crowdfundteferra.dev3.develag.com/memoirs-of-napoleon-complete.php He is well known from the line in Horace Occidit Daci Cotisonis agmen. The Dacians are often mentioned under Augustus, according to whom they were compelled to recognize Roman supremacy. However, they were by no means subdued, and in later times to maintain their independence they seized every opportunity of crossing the frozen Danube during the winter and ravaging the Roman cities in the province of Moesia. Trajan turned his attention to Dacia , an area north of Macedon and Greece and east of the Danube that had been on the Roman agenda since before the days of Caesar  when they had beaten a Roman army at the Battle of Histria.
From 85 to 89 C. In 87, the Roman troops under Cornelius Fuscus were defeated, and Cornelius Fuscus was killed by the Dacians under the authority of their ruler, Diurpaneus. After this victory, Diurpaneus took the name of Decebalus. The next year, 88 C. Even more, Decebalus received the status of "king client to Rome," receiving from Rome military instructors, craftsmen and even money. Emperor Trajan recommenced hostilities against Dacia and, following an uncertain number of battles,  defeated the Dacian general Decebalus in the Second Battle of Tapae in C.
In response Trajan again marched into Dacia,  besieging the Dacian capital in the Siege of Sarmizegethusa, and razing it to the ground. Rome's borders in the east were indirectly governed through a system of client states for some time, leading to less direct campaigning than in the west in this period. To expand the glory of his reign, restore the finances of Rome, and end a treaty perceived as humiliating, Trajan resolved on the conquest of Dacia and with it the capture of the famous Treasure of Decebalus and control over the Dacian gold mines of Transylvania. The result of his first campaign — was the siege of the Dacian capital Sarmizegethusa and the occupation of a part of the country.
The second campaign — ended with the suicide of Decebalus, and the conquest of the territory that was to form the Roman province Dacia Traiana. The history of the war is given by Cassius Dio, but the best commentary upon it is the famous Column of Trajan in Rome. Although the Romans conquered and destroyed the ancient Kingdom of Dacia, a large remainder of the land remained outside of Roman Imperial authority. Additionally, the conquest changed the balance of power in the region and was the catalyst for a renewed alliance of Germanic and Celtic tribes and kingdoms against the Roman Empire.
However, the material advantages of the Roman Imperial system wasn't lost on much of the surviving aristocracy. Thus, most of the Romanian historians and linguists believe that many of the Dacians became Romanized - hence the later term "Romanian" for the people of the three principalities of Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia.
Nonetheless, Germanic and Celtic kingdoms, particularly the Gothic tribes made a slow progression toward the Dacian borders and soon within a generation were making assaults on the province. Ultimately, the Goths succeeded in dislodging the Romans and restoring the independence of Dacia following Aurelian's withdrawal, in C.
The province was abandoned by Roman troops, and, according to the Breviarium historiae Romanae by Eutropius, Roman citizens "from the town and lands of Dacia" were resettled to the interior of Moesia. However, Romanian historians maintain that the bulk of the civilian population remained and a surviving aristocratic Dacian line revived the kingdom under Regalianus. About his origin, the Tyranni Triginta says he was a Dacian, a kinsman of Decebalus. Nonetheless, the Gothic aristocracy remained ascendant and through intermarriage soon dominated the kingdom which was absorbed into their larger empire.
During Diocletian, circa C. By C. Following the rise of Islam , much of this area was conquered by the Ottoman Empire. Geo-politically, this was a frontier zone between empires and cultures, especially between East and West, between the Byzantines followed by Ottomans in the East and the European powers, including Hungary , Austria , Poland , Lithuania and Russia to the West and also to the North.
The Dacians had traded with Greece and with Rome and, according to tradition, had contact with Egypt as well. Inevitably, this made the region vulnerable to conquest and for most of its history the former Roman province which became three the principalities was subject to the authority of an external power. Yet, despite conflict and confrontation, a rich culture emerged which blended East and West, creating a cultural bridge between rival civilizations.
Nor was conflict constant. The author is obviously trying to downplay or deny the possibility of other languages having influenced Romanian, but the way in which he is attempting to do this is extremely unclear. It is possible to say that languages, or stages of languages, spoken at different points in time are earlier or later or, if one prefers, "older" or "younger". For instance, Old Norse is earlier than Swedish, and later than Latin.
Old English is earlier than Modern English, and later than Gothic. In this case, it would obviously be possible to say that speakers of Old Norse could not have borrowed words from Modern English, as the two languages belong to physically different eras. But one cannot possibly say that two languages spoken at the same moment in time have different ages. It quite simply makes no sense. One cannot say that any modern language is "younger" than Romanian; Modern Greek is just as "old" as Romanian.
It is unclear how this supposed "old age" whatever that means would preclude Romanian's having borrowed some words e. There are also problems with the statement about the word ponos which, in Romanian, means "insult" and "accusation", among other things . In reality, this is not the case, as Romanian dictionaries merely give the immediate source from which Romanian borrowed or inherited the word in question. For instance, one dictionary derives the Romanian word kabuki as being from "engl. Indeed, a few paragraphs later, he asks, "Which Slavic language?
Once again, the author repeats the same strawman regarding etymons in Romanian dictionaries. The Romani baros is not claimed to be the ultimate origin of all cognates; rather, Romani is stated to be the language from which the Romanian baros is derived. And while the Romani word baros given by the DEX indeed does not seem to appear in Romani dictionaries, dictionaries such as the DER Romanian Etymological Dictionary and others derive it from the Romani baro large, big; mighty, powerful; chief, general and bares very, greatly , which do.
The author's conception of the history of these words appears to be based on his belief that Proto-Indo-European PIE was identical to Romanian. This argument is problematic. For one thing, even if, out of the many thousands of words in Romanian and Greek, some were inherited cognates that underwent less phonetic change in Romanian than in Modern Greek, it would hardly be possible to extrapolate from this to say that Romanian is therefore as a whole more conservative than Modern Greek.
It would be very possible for Romanian, though conservative as far as this single word is concerned, to be in other aspects less conservative than Modern Greek. Furthermore, it simply assumes that the Romanian and Greek words must be cognates, but this is a mere assumption. No attempt is made to exclude the possibility of borrowing or coincidence. Even then, this would not prove that Ancient Greek is descended from Romanian or that Romanian is descended from Ancient Greek ; this would merely be a result of both sharing a common ancestor.
Next we are given a list of words whose Ancient Greek pronunciations are more similar to Romanian than to Modern Greek: baros cf. Romanian baros , Modern Greek varos , barbaros cf. Romanian barbar , Modern Greek varvaros , biblioteke cf. Romanian bolborosi , Modern Greek vorvorizo. While it may be true that Romanian is more similar to Ancient Greek as far as these four words are concerned, grammatically and lexically more generally, this is not the case.
Welsh is a word used by the English conquerors to refer to the native Celtic population, and the Welsh only started referring to themselves by this word when they started speaking English. They were free at last! This supposedly indicates that the two words have in fact the same etymology: namely, that Deutsch is derived from Dacian, and that therefore the Germanic peoples call themselves "Dacians". Without denying the right of the historical imaginary to deploy its resources, it is clear that the real moving force behind territorial evolutions is not the appeal to a distant past. There are many languages besides Romanian currently spoken in "Old Europe", and one could, by the same logic, argue that Serbian  or Albanian is the original Indo-European language. Dacian horses were also highly respected and sought after for military use. When barbarian incursions resumed during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the defences in Dacia were hard pressed to halt all of the raids, leaving exposed the provinces of Upper and Lower Moesia.
Hittite and Sanskrit have 8 cases,   Old Church Slavonic and Old Persian have 7,  Latin has 6,   Ancient and Modern Greek have 4,   while Romanian has only 2 or 3, if you count the vocative. Romanian also has multiple grammatical features which it shares with other modern languages in the Balkan Sprachbund , but not with ancient languages.
This includes a postfixed definite article, a feature existing in Albanian and Modern but not Old Bulgarian. Another is the replacement of the infinitive by the subjunctive in many cases, a feature shared with Modern but not Ancient Greek,  and Modern Bulgarian which has no infinitive at all. One could just as well say that this shows that all these languages were spoken at the same time as Ancient Greek. As for the word bolborosi , it is said to be of onomatopoeic origin. Well, no, they would not. Baron and baros are two different words.
The fact that they are superficially similar does not imply that they have the same origin. The English word baron was borrowed from French around , when, as the author has noted, the Romani had not yet migrated to Europe; its ultimate origin is unknown, but is considered to probably be from the Late Latin baro. Oh, so for all the Indo-European i. Gee, now why could that be This passage is also based on a gross misinterpretation of Turner's book.
Nowhere does it state that these languages are "subdialects of European Gypsy". Rather, page xviii  contains a list of abbreviations which include "eng. English dialect of European Gypsy", "bul. Bulgarian dialect of European Gypsy", "germ. German dialect of European Gypsy", "boh.
Bohemian dialect of European Gypsy", "hung. Hungarian dialect of European Gypsy", "it. Italian dialect of European Gypsy", and so on. As can be seen, the abbreviations "eng" and "germ" obviously refer to the Romani dialects spoken in England and Germany, respectively, not to English and German themselves. This convention is not at all unusual in the context of the dictionary, since the book's subject matter concerns only the Indo-Aryan linguistic group of which the mentioned European languages do not form a part , and Romani is the only Indo-Aryan language spoken in those countries excluding immigrant languages.
Turner is most certainly not stating that the languages of Europe are all dialects of Romani. Even if he were, such a claim would be no more ridiculous than the idea that they are dialects of Romanian. Even if we assume that Bulgarian and Bulgaria were wiped off the face of the earth years ago, that still leaves Serbian. A language also cannot be "X years old.
But to claim that the Romanian language in itself , independently of any written documents, can be more or less "old" than any other modern language is simply not possible. Of course, Romanian dictionaries make no such claim. Besides the fact that the dictionary's etymology refers to Bulgarian , not Bulgar, it merely states the that Romanian word is derived from the Bulgarian one; no claim is being made that the Bulgarian gradina could not have been, in turn, borrowed or inherited from another language.
The development and history of the theory of Daco-Roman-Rumanian continuity PROVINCIA DACIA AUGUSTI: years of Roman rule on the left bank of. In these scholars' view, the close contacts between the autochthonous Dacians and the Roman colonists led.
And "Hellenic" didn't "disappear"; it evolved into Modern Greek. In other words, the author's derivation is based on superficial similarity, and does not take into account the actual base form of the word. For once, the author acknowledges the existence of Bulgarian, but does not appear to even consider the glaring obvious fact that it is this language that is being referred to in Romanian dictionaries, instead preferring to beat up a strawman.
In addition, the author appears to believe that the only way Bulgar could have gone extinct is if its speakers had been exterminated. Presumably, this is because he believes that language must be correlated with genetics a widespread opinion among nationalists ; a language is transmitted by speakers to their physical descendants, with all those speaking the same language therefore belonging to the same "race".
However, language death is more often due to pressures on a community to adopt a more widely spoken language a phenomenon known in linguistics as language shift than to complete extermination. This is the case with many minority ethnic groups that are partly, mostly, or even entirely monolingual in the locally dominant language       not because they were completely wiped out otherwise they would, obviously, not exist , but because the last speakers of those languages did not pass them on to the next generations.
This can also been seen in the case of immigrants. Children of immigrants may learn the language of their parents their heritage language , but will generally have a stronger command of the dominant language of the society in which they live. After a generation or two of descendants, the original language spoken by the immigrant s will be replaced entirely by the language of the host culture.
Not only is this equation of language with genetics dubious, it also contradicts previous statements the author has made. When claiming that Romani is descended from Romanian, the fact that the Roma do not look like Romanians did not bother him in the least, but now all of a sudden he asserts that linguistic descent must also match racial appearance. This claim is contradicted by the many monolingual Spanish-speaking Latin Americans who have very much Amerindian appearances, or the fact that Hungarians are white despite speaking a language of Asian origin. Imagine saying that a given Latin American doesn't actually speak Spanish, or that an African American doesn't speak English, because they "don't look European"!
Note also the fact that the Georgiev quote clearly states that the shared elements of Romanian and Bulgarian are mainly borrowings from other languages.
Despite this, the author simply assumes that these similarities are all in fact of Romanian origin — the very same approach he criticized at the beginning of the article. Besides which, the majority view among scholars is that the origin of the Indo-Europeans was as mentioned later in this article not in the Carpathian Basin. Even if the Indo-Europeans did originate there, this would not by any stretch of the imagination imply that they spoke Romanian. The author cites Pliny as mentioning cebanus caseus , a type of cheese, and suggests it could have been " prepared by shepherds?
Incidentally, this phrase is also cited by supporters of the Venetic theory. However, the given translation is erroneous, as cebanus does not refer to shepherds. The author seems to be parsing the word as being an adjective ceban-us deriving from a noun ceban supposedly meaning shepherd. However, the word's actual morphological division is ceba-nus ; according to one Latin dictionary,  cebanus means "from Ceba", a town in Italy whose modern name is Ceva cf.
Romanus , from Roma . According to the Encyclopedia Britannica , "In the middle ages [Ceba] was a strong fortress defending the confines of Piedmont towards Liguria" and its "cheese caseus cebanus was famous in Roman times". There is a list of Hungarian words attested in the 13th and 14th centuries, along with the Romanian word from which they are allegedly derived.
The fact that the Hungarian words are attested earlier suggests though, of course, does not prove that the words have been present in Hungarian longer than they have in Romanian. Once again, the same error: when a dictionary refers to bg , it means Bulgarian, not Bulgar. It only mentions the particular source from which the Romanian word is derived. In any case, earlier in the article, the author was going on about how the Bulgar language is completely unknown and perhaps didn't even exist , and now is saying that this language has the word kappa.
Who knows. Another article claims to highlight the "absurdity" of many etymologies found in the DEX, a Romanian dictionary. All words have to come from somewhere. Occasionally, a word will be coined a neologism , but in the majority of cases, a given word will be either a borrowing or derived from a previous stage of the language. It is natural for Romanian to have borrowed words from its linguistic neighbors. Why wouldn't it? All languages do so; it is nothing to be ashamed of.
The article is also beating up a strawman or rather constructing one, since it contains no actual counterarguments. It is not said that Romanian "cannot possibly have Dacian words", but merely that etymologies deriving a given word from Dacian will be speculative and uncertain. It is not really possible to say definitively that any particular word is derived from Dacian, since the Dacian language is almost completely unknown.
Now this is just silly. The etymologies of the words have nothing to do with genetics. All these examples demonstrate is the lovely diversity of Romanian vocabulary. Other languages have similarly varied word pairs. For instance, in English, "mare" and "fowl" are from Old English, while "stallion" and "poultry" are from French.
All this said, there are many words whose ultimate origins are unknown. Dictionaries of a language X may sometimes say that such and such word comes from language Y, while dictionaries of language Y may say it comes from language X. This is true. However, just as some argue " We don't know, therefore aliens," Protochronists say, "We don't know, therefore Dacians.
This is not a productive approach. Being a Swede, he could by no means be biased in favor of Romanian nationalism. In fact, a statement is made in one episode of The Dacians to the effect that "only foreign sources will be cited, to avoid accusations of nationalist bias. Now, just because someone is a foreigner does not necessarily mean they are right.
One can find "foreigners" to support all sorts of such theories. Another would be Leo Wiener, who, in Contributions toward a history of Arabico-Gothic culture ,  claimed that Germanic mythology is of Arabic origin, and that the vocabulary of the Germanic languages is derived from Latin and Arabic. But leaving the somewhat irrelevant question of motivation aside, the fact of the matter is that the Gothic language has survived in the form of a quite substantial Bible translation by the Goth Ulfilas. Thanks to this document, it is known without the slightest shadow of a doubt that Gothic is a Germanic language.
Kauuihit si namo din. Piqhueme rihhi din, Uuesa din uuillo, sama so in himile est, sama in erdu. Pilipi unsraz emizzigaz kip uns eogauuanna. Enti flaz uns unsro sculdi, sama so uuir flazzames unsrem scolom. Enti ni princ unsih in chorunka. Uzzan kaneri unsih fona allem sunton. There are many Germanic cognates in Gothic.
Faedar , OHG. The list goes on and on. But more importantly, there are a number of sound correspondences which show Gothic to be related to the other Germanic languages. The Gothic text is completely different from the Romanian; it is, however, quite clearly similar to the other listed Germanic languages. Notwithstanding the extraordinarily ignorant assertion of the Romanian Wikipedia's article on Ulfilas  that Gothic contains no Germanic words and is a mixture of Latin, Greek, and other languages.
To claim that the Goths and Getae spoke the same tongue automatically disqualifies Romanian as being their language. Consider the scenario of a European [note 21] colonist in North America saying something to the effect of "I am starting to speak like the Mohawk and Abenaki. Similarly, Ovid's remarks do not necessarily imply that Getic and Sarmatian were mutually intelligible or closely related. Nor does Plutarch make any mention of Latin being used:  . It is much more probable that the herald spoke Macedonian and was simply hired by the Romans for his knowledge of the local language. However, this explanation does not seem particularly convincing compared to the much more obvious one that the Macedonians needed a Greek translation because they could not understand the Latin.
If the Latin had been comprehensible to the audience, then surely the Romans would not have felt it necessary to provide a Greek translation. However, the historical vision put forth by Bergmann contradicts that of this particular Protochronist theory in numerous aspects — notably, in that Romanians are completely absent.
According to Bergmann, the historical development of the Indo-European peoples is as follows. At the top is Japhetic a now obsolete term meaning "Indo-European" , one of whose branches is Scythian. Scythian is in turn subdivided into Getic and Sarmatian, from which the Germanic and Slavic peoples, respectively, are descended.
In other words, where Protochronists put the Getae at the top of the hierarchy, Bergmann describes them as just one of the many Indo-European branches and puts them near the bottom. Furthermore, while Bergmann does claims that the Germanic peoples are the Getae's descendants, he lists them as their only descendants. In other words, in his view, the Romance and Slavic peoples are not descended from the Getae. Bergmann describes, too, the Getae and Scythians as being separate but related groups, and specifically describes Getic and Scythian as being separate languages.
One glaring statement near the beginning of the book outright contradicts the idea of the Indo-European homeland being in Romania:. If anything, Bergmann seems to be saying that the Getae were practically Germans, just as Protochonists claim the Getae were essentially or even identical to Romanians.
He argues that, of the contemporarily extent ethnic groups, the Germanic peoples are linguistically, genetically, and culturally the closest to the Getae, as well as their only descendants. Ironically, the Protochronist claim that the Goths and Getae were the same people would actually support Bergmann's theory, since the Goths did indeed speak a Germanic language.
Bergmann also claims the origin of the Indo-Europeans is Asia, not Romania, and his linguistic arguments involve Scythian words that do not exist in Romanian, such as Pakus venerable , apia earth , konus nice , and daviketas intelligence. Indeed, it contradicts it almost completely. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the evidence adduced by Bergmann involves cultural and religious similarities, whereas the classification of Scythian and Germanic is first and foremost a linguistic matter: the German language is claimed to be descended from the Scythian language. Cultural traits can be shared by speakers of multiple languages  through cultural diffusion , a process that can be independent of linguistic descent or relatedness.
For instance, Bergmann cites similarities in the clothing worn by Scythians and the Germanic peoples, but this is not necessarily an indicator of linguistic relatedness; Western clothing such as jeans is now worn across the world due to the influence of Western culture on other societies. None of this, however, constitutes proof of a genetic relationship between English and Japanese or English and Arabic or any other of the many languages spoken by Muslims, for that matter. Scythian, it may also be mentioned, was a vague term historically used to refer to many different and unrelated peoples.
Because of the indiscriminate use of the word Scythian by the ancients, nationalists of many different ethnic groups, such as Serbians and Hungarians, also claim the Scythians as their own. Finally, it must be said that none of the preceding claims made by Bergmann or, for that matter, Protochronists regarding these ancient peoples are accepted by modern scholarship. So little is known about the Scythian and Getic languages that it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions as to their nature or origins. Marija Gimbutas is quoted as saying, in response to a question regarding the existence of human archaeological remains from the 5th millennium B.
Then a map of Gimbutas' Old Europe culture, in which these objects were found, is shown. Old Europe is a region including not only Romania, but also the Balkans and a significant part of Italy. The implication is that the Aryans originated in Romania. First, it is misleading to say that Gimbutas found the statuettes "in Romania", since she found them in various countries, including Greece and Yugoslavia. Second, Gimbutas argued that Old Europe was a pre -Indo-European hence, non-Aryan culture which was wiped out by Indo-Europeans invaders migrating from the East and originating at the location of the Yamna culture, which is located in modern-day Ukraine and Russia.
Third, and more importantly, the fact that Romanian happens to be spoken nowadays in the area designated by Gimbutas as Old Europe in no way means that Romanian was also spoken there years ago. There are many languages besides Romanian currently spoken in "Old Europe", and one could, by the same logic, argue that Serbian  or Albanian is the original Indo-European language. Indeed, there is at least one Serbian nationalist article  that displays a map of Gimbutas' Old Europe to support its arguments regarding the Serbs' alleged antiquity.
To put it another way, the fact that modern-day Turkish happens to be spoken on the former territory of the Hittite Empire does not mean Turkish is Hittite or even descended from Hittite , and, similarly, Arabic is neither Ancient Egyptian, nor Akkadian, nor Sumerian. Some Protochronists will cite sources  saying that the Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in the Carpathic area, and claim that this must indicate Romanians are the Indo-European master race, and that Romania is the cradle of civilization. However, the fact of the matter is that the exact location of the PIE homeland is very speculative.
There are many different competing hypotheses as to the origin of the Proto-Indo-Europeans such as the prevailing Kurgan Hypothesis mentioned in the previous section , and it would be trivial for a nationalist to cherry-pick a source supporting any one of these hypotheses in support of the idea that their ethnic group is somehow "primordial. In addition, geographical proximity to the PIE homeland in no way indicates a particular linguistic or genetic connection. For instance, let's say the Kurgan Hypothesis were true. Could the Ukrainians and Russians now living at the location of the Yamna culture be said to have any special connection to the Proto-Indo-Europeans?
Certainly not. The connection to the people of the Yamna culture would be merely geographical. A Turkish nationalist could also cite various sources supportive of the Anatolian Hypothesis in an attempt to demonstrate their theory of Turkish supremacy. But, naturally, the Turks would have no real relationship with whatever people happened to live there thousands of years ago. Similarly, even if the Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in what is now Romania, to say that this shows they spoke Romanian or had some special connection to modern-day Romanians is laughable. Romania would merely happen to be located on the spot where the Proto-Indo-Europeans once lived.
Indeed, the Germans, Hungarians, Slavs, and other ethnic groups of Romania would have just as much to do with the Proto-Indo-Europeans as Romanians: That is, virtually nothing at all. Salt is essential for the human body; it cannot survive without sodium. Animals will sometimes go hundreds of miles to lick salt. Thousands of years ago, when mobility and transportation were limited, human populations must have centered around a source of salt to be able to survive.
And the only region where salt can be found above-ground is Romania. In the neighboring countries, there is no salt. Serbia has no salt whatsoever, it imports Carpathian salt; Bulgaria and Hungary likewise. In fact, "I read somewhere that" the Hungarians conquered the Carpathian Basin in order to gain access to its salt resources.
Also, in response to a question as to whether such salt sources might exist in Asia, "I've looked all over at the Chinese border and found no above-ground salt there either. And with what tools? Clearly, Romania is the only place the Indo-Europeans could have originated. Some mines in the Alps are known to have been active since the Neolithic: . According to one source: . For another thing, salt can be produced by evaporating sea water through a process known as briquetage, which is known to have been practiced in many areas of Europe, not just Romania;  the oldest known briquetage dates to the 5th millennium B.
According to Forest Farmers and Stockherders: Early Agriculture and Its Consequences in North-Central Europe , other sources of salt include: "the mining of rock salt, the burning of plants with a high salt content and the leaching of salt from their ashes, and evaporation of brine from saline. Not to mention that many European countries are significant producers of salt.
In short, the claim that Romania is the only significant source of salt in Europe or at least, this seems to be the idea is completely false. A Romanian edition of National Geographic is cited, which contains a map of Romania with superimposed golden objects of various sizes and in different locations in Romania. As we are told neither the specific issue number in which the map appeared, nor what the article accompanying the map said, we cannot know in what context that map was situated, and since the specific source of the claim is not stated, it cannot be verified.
However, we do seem to face a strange implication. In Romania, there are very many ancient golden archaeological finds — but once we cross the border into another country , these finds disappear. Now, the fact of the matter is, countries are not natural entities.
They are abstract, arbitrary lines on a map. The borders of modern-day Romania and of most European countries were drawn after World War II; it is difficult to see why the distribution of Neolithic golden objects in Europe would correspond to an area delineated in the 20th century. The oldest golden treasure known is, at any rate, the Varna Necropolis , dating to the 5th millennium B. Golden artefacts dating to the late 3rd millennium B. Allegedly, the oldest example of a swastika dates back over years and was found in Romania.
These two facts must mean that the swastika originated in the "Carpatho-Danubian-Pontic" area and spread everywhere else. In actual fact, the oldest swastika currently known was found in Mezin, Ukraine, and dates back to 10, BCE. Ancient swastikas can be found in other regions of Europe, too. Nationalists from other countries such as Bulgaria and Serbia    likewise claim that the presence of these swastikas which they also claim are "the oldest known" in their countries is proof that humanity or civilization originated there, and that their ethnicity is the "original people".
But even assuming that the swastika did originate in one of these regions, this does not imply that all languages also originated there. For one thing, the swastika could very well have spread through cultural diffusion. People around the world wear jeans and play the piano, but this does not mean that humanity started in Italy. Similarly, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are global religions, but this is not because all humans are "really" from Israel, Arabia, or India.
Furthermore, the presence of swastikas or objects from thousands of years ago proves only that people existed in that place at that time, but it does not shed any light as to the language that they spoke. There is no connection between the shape of a swastika and Romanian or any other language, for that matter. Rather, it is likely that from that time period to the present, there has been a continual string of languages being spoken in that area, with Romanian happening to be one of the latest members of this group.
Imagine an alternate universe in which Romanian had been replaced in the Middle Ages by one of the many languages at one point spoken in what would have become Romania. For the sake of argument, let's say this language was Avar. Imagine further that in the 20th century, some Avar nationalists claim that Avar has been spoken on its current territory since virtually the beginning of time, and justify this assertion with the statement, "Just look at these gazillion-year-old swastikas!
To say that the swastika is a "Romanian" or "Serbian" symbol is to project modern-day constructs onto time periods where they did not exist. Even if the swastika did originate in Romania, it would be Romanian in the same way the pyramids are Arabic — that is, not at all. According to Protochronists, the Romans considered Latin to be derived from the Ausonian language, and Ausonian was, in fact, Dacian.
In this translation, Ovid is contrasting the Romans and Ausones as two belligerent, opposing groups. Protochronists imply that "Ausonian" here is referring to the inhabitants of the region where Ovid was exiled — namely, the Dacians. However, this is an erroneous interpretation. For one thing, the said passage is a mistranslation. It really says:. Ausonian is, then, not opposed to Roman, but rather seems to be complementing it. Indeed, the word "Ausonian" has in fact nothing to do with the Dacians; according to one English edition of Ovid's works: "Ausonia was properly the land of the Ausones, in the southern part of Italy; but the poets use it to signify the whole of Italy.
Indeed, one translator renders these lines thus, translating "Ausonian" as "Italian":. Line of the second book of Ovid's Tristia supposedly reads, "I was exiled to the frontier of Ausonia, at the border with Sarmatia", where "Ausonia" is claimed to refer to Dacia. But actually, Ausonia is a reference to the Roman Empire. The cited sentence is a misquote; the relevant passage from Tristia is as follows this translation renders Ausonio as "Italian" :. This is the furthest land subject to Italian [Ausonian] law, barely clinging to the edges of your [Caesar's] Empire.
Haec est Ausonio sub iure nouissima, uixque haeret in inperii margine terra tui. Indeed, in several verses, Ovid specifically draws a clear distinction between the Ausonian Romans and the "uncivilized" Getae:. Quid facere Ausonia geniti debetis in urbe, cum tangant duros talia facta Getas? Ovid also clearly indicates that he himself spoke "Ausonian" that is, Latin , and that the Getae could not understand him:  .
Ille ego Romanus uates ignoscite, Musae Sarmatico cogor plurima more loqui. En pudet et fateor, iam desuetudine longa uix subeunt ipsi uerba Latina mihi. Nec dubito quin sint et in hoc non pauca libello barbara: non hominis culpa, sed ista loci. Ne tamen Ausoniae perdam commercia linguae, et fiat patrio uox mea muta sono, ipse loquor mecum desuetaque uerba retracto, et studii repeto signa sinistra mei.
Barbarus hic ego sum, qui non intellegor ulli, et rident stolidi uerba Latina Getae; meque palam de me tuto mala saepe loquuntur, forsitan obiciunt exiliumque mihi. So while Ovid, a speaker of "Ausonian", was in Dacia, he talked to himself in order not to forget the language, and was unable to communicate with the Dacians. If the word "Ausonian" referred to Dacian, this would not make any sense whatsoever. According to one well-known and possibly apocryphal story, Romanian president Ion Iliescu, while delivering a speech in English, said, "The ducks come from the trucks. What Iliescu was attempting to say, then, was "The Dacians come from the Thracians.
Protochronists, on the other hand, challenge this "dogma" by claiming that it is in fact the trucks who come from the ducks, not vice-versa. In support of this assertion, they vaguely cite the historian Cassius Dio as having written, "let us not forget that Trajan was a true-born Thracian.
The fights between Trajan and Decebalus were fratricidal wars, and the Thracians were Dacians. In fact, it is apocryphal — it quite simply does not exist in any of Cassius Dio's writings. Unfortunately, there are two problems with this: 1 Pardo is a journalist, not a historian,  and 2 the said book, Yo, Marco Elio Trajano translated into Romanian as Eu, Marcus Ulpius Traianus , is in fact a historical novel written in The simple fact is that Trajan was from Spain, being from a family that had left Italy several centuries earlier to settle in south-east Spain.
The usual explanation given in Romania as to the meaning of the word "Vlach" is that it is a word "used by foreigners to refer to Romanians. The French, Italians, and Celts are also known by names related to the word Welsh. They refer to themselves by various forms of the word Wallach. Therefore, this indicates that all these peoples originated in Romania. However, one cannot arbitrarily single out one of the multiple modern languages described by this word as being "the original" one.
Even if the application of forms of the word "Welsh" to certain European languages were a result of their being related, these languages would merely share a common ancestor; no contemporary language could be the ancestor of any of the others. For instance, modern Danish, German, and English are all Germanic languages, but this does not make any particular one of them Proto-Germanic.
Deferrari The Catholic University of America Press. With an English Translation by H. Dewing Harvard University Press. Royal Frankish Annals CEU Press. Oxford University Press. Hewsen Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Evolution Publishing. Clarendon Press. The Hakluyt Society. Sherbowitz-Wetzor Medieval Academy of America. Whose Love of Which Country?
Central European University, Budapest. Andreose, Alvise; Renzi, Lorenzo Armbruster, Adolf Romanian Academy Publishing House. Augerot, J. In Brown, Keith; Ogilvie, Sarah eds. Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. Barford, P. Cornell University Press. Bartel, Brad In Champion, T. Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology. Boia, Lucian Romania: Borderland of Europe.
Reaktion Books. History of Transylvania. Bowlus, Charles R. University of Pennsylvania Press. Brezeanu, Stelian In Giurescu, Dinu C. Romania: A Historic Perspective. Romanian Journal of Legal Medicine. Cinpoes, Radu Curta, Florin Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, — Daskalov, Roumen; Vezenkov, Alexander Davis, Sacha In Maxwell, Alexander ed. Deletant, Dennis Historians and the History of Transylvania.
The Grammar of Romanian. Dutceac Segesten, Anamaria Lexington Books. Ellis, L. In Shennan, Stephen ed. Tauris Publishers. Felecan, Oliviu; Felecan, Nicolae Fiedler, Uwe In Curta, Florin; Kovalev, Roman eds. Fine, John V. A The University of Michigan Press. Fortson, Benjamin W. Blackwell Publishing. Georgescu, Vlad The Romanians: A History. Ohio State University Press.
Georgiev, Vladimir July The Slavonic and East European Review. Goga, Ecaterina Heather, Peter; Matthews, John Heather, Peter The Goths. Hitchins, Keith A Concise History of Romania. Izzo, Herbert J. In Marino, Mary C. Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States. Holban, Maria Editura Academiei Romane.
Kiss, Lajos Ianua: Revista Philologica Romanica. Hungarian History in the Ninth Century. Early Transylvania Lockyear, Kris In Haynes, I. Journal of Roman Archaeology, L. Kwan, Jonathan European Interuniversity Press. Macartney, C. Madgearu, Alexandru VIII : 41— Madgearu, Alexandru a.
Madgearu, Alexandru b. In Curta, Florin ed.
Maenchen-Helfen, Otto J. University of California Press. Maiden, Martin In Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin eds. The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Mallinson, Graham In Harris, Martin; Vincent, Nigel eds. The Romance Languages. Balkan Sprachbund Morpho-Syntactic Features.
Musset, Lucien Les invasions. Presses Univ. The History of Transylvania, Vol. Until Nandris, Grigore December Niculescu, Gheorghe Alexandru In Kohl, Philip L.