of scholarly disagreement for some time.
There are several theories regarding the issue: The theories listed here, along with a host
of other variations on these same schemes, are discussed in detail and with erudition by
Lucian Boia in his "History and Myth in Romanian conciousness". [9]

1. Daco-Romanian continuity in Dacia, Moesia and some adjacent regions (Daco-

Roman continuity).
2. A completely non-Dacian, Roman/Romanized origination without any speculation
as to where the survival of this Roman/Romanized population occurred until their
reemergence in history as Vlachs. [1] [2]
3. Migration of Romance people from the former Roman provinces south of the
Danube in the Balkans (The Rösler Theory).
4. Thraco-Roman theory (Romanization of Daco-Thracian population north of the
Jireček Line)

In this context, explanation of the term Vlach also plays a key role.

The above mentioned theories present various historical explanations about the origins of
the Romanian people and language. In the 19th and 20th centuries some historians (e.g.
Robert Rösler) launched the so-called migration theory, concluding that Roumanians
(Transylvanian Vlachs) should not be regarded as "Dacian autochthones". This fact gave
rise to various national mythologies and ethno-political ideologies starting in the late 19th
century when Hungarian historians largely supported the migration theory, which
maintained that Transylvania was not inhabited by Romanians at the time of the Magyar
conquests in central Europe during the 9th and 10th century. Most of the Romanian
historians have been supported the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity and maintained
that Transylvania, and the rest of the modern territory of Romania, was continuously
inhabited by the Romanized Dacians, the ancestors of Romanians. The debate was
politically charged during the 19th-20th centuries, first because of the demand of equal
rights by the Romanians of Transylvania, and thereafter due to territorial conflicts
concerning Transylvania between Romania and Hungary. (See also Transylvania.)

More recently, as former axioms of ethnogenesis have shifted, the historian Walter Pohl
noted that "centuries after the fall of the Balkan provinces, a pastoral Latin-Roman
tradition served as the point of departure for a Valachian-Roman ethnogenesis. This kind
of virtuality — ethnicity as hidden potential that comes to the fore under certain historical
circumstances — is indicative of our new understanding of ethnic processes. In this light,
the passionate discussion for or against Roman-Romanian continuity has been misled by
a conception of ethnicity that is far too inflexible."

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Origin_of_the_Romanians#5.

Historical background

3. Historiography (written sources)

See also: Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians

3. 1. 4th-10th centuries sources

• In the 4th century, the Historia Augusta mentions that

On seeing that Illyricum was devastated and Moesia was in a ruinous state, he
abandoned the province of Trans-Danubian Dacia, which had been formed by Trajan,
and led away both soldiers and provincials, giving up hope that it could be retained. The
people whom he moved out from it he established in Moesia, and gave to this district,
which now divides the two provinces of Moesia, the name of Dacia.

—Historia Augusta [11]

• The Roman-Gothic author Jordanes, who was raised in Moesia and was familiar
with the ethnic character of the area, [12] wrote in the 6th century that the Romans
had only moved the legions from Dacia, and not the population.

the Emperor Aurelian, calling his legions from here (evocatis exinde legionibus), settled
them in Moesia and there, on the other side, he founded Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia
Ripensis —Jordanes [13]

Excavations continued at the bi-rithual cemetery in Berghin at the point "The Pear",
Judet Alba. http://www.cimec.ro/scripts/arh/cronica/detaliu.asp?k=59

They executed two sections (12.50 x 2 m, respectively, 14.50 x 2 m) in order to

explore the upper north-north-east of the necropolis remained unexplored. During
investigations 81 graves of cremation have been identified , which raises the number of
funerary complexes uncovered so far to 610. Of these, 52 tombs belong to the Dacian
population identified in the settlement of the village precincts during the Roman period
(II-III century AD). The graves are oval, circular, diamond or rectangular contour and are
marked by river boulders. Of the earth filling of the sepulchral holes were collected
Dacian and Roman pottery fragments, pieces of coal and scrap of calcined human bones,
one portion of a glass and bronze bracelets, etc.. The other 29 tombs are with cremation
urns (26) or simple holes (3) featuring the prefeudal cemetery (VII-VIII century AD).
Urns containing cremated remains of the defunct (whole and fragmented bones), pieces
of coal and various pieces of bronze (one ear from an earring wire), iron (staples, hook,
buckles with spin, nails, knife blades, etc.). and Stone (tips, blades, etc..). It is noted that
601 M is as white (126 x 78 cm) and contains a large quantity of scrap cinerary,
especially charcoal and burnt earth, calcined bone chips and a few scattered pottery
fragments from a vessel broken on the ritual pyre. In conclusion, this year's excavations
have revealed further testimony about the process of Romanization of the indigenous
Dacians during the Roman domination in Dacia and during the formation of the
Romanian people (VII-VIII century AD).
 • An anonymous author who pronounces an encomium in the honour of Caesar
Constantine (emperor between 337-361) speaks of restored Dacia (Dacia restito)
eulogizing him for the victory obtained against Goths and Taifals in 332 [14]

• The Byzantine chronicler Priscus of Panium mentions in the year 448, the
presence of a Latin-speaking populace North of the Danube. The populace was
called by him "Ausoni". [15] It should be noted that this was at a time before Slavic
migration, so the exonym “Vlach” was not applied to this populace. [16]

For the subjects of the Huns, swept together from various lands, speak, besides their own
barbarous tongues, either Hunnic or Gothic, or - as many as have commercial dealings
with the western Romans - Ausoni [17]

(...) a barbarian who sat beside me and knew Ausoni (...)

—Priscus of Panium [18]

• In 545, Procopius of Caesarea mentions[not in citation given] [19] "The trick played by an
Ant from present-day Moldavia who is supposed to have passed himself off as a
Byzantine General by speaking a form of Latin which he had learned in these
regions."
• At the Nicaean Synod in 787, the following person is signaled on the 73rd seat:
“Ursus Avaritianensium ecclesiae episcopus.” [20] The name of the episcope of the
Avaritians (i.e. people ruled by the Avars), being Ursus, is of Romanic origin. [21]
•
• An ancient letter from one Emmerich of Elwangen to Grimaldus, abbot of St.
Gall, written about 860 mention Vlachs, under the name of Dacians, living north
of Danube together with Germans, Sarmatians, and Alans.
• The chronicle Oguzname, the oldest Turkish chronicle in existence, mentioning a
warlike expedition of the Cumans, affirms the existence of a “Country of the
Vlachs” (Ulaqi) east of the Carpathians in 839[dubious - discuss], affirming that the
region was well organized and with a powerful army. [23]
• A ninth-century Armenian geography[clarification needed] mentions the country "Balak".
[24]

3. 2. 11th century sources

• In the 11th century, Abu Said Gardezi wrote about a Christian people from Rûm
situated between the Slavs and Hungarians: [25]

That is the Džaihūn which is on their /the Magyars’/ left side. Beside Saqlāb /Slavs/ are a
people az Rūm / from the Byzantine Empire (Rûm) [26] or of Rome [27] [28] / who are all
Christians and they are called N-n-d-r, and they are more numerous than the Magyars,
but they are weaker. [29]
 • A rune stone from the Sjonhem cemetery in Gotland dating from the 11th century
commemorates a merchant Rodfos who was traveling to Constantinople and was
killed north of the Danube by the Blakumenn.

Rodvisl and Rodälv raised this stone for their three sons. This one after Rodfos. He
/Rodfos/ was betrayed by the Blokumenn on his journey. God help the soul of Rodfod.
God betray those who betrayed him /Rodfos/. [30].

• An early 13th century biography of St. Olaf of Norway, now preserved in the 14th
century manuscript Flateyjarbók also mentions Blokumenn as being Sviatopolk’s
allies (in the early 11th century). [31] [32]

• The traditional [33] [34] interpretation of the ethnonim Blakumenn or Blokumenn in

Old Norse is Wallachian (Romanian), [33] [35] [36] [37] though alternative [34] explanation
is that the term means 'black men'; some authors interpret it as Black Cuman. [38]

• According to Strategikon of Kekaumenos (1066), the Vlachs of Epirus and

Thessalia came from north[verification needed] of the Danube and from along the Sava. [25]

These /Vlachs/ are, in fact, the so-called Dacians, also called Bessians. Earlier they lived
in the vicinity of the Danube and Saos, a river which we now call Sava, where the
Serbians live today, and /later/ withdrew to their inaccessible fortifications. (...) And
these left the region: some of them were dispersed to Epirus and Macedonia, and a large
number established themselves in Hellas.

—Kekaumenos: Strategikon [39]

• Kekaumenos writes in 1078 that the Vlachs were the instigators of a 1066-1067
rebelliong against the Byzantine Empire. He mentions that these Vlachs,
anticipating military turbulence, sent their wives and children “to the mountains
of Bulgaria”, suggesting the existence of permanent settlements in that region and
transhumant pastoralism, contradicting the Hungarian point of view that the
Vlachs were nomadic. [25] .

3. 3. 12th-13th centuries sources

• Nestor's Chronicle, (1097-1110), relating events from 862 to 1110, mentions

Wallachians attacking and subduing the Slavs north of Danube and settling
among them. [25] {{Quote|For many years the Slavs lived beside the Danube,
 where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie. From among these Slavs,
parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names,
according to the places where they settled. Thus some came and settled by the
river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs.
Among these same Slavs are included the White Croats, the Serbs, and the
Khorutanians. For when the Vlakhs (Волхмъ) attacked the Danubian Slavs,
settled among them, and did them violence, the latter came and made their homes
by the Vistula, and were then called Liakhs. (...) [40]
• Coming from the east, they /the Magyars/ marched in haste over the high
mountains, which are called the mountains of the Magyars, and began to fight
against the Volochi (Волохи) and the Slavs who inhabited these countries. The
Slavs had originally lived there, and the Volochi (Волохове) had subdued the
country of the Slavs. Later, however, the Magyars drove out the Volochi
(Волъхи), subdued the Slavs, and settled in their country. Since then, that region
has been called Hungary.|Primary Chronicle [40]
• Around 1120, the Gesta Henrici written by the cleric Godefirdus von Viterbium
mentioned the countries conquered by Rome including “Blachina” (Blach, being a
synonym to Vlach, meant Romanian) [25]
• The Nibelungenlied (“The Song of the Nibelungs”), written between 1140 and
1160, describes a passage mentioning Vlachs and their leader, Ramunc. The
context of the whole song was the marriage of Attila, and many cultures, each
speaking a different language. From these, we find the duke Ramunc, who,
together with seven hundred of his best fighters, scare away the horses of the
Huns.

Men saw ride before King Etzel on the road many bold knights of many tongues
and many mighty troops of Christians and of paynims. When they met the lady,
they rode along in lordly wise. Of the Russians and the Greeks there rode there
many a man. The right good steeds of the Poles and Wallachians were seen to
gallop swiftly, as they rode with might and main. Each did show the customs of
his land. (...) [41]

o Before Etzel, there rode a retinue, merry and noble, courtly and lusty, full
four and twenty princes, mighty and of lofty birth. They would fain behold
their lady and craved nought more. Duke Ramung of Wallachia, with
seven hundred vassals, galloped up before her; like flying birds men saw
them ride.

—The Nibelungenlied [41]

o Thomas Tuscus wrote, on the expedition of the emperor Conrad III against
the Turks, in a Crusade during 1140 AD: “The troops from Provence, from
France, Lotaringia and Germany went towards Constantinople through
Hungary, Valahia and Pannonia” implying the existence of an organized
Vlah state during the 12th century. [25]
o The Byzantine writer Joannes Kinnamos writes of the Vlachs North of the
Danube in 1167, saying:

Leon, also known as Vatatzes, brought many soldiers from other areas,
even a large number of Vlachs, about whom it is said that they are the
descendants of colonists from Italy. [39]

 Niketas Choniates tells us that as Andronic Comnenos was heading

towards the Principality of Galich in 1164, but was captured by
Vlachs along the way. It’s important to note that at the time the
Byzantine Empire controlled all the territory up to the Danube
Delta (as the Empire of vlachs and Bugarians was only founded in
1185), including Dobruja, and the Principality of Galich controlled
most of the Medieval state of Moldova. This leaves only Southern
Moldova and Eastern Wallachia as the location of this kidnapping.
 The Gesta Hungarorum also mention the presence of Vlachs in
Pannonia and them mixing with Slavs, but retaining their language
and culture. [42] The Gesta Hungarorum furthermore mentions that
the Magyars conquered Transylvania from the Vlachs and Slavs

the inhabitants of that land were the basest of the whole world, because
they were Vlachs [Blasii] and Slavs

—Gesta Hungarorum, Chapter 25 [43]

 Thomas of Spalato mentioned the same thing.[verification needed] [44]

 Weltchronik (World Chronicle) by Rudolf von Ems, written around
1250, mentions Vlachs living in Pannonia. [45]

In vromdin sundir sprachin/Valwen und wilde Vlachin/jensit des

sneberges hant/sint lant du si begant [46]

 Jansen Enikel’s Weltchronik (The Chronicle of the World), written

in Vienna in 1277, mentions Charlemagne going on a campaign in
the east (around 8th century) and meeting with Wallachians. [47]
 Around 1285, In the chronicle of Simon of Keza, the Vlachs of
Pannonia are mentioned as a settled population after the collapse of
the Hunnish Empire. [48]
 The Descriptio Europæ Orientalis, which was written by a French
monk in 1308, discovered in the Paris Library in 1913, mention ten
Vlach kings that were defeated by the Hungarians of Arpad. [49]
Therefore, Hungarians met the Vlachs in Panonia and drove them out in
Transylvania. This explains the Romanian ethnogenesis.

3. 4. 14th-16th centuries sources

 A papal census in 1332 found that of 3000 towns in Transylvania,

only 900 had Catholic parishes. In Banat, around 95% of the
population followed the Eastern Orthodox rite, and in Maramures,
Orthodox Christians made up 90% of the population until
Ruthenian refugees were settled in the region, dropping the
percentage to 80%. [25]
 In 1374, Pope Gregory IX wrote of Transylvania as having a "great
populace which goes by the name of Valachian" ("Multitudo
quorundam popolorum qui Valachones vocantur") [25]
 The Chronicon Pictum says “This Gyula was a strong and great
prince, who, while hunting in Transylvania, found a great city built
by the Romans long ago.” Chronicon Posoniense then mentions the
name of the town as “„ ...civitas Alba in Erdeuel”.
 In the 15th century, the Polish Chronicler Jan Długosz writes in his
Historia Polonica that in a battle in 1070 between the cneaz of
Polotsk and Kiev, the cneaz of Polotsk had in his army “Russians,
Pecennegs, and Vlahs.”
 Antonio Bonfini wrote: “Because the Romanians are descendants
of the Romans, a fact that even today is attested by their language,
a language that, even though they are surrounded by diverse
barbarian peoples, could not be destroyed.... even if all kinds of
barbarian attacks flooded over the province of Dacia and the
Roman people, we can see that the Roman colonies and legions
that had been established there could not be annihilated” [25]
 In 1532, Francesco della Valle (Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a
natural son to Doge Andrea Gritti) [50] wrote: "the emperor Trajan,
after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and
made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are
descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they
preserve the name of the Romans" [25]
 Despot Voda wrote in 1561: "we are a brave people of a warrior
race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world
tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world
that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will
never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents" [25]
 In the 16th century, Anton Verancsics wrote: “Transylvania is
inhabited by three nations, the Szecklers, the Saxons, and the
Hungarians; I would, nevertheless, add the Romanians, who,
although they easily equal the number of all the others, do not have
any liberties or a nobility, nor any rights of their own...” [25]
3. 5. 18th-20th centuries sources

 Emperor Joseph the Second of Austria (1765-1790) tells us about

the Romanians: “incontestably, the oldest and most numerous
denizens of Transylvania.” [25]
 Count Teleki, President of the Transylvanian Chancellery informs
us in a document from 1791: “the Vlachs are the oldest
inhabitants of Transylvania.” [25]
 Hungarian historian András Huszti affirms, in his posthumous
work, also dated 1791: “No other nation has a language as similar
to Latin as the Vlachs. This is a sure sign which cannot deceive us
that they are the followers of the old Roman colonies in
Transylvania.” [25]
 German academic Fr. Altheim affirmed: “Dacia, although home to
a populace similar to Thracians, had chosen Romanization as
opposed to Hellenization after the Roman Empire annexed the
province. In Dacia, there seemed to have been a consistent choice
made by its inhabitants to become Romans, something attested by
consistent historical facts.” [25]
 Mihály Cserei writes in the 17th century: “From Transylvania,
people flee en masse to Moldova. I’ve tried everything to stop
them, but nothing has worked.” [25]
 József Benkő writes in 1777: “What remains of the Roman
colonists who mixed with others are the Romanians.”
 About the region of Fagaras, Antonio Possevino writes: “There are
over 70 towns here, almost all of them completely populated by
Romanians.” [25]
 László Kőváry writes that before the 1848 revolution there were
over a million Romanians in Transylvania and only 213,000
Hungarians, affirming that “you can travel for days and not hear a
single person speaking Hungarian.” [25]
 From András Huszti: "The offspring of the Dacians still live even
today and live where their forefathers lived, and speak in a
language similar to their forefathers." [25]
 István Losontzy writes: “Transylvania, to the East of Hungary, was
beforehand called Dacia... the Hungarian kings only ruled this land
through Transylvanian voievods.” [25]
 Szilagyi Sandor writes: “Transylvania and Hungary were never
together, and were always two different countries... as
Transylvania always looked to the Orient, due to the fact that the
majority of the population was Orthodox Christian, while Hungary
always looked Westward.” [25]
 Gaspar Bojtinus, historian of Gabriel Bethlen, wrote of the union
of Transylvania with the Romanian principalities in 1600 as
“inevitabilis fatorum lex”, implying that they have always been the
same soil with the same people.
 Iosif Bánki (1764) writes: “so great is the number of Romanians
that they easily outnumber all the other nations of Transylvania
combined.” [25]
 Maria Tereza writes in 1748 of Transylvania as “Our Romanian
principality.” [25]
 French academic V. Duruy considers the colonization of Dacia:
“By far the largest colonial effort in ancient history!” [25]
 The English historian Gibbon writes in “Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire” in 1777 that after the withdrawal of the Roman
legions from Dacia, done by Aurelian, a significant part of the
province’s population stayed behind, being more afraid of moving
than of Gothic rule. Later, he adds “These people became a great
nation” and then writes “The Vlachs preserve many elements from
Latin, and they are proud of their Roman heritage. Even
surrounded, they did not mix with the barbarians.”
 The German historian Johann Thunmann writes “The Vlahs North
of the Danube are brothers of those in Macedonia, descended from
Thracians, which, under the name of Getai or Dacians played a
crucial role in history. Under Roman rule they received the
language and culture of the Romans and under Roman Emperor
Caracalla, the right to citizenship, and called themselves Romans.
We cannot confirm that Emperor Aurelian moved the whole
population south of the Danube, especially considering so many of
them have remained in a nation so big and mountainous... When
the Hungarians arrived in 896, they found them in Transylvania
and Pannonia, as affirmed by Annonymous, the notary of King
Bela IV. The Vlahs have lived since antiquity in Wallachia and
Moldova. [25]
 Pavol Jozef Šafárik sustains that the Romanians could not have
come from South of the Danube from the simple reason that they
existed on both sides of the river continuously, “Both Vlach
nations, on both sides of the Danube, had the same origins, from
the mixture of Thracians and Getic tribes with the Romans.” [25]
 German historian Scholtzer affirms that the Volochs in the
chronicles of Nestor are Vlachs “These volochi are the offsprings
of the ancient Thracians, Dacians, and Getai” [51]
 Hungarian Gábor Fábián writes in the ethnography of Arad in
1835: “The Romanians are the oldest people here, and if it is true
that they are the colonists of Dacia after Trajan’s conquest, then
they can be considered as the aboriginals of this comitat”
 Hungarian historian Theodor Lehoczky writes in 1890: “The
regions from Northeastern Salaj were, without a doubt, inhabited
by Romanians before the Magyar elements managed to penetrate
into this region.” [25]
 In the great memoirs presented by Hungary at the peace conference
in 1920, the texts clearly attest: “The history of Transylvania from
 the death of Saint Stephen until the reign of Saint Ladislaus is
shrowded in darkness.” [52]
 The historian Mihály Horváth writes “Transylvania was populated
by Romanians when the Hungarians first arrived in Pannonia. In
Bihor was the dukedom of Menumorut, who had as his subjects
Vlachs and Khazars, and in Banat Voievod Glad had an army
composed entirely of Romanians. Erdely is led by Gelu at this time
as well.” [25]
 Hungarian historian G. Petrovay in 1911 writes “The Hungarian
historical hypothesis in which the Romanians arrived in
Transylvania in the 13th century does not logically patch there
realities of Bereg and Maramures, because these regions had
privileges which a people of pastoralists who immigrated slowly,
as strangers and enemies, and were captured in battle; to send a
captured enemy to guard your borders and land is complete
nonsense.” (in " Szazadok, XLV -1911 , p. 607 -626 ) [25]
 German historian Leopold von Ranke: “Dacia was organized into a
Roman province. The indigenous Romanians give the name, even
today, of “The path of Trajan” to the road which leads into
Transylvania, and call Turnu Rosu “The Roman gate”. They are
what remains of Trajan’s colonists brought into Dacia.” [53]
 Hungarian F. Eckhart writes in Magyaroszág története, Budapest,
1933, pg 21 “We cannot believe that the Hungarians populated the
entire Hungarian kingdom. Their numbers... were too small for
something like that. The territories which Hungarians occupied
matched the territory of Hungary after Trianon” [25]
 Pope Innocent III (in a letter dated 1203): “Therefore we, who
have been appointed by the will of God and Father, unworthy as
we are, as vicars and successors of the Apostolic Sea, to prove by
the force of facts our fatherly love for the Church of the Bulgarians
and Romanians(Vlachs), who are said to be the descendents of the
ROMANS, by their flesh and blood”

4. History research

Research in this domain, particularly in the 19th and 20th century, has
provided a breadth of evidence but differring interpretations prevents it
from being conclusive..

5. Theories supporting Daco-Roman continuity

5. 1. Arguments for

5. 1. 1. Historical
• Intensive Roman colonization of Dacia. Dacia was the only Roman province to
have a state-sponsored colonization program. [51]

• There is significant archeological evidence to show that the Dacians and Getae
were very receptive to foreign cultures. Inscriptions on pottery (Decebal per
Scorilo) suggests that the Dacians may have already had significant cultural
exchanges with the Romans before conquest and colonization. [22]

• Numerous archaeological sites prove the continuity of Latin settlements north of

the Danube after the evacuation of 271 [22] , including:
o Daco-Roman ceramic artifacts from the 5th-6th centuries, found at: Bratei,
Soporu de Câmpie, Verbiţa, Sǎrata Monteoru
o Christian tombs and objects found at: Cluj-Napoca, Alba-Iulia, Biertan,
Dej
o Many inscriptions in the Latin language: inscriptions on silver ring from
Micia, ceramic objects from Porolissum, brick found at Gornea,
inscription on bronze object found at Biertan (reading "EGO ZENOVIUS
VOTUM POSUI").
o Walls erected in the 4th century at Sarmizegetusa. [22]

• Constantine the Great assumed the title Dacicus Maximus in 336 just like Trajan
did in 106, suggesting the presence of Dacians in Dacia even after the Aurelian
withdrawal of 270-275. [52] [53] [54]

• The similarities between the exonyms Vlach/Voloch and Olah/Olasz, one used for
Romanians and the other for Italians, implies the Hungarians and Slavs thought
both were one and the same populace [55]

• An early 13th century biography of St. Olaf of Norway, now preserved in the 14th
century manuscript Flatejarbok, mentions Vlachs(Romanians) (Blokumenn) as
being Sviatopolk’s allies (in the early XIth century). [22]

• Latin documents, although rare, are still present after the withdrawal of the
Roman administration. Their presence affirms the existence of a populace that
could understand Latin, while the rarity reflects the trend of ruralization of the
proto-Romanians, caused by the frequent Barbarian raids on the cities in the
former colony of Dacia. [22]

• The first ruler of Transylvania to be formally recognized by the Kingdom of

Hungary was Leustachius, who had the title of “Voievod of Transylvania” as
written in G. Wenczel’s Codex Diplomaticus (“Leustachius, waywoda
Transilvaniae”). Transylvania was the only region under the Hungarian crown
which kept this administrative system, rather than being re-organized into
Comites as the other regions of Hungary were, by using the title of Voievod, some
historians considered it evidence that the Hungarian crown was somehow
necessitated to recognize an older political institution in Transylvania. [22]
• In the earliest documents which affirm the existence of Romanians in
Transylvania, all[dubious - discuss] the documents refer to the Romanians living in dense
forests. A "charta" given to the Saxons by the Hungarians, the region of Fagaras is
called "silva Blacorum et Bissenorum (forest of Vlachs and Pechennegs). The
geographical position of Romanians is not indicative of a colonization and
evidences a populace fleeing from invaders.[dubious - discuss] The archaeologist Andrei
Popa has also confirmed the presence of numerous other "Vlah sylvae" within
Transylvania before they were reorganized in Comites. This same symptom of
Romanians living in dense forests is also found south of the Carpathians. Regions
like Codrul Vlasiei derive from Vlasca, meaning "Land of Vlachs" in Slavic
languages. Vlasi is the plural term for Vlach so we can conclude that this dense
forest (codru) would have been the home to the Romanians South of the
Carpathians as well, and is once again reflective of a populace trying to flee from
horse-bound invaders. The particular use of the word "Vlasi" is an early term, and
reflects on the fact that this name was given at a time when Romanians and Slavs
had only mingled slightly. [56]

• At the time of the Aurelian withdrawal Dacia is assumed to have had a populace
of roughly 1 million inhabitants, most of them in rural communities. [57] In order
for the Romans to have evacuated all of the colonists from Dacia would have
required significant logistical planning and manpower. However, no single
logistical document referring to this withdrawal has ever been found, no census of
how many colonists were withdrawn. There are no catalogues of who was moved
and when. Furthermore, there is no archaeological evidence South of the Danube
for a drastically increased population. [22]

• Romanization could not have been possible South of the Jirecek Line, which runs
through Bulgaria, Serbia, and the upper part of Albania, as that region was
historically Hellenized, whereas only regions to the North of this line were
Romanized (this due to the strong standing of Hellenic culture South of this line).
Thus the traditional homeland of the Romanians according to Hungarian
historians (being Albania)[dubious - discuss] was not a conductive area for Romanization.
[22]

• There is no historical document which attests to some sort of migration of

Romanians from the Balkans to the North. [58] By 1400 it was estimated that
Transylvania had a populace of 800,000 people and Wallachia and Moldavia had
600,000 each, all three of which had a majority-Romanian population (though
some Hungarians challenge this assertion about Transylvania). It would be
demographically impossible for such a large population to grow from a small
number of pastoral migrants in such a short time. [59]

• While the Romanians north of the Danube were not mentioned earlier than the
Xth century, neither are the Romanche of Switzerland, nor the Albanians. It is
impossible to believe however that the Albanians or Romanche did not inhabit
their respective homelands until after this date. [60]
 • The documentation of colonization of Vlachs is exceedingly sparse for such a
large populace.[dubious - discuss] Of the 217 documents pertaining to Transylvania
during the reign of Ladislaus IV, none of them mention this colonization.
Comparatively, we have 19 documents referring to the 25 year long colonization
in Transylvania of the Teutonic Knights, an event which happened 50 years
before the “Vlach colonization.” In the 13th century there is only one mention of
Vlachs being settled on the domains of nobles in Transylvania, but the source
does not mention whether the Vlachs came from outside of Transylvania or if
they were taken from the Transylvanian foothills.

• Many Romanian judicial terms are of Magyar origin, implying that the
Romanians were present when these terms were first applied and used by the
Hungarian state. If Romanians had not been present in Transylvania before the
XII century, then such an absorption would not have been possible, and the terms
would have been replaced by Slavic or Greek terms. [22]

5. 1. 2. Linguistic

• The Roman colonists came in Dacia from different provinces of the Roman
empire. They had no common language except for Vulgar Latin. In this multi-
ethnic environment, Latin, being the only common language of communication,
might have quickly become the dominant language. American history furnishes
similar examples, with the overwhelming dominance of Standard English,
Spanish, French, and Portuguese in different parts of the Americas, with
insignificant dialectal differences.

• over 3000 of the inscriptions discovered in Dacia are written in Latin, compared
to only about 40 in Greek and 7-8 in other languages, suggesting that Dacian
provincial society was monoglot, with all of the colonists speaking Latin. [61]

• Romanian is considered by some linguists [62] the only Romance language to

preserve a large number of features of Latin grammar. [63] .

• Almost all Romanian religious terms are inherited directly from Latin which
means Romanians were Christianised in the Latin language [64]

• Some morpho-syntactic, lexical and phonetical regional differences within

Romanian indicate that in certain regions of Romania the language preserved
more Latin substance than in the rest of the country. [65] The boundaries of these
linguistic areas coincide quite exactly with the borders of the ancient Roman
province of Dacia, encompassing modern Transylvania, Banat and Oltenia.

• The hydronyms and toponyms in Romania and throughout Transylvania are

predominantly carried over from antiquity. Names like Somes, Mures, Abrud,
Dunare, Prut, Nistru, all are adaptations of the original Latin, Greek, or Dacian
words. Slavic toponyms and hydronyms are present in Romania, but these are
 present in many parts of Eastern Europe as well. Many hydronyms and toponyms
in mainland Greece are also Slavic, but this does not imply that Slavs were the
sole people to populate Greece or Romania.

• Ancient Dacian toponyms were kept; examples are the names of some rivers
(Samus - Someş, Marisia - Mureş, Porata - Prut), the names of some cities
(Petrodava - Piatra Neamţ, Abruttum - Abrud) and most important in the name of
Carpathian mountains, name which is directly derived from the Dacian tribe of
Carpians or Carpodacians [66] [67]

• If the Romanians had been living alongside Albanians before the Xth century,
they would have common language (as affirmed by the Bulgarian linguist Decev).
The phonological disunity between the shared words also evidences that these
words are inherited from a common sub-stratum (Thraco-Illyrian) and not the
result of having a shared geographical region of origin [68]

• The name Vlach is a name for Romanians used only by the Southern Slavs. The
Eastern Slavs call Romanians Voloch which fits Eastern Slavic phonology. If the
Eastern Slavs met the Romanians after the Southern Slavs (which would have
happened had the Romanians originated South of the Danube) they would have
called Romanians Vlach as well, borrowing the name from the Southern Slavs.
The use of the word Voloch shows that the Eastern Slavs encountered the
Romanians separately, before the Southern Slavs gave them the Vlach name, and
thus, must have been north of the Danube before the Slavic migrations. [22] [69] [70]

• The lack of Germanic elements in Romanian is due largely to the low level of
interaction between the Goths and Romanians, as well as the low population of
Goths living in the area. Similar absences are noted in the Basque language whom
the Goths ruled for centuries. The Goths were also present South of the Danube in
even greater numbers, and were even brought in by the Romans as refugees, so
placing the Romanians South of the Danube does not provide an argument against
a lack of Germanic words. It can be concluded from this that the adoption of
Gothic elements in Romanian would have had more to do with the type of
interaction between the Goths and proto-Romanians, and not with whether they
lived in the same geographic region. [22]

• The Slavic elements in Romanian are present only in particular words, and not in
the grammatical structure or the phonology and structure of words in Romanian.
This indicates linguistically that by the time the Slavs mingled with the
Romanians, the Latin element in the Romanian language was already solidified,
and only a super-stratum of Slavic words, many of which are synonyms for Latin
words, could be added. [22]

• The words “Erdő” and “Erdély” are not of Finno-Uguric family and therefore not
of Magyar origin, this means they are a corruption of another words. The
Romanian word “Ardeal” was corrupted into “Erdel” and “Erdol” meaning “land
 of forested heights”.[citation needed] From the word Erdely, Erdo was then extracted to
describe a simple dense forest, this is confirmed by linguists who have studied
Magyar phonology[citation needed]. When a word from Romanian is corrupted into
Hungarian,“a” usually becomes “e”, Andreas becomes “Endre”, the Latin “ager’
becomes “eger”,“sant” meaning “saint” in old Romanian becomes “sent”,“agris”
becomes “egres” etc. This event also happens with the word Ardeal which at first
becomes “Erdel” until 1390, where it is converted to “Erdély”. “Ard” as an Indo-
European root-word means “hill, forested heights, mountain” and appears in
hundreds of geographic locations, all sharing these topographic characteristics.
Examples: Ardal (Iran), Arduba (Albania), Ardnin (Austria), Ardel (Italy), Ardelu
(France) etc. Fact confirmed in Julius Caesar’s work “De Bello Gallico”, there we
can find the phrase “Ardeunna Silva”[citation needed]

• The word Olah does not derive from the Slavic word “Vlah” as replacing the “v”
with an “o” has no etymological or phonological explanation. During the Middle
Ages, the word “Olah” was used both when referring to Romanians as well as
Italians, which shows that the Romanians were very similar to Italians in terms of
language, and that the Magyar tribes had encountered both ethnic groups at
roughly the same time, in the late 9th and early 10th century, when the Magyars
raided Northern Italy. The word “Olasz” now used for all Latinate people except
Romanians is a recent phenomenon. [22]

• The Romanian word "batran", meaning “old”, is significant as it does not derive
from the Latin equivalent “vetus” (in Italian, Vecchio, in French, Vieux etc.);
instead it derives from the Latin word "veteranus", referring to a Roman
Legionary after he is released from military duty. The reason for this is because of
the procedures of Roman colonization. When a village was Romanized, the
veterans of the Roman Legion had an important role; because military service was
long (twenty-five years), a large part of these Roman legionaries were married,
the wives and children having to live nearby the military camps, named canabae.
Since many of the legions and auxiliary troops of Rome were to maintain their
position permanently in Dacia, it is evident that many of the wives of the soldiers
would be indigenous, Dacian. At their release from military service, the legionary
was named veteranus, and he would obtain (if he did not have it before) the right
to citizenship for himself and his entire family, as well as a piece of land to
cultivate. The children of the veterans and the Dacian women were Roman
citizens and spoke Latin, but the majority would have known Dacian, their
maternal tongue. The children of these children, the grandchildren of the veterans,
would be totally Romanized. In two, maximum three generations, the followers of
these mixed marriages forgot their indigenous language. Thus the number of
veterans in Dacia would have been considerably large, which is why an elder is
referred to through exactly this word, batran, derived from veteranus, having been
modified through Romanian phonetics. In essence, the system of veteranus would
be critical in the Romanization of Dacia, as elderly veterans, who had now gained
rights to property, would have no reason to leave what they had worked for over
25 years to attain. The case here is not about a single wave of veterans under
 Trajan, but for a continuous series of settlements of veterans which wanted to
remain in Dacia. [22]

• The river Tarnava is evidence of the co-existence between the Slavs and
Romanians in Translvania described by the chronicler Nestor. Tarnava derives
from Slavic trunu, or nail. Since the Hungarians used a different name for the
river, “Kukulo”, it would have been impossible for Romanians to use the Slavic
name for the river had they arrived after the Magyars (and according to Hungarian
history, with a Magyar majority in Transylvania). In such a situation the
Romanian name would have been derived from Hungarian, but the fact that it is
of Slavic origin attests to Slavs and Romanians living together around the river
before the Magyars.
o Another important river is Bistrita. Another Slavic word, however
influenced by Romanian. Bistrita in Slavic means “the fast one”, in
Romanian, this translates into “repedele”. Today, however, the river is
officially Bistrita, but known as Repedele by the locals. There are many
other instances were the Slavic name replaces the original Romanian
name, such as for Nucet, now known as Cozia (from Slavic koza, goat).
o Barsa. According to the linguist Sextil Puscariu, this name would derive
from the verb “labarta”, dissimilated into “rabartsa”. It is of Traco-Illyiric
origin, so it would be impossible for the Romanians to have preserved it
had they not originated from such a sub-stratum, and in the geographical
region around Barsa. We can conclude that it was taken from the very
ancestors of the Romanians. In Geto-Dacian names we also find the
radical “bars”.
o The river Cerna. Although “cerna” in Slavic means “black”, the river’s
waters are clear. The Romanian form is surely influenced from the Latin
name Tierna and influenced by Slavic phonetics.
o The river Barzava. Another word of Geto-Dacian origin, from the radical
bere or berez, meaning white, and its suffix bis, or vis. Possibly also
named after a nearby Dacian city, Berzobis.
o Turda. The origin of this word is Turri-Dava, from Latin. The name then
would be formed from Turris - tower - and dava - citadel.
o Abrud. The origin of this name comes from Latin Abruttum, a synonym
for gold. [22]

• The majority of Romanian words assumed to be of Dacian origin are not shared
with Albanian. Therefore, it is impossible to assume they were adopted from the
Albanians or that the Vlachs lived among the Albanians before the 10th century.
[22]

• Ernst Gamillschag has attested that the Romanians have preserved the Thracian
word for the Danube, “Donaris/Donare” which means “The big river” even
though the Albanians and Aromanians use the Turkish word “Duna.” He writes
“The old name for the river would have disappeared from the Daco-Roman
vocabulary had they only returned to their old homeland centuries after they left.
 The name “Donaris” was borrowed by the Romans who mixed with the Dacians,
and this word has been well preserved.” [22]

• Inherited Albanian words (Ex: Alb. motër 'sister' < Late IE ma:ter 'mother') shows
the transformation Late IE /a:/ > Alb /o/, but all the Latin loans in Albanian
having an /a:/ shows Latin a: > Alb a. This indicates that the transformation
PAlb /a:/ > PAlb /o/ happened and ended before the Roman arrival in the Balkans.

• The name for a type of fuel, "pacura", is derived directly from the Latin "picula".
This particular fuel can only arises naturally north of the Danube, particularly in
Transylvania, where it was used by the Romans and Dacians. This word is not
used in any other Romance languages, surviving only in Romanian. [71]

5. 1. 3. Ethnic

• The similarity between the current Romanian traditional clothes and the Dacian
clothes, as depicted on Trajan's Column. Examples of similarity include
embroidery of clothing [72] and the wearing of opinci sandals [73] as portrayed on the
Arch of Constantine.

• Genetic testing on Romanian HLA groups have confirmed a distinct genetic

affinity of the Romanians to Italians, indicating Roman ancestry. [74]

5. 1. 4. Archaeological

• The following locations show continuous Daco-Roman habitation from the 3rd to
the 5th century [75]
o Mines: Baia de Cris, Tincova, Ruda, Alun, Hunedoara, Baita Cib, Fizes,
Cabesti, Videim, Albac, Bistrita de Sus, Vidra, Cimpeni Lupsa, Salciua,
Podeni, Potaissa, Baisoara, Valea Ierii.
o Monetary thesauri: Bicasi, Pilu, Carei, Copalnic, Soimuseni, Doba Mica,
Simieu Silvaniei, Porolissum, Babiu, Gurani, Sintna, Arad, Pecica, Cenad,
Horia, Biled, Carani, Jimbova, Checea, Unip, Faget, Debra, Deva,
Huedoara, Sepes, Ungureni, Apulum, Seica Mica, Seica Mare, Sura Mare,
Sibiu, Ocna Sibiului Soars, Lasiea
o Daco-Roman and Roman settlements: Taga, Soporu, Band, Lechinta,
Ludus, Cipau, Brateiu, Seica Mica, Biertan, Sighisoara, Sinpaul, Morada,
Ineu, Pilu, Biharia, Berca, Mediesu Aurit, Apa, Dej, Rascruci, Napoca,
Baciu, Sebes, Hatg, Deva, Debra, Apulum, Gura Vaii, Cazanesti, Hateg,
Faroia.
o Major Cities and forts: Deva, Haţeg, Hunedoara, Sighişoara, Ulpia
Traiana Sarmisegetuza, Bistriţa, Bicasi.
o Bridges: Apulum

• The cultural elements and styles of archaeological artefacts discovered over the
period of the 3rd-5th centuries show a clear material and stylistic continuity,
 indicating continuous habitation by the same people. The cultural character of the
findings remains the same until the 6th century, with the arrival of the Slavs. [76]

• Ceramic manufacturing traditions continue from the pre-Roman to the Roman era
continue both in Roman Dacia and unoccupied Dacia, and these traditions
continue well into the fourth and fifth centuries. [77]

• Cemeteries in Roman Dacia show cremation consistently across every necropolis,

a pre-Roman Dacian tradition. Materials buried with cremated people are
comparable both in Roman and in Free Dacia suggesting the native population did
not suffer materially due to Roman occupation. [78]

• Though there is a change from cremation to inhumation in the post-Roman period

inhumation was an increasingly popular concept in the 3rd century. The rich
ceramic remains in these necropoli are identical in technology to pre-Roman and
Roman era tombs, including the presence of Roman amphorae and wheel-made,
gravel-tempered, or hand-made pots. [79]

• A noteworthy aspect of third to fifth century graves is the widespread distribution

(from Transylvania to the Ukrainian border) and substantial number of objects of
Roman manufacture, in excellent condition, which must be indicative of an active
system of exchange. [80]

• Archaeological surveys of the Banat region record numerous settlements, storage

pits, pottery kilns, glass furnaces, metallurgical production sites, and coins (both
as hoards and found on sites) [81] which indicate a continuation of both sedentary
population and maintenance of Roman military and economic interests. [82]

• Circulation of Roman coins grew both in Roman and Free Dacia in the 1st and
2nd centuries, declining in the third but then rising again since the 4th century [83]
The extent and increase in coin circulation even after the Roman withdrawal from
Dacia and as far north as Transcarpathia is argued by some prominent
archaeologists to have no other analogy in neighboring provinces, nor in any other
barbarian territory [84]

• Some cities show the absence of Dacian names completely from inscriptions but
which show Dacian burial rituals, indicating that Dacians near urban centers were
rapidly Romanized, adopting Roman names but maintaining their old traditions.
[85]

• Archaeological digs throughout Transylvania and Romania have discovered many

clay pots dating from the IV, V, VI, and VII centuries. What makes these pots
particularly interesting is that they were made using the potter's wheel, an
invention which no migratory people had when the came through Romania. The
only population which could have produced these pots is one which had sufficient
contact with the Roman and Hellenic world to adopt this style of making pots. We
know the Slavs did not adopt this style until much later because pots made
 without the use of the potter's wheel are also found throughout Romania during
this time. [22]

• The thousands of old Roman coins dating from the IV, V and VI centuries found
on Romania are peculiar because they are a) made of bronze and b) show the
portrait of contemporary emperors on them. The first part affirms that these coins
were not valuable, meaning that they were common currency. There is no way
such coins could have found their way into Romania through tribute or trade
between the Romans and barbarians because the Goths, Avars, Huns, and others
would only accept gold coins and items as tribute, as bronze coins had little value
or use to them. The material indicates that these coins were used as a common
bartering currency for low-value items (like food or iron) by a poor populace.
Their number, and the diverse locations that they've been found in, indicates that
this populace was large, and spread all over the country. The second aspect
reflects the historical fact that there was significant communication between this
proto-Romanian populace and the Roman Empire, enough to allow for the
accurate re-minting of coins. Even if the coins were imported by the proto-
Romanians from the Romans, it still is evidence of significant contact between the
Romans and the Romanians North of the Danube. [22]

• Vasile Parvan discovered two documents in Transylvania dating from the IV

century which mentions a Goth "king" who referred to himself as "jude" over his
populace, an administrative title preserved also by the Romanian principalities in
the Middle Ages. This king chose the title because it must have had some
significance to the people he presided over, otherwise there would have been no
point in using it as opposed to some proto-Germanic word like "Herzog." Since
this title was only relevant to Romanians, it is clear that this king must have
presided over the proto-Romanians. [22]

• At the supposed site of relocation of these colonists, that being Moesia, of which
only a small upper part was renamed as Dacia. In this region, there is no recording
of any drastic increase of population, something which would definitely have
resulted from such an influx of refugees. When the Goths sought refuge in the
Eastern Roman Empire to escape the Huns, their presence is clearly attestable in
cesspits, cemeteries, and archaeological relics. The relocated Dacian colonists
however, did not leave any impression at all. There is no sudden growth in
cemeteries, nor in cremation urns discovered. There is no expansion of cities and
towns in the 3rd century, and no new towns are created. This leads to one of two
conclusions: Either the newly relocated colonists made sure to only cremate
themselves and simply throw away their ashes into the wind, consume as little as
possible, smash every pot they had, and be homeless for the rest of their
existence; or, such a massive relocation never happened. [22]

• A Daco-Roman necropolis was discovered in Sibiu belonging to the local

population, which had, among the objects buried with the deceased, ceramic
 objects of Roman cultural origin, coins from the time of Antonius Pius (138-161)
and Septimius Sever (193-211) and vases made in the Dacian style. [22] [86]

• During the 5th-7th centuries houses all over Romania are noted as having "vatra"
ovens, being ovens made of clay and surrounded by stones. These ovens could not
have belonged to the Slavs who had a different style of construction, and is
noticeable in Dacian-occupied areas in Romania during the 1st-3rd century.
Traditional Roman ovens were also discovered in the same area as these "vatra
ovens." [87]

Vasile Boroneanţ, Bucuresti, Romania

O căpetenie dacică în secolul IV d.Hr. la Chitila

Text at: http://www.dacia.org/densusianu2002/Comunicarile_Congresului/Vasile_Boroneaneat/vasile_boroneaneat.html

Cercetările arheologice efectuate la Chitila Fermă, de pe grindul colmatat, situat la nord-vestul staţiunii, între calea ferată Bucureşti-Ploieşti
şi cursul Colentinei, au pus în evidenţă o locuire din sec. II-V aparţinând carpo-dacilor. Locuirea era cunoscută din cercetările de teren
anterioare. În secţiunile I-III praticate în 2001 a fost pusă în evidenţă o locuire din epocă dacică care o continuă pe cea din partea de vest a
staţiunii din secolele III-I î.Hr. Locuirea din secolele II-V d.Hr. se suprapune peste una din epoca bronzului, cultura Tei. Pentru această
epocă au fost identificate trei locuinţe atelier în care se desfăşura reducerea minereului de fier, precum şi prelucrarea acestui metal, dar şi a
bronzului, argintului şi cuprului. Aici se făureau unelte, arme, obiecte de podoabă şi de uz gospodăresc. Piesele de metal se aflau împreună
cu o cantitate importantă de zgură, topitură de metale, turte de fier brut, arsură, cenuşă, cărbune, rezultate din reducerea minereului după
procedeul direct pe vatră. Acestea sunt însoţite de o cantitate importantă de ceramică.

Materialul ceramic găsit este prelucrat cu mâna, cu roata olarului, chiar în aşezare, dar există şi o importantă cantitate de factură romană
rezultată din importurile pe care populaţia locală le făcea pe calea schimbului cu dacii din provincia Dacia cucerită, din Sciţia Minor, Moesia
sau din alte provincii mărginaşe ale imperiului. Cercetările fac dovada unei vieţi economice, sociale şi religioase bine organizate, dar la un
nivel de dezvoltare caracteristic lumii barbare de la periferia imperiului roman din acea vreme.

Analiza materialelor găsite în săpătură duce la concluzia că populaţia carpo-dacică avea o organizare militară care este susţinută de
descoperirea vârfurilor de săgeată, de suliţă, pinteni de călăreţi, etc. În aşezare se desfăşura şi o intensă activitate de păstorit, agricultură,
activităţi casnic-gospodăreşti ca tors, împletit, cioplitul lemnului şi pescuit. Agricultura era favorizată în dezvoltarea sa de pământul umed,
fertil de origine aluvio-coluvială din preajma râului şi mlaştinilor. Potenţialul economic era ridicat şi s-a dezvoltat în strânsă legătură cu
peisajul de luncă bogat în vegetaţie specifică, populată de o bogată faună piscicolă, de avifaună, vânat mărunt şi de talie mijlocie. La acest
potenţial se adăuga şi cel provenit din pădurile de foioase care populau întreaga câmpie din jur. Cursul Dâmboviţei favoriza legăturile de
schimb cu regiunile de deal şi munte din nord şi vest, dar şi cu bazinul dunărean din sud care asigura relaţiile pe calea fluviului cu provinciile
romane vecine.

Importantă este descoperirea în aşezare a sceptrului de bronz care face dovada faptului că daco-carpii erau la acea dată creştini, credinţă
pe care o împărtăşea şi conducătorul comunităţii care putea fi chiar un preot cu rang înalt, după forma şi motivele ornamentale ce le
prezintă piesa descoperită. Sceptrul e de fabricaţie locală, realizat de către un meşter puţin priceput dar cunoscător al tradiţiilor locale traco-
getice cu origini preistorice indubitabile. Piesa este un arhetip ce are foma unei mitre de arhiereu şi prezintă un orificiu mai larg la bază
pentru introducerea mânerului (un baston). Deasupra prezintă un orificiu mai mic în care a fost incastrată piesa care reprezenta o cruce
făcută probabil din acelaşi metal şi care s-a pierdut. Reconstituirea formei piesei este posibilă datorită imaginilor de pe piesele monetare de
epocă sau de pe piesele de podoabă şi de ceramica găsită în areal. Un element convingător şi indubitabil este prezenţa globului cruciger de
pe emisiunile monetare în care împăraţii din dinastiile constantiniană (324-364), valentiniană (364-378), teodosiană (379-457), leoniană
(457-518), iustiniană (518-610) şi apoi a heraclizilor (610-717) şi a celor care au urmat purtau în mâini globul cu cruce.

Forma globulară a sceptrului face parte din tradiţia dacică a arealului şi este atestată şi prin sceptrul descoperit în mormântul dacic de secol
III de la Peretu, cu ascendenţă în cele din piatră şi lut din epoca pietrei şi bronzului, în special cele din cultura Tei de la Căţelu Nou,
Băneasa, Butimanu etc. Ornamentarea în lobi are aceeaşi tradiţie şi este susţinută de motivul în frunză de brăduţ aplicat pe buzdugan,
dispus în cruce pe calota piesei, înscrisă şi ea pe un plan în cruce care îmbracă întreaga piesă. În deschiderile ovale de pe lobii piesei au
fost încastrate cu mare probabilitate pietre preţioase, care s-au pierdut o dată cu crucea de deasupra sa.

Descoperirea acestei piese de la Chitila pune problema că, la acea dată, daco-carpii erau deja creştini, iar creştinarea goţilor ca aliaţi ai lor
împotriva imperiului roman face parte din coaliţia politică, din convieţuirea dintre aceaştia în zonă şi constituie un proces normal în acest
context istoric. Un proces normal trebuie considerată şi relaţia populaţiei daco-carpice cu cea din Sciţia Minor unde trăiau creştini fraţi de
limbă şi sânge, sugerată şi de descoperirile de la Dinogeţia şi Histria, la care s-a făcut apel şi în recentele descoperiri de cripte cu martiri
creştini din Sciţia Minor.

Descoperirea aduce astfel lumini noi în ceea ce priveşte formarea poporului român în care factorul activ a fost creştinismul şi raporturile de
înrudire dintre populaţia din zona cucerită de romani cu cea a dacilor rămaşi liberi, precum şi cu pătrunderea în imperiu pe calea deselor
incursiuni a populaţiei daco-carpice. Un alt aspect care trebuie luat în considerare este faptul că în armata romană se înrolau luptători
vorbitori de limbă daco-carpică care, împreună cu concubinele lor, se întorceau acasă după exercitarea serviciului militar sau în urma
îmbolnăvirilor sau invalidizărilor din timpul serviciului militar. Procesul stă în strânsă legătură cu limba latină populară, variantă a limbii latine
oficiale, cu schimbarea produsă mai târziu de către biserica Occidentului prin limba latină medievală şi naşterea limbilor neo-latine. Procesul
este paralel cu sincretismul religios din spaţiul carpato-dacic şi cu amalgamul de populaţii care au existat în zonă între secolele I-IV d.Hr., în
care elementul precumpănitor era cel autohton, în ciuda valurilor de stăpânitori politico-militari care s-au succedat .

Origins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vlachs

Vlachs originate from the Romanized people of south-eastern Europe; from a mix of
Roman colonists (from various Roman provinces) and indigenous peoples who were
Latinised. The Vlach peoples from the south Balkans have generally been identified with
the indigenous populations of Thracian and or Illyrian origin. Many Vlachs settled into
the less-accessible mountainous areas of Greece and the northern Balkan region because
of the Germanic and Avar-Slav invasions and immigration of the 5th-7th centuries.
Their more exact place of origin is hard to determine as they can be found all over the
Balkan peninsula. Aromanians can be found in Greece, Bulgaria, Albania and the
Republic of Macedonia, while Romanians in Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, Serbia and
Hungary. Their occupations were mostly trading, shepherding and craftsmanship. It is not
known exactly when the Vlachs who were the ancestors of present day Aromanians broke
off from the general body of Vlach people; historians point to a period between the 5th--
9th Centuries.
[edit] Byzantine period
For more details on this topic, see Vlachs.
The history of the Vlachs is a long struggle for achieving own statehood and separateness
and was marked by rebellions against foreign and imperial rule.
In 579 AD, two Byzantine chroniclers, Theophanes and Theophylactus, provided
accounts of the language of the Armani (Vlachs)[citation needed]. The Slavic-derived
exonym Vlachoi ("Vlachs") became a substitute for the term Armani when it was first
used in 976 AD. In 1020, Basil II specifically placed the "Vlachs of all Bulgaria" under
the jurisdiction of the new Archbishop of Ochrida. In 1027 they are included in Western
accounts (the Annales Barenses) of a Byzantine expedition to Italy.
Another Byzantine historian, Kekaumenos mentions a revolt of Vlachs of Thessaly in
1066, and their ruler Verivoi. One of the first full description is given in the Strategikon
of Kekaumenos, where the presence of numerous Vlach shepherds in Epirus and
Thessaly is noted, as well as their provenance in the Danube valley and their descent
from ancient tribes. Because of their nomadic and migratory lifestyle, Kekaumenos
writes, they enjoyed a bad reputation.
According to the 12th-century Byzantine historian Anna Comnena, they founded the
independent state of Great Walachia, which covered the Pindus Mountain ranges and part
of Macedonia. The Vlachs of Thessaly and Macedonia appear regularly in Anna
Comnena's Alexiad
The Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, a Spanish Jew who traveled through out South-Eastern
Europe and the Middle East between 1159 and 1173 wrote about the Vlachs coming
down from the mountains to attack the Greeks. He also described them as a group of
rebels, who may have had Jewish origins. Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela while traveling
through Thessaly describes the Vlachs as nimble mountaineers. Referring to the Vlachs
of Macedonia he said: "no Emperor can conquer them". He visited Constantinople,
during the reign of Manuel Comnenus (1143-1180 AD), and writes of the Emperor's
special sympathy for the Vlachs because of his origins from that people.
After the collapse of the Byzantine Empire in the Fourth Crusade, the numerous
Aromanians (Valachians) of Thessaly and the southern regions of Macedonia and Epirus
established their own state, and the area was known as Great Wallachia(Vlahia).
Choniates wrote, between 1202 and 1214, that the Thessalian mountain region was called
"Great Wallachia". After the establishment of the Latin Empire at Constantinople in
1204, Great Wallachia was absorbed by the Greek Despotate of Epirus; later it was
annexed by the Serbs, and in 1393 it fell to the Turks. Another Vlach region, called Little
Walachia, was located in Aetolia and Acarnania (department in west central Greece).