The Full Wiki

Carpians: Wikis

Advertisements

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

(Redirected to Carpi (Dacian tribe) article)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statues of captured Dacian warriors. One of 8 such figures extant, it was probably sculpted after the emperor Trajan's Dacian Wars for the Forum of Trajan (112 AD). Alternatively, they may date from the time of Marcus Aurelius (165-80), as does the frieze behind them. In the 4th century, they were incorporated in the Arch of Constantine, Rome. Note the long hair and beard and Phrygian cap of the man on the left. The hands are bound
Map of the Roman empire in 125 AD, 20 years after the Roman conquest of Dacia. The Carpi are shown to the NE of the Roman province

The Carpi or Carpiani were an ancient tribe (perhaps Dacian-speaking), that resided, between not later than ca. AD 140 and until at least ca. AD 300, in the eastern Carpathian Mountains, and in the former Principality of Moldavia (modern eastern Romania)[1]. The Carpi may have been composed of Dacian refugees that escaped subjugation by the Roman Empire when it annexed the central part of Dacia in AD 106. Alternatively, it is possible that the Carpi did not enter the Dacian region until (and maybe as a consequence of) the Dacian Wars (101-106), as they are not mentioned in the classical sources until the mid 2nd century.

The group is first mentioned in the period following the Roman annexation of Dacia. After 150 years of obscurity, the Carpi emerged in ca. 240 as among Rome's most dangerous enemies. In the period 240-70, the Carpi were an important component of a loose coalition of Transdanubian barbarian tribes that included also Germanic and Sarmatian elements. These were responsible for a series of large and devastating invasions of the Balkan regions of the empire which nearly caused its disintegration, but were ultimately repulsed.

In the last quarter of the 3rd century, the Roman "military emperors" acted to remove the Carpi threat to the empire's borders. Crushing defeats were inflicted on the Carpi in 272, 296 and 299. After each, massive numbers of Carpi were forcibly transferred by the Roman military to the Roman province of Pannonia (modern western Hungary), as part of the emperors' policy of repopulating the devastated Danubian provinces with surrendered barbarian tribes. It is possible that the Carpi were eliminated from the Dacian region altogether at this time. If any remained, they may have occupied, together with other Dacian elements, the Roman province of Dacia, following its evacuation by the Romans in 270-5.

In the 4th century, the people of Dacia appear to have fallen under the hegemony, if not direct rule, of the Goths who occupied the Wallachian plain and at least part of Moldavia. After the collapse of the Gothic kingdoms in Dacia under Hunnic pressure in the late 4th century, the Carpi are possibly last mentioned as part of a coalition of Huns and Scirii who were defeated by the emperor Theodosius I (379-95). Their fate after that, despite extensive speculation, is impossible to determine on the currently available evidence.

Contents

Name etymology

The name Carpi or Carpiani may derive from the same root as the name of the Carpathian mountain range they occupied, which may be the Proto-Indo-European word *ker/sker, meaning "peak" or "cliff" (cf. Albanian karpë "rock", Romanian şcarpă and English "scarp").[2] Both the Carpi (Καρπιανοί - Karpianí) and the Carpathian (Καρπάτης - Karpátes) names are first mentioned in classical sources in the Geographia of Greek geographer Ptolemy, composed between AD 130 and 148.[3] Carpiani may simply mean "people of the Carpathians".

But this derivation is uncertain and the two names may derive from different roots, despite their similarity.

Ethno-linguistic affiliation

The Carpi are believed by many modern scholars to have belonged to the Dacian ethno-linguistic group.[4] However, none of the classical sources states this explicitly. The Roman imperial-era sources refer to three groups, the Daci, Costoboci and Carpi, as residing in "Dacia" outside the part of Dacia annexed by the Romans in 106 (which was only about half the geographical region called "Dacia" by the ancients, which roughly corresponded to modern Romania). It is not clear whether Daci was used as a general term including the Costoboci and Carpi, or whether the latter two were seen as distinct from the Daci. Modern Romanian historians, but not ancient chroniclers, describe all three groups as "Free Dacians" to distinguish them from the Dacians residing in the Roman province of Dacia.[4] This naming convention implies that all three groups were ethnic Dacians, but the evidence for this is thin.

The only possible linking of the Carpi with the Dacians in ancient sources is by the 6th-century historian Zosimus, who refers to καρποδάκαι ("Karpo-Dakai" - "Carpo-Dacians").[5] Many historians interpret this to mean "the Dacian Carpi". But the term is ambiguous and cannot be seen as conclusive evidence that the Carpi were ethnic Dacians. It could mean "the Carpi and the Dacians", the "Carpi resident in Dacia" or indeed "the Carpathian Dacians".

Evidence adduced to support the view that the Carpi were ethnic Dacians is the assumption of the victory-title Dacicus Maximus ("Totally Victorious over the Dacians") by the emperors Maximinus I in 238, Decius (250) and Gallienus (257) after defeating barbarian armies which included Carpi. Again, this is not conclusive as such armies may have included "Daci" so-called. The contemporary existence of a separate victory-title Carpicus Maximus, assumed by Philip the Arab (247), may imply that the Carpi were seen as distinct from the Daci.[6]

It cannot therefore be excluded that the Costoboci and/or the Carpi may not have been Dacian-speakers, but instead may have spoken a Germanic or Sarmatian or other tongue as did many of their neighbours, and that they may have entered the region at a late stage, perhaps around the time of the Dacian Wars (102-6) (possibly as a result of the dislocation of local peoples caused by those wars).a[›]

On the currently available evidence, the Carpi may have been any of the following:

  1. An ethnic-Dacian, or alternatively a non-Dacian, people who had occupied Moldavia for a long time before the Roman conquest of central Dacia;
  2. Ethnic-Dacian refugees from Roman-occupied Dacia who initially fled to the eastern Carpathians (which remained outside the Roman province) and then spread to the Moldavian plain;
  3. A non-Dacian people who moved into Moldavia in the period following the Roman conquest;
  4. A medley of all three types above.

Territory

During the period when they are attested by classical sources (ca. AD 40-300), the Carpi are believed to have occupied a region between the eastern Carpathians and the Prut river (i.e. roughly the former principality of Moldavia). The Carpi's neighbours to the North, were the Costoboci and/or the Daci so-called; to the South, in the Wallachian plain, the Roxolani Sarmatians; and to the East of the Prut the Bastarnae (a Celto-Germanic or possibly Sarmatian group) and other Sarmatian tribes.[1]

Material culture

Archaeologists have ascribed to the Carpi 3rd-century artefacts found at a site in Poieneşti (near Vaslui, Romania), a site which belongs to the so-called Chernyakhov culture. The basis of this attribution is the documented presence of the Carpi in this region at this time.[7] However, attributions of this kind must be regarded with caution, due to the tendency of traditional archaeologists (especially Romanian) to identify material remains, and individual sites, with particular ethnic groups, a methodology which is widely rejected in archaeology today.b[›]

Starting in about AD 200, the Chernyakhov culture was common to a wide region of SE Europe, extending from the Danube to the Crimea, which was populated by Germanic, Sarmatian and other ethnic groups. The culture is characterised by a high degree of sophistication in the production of metal and ceramic artefacts, as well as of uniformity over a vast area. One formerly popular "ethnic identification" of material culture is the hypothesis that the Chernyakhov culture originated with, and was spread by, the Goths by their southward migration and eventual hegemony over the northern Black Sea region. But this has been strongly challenged by more recent scholarship, which sees Chernyakhov as indigenous to the region and simply absorbed by the incoming Goths. Todd argues that its most important origin is Scytho-Sarmatian.[8]

The Poieneşti artefacts display the typical Chernyakhov mix of influences. Funerary urns have lids which allegedly display pre-Roman Geto-Dacian La Tene features (although this classification has been challenged recently).[9] Ceramics are largely Roman in style, while other artefacts, such as mirrors and animal-shaped handles, have characteristically Sarmatian designs.[7]

Conflict with Rome

Dacian warriors attack a Roman fortified position during the Dacian Wars (101-6 AD). Note the Dacians' long hair and beards and lack of body armour. Panel from Trajan's Column, Rome
Map showing the Carpi role in the barbarian incursions of the Roman Danubian provinces which culminated in the defeat and death of emperor Decius (r. 249-51) at the Battle of Abrittus (251). The reconstruction is only tentative, however, as the ancient chroniclers fail to distinguish clearly the Carpi from their Gothic and Sarmatian allies
Bust of Roman emperor Aurelian (ruled 270-5), who began the policy of transferring large numbers of Carpi to Pannonia and evacuated the Roman province of Dacia
Advertisements

Early Principate (to AD 180)

Although the Carpi are recorded as resident in the Dacian region from at least the 140's onwards, the Carpi are not mentioned in Roman accounts of several campaigns against the "Free Dacians" in the 2nd century. For example, in Rome's vast and protracted conflict with the Danubian tribes, known as the Marcomannic Wars (166-80), during which Dacia province suffered at least two major invasions (167, 170) by a Free Dacian and Sarmatian alliance, only the Costoboci are mentioned specifically.[10] Silence on the role of the Carpi in these conflicts could imply that they were Roman allies (or at least neutral) in this period, or that they were simply subsumed under the Daci or Costoboci labels by Roman chroniclers.

Members of the Sarmato-Gothic coalition (240-270)

Around AD 200 started a phase of major population movements in the European barbaricum (the region outside the borders of the empire. The cause of this dislocation is unknown, but an important factor may have been the Antonine plague (165-180), a devastating smallpox pandemic which may have killed 15-30% of the Roman empire's inhabitants.[11] The impact on the barbarian regions would have resulted in many weakened tribes and empty regions that may have induced the stronger tribes to exploit opportunities for expansion. A well-known example of the trend are the Goths. These were recorded by the Roman historian Tacitus, under the name Gothones, as inhabiting the area East of the Vistula river in central Poland in AD 100.[12] By 250, the Goths had moved South into western Ukraine and were frequently raiding the empire in conjunction with local tribes.[13]

It was in this context of upheaval that, in mid-3rd century, the Carpi emerged as a major barbarian threat to Rome's lower Danubian provinces.[4] They were described by one chronicler as "a race of men all too eager to make war, and often hostile to the Romans".[14] A series of major incursions into the empire by the Carpi are recorded, either alone or in alliance with their neighbouring Sarmatian and/or Germanic tribes (inc. Roxolani, Bastarnae, Goths).

In 247, during the rule of emperor Philip the Arab (244-9), the Carpi crossed the Danube and laid waste Moesia Inferior. The emperor responded with a major counterattack, which forced the Carpi to retreat over the Danube. Many fleeing Carpi took refuge in a mountain fortress, where they were besieged by Philip. When Carpi reinforcements appeared, the besieged staged a major sortie, but the reinforcements were routed by Philip's Numidian light cavalry and the Carpi sued for peace.[15] Philip was acclaimed Carpicus Maximus, the first recorded use of the title.

The Carpi launched an invasion of Dacia in 250, but were defeated by the emperor Decius (ruled 249-51).[16] In 250-1, the Carpi were also involved in the Gothic and Sarmatian invasions which culminated in the catastrophic Roman defeat at the Battle of Abrittus (251), in which Decius was killed.[17] However, the exact role of the Carpi in this event is difficult to discern as the most coherent account, that of Zosimus, often denotes the participants in this invasion under the vague term "Scythians" (meaning inhabitants of Scythia, not ethnic Scythians).

The Roman defeat at Abrittus was the start of the empire's so-called "Third Century Crisis", a period of military and economic chaos which came close to destroying the empire. At this critical moment, the Roman army was crippled by the outbreak of a second smallpox pandemic, the plague of Cyprian (251-70). The effects are described by Zosimus as even worse than the earlier plague.[18]

Taking advantage of Roman military disarray, the transdanubian barbarians launched repeated invasions of imperial territory, penetrating as far as Rome itself. In 252, on the lower Danube, a massive coalition of Carpi, Goths, the Urugundi and the Borani (the latter two probably Sarmatian tribes) is recorded as ravaging Thracia as far as the Aegean coast, and only turned back after being bribed by emperor Gallus (r.251-3).[19]

Sometime in the period 253-8 under Valerian I (r. 253-60), the same coalition of tribes swept through Illyricum and entered Italy. They reached as far as Rome, forcing the Roman Senate to take emergency measures such as arming the civilian population to man the City's walls. The barbarians only retreated when co-emperor Gallienus broke off his campaigning on the Rhine and rushed his army to Italy.[20]

During the sole rule of Gallienus (260-8), the "Scythian" coalition (including the Carpi) invaded Thracia and then took Athens by assault. They were eventually driven out by Gallienus' general Marcianus.[21]

In 267/8, the coalition, swollen by the adherence of the Bastarnae (Peucini branch) and the Heruli, became even more ambitious and built a fleet in the estuary of the river Tyras (Dniester). Launching it in 268, the barbarians sailed along the Black Sea coast to Tomis (Constanţa) in Moesia Inferior, which they tried to take by assault without success. They then attacked the provincial capital Marcianopolis, also in vain. Sailing on through the Bosporus, the expedition laid siege to Thessalonica in northern Greece. Driven off by Roman forces, the coalition host moved overland into Thracia, where it was finally annihilated by the emperor Claudius II (r. 268-70) at the Battle of Naissus (269).[22]

Defeat and resettlement in the Empire (271-300)

The late 3rd century saw the recovery of the empire under the iron rule of the so-called Illyrian emperors, a tightly-knit group of career soldiers with shared origins in the Danubian provinces (especially Moesia Superior) and regiments, whose successors (and often descendants) dominated the empire for over a century (268-379). These not only broke the transdanubian tribes on the battlefield, but also pursued a policy of large-scale resettlement of defeated tribespeople in the Danubian provinces of the empire. c[›]

The Carpi were the prime targets. The emperor Aurelian (r. 270-5) scored a major victory over the Carpi in 272, for which he was granted the title Carpicus Maximus by the Senate.[23] He then resettled a large number of Carpi prisoners around Sopiana (Pécs, Hungary) in the Roman province of Pannonia.[24] In 296/7, the emperor Diocletian (ruled 284-305) inflicted a crushing defeat on the Carpi. In 297, he also assumed the title Carpicus Maximus, shared with his colleague-emperor Galerius, who in 299 claimed the title for a second time.[25] Diocletian continued the policy of resettling the Carpi in Pannonia, transferring "enormous numbers".[26][27] Victor states that Diocletian transferred the entire remaining Carpi people to Pannonia.[28] It is certainly possible that, between war losses and mass deportations, the Carpi were effectively eradicated from the Dacian region (which may have been the precise aim of imperial policy).

Many historians (especially Romanian) dispute this and argue that many Carpi remained in the Dacian region.[29] The evidence adduced is that, in 336, the emperor Constantine I the Great (ruled 312-37) claimed the title Dacicus Maximus; and Zosimus' report that at the end of the century, the emperor Theodosius I (r. 379-95) repulsed an invasion of Huns, Scirii and "Carpo-Dacians". But neither is conclusive. Constantine's victory may have been over Dacians other than Carpi, while Zosimus' phrase is ambiguous, as mentioned above.

Aurelian also decided to abandon the Roman province of Dacia, evacuating most of its population, both urban and rural, and resettling it in Moesia Inferior. The main motivation, in line with the transfer of the Carpi themselves and of other barbarian tribespeople, was probably to re-populate the latter province, which had been ravaged by the plague and wars.[30]d[›] Those Carpi who escaped resettlement in the empire, if any, may have partly filled the vacuum left by the Roman withdrawal by occupying Transylvania, probably in conjunction with non-Carpi Dacian elements. The presence of the latter, at least, is evidenced by Constantine's title in 336. (The western Wallachian plain evacuated by the Romans was probably overrun by the Sarmatian Roxolani, who already occupied its eastern part).

4th century

Constantine I built a gigantic series of defensive earthworks on the mountain fringes of the Tisza and Wallachian plains facing the Carpathians (the Devil's Dykes and Brazda lui Novac de Nord respectively). Although there remains much uncertainty about the purpose of these fortifications, they have been interpreted as designed to protect the Romans' tributary Sarmatian tribes in those plains (the Iazyges and Roxolani respectively) against incursions by the peoples of the Carpathians and beyond: Goths, Taifali and Dacians (possibly including remnants of the Carpi).[31]

After the death of Constantine, the Wallachian plain and Moldavia fell under the domination of the Tervingi branch of the Gothic nation, as evidenced by the existence of a substantial Gothic kingdom in the period leading up to the Battle of Adrianople (378).[32] Transylvania, on the other hand, appears to have been dominated in the 4th century by another Germanic group, the Taifali.[33] However, the Taifali in turn appear to have been under Gothic suzerainty. It has been suggested that Germanic overlordship of this region is supported by the discovery of a few Chernyakhov sites, and particularly of the grave of a princely-status "migrator" on the site of the former Roman legionary fortress of Potaissa (although the identification of the deceased as a Goth is speculative).[34]

Ultimate fate

Zosimus' mention of the Carpo-Dacians in the late 4th century is the latest extant mention of the Carpi name. This has led to considerable speculation about their eventual fate. The most likely scenario is that ethnic Dacians mingled with the various other peoples who migrated into the region from the 4th century onwards (Goths, Huns, Gepids and Slavs) and gradually lost their separate identity (whatever that was).

This is disputed by the proponents of Daco-Roman continuity in Dacia, who claim that the "Free Dacians" who occupied the Roman province after it was abandoned had become Latin-speakers and adopted the same Roman culture as the inhabitants of the former Roman province. These Daco-Romans supposedly maintained their unique and homogenous culture through the migration period.[35] But this view is based on tendentious interpretation of archaeological data and has been challenged in recent years by a new wave of Romanian archaeologists who dispute the notion that the Daco-Romans and the "Free Dacians" shared a common culture and language.[36]

Map illustrating one theory of the origin of the Albanian language. The Carpi transferred to Pannonia by the Romans in the late 3rd century supposedly migrated to SW Illyria in the late 5th century, supplanting local dialects with their own Dacian tongue

Separate speculation surrounds the fate of the Carpi transferred to Pannonia by Aurelian and Diocletian. Some Romanian historians suggest that the Pannonian Carpi moved to SW Illyria (mod. Albania) from AD 450 onwards in order to escape the Hunnic and later invasions. But this theory lacks any documentary evidence in the sources, and was devised to explain the marked affinities between the Albanian and Romanian languages. These, however, may have a different explanation.e[›]

Notes

^ a:  Carpi language: In the absence of any written evidence, the linguistic affiliation of many barbarian tribes is uncertain. The ancient authors often confused geographical location, or cultural features, with linguistic affiliation e.g. writing in ca. 100 AD, Tacitus states that he is not sure if the Venedi tribe of the upper Vistula should be classified as Germanic or Sarmatian. He decides on Germanic since they are settled people with permanent dwellings, rather than nomads like the Sarmatians.[37] In fact, both categories may be wrong as the Venedi are described as Slavic by the 6th century writer Jordanes.[38] However, Jordanes was writing ca. 450 years after Tacitus and a tribe's linguistic affiliation could change over time, e.g. if its members mingled with the members of another tribe and adopted their language. This process was especially likely where one tribe achieved social dominance over a much more numerous group, but the latter's language prevailed e.g. the Antes, who were probably Iranic-speaking Sarmatians originally but by the 6th century are described as Slavic by Jordanes.[38][39] The Carpi's close neighbours in the eastern Carpathians, the Bastarnae, are described by Tacitus as German-speaking but as having adopted the dress and customs of their Sarmatian neighbours through intermarriage.[37] Zosimus, writing in the 6th century, but referring to the 3rd c., mentions "the Bastarnae, a Scythian people" (i.e. Sarmatian), but it is unclear whether he is using the term "Scythian" ethnically or to describe the geographical region where the Bastarnae lived.[40]

^ b:  Romanian archaeological interpretation: The interpretation of archaeological data by many Romanian historians and archaeologists has been heavily criticised by outsiders, and increasingly in recent years by some Romanian archaeologists themselves, as being unduly conditioned by preconceived notions of the ethnological history of Dacia. In particular, according to the critics, data has often been selectively and tendentiously used to support the paradigm of Daco-Roman continuity during the medieval era, to the exclusion of other possible interpretations. The paradigm portrays the "autochthonous" Daco-Romans as a culturally and linguistically homogenous population, who preserved their culture essentially unchanged over centuries. The autochthonous population is distinguished from the "migrators", other peoples who entered the region in the medieval period, whose influence on the Daco-Romans is characterised as shallow and transitory, as their culture was supposedly inferior to the more "civilised" Daco-Romans.[41] For a detailed critique of archaeological interpretation in Romania, cf. the online paper by A-G. Niculescu: Nationalism and the Representation of Society in Romanian Archaeology

^ c:  Roman resettlement policy: It was a long-established Roman imperial policy, dating from the time of Augustus (ruled 30BC - AD 14), to settle surrendering barbarian communities (dediticii) in the empire, granting them land in return for an obligation of military service much heavier than the usual conscription quota. But the Illyrian emperors pursued this policy on an unprecendented scale. The emperors' central concern were their own native Danubian provinces, which had been severely depopulated by the smallpox pandemic of 251-70 and by the barbarian incursions during that period. As a result vast tracts of arable land had fallen out of cultivation.[42] This posed a serious threat to army recruitment and supply, since around half the entire army's effectives were recruited, and based, in the Danubian provinces.

The Illyrian emperors responded by resettling in the Danubian provinces as many as a million barbarians in the period 270-300. In addition to the Carpi, many other barbarian peoples were deported en masse to the empire. Probus (ruled 275-80) is recorded as transferring 100,000 Bastarnae to Moesia in 279/80 and later equivalent numbers of Gepids, Goths and Sarmatians.[43] Diocletian continued the policy, transferring in 297 huge numbers of Bastarnae and Sarmatians as well as Carpi.[27]

Although the precise terms under which these people were settled in the empire are unknown (and may have varied), the common feature was the grant of land in return for an obligation of military service much heavier than the normal conscription quota. The policy had the triple benefit, from the Roman government's point of view, of weakening (or eliminating) a threat to the imperial border, repopulating the plague-ravaged frontier provinces (and bringing their abandoned fields back into cultivation) and providing a pool of first-rate recruits for the army. But it could also be popular with the barbarian prisoners, who were often delighted by the prospect of a land grant within the empire. In the 4th century, such communities were known as laeti.[44]

^ d:  Roman evacuation of Dacia: Eutropius' report on the Roman evacuation of the province of Dacia in 273-5:

[Aurelianus imperator] provinciam Daciam, quam Traianus ultra Danuvium fecerat, intermisit, vastato omni Illyrico et Moesia, desperans eam retinere posse. Abductosque Romanos ex urbibus et agris Daciae in media Moesia collocavit, appellavitque eam Daciam....

Translation: "[Emperor Aurelian] abandoned the province of Dacia, which Trajan had established beyond the Danube, as he gave up hope of holding it, given the devastation of all Illyricum and Thracia. He evacuated the Romans from the cities and fields of Dacia and re-settled them in central Moesia, which he renamed Dacia..."[30]

This brief but revealing passage contradicts the "Daco-Roman continuity" paradigm in Romanian historiography, which postulates that the majority of the provincial population, by now Latinised, remained behind in Dacia after the Roman withdrawal. The passage shows that the primary motive of the evacuation was to re-populate the Roman provinces South of the Danube (as it was for the separate but contemporary transfer of large number of Carpi to Pannonia).[45]

These provinces, which were vital strategically as the link between the western and eastern parts of the empire, had been ravaged and depopulated by both the repeated invasions by the Transdanubian coalition of Carpi, Goths and Sarmatians in the period 251-73 and even more by the plague of Cyprian pandemic that raged in that same period.[46] As a consequence, large areas of arable land had gone out of cultivation and the Roman army, which drew over half its recruits from this region, was struggling to fill its ranks (and to find enough food supplies).

As with all imperial decrees, the evacuation would have been compulsory. Eutropius' quote implies that the majority of the provincial population was withdrawn. The Dacian provincial population probably numbered ca. 1 million.[47] Of these, ca. 40,000 were Roman troops (2 legions, 50 auxiliary regiments), which together with dependents and ancillary staff, probably numbered ca. 150,000.[48] A further 15% or so, or 150,000, were townspeople. The remaining 700,000 would have been peasants, the great majority agricultural, the rest (under 150,000) mountain pastoralists or forestry workers. Eutropius' wording "from the cities and fields of Dacia" makes clear that the agricultural peasants were included in the transfer, as the essential purpose of the exercise was to repopulate the devastated areas and bring abandoned fields back into cultivation.

The only social group that may have been substantially left behind would have been the mountain pastoralists/foresters, who were not economically vital and who would have been more difficult to coerce into leaving due to their remote locations. This group could, if they had become predominantly Latin-speakers during the 170 years of Roman rule, have provided an element of "Daco-Roman continuity". Pockets of Latin-speakers may have survived in the form of remote mountain communities through the Dark Ages, to emerge after AD 1000 as the core of the Romanian ethnos. (Most likely these were reinforced by inward migrations of Latin-speaking Vlach communities which survived in the same way in the mountain regions of the Balkans: in the Haemus (Balkan Mts) in Bulgaria, in northern Greece and in central Bosnia, the region still today known as Romanija). Against this hypothesis is that the mountain people of Dacia province were probably the least Romanised due to their remote location and therefore the most likely to have retained their original Dacian tongue. A study of the frequency of Greco-Roman features and artefacts in religious sites in Roman Britain has found that Greco-Roman influence was virtually non-existent in rural sites in the highland/pastoralist areas of Wales and northern England, while slightly higher in the rural agricultural areas of lowland England, higher still in cities and highest in military sites.[49]

^ e:  Origin of the Albanian language: The theory that the Pannonian Carpi brought their Dacian language to Albania suffers from multiple flaws. (1) It assumes that the Carpi were Dacian-speakers, which is far from certain; (2) The supposed migration lacks any support in the ancient sources; (3) It ignores mainstream academic opinion, including virtually all Albanian linguists and most Italian, German and Austrian linguists, that Albanian is descended from the ancient Illyrian language;[50] (4) It presupposes that the Pannonian Carpi had not become Latin speakers during the 150 years they sojourned in Pannonia, but had retained their old Dacian tongue. This ignores the powerful Latinising pressure of the (exclusively Latin-speaking) Roman army, which would have been the main employer of Carpi young men due to their status as military colonists. (It also contradicts the view of proponents of Daco-Roman continuity that the Carpi had become Latinised during the period of Roman rule in Dacia). In view of these problems, it is far more likely that Romanian shares many features with Albanian because it, too, is descended (indirectly and partially) from Illyrian, or, to be more precise, from the Illyro-Latin spoken by Romanised Illyrians, which was the base for Balkan Romance.

Citations

  1. ^ a b Barrington Atlas Plate 22
  2. ^ Köbler *Ker (1)
  3. ^ Ptolemy III.5
  4. ^ a b c Millar (1970) 279
  5. ^ Zosimus IV.114
  6. ^ CAH XII 90, 140 (notes 1 and 2)
  7. ^ a b Millar (1970) 279-80
  8. ^ Todd (2004) 26
  9. ^ Niculescu
  10. ^ Historia Augusta M. Aurelius 22
  11. ^ Stathakopoulos (2007) 95
  12. ^ Tacitus 43
  13. ^ Zosimus book I
  14. ^ Jordanes 91
  15. ^ Zosimus I.13-14
  16. ^ CAH Vol XII 38
  17. ^ Zosimus I.15
  18. ^ Zosimus I.16, 21
  19. ^ Zosimus I.16
  20. ^ Zosimus I.20
  21. ^ Zosimus I.21
  22. ^ Zosimus I.22-3
  23. ^ Hist. Aug. Aurelianus 30.4
  24. ^ Victor XXXIX.43
  25. ^ Eusebius VIII.17.3
  26. ^ Ammianus XXVIII.1.5
  27. ^ a b Eutropius IX.25
  28. ^ Victor 39.43
  29. ^ Millar (1970)
  30. ^ a b Eutropius IX.15
  31. ^ Penguin Atlas 87
  32. ^ Ammianus XXXI.3.7
  33. ^ Ammianus
  34. ^ Niculescu 9
  35. ^ Millar (1970) 280
  36. ^ Niculescu 5-6
  37. ^ a b Tacitus G.46
  38. ^ a b Jordanes 119
  39. ^ Oxford 108
  40. ^ Zosimus I.34
  41. ^ Niculescu Online paper
  42. ^ Jones (1964)
  43. ^ Hist. Aug. Probus 18
  44. ^ Jones (1964) 620
  45. ^ CAH XII 153
  46. ^ Zosimus I.16, 21, 31
  47. ^ CAH
  48. ^ Holder (2003) 145
  49. ^ Mattingly 521 (Table 14)
  50. ^ Lloshi (1999) (online) Section 4, pp4-5

See also

References

Ancient

Modern

  • Barrington (2000): Atlas of the Greek & Roman World
  • Cambridge Ancient History 1st Ed. Vol. XII (1939): The Imperial Crisis and Recovery
  • Holder,Paul (2003): Auxiliary Deployment in the Reign of Hadrian
  • Jones, A.H.M. (1964): Later Roman Empire
  • Köbler, Gerhard (2000): Indo-germanisches Wörterbuch (online)
  • Lloshi, Xhevat (1999): Albanian in Handbuch der Sudosteuropa-Linguistik Band 10, pp277–99 (online)
  • Mattingly, David (2006): An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire
  • Millar, Fergus (1970): The Roman Empire and its Neighbours
  • Niculescu, G-A. : Nationalism and the Representation of Society in Romanian Archaeology (online paper)
  • Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (1991)
  • Penguin Historical Atlas of ancient Rome (1995)
  • Room, Adrian (1997): Placenames of the World
  • Stathakopoulos D. Ch. (2007): Famine and Pestilence in the late Roman and early Byzantine Empire

External links


Advertisements






Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message