Origin of Romanian people and language

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by 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)

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]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

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/...sec=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.

Originally Posted by Carlin

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]

Originally Posted by Risto the Great

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]

Originally Posted by Carlin

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.u.../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".