The Daco-Roman Continuity Theory Makes No Sense!

[ixulescu]

Lol, there were even [slightly] more Syrian Semitic names than Dacian ones. And significantly more Greek and Illyrian names than Dacian ones. Even though the vast majority were Latin, not all were. There were multiple ethnolinguistic groups present at that time after Romans cleansed it of Dacians, Dacians were simply a minority of minorities.

In your previous post you claimed these are place names, now you're saying they're persons names.
Dude, you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Let me help you.

Those 3000 names were peoples' names, compiled from mortuary stones at burial sites. Dacians did not bury anyone, they cremated exclusively, unlike Romans, who did bury, particularly from 3rd century AD on. So yes, obviously, on mortuary stones one would expect Roman names almost exclusively.

What a facepalm this whole thread is.

[Bigby]

Incorrect. Szekelys have high Germanic admixture both in ydna and autosomal. What differs them from Hungarians from Hungary is lower Slavic, higher Vlach and higher conqueror-like input.



In Szeklerland they are not. Anyways, only unmixed people are used for averages anyhow.

Have never said that they dont have, but compared to hungarians they're really as different as an ethnicity as any other neighbour.

And many szekelers mixed during the austro-hungarian period and before with other catholic nations under good relationships. We even have on TA one guy who is half szekler and half hungarian...

[Blondie]

Why do you assume all Vlachs had to be called Olah? wtf.

Besides, those charters were only about upper-class matters, where Romanians were under-represented. In fact, the Romanian estate from Transylvania was dissolved in the 13th century, as part of the Papal push to convert the Romanians, of which some did. This is the reason why Romanians were moving out of Transylvania (and founded Wallachia and Moldova in the process): they were discriminated as Orthodox, but they were losing their property rights and titles as a result.

Nope these sources were about the romanian migration in general, when the hungarian feudal lords needed more peasant for work, because of mongol desctruction. This happened after the ottoman wars too. I didn't say its impossible that romanians lived in Transylvania before 13. century, i said there were 3 great romanian migration wave in Transylvania, the fist happened in 13. century, the second happened after the ottoman destruction, and the third after Trianon and 1945 to shift the ethnic numbers for romanians.

[ixulescu]

Exactly. And this is why it originating south of the Danube makes 100x more sense.

The reason why (Daco) Romanian has no dialects is because originally Romanians lived in the mountains of Romania, in the center of the country. From there, the language has spread radially in all directions. That's why there is so little variation.

The other "dialects" of Romanian, like Aromanian, are actually distinct languages in their own right. There's less mutual ineligibility between Romanian and Aromanian than between Spanish and Italian, or Spanish and Portuguese.

[ixulescu]

Nope these sources were about the romanian migration in general, when the hungarian feudal lords needed more peasant for work, because of mongol desctruction. This happened after the ottoman wars too. I didn't say its impossible that romanians lived in Transylvania before 13. century, i said there were 3 great romanian migration wave in Transylvania, the fist happened in 13. century, the second happened after the ottoman destruction, and the third after Trianon and 1945 to shift the ethnic numbers for romanians.

That's something completely different. Work migration from estate to estate after wars and diseases was done all the time during the medieval times. But migrating an entire ethnicity from Albania to Romania never happened.

[Mingle]

In your previous post you claimed these are place names, now you're saying they're persons names.
Dude, you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Let me help you.

I misspoke, I was talking about person names there.

Those 3000 names were peoples' names, compiled from mortuary stones at burial sites. Dacians did not bury anyone, they cremated exclusively, unlike Romans, who did bury, particularly from 3rd century AD on. So yes, obviously, on mortuary stones one would expect Roman names almost exclusively.

Romans claimed that Dacians were wiped out and Roman Dacia was settled with people from all over Rome. Those 3000 names were just confirming what Romans earlier said. Even if you think those names don't mean anything, the Romans themselves stated that Dacia was depopulated and replaced with foreigners. And we have later medieval accounts of Dacia being majority Slavic (other groups are also mentioned, but Latin-speaking Romans curiously are not).

What a facepalm this whole thread is.

You didn't even read most of it.

[Mingle]

Thrace is South of the Jirecek line btw, which doesn't make any sense, as Romanian would have been loaded with Greek words.

I was talking about ancient Thrace i.e. region inhabited by Thracians (which included north Bulgaria and east Serbia), specifically the ancient Thracian region north of that line. I probably should have said 'Moesia'.

[ixulescu]

Romans claimed that Dacians were wiped out and Roman Dacia was settled with people from all over Rome. Those 3000 names were just confirming what Romans earlier said. Even if you think those names don't mean anything, the Romans themselves stated that Dacia was depopulated and replaced with foreigners. And we have later medieval accounts of Dacia being majority Slavic (other groups are also mentioned, but Latin-speaking Romans curiously are not).

Do you understand there are hundreds of archaeological sites of Dacian settlements from the Roman era in Romania?

How the fuck do you want me to read your crap when you start with such an outlandish claim? This curbs my appetite instantly.

Make a reasonable and informed argument and will discuss it.

[Mingle]

@ixulescu

Illyrians also cremated their dead, yet they have double the amount of names mentioned in Roman Dacia than Dacians do.

[ixulescu]

@ixulescu

Illyrians also cremated their dead, yet they have double the amount of names mentioned in Roman Dacia than Dacians do.

They certainly weren't on mortuary stones. That was a survey of names on mortuary stones.

Also Illyrians were conquered far earlier and for a longer period.