Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 7

Restoration of former version required
In its present state of the article is far worse than the previous version. Not only is it blatantly biased towards the migration theory but it shows a complete disregard for the basic rules of writing a scientific text. among the more stringent issues are; excessive reliance of the opinions of modern authors whose opinions are presented in a sterile without any arguments or proof to support said opinions (which goes against the accepted methodology when writing a history related article, i.e. using the oldest historic records available that describe the event), the presentation of various protochronistic or nationlistic ideas as theories despite the fact that they are only supported by author of the referenced book (the best example is the fragment about the chronicle of saint nestor (though the author purposely left out the name of chronicle) where claims that voloch does not refer to romanians without any further explanation while also stating that romanians believe it to be a "feeble theory" (ignoring the fact that the cited author has lost almost all credibility even within the hungarian academic circles). the author completely ignores the fact that voloch = vlach in most slavic languages prompting the uninformed reader to believe nationalistic ravings of a discredited historian). the majority of evidence in favor of the continuity theory is put in random quotation marks in order to reduce their significance. over-reliance on circular arguments (ex: the migration theory is true because anonymous only knew about the bulgars and he only knew about the bulgars because the migration theory is true), the author completely ignores any historic documents that are older than 1000 AD (which funnily enough coiuncides with the foundation of the hungarian kingdom) (ex: the author says that the first to mention romanians is kekaumemnos in ~1100, and thus ignores the fact that romanians are first mentioned 700 years earlier in historia augusta, though nout under name of romanians), usage of fabricated or the miss-usage of geographical terms (ex: the use of vlach when referring to romanians despite the fact that vlach is an umbrella term encompasing all eastern romance speakers from dalmatians to romanians to morlachs; the excessive use of the geographic term "carpathian basin" (which funnily enough is used to represent grater hungary) a term only accepted in hungary and a geographic nonsense considering that mountains do not form basins and sedimentary plateaus are not limited to a single geographic area). these are just a few of the problems plaguing this version of the article.

as such given the above, seeing the other editor's reactions to boroska's version and knowing that in the last year the vast majority of users who visited this page did not agree that boroska should rewrite this article (check the archives if you do not believe me) i have decided that a restoration is required. however seeing as how i respect the opinions of the other editors i will give it some time before reverting. thus those who are for or against my restoration of the article may present their opinion here. i will return in one week, if the majority agrees with me the article shall be restored. if no one, other than boroska, expresses their opinion on the matter i shall take it that all agree with my proposition and shall proceed to repairing the damage done to the article. note: in order to prevent meat-puppetry and ganging i will only take into consideration the opinions of those editors who have visited the talk page at least twice in the last 6 months prior to boroska's rewriting of the article.

i apologies if the tone of my comment seems agitated, angry, etc. i can guarantee that i am perfectly calm as i write this. also i did not mean to insult any user with this post. Adijarca (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Borsoka (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Adijarca, thank you for your remark, although I do not understand it.
 * Would you, please, provide an argument of the Daco-Romanian continuity theory which was ignored when the article was written? Because if there is any, I think it should be added.
 * Would you explain your reference to the oldest historic records? Based on the reliable sources which were used when the article was written (e.g., Victor Spinei: The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century, Florin Curta: Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250) I thought that I managed to present the oldest historic references to the Romanians in Southeastern Europe. If you know others sources, please, do not refrain from adding it.
 * Would you explain your remark that St. (?) Nestor's name was ignored in the article? Would you explain why a citation from the Russian Primary Chronicle, based on a source written by a scholar, contradicts to wikipedia's policies?
 * Would you, please, read the article again. There are two references to the fact that Voloch meant populations speaking a Romance language in the Slavic languages. Do you think it should be repeated again?
 * I would be grateful if you could cite a source which proves that "the cited author has lost almost all credibility even within the hungarian academic circles".
 * Would you provide a "historic documents that are older than 1000 AD (which funnily enough coiuncides with the foundation of the hungarian kingdom)" which was ignored when the article was written?
 * Would you cite the part of the Historia Augusta which mentions Romanians (even under other name)?
 * Would you explain your reference to "fabricated or miss-used geographical terms"?
 * Would you read again the article in order to find two references to the fact that "vlach" is an umbrella term which refers to speakers of Balkan Romance languages.
 * The reference to Kekaumenos is based on Vlad Georgescu's work. Would you explain why do you think that this Romanian author is a not reliable source?
 * Sorry, but I do not understand your reference to the term Carpathian Basin? Would you explain it.
 * Would you name the wikipedia's editors you referred to above. Please take into account that the article was rewritten in December; and before it no editors had expressed any concerns about the re-writting of the article.
 * Would you explain why was the former version of the article most reliable. The former version was based on books written in the 1980s, the new version is based on books written in the last 20 years. The former version did not summarize the basic argumentation of the converse theories, the new one does.

I vote for the restoration of the old article Origin of the Romanians. I consider Borsoka's attempt biased and poor, leading the reader on false tracks. for example "the Byzantines were the first to refer to the Romanians, specifically to the Balkan Vlachs. Kekaumenos (11th century) mentioned that the Vlachs “are the so-called Dacians and Bessi who used to live near the rivers Danube and Saos (which we call Sava), where now the Serbs live”. Ioannes Kinnamos (12th century) wrote that they “are said to have descended from the one-time Italian settlers.”" What does one conclude from the cropped text of Kekaumenos ? That the Vlachs originate from Serbia ? and immediately we're given a quote from Kinnamos as to show how erroneous Kekaumenos' text is. To me, Borsoka is manipulating and directing the reader's opinnion. If he would have not chopped off Kekaumenos text, which says "Dacians who were defeated by Trajan and after causing them troubles from their fortified places, the romans forced them to leave their homeland. and they spread to Epirus Macedonia and Hellas" one would have connected the Vlachs with the Dacian wars, and the conquest of Dacia. Which shows how much information Kekaumenos had, i bet Kinnamos' paragraph also has more info on vlachs, info that Borsoka cropped out. It is malicious to butcher texts of such value for the Origin of Romania as Kekaumenos' paragraph in Strategikon. Criztu (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say Adijarca's monologue was malicious, I think this is the best place to debate historical problems of Romanians. We can compare our point of views. Instead of Allegation I read gladly Borsoka's articles because his argumentation is free of politics and He attempt to piece together history of Romanians from real facts. Fakirbakir 15:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Cristu, thank you for your remark, although I do not clearly understand it. Do you suggest that the text "who used to live near the rivers Danube and Saos (which we call Sava), where now the Serbs live" is a falsification of Kekaumenos' text? If the answer is yes, please share with us the source based on which this statement and the above citation were made. The latest translation of the Strategikon (Cecaumeno - Signes Codoñer, Juan: Consejos de un aristócrata Bizantino; Alianza Editorial, 2000, Madrid; ISBN 84-206-3594-4) contains the text cited in the article. Or do you suggest that when Kekaumenos writes of "the territory where now the Serbs live", he refers not to Serbia but to Romania? Or do you suggest that the citation in the article (which refers to Dacians and Bessi) should be extended by the part of Kekaumenos' text which narrates the Dacians' defeat of Traian? Borsoka (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Hungarian person under the username Borsoka, I have shared the complete paragraph of Kekaumenos, in the article Origin of the Romanians. Article which you have butchered in what i consider a very biased POV. You have cut and cropped the Kekaumenos written historical source as it suited you. Which i consider hideous.Criztu (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Criztu, would you, please, share with us the reliable source based on which your above statement is made? I would be really grateful for the information, because if there were a reliable source which states that Kekaumenos does not speak of Vlachs living in the territory where the Serbs used to live, it should be presented in the article. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless would you, please, provide us some further arguments in favour of the former version? How could an article based mostly on books written in the 1980s represent the actual state of reasearch? How could an article whose sources cannot be chequed be more neutral than its present status? Why would an article based mostly on the works of Romanian and Hungarian authors be more neutral than an article presenting also the views of other internationally acknowledged scholars? Borsoka (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to emphasize that the article could probably be improved. Borsoka (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

An article to be rewritten
I think this is the worst article I have ever read in Wikipedia. And it have not improved.

1. There are plenty of sentences without proper citation, most of them is based on original research (see tags in the article)

2. The sources of the article does not reflect the latest academic views (Victor Spinei, Ioanna Oltean).

3. Several of the sources used by the article are extremily biased (Armbruster, propaganda material written in Ceausescu's time)

4. The article does not reflect several mainstream theories: admigration theory, theory of core territories of the Romanians.

5. The article should summarize the major aspects of the ethnogenesis of the Romanians without overconcentrating to one or two specific issues (the survival of the Dacians)

....etcBorsoka (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not the worst, but is certainly one of the real low water marks. It is too long, listing too much obvious nonsense, and an easy start would be to remove just that. Just to pick a few examples:
 * The Roman-Gothic author Jordanes, ...[snip]... 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
 * the citation does not support the statement in the previous text, so this is obvious cr*p, and on the other side:
 * The traditional interpretation of the ethnonim Blakumenn or Blokumenn in Old Norse is Wallachian (Romanian), though alternative explanation is that the term means 'black men'; some authors interpret it as Black Cuman.
 * is typical constructed fringe. The "some author" cited is a Hungarian that obviously doesn't know Old Norse, where it would have been "blámenn", not "blackumen". ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 20:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has been rewritten
The suggestion that the article should be rewritten entirely was tagged 4 months ago. Since no adverse opinions have been expressed, I was bold and rewrote the article. Besides the reasons listed above when proposing the rewriting of the article, I think there are several other arguments in favor of the revision:


 * The former stage of the article over-emphasized some aspects of the formation of the Romanian people (for example, the connection between the Dacians and the Romanians), while other aspects of the Romanian ethnogenesis were mostly neglected (e.g., Christianity).


 * The “current view section” of the article suggests that otherwise it was not based on the latest reliable sources.


 * Biased interpretation of the cited sources: for example, based on the recent study the article states that “In one study, comparison between mtDNA analysis of skeletal remains from Bronze and Iron Age populations of South-East Romania point to an evident genetic similarity between the old Thracian individuals and the modern populations from South-East of Europe”, but fails to cite the documents’ reference to the Romanians: “So far it can only be supposed, that the old Thracian populations would have been able to contribute to the foundation of the Romanian modern genetic pool.”

etc.

I am sure that the article will also be improved in the future, but I hope that its present form, based on exclusively reliable sources written mostly in the last 20 years, is in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines (e.g., more neutral, less biased). Most of the arguments presented in the previous stage of the article were preserved, but they are now presented based on modern sources. Some fringe theories (e.g., Gyula III was Romanian) were deleted; if it is necessary, I think these theories could be presented (based on reliable sources) in the proper articles. Borsoka (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! NICE work! Now it really looks like an article.-- B@xter 9 09:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your rewriting of the article looks biased from the very beginning, to me. You write Besides the Romans and the Romanized autochthonous population, the Slavs also played a vital role . Well, it's like saying about the Hungarian people "Besides the Slavs and Romanians, and the alien population, the Germans also played a vital role" . You are a Hungarian right ? I can tell that by reading the section "Written sources on the origin of the Romanians" which you begin by citing Eutropius "the dacians were exterminated" - the pivotal argument of the Hungarian revisionism. Criztu (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Cristu, thank you for your above remarks. Please read the books written by Ioan Aurel Pop and Vlad Georgescu (they are cited in the reference list of the article) - they are Romanians (moreover, they are followers of the most orthodox Daco-Romanian continuity theory), but they refer to the fact that the Slavs played a vital role in the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people. Sorry, I do not understand your second remark: do you think that Eutropius wrote of the extermination of the Dacians in the 4th century, because he decided to assist "Hungarian revisionists" in the 20th century? Or I missed your point. Moreover, Eutropius' text has traditionally been cited by scholars who describe the ethnogenesis of the Romanians; for example, in the article (as far as I can remember) the reference is based on Vlad Georgescu's book (but I think most of the sources listed in the article could be cited). Just one other remark, most of the scholars who denies the Daco-Romanian continuity (your "Hungarian revisionists", although some of them are of German or British origin) emphasize that the Dacians were not "exterminated" by the Romans - please read the relevant references of the part of the article which describes the diverse theories of the fate of the native population in Dacia after the Roman conquest. Borsoka (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear unknown person, i think u do not qualify to rewrite an article of such magnitude. From what I read from what you wrote, you hardly understand the terms "biased" and POV. From your response to my above example - autochtonous vs alien - you hardly understand examples. Criztu (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Criztu, thank you again for your above remarks - although I do not clearly understand them. (1) The suggestion that the article should be rewritten was put on the top on the article about 4 months ago, and no adverse opinion has been expressed. (2) Now the article is based exclusively on peer-revieved books and articles, most of them was written in the last 20 years. (3) All the relevant theories of the origin of the Romanians are presented. (4) The principal argumentation of the diverse schools is also presented based on books and articles written by the followers of the relevant school. Sorry, but I must have missed some of your points because I have not found any reference in your above remarks to the "autochtonous vs alien" relationship. Borsoka (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While the rewriting is impressive and in many aspects it represents a step forward, here's why I think this version is still far from being "neutral":
 * A good number of sources are not reliable, as the authors are not scholars (e.g. Ion Grumeza, Nicolae Klepper) or do not have the necessary expertise, e.g. historians and archaeologists forwarding arguments in linguistics (there's no major work on Romanian language in bibliography! - Rosetti's or any similar other).
 * The article is still cherry-picking. For this reader is hard to understand how the sources are chosen to support the presented arguments and views. For example, Florin Curta in The Making of the Slavs (and also in Southeastern Europe, p. 53-69) is advocating for a non-migrationist Slavic "ethnogenesis", yet the article is postulating a non-controversial massive Slavic migration and conquest (referring to V. Georgescu, I. A. Pop, J. Fine, W. Treadgold, none of them having exceptional expertise nor focus on Slavic antiquities). This seems to be important because "the Slavs also played a vital role in the formation of the Romanians".
 * The old pro-con views still exist only that they are now concealed under a different wording and structure and sometimes the opposing views were removed, not improved. E.g. "Some Romanian words of Latin origin can be traced back to the Latin via the Albanian language" is a controversial statement as the word fsat is attested in earliest Romanian texts (16th century), and some linguists (all Romanian as far as I know) suggested a Latin > Romanian development, not a borrowing from Albanian. Daizus (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Daizus, thank you for your suggestions. I am sure, as it was expressed above, that the article still needs improvement, and I hope that you will contribute to it. I think (or I hope) the article became more neutral, because now it represents the argumentation of the diverse schools exclusively based on the works written by the followers of the relevant school - but I am sure that several aspects of this fascinating subject could be presented in other ways, as well. I hope that you would use your library and add some new aspects of the subject. As to your specific remarks, I would like to add the following points:
 * Nicolae Klepper's book is cited only 5 times in the article, and I am sure that 4 of the sentences based on his work could also be cited from other works listed in the reference section (e.g., the list of the peoples living along the frontiers of Dacia Traiana province, the assumption that normal contact between Daco-Romans and the Roman Empire continued uninterrupted until the 7th century, some substratum words) - the only sentence that I could not cite from other source is the maximum number of substratum words, because Klepper adds the maximum number in the sources I used.
 * Ioan Grumeza's book is also cited only 5 times in the article. Yes, I agree, he seems to be an extremest follower of the Daco-Romanian continuity theory, but he is the only author I have read who claims that the Dacians spoke a proto-Latin language (and if a theory exists, it can be presented). He also emphasizes that the Bulgarians copied the Romanians' national costume which is inherited by the Romanians from the Dacians. Otherwise, his reference to the reasons why Romanian historians denied the Daco-Romanian continuity before the end of the 18th century, or his reference to Old Vlachia could be cited based on other reliable sources, as well.
 * Sorry, I do not understand your remark regarding "historians and archaeologists forwarding arguments in linguistics" J. Augerot, Benjamin W. Fortson, Graham Mallinson, Rebecca Posner, István Schütz, Olga Miseska Tomic, Peter Kopecky are linguists, and their work are cited in the article. Would you, please, clarify your point?
 * Sorry, I do not understand your reference to the "cherry-picking" nature of the article. Florin Curta, based on archaeological finds, suggests that the territory where the ethnogenesis of the Slavs occured was the Lower Danube region - I do not think that this should be added, but if you think it is important, please do not refrain from adding it.
 * Sorry, I neither understand your reference to the "old pro-con views": the ethnogenesis of the Romanians is a controversial issue. For example, Romanian authors (however, there are exceptions) suggest that the Dridu culture represent a Christian, Romanized population - other authors point out that this contradict to their researches. If we conceal the opposite views of a specific aspect of the subject, we will mislead all who read wikipedia hoping that they can receive a full picture of the subject.
 * As to the Latin > Romanian development of the sat world, please do not refrain from adding information on diverse views. (Just one remark to your example, the Hungarian world for 'castle' (vár) was recorded in the earliest document which contains Hungarian words, the Charter of Foundation of the Tihany Abbey, in 1055 - but this word is probably of Iranian origin, a loanword in the Hungarian language - therefore, the fact that a world was recorded a thousand years ago does not prove that the world had not been borrowed from an other language. The Romanian world not only lost the Latin 'o' -fossatum-, similarly to its Albanian cognate, but the meaning of the world changed in the same way in the two languages - ditch > village. But I think all the relevant views can be presented based on reliable sources.)
 * Borsoka (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not contribute but I can discuss.
 * Cherry-picking is quite common in Wikipedia (but not only). Anyway, let's see my example in detail.
 * The current version of the article mentions several times a massive migration of Slavs around 600 CE. While included in bibliography (otherwise the traditional model of Slavic migration was contested by several scholars in the few past decades: H. G. Lunt, J. Nichols, O. Pritsak, E. S. Teodor, etc.), Curta's views are routinely ignored.
 * in section 1 we find "the onrush of the Slavs around 600 AD" but according to Curta (2001, 306):
 * there is already enough evidence to move away from the migrationist model which has dominated the dicipline of Slavic archaeology ever since its inception (Chapter 1). A retreat from migrationism is necessary simply because the available data do not fit any of the current models for the study of (pre)historic migration. [...] There is simply no evidence for the idea that the inhabitants of the sixth and early seventh-century settlements in Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine were colonists from the North.
 * Nor does the idea of a "Slavic tide" covering the Balkans in the early 600s fit the existing archaeological data. South of the Danube river, no archaeological assemblage comparable to those found north of that river produced any clear evidence for a date earlier than c. 700.
 * in section 3.4 we learn that "Slavs had conquered vast territories in the Balkans by the 610s. The Slavic settlement was on such a large scale that the Balkans were lost for several centuries to the empire." (the references are John Fine's Early Medieval Balkans and Warren Treadgold's A History of the Byzantine State and Society) however Curta argues that (2001, 113):
 * Moreover, until the siege of Thessalonica during Heraclius’ early regnal years, there is no evidence at all for outward migration, in the sense of a permanent change of residence. Almost all raids reported by Procopius in the mid-sixth century were followed by a return to the regions north of the Danube frontier. At times, the Sclavene warriors may have spent the winter on Roman territory, as in 550/1. However, Menander the Guardsman makes it clear that the wealth acquired during Sclavene raids was usually carried back home, across the Danube.
 * in section 4.4, one of the competing theories is presented "When the Roman border on the Danube fell in 602, two branches of the Proto-Romanians developed, and the southern branch, driven by the Slavs, become eventually the Balkan Vlachs." but Curta points out (2001, 189):
 * But when did the system eventually collapse? The communis opinio is that as soon as Phocas’ rebellion broke out, the limes crumbled and the Slavic tide invaded the Balkans. This idea, however, does not stand against the archaeological evidence. The year 602 has no archaeological significance for the early Byzantine settlements in the northern Balkans.
 * It also should be noted that Curta is paraphrased with "The communis opinio is that the Danubian limes crumbled in 602" (section 3.2), but that is rather a misinterpretation of what this author has to say, as his actual point ("This idea, however, does not stand ...") is that there is no evidence for a huge, destructive Slavic invasion in 602.
 * Also section 6.4.2 is dubious as only few of Curta's arguments are selected, and they mostly lack context or his conclusive remarks becoming some misleading insinuations or worthless factoids at best - the circulation of coins and goods was interrupted north of lower Danube for some two decades in mid 6th century, ok, so what's the point? Otherwise Barford and not Curta is preferred when discussing about pottery and other archaeological artefacts, even though Curta covers them all and several others (brooches, amphoras, clay pans). Curta goes even that far to say there're no real pottery groups such as Korchak or Prague types (2001, 287-90):
 * The classification of sixth- and seventh-century pots found on East European sites raises two major problems. One is that of dating, which I already discussed in a previous section of this chapter. The other is that of the mental template, a combination of technological, functional, cognitive, and cultural factors, which in the eyes of many archaeologists was specific to the early Slavs, and only to them. The idea of a mental template was behind Borkovský's Prague type and Rusanova's Zhitomir-Korchak type. [...] First, Borkovský and Rusanova insisted that the Prague type is a specific class of handmade pottery, but this series of plots clearly shows that both handmade and wheelmade pots were shaped similarly. Second, the Březno experiment and the fact that very similar shapes appear in ceramic assemblages considerably different in date suggest that vessel shape is primarily determined by vessel use and is not a function of "ethnic traditions"
 * On non-experts in linguistics: In section 7 we find also N. Klepper, I. Grumeza, I. A. Pop, F. Curta, T. Sălăgean, V. Spinei, V. Georgescu, C. H. Opreanu, I. Glodariu, A. Madgearu, Th. Nägler. At the same time notable scholars having major works on the history of Romanian language are missing: Al. Rosetti, M. Sala, S. Puşcariu, Gh. Mihăilă, I. I. Russu and many, many others. This is hardly a neutral presentation of academic views.
 * And this is not only a formal problem. Curta is paraphrased in section 7.5: "only 15 words can be attributed to a Common Slavic influence on the basis of their phonetical treatment [...]; no other words of a very long list of Slavic loans in Romanian can be dated earlier than the 9th century" (2001, 345-6, n. 13). Curta's main reference on this point is Gh. Mihăilă (1971 and republished in 1973), however in the same study Mihăilă analyzes each word, finding only a part of them to be probably of (South-)Slavic origin, and also concluding that their phonetism is posibly but not necessarily earlier than 9th century.
 * On non-experts in general: there's no excuse for relying on them. If a claim can't be properly sourced then probably it shouldn't be included at all in a controversy. Some may believe Romanians descend from ancient Sumerians, yes, so?
 * However, for those 160 substratum words you can check I. I. Russu (Limba traco-dacilor, 1967, p. 216: 160 autochtonous words, p. 217: Romans borrowing from the conquered ones about 160 words; Etnogeneza românilor, 1981, p. 143: over 160 ancient non-Latin Romanian words, p. 245-426 etymological discussion for each word), but similar numbers you'll find in the works of most linguists I mentioned above.
 * On pros and cons: I know this is a controversial topic and the problem is when the opposing views are missing. In section 7.4 there's "Romanian sat 'village' < Albanian fshat 'village' < Latin fossātum 'ditch'" with no mention whatsoever of the attested Old Romanian word or of alternative etymologies. Sat may be borrowed from Albanian or not, there are scholars supporting the latter view like Russu (1981, 212): Latin-Romance fossatum > Old Romanian fsat > sat (parallel in Albanian fshat), and a neutral article should mention that. Moreover, Al. Graur and I. I. Russu and others also argued in a way or another against the Balkan Sprachbund. Daizus (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Daizus, I really appreciate your above remarks - even if you do not want to contribute to the improvement of the article, you contribute to it by your suggestions. Please find the list of actions that were made based on them below, and also read my below reflections.


 * I think it is a historical fact that the Slavs appeared on the Balkan Peninsula sometime in the 7th century AD. In fact, there are other views, as well, for example the Illyrian-Croatian continuity theory, but written sources and toponyms suggest that before the 7th century the Balkan Peninsula had been inhabited by Romanized, semi-Romanized or non-Romanized autochthonous peoples, the descendants of Roman and Greek colonists, and (maybe) descendants of barbarian immigrants (Carps, Goths) - I think these alternative theories could be presented to the article dedicated to the early history of the Slavs. It is an other issue whether there was a mass Slavic migration to the territory (similar to the occupation of the plains of the Carpathian Basin by the Hungarians around 900), or the Slavs settled there in smaller or larger groups in the course of the 7th-8th centuries and their language was adapted by the other peoples. I think the second theory is most plausible, because archaeological findings suggest that significant territories of the Balkans had become depopulated by the 7th century. But I think if the followers of a theory (the Daco-Romanian continuity theory) insist on a massive migration, we have to present their views based on books written by them (I refer to the books written by Pop and Georgescu). Moreover, many specialists of the history of the Balkans (J. V. A. Fine, W. Treadgold) still accept the theory that there was a mass migration of the Slavs in the 7th century - even if we accept Florin Curta's views, we cannot state that he is the 'chosen one' who is entitled to be cited when the early history of the Slavs is described. Nevertheless, some sentences based on Florin Curta's book were added to the article.


 * „The onrush of the Slavs around 600” – the sentence is based on Pop, Ioan Aurel (2001:32), and a similar sentence can be read in Georgescu, Vlad (1991:13). I think that if two prominent representatives of a theory (the Daco-Romanian continuity theory) express this opinion we would falsify their views if we did not present it based on their books. Nevertheless the reference to the date could be deleted because it has no relevance.


 * In section 4.4., the sentence “When the Roman border on the Danube fell in 602, two branches of the Proto-Romanians developed, and the southern branch, driven by the Slavs, become eventually the Balkan Vlachs” is based on Georgescu, Vlad (1991:13). As the date had no relevance, and based on Curta, Florin (2001:189) it could also be 620 (instead of 602), the date was deleted.


 * “The communis opinio is that the Danubian limes crumbled in 602, but it was only in 620 when all Roman troops were definitely moved from Europe.” – I think this is what Florin Curta states: he states that the generally accepted view is that the limes collapsed around 602, BUT he also refers to the fact that the Roman troops were moved from Thrace. As these 18 years between 602 and 620 seems to be extremely important in the process of the formation of the Romanians, a new sentence was added based on Curta, Florin (2001:189). But I still would like to suggest that we cannot use exclusively books written by Florin Curta, because he is not the only expert of the early medieval history of Southeastern Europe (although I think he is one of the most reliable writers, although in some cases he, similarly to other historians, also seems to use secondary sources when refers to primary sources).


 * I fully agree with you that pottery groups cannot prove anything and Florin Curta's reference to this fact is added (although the article already referred to this fact based on Barford, P. M. (2001:290) and Heather, Peter (1996:86). But we cannot conceal the fact that most of the followers of the Daco-Romanian continuity theory states that the Dacian presence in Roman Dacia, and the Daco-Roman presence in post-Aurelian Dacia and in the trans-Carpathian region is proved by pottery; even wheel-made pottery from the 8th- and 9th-century Transylvanian sites can be interpreted as possibly indicating the continuation of Roman tradition - Madgearu, Alexandru (2005:105).
 * All the historians who describe the formation of the Romanian people use linguistic arguments, their books qualify reliable sources, because they are peer-reviewed scholarly works (please read any of the books describing the history of Romania, some of them are listed in the reference section of the article). Of course, the best solution if sources written by linguists are added, and if you do not want to contribute, other editors can. But as I understand, you have not challanged most of the linguistic arguments presented in the article.
 * On the non-experts general, as you can see, Nicolae Klepper’s book, the one you qualified above as a non-reliable source, suggests the same number (160) for substratum words as the linguists you presented in your last remark. But you can add other, more reliable sources in order to strengthen his calculation. On the other hand, J. Augerot, who is a linguist, thinks that there are only 90 substratum words – as this is the lowest number I have read, I think it should not be ignored.


 * Sorry, I do not understand your next sentence: "Curta's main reference on this point is Gh. Mihăilă (1971 and republished in 1973), however in the same study Mihăilă analyzes each word, finding only a part of them to be probably of (South-)Slavic origin, and also concluding that their phonetism is posibly but not necessarily earlier than 9th century." The sentence in the article states the same with other words, based on Curta, Florin (2001:345-6, n. 13), or I missed your point.


 * As to the sat word, a reference was inserted in the article to the alternative theory (Latin>Romanian). But I am not in the position to add any source, because I have not read this theory.


 * As to Grumeza’s claim that the Dacians spoke a proto-Latin language, I fully agree with you that it is not one of the best-established theories. But reading the Talk page of the article, one can find that several editors expressed that an article relating to the origin of the Romanians should present these views.


 * As to the Balkan linguistic union, I think only the title of the part of the article could be challanged based on your remark (what about 'The proposed Balkan Sprachbund'), because its narrative part is neutral: it is a fact that several languages in Southeastern Europe use, for example, postposed articles (which is unusual in other parts of Europe). I think any solution could be acceptable, even the whole paragraph could be deleted, and its information could be presented under the title Albanian connections.

Borsoka (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Borsoka (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi and happy new year!
 * When you replied to me "you have not challanged most of the [...] arguments " you missed my point. I claimed this article is not neutral and I also brought few examples to show what type of biases I found. I don't have to challenge any argument, only to show they are one-sided, I don't have even to address a "most", "one" suffices to show there's a flaw.
 * The reliability and peer-review of historians, archaeologists and whatever non-linguists forwarding linguistic arguments are red herrings, unless those reviewers are linguists themselves. Also it is irrelevant if one non-expert gives an accurate figure (such as those 160 words from substratum), it is more important the source in itself is not reliable and other statements and arguments sourced from the same material might not be that accurate, might be controversial or even crackpot theories. One of the consequences of non-experts being routinely quoted is the mention of a Dacian "proto-Latin" (whatever that means) language as a plausible hypothesis.
 * The article currently suggests "15 words can be attributed to a Common Slavic influence", whereas Mihăilă, the scholar forwarding this argument, found 9 of them "probably of autochthonous origin, or in any case, not of certain Slavic origin". Perhaps you don't understand Romanian, but if you understand French, you can read this snippet from Google Books.
 * The article still favors the mass migration theory without properly introducing other positions. I also never suggested to use only F. Curta's books as sources, but to compose a narrative considering also his points of view and arguments. Curta's argument is that there was no significant migration of the Slavs (documented by archaeological or written sources) and he supports H. G. Lunt's earlier hypothesis of Slavic as lingua franca in barbarian states such as the Avar Khaganate. So if by "appearance" you mean "migration", then no, it is no "historical fact", but a controversial theory. Here's a Wiki attempt to create a more balanced narrative(not entirely succesful IMO, but anyway, better than in most articles on Slavs or Eastern European history). There are many recent books, articles and even debates on this topic. It's up to you to actually read and synthesize them. If you want to read more by Florin Curta and understand better his views, you should check also his site. Daizus (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Borsoka (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your remarks. You see, even if you do not want to contribute to the improvement of the article, you will. :)
 * I think that our approach is different. I think that the topic of the article should be described based on the views of the scholars who are engaged with the topic. If many historians (e.g., Vlad Georgescu, Ioan Aurel Pop) who write of the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people writes of a mass migration of the Slavs which was - according to them - a crucial moment of the ethnogenesis of the Romanias, we cannot conceal their views. We do not have to accept their views - but we have to present their views based on their books (which are reliable sources according to Wikipedia's standards).
 * Personally, I do not think that there was a mass migration of the Slavs, but I think that the Slavic language had been spoken somewhere in East-Europe before it spread over the Balkan Peninsula. It is obvious that not all the individuals who speak a Slavic language descended from one-time individuals who spoke a (proto-)Slavic language, and not all the descendants of one-time individuals who a thousand years ago spoke a Slavic language are native speakers of a modern Slavic language (e.g., among my ancestors were many Slavs, Germans, Italians, but I learned a Slavic, a Germanic and a Romance language in school). Personally, I think there was no need of a mass migration, because archaeological evidence from the 7th-9th centuries in the Balkan Peninsula suggest that it was not intensively populated, therefore even smaller groups ("the smallest sons of small families", who, as we know, had to leave their family home) could have easily constructed "majority" population in the territory. If we read the books written by Florin Curta, P. M. Barford, it is never debated that archaeological findings in the Balkans from the 7th-9th centuries represent a new style - the question is whether they can be dated to around 580 or only to around 700.
 * The ethnogenesis of the Romanians is obviously connected to the Slavic peoples (similarly to the ethnogenesis of the Hungarians and the Albanians), but this article is not about the ethnogenesis of the Slavic peoples; therefore it should not be overemphasized here. There is a direct reference to the Early Slavs article, therefore, for further details, anybody can checque the main article on this topic. Nevertheless, I will try to find a proper solution for this specific issue.
 * Sincerely, I think Nicolae Klepper's book is a reliable source. So far I have found only one fact that can be challanged based on other reliable sources (he writes that the Carpians were Scythians, while most scholars, without any proper argumentation, think they were Dacians) - but I could find some facts that could easily be challanged even in Florin Curta's book (Southeastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages, 500-1250) (I refer to facts and not to their interpretation).
 * I fully agree that Grumeza's book is one of the most amateurish books written in history I have ever read (I can only remember to one book, written by the Hungarian Viktor Padányi, which is similarly .....). However, I think we have to accept that several editors think that the Dacians spoke a "proto-Latin" language, as we have to accept that there are Hungarians who claim that they speak the modernized variety of the Sumerian language, there are Slovak editors who think that Slovakia is the Urheimat of all Slavdom. If there is a book which qualifies a reliable source for Wikipedia's standards, we can present these alternate theories.
 * I am well aware the fact that the number of the earliest Slavic borrowings in Romanian is a debated issue among linguists. But for the specific purpose of this article the sentence that there are maximum X words borrowed from Common Slavic is enough. For the article's specific purpose, there is no relevance whether there were 15 loanwords or only 6; of course, if one source would claim 200 Slavic words borrowed before the 9th century, while others would suggest 2; or if some scholars would deny the possibility of borrowing from the Common Slavic, we should give more exact details, but - I still think - we do not deceive the readers of the article if we inform them, based on a reliable academic source, that there are (as far as I can remember) m a x i m u m  15 early loanwords.


 * I don't think you have understood Curta's perspective. He does not postpone the migration of Slavs in 700 CE, nor suggests there was a less massive one but a southward movement nevertheless. Certainly there were "new styles", but for Curta they represent the birth of a new society and group/ethnic identity in lower Danube region. For example, this is how he interprets the distribution of bow fibulae in Central and Eastern Europe:
 * Bow fibulae may thus indicate movement of people. This movement, however, was not a migration in the true sense of the word. Networks of linked fibulae may testify to a different form of mobility, that of gifts or women married to distant groups in forging alliances. There are two reasons for favoring this approach. First, the movement of ornamental patterns is not that of a unidirectional movement of people, but a two-way transfer: some brooch-forms traveled north, others moved south, often at about the same time. Second, there is no fibulae which may be ascribed to any one region alone, despite the precedence taken at times by Mazuria or Crimea in the dissemination of new forms. As soon as a new group emerged, linked specimens spread rapidly over wide distances, a phenomenon which could hardly be explained by means of itinerant specialists or transmission of models. Moreover, there is no chain of communication between the main areas of dissemination and, at times, no links exist between fibulae found in adjacent territories. (2001, 274)
 * His conclusions about archaeological evidence and alleged migrations:
 * No class of evidence matches current models for the archaeological study of (pre)historic migration. More important, assemblages of the Lower Danube area, where, according to the migrationist model, the Slavs migrated from the Pripet marshes, long antedate the earliest evidence available from assemblages in the alleged Urheimat.
 * [...]
 * there was no “Slavic tide” in the Balkans following the presumed collapse of the Danube frontier. In addition, the archaeological evidence confirms the picture drawn from the analysis of written sources, namely that the “Slavs” were isolated pockets of population in various areas of the Balkans, which seem to have experienced serious demographic decline in the seventh century. (337-8)
 * About these early Slavs being Slavic speaking or not:
 * Can we put the name “Slavic” to this (or these) ethnic identity(-ies)? As suggested [...], the Sclavene ethnicity is likely to have been an invention of Byzantine authors, despite the possibility, which is often stressed by linguistically minded historians, that the name itself was derived from the self-designation of an ethnic group. It is interesting to note that this ethnic name (slovene) appeared much later and only on the periphery of the Slavic linguistic area, at the interface with linguistically different groups. Was language, then, as Soviet ethnographers had it, the “precondition for the rise of ethnic communities”? In the case of the Slavic ethnie, the answer must be negative, for a variety of reasons. First, contemporary sources attest the use of more than one language by individuals whom their authors viewed as Antes or Sclavenes. [...] Second, Common Slavic itself may have been used as a lingua franca within and outside the Avar qaganate. This may explain, in the eyes of some linguists, the spread of this language throughout most of Eastern Europe, obliterating old dialects and languages. [...] Slavic was also used as a lingua franca in Bulgaria, particularly after the conversion to Christianity in 865.
 * [...]
 * As with material culture emblemic styles, the Slavic language may have been used to mark ethnic boundaries. The emblematic use of Slavic, however, was a much later phenomenon and cannot be associated with the Slavic ethnie of the sixth and seventh centuries. Slavs did not become Slavs because they spoke Slavic, but because they were called so by others. (344-6)
 * Currently there's no neutral presentation on Wikipedia of Slavic "ethnogenesis" (even the article on Early Slavs favors migration, but most other articles on Slavic Peoples, Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Byzantine topics, etc. uniequivocally support migrationism, e.g. "From the early 6th century they spread from their original homeland in present-day Ukraine to inhabit most of the Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans."). Even if there would be one, that's no excuse for favoring a view or another here (especially in section 3). Regarding the "Origin of Romanians" Curta adds (and this article fails to mention that):
 * It is only the association with this political development [my note: the conversion of Bulgaria to Christianity] that brought Slavic into closer contact with other languages. This explains why, despite the presumed presence of Slavic speaking communities in the Balkans at a relatively early date, the influence of Common Slavic on the non-Slavic languages of the area – Romanian, Albanian, and Greek – is minimal and far less significant than that of Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, and Macedonian. (345-6, this is the paragraph having in footnote that reference to Mihăilă).
 * Also it's important to point out (as Mihăilă does) that from that set of 15 possible loanwords most of them probably are not Slavic, because in this way the reader will be correctly informed about the earliest interactions between Romanian and Common Slavic. You acknowledge the earliest Slavic borrowings are controversial, yet the article did not until the recent addition sourced by Paliga, which is of dubious quality. First, is that his e-book does not qualify as a reliable source even by Wikipedia standards, being not "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" (which is also why a part of the sources we were discussing earlier are not reliable). Second, is that you added "there is no argument which may support the idea that Slavic influence in Romanian may be dated earlier than the 11th century" but Mihăilă at some point mentions a "large number of Old Slavic loanwords in Romanian language, which can be phonetically dated between the 9th and the 11-12th centuries" (1973, 23 - see Paliga's bibliography). Like in the previous case you must check what Mihăilă himself has to say.
 * As for reliable sources, the general practice is to use best experts in the field and this article often does not. Even in Wikipedia there are recommendations like "as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source". By this token, most of the sources used here are not very reliable as they just browse through various factoids which are interpreted in a pro/con fashion. The sections of history (3, 5), archaeology (6) and linguistics (7) are of questionable quality and in all of them a consistent synthesis of current scholarly views is missing.
 * Several times you said "I think" or "several editors think" but this is no argument. Such articles are supposed to be neutral and properly sourced. You may think there was a migration of "the smallest sons of small families", that doesn't mean alternative yet academic views must be ignored. Some may think Dacian was a "proto-Latin" language and you may think author X is reliable, however unless such "thoughts" can be properly refernced, it doesn't mean they must be presented. One of the few reasons I stopped my active contribution is that many editors here prefer to be authors, not neutral compilers of knowledge, they rather prefer to write than to read, and often the articles turn into battlegrounds between the supporters from two or more camps. If you can improve the article following this discussion, please go ahead, but a real improvement means more than adding few supplementary claims or changing the wording. A real improvement starts with massive documentation (there's plenty free and online) which unfortunately I don't see it happening. Daizus (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Florin Curta has pointed out that further to the southeast there are a number of late fifth- and early sixth-century sites along the north bank of the Danube (in Walachia, Romania) which are chronologically comparable with and of a similar character to the material from the western Ukraine. These include a late fourth- to early fifth-century settlement at Ciresanu (Prahova district). A late fifth-century brooch with bent stem was found at Dragosloveni, in a sunken building. In both cases these artefacts were associated with handmade pottery resembling Korchak type. Some of the graves in the famous Sărata Monteoru cemetery have fibulae and belt buckles of late fourth- and early fifth-century types. These sites appear just before 500 after a period of about a century when there is a total break in settlement pattern in the area. The archaeological evidence from several of these areas seems to suggest a relationship between the rise of this type of material culture and changes wich occurred in the Cherniakhovo Culture as a result of the Hun invasions of c. 375-400, the rise of Hun prestige and power, and then the collapse of Attila's hegemony in the 450s. These stormy events set the scene for the rise of a recognizable Slav material culture and the crystallization of an identifiable Slav cultural identity. It would seem that these changes also were responsible for initiating its spread, an likely that later wesward expansion of the vicotrious Huns was accompanied by arrival of the first Slav-speaking settlers in the Danube region. This is primarily suggested by the spread of material culture of the types discussed (which is at a later date relatively firmly associated with the Slavs). We have seen that ther is one slight piece of unexpected literary evidence in support of this hypothesis: some of the participants at Attila's funeral are reported to have used the word strava for the funeral feast, and this has been claimed as a Slavic term (as indeed it may well have been). The crystallization of a Slav identity is clearly a process occurring on the eastern and southeastern fringes of the Hun hegemony, and Slav warriors may have partaken of the fruits of Hun victories and taken opportunities created by their collapse."
 * Dear Daizus, thank you for your remarks. Unfortunatelly, I have just realized that we are talking parallely, therefore I try to summarize my argumentation without adding any personal comments because I fully agree with you that for Wikipedia's purposes my personal views have no relevance.
 * Florin Curta wrote an excellent book on the ethnogenesis of the Slavic peoples. His book is obviously connected to the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people, but his book does not cover the topic of the article under edition. Therefore, Curta's book is useful when editing the article but it cannot be the basis of the article's edition.
 * The basic topic of the books written by Ioan Aurel Pop, Vlad Georgescu, Gottfried Schramm and others, in contrast to Curta's book, is the origin and the formation of the Romanian people; therefore, these books have to primarily be taken into account when the article is edited. Otherwise, our approach would be similar to an article written of, e.g., fire based primarily on reliable sources written of, e.g., petrol. It would not be the proper solution, and it would contradict to Wikipedia's requirements.
 * The ethnogenesis of the Slavic peoples is a separate topic even if it is connected to the ethnogenesis of the Romanians, therefore this article cannot cover the former topic. Of course, we should endeavour to be neutral, but by aiming this, we cannot falsify the views of the experts of the specific topic of which the article is written. If representatives of a theory write of a mass migration of the Slavs which was crucial in the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people, we cannot claim that they did not write of a mass migration.
 * Yes, I know what Mihăilă suggests. On the other hand, the sentence cited in the article (there are maximum X words) does not contradict to his theory, and this sentence summarizes the up-to-date views on the early Slavic loanwords in Romanian. It could be added that even these words may have originated from an (unknown) Balkan language; maybe this would be a proper solution.
 * There are no chosen ones (Saint Florin Curta, Blessed Gottfried Schramm and Most Infallible Gábor Vékony) whose views can exclusively be cited. Yes, we can suggest that this author's views or that author's views should be strengthened in an article, but we cannot chose any of them as a lighthouse whose lightining is the measure of neutrality. For example, one can read also P. M. Barford's views on the ethnogenesis of the Slavs which are not identical to the views of Florin Curta on the same topic - please compare the below statements form Barford's book with Curta, Florin (2007:350) and the above cited sentences from Curta's book.

- P. M. Barford (2001:42-43)

"This transdanubian zone is of extreme importance to our understanding of the Slav phenomenon as a whole. The area to the north of the lower Danube and the Danube delta was an area of crystallization of a Slav identity as much as the areas further to the northeast. Here the adoption of a 'Slav' identity by groups of originally mixed ethnic origin in the face of an 'us/them' relationship in the frontier zone (with respect to the 'Romans' on one side of the political frontier, and to other pre-existing and competing 'barbarians') was probably a key factor in the cultural unification of these groups."

- P. M. Barford (2001:49)


 * Would you explain why do you think that the books written by the next authors - upon whose books the history (3) section is based - do not qualify a reliable source?
 * John V. A. Finey
 * James P. Mallory
 * Ioana A. Oltean
 * Benjamin W. Fortson
 * Christopher Webber
 * John Wilkes
 * András Mócsy
 * Paul MacKendrick
 * Peter Heather
 * Mircea Pacurariu
 * Warren Treadgold
 * Florin Curta
 * Malkolm Todd
 * P. M. Barford
 * Pál Engel
 * Kurt W. Treptow
 * Marcel Popa
 * István Vásáry
 * Vlad Georgescu


 * Would you explain why do you think that the books written by the next authors - upon whose books the written sources (5) section is based - do not qualify reliable sources.
 * Vlad Georgescu
 * Béla Köpeczi
 * Gábor Vékony
 * Ioana A. Oltean
 * Florin Curta
 * Victor Spinei
 * István Vásáry
 * Mircea Pacurariu
 * Stelian Brezeanu
 * Tudor Sălăgean


 * Would you explain why do you think that the book written by the next authors - upon whose books the archaeology (6) section is based - do not qualify reliable sources.
 * Gheorghe Alexandru Niculescu
 * Köpeczi Béla
 * Ioana A. Oltean
 * Peter Heather
 * Paul MacKendrick
 * Florin Curta
 * Mihai Bărbulescu
 * Tudor Sălăgean
 * Victor Spinei


 * Would you explain why do you think that the book written by the next authors - upon whose books the linguistics (6) section is based - do not qualify reliable sources.
 * J. Augerot
 * Benjamin W. Fortson
 * Graham Mallinson
 * Vladimir E. Orel
 * Rebecca Posner
 * István Schütz
 * Gottfried Schramm
 * Olga Miseska Tomic

(I cannot guarantee that I did not fail to mention authors whose works was utilized, but I tried to do my best to create a complete list.) (Please let me explain my views on historians writing of linguistic issues later.)


 * Please remember that the above referred books are written in English, most of them are issued by an international scientific publishing house, in most cases by a publishing house connected to a university or an academic institute.


 * History as a discipline (similarly to other disciplines) requires a multidisciplinar approach. Therefore, historians do not only use written primary sources, but they also use for example, archaeological, linguistic, sociological arguments. For example, Florin Curta, who is an archaeologist, wrote an excellent book of the early history of the Slavs - and he interpreted written primary sources (e.g., pp. 36-73), used sociological argumentation (pp. 311-334), and he even referred to linguistic studies. Does his book qualify an unreliable source because he left the frontiers of his 'true' discipline? The answer, obviously, not. His book is one of the best books written of the early history of the Slavic peoples, and it is cited by several other reliable (academic) sources. If Florin Curta is entitled to use argumentation of sociological, historical and linguistic nature when describing the history of Slavic peoples, why is it forbidden for Alexandru Madgearu, Gyula Kristó ...? If their books qualify reliable source, why should we select among their sentences - for example, in this case we could not use the book written by Florin Curta because his theory is not exclusively based on archaeological evidence, therefore it probably qualifies an unreable source - this would be absurd.


 * Would you please refer to further reliable sources which could be used in order to strengthen the neutrality of sections 3, 5, 6 and 7.


 * Would you please share with me the names of the authors whose work was used when the article was written but whose books do not qualify a reliable source (as to Klepper an Grumeza, I refer to my below remarks). Would you also give some argumentation?


 * As to the reliability of Nicolae Klepper - if the sentences based on the books written by him can be verified based on other reliable sources, his book is a reliable source. And all the 5 sentences from his books can be verified.


 * As to Grumeza's views, I can only repeat myself - Wikipedia is not prepared for me, for you or for any of us, but it is prepared for the whole community. Therefore, as far as there is a significant number of editors (and readers) who claim that Grumeza's interesting views should be presented we have to present them, based on a reliable source.


 * As to Sorin Paliga, please read my remarks below. He is a professor at the university of Bucharest, he is linguist, therefore his work can be cited.

Thank you for your constructive and cooperative approach. Borsoka (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am in no mood to fight straw men and dismiss red herrings therefore I will stop here. I also have answered already some of your questions. If you want to continue, then find a way to understand what I've said so far and motivate me to further discuss with you. Best wishes, Daizus (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Daizus, I am extremelly sorry that you are in no mood to fight, but I think there is no need to fight because I do not want to fight. I would like to improve the article. However, I cannot (an according to Wikipedia's policies neither of us is allowed to) accept casual remarks without proper argumentation (e.g., claiming that whole sections of the article are unreliable - although they are based on reliable sources written by internationally aknowledged experts of the specific theme). Similarly, I cannot follow an approach which assigns some infallible authors and requires to follow exclusively them and which qualifies other scholars unreliable based on the views of the infallible author. And finally, I cannot follow the approach which claims that all the editors of Wikipedia who express views which differ from my knowledge are editors who "prefer to be authors" even if other editor's views are based on reliable sources. Nevertheless, based on your properly cited statements I agree that both (1) the Slavic part of the article and (2) the part of the article which describes early Slavic loanwords of the Romanian language needs some additional clarification, so thank you for the information you have so far provided. I hope you will shortly be again in the mood to share your knowledge. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I was too elliptic in my previous reply. Your complaints are misguided and quite insulting, because you have not understood what you've been told so far and you also persist with false accusations.
 * Assuming you're genuinely puzzled, here comes a second chance. For example, you accused me of suggesting "an approach which assigns some infallible authors and requires to follow exclusively them" after another rant of yours about "chosen ones [...] whose views can exclusively be cited", however there's nothing whatsoever in what I've written so far suggesting or claiming that. Au contraire, my position on Curta was clearly stated: "The article still favors the mass migration theory without properly introducing other positions. I also never suggested to use only F. Curta's books as sources, but to compose a narrative considering also his points of view and arguments" (emphasis added). Unfortunately this is not a singular case, so instead of hoping you'd better work on your understanding of positions you don't agree with, because I'm not going to waste my time repeating or explaining several times each sentence written by me. Daizus (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Daizus, thank you for your above remarks. You might have realised that some modfication have been made based on your former suggestions. If I had misunderstood your former remarks, I beg your pardon. Borsoka (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I appreciate your apologies, so here's my attempt of a more substantial contribution to our debate. To illustrate my previous points on bias and unreliability, I won't continue the previous discussion which seems to be deadlocked, I'll expand on some particular claims within the article, not only to prove my allegations, but also to show why I preferred to discuss few examples and that a real improvement requires, as mentioned already, a massive documentation.
 * My choice is 6.4.2, the archaeology of the trans-Carpathian (why trans- and not extra- ?) regions, in particular the 5-7th centuries. I already remarked this section is biased by choosing Barford's point of view and ignoring others. In general I find this section biased towards migrationism and 'barbarism' (emphasizing connections with northern/non-Roman lands and cultures) and ignoring obvious elements of (especially post-Roman) material continuity.
 * I don't have Barford's Early Slavs, so my following demonstration assumes the claims in the article accurately reflect Barford's views. Also to avoid the previous situation of getting accused of exclusive choices, I'll be considering the works of another Romanian archaeologist focusing on the extra-Carpathian regions in the post-Roman period, Eugen S. Teodor. These are:
 * His PhD thesis: Ceramica uzuală din Muntenia, de la sfârşitul veacului al V-lea până la mijlocul veacului al VII-lea, 2001, published only online in Romanian with a summary in English. I will not actually translate or quote from this one, but this substantiates most arguments and claims made in the subsequent works.
 * "An Update for 'Ipoteşti-Cândeşti Culture'", in Zborník na počesť Dariny Bialekovej, red. Gabriel Fusek, 2004, 405-414 (online version with one missing page/figure)
 * "A Shadow of a Frontier. The Walachian Plain during the Justinianic Age", in Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis, ed. Florin Curta, 2005, 205-245 (unfortunately the only online version I know of is a 'snippet view' provided by Google Books, you can use GB however to verify or even contextualize my following quotes from this work)
 * Teodor argues also the archaeology does not support the idea of a Slavic migration, but he seems to believe a migration happened nevertheless, the pattern of "exclusivities" (e.g. "The living and death areas are exclusive, in sixth century Valachia, but this isn't the only exclusivity. The settlements and the coin treasures do not share the same geography, too.", 2004, p. 409) rather pointing out to undetectable phenomena ("All migrating tribes we know, within the same troubled times, lived in tents, at least for a while. That would explain much.", 2004, p. 412).
 * In the following excerpts 'Roman' and derivations refer to material culture (unless specified otherwise), thus not proving a linguistic and perhaps only occasionally an identitarian (ethnic) continuity. Now let's check if the claims in the article are that factual and uncontroversial as they are presented to be:
 * Claim: In Wallachia, the buildings are typically equipped not with stone ovens (as in Ukraine and Moldavia) but with a specific form of clay ovens.
 * The heating devices are basically of two types: clay ovens (usually caved in native clay) and stone ovens. The first is exclusive for the low plain (the Southern half of Valachia), where there is any stone in substratum or rolling stones along rivers. Both types are encountered in upper plain, the second being dominant. This fact produced doubts if the natural conditions versus cultural causality should be determinant in establishing one type or another. Of course, both types were extracted from the northern horizons, unless local archaeology for third to fifth centuries could provide at least some of the requested examples. The matter is not a simple one and should worth a detailed study. In this synthesis frame I should give in only two hints. First, the caved clay ovens are more lasting as stone ovens, just because we recovered by digging more complete installations caved in clay. Second, there is a third type of house oven, made by bricks (recovered from Roman sites), encountered in Oltenia only. The type has a long history in the area, including within Roman camps, and is frequent in Illyricum too. (2004, 407)


 * I think a reference to Teodor's claim could be added to the article. The above sentence from the article, based on P. M. Barford (2001:48), did not seem to contradict to the map presented by Florin Curta (2007:285) when the article was rewritten. Florin Curta (2007:284-85) also adds that "The remarkable cluster of clay ovens in Wallachia, close to the Danube frontier, may therefore represent not just a local adaptation of the standard sunken building, but a stylistic variation." which seems to strengthen the neutrality of the presentation of Barford. Borsoka (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Curta is saying that, that's also why I quoted from another archaeologist, to show there are also other findings and also different interpretations. And it should be said that in the same region there were also few brick ovens of certain contemporary Roman origins (even on Curta map's there's one at Sucidava, but apparently Teodor is having something else in mind and also uses the plural!), or maybe even better, to illustrate in a separate section the late Roman archaeology north of lower Danube (if I reckon correctly some theorists of continuity lay emphasis also on the 6th century Roman control north of Danube, especially in Banat and Oltenia). Daizus (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Claim: the pottery includes vessels reminiscent of ‘Korchak’ type [...] In the mid-6th century, the earlier regional pottery groups are replaced by material of the ‘Suceava-Şipot’ type. These assemblages consist of handmade pottery (with extremely close affinities with the ‘Penkovka’ material of the Ukraine) found together with metalwork of ultimate ‘Cernjachov’ type.
 * The archaeological inventories are made mainly from pottery. [...] The missing homogeneity is operating also to the design level. The morphologies with arguably Roman analogies are rising to 90% in Oltenia, 66% for western Muntenia, but only to 25% in some of the Bucharest sites, in central Muntenia (2004, 407)
 * As for archaeologists from neighbouring Slavic-speaking countries, they seem to have taken from summaries in foreign languages whatever happened to match their own interpretations [here in footnote the author remarks "a major handicap of current research in Slavic archaeology is the linguistic barrier"] As a consequence, in most studies dedicated to this problem and published abroad, Muntenia appears as part of the great Slavic Urheimat [several monographies are listed in footnote, also Barford's]. However, there is not much to support such claims. First and foremost, the handmade pots found in sixth-century assemblages from southern Romania have nothing in common with the Slavic pottery of that same age (2005, 216)
 * In Oltenia Romanization was an accomplished fact by 500. There are just a few shapes (under ten percent of the corpus) of Dacian tradition, most others are of clearly Roman inspiration. [...] Across the Olt River, in western Muntenia, about two thirds of all vessels have shapes of Roman tradition, but a significant number of much older forms go back to either the Dacian or the Sarmatian pottery of the first centuries AD. [...] Each settlement excavated in Bucharest represents a separate case. [....]  Judging of from the ceramic evidence, it look as if each community chose to recycle the Roman repertoire of vessel shapes according to its own rules or tastes. [...] the only certainties seem to be that a number of significant discrepancies and tensions exist within the Ipoteşti-Cândeşti culture and that Romanization, as a form of adaptation of certain forms of material culture, was a general but by no means uniform process. (2005, 216-23)
 * [on 'Slavic' pots] I am the first to acknowledge that no serious discussion of 'Slavic migration' can rest on one pot from Străuleşti, one from Budureasca, and three from Sărata Monteoru (2005, 228)
 * the site at Botoşana presents an equally complex picture. In Romania, the site is known for having given its name to the Costişa-Botoşana culture, which allegedly represents the local population before the arrival of the Slavs. The hallmark of this culture is the wheel-made pottery of clear Roman traditions, in terms of both technology and shape. By contrast, the handmade pottery has a number of analogies on a variety of sites in Eastern Europe. But almost half of all shapes identified at Botoşana have no analogies anywhere else, which suggests the existence of some local traditions of yet unspecified character. Initial attempts to explain Botoşana as a Slavic site in early contact with local, Romance communities producing wheel-made pottery were invalidated by the significant presence of artefacts with explicit Christian symbolism: two handmade, ‘Slavic-looking’ pots with incised crosses; with an incised image of a fish; a mould for casting pectoral crosses. Botoşana thus produced evidence of a mixed community [...] with different cultural traditions blended on distinctly different categories of artefacts. (2005, 230)
 * Unlike all other sites in Bukovina, the ceramic assemblages at Kodyn have no link with the ‘Slavic world’. The existing evidence points to a community almost isolated from the changing cultural landscape in the region. A very slow tendency towards uniformity of vessel shapes can be identified only for the late seventh and early eighth centuries. The same is true in general lines for another site of the Ukrainian-Romanian border, Suceava-Şipot. Due to the limited number of excavated assemblages, it is not possible to establish the network of possible links between this and other contemporary sites. Much like Kodyn, however, Suceava-Şipot displays a solid inclination towards shapes of Dacian and Sarmatian tradition. By contrast, the small excavation at Dolheştii Mari produced sufficient evidence pertaining to a group of newcomers, most likely without any contacts with the local population (2005, 231-2)
 * Middle Dnieper area is a crossroads of several cultures, Pen'kovka, Kolochin, and Korchak. All three cultures are represented in the ceramic assemblages of the Walachian Plain as well, but in much smaller quantities and much dispersed (2005, 238)
 * For a different answer, see also Curta's criticism on pottery groups.


 * I think some reference to Teodor's claims could be added to the article. Borsoka (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Claim [on Sărata-Monteoru]: the cremation burials are either in urns (of the ‘Prague-Korchak’ type but with wheel-made pottery) or pit-graves without urns.
 * However, the large cemetery at Sărata Monteoru provides some interesting analogies. The site was initially ascribed to the Slavs, but its main excavator, Ion Nestor, also pointed to more than one parallel with Avar cemeteries in Hungary. According to the preliminary reports, there are four main ways of burying the cremated remains, either in pit or in urn graves. Without a comprehensive monograph of the site, it is difficult to assess the significance of this variety of funerary rites. Nestor himself abjured his own statements and, instead, later assigned the cemetery to the newly invented Ipoteşti-Cândeşti culture on the basis of certain artefacts, such as pottery, fibulae, and artefacts with overt Christian symbolism. We know that out of more than 1600 cremation burials, only 300 or so are urn graves similar to those found elsewhere in East Central Europe. That local people cremating their dead may have also been Christian is not a novel idea, and is so far the best solution for this puzzle: on the one hand, a relative abundance of artefacts with explicit Christian symbolism, on the other, the absence of any Christian graves in the region. [...] If we admit, for an instant, that all cremations found in the northern Balkans are Slavic and try to apply the same line of reasoning to Sărata Monteoru, the latter still has a disproportionately higher number of pit graves. And if urn graves are burials of Slavic warriors, it is hard to explain why most urn shapes have no analogies anywhere else. (2005, 234-7)


 * I think a reference to Curta's claims could be added to the article, but I am not in the position to add it, because I do not own the book. Borsoka (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since several excerpts already mentioned Christian symbolism, let's check also Fiedler's claim (2008, 158): Some Romanian authors (e.g., Spinei 2004) support the idea of a Christian, Romance-speaking population practicing cremation, which runs against all the existing evidence about late antique and early medieval burial customs in the Mediterranean area.
 * Very similar signs were found on pots from sites located relatively far from each other. The idea of itinerant potters as a source of inspiration must be rejected, for all known examples are handmade. On the other hand, all pots with incised signs seem to have served some special purpose, as no site produced any significant quantity of such remains. The signs were therefore not just decoration; they played a symbolic role. Indeed, in most cases, the signs in question consist of simple crosses or swastikas. That such signs may have carried a Christian symbolism has been disputed on grounds that these are simple X-shaped or entirely meaningless incisions. A closer look at the evidence, however, confirms the deliberate character of this decoration. Take, for example, simple crosses followed by 'tails' in the form of wavy lines. (2005, 239)
 * Only sites in the Walachian Plain produced so far evidence of swastikas incised on vessel shoulders, namely in the same position as crosses or X-shaped signs. It is possible that the meaning of swastikas was reinterpreted in the Walachian milieu, although we should not exclude the coexistence of Christianity and solar cults. If the latter is true, then it is important to note that one of the earliest sites producing evidence of swastikas is Străuleşti-Lunca, which may be dated to the first half of the sixth century, while the latest evidence, perhaps from the last quarter of that century, is from Ciurel. Swastikas thus appear throughout most of the history of the Ipoteşti-Cândeşti culture. [...] Finally, the evidence of crux quadrata (or decussata), most clearly indicative of Christian symbolism, is more from earlier than from later sites (Bucharest-Soldat Ghivan Street, Străuleşti-Lunca, Gropşani, Făcăi). This, together with other pieces of evidence, suggests that signs with Christian symbolism were fewer by 600 than in the early 500s. It is possible that, by that time, the influence of Christianity from fort sites across the Danube frontier in the northern Balkans has completely disappeared. In any case, there is no doubt that signs incised on pots, spindle-whorls, and other categories of artefacts to convey messages of Christian faith must be seen in connection with that frontier, since such evidence is rare on contemporary sites in Ukraine, Poland, or Slovakia. (2005, 242-3)
 * Under permanent control from the Roman bridgehead in Sucidava and already settled by Slavic groups in the east, Walachia was a land of ambiguities. What separated the Roman armies from their enemies was not the Danube, but a vast swamp, neither water nor land. Archaeology confirms this record of ambiguity: the pottery is of Roman tradition but of ‘barbarian’ fabric; the settlements indicate a sedentary population, but all ephemeral; in archaeological terms, the ‘Romance population’ looks barbarian and the ‘barbarians’ Roman; the inhabitants of the Ipoteşti-Cândeşti villages were Christian, but practiced cremation; on feasts they took out their pots decorated with crosses, while wearing ‘Slavic’ bow fibulae or Roman brooches with bent stem, depending upon circumstances. (2005, 243)
 * A similar position was expressed by Curta (2001, 294): An interesting case is that of signs incised on both pots and spindle whorls. More often than not, such signs consist of simple crosses, sometimes followed by a wavy line, or swastikas. There are also images of fish and even short inscriptions. That such signs may have carried a Christian symbolism has already been suggested. In the light of the existing evidence, this is a plausible interpretation. Two pectoral crosses and a few molds for producing such artifacts were found north of the Danube river. Identical crosses with a distinct Christian symbolism were popular on contemporary sites in the central and western regions of the Balkans. Besides being used as pectorals, they were often attached to dress pins or earrings. Molds similar to those found north of the Danube come from early Byzantine forts. As for the pottery decoration, it is interesting to note that very similar, if not identical, signs were found on various sites located far from each other (e.g., crosses with "tails" at Bacău and Dulceanca). The handmade pottery on which such signs were incised is, however, of indisputably local production. This suggests the existence of a cross-regional set of symbols shared by potters and/or users of pottery, despite an arguably localized production.


 * I am afraid that Curta's claim of Christian communities living in Wallachia in the 4th-6th centuries has no relevance to communities practising cremation in the 8th-10th centuries (Dridu culture) - Fiedler refers to the latter. Nevertheless a community whose members ador the Sol invictus and Jesus paralelly for centuries would be a scientific revolution; similarly an Eastern Christian community pracitising cremation for centuries without being mentioned in ancient ecclesiastic sources would also be a scientific revolution (as far as I remember Orthodox Christian Churches do not favor and did forbade cremation). Borsoka (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that Fiedler is referring to later centuries (Curta and Teodor focus on 5th-7th and Fiedler on 7th-9th), and that's why Curta and Teodor's arguments really matter, because they refer to different cultures but they find no incompatibility between Christian artifacts and symbols (used as such) and cremation burials, and moreover they start from a different premise, not that of graves with no goods mentioned by Fiedler, but from a distinct Christian symbolism. As such it is unfair to suggest (quoting only Fiedler) that such a connection is preposterous (and Fiedler's claim has no detailed argument or bibliography, it's merely a footnote).
 * 'Solar cults' is not a reference to Sol Invictus, but to various pagan cults from Eastern Europe (example). There's nothing revolutionary in recognizing religious syncretism and neither Curta nor Teodor mention any Church (anyway Romanian Orthodox tradition is Byzantine/Greek and Slavonic, of a later date) Daizus (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not the recognition of religious syncretism would be revolutionary, but (1) its specific feature (Christians pracitising cremation) in Wallachia; (2) its stability for 5 centuries; and (3) the lack of any reference to such a syncretism in the written sources. In the article it is not only Fiedler who is mentioned, but there is a clear reference to Spinei's opposite views; nevertheless further references based on other scholars' work could be added, but I cannot add it because I do not own the above referred book. Borsoka (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What 'stability'? In this time and space we have a variety of funerary practices and some of them (both inhumation and cremation) suspected to belong to people having (also) Christian beliefs. To be sure, Teodor is also arguing about local population slowly abandoning Christian practices as the Byzantine influence north of Danube is fading away. And to complain of lack of reference in written sources is somehow missing the point as a) no written sources mention the religion/beliefs of these people and b) written sources do not mention many other things acknowledged from archaeological evidence.
 * The defense of this article is suspicious, the constant bias favoring anti-continuity being expressed in this particular case by selective quotation suggesting the readers there's no argument for V. Spinei's position ("against all the existing evidence"). However Spinei himself supports his claims with other similar examples (Rus, Poland, Merovingian Gaul). In this debate (on Spinei's side I'd mention also E. Zaharia, L. Bârzu, I. Barnea, S. Dolinescu-Ferche, N. Zugravu) all relevant points of view should be properly summarized, regardless of who's right and who's wrong and what theories are endorsed by the editors. And I don't think summary means to paraphrase or quote each author; if such a procedure is apparently so often working, this is precisely because the article is still biased. Quoting Fiedler instead of writing "There's a controversy about ..." is a deliberate choice. Daizus (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think for the moment these quotes are enough. I only challenged few claims, quoting only two authors (but mostly Teodor). I hope you understand now why I find this article far from being neutral, reliable and updated and how much is to be read. Daizus (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Daizus, thank you again for your remarks. I think the your above approach can be followed by both of us, because nobody can (and is entitled to) accept declarations without argumentation based on reliable sources. Please find my responses above. Borsoka (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Isolated cremations are known from practiced in Merovingian Galu, but it is not altogether clear if cremation was practised there by the few remaining pagans or, occasionally by (newly converted) Christians. A prohibition agains the cremation of the dead was imposed on the Saxons by Charlemagne at the Paderborn council in 785, an indication that even after the forceful conversion to Christianity, cremation was still practised. The arhcaeological evidence also shows that cremation persisted for many decades after the conversion of the Rus' to Christianity under Prince Vladimir (St. Vladimir)."
 * Dear Daizus, please read again my above remark again: "nevertheless further references based on other scholars' work could be added, but I cannot add it because I do not own the above referred book."
 * Regarding the stability of funerary pracitices please read the next quotation from Victor Spinei's book:

- Spinei, Victor (2009:271-72)


 * Based on the above quotation we can conclude that (1) in Gaul cremation might have been practised by Christians for a short period (2) among the Saxons, the practise of cremating the dead was a sign of survival of pagan costums (3) in Kievan Rus' cremation was practised for some decades after the Christianization of the state. Therefore it does not prove the survival of this specific pagan practise among Christians for at least 500 years.
 * I fully agree with your remarks regarding written sources ("written sources do not mention many other things acknowledged from archaeological evidence"). However, the lack of written sources suggests that (1) there was no Christian population which practised cremation (otherwise, they must have been mentioned as a heretic sect) or (2) if there existed a Christian population, it probably did not have any connection, for 500 years, with "mainstream" Christianity (otherwise, this population must have been mentioned as followers of a heretic sect).
 * Uwe Fiedler's view characteristically contradicts to the above mentioned Romanian archeologists' claim; therefore the best way is citing it literally - the literal quotation, in itself, proves that there is a controversy about a Christian population practising cremation for half a millenium, and therefore there is no need to underline that there is a controversy. So, I do not understand the above claim that avoiding the wording "There's a controversy about ..." and preferring literal quotation contradict to any of the guidlines established by our community.
 * As to Teodor's claim, I do not clearly understand it: is a population "abandoning Christian practices" is still Christian?
 * Nevertheless, all relevant points of view should be summarized in the article based on reliable sources. All the editors are entitled to add further information if they use reliable sources. So I do not understand your reference to the "defense" (??) "of this article" which is "suspicious" - if there is any argument which was not taken into account, or if there is any argument which was not properly quoted, any editor can modify it. Our guidelines prescribe to us that all relevant points of view should be presented, therefore the views of an internationally acknowledged archeologist who is expert in the field of the archaeology of Southeastern Europe cannot be ignored when editing the article.
 * Borsoka (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So much sophistry ... Daizus (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Daizus, based on your above remarks, I try to summarize the common points which seem to have been chrystalized in the course of the above conversation: Thank you for your cooperation. Your sophisticated presentation of Romanian scholars' views clearly contributed to the improvement of the article, because these views have also to be presented in this article even if they may contradict to other scholars' interpretation. Nevertheless, it is clear that the article still needs improvement; therefore I hope that you and other editors will also contribute to the process in the future. Borsoka (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference should be added to vessels and pottery proving that Romanization was an accomplished fact by 500 in the territories which had never been under Roman rule, based on Curta's article. As soon as I can read Curta's work, I will add some references to his claim; but I hope other editors can also cite this source.
 * Reference should be added to Curta's claim that "It is possible that the meaning of swastikas was reinterpreted in the Walachian milieu, although we should not exclude the coexistence of Christianity and solar cults.", based on Curta's article. As soon as I can read the article, I will add the proper references; but I hope other editors can also cite this reliable source.
 * There is no need to refer to cremation burials possibly practised by Christians in Merovingian Gaul for some time in the 5th century in order to prove the possibility of the existence of a possible Christian society whose members were practising cremation in what is now Romania for 500 centuries.
 * 1) That article is authored by Teodor, not Curta (which is just the editor of the volume); 2) 500 years is a straw man. Moreover quoting only Fiedler that some Romanian authors hold claims "against all the existing evidence" is biased, as some of them (as you already acknowledged) adduced evidence in support of their position. Daizus (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the above clarification. Based on it I understand that the article should underline (based on the studies written by Teodor, Curta and Spinei) (1) the importance of the Romanized pottery, (2) the swastikas and other crosses which possibly represent a Christian symbolism in the 4th and 6th-7th centuries, and (3) Spinei's claim of possible Christian inhabitants of Merovingian Gaul and Rus' who practised cremation for some decades after baptism. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just noting some aspects of your long exchange, we should be clear about the folowing (1) Curta's book should be more appropriately called the Making of the Sklavenes, His focus in on the Danube, and talks little about the formation of other Slavic ethnie (ie in west or east SLav territory). (2). The early Slavs article here on Wiki does not favour migrationism explicitly, but suggests that some migration must have occurred. Language does not spread with the wind, some movement by people is required. (3) The christian motifs in Wallachian pottery cannt be straighfowardly be connected with Christianity, but might be merely mimicry of Byzantine symbolism, given its 'prestigious' nature Hxseek (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (1) But Curta claims that the ethnogenesis (?) of the Sclavenes/Slavs occured on the Lower Danube: "The making of the Slavs was less a matter of ethnogenesis and more one of invention, imagining and labeling by Byzantine authors. (...) This was therefore an identity formed in the shadow of Justinian's forts, not in the Pripet marshes." (Curta (2001:349-50)) Therefore he does not writes of the ethnogenesis of individual Slavic peoples (such as Czechs, Poles, Croats). (2) Yes, one of the weakest points of Curta's theory that it does not explain the expansion of the Slavic language(s) from Mecklenburg to Thessaly, and from Carinthia to Novgorod in the Dark Ages. He tries to suggest that Slavic (the language of the invented people) was a "lingua franca" in some polities (e.g., in the Avar Empire, in the First Bulgarian Empire), but he does not explain why the Slavic language was exactly the one which was chosen as a language of communication in such a huge territory under the rule of non-Slavic peoples. (3) I think one of Curta's work cited in the article refers to this fact: Christian symbols were "trendy" in the Barbaricum and therefore they were coppied all along the frontiers of the Christian polities in the Early Middle Ages. But based on crosses, swastikas and on the Latin origin of the Christian vocabulary of the Romanian language, (primarily) Romanian scholars insist on the existence, from the 6th until the 10th century, of a Christian population practising cremation on the plains on the Lower Danube, the Dniester and the Dnieper - we cannot ignore their views.Borsoka (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Several Romanian scholars favour the hypothesis of a late conversion with A.A. Rusu hinting that it was probably the work early Hungarian kings. See this and its references: . Plinul cel tanar (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, it is an excellent article (although I have not been convinced that early kings of Hungary played any role in the Christianization of the Romanians). Was this article published? By the way, I think it is generally an interesting phenomenon that Romanian and Hungarian share a plenty of Slavic loanwords (e.g., coasă - kasza 'scythe', şuncă - sonka 'ham', ocol - akol 'sheep-fold'). I have been searching an article on this subject; do you have any information on such an article? Borsoka (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article was published in any peer-review journal. Notice that Rusu is very careful about stating how the Christianization of Romanians occured, he merely pushes the moment further than previous authors. It was my own POV, also based on another article in which he points out that some of the first surviving Romanian churches depict the Holy Kings rather than oriental saints, that he might be hinting at something of the sort. I'm sory, I can't help you too much with the Slavic loanwords, I don't know of any source dealing with common Slavic borrowings in Ro and Hu. Among the examples you come up with, mainstream Romanian sources consider şuncă a direct borrowing from Hungarian with regional variants from Banat and Partium /şoncă/ or /şonc/ reflecting the original root. Coasa is most likely older since it exists in aromanian thus dating before the daco-romanian/aromanian split. Ocol is problematic. You might also want to double check Hungarian /sonka/, I'm not sure it's Slavic, I believe it may be Germanic. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Another point: a major weakness with Teodor's (otherwise detailed analysis of pottery) is that, like most other Romanian arcaheologists, he connects wheel-made pottery with 'proto-Romanians', and hand-made with barbarians - whether they be Slavs or other. This is very culture -historical. There is nothing that can unequivocally prove that just because someone used pottery of 'Roman essence' that they spoke a Roman/ Latin language. He argues that Oltenia was Romanized by the 5th century just because 90% of the pottery was 'Roman'. This is a pretty huge leap ! How can the dimensions of a pot communicate what language its user spoke ? Linguistic phenomena cannot be explained simply and correspondingly with material finds. Language spreads are the result of complex interactions of numerous cultural, political and demographic events. Hxseek (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with your point. I think the article refers to the fact that it is really difficult to qualify a pottery 'Slavic', 'Roman' etc. However, Romanian authors (e.g., Curta) obviously tend to underline the weakness of such qualification in case of 'Slavic' pottery, but they still seem to insist on 'Romanized' pottery. I think, who reads the arguments presented in the article against 'Slavic pottery' can also realize that such expressions as 'Romanized pottery', 'fully-Romanized' pottery, 'Roman pottery' are similarly unscientific. I think that the funnies point in Teodor's claim (90% Romanized pottery), that those pottery was found on sites which were under Byzantine rule at that time; therefore the 'Romanized pottery' belonged to Byzantine soldiers. As soon as I find a reliable source I will add this information (as far as I can remember Curta mentions this in his work). Borsoka (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the difference of oppinions between Vienna school hostorians and Toronto school historians transcends the problem of the ethnogenesis of Romanians. Curta has a nice article on the topic:. Criticising culture history is one thing and claiming that medieval ethnicity cannot be studied by archeological means is another. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Curta's and Teodor's arguements are different, in terms of pottery. Curta argues that the shape of pottery was largely the same, irrespective where it was found, and whether it was hand-made or wheel thrown. Rather, he argues taht we need to look at decoration as 'emblemic style' marking boundaries. In the Carpathian basin in 6th century, they (Gepids & Lombards) used stamped decoration, whilst those pots which were decorated in the SE Romanian areas used thumb prints, swastikas or crosses of some sort. At least for the former (thumb printing), he agrees with T Vida that it might have originated from the nmoadic millieu from the steppe. Teodor's analysis of shapes is more exhaustive. He argues that hand-made pottery is not Slavic necesarily, if we are to take those assemblages at Korchak to be 'proto-Slavic'. Rather, he sees that various hand-made pots eg in Kodyn and other sites go back to local Carpic or Sarmatian traditions. Only in some assemblages are there analogies to Penkovka or Korchak material. Thus he concludes that there was no one, single proto-Slavic culture, or, on the other, hand, there were many different proto-Slavic cultures. Although not exaclty relevant to this article, I think there is evidence now that Slavic was primarily a linguistic expansion, albeit one connected to several different cultural and political phenomena- The Sklaveni of 6th century, Danubian farmers and itenerant agriculture into Balkans, Avar khaganate & Great Moravia and their effect on central-eastern Europe, the Rus and trade routes along Dnieper, Old Church Slavonic and the development of early middle age states in eatern Europe. This process took several centuries- not a sudden 'explosion' in the 6th century. The question is when did Romance idiom supplant Slavic in Romania ? We don't know, for we cannot truly state which languaegs were even spoken in 6th century Wallachia. If both Roman and SLavic were spoken, then perhaps the desertification of Wallachia and upland migration in Moldavia arfter the arrival of the Pechenegs and Cumans resulted in a political-cultural shift which supplanted Slavic as the dominant lingua franca. However, it might not be well until the 12th/ 13th century when voivodes established themselves in Wallachia that Romanian became 'institutionalized' Hxseek (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (1) Somewhere above, Daizus cites one of the studies written by Curta ("A Shadow of a Frontier. The Walachian Plain during the Justinianic Age"): "In Oltenia Romanization was an accomplished fact by 500. There are just a few shapes (under ten percent of the corpus) of Dacian tradition, most others are of clearly Roman inspiration." Although I have not read the study, but I have no reason to challange the citation's reliability. The citation suggests that even Curta accepts the existence of "Romanized pottery" and "Dacian pottery", while otherwise he denies the existence of "Slavic pottery". (2) There might have existed a population speaking of a Romance language in Wallachia (whose major part had been under Roman rule for less than 80 years: from 107 to 118, from the 330s to the 360s and from the 530s to the 560s) and in Moldavia (which had never been ruled by the Romans), but their presence is not documented in the written sources or by linguistic evidence (Slavic and Turkic place names) before the 12th century. Moreover, archaeological evidence does suggest that there were periods (e.g.,  around 380-400, around 680, and around 1050) when not only the continuity of settlements (or clusters of settlements) but also the continuity of cultural traditions was interrupted. Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"A Shadow of a Frontier..." is Teodor's not Curta's. Curta is merely the editor of the volume where it was published. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Plinul is right. That article was writter by Teodor. Curta does not necessarily agree with all of Teodor's convictions. That is why I wrote the above: Teodor and Curta made different interpretations of evidence from pottery. Teodor argues for the existence of Roman pottery, signalizing 'Romanity' in the population. The remaining proportions of other types of pottery, which varies from region to region, is generally 'local' stemming back to Carpic and Sarmatian traditions. The 'Slavic' component, on the assumption that the pots from Korchak and Penkovka are the earliest Slavic types, then they are only mildly found, limited to Moldavia and Muntenia. Tedodor's analysis is largely based on shapes, dimensions and volumes of pots, and their comparison to a Roman 'standard'. Curta rather argues that pot shapes were actually all rather similar in dimensions, and dimensions of pottery do not represent an ethnic significance, whether it be Slavic, Dacian or Roman. Rather, certain types of pottery decorations might. Those he refers to in 6th-7th century southeastern Romanian lands might represent the process of ethnogenesis in communities in the lower Danube, where the Roman sources located the Sklavenes and Antes. However, he says that this archaeological culture did not originate in a distinct region in Ukraine or Moldavia, but rather representd a broad area of socio-cultural interactions during that time. No migration is required to explain it, but obviously there was some movement, from the nature of settlements spreading around river terraces, often being transient. This movement was intenerant farming. Obviously, one cannot deny also the raids of Sklavenes into Balkan provinces. However, as above, they had not migrated from far in northeastern Europe, but from beyond the Danube - in Wallachia. The Sklavenes were just a military cast part of the broader socio-cutural phenomnon that generated the cultural millieu in 6th century eastern Europe, whether one calls it Ipotesti-Candesti or Prague-Penkovka culture. Hxseek (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. That is why I do not use sources I have not read. I was convinced that it was written by Curta. However, based on the "Making of the Slavs" I understood that Curta tends to deny any form of migration: he suggests that the itinerant form of agriculture on the Lower Danube plains implies that there was no long-distance migration (sorry, for the time being I cannot cite exact page numbers - maybe later). Borsoka (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No problems. Curta sees no archaeological evidence for a mass migration from Ukraine-Polesie or Bukovina-Carpets area to southeastern Romania. Rather, a movement of mobile farmers from one area to a nearby one, and a generation of inter-regional cultural connections over much of eastern Europe, Romania included. Very few scholars would argue that Slavic, or its ancestors, was spoken in the lower Danube. Therefore its expansion to this region must have been associated with the movement of some people at some time, some link this to the Hun Empire when settlement patterns changed - Curta brushes over this point. I think he hints that he believes in the 'wave theory' of linguistics (see Renfrew) which argues that initially diverse langauges can converge to form a new, related but not wholly uniform language by contatcs and mutual development; which contrasts with the traditional 'family treee' model which pictures a parent language splitting into 2 or more daughter langauges after migration and separation of people.

On the other hand, Curta does not deny a migration/invasion from Wallachia (where the 6th century Sklavenoi were) into the Balkans. The historical sources are undeniable. This one of his main points - he argues that the Sklavenoi were formed in Wallachia - ie 'indegenous' and not somewhere from Russia or Poland. The problem is that, according to Curta, there is little archaeological evidence attesting to this Slavic presence in the Balkans in the 6th and 7th centuries (in the sense of resemblence between 7th century Balkans and 6th/7th century Wallachian assemblages), except for a few sites in Bulgaria which might be as late as mid 7th cenutry. 7th century Balkans is truly a "dark age" period. Neither Slavs, nor Byzantine, rural populace has been discovered much. If anything, sites in west Balkans have closer analogies to Avar material. This raises issues about where the South Slavs came from and why there is scarce evidence for them (apart rom the obvious fact that archaeological digs in the Balkans tende to focus on 'more impressive' Roman and Greek urban areas). Added to the problem, the East Roman/ Byzantine empire was itself undergoing significant change - culturally, administrativaly and archaeologically, clouding the evidence even further. This, however, is a problem for the Origins of South Slavs, not Romanians :) Hxseek (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello all! Salut Plinule, nice to see you around ;)


 * Curta's book is (IMHO) justifiably named "The Making of the Slavs" because a) virtually all modern theories on Slavic migrations start from the history of Sklavenes on the Lower Danube (with Procopius and Jordanes as main primary sources) b) his own theory suggets the Slavic language was one of the languages spoken in these regions in 500s-700s, language which spread throughout Central and Eastern Europe as lingua franca (in Avar khaganate and possibly in other "barbarian" states) c) It may well be that the actual name 'Slav' derives from a name (from their own language but possibly also the Greek one) of those people. However we should be aware that same name doesn't always mean same identity. To be sure, Curta maintains that a Slavic ethnic identity in the late medieval/modern sense (i.e. "national") is a much later phenomenon, finding a first unequivocal statement "We are Slavs" in a 12th century Russian chronicle.


 * The current article on Early Slavs is blatantly biased towards the traditional migrationist theory and we can examine the maps to see that: four maps show a Slavic cultural and linguistic expansion (and inherently demic, since the early Slavic culture is often perceived as "primitive") from the Urheimat (the imagined homeland), while no other "ethnogenetic" alternative is depicted. Moreover the text is replete with dubious wordings and techniques which eventually promote the beliefs of some editors. For example, after "Conclusions" (!! probably this section is supposed to summarize the previous section, "Ethnogenesis") the narrative moves on, apparently uninfluenced by some of the previous discussions. In "Tribal and Territorial Organization" along with two highly controversial maps (can one provide 8th century primary sources for Slavic speakers on, let's say, Upper Dnieper?) the text mentions a "Slav expansion and subsequent demographic and ethnic consolidation".


 * The Christian symbolism on Wallachian pottery is arguably more than a simple mimicry. Such decorations were relatively rare but deliberate (hence special), but more important, such swastikas, crosses and X signs were carved in the same position on the vessel shoulders, suggesting a shared symbolism. This correspondence is a specific Wallachian phenomenon and it's is contemporary with the existence of the Byzantine frontier in the 6th century. Whether these symbols refer to a solar cult, Christianity or a syncretism between the two it is a matter of debate, however it's plausible they were not imitatations having a purely aesthetic character.


 * Hxseek, I think you have misunderstood Teodor. Whenever he speaks of Romanization he speaks of cultural (as in material, not linguistic) Romanization, because according to his own investigations that pottery is of Roman tradition with no parallels in the "barbarian space" but in other regions under Roman influence.


 * Borsoka, I doubt you have understood the arguments against Slavic pottery, in particular against some Slavic morphological typologies. It is nothing wrong with having a Slavic pottery (Plinul astutely observed this is not about the controversy between Vienna and Toronto schools), and the criticism targets some particular methodological flaws:
 * misdatings: for example (Curta 2001:230-1) Rusanova regarded both a Khotomel late 7th-8th century site and also a Wielbark site at Korchak to be from 6th century, thus contemporary with the assumed migration. If the theoretical model of a 'Slavic pottery type' is built on misanalyzed artifacts, how reliable can this model be?
 * inconsistencies: the 'Slavic pottery' of Wallachia is often attested in earlier sites than the 'Slavic pottery' from Urheimat, so how could these 'pottery models' be the ones the Slavs brought in their hypothetic migration?
 * irrelevance: Curta (2001:287-9) performed an analysis on 112 vessels, from both 'Slavic' and non-'Slavic' sites (from Gepidia or even from Byzantine forts), wheel-made and hand-made. All these vessels were measured and classified according to 'Slavic' pottery models, two such models being tested, Gening's and Parczewski's. The result was that both models failed to distinguish 'Slavic' pots from the non-'Slavic' ones (also undermining Rusanova and Borkovský's assumption that 'Slavic pottery' can be defined as a specific morphological class of handmade pottery). If so, how can one say based on such typologies which ceramic fragments are 'Slavic' and which are not?
 * If you can read Romanian you can also check this study authored by E. S. Teodor, explaining the limitations and flaws of the existing morphological classifications and suggesting a new system. Teodor's criticism points out how Rusanova created some arbitrary categories, which obviously weren't suitable for other "Slavic" regions (Ukraine vs Czechoslovakia). The model was however exported throughout the Communist Eastern Europe, proving the proto-Slavs were everywhere (the author also remarks that if applied on Navajo pots, Rusanova's model will prove the proto-Slavs were there, too!)
 * If you believe similar arguments can be forwarded against 'Roman pottery' then please articulate them, however Teodor's own system differentiates clearly Roman traditions from other traditions (for more details check the studies in Romanian I linked so far)
 * Also you're wrong about Teodor's Romanized pottery being found mostly in Byzantine sites, as he investigates the sites of the so-called Ipoteşti-Cândeşti culture: in Oltenia it's also about Vadu Codrii, Gropşani, etc., locations relatively far away from Danube (check map), sites having sunken huts and other "barbarian" symptoms of habitation. Please also note Romanized pottery doesn't mean here wheel-made but traditions in shape and decoration.
 * And finally, Hxseek, you correctly observe that F. Curta and E. Teodor do not share the same conclusions on pottery, however none of Curta's objections apply to Teodor's own conclusions.
 * Oh, one more remark. Hxseek you wrote: "Curta does not deny a migration/invasion from Wallachia (where the 6th century Sklavenoi were) into the Balkans. The historical sources are undeniable." but he actually disputes there was any significant migration over Danube during most of the 6th century (2001:52,74,75,99,100,113,etc.) and their significant and solid presence south of Danube (and arguably some migration over the river) is rather a 7th century phenomenon.
 * Best regards, Daizus (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorin Paliga
Based on the above remarks which claim that the linguistic part of the article is based primarily on works written by historians (although it is an exaggeration, because several books written by linguists are cited in the article), I tried to find alternative sources. The only one I have so far found is a book written by Sorin Paliga. He is professor of Czech and comparative linguistic at the University of Bucharest, Department of Slavic Languages.

Sincerely, I think his book is not a reliable source, because his approach is very similar to some Hungarian pseudo-historians who try to find a link between the proto-Hungarians and the Sumerians, Egyptians, Scythians – he can create indigenous words based on many languages (including Uralic languages and the Basque, because for him, ‘indigenous’ means Thracian or (!) pre-Indo-European). He is really creative, he can innovate vowel shifts occurred in languages whose documented vocabulary is limited to less than 200 words.

Nevertheless, I really enjoyed his book, because there one can read some really funny etymologies. It is obvious that he does not speak Hungarian. He obviously used a Hungarian-Romanian dictionary which only listed the basic form of a word: for example málna (‘raspberry’) was listed in his dictionary, but its adjective form málnás (‘with raspberry’) was not marked.

From his really interesting book, my favorites are the followings:
 * He thinks that the relation of the Romanian name of Apaţa (a village in Braşov County, Romania) with either Romanian apă ('water') or Hungarian apa ('father') must be fortuitous – and it is true. But he ignores the fact that the Hungarian name of the village (Apáca which is pronounced in the same way as the village’s Romanian name) means 'nun' (apáca in Hungarian).
 * He suggests that the name of Mediaş derives from a hypothetical indigenous root *med-; but he fails to mention that the Hungarian word meggyes (whose pronunciation is very close to the Romanian word) means '(a place) with sour-cherry trees' and exactly that is the Hungarian name of the town (Medgyes). Similarly, the name of the village Malnaş can be traced back, according to him, to a (!) pre-Indo-European root *M-L; although the Hungarian word málnás (with the same pronunciation as the Romanian name of the village) means '(a place) with raspberries'.
 * He argues that the Hungarian name of Timişoara, that is Temesvár which means 'a fortress on the Timiş River', is a calque after its Romanian name; the Romanian name of the town, according to him, is composed of Timiş + (!) Romanian *oara (which is attested only in place names in Transylvania).

But my number 1 example is when he explains the origin of the Romanian epithet Mîntuitorul ('the Saviour') of Jesus. He admits that verbs ending in -ui are usually of Hungarian origin, but of course such an important expression of the Christian vocabulary of the Romanians (who had been Christians 700 years before the Hungarians arrived to the Carpathian Basin) cannot be of Hungarian origin. Therefore, he argues that the Romanian religious word a mîntui ('to absolve, to clean') was not borrowed from the Hungarian verb menteni ('to save'), but from a hypothetical Latin word *manu tuitus ('absolved, saved by hands'). If he had stopped here, this would be a possibility. But he adds that the Hungarian word was borrowed from the Romanian (which derived from the hypothetical Latin expression) - he obviously does not know that the Hungarian epithet Megváltó ('Saviour') of Jesus is from an other Hungarian verb (megváltani - 'to redempt', also 'to pay off'), therefore there is no need to explain the Latin origin of the Romanian epithet, because - although the verb a mîntui was borrowed probably from the Hungarian language – the ‘Saviour’ meaning of the word is a Romanian innovation, the epithet was not borrowed from the Hungarians.

Nevertheless, Solin Paliga is a scholar, a professor of a university; therefore I think we can refer to him in an article. Moreover, I think it is remarkable that even the most innovative researcher of place names in Romania was not able to collect more than 40-50 place names which – according to him – can be traced back to the period before the Slavs and the Hungarians. I think it is also remarkable, that neither could he trace back those place names to a Latin form, because he had to create a hypothetical pre-Latin form in order to explain the modern Romanian form of the given geographical name (although the Romanian language is obviously of Latin origin). Borsoka (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Borsoka (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Archaeology
I thinkt this section is very good. Comprehensive but not overly verbose. Perhaps a discussion of what the archaeological evidence surmizes might be a good idea. Eg highlight that settlement continuity need not necessarliy correlate with ethnic continuity Hxseek (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Constantine I reconquered Dacia (present day Romania) in 334
this should be mention in this article Constantine considered Constantinople as his capital and permanent residence. He lived there for a good portion of his later life. He rebuilt Trajan's bridge across the Danube, in hopes of reconquering Dacia, a province that had been abandoned under Aurelian. In the late winter of 332, Constantine campaigned with the Sarmatians against the Goths. The weather and a lack of food did the Goths in; nearly one hundred thousand died before they submitted to Roman lordship. In 334, after Sarmatian commoners had overthrown their leaders, Constantine led a campaign against the tribe. He won a victory in the war and extended his control over the region, as remains of camps and fortifications in the region indicate. Constantine resettled some Sarmatian exiles as farmers in the Balkans and Italy, and conscripted the rest into the army. Constantine took the title Dacius maximus in 336.

here an interesting article about the origin of the Romanians writen by an american professor http://www.friesian.com/decdenc2.htm in which he concludes: There was continuous Daco-Romanian occupation of Transylvania, and there was migration from what had been Roman Moesia, south of the Danube. Not south by much, however. The areas are still contiguous today. This is worse for Hungarian claims than for Romanian. What continued migration explains is the purely Romance character of Daco-Romanian.


 * The article refers to the fact that Constantine I "also restored direct Roman control of the southern half of Oltenia and Muntenia. But by 369, the river Danube had marked again the physical limit of Roman power." So the facts are that Constantine I (1) re-occupied parts of Oltenia (which had been part of Dacia province between 107 and 271/75) and (2) occupied Muntenia (which had been part of Moesia province between 107 and 118), but (3) the occupation did not last for more than 35 years. However, I do not clearly understand the reference to the fact that Sarmatians living in Oltenia and Muntenia were settled in the Roman Empire during this period. Does this fact suggest that the Daco-Romans remained in Oltenia and Muntenia? Or I missed something.
 * The article refers to the article written by Kelly L. Ross ("The Vlach Connection and Further Reflections on Roman History") in its "13. External links" section. Otherwise, the article not only presents similar declarations of the continous Daco-Roman presence in Transylvania, but also the claims based on which those declarations are made are also presented. Borsoka (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Very first documents"
The reference to the statement "Romanians living in Transylvania are mentioned in the very first surviving documents that concern Transylvania." is Engel, Pál (2001:117). But the cited source says: "The Romanians who now form the great majority of the population in Transylvania are first mentioned by Anonymous." Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Therefore, the statement is not based on the cited source; it is OR.
 * The very first surviving documents that concerns Transylvania are three royal charters from the 12th century (Kristó, Gyula (2003:107).
 * There is a separate section on Anonymous' work; therefore there is no need to repeat it.

Anonymous
As there is a specific section on Anonymous work, all references to his highly debated work should be mentioned in that section. Borsoka (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The quotes
The quotes used in this article are highly biased, as they only show the Roeslerian point of view and they do not show the basis on which the affirmations of those authors are founded. Many of those affirmations are purely speculative. They should be removed at least until the data that sustain them is added.

Example:

The affirmation is speculative, and resembles more a fictional detective work than a historic one.

1. It assumes as a fact that the vlachs where before that only found at south of Danube, or that was not yet been proved.

2. It creates a logical fallacy by assuming a conclusion from a premise, without proving that their subjects are actually the same.

I can probably take most of the quotes in this article and show the same thing about them.


 * The author's opinion is that the Vlachs (whose presence in Bulgaria in the 12th century is well-documented by contemporary sources but who are not mentioned in the sources after the 13th century) founded Wallachia. István Vásáry is Professor of Turkish and Central Asian Studies at Loránd Eötvös University (Budapest), his book was issued by the Cambridge University Press. Therefore, his opinion can be presented in the article. Similarly to Victor Spinei's opinion who says that "Bogdan" (the founder of Moldavia) "has been assumed to be the voivode Bogdan, son of Micula, who in 1335 asked king Charles Robert and was granted the permission to move from his own lands in the Hungarian kingdom. The similitude of the names is insufficient to identify the two voivodes; moreover, the situation of Bogdan of Cuhea and his family within socio-political relations in Maramureş excludes his having come from other regions." Although, Spinei's reference to "socio-political relations" says nothing (actually Bogdan fought against Romanian voivodes in Maramureş, and he is explicitly mentioned in a royal charter as one of the Romanians who migrated to Hungary with many people). Borsoka (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just "for the records": 13 of the 28 underlined quotes present pro-continuity arguments (Opreanu, Spinei, Salagean, McKendrick, Madgearu, Pacurariu), 6 quotes are neutral (Pohl, Rady, Curta, Wilkes, Boia), and only 9 quotes represent anti-continuity arguments (Schramm, Vásáry, Heather, Barford, Fiedler, Niculescu, Illyés, Fügedi). Borsoka (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In the same way the author of the article puts conclusions on the affirmations of the historians.

Example: "According to the Byzantine Kekaumenos (11th century), some of the Vlachs used to live in the territory of modern Serbia and withdrew southwards, to Epirus, Macedonia, and Hellas, and not to the region north of the Danube."


 * Please read Spinei, Victor: The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century (p. 76.).Borsoka (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Or the fact that Kekaumenos do not mention anything about the northern vlachs, that does not implicate they did not exists.


 * The article does not suggest that the fact that Kekaumenos does not writes of Vlachs north of the Danube proves or suggests or implies that Vlachs did not live north of the Danube. Borsoka (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Another problem is the fact that many of the sources are given in general terms, like "a Russian chronicle" without mentioning which.
 * A more specific reference is added. Borsoka (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Other data are incomplete or lack proof, like "the Romanians asked a certain 'king Ladislaus of Hungary' “to give them a place to stay”", but it doesn't state from where did they come and do not give any proof for that location.


 * Please read Armbruster, Adolf: Romanitatea românilor: istoria unei idei(Editura Enciclopedică, 1993, Bucureşti; ISBN 973-45-0058-9), there is a full quotation. According to the legend the Romanians migrated from "Rome" to Hungary when a certain king "Vladislav" invited them in order to provide him assistance against the Tatars. A broader quotation can be read in the article Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians - it should not be repeated here. Borsoka (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)