Origin of Romanian people and language

[Soldier of Macedon]

The main reason(s) might be because there are few sources for the time period/centuries in question. For example, there are a lot of sources from the 17th or 18th centuries (western or eastern, from various angles, etc.), whereas from the 7th c. to roughly the 11th c., there are few sources. The question is, even the sources that we do have from that epoch can the sources be methodologically analyzed/processed in the right way, given the 'chaotic' or 'biased' content of the writings.

That's a valid argument, but let's set aside the inaccuracies that may exist in the content with regard to chronology, politics, genealogy, etc., and instead focus on the groups of people that were actually mentioned. As you point out, there were fewer sources in that period, but there is a decent amount of information in those that do exist, such as Nicephorus' History, Theophanes' Chronicle, Theophanes Continuatus and Porphyrogenitus' De Administrando Imperio. These sources mention a variety of different peoples from both sides of the Danube, but not the Vlachs (or Albanians). I can appreciate the whole 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' perspective, but the absence of an identifiable and cohesive group who spoke, what was until relatively recently, the language of the ruling class, is strange. I am not sure why the sources would avoid noting the existence of a native Latin-speaking community who would (presumably) be favourably disposed towards Constantinople, when they quite freely mention a multitude of allied and enemy tribes that were in and around the empire. Either they were too small in number to notice or they weren’t there. Can you think of any other reason?

Perhaps, I'm underestimating the whole episode when Innocent III's envoy arrived in Bulgaria in late December 1199, and asserted that he was informed that Kaloyan's forefathers had come "from the City of Rome".

Innocent made that assertion in a letter to Kaloyan. He either invented the lineage to placate Kaloyan and encourage him to come under the spiritual control of Catholicism, or Kaloyan directed one of his envoys in Rome to tell the story in the hope of obtaining a crown from the pope. Does the reference to Kaloyan as the leader of "the Bulgars and the Vlachs" in subsequent letters indicate such a heritage? Interestingly, a decade or so earlier John Cinnamus stated that the Vlachs were formerly colonists from Italy. As far as I've read, neither the letter of Innocent nor the works of Cinnamus point to when these forefathers or colonists travelled from Rome (or Italy) to the east of Europe. If they were referring to an ancient Roman pedigree, it doesn't appear to be explicit. Unless there are other documents that go into further detail, they could just as easily have been referring to a period more recent.

If it's true as others say that Vlach-speakers lived mostly in rugged and mountainous areas, what were the methods of propagation in such inaccessible regions?

Were most of them in mountainous areas in the 15th century? Entities in both Wallachia and Moldova were already in existence by this time. Even if a sizeable amount of them were living or working in the mountains, one would have to assume that they had some sort of contact with their kinsmen in the lowlands who were exposed to humanists, missionaries and other travellers.

There wasn't exactly a 'silence' with respect to the native Latin-speaking community. I guess there is now a "famous" episode of "Torna, Torna Fratre" that has been debated at length, and originates from the 6th c./7th c. In Procopius' writings (5th c.), there are several forts/settlements listed that are of Latin origin. Also, in the 7th c., it was reported that the Bulgar Mauros spoke four languages, including "that of the Romans".

The forts that Procopius wrote about had Latin, Thracian and Greek names. Many were overrun in the 7th century, particularly those on the Danube. The ”torna, torna” episode was recorded in the first half of the 7th century (although it refers to an event that is said to have occurred earlier) when the transition from Latin to Greek was still in progress. That the phrase was characterised as being in the “language of the land” is of no great consequence and its lack of depth is revealed by the fact that there is no such reference to that language (or one related to it) in the same land for several centuries afterwards. The episode concerning Mauros occurred in the second half of the 7th century, only a few decades after Latin was replaced with Greek. The Vlachs aren’t mentioned until 400 years later. I think that qualifies as an extensive period of silence.

One may ask/question if this is considered "sufficient", as evidence. For example, is the language in question a sample of early Balkan Romance, or just a Byzantine/Roman command of Latin origin? Is the "that of the Roman" language early Balkan Romance or Latin? But I believe this has been largely settled.

There is only one word (“torna”) to go by, “fratre” was added to the story by Theophanes almost 200 years later. There is no record of which Latin words Mauros may have used. Do you believe it has been settled in favour of Latin or Eastern Romance?

PS - Example of a Latin inscription from 5th century AD that shows the evolution of the Latin term diēs = "day" in the eastern/early Balkan Romance languages:
https://www.macedoniantruth.org/foru...7&postcount=20

Do you have a link that leads to more information on this inscription or the screenshot you provided? I would be interested to know if the d > z sound change was common in other Latin inscriptions from the region. Are you aware of any other examples?

[Carlin]

That's a valid argument, but let's set aside the inaccuracies that may exist in the content with regard to chronology, politics, genealogy, etc., and instead focus on the groups of people that were actually mentioned. As you point out, there were fewer sources in that period, but there is a decent amount of information in those that do exist, such as Nicephorus' History, Theophanes' Chronicle, Theophanes Continuatus and Porphyrogenitus' De Administrando Imperio. These sources mention a variety of different peoples from both sides of the Danube, but not the Vlachs (or Albanians). I can appreciate the whole 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' perspective, but the absence of an identifiable and cohesive group who spoke, what was until relatively recently, the language of the ruling class, is strange. I am not sure why the sources would avoid noting the existence of a native Latin-speaking community who would (presumably) be favourably disposed towards Constantinople, when they quite freely mention a multitude of allied and enemy tribes that were in and around the empire. Either they were too small in number to notice or they weren’t there. Can you think of any other reason?

They were not absent. There were only Romans in earlier sources. It's an open question though - when, how, and why the 'exonym Vlach' developed in the Balkans (and eventually started to be used "consistently" from the 11th c.). It was likely transmitted from Germanic into (Old) Slavonic and Medieval Greek:

"Amusingly, they were just as imprecise about the Romans. The earliest term they use for the Britons is Weala. The name stuck, for it is the ancestor of the ethnonym 'Welsh'. But Britons were not only Wealas: Widsith, one of the earliest Anglo-Saxons poem, calls all citizens of the Roman Empire Rumwalas. Barbarians north of the Rhine and the Danube applied this ethnonym indiscriminately to all imperial citizens, from the Walloons in the Low Countries to the Wallachians in Romania. Just as Romans called all their North Sea Germanic enemies 'Saxons', so too the latter called all imperial citizens Weala."

Source: https://books.google.ca/books?id=26B...umwalas&f=true

I feel that you're anachronistically looking back and expecting to find 'Vlachs' where there are none. I'm not ruling out that some earlier source might surface which would place the Vlachs, in say, the 8th century AD, but I would be shocked if we ever find something with references to Vlachs from the 1st or 2nd century AD.

The problem with Albanians is somewhat similar, yet entirely different. Because they speak a unique language they don't get the "privilege" to harken back to the Roman empire. In the case of the Vlachs, it is clear cut. We know what the term signified in Slavonic: Latin/Romance speaker / Roman; even today, the Polish name for Italy is Włochy. Another example: Nennius was a 9th-century Welsh writer who wrote the Latin work Historia Brittonum. The interesting thing about this story is that it defines the Ostrogoths of Italy as "Vlachogoths" (Valagothi = Goths of 'Vlachia' or Italy).

Constantine Porphyrogenitus is a rather unreliable source (his writings are replete with references to Romans though). Cyril Mango touched on the subject. I posted it here back in 2017:

https://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showpost.php?p=168691&postcount=128

Cyril Mango says that Constantine "preferred to consult Strabo, Dionysius Periegetes, etc." instead of gathering precise information from local provincial governors, army commanders and fiscal agents.

Even later "Byzantine" writers were notoriously unreliable.

Innocent made that assertion in a letter to Kaloyan. He either invented the lineage to placate Kaloyan and encourage him to come under the spiritual control of Catholicism, or Kaloyan directed one of his envoys in Rome to tell the story in the hope of obtaining a crown from the pope. Does the reference to Kaloyan as the leader of "the Bulgars and the Vlachs" in subsequent letters indicate such a heritage? Interestingly, a decade or so earlier John Cinnamus stated that the Vlachs were formerly colonists from Italy. As far as I've read, neither the letter of Innocent nor the works of Cinnamus point to when these forefathers or colonists travelled from Rome (or Italy) to the east of Europe. If they were referring to an ancient Roman pedigree, it doesn't appear to be explicit. Unless there are other documents that go into further detail, they could just as easily have been referring to a period more recent.

Were most of them in mountainous areas in the 15th century? Entities in both Wallachia and Moldova were already in existence by this time. Even if a sizeable amount of them were living or working in the mountains, one would have to assume that they had some sort of contact with their kinsmen in the lowlands who were exposed to humanists, missionaries and other travellers.

Anything is possible I guess, but there are no solid proofs/theories how the transmission and development might have happened. The fact that various "Vlach" groups (other than Meglen Vlachs) refer to themselves by their own unique "Roman" ethnic name is proof that these terminologies predate "modern times".

The Roman pedigree already existed in the Balkans way before the Pope or Kaloyan. Emperor Anastasius (491-518); to prove his (ethnic) Romanness, Anastasius claimed that he was biologically descended from a General of the Republic: he put it about that he was a descendant of Pompey the Great.

[Conversely, there is also Emperor Julian (331 – 363). Julian himself stated:

"...I myself am descended from the Mysians, who are absolutely inelegant, boorish, austere, uncivilized, and obstinately tenacious of their opinions, - all which are people of lamentable rusticity."]

The forts that Procopius wrote about had Latin, Thracian and Greek names. Many were overrun in the 7th century, particularly those on the Danube. The ”torna, torna” episode was recorded in the first half of the 7th century (although it refers to an event that is said to have occurred earlier) when the transition from Latin to Greek was still in progress. That the phrase was characterised as being in the “language of the land” is of no great consequence and its lack of depth is revealed by the fact that there is no such reference to that language (or one related to it) in the same land for several centuries afterwards. The episode concerning Mauros occurred in the second half of the 7th century, only a few decades after Latin was replaced with Greek. The Vlachs aren’t mentioned until 400 years later. I think that qualifies as an extensive period of silence.

There is only one word (“torna”) to go by, “fratre” was added to the story by Theophanes almost 200 years later. There is no record of which Latin words Mauros may have used. Do you believe it has been settled in favour of Latin or Eastern Romance?

It seems that you are expecting clear cut and precise proofs and chronologies of how and when (and where) Latin morphed into Eastern Romance. There is no such proof. Morever, it seems you are rather skeptical and want to define "who" spoke Latin and "who" Eastern Romance, whereby there now exists a significant period of silence between the "two languages". We can apply this level of skepticism to any Balkan nationality.

Allow me to illustrate with an example:

Slavonic being "the language of the land" in much of the Balkans is of no great consequence, and there is no such reference to Serbian language in the "Serbian lands" for several centuries afterwards. The episodes and myths concerning some Slavic chieftains occurred in the 6th/7th c., and the Serbs aren’t mentioned by name until a few centuries later. Do you think this qualifies as an extensive period of silence between Old Slavonic and Serbian?

Do you have a link that leads to more information on this inscription or the screenshot you provided? I would be interested to know if the d > z sound change was common in other Latin inscriptions from the region. Are you aware of any other examples?

Unfortunately, I don't have it. I'll try to dig it up. I am also not aware of any other examples.

[Soldier of Macedon]

They were not absent.

I am curious to know how you can make that argument on the one hand, yet fail to provide any evidence that substantiates it on the other. I think I was rather precise with the criteria when referring to an “identifiable and cohesive group” that was a “native Latin-speaking community” – whatever they may have been called in the period between the 8th and 11th centuries.

It's an open question though - when, how, and why the 'exonym Vlach' developed in the Balkans (and eventually started to be used "consistently" from the 11th c.). It was likely transmitted from Germanic into (Old) Slavonic and Medieval Greek

Germanic tribes had a significant presence along the Danube in late antiquity and that term, which referred to Roman and Romanised populations, was in use during that period. Perhaps a more pertinent question is why it was only applied to the Vlachs so late in history, given the claim of a continuous presence in that region since the days of Trajan.

I feel that you're anachronistically looking back and expecting to find 'Vlachs' where there are none.

I am not sure how you came to that conclusion unless you misunderstood my point. I am less concerned about what they were called and more interested in why their presence was not documented during that period. They could have been called “Nation X” for all I care, the question remains, why was a native Latin-speaking community not specifically identified? I suppose one could argue that the sources simply lumped them in with others under the “Roman” designation, but even then, individuals and tribes of one heritage or another were often identified. A community who shared a linguistic kinship with the group who conceived the empire somehow escaped their attention? Possible, but strange nonetheless.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus is a rather unreliable source (his writings are replete with references to Romans though). Cyril Mango touched on the subject. I posted it here back in 2017:
https://www.macedoniantruth.org/foru...&postcount=128 Cyril Mango says that Constantine "preferred to consult Strabo, Dionysius Periegetes, etc." instead of gathering precise information from local provincial governors, army commanders and fiscal agents. Even later "Byzantine" writers were notoriously unreliable.

That there was a disconnect between the aristocratic elite and the commoners is no great surprise and the same argument, to varying degrees, can also be made of many other sources from the Middle Ages. On that we can agree, although I would point out that Constantine Porphyrogenitus was not relying on Strabo when he mentioned certain tribes in the Balkans that existed during his lifetime. Notice how Mango also implies that he yearned for the Roman days of old and lamented the loss of the ancestral Latin language? If that were indeed the case, one may be excused for thinking he would jump at the chance to mention a native Latin-speaking community within his borders.

The Roman pedigree already existed in the Balkans way before the Pope or Kaloyan. Emperor Anastasius (491-518); to prove his (ethnic) Romanness, Anastasius claimed that he was biologically descended from a General of the Republic: he put it about that he was a descendant of Pompey the Great.

Anastasius claiming descent from Pompey is marginally less fantastic than the myth about Alexander’s lineage from Zeus. It was wishful thinking to make a claim about the early Romans back then let alone almost 700 years later during the correspondence between Kaloyan and the pope.

[Conversely, there is also Emperor Julian (331 – 363). Julian himself stated: "...I myself am descended from the Mysians, who are absolutely inelegant, boorish, austere, uncivilized, and obstinately tenacious of their opinions, - all which are people of lamentable rusticity."]

Quite an interesting characterisation by that anti-Christian graecophile. And he was referring to the population living on the banks of the Danube during his lifetime, in the middle of the 4th century. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the cultural penetration of Latin Rome in that part of the Balkans.

It seems that you are expecting clear cut and precise proofs and chronologies of how and when (and where) Latin morphed into Eastern Romance. There is no such proof.

That is not what I am expecting. All I am doing is highlighting a problematic absence that is open to interpretation. You seem a little troubled by the possibility of exploring an interpretation that is outside the standard narrative. Don't be.

Morever, it seems you are rather skeptical and want to define "who" spoke Latin and "who" Eastern Romance, whereby there now exists a significant period of silence between the "two languages".

The broader topic can do with a bit of healthy scepticism, and as the resident Roman enthusiast, you should welcome it. Think about what we, as Macedonians, have had to endure when challenged on our own history, then you will appreciate how an endeavour like this provides some perspective. Besides, it is genuinely an interesting subject. Now, about your reply above, I was merely pointing out that one word alone is insufficient to make a determination. Previously, you stated that the language used in the “torna” and Mauros episodes had been largely settled. So, I asked, and will ask again, do you believe it has been settled in favour of Latin or Eastern Romance?

We can apply this level of skepticism to any Balkan nationality. Allow me to illustrate with an example: Slavonic being "the language of the land" in much of the Balkans is of no great consequence, and there is no such reference to Serbian language in the "Serbian lands" for several centuries afterwards. The episodes and myths concerning some Slavic chieftains occurred in the 6th/7th c., and the Serbs aren’t mentioned by name until a few centuries later. Do you think this qualifies as an extensive period of silence between Old Slavonic and Serbian?

I think you are smart enough to realise that what you have provided is a false equivalence that blurs language with identity. As an administrative and literary language backed by structured political institutions, Latin had a continuous presence in the Balkans for about 600 years, and that is taking the conquest of Thrace as a starting point. If the rest of the Balkans is taken into account, that period is even longer. From the second half of the 7th century, after Latin had lost its status, the sources do not appear to make any mention of a native community (by whatever ethnonym) that continued to use it as a primary spoken language in the Balkans (Dalmatia being a different story altogether). It would take 400 years, with the appearance of the Vlachs, for the first possible inference to be recorded about the existence of its Eastern Romance daughter language. The comparison with Slavic doesn’t stack up. The existence of Slavic may have been sporadically inferred in sources as it progressively disseminated in the Balkans during the 7th and 8th centuries, but a variant of it was established as a literary language in the 9th century. Since then, its use in the region has been repeatedly confirmed over the centuries and there was certainly no 400-year blackout between OCS and subsequent Slavic languages – whatever the languages or their speakers may have been called.

Allow me to proffer a somewhat more analogous example that may be found in Brittany, France. There, Gaulish probably died out before the 6th century (some suggest later, on little evidence) and Breton was attested from the 9th century. Both are from the same language family, both were/are spoken in the same region, one fell out of use centuries before the other one was attested, and the latter is geographically isolated from the rest of its modern sister languages. Note the striking parallels with Latin and Vlach. Despite both being Celtic languages, Breton was brought to that region by migrants from Britain, thus, it is not a direct continuation from Gaulish. I guess that is where the similarity with Latin and Vlach ends, or does it

Unfortunately, I don't have it. I'll try to dig it up. I am also not aware of any other examples.

Thanks, if you find it, that would be great.

[Carlin]

I am curious to know how you can make that argument on the one hand, yet fail to provide any evidence that substantiates it on the other. I think I was rather precise with the criteria when referring to an “identifiable and cohesive group” that was a “native Latin-speaking community” – whatever they may have been called in the period between the 8th and 11th centuries.

I thought that the first mention of Vlachs is from the 10th century?

They started to be mentioned more often/frequently from the 11th. c., but, nevertheless they were "first" mentioned in the 10th c. At least, that's what I think. Almost everywhere I look online they talk about George Kedrenos mentioning Vlachs in specifically 976 AD.

Is this the time period of interest? Between 8th and 10th c.? As we discussed previously there is an 8th c. 'anachronistic' reference regarding the "Vlachs" in connection with 'the Vlachs of the Rynchos' river; the original document containing the information is from the Konstamonitou monastery. (I am not sure and don't remember when the manuscript was actually written.)

Is there an 'anachronistic' 8th c. equivalent (or earlier) that mentions the Albanians in a similar manner?

Regardless, there is no mention of "Vlachs" during this 3-century epoch, but that doesn't imply they were absent. They were Roman provincials, or inhabitants of Roman empire. Do you think they were not Roman provincials and migrated into the Balkans and Dacia from elsewhere during these three centuries?

I would be interested to know your theory about this.

Germanic tribes had a significant presence along the Danube in late antiquity and that term, which referred to Roman and Romanised populations, was in use during that period. Perhaps a more pertinent question is why it was only applied to the Vlachs so late in history, given the claim of a continuous presence in that region since the days of Trajan.

I am not sure how you came to that conclusion unless you misunderstood my point. I am less concerned about what they were called and more interested in why their presence was not documented during that period. They could have been called “Nation X” for all I care, the question remains, why was a native Latin-speaking community not specifically identified? I suppose one could argue that the sources simply lumped them in with others under the “Roman” designation, but even then, individuals and tribes of one heritage or another were often identified. A community who shared a linguistic kinship with the group who conceived the empire somehow escaped their attention? Possible, but strange nonetheless.

I guess we'll never know, perhaps due to scarcity of written sources.

That there was a disconnect between the aristocratic elite and the commoners is no great surprise and the same argument, to varying degrees, can also be made of many other sources from the Middle Ages. On that we can agree, although I would point out that Constantine Porphyrogenitus was not relying on Strabo when he mentioned certain tribes in the Balkans that existed during his lifetime. Notice how Mango also implies that he yearned for the Roman days of old and lamented the loss of the ancestral Latin language? If that were indeed the case, one may be excused for thinking he would jump at the chance to mention a native Latin-speaking community within his borders.

Yes, I noticed that. We'll never know but I am of the opinion that the native Latin-speaking community were still Romans, or Roman citizens.

Anastasius claiming descent from Pompey is marginally less fantastic than the myth about Alexander’s lineage from Zeus. It was wishful thinking to make a claim about the early Romans back then let alone almost 700 years later during the correspondence between Kaloyan and the pope.

Quite an interesting characterisation by that anti-Christian graecophile. And he was referring to the population living on the banks of the Danube during his lifetime, in the middle of the 4th century. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the cultural penetration of Latin Rome in that part of the Balkans.

That is not what I am expecting. All I am doing is highlighting a problematic absence that is open to interpretation. You seem a little troubled by the possibility of exploring an interpretation that is outside the standard narrative. Don't be.

I'd be interested to know your interpretation to all this. For me, I don't find it problematic at all.

The broader topic can do with a bit of healthy scepticism, and as the resident Roman enthusiast, you should welcome it. Think about what we, as Macedonians, have had to endure when challenged on our own history, then you will appreciate how an endeavour like this provides some perspective. Besides, it is genuinely an interesting subject. Now, about your reply above, I was merely pointing out that one word alone is insufficient to make a determination. Previously, you stated that the language used in the “torna” and Mauros episodes had been largely settled. So, I asked, and will ask again, do you believe it has been settled in favour of Latin or Eastern Romance?

I believe it's been settled in favour of early eastern Romance, but I can't talk about Mauros, since there is no dialogue or words recorded that he used.

I think you are smart enough to realise that what you have provided is a false equivalence that blurs language with identity. As an administrative and literary language backed by structured political institutions, Latin had a continuous presence in the Balkans for about 600 years, and that is taking the conquest of Thrace as a starting point. If the rest of the Balkans is taken into account, that period is even longer. From the second half of the 7th century, after Latin had lost its status, the sources do not appear to make any mention of a native community (by whatever ethnonym) that continued to use it as a primary spoken language in the Balkans (Dalmatia being a different story altogether). It would take 400 years, with the appearance of the Vlachs, for the first possible inference to be recorded about the existence of its Eastern Romance daughter language. The comparison with Slavic doesn’t stack up. The existence of Slavic may have been sporadically inferred in sources as it progressively disseminated in the Balkans during the 7th and 8th centuries, but a variant of it was established as a literary language in the 9th century. Since then, its use in the region has been repeatedly confirmed over the centuries and there was certainly no 400-year blackout between OCS and subsequent Slavic languages – whatever the languages or their speakers may have been called.

Do you think the Romans/various Latin-speakers were completely exterminated prior to the second half of the 7th century? Why / how is Dalmatia a different story?

Allow me to proffer a somewhat more analogous example that may be found in Brittany, France. There, Gaulish probably died out before the 6th century (some suggest later, on little evidence) and Breton was attested from the 9th century. Both are from the same language family, both were/are spoken in the same region, one fell out of use centuries before the other one was attested, and the latter is geographically isolated from the rest of its modern sister languages. Note the striking parallels with Latin and Vlach. Despite both being Celtic languages, Breton was brought to that region by migrants from Britain, thus, it is not a direct continuation from Gaulish. I guess that is where the similarity with Latin and Vlach ends, or does it.

Are you saying that Vlachs migrated into the Balkans and Dacia from somewhere else, after the 7th c. AD?

[Liberator of Makedonija]

I will just jump in to ask SoM where you got the information on the lack of connection between Gaulish and Breton? To my understanding, Gaulish has never comfortably been classified within the Celtic family of languages and does share many similarities with the modern Brythonic languages (which would include Breton)

[Soldier of Macedon]

I will just jump in to ask SoM where you got the information on the lack of connection between Gaulish and Breton? To my understanding, Gaulish has never comfortably been classified within the Celtic family of languages and does share many similarities with the modern Brythonic languages (which would include Breton)

Gaulish is classified as a Continental Celtic language (i.e., the mainland of Europe), whereas Breton is closely related to Cornish and is thus an Insular Celtic language (i.e., the British Isles) that only came to be spoken on the mainland of Europe during the Middle Ages. Whilst Gaulish and Breton ultimately stem from the same Proto-Celtic language far back in history, they developed independently of each other for quite some time. I was not suggesting that there was no connection between the two, only that one did not directly descend from the other.

[Liberator of Makedonija]

Gaulish is classified as a Continental Celtic language (i.e., the mainland of Europe), whereas Breton is closely related to Cornish and is thus an Insular Celtic language (i.e., the British Isles) that only came to be spoken on the mainland of Europe during the Middle Ages. Whilst Gaulish and Breton ultimately stem from the same Proto-Celtic language far back in history, they developed independently of each other for quite some time. I was not suggesting that there was no connection between the two, only that one did not directly descend from the other.

[Carlin]

Mea culpa.

In my post above, I stated that George Kedrenos mentioned Vlachs in 976. Everywhere I look online it talks about that magical year, 976 AD. But, Kedrenos was specifically an author of around 1050s AD, so he is talking about an event that happened in the "past".



Some unrelated/relevant testimonies about "Vlachs".

1) Ibn al-Nadim published in 938 the work Kitab al-Fihrist mentioning "Turks, Bulgars and Vlachs" (using Blagha for Vlachs). [Comment: I'm not sure which specific group(s) of Vlachs this references.]

2) In a book by Ragusan historian Ludovik Crijevic (1459–1527), Writings on the Present Age, Vlachs were distinguished from other people, and were mentioned as "nomadic Illyrians who in the common language are called Vlachs" and there is also the mention of the present-day surname Kozhul/lj in "Cossuli, a kind of Illyrian people considered Romans". During the Orthodox migration to Zhumberak in 1538, general commander Nikola Jurisic mentioned the Vlachs who "in our parts are called as Old Romans" separate from the Serbs and Rascians.

[During the 14th century, Vlach settlements existed throughout much of today's Croatia, but centres of population were focused around the Velebit and Dinara mountains and along the Krka and Cetina rivers. The Vlachs were divided into "common Vlachs" from Cetina and "royal Vlachs" from Lika.]

More about Romanians:

3) The Transylvanian Saxon Johann Lebel writes in 1542 that "Vlachi" call themselves "Romuini", while the Polish chronicler Stanislaw Orzechowski (Orichovius) notes in 1554 that in their language they call themselves Romini from the Romans, while we call them Wallachians from the Italians.

4) The Croatian prelate and diplomat Antun Vrancic recorded in 1570 that Vlachs in Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia designate themselves as "Romans".

Quote from Istvan Vasary ("Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman ..." Google books, István Vásáry · 2005) - page 32:

"... the immigration of Vlach masses to the left bank of the Danube must have progressed at a rapid pace, and consequently the Vlach population gradually evacuated northern Bulgaria. Between the 1250s and 1330s both 'Vlachia' and 'Wallachia' were present virtually only in history: 'Vlachia' was fading away from the historical sources and 'Wallachia' was in the process of coming into being. Between these dates the sources keep silent about these questions."

https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Cumans_and_Tatars/7DJWyg97IggC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=tatars+moldova&printsec=frontcover

PS: Istvan Vasary, being Hungarian, must have really "wanted" those Vlachs to come from the south. (But he could be right!)

[Soldier of Macedon]

Carlin, I have separated some of your responses to address them here collectively. I will get to the rest shortly.

I thought that the first mention of Vlachs is from the 10th century? They started to be mentioned more often/frequently from the 11th. c., but, nevertheless they were "first" mentioned in the 10th c. At least, that's what I think. Almost everywhere I look online they talk about George Kedrenos mentioning Vlachs in specifically 976 AD.

Mea culpa. In my post above, I stated that George Kedrenos mentioned Vlachs in 976. Everywhere I look online it talks about that magical year, 976 AD. But, Kedrenos was specifically an author of around 1050s AD, so he is talking about an event that happened in the "past".

Sometimes, it pays to be cautious before accepting certain content at face value. Take what you wrote above. Wikipedia is supposed to be the place where knowledgeable people converge online to produce accurate and well-rounded articles on all subjects concerning history. However, quite often the content lacks balance and does not correlate with the sources (if reasonable sources are cited at all). That is not to suggest that everything on Wikipedia is dubious, but many of the articles are so poorly written and/or overtly biased that they are downright comical, if not misleading altogether. For instance, the Wikipedia page on the Vlachs states they were “initially identified” by Cedrenus in the 11th century, then, further down, it goes on to remark that Cedrenus was referring to an event that occurred in 976. The fact that Cedrenus copied the work of Scylitzes for that period is omitted. The Wikipedia page for Cedrenus concedes that he used the work of Scylitzes, but claims that Cedrenus wrote his own work “in the 1050s,” without providing a source.

Why is this a problem? Aside from the first page incorrectly attributing the earliest mention of the Vlachs to Cedrenus, the second page makes a statement that it does not corroborate and is out of step with some of the scholars who have studied Scylitzes. The introduction to a translation of Scylitzes’ work suggests the chronicle was almost certainly written towards the end of the 11th century, perhaps even in the 1080s, whereas Cedrenus was writing at the end of the 11th century and beginning of the 12th century (Wortley, 2010. pp. xii, xxxi-xxxii.). Scylitzes wrote about 100 years (if not more) after the event in 976, where he holds the Vlachs responsible for the death of Samuel’s brother. He used several sources to compile his work, but of those that cover the period in which the abovementioned event occurred, none that have survived refer to the Vlachs. They were either mentioned in a source that is lost to us or Scylitzes was applying a bit of anachronism himself. Kekaumenos, perhaps a contender for the earliest reference to the Vlachs, apparently wrote his work in the late 1070s. Whichever one of them completed their respective chronicles earlier, the first people to mention the Vlachs (as far as the records we currently have available) were two contemporaries in the second half of the 11th century. It is difficult not to consider that as more than just a mere coincidence.

Some unrelated/relevant testimonies about "Vlachs".

1) Ibn al-Nadim published in 938 the work Kitab al-Fihrist mentioning "Turks, Bulgars and Vlachs" (using Blagha for Vlachs). [Comment: I'm not sure which specific group(s) of Vlachs this references.]

You must have copied that directly from the Wikipedia page on the Vlachs. Did you notice how that sentence is subtly inserted further down the page and is not presented as the first historical reference to the Vlachs in the introduction, even though it predates Cedrenus (let alone Scylitzes and Kekaumenos)? That should be your first clue that something does not add up. The rest of the clues can be found in the two sources that are cited. Here is the first one, which includes the actual passage from the Arabic to English translation of al-Nadim's work (Dodge, 1970. pp. 36-37 n.82.):

Remarks about the Turks and Those Related to Them

The Turks, the Bulgar, the Blaghā’, the Burghaz, the Khazar, the Llān, and the types with small eyes and extreme blondness have no script, except that the Bulgarians and the Tibetans write with Chinese and Manichaean, whereas the Khazar write Hebrew.82

82 The Bulgars are Bulgarians. The Blaghā’ were the Vlachs or Blakia, the Wallachia of Rumania. Burghaz is a part of Bulgaria, and probably an old tribal name. The Khazar were on both sides of the Itil, or Volga. The Llān or Allān were situated next to Armenia, near the Khazar.

First of all, I am not sure where the editors of the Wikipedia page on the Vlachs got the idea that al-Nadim published his work in 938, when he himself appears to indicate that he completed the first chapter (where the relevant passage is found) in 987. As for the text itself, it refers to people who are related to the Turks. Judging by some of their ethnonyms, they were located in the Caucasus and further north. Some of the insinuations in the footnote, particularly the part relating to the Vlachs, is groundless. Bayard Dodge, the individual who translated the text and provided the footnote, was a scholar of Islam. Neither the Balkans nor Dacia were in his area of expertise. Thus, he can be forgiven for his ignorance. However, the second source does not deserve to get off so lightly. Here it is (Spinei, 2009. p. 83.):

As B. Dodge (the editor and the translator of the scholar of Baghdad) intuited, the ethnonym Blaghā could refer to Wallachians/Romanians. Considering the long distance of the Arab author from the Carpathian-Balkan territories, it is not surprising that their names were slightly distorted.

Victor Spinei is one of Romania’s most eminent historians, a “specialist,” no less. Yet, all he deduced from Dodge’s translation and footnote is that the ethnonym may have been corrupted due to the distance between the “Carpathian-Balkan territories” and Baghdad. That the term “Blaghā” was clearly not in reference to the Wallachians or Romanians (neither of whom had entered historical record at that stage) seems to be of little importance to him. Spinei is supposed to be an esteemed academic, a serious scholar of Romanian history, right? But he chose to manipulate Dodge’s ignorance and use it to his advantage. I have not read the whole body of his work, but in this case, his interpretation is utter rubbish and deceptive to boot. I am not surprised that it has found a home on Wikipedia.

[Carlin]

Romanians tend to get a little strange when it comes to slavic words and place-names in their language/region. Something is missing from their history books.

I find it odd to think the Vlachs gave up their cities to go roaming Europe with their sheep.

Another comment on this. It is known that certain Roman emperors (no less) came from "unsung roots" such as Galerius (who was originally a herdsman) or Justinian (who apparently came from a peasant family).

I am curious to know how you can make that argument on the one hand, yet fail to provide any evidence that substantiates it on the other. I think I was rather precise with the criteria when referring to an “identifiable and cohesive group” that was a “native Latin-speaking community” – whatever they may have been called in the period between the 8th and 11th centuries.

According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus (via P. Komatina), the inhabitants of the Dyrrhachion Theme in the middle of the 10th century were Romans as well as those who inhabited Dalmatian cities.

Allow me to proffer a somewhat more analogous example that may be found in Brittany, France. There, Gaulish probably died out before the 6th century (some suggest later, on little evidence) and Breton was attested from the 9th century. Both are from the same language family, both were/are spoken in the same region, one fell out of use centuries before the other one was attested, and the latter is geographically isolated from the rest of its modern sister languages. Note the striking parallels with Latin and Vlach. Despite both being Celtic languages, Breton was brought to that region by migrants from Britain, thus, it is not a direct continuation from Gaulish. I guess that is where the similarity with Latin and Vlach ends, or does it

Interesting comparison SoM. On what grounds or evidence are you suggesting that "proto-Vlach" groups/populations moved into the Balkans (from outside the Balkan peninsula) at a much later date?

Suppose that were true, and "Vlachs" moved into the Balkans, in say, the 11th century. Where did the "Vlachs" come from, linguistically and territorially speaking?

Going back to your Gaulish/Breton comparison. Quick search in google/wikipedia shows that Celtic is usually divided into various branches. Gaulish was a Continental Celtic language, whereas Breton belongs to the Brittonic group. Supposedly, at some early point, all Celts must have spoken some form of 'common Celtic'. I feel that you should have compared, for example, "Gaulish" and "common Celtic" in order for it to be analogous.

Various "Vlach" dialects/languages belong to the Eastern Romance group of Romance / Latin. At what stage they diverged and developed from Latin/Romance is anyone's guess. It probably happened over a period of a few centuries. In various regions of the Roman empire there probably existed different forms of "local Latin", and each developed in their own unique way, i.e. Gaul, Iberia, etc. I think what this comes down to is ethno-genesis. But, I'll wait to hear your response about where exactly do the "Vlachs" come from?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Is this the time period of interest? Between 8th and 10th c.? As we discussed previously there is an 8th c. 'anachronistic' reference regarding the "Vlachs" in connection with 'the Vlachs of the Rynchos' river; the original document containing the information is from the Konstamonitou monastery. (I am not sure and don't remember when the manuscript was actually written.) Is there an 'anachronistic' 8th c. equivalent (or earlier) that mentions the Albanians in a similar manner?

Apparently, the manuscript is from the 17th century and was discovered by Uspensky in the 19th century. The monastery itself was founded in the middle of the 11th century and it has few documents prior to the Ottoman era (Kazhdan, 1991. p. 1110.). Not suggesting a connection, but Stephen III of Moldova provided financial support to that and other monasteries at Mount Athos in the 15th century (Sullivan, 2019. pp. 9, 11). Anyway, a late manuscript like that may mention Vlachs near some Macedonian river in the 8th or 9th century, but chroniclers from the time, like Theophanes and Nicephorus, do not. Similarly, Scylitzes may mention Vlachs between Kostur and Prespa in 976, but contemporaries of that period, like Leo the Deacon and John Geometres, do not. I would not discount anachronistic references entirely, but doubts about their validity are inevitable when sources from the period in question fail to corroborate some of the simplest of details. As for the Albanians, there are some references that may be considered anachronistic (Elsie, 2003. pp. 24, 80.), but they are not of a similar manner and cannot be taken seriously.

Regardless, there is no mention of "Vlachs" during this 3-century epoch, but that doesn't imply they were absent. They were Roman provincials, or inhabitants of Roman empire.

If there was a native Latin-speaking community that continued to live as provincials within the Roman Empire following the 7th century and were thus a familiar presence, is it not odd that Greek-speakers who lived among them would suddenly adopt a Germanic term (via the Slavonic variant) for these people, one that would not be recorded until the second half of the 11th century?

I believe it's been settled in favour of early eastern Romance, but I can't talk about Mauros, since there is no dialogue or words recorded that he used.

Fair enough, although I would posit that your belief appears to be based on a certain interpretation of the context and the presumption of continuity, not on the actual word itself, which has no peculiar quality that would distinguish it from Latin. Consequently, I do not find that position conclusive and if I had to guess, I would probably default to Latin given the word was still in use as a command in the army and the grey area preceding the transition to Eastern Romance.

According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus (via P. Komatina), the inhabitants of the Dyrrhachion Theme in the middle of the 10th century were Romans as well as those who inhabited Dalmatian cities.

Porphyrogenitus differentiates between the Romaious (i.e., Romans in general, citizens) and the Romanous (i.e., ancestrally from Rome, Latin). He states that incursions by the Avars and their allies forced the Romanous who were in the Dalmatian hinterland and elsewhere to flee for the coastal areas and Dyrrachium, where they were still living during his time. He also states that Dyrrachium (or Bar) may have been the southernmost point of Dalmatia at some point (DAI, 29-32.).

Why / how is Dalmatia a different story?

By dint of geographic proximity, the Latin-speaking people of Dalmatia were subject to the cultural influence of the Latin Church and Latin-speaking people from Italy. This contributed to the survival of their language, even though the territory they controlled was reduced to a handful of maritime city-states. The population who lived east of the Adriatic coast, aside from some who fell within the peripheral territories of the Frankish realm, did not benefit from the same circumstances. Most of the Balkans was subject to the cultural influence of Constantinople and it was not until the beginning of the 11th century, during the reign of Stephen of Hungary, that Latin would regain a formal presence in Dacia. Furthermore, although Dalmatian may share a few corresponding sound changes with Eastern Romance, they do not form a dialect continuum like that which still (loosely) exists in much of the Western Romance sphere.

In various regions of the Roman empire there probably existed different forms of "local Latin", and each developed in their own unique way, i.e. Gaul, Iberia, etc.

Whilst that may be true, the situation of Vulgar Latin as a primary spoken language changed drastically in the Early Middle Ages. In Britain, Anatolia and the Middle East, it disappeared. In western parts of North Africa, it continued to be spoken for a few more centuries, probably because the diminishing number of Christians still maintained ties with their counterparts in Iberia and the Latin Church on the one hand, and were distinct from the new dominant religion on the other. If you read into the history of those regions, there are various reasons why their respective situations turned out the way they did. When looking at the breadth of the Roman Empire in Europe, Latin largely survived in the Italian peninsula and the contiguous western regions that were once predominantly Celtic, in addition to some nearby territories and islands like those in Dalmatia, Sicily, etc. Comparatively, the case of the Vlachs is unique.

Gaulish was a Continental Celtic language, whereas Breton belongs to the Brittonic group. Supposedly, at some early point, all Celts must have spoken some form of 'common Celtic'. I feel that you should have compared, for example, "Gaulish" and "common Celtic" in order for it to be analogous.

Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer. What I had in mind with that analogy was Gaulish and Brittonic being equivalent to Vulgar Latin developing in two separate regions (the Balkans and let us say the Po Valley, just as an example), with the first one becoming extinct, and a branch of the second one migrating to the region of the first one a few centuries later, then developing into a daughter language (Breton/Vlach). The broader point was to demonstrate how two related languages spoken in the same area, at different times, does not necessarily mean that one descended directly from the other. There are similar examples.

But, I'll wait to hear your response about where exactly do the "Vlachs" come from?

Where exactly, I do not know, but in my subsequent post, I will provide some further thoughts.

[Carlin]

THE VLACHS AND THE SERBIAN PRIMARY SCHOOL (1878-1914):
AN EXAMPLE OF SERBIAN NATION-BUILDING, KSENIJA KOLEROVIC

URL:

https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/157711834/FULL_TEXT.PDF

Page 18:

Contrary to the situation of the present day, which sees the Vlachs as a small national minority of the Serbian state – according to the last, 2011, census the Vlach national minority amounts to only 0.49% – in the second half of the nineteenth century the Vlachs were Serbia's largest minority ranging from 7.8% in 1884 to 5% in 1900.

The size of the Vlach population is even more striking if considered at the regional level. Most of the Vlachs were concentrated in four districts (Krajina, Požarevac, Ćuprija, Crna reka) where they made up an average 37% of the region's population, with a staggering 62% in the Krajina region.

Page 19 -- Table 1: Percentage of the Romanian (Vlach) population per Region in 1884.

The Regions below are all within Serbia proper at that time.

KRAJINA: Romanians (Vlachs) % -- 62.00
POZAREVAC: Romanians (Vlachs) % -- 31.26
CUPRIJA: Romanians (Vlachs) % -- 15.27
CRNA REKA: Romanians (Vlachs) % -- 45.80

On page 39 there is also a figure/map provided of the areas inhabited by Romanians/Vlachs in late 19th c.

[Carlin]

- Mid 11th century: a work of the Persian geographer Gardīzī entitled The Decoration of History, (Hudud al Alam) written between 1049-1053 or 1094. Describing the ethnic and political reality of Eastern Europe, Gardīzī places between the Slavs, Russians and Hungarians "one people from the Roman Empire (äz Rūm); and they are all Christians and they are called N-n-d-r. There are more of them than Hungarians, but they are weaker."

- The first Italian humanist to emphasize the Roman origin of "Vlachs" is Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459), who in his work Disceptationes convivales, written in 1451, says: "In Upper Sarmatia, the settlers from Trajan, since they were abandoned a long time ago, they have now, still in the midst of all barbarians, retained much Latin ... They name eyes, finger, hand, bread, and many others with the words kept from the Latins ... they customarily speak Latin".