Talk:Romania in the Early Middle Ages/Archive 5

A strange map
The map entitled "A view on 6th to 8th century AD ethnic distribution in the territory of present-day Romania and neighbouring areas" sharply contradicts to all the reliable sources cited in the article. Here is a list of my questions (I do not cite sources, because the article is well-referenced):


 * Where are the Ants? (They were waging war against the Eastern Roman Empire in the early 6th century.)Borsoka (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are the Gepids limited to a small territory in the Banat? (They dominated the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin between c. 455 and c. 565. Their cemeteries can be detected in Transylvania up until the 630s.) Borsoka (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are the Bulgarians? (They dominated the Lower Danube region after 680.)Borsoka (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are the Avars absent from the lowlands along the rivers Tisza, Mures, Cris, Somes, ... etc? (The Avars were pastoralist who preferred the steppe-like lowlands of the Carpathian Basin.)Borsoka (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are there Slavs in Transylvania, in present-day Serbia and Hungary in the 6th century? (They began to penetrate into those territories in the next century.)Borsoka (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are different views, what's wrong with that? TheDacian (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong about different views. However, a school map from the 1970s which contradicts to all the modern academic sources cited in this article cannot be used here. For instance, the absence of the Bulgarians from the map is not a different view, but it proves that the map is not based on reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is not only the school map. You are not the censor of maps here. TheDacian (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please look at the sources of the map. It is a school map from the 1970s. For instance, one of the sources you added does not present Slavs in Transylvania and it covers only the 6th-7th centuries. Borsoka (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess this map is no stranger than this one. I suggest waiting to see what will happed to know if this kind of maps are acceptable or not. Also I am surprised by Borsoka`s comments here when on an almost identical situation he has completely different opinion. Adrian (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above comment. There is no reliable source supporting this map. I do not remember a situation when I stated that a map which is not suported by reliable sources is acceptable. Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You rejected the map "A view on 6th to 8th century AD ethnic distribution in the territory of present-day Romania and neighbouring areas" that is backed by reliable sources, based on personal analysis and comparisons with other views TheDacian (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I rejected the map, because it contradicts to all the reliable sources cited in the article. Please comment my above remarks which are based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not preoccupied of your original research. This is a sourced map and it has to stay. Period. TheDacian (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank for correcting the timeframe of the map. I see that you can be convinced that you are wrong, even if you deny it for some misty reason. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources existed there and I did not check them too much before; I did not expect PANONNIAN not to respect them. Have a nice day too TheDacian (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was wrong. I think a question still remained unanswered: where are the Bulgarians?. It is strange that a people whose presence in the territory is well documented are not presented in a map. Borsoka (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bulgarians are South Slavs TheDacian (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that the updated map is ok now, by wiki standards. I don`t understand this - Where are the Bulgarians? What does that matter? We have an academic source and that`s all that it matters. Don`t want to "add salt", but on an almost identical situation where I shared your POV, Where are the Vlachs? It doesn`t matter, the source states this info. Adrian (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Adrian, the map cannot be OK, since it contradicts not only to all relvenat reliable sources cited in the article, but also to its own single source. Consequently, the map is OR that cannot be presented in this article. Sorry, but I do not remember any identical situation. Did I ever supported a map which was not based on reliable sources? Borsoka (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How could have the Romanian language survived if Slavs had been everywhere? If this map was true the official language of Romania would be a Slavic language nowadays. What was the map based on? Archaeology? Hydronymy? Fakirbakir (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not our job to make this kind of research. According to your latest maps there were even less Vlachs/Romanians in Transylvania TheDacian (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don`t care on what is it based exactly, it is based on an academic source that`s all that is of interest for wikipedia.Adrian (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear all, sorry, but I have not received an answer to my question. Where are the Bulgarians? If you read the reliable sources cited in the article (Fine 1991, Barford 2001, Curta 2006, etc) state that the Slavic population and the Turkic (=Bulgarian) population of the first Bulgarian Empire formed two distinct groups up until the end of the 9th century. So, I would like to know where are the Bulgarians. Moreover, the [book which is claimed to be the source of the map http://books.google.hu/books?id=ORSMBFwjAKcC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA5&vq=maps&output=html&redir_esc=y] does not refer to Slavs in Transylvania. Borsoka (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So the map File:Europe around 800.gif is more accurate according to you. Where are the Vlachs / (proto) Romanians here? TheDacian (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the presence of Vlachs in this period is a debated issue. However, there are a number of reliable sources (including the map you referred to above ) stating that there were Vlachs in Transylvania. Therefore, that the Vlachs are presented in the map cannot be treated as OR (it represents a widespread POV). On the other hand, there is no reliable source denying the presence of Bulgarians in the Lower Danube region or stating that they were not a distinct population. Borsoka (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it debated the presence of Vlachs in Europe? I can't see them anywhere on the whole map, not only in Transylvania! The most numerous people in the Balkan area is invisible or insignifiant. The folllowing statament by the French historian Ferdinand Lot is characterizing for this map: Still, where should we place the Daco-Romanians? The Hungarians, the Serbs, the Bulgarians and the Greeks all agree that by no means are they natives of Transylvania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia or the Pindus. However, they could not have turned up out of the blue or from the bottom of hell. This unanimous attitude against the Romanians is therefore an incentive to adopt the thesis of the Daco-Roman continuity north of the Danube TheDacian (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I mentioned the presence of Vlachs in Transylvania in the period is a widespread POV presented in reliable sources. However, (1) the map contradicts to all reliable sources cited in the article covering the period (where are the Bulgarians?, etc) (2) the map contradicts to its alleged source as it is presented in the following table:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="width: 55%"

! scope="col" width="15%" | Region ! scope="col" width="20%" | The map in the article ! scope="col" width="20%" | The map's alleged source
 * Transylvania
 * Vlachs and Slavs
 * Vlachs
 * Banat
 * Avars and Slavs
 * Avars
 * Upper Tisa plains
 * Slavs
 * not specified
 * Wallachia
 * Slavs
 * Wallachian Slavs
 * Serbia
 * Slavs
 * not specified
 * Northern Bulgaria
 * Slavs
 * Severians (a Slavic tribe)
 * }
 * Since there are four regions (Transylvania, Banat, Upper Tisa plains, Serbia) where this map and its alleged source contradict to each other, we can only state that the map is not based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read in the legend what the grey colour represents? TheDacian (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not surprised. It is a typical "Slavic supremacy" map and of course does not follow its own source. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are the Slavs in Transylvania in the cited map? And where are the Bulgarians in the map? Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Severians (a Slavic tribe)
 * }
 * Since there are four regions (Transylvania, Banat, Upper Tisa plains, Serbia) where this map and its alleged source contradict to each other, we can only state that the map is not based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read in the legend what the grey colour represents? TheDacian (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not surprised. It is a typical "Slavic supremacy" map and of course does not follow its own source. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are the Slavs in Transylvania in the cited map? And where are the Bulgarians in the map? Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, wait a bit. Borsoka thinks this map is OR? Can you present your case why do you think this? I see that this has a source but it is not available online, so until proven otherwise this offline source is as good as any other source. Borsoka why do you claim that it is not supported by this source? And why the analysis where which ethnic group was? I think that is the job of the academic researcher not us wikipedians to analyse. We are here just to put whatever is stated in the source, nothing more. If we wikipedians do more, I believe that is called WP:OR. Adrian (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And why is this source excluded from the map now? Adrian (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I still do not see the "Vlachs and Slavs" in Transylvania in the source you two have been adding to the map, but I understand that it is an important map for both of you. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is the problem, you should say so. This snide remarks are not helpful because the same could be said for you at the Hungarian map. I will remove this map and will reinsert it only when it is corrected to reflect the source 100%. We just need a minor correction. Adrian (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right, now I understand. The map will be corrected. Sorry for the misunderstading. 79.117.168.21 (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear all, I have been writing of the same issue for days. I think it is also strange that the Bulgarians (who formed an empire along the Lower Danube) are not mentioned in the map: there is no reliable source denying their presence). Dear Adrian, I do not understand your reference to "the Hungarian map". Where is it and what is the "same" issue with it? Borsoka (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Borsoka, as I have been saying for days, we leave that kind of questions to the published academics and not to us. Simply it is not our job to analyze the reference, it is just to state the reference and the data it is presenting. There is a reliable source for this map, and if they are not presented there is your answer. It is not a mainstream map, but it is a map with valid sources. Unfortunately I am busy in the next few days but when I can, I will correct this map to reflect the source 100% and as such reinsert it. Adrian (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have corrected the map to reflect it`s sources. Adrian (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What is a better link?
Dear Nergaal, I would like to understand your message. What article do you think fits better to the period following the early middle ages, than the article describing the middle ages? Borsoka (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sarmatians
This phrase is dubious Sarmatians – who came from the lowlands east of the Carpathians – settled in Banat at the end of the 3rd century. It is known that the Sarmatians were already in the area as allies of the Dacians during the Trajan's Dacian Wars (101-106 AD), as the Trajan's Column depicts it and ancient sources mention. The Iazyges and Alans were in the area way before the 3rd century, as many sources describe. Something has to be corrected and clarified here.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Codrin, would your clarify your above concern. I do not clearly understand it. What is the area where the Sarmatians were present during Trajan's War? Borsoka (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, in 7 BC, when the Dacian kingdom built up by Burebista began to collapse, the Romans took advantage and encouraged the Iazyges to settle in the Pannonian plain, between the Danube and the Tisa Rivers. Which means Sarmatians were near or in Banat at least since 1st century BC/1st century AD. And this is just one example of the presence of Sarmatians in the area. The statement saying that Sarmatians settled only in the 3rd century may lead the reader to believe that they were not there before, which is misleading I think. Certanly Sarmatians were shuffled around many times by the Romans and being nomads, it is hard to say where they were at certain times.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Daco-Romans, Vlachs and the Eastern Roman Empire are missing
I've been reviewing this article a few times. I think is well written with lots of great topics covered, albeit quite biased towards the Immigrationist theory or the "void theory" since it only covers the different nations that invaded Romania, but doesn't refer to the those who were invaded, i.e Romans, Daco-Romans, Vlachs, Byzantines almost at all. The way it stands now, it seems that the Theory of Daco-Romanian continuity is discarded completely which is not a fair or balanced approach. I think it would be more balanced if it would have sections on Daco-Romans, Vlachs, Byzantines, summarizing some of the ideas put forth in the Origin of the Romanians and pointing the reader there for more detail. Additionally, the long term presence in the Early Middle Ages of the Eastern Roman Empire in some of the territory of present-day Romania is not fully presented, again favoring the "conquering" parties and discarding the presence of the "conquered". I invite the author to expand on these topics by creating consistent sections on them out of fairness and in an attempt to reach balance.--Codrin.B (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Codrin.B, thank you for your message. Although I am not the author, but I do not deny that my contribution was quite crucial. Plese find my comments on your remarks here:


 * (1) The article does not mention or refer to any migration of the Vlachs/Romanians to present-day Romania. Please take into account that there are a number of references to continuity in the article. For instance, I refer to the following sentences (a) "Towns ... and the surrounding areas continued to be inhabited but the urban areas diminished" (North of the limes) (b) "...hand-made cups of the local tradition were also preserved" (Gutthiuda: land of the Goths) (c) "The Lower Danube region experienced a period of stability after the establishment of the Avar Empire" (Emergence of new powers (c. 600–c. 895)) (d) "The change of dominion had no major effect on the sedentary "Dridu" villages in the region." (Patzinakia: land of the Pechenegs) (e) "...semi-sunken huts with stone ovens from Sfântu Gheorghe, Şimoneşti and other villages evidence the survival of the local population" (Kingdom of Hungary). In my world, an article which makes mention of continuity several times, but fails to refer to migration, cannot be biased towards a migrationist theory, as you are suggesting. Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (2) The article frequently refers to the locals (to those who were invaded), and their everyday life (abodes, pottery, rituals, foods...). For instance, I refer to the following sentences: (a) "These lands were inhabited by a sedentary population engaged in farming and cattle-breeding. Pottery, comb-making and other handicrafts flourished in the villages ... but hand-made cups of the local tradition were also preserved. (...) "Sântana de Mureş-Chernyakhov" villages...comprised two types of houses: sunken huts with walls made of wattle and daub and surface buildings with plastered timber walls. Sunken huts had for centuries been typical for settlements east of the Carpathians, but now they appeared in distant zones of the Pontic steppes." (Gutthiuda: land of the Goths) (b) "The common people in Biharia, Cenad, Moreşti, and other villages lived in sunken huts covered with gabled roofs but with no hearths or ovens. They were primarily farmers, but looms, combs, and other products evidence the existence of local workshops." (Gepidia: land of the Gepids) (c) "The Huns imposed their authority on a sedentary population. Priscus of Panium refers to a village where he and his retinue were supplied "with millet instead of corn" and "medos (mead) instead of wine"." (Hunnic Empire (c. 400–c. 460)) (d) "The locals practiced an "itinerant form of agriculture", instead of manuring the soil. Differences in local pottery indicate the coexistence of communities isolated from each other by marshes, forests or hills. For instance, contemporary Cândeşti produced a significant quantity of wheel-made pottery, Târgşor was characterized by crushed-shard tempered vessels, and a sample of the most common "Kolochin" vessels was found in the Budureasca Valley. There are few known cemeteries from the second half of the 5th century, pointing to common use of cremation without the use of urns or pits. On the other hand, a huge biritual necropolis at Sărata-Monteoru produced more than 1,600 cremation burials, either in wheel-made urns or in pits without urns." (Between Huns and Avars) ..... etc, etc. Please take into account that contemporaneous sources (as it is mentioned in the article) makes only sporadic references to the territory. Accordingly, it is mainly archaeological research which reveals the everyday life of the locals. Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (3) Yes, parts of present-day Romania were under the rule of the Roman Empire/Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire even after the 270s. As far as I know, all these lands and the periods concerned are mentioned in the article. (a) Scythia Minor/Dobruja till c. 700 (Scythia Minor and the limes on the Lower Danube) (b) Sucidava and Drobeta which remained under Roman rule in Oltenia up until c. 597 (Roman provinces and native tribes / Scythia Minor and the limes on the Lower Danube) (c) Dierna and other small forts newly erected on the Lower Danube in the 290s which remained under Roman rule up until c. 360s (Scythia Minor and the limes on the Lower Danube) (d) lands in Oltenia and Muntenia between 320s and 360s (Scythia Minor and the limes on the Lower Danube) (e) lands in Oltenia and Muntenia betwen 520s and 560s (Scythia Minor and the limes on the Lower Danube) (e) Dobruja and smaller forts along the Lower Danube from 970s till 1180s (First Bulgarian Empire after conversion / Byzantine revival and the Second Bulgarian Empire). Do your relaible sources refer to other territories and periods when any of the regions now forming Romania were under Roman/Eastern Roman/Byzantine dominion after the 270s? If there are further references, please do not refrain from adding them. Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (4) There are references to individuals or groups speaking Latin in the territory of present-day Romania. For instance, I refer to the following sentences: (a) "the subjects of the Huns" spoke "besides their own barbarous tongues, either Hunnic or Gothic, or—as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans—Latin" (Hunnic Empire) (b) a young Antian serf who "spoke the Latin tongue" (Between Huns and Avars). Actually, there are not too many sources referring to Latin-speaking individuals or groups in the period between 270 and 1210. What is the source mentioning them which you specifically would like to add? Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (5) The Vlach ethnonym is documented from the 9th century. Many references to the Vlachs/Romanians can be found in the parts of the article which describe the history of the period between the 9th and 13th century. What is the source referring to Vlachs which you specifically would like to add? Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (6) Finally, why do you think that the article "Origin of the Romanians" should be cloned? The "Origin of the Romanians" section refers to the early history of the Romanian people and there is a clear reference to the "Origin of the Romanians" article. Anybody who is interested in this specific subject, can easily find it. Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)