Undoubtedly, the paradigm of the formation of the Romanian people and language was and remains a debatable topic. Disputes, which, by the way, are not new at all. About the cultural and linguistic continuity of the Romanized population north of the Danube, about the place of its ethnogenesis, about its alleged migration, etc. hundreds of volumes, thousands of studies were written, but the camps formed among scientists did not reach a consensus.

In this sense, we invited to the HotNews studio one of the most important and influential researchers in this field, the historian Florin Kurta, a specialist in archeology and medieval history of Eastern Europe, now Conf. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Florida, USA. So we asked him to give his thoughts on some of the most pressing issues surrounding the said topic.

Can we talk about the continuity between the Romanized population during the Roman occupation north of the Danube and the Vlachs from the later medieval chronicles? Is there evidence of a local population north of the Danube after the Aurelian retreat (if indeed it was during the Aurelian period)? Is Christianity a key factor in establishing the continuity of Wallachian communities? Who are the Vlachs? When are they first mentioned in written records? How are they presented? What language did they speak? And last but not least: where and when does the process of ethnogenesis take place, north or south of the Danube?

These are just some of the questions that our guest tried to answer in the interview he gave us especially on the occasion of the National Day of Romania. You can find out what he said to all this by watching the video.

The main ideas discussed:

• The presence of man north of the Danube after the withdrawal from the Roman province of Dacia is indisputable, and this is, of course, based on archaeological sources, which prove beyond doubt that we are dealing with settlements both within the Carpathian arc and beyond. And so it continues for several centuries, from the time of leaving that province.

• As for the first mentions of the Vlachs, of the population with that name, we are dealing with what is called an exonym, that is, a name given to this population by outsiders. This is not the name they took. It is important that the term Vlach appears for the first time in connection with the population south of the Danube, in the Balkans. We have to wait a long time before we see this name also in sources that clearly refer, without a doubt, to the realities in the north of the Danube.

• The fact that not all of the population of the former province of Dacia went south of the Danube during Aurelius’ retreat is confirmed by the relatively large number of necropolises dating from the 3rd to the 8th centuries AD. Also, as a single example, in the immediate period of the above-mentioned retreat, we have evidence of fortification works at Sarmizegetus Rhegius.

• Vlachs spoke a language of Latin origin. There is no doubt about it. And even if we think that it was formed south of the Danube, then at the dictionary level there are phenomena of clear North-Danube origin. For example, especially at the level of pronunciation, phonetics, there are elements that indicate that the population I was talking about earlier spoke, among other languages, an archaic form of the language we speak today.

• As for the thesis about the migration of the North Danube Vlach population to the mountains, it was expressed by A. D. Xenopol almost two centuries ago. But we do not have any archaeological evidence of such a dwelling in the mountains.

• There is a late medieval, even early modern meaning of the term Vlach. He refers to the presence of non-ethnic groups in the Balkans. In particular, Vlachs are transhumant shepherds. And they may, in fact, also be native speakers of a language other than the Latin-influenced one. This professional meaning of the word also influenced the Slavic-language historiography, and especially the Hungarian-language one, to create a portrait of the Romanians as a people of racing shepherds who wander everywhere without having their homeland. . And so they ended up, Lord, in today’s territory of Romania.

• There is a possibility that ethnogenesis in the literal sense of the word took place north of the Danube somewhat later. We are talking about ethnogenesis, not glottogenesis. That is, the Romanian language must have formed earlier, but the ethnic identity separate from the migrants, which, conditionally speaking, we can call Wallachian, must have developed north of the Danube after the 11th century, not before.

• The term “church” is extremely important. This is a word that clearly indicates continuity. If only because it comes from the word basil, and this word did not lead in other Romance languages ​​to a phenomenon similar to the one in Romanian. This word, adopted into the Romanian language, clearly shows influence from the 4th century AD.

• There is no evidence of Slavic migration. This is the fundamental argument of the research I have been conducting for 20 years or more. There is no archaeological evidence of Slavic migration.

• Where was the Romanian people formed? North? South of the Danube? The reality is that the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people occurs both south and north of the Danube. The Danube was not an obstacle.

• Is it possible to reconstruct the history of a people with its possible migrations, relying solely on linguistic elements? Absolutely not!

Follow our Facebook page, HotNews Science, to be able to receive live information and curiosities from the world of science in real time!