Where was Dacia and who were Dacians? Relationship between old Dacia and modern Romania

[ArMakedon]

In Macedonia members of Vlach minority are getting angry if you say to them that they are part of Romanian people. They dont concidere them as Romanians at all.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by ArMakedon

In Macedonia members of Vlach minority are getting angry if you say to them that they are part of Romanian people. They dont concidere them as Romanians at all.

Similarily, the Vlachs of Serbia are quite ambiguous on whether to consider themselves Vlachs or Romanians.

VI. Vlach/Romanian ethnic minority

69. Several questions arise concerning the Romanian ethnic minority in Serbia. The rapporteur noted disputes over the very definition of the Romanian ethnic minority, as well as regional inequalities in the effective exercise of the rights of national minorities.

i. Definition of the Romanian ethnic minority in Serbia: Vlachs/Romanians


70. The contours of the Romanian ethnic minority are extremely hard to discern clearly.

- Relevant issues


71. Firstly, it appears very difficult to quantify the proportion of the Serbian population originating from the Romanian ethnic minority. Indeed, the various censuses show huge differences. While the 1991 census recorded 42 331 Romanians and 17 807 Vlachs in Serbia54, 34 576 and 40 054 were the respective figures recorded at the 2002 census55. The rapporteur notes the unsubstantiated allegations of several of his informants that the censuses were tampered with56.


72. The Romanian ethnic minority is settled in quite distinct regions of Serbia’s territory. Its principal homeland is Vojvodina and eastern Serbia, to be more exact in the Timoc, Morava and Danube valleys. The Vlachs are settled almost exclusively in eastern Serbia.


73. The Vlachs are an ethnic group present in Serbia and other adjacent countries, culturally and linguistically related to the Romanians.


74. Some believe that the Vlachs are part and parcel of the Romanian minority, others that they are a separate minority. The fact that the Vlachs have organised themselves independently from the Romanian minority by founding their own Council for the Vlach national minority shows that some of the Vlachs do not regard themselves as belonging to the Romanian minority.


75. The rapporteur observes that the process of instituting a National Council for the Vlach minority was long and arduous. Indeed, for a long time the Serbian government refused to register such a council because it was indistinguishable from the national council for the Romanian minority already in existence. The statutes proposed for the registration of a national council for the Vlach minority, as well as bearing the same name in Romanian as the council for the Romanian minority, provided that the Vlach minority’s language/the council’s working language should be literary Romanian. This led the government to believe that they were one and the same minority, and the law does not permit the formation of more than one national council for one minority (a national council for the Romanian minority had already been registered).

76. Language is a subject on which the different sensibilities of the ‘Romanian’ ethnic minority clash. Some consider that since the Vlach language has no written form, the only written language common to the Romanian ethnic minority is literary Romanian. They see this as evidence that the Vlachs are members of the Romanian minority. Others, however, are making attempts to codify the Vlach language in order to assert this minority’s independence and distinctiveness a little more strongly.


77. Finally, shortly before the rapporteur’s visit to eastern Serbia, a vote among the members of the future national council for the Vlach minority allowed its statutes to be amended with the inclusion of the provision that the language would be “Serb and the ‘mother’ tongue”. Following this amendment, the national council for the Vlach minority could be legally registered on 31 July 2007. Within this national council, two tendencies are represented, one that considers the Vlach minority altogether independent from the Romanian minority, the other taking the opposite view that it is the same minority.


78. The rapporteur heard all parties and was able to discern that the vote on amendment of the statutes was markedly contested among the members of the Vlach minority, some of whom demanded reconsideration of the decision. According to the information supplied to the rapporteur, it would moreover appear that a decision to that effect (reaffirming that the written language of the minority is literary Romanian) was taken within the national council for the Vlach minority. But the authorities have informed the rapporteur that the consequence of going back on this amendment of the statutes would be the removal of the national council for the Vlach minority from the registers. To date, however, the rapporteur has not been informed of a move in that direction.

- Position of the governments concerned


79. The position of the Romanian authorities in this respect is very clear-cut, President Basescu having moreover described the division as an “error” and called upon the two associations to unite57. He considers that Romania can offer its protection to the Romanian ethnic minority and thus to the Vlachs as well. Moreover, he regards the division as detrimental to the protection of the Romanian ethnic minority’s interests as it weakens their representation. Clearly, the Romanian authorities are doing everything to induce the members of the Vlach minority to organise under conditions of union with the members of the Romanian minority in Serbia while respecting each individual’s freedom to choose his own identity58.


80. The rapporteur points out that this stance of the Romanian authorities is of some interest since the Romanian minority would undergo a very large potential numerical increase if the Vlachs joined it. In this way, the Romanian ethnic minority would come close in numbers to the Hungarian minority (Serbia’s largest at present), or even outstrip it.


81. The Serbian government for its part wishes to be as non-committal as possible on this issue. Some of the rapporteur’s contacts told him of their convictions that it is altogether in the interests of the Serbian authorities for the Romanian ethnic minority to remain divided so that it keeps smaller proportions, and that they would do everything to preserve an artificial division within it. Others have gone so far as to claim that the authorities’ passiveness towards the Vlach minority is tantamount to tacit assimilation. Remarks of the same kind have reached the rapporteur concerning the Croat minority and the Bunjevci minority, or again the Ukrainian minority and the Rusyn minority59.


82. However, the rapporteur could not find any real interference by the authorities regarding this question. He does not consider abusive the conditions for registering an independent national council for the Vlach minority. At his explicit request during his meetings on the spot, the Serbian authorities assured the rapporteur that they would not object to the Vlachs’ joining with the Romanians under the umbrella of the national council for the Romanian minority if they decided to form a single large Romanian ethnic minority. The authorities do not encourage this amalgamation (that is not their role), neither do they prevent it.


83. It should also be observed that the 2002 census mentioned both the Romanian minority and the Vlach minority. The Advisory Committee saw this as a positive factor bearing witness to the authorities’ equal recognition of the identity of the two minorities within the meaning of Article 3 of the Framework Convention60.

- Position of the rapporteur: recapitulation of the principles


84. Consequently, the rapporteur thinks that the position of the Serbian authorities in the matter is reasonable a priori and has not hampered the freedom of the members of national minority to recognise themselves as such or to refrain from doing so, in accordance with Article 3 of the Framework Convention, whose provisions must stand as the basic reference here. The rapporteur therefore calls upon the authorities to take positive steps on behalf of the minorities, including the Vlach minority, and to ensure the abolition of all discrimination against its members.


85. The rapporteur was struck by the divergences of viewpoint even among the members of the Vlach minority over the question whether or not they belong to the Romanian ethnic minority. This argument causes infighting coloured by contrasting political interests, so much so that some members of the minority known as ‘Vlach’, who are even among the founding member of the national council for the Romanian minority based in Vojvodina, are almost considered traitors by their peers who advocate a separate Vlach minority.


86. In no circumstances is it for the rapporteur to set himself up as a judge and rule on this question. He would reiterate the fundamental principle stated in Article 3 paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention, that “Every person belonging to a national minority shall have the right freely to choose to be treated or not to be treated as such and no disadvantage shall result from this choice or from the exercise of the rights which are connected to that choice”. The rapporteur recalls that any attempt to impose an identity on a person or group of persons is inadmissible61.

The situation of national minorities in Vojvodina and of the Romanian ethnic minority in Serbia

[Tarabos]

Originally Posted by Komisar

your history is wrong only those in the imediate area north-east of the Danube considered themselfs as valachians, even in the Valachian Kingdom those that lived in its western part viewed themselfs as olteni, not valachians.

I think you confuse the context: you are romanian and you know that half of the former Valachia is called Oltenia. the ideea is if an oltenian would gone in other country, he would been called valach and he would had nothing against. Same an moldovian, or an transilvanean. While an muntenian would gone in moldavia would been called valachian, because he comme from Valachia, the former designation of Muntenia.

Originally Posted by Tarabos

romanian: carliontzat(curly);
eng: curly
germ: lockig
dan: krøllede
bulgarian: figurny
russian: viusccitsia
italian: riccia
spanish: rizado
hungarian:csigas
turkish: kivir

albanian: katzurells

Originally Posted by Tarabos

romanian: groapa(pit)
eng: pit
germ: grube
danish: graven
dutch: gruppen
sweden: grop
gothic: groba
bulgarian: iama
italian: buca
spanish: hoyo

albanian: grope

[Tarabos]

this is because not romanian(valachian) language descend from albanian, but albanian have dacian traces. ones of the albanians ancestors were dacians who rennounced of their traditional life-style, and mixed with illirians. but dacian language was not entirely a germanic language, but a germanised tracian(a mixture between germanic and tracian). there are many other dacian words(buza, barza, mazare,....)without german roots, many we can find, also, in albanian.

Originally Posted by ArMakedon

In Macedonia members of Vlach minority are getting angry if you say to them that they are part of Romanian people. They dont concidere them as Romanians at all.

I think I was missunderstooded, i never said we are the same people, I said, once, we were the same people.
Everybody is free to consider himself whoever he want: many vlachs from Greece consider themself greeks(in fact macedonians, who in the greeks oppinion were greeks). fyromians(slavs, vlachs) consider themself macedonians, but who were never greeks.
In my oppinion, MACEDONIANS VANISHED BEFORE ROMANS ARRIVED IN BALKANS, so, you all have other traces: bulgarian were turkiks mixed with slavs, maybe the fyromers slavs are simply slavs who didn't mixed with bulgarians.
Anyway, what is good in FYROM is that the vlachs have the right to preserve their language and culture, comparing with Greece, where the language is in the way of extinction. Anyway, it is not paradise in FYROM also, because I can swear are many vlachs(aromanians) from FYROM who feel they are close related to romanians, but they have no right to consider them like this.
Like i said, before, it is no country in east europe who accept the entire true. When you say you are angry...i hope not because the romanians are "gipsy", "uncivilised",....., because i can ashure you, the greeks, bulgarians, slavs... , when meet romanians, try(tried) hardly to depreciate the image of aromanians(vlachs), in the eyes of romanians.
I know many aromanians from FYROM, who live now in Romania, who consider themself much more than close to romanians, more, who are shure they are dacians descendants(and they gave me examples of aromanian words of dacian origin, common with the ones in romanian)

[Komisar]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

this is because not romanian(valachian) language descend from albanian, but albanian have dacian traces. ones of the albanians ancestors were dacians who rennounced of their traditional life-style, and mixed with illirians. but dacian language was not entirely a germanic language, but a germanised tracian(a mixture between germanic and tracian). there are many other dacian words(buza, barza, mazare,....)without german roots, many we can find, also, in albanian.

i think that our language is the same one that was spoken in the Balkans (and some pre-roman influences), when the migrations started, these people were pushed west in what is today modern Albania, from there they migrated north in Banat and Transilvania, in Gesta Hunganorum we have the first stage of this migration.
The ones that stayed behind, and managed to resist the slavs are the so called Vlachi, and those from Albania mixed with the asian invaders and transmited a small part of their language.

Originally Posted by Tarabos

.......
Anyway, what is good in FYROM is that the vlachs have the right to preserve their language and culture, comparing with Greece, where the language is in the way of extinction. .....

who do you think that gives more rights to minority groups ? A developed country with a heroic history that can be traced all the way from the bronze age, or a small slavic country that stole hellenic history and produces only brainwashing propaganda.

[Tarabos]

Originally Posted by Arthur Gordon Pym

Similarily, the Vlachs of Serbia are quite ambiguous on whether to consider themselves Vlachs or Romanians.

as I know, in Serbia are three different types of vlachs: 1. the aromanians, whos language, like aromanians from greece, albania, fyrom, bulgaria, speak a language similar but not identic with romanian. 2. the vlachs from east serbia(timoc valley), who live there from immemorial times(they are much many than in your datas), whos language are cvasi-identic with romanian. I know for shure that many of them feel they are romanians, besides I know many serbians recognise it. In general they are free to affirm their identity, but you can’t deny entirely a serbian assimilation propaganda, and i don’t know what they feel in average. 3. the romanians from voivodina, who derive from romanians emigrants from romania, or from vlachs from timoc, in the last century.

Originally Posted by Komisar

i think that our language is the same one that was spoken in the Balkans (and some pre-roman influences), when the migrations started, these people were pushed west in what is today modern Albania, from there they migrated north in Banat and Transilvania, in Gesta Hunganorum we have the first stage of this migration.
The ones that stayed behind, and managed to resist the slavs are the so called Vlachi, and those from Albania mixed with the asian invaders and transmited a small part of their language.

I think not! I think we are, first of all, dacians. dacians never deserted entirely Romania, bu they spreaded in balkans. Their followers(valachians), concentrated in Romania, pushed by others from south, and when the danger of extinction vanished from the plains zones. see, also:
Dacians

Originally Posted by Komisar

who do you think that gives more rights to minority groups ? A developed country with a heroic history that can be traced all the way from the bronze age, or a small slavic country that stole hellenic history and produces only brainwashing propaganda.

well, unfortunated the economic situation have nothing to do with reality, in this case. remining the past of greeks, is simply a manipulation for all cases in the world, but is more than probably a cause of why many vlachs from greece rennounced of their language and identity. it is amasingly, but I saw a vlach from greece saynig: "so what if we rennounced of armanian language? this language was imposed to us by romans, so is not pitty if we'll lose it! we simply return at our former language:greek.
so, behind the so called ortodox brotherhood, or heroic history, greeks not recognise minorities like vlachs, slavs, arvanites(ortodox albanians), because are so many, and they could caused politichal problems. if you think greeks would die for shame if this would been true, think again! fyromers are better than greeks. serbians are better than fyromers. romanians are better than serbians with their minorities(and, maybe the best in east europe).

[Komisar]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

I think not! I think we are, first of all, dacians. dacians never deserted entirely Romania, bu they spreaded in balkans. Their followers(valachians), concentrated in Romania, pushed by others from south, and when the danger of extinction vanished from the plains zones. see, also:
Dacians

Dacia is not Romania, Dacia Aureliana was where is Serbia today, and Dacia Traiana was where is East-Hungary/Banat/West-Transilvania today. Where do you hide in the mountains a population bigger than all hungarians and all slavonics put togheter ??? Dacian theory is just fiction, a more likely chance is that we were the pre-slavonic inhabitants of the Balkans.
You will have to explain how:
- did the Dacians managed to survive well hiden in such huge numbers, and nobody seen them for almost 1000 years ???
- if they were in small num. how did they avoid inbreeding and genetic malformalities ???
- if they somehow managed to avoid all those bad parts, how did they breedet to outnumber all neighbour populations ??? was food falling from the sky ???

[Tarabos]

first of all, before you ask for evidences about dacians origins, your theory about the tracians-mix, without dacian links, have many weaknesses:
- you ever heard that sociologists, in general agree, that the origin of a nation is an vital information which can be easely transmited for a generation to another in oral style? why valachians called themself dacians?;
- what happent with dacians?
- why romanians weared dacians clothes?
- why all tracians choosed the pastoral life-style, similar to all valachians, and why all of those herdsmans choosed to speak latin?;
- why valachians were mentioned before magyars arrived, in the same places where dacians were mentioned(Panonia, north danube,...);
- how about the evidences from daco-roman continuity theory(I'm not a fidel adept of this theory);
.....

Originally Posted by Komisar

Dacia is not Romania, Dacia Aureliana was where is Serbia today, and Dacia Traiana was where is East-Hungary/Banat/West-Transilvania today.

before the roman conquest, dacians were mentioned in transilvania, moldavia, dobrogea, panonia, bukovina.

Originally Posted by Komisar

Where do you hide in the mountains a population bigger than all hungarians and all slavonics put togheter ???

the ideea is that was a huge population, i don't understand what you mean by slavonic+hungarians. firts, living in the mountains, is not living in the caves, like rosler theory affirm. not even living only on the mountains. what in english we used to say "highlands", mean mountains+the sorrounding hills. in fact the sub-mountain hills have a surface twice larger than mountains itself(the so-called forested zones). you know how many villages are in those zones, in romania, today, and how many inhabitants they are?! inform yourself, first, about this, and than issue theories about "living in caves". those zones, because of hard access, capricious weather, unfertile soil, fierce beasts,...were never been claimed by ancients and barbarians(except dacians), but is not imposible to live in, if you are adapted, and have no other choice. besides, i think dacians retrived in the mountains, but they occupied, also, large surfaces from balkan mountains.

Originally Posted by Komisar

- did the Dacians managed to survive well hiden in such huge numbers, and nobody seen them for almost 1000 years ???

it is not true: the dacians, latter valachians were never hidden deliberately, they interacted with neighbors, except short the periods of fierce invasions. they were poor mentioned, first, because they lived in unimportant areeas(they were considered unimportant), secondly, because a census in their areeas was not quite posible;

Originally Posted by Komisar

- if they were in small num. how did they avoid inbreeding and genetic malformalities ???

they were not such in small number, as I said above. on the other hand, you ignore the new commers(tracian latin speakers, especialy, also, goths, slavs,...

Originally Posted by Komisar

- if they somehow managed to avoid all those bad parts, how did they breedet to outnumber all neighbour populations ??? was food falling from the sky ???

they not allways outnumbered the neighbors, only when they tried to concentrate in a given areea, which included also low hills and plains. finaly, they succeded, step by step, after 9 century. the question about the food prove the same ignorance like the so called "small mountaineous areas". nobody forced them to eat only cheese and milk(or maybe bugs, from the caves walls). they easily could rise birds, pigs, cows, and farm small parcels with legumes. nobody forced them not to exploit timber, wild animals furs, fruits(if you travel more, you'll see how high the fruits trees grow), and to make exchange with neighbors, especialy for cereals(along with sheeps, cows,..)

[Tarabos]

In fact, i don't want to dicourage you with your "tracian" theory, but, I want to warning you that, in my oppinion, you throw yourself in an empty theory, easy to destroy.

[Marcus Marulus]

A short survey of the main caracteristics of Vlach dialects in Serbia:

Flora Radu: DIJALEKTOLOŠKI PROFIL RUMUNSKIH BANATSKIH GOVORA SA VRŠAČKOG PODRUČJA, Novi Sad, 1962 (in Serbian)

[Komisar]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

- you ever heard that sociologists, in general agree, that the origin of a nation is an vital information which can be easely transmited for a generation to another in oral style? why valachians called themself dacians?;

never before the 19th century, the rumenian peasant (from all countries) considered himself roman or dacian, he had no ideea what on earth are the romans and dacians

- what happent with dacians?
- why romanians weared dacians clothes?

google -> Bulgaria Folk Costume -> watch pictures
google -> Ukraine Folk Costume -> watch pictures
google -> Romania Folk Costume -> watch pictures
do the same with all counties from the Balkans and south-east Europe, they are all generaly the same exept some minor datails.

they easily could rise birds, pigs, cows, and farm small parcels with legumes. nobody forced them not to exploit timber, wild animals furs, fruits(if you travel more, you'll see how high the fruits trees grow), and to make exchange with neighbors, especialy for cereals(along with sheeps, cows,..)

at any given time a population can have a limited expansion, witch is directly influenced by technology, more land is harder to control/protect, and less land will lead to partial extinction, so comparing other neighbours and their expansion to satisfy their minimal needs, could only mean that dacians had greenhouses and fully automated pig farms this way they used the highlands posesions that they had to feed themself.

please look here at this map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...9/NE_500ad.jpg

Maybe we have some blood as those from Dacia Traiana, but our ancestors reached Bucovina/Moldova/Muntenia/Oltenia only after magyars settled in their kingdom, there is still a debate on who was first in Transilvania, but its certain that from Transilvania the rumenians expanded south and east. The dacians that were not conquered by the romans, just migrated west as far as they could (probably Austria or Germany), and those that were conqured migrated from DaciaTraiana to DaciaAureliana

Originally Posted by Arthur Gordon Pym

A short survey of the main caracteristics of Vlach dialects in Serbia:

Flora Radu: DIJALEKTOLOŠKI PROFIL RUMUNSKIH BANATSKIH GOVORA SA VRŠAČKOG PODRUČJA, Novi Sad, 1962 (in Serbian)

merci.... мъ не разбира србскй ...

PS. All the vegetable (legume) from Europe at that time could not even feed one family. This part of agriculture is relative new, the end of the medieval ages.

[Tarabos]

Originally Posted by Arthur Gordon Pym

A short survey of the main caracteristics of Vlach dialects in Serbia:

wonderful lecture! what's a pitty I don't know serbian

--------------------------

first: i think you are not romanian-at least not 100%;

Originally Posted by Komisar

never before the 19th century, the rumenian peasant (from all countries) considered himself roman or dacian, he had no ideea what on earth are the romans and dacians

you have no ideea what you talking about! how do you know for shure?! sound for me more like an assesment of an library mice than a crowd connoisseur!

Originally Posted by Komisar

google -> Bulgaria Folk Costume -> watch pictures
google -> Ukraine Folk Costume -> watch pictures

no, are not the same, those two nations not wear not dacian costumes, and not at such scale, just few influence. besides, are zones were the dacians were presents. but in those two countries, are many zones were the costumes are different completely from dacians.

Originally Posted by Komisar

at any given time a population can have a limited expansion, witch is directly influenced by technology, more land is harder to control/protect, and less land will lead to partial extinction, so comparing other neighbours and their expansion to satisfy their minimal needs, could only mean that dacians had greenhouses and fully automated pig farms this way they used the highlands posesions that they had to feed themself.

can you translate into english?

Originally Posted by Komisar

please look here at this map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...9/NE_500ad.jpg

maps, maps, maps,...what.....hungarian! convenient for you peoples have to believe you are romanian, and you had no hesitation....I remind you that the romanian continuity theory have many solid evidences, hard to denied. as an "romanian", you deny it all just like that!

Originally Posted by Komisar

Maybe we have some blood as those from Dacia Traiana

In my oppinion is not about blood(see above). the geto-dacians from 1 century AD had not the same blood with geto-dacians from 5 century BC. but they still remained geto-dacians. I don't think we have more than 25% dacian 1 century blood. considering only the latin speakers incomers: imagine a dacian village with 100 persons. the latin speakers had comme in waves of 10 persons, each 30 years. in 400 years, mean 130 persons-55% incomers blood.

Originally Posted by Komisar

, but our ancestors reached Bucovina/Moldova/Muntenia/Oltenia only after magyars settled in their kingdom, there is still a debate on who was first in Transilvania,

no, i don't think so! in fact i think in transilvania were more valachians when magyars arrived than moldavia and muntenia.

Originally Posted by Komisar

but its certain that from Transilvania the rumenians expanded south and east.

I don't know if is doubtless(certain mean some), but is probable that CERTAIN valachians to move south and east, under magyar pressure, in moldavia and muntenia. but the bulk of the valachians from moldavia and muntenia, after 11 century, derived from south danube.

Originally Posted by Komisar

The dacians that were not conquered by the romans, just migrated west as far as they could (probably Austria or Germany)

how do you know that?!!! seems to me more probable that some tribes to migrate south danube, and are evidences of it. even those who joined goths, migrated italy, via balkans, latter spain.

Originally Posted by Komisar

, and those that were conqured migrated from DaciaTraiana to DaciaAureliana

it were the dacians relegated from fertile land(especially in mountains)-those didn't mixed too much with romans till 275, and they are ours ancestors, and a mixture of dacians and roman colonists, who moved south, indeed, but they were asimilated by others, and by the first category, latter. everybody who know enough about roman empire, could realise that the second category called themself dacians(meaning the citizens of Dacia province), claimed the glory of dacians, but this not prevent themself to consider the first category like "wild sheeperds" or something.

Originally Posted by Komisar