Thraco-Roman
Encyclopedia : T : TH : THR : Thraco-Roman
The term Thraco-Roman refers to the culture and language of the Thracian peoples who were incorporated into the Roman Empire, and fell under the Roman sphere of influence.
Meaning and usage
The term was coined in 1901 by Ovid Densusianu,Ovide Densusianu, Histoire de la langue roumaine, I, Paris, 1901. DLR 1983. who used it to describe the "oldest epoch of the creation of the Romanian language", when the Vulgar Latin spoken in the Balkans between the fourth and sixth century, having it`s own pecularities,Ovid Densusianu: "Nu există nici o îndoială că romanica din Peninsula Balcanică a prezentat încă din primele secole ale erei noastre câteva trăsături caracteristice." ("There is no doubt that the Romanic of the Balkan peninsula in the first centuries of our era already presented some characteristic traits.") had evolved into what is known as Proto-Romanian.Ovid Densusianu, 1901: "latina vulgară şi-a pierdut unitatea, fărâmiţându-se în limbile ce aveau să devină limbile romanice de astăzi." ("Vulgar Latin had lost its unity, breaking into languages that developed into today's Romance languages." By extension, historians started to use the term to mean the time period of the history of the Romanian people until the 6th century, which witnessed the complete cultural and linguistic Romanisation of all Daco-Thracian tribes. The territory where this process took place, consensually agreed to be north of the Jireček Line is characterized as having two main pecularities:
- A Christian space, consisting both of an ancient, sedentary Christianity inherited from the Roman world and a newer Christianity that emerged through the conversion to Christianity of the rest of Daco-Thracian tribes. The Christian spirit shaped the civilization of the people, influencing the inclusion into the Roman (and East Roman) political and state structures.
- A space of Latin language, that emerged from the provincial horizon of Rome. It gave birth to the Romance language and the Roman name, as preserved in the memory of modern Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians.
The People
The occupied native population started to become more and more involved into the political life of the Empire. The tradition of Roman Emperors of Thracian origin dates back as early as the 3rd century. The first one was Regalianus, kinsman of the Dacian king Decebalus. By the third century, the Dacians became an important part of the Roman army.
A number of Roman/East Roman emperors were Thraco-Romans:
- Regalianus
- Galerius
- Maximian
- Aurelius Valerius Valens
- Licinius
- Constantine I the Great
- Constantius III
- Marcianus
- Leo I
- Justin I
- Justinian I
- Justin II
- Tiberius
- Phocas
The Roman name
Before 212, for the most part only inhabitants of the province of the Italian peninsula (then a multi-ethnic region) held full Roman citizenship. Colonies of Romans established in other provinces, Romans (or their descendants) living in provinces, the inhabitants of various cities throughout the Empire, and small numbers of local nobles (such as client-kings) also held full citizenship. in contrast, the majority of provincials merely held limited Roman citizenship rights (if even that).In 212, the edict Constitutio Antoniniana (Latin for "Constitution [or Edict] of Antoninus") was declared by the Roman Emperor Caracalla. The law declared that all free-born men of the Roman Empire were to be given full Roman citizenship and all free-born women of the Empire were given the same rights as Roman women. Caracalla passed this law mainly to increase the number of people available to tax and to serve in the legions (only full citizens could serve as legionaries in the Roman Army).
Caracalla's decree had thus effectively raised provincial populations to equal status with the city of Rome itself. The importance of this decree is historical rather than political. It set the basis for integration where the economic and judicial mechanisms of the state could be applied in all provinces, as was earlier done from Latium into all of Italy. Of course, integration did not take place uniformly. Societies already integrated within the Empire and situated in a central geographic position, such as Dacia, Moesia, Greece, etc, were favored by this decree, compared with those far away, too poor or just too alien such as Great Britain, Palestine or Egypt.
If, for the first centuries after the Roman conquest of Dacia, the antagonism between the occupied and free Dacian tribes and the Romans was clearly visible, as demonstrated by the episode when Emperor Galerius claimed that the name of the Empire should be changed into the "Dacian Empire"Lactanius, "Of the manner in which the persecutors died"[link]: "Whatever, by the laws of war, conquerors had done to the conquered, the like did this man presume to perpetrate against Romans and the subjects of Rome, because his forefathers had been made liable to a like tax imposed by the victorious Trajan, as a penalty on the Dacians for their frequent rebellions." [...] "Long ago, indeed, and at the very time of his obtaining sovereign power, he had avowed himself the enemy of the Roman name; and he proposed that the empire should be called, not the Roman, but the Dacian empire.", the new law providing Roman citizenship to all Roman subjects was an important factor for complete political and cultural integration into the Roman world, having, as one of its most important results, the adoption of the Roman name as autonym, with its later dialectical variants, either Român, Rumân, Aromân, Rumân or Rëmëri. The last clear anti-Roman stances are from the 4th century, when Constantine the Great defeated the Dacians, assuming the title Dacicus Maximus in 336, and the last Carpian attack in the 5th century.
The Dark Ages
In the 6th century, the Thraco-Roman populations witnessed the invasion of the Avars. Under the dominion of the Avars, the Slavs made their appearance.
From this time, the area experienced a state of cultural regression with the population becoming strongly rural, concentrating on agriculture and animal husbandry, but having thus the opportunity to preserve the unity of the language. The future would see the detachment of a part of this Romance speaking population, called Vlachs, from the main body of this Danubian Romanity, as a result of the historical circumstances created by the Slavic and Bulgar invasions. Although scattered throughout the Peninsula and reduced to more modest, rural life forms, this population preserved its ethnic identity and habits and continued to speak the same language.
The Empire's loss of territory was offset to a degree by consolidation and an increased uniformity of rule. Emperor Heraclius fully Hellenised the Empire by making Greek the official language, ending the last remnants of Latin and ancient Roman tradition, thus isolating and ignoring the Latin-speaking populations of the Balkans. The use of Latin in government records fell into abeyance, which allowed the empire to pursue its own identity, becoming more and more Greek. Many historians mark the sweeping reforms made during the reign of Heraclius as the breaking-point with Byzantium's ancient Roman past. It is common to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire after this time as "Byzantine" instead of as "East Roman".
Although some Byzantine control remained in cities along the southern coasts, all of the northern and central Balkans were virtually overrun by the Slavs. Nonetheless, in the isolated and ignored lands north of the Danube, the Slavs were gradually absorbed and Romanized, and the Latin character of the language was preserved. The influence of the Slavs was greater on the right bank of the Danube, where attracted by the rich urban areas to the south, overwhelmed the native population by weight of numbers in Dalmatia, Macedonia, Thrace, Moesia and Greece, turning those provinces into so called “Sklavinias”. The impact of the arrival of the Bulgars in the seventh century, and the sequential establishment in the ninth century of a powerful state, was particularly great, having caused the end of the division of the Romanic population of the Balkan Peninsula started by the Avar-Slavic invasions. This process, split the population into two sections: one found shelter in the north and it’s thick forests (80% of the territory), while the other moved southwards to the valleys of the Pindus and of the Balkan Mountains, causing an "ebb and tide" phenomenon of the native populations. Matyla Ghyka: A documented chronology of Roumanian history
Christianity
See main article: History of Christianity in Romania.Early history
Christianity began gradually to spread as early as late antiquity, moving toward one of the northern borders of the “classical” world, thus making the Carpathian and Danubian territories part of a chain whereby Rome, its provinces, and the missionaries of the Eastern Church preached the word of the new faith from Iberia to the Caucasus.
Christianity was brought to Romania by the occupying Romans. The Roman province had traces of all imperial religions, including Mithraism, but Christianity, a regio illicita, existed among some of the Romans.
The earliest evidence of Christianity is a grave inscription from the second century, found in Napoca, bearing the formula Sit tibi terra levis ("Să-ţi fie ţărâna uşoară" in Romanian).Petre P. Panaitescu, Istoria Românilor ("History of the Romanians"), Bucharest, 1942 The inscription was made by a "college" (a trading association) whose members originated from the Middle East. Among the other persons mentioned in the inscription, most of them bear Roman names, suggesting that Christianity had spread among the ranks of the soldiers as early as the 2nd century A.D.
The Roman Empire soon found it was too costly to maintain a permanent garrison north of the lower Danube. A permanent military and administrative Roman presence was registered only from A.D. 106 to A.D. 276. However, Christian delegates from this territory were represented religiously at the first Ecumenical Councils, as the Ante-Nicene Fathers duly recorded.
When the Romanians formed as a people, it is clear that they already had the Christian faith, as proved by tradition, as well as by some archeological and linguistic evidence. Basic terms of Christianity are of Latin origin: such as church ("biserică" < basilica), God ("Dumnezeu" < Domine Deus), Easter ("Paşte" < Paschae), Pagan ("Păgân" < Paganus), Angel ("Înger" < Angelus), Cross ("Cruce" < Crux). Some of them, especially "Church" - Biserica are unique to Romanian Orthodoxy.
After Christianity becomed the official religion, the first bishoprics were created in the area, of which the main archbishoprics were at Singidunum (Belgrade), Viminacium (now Costolcaci), Ratiaria (now Arcear, near Vidin), Marcianopol (now Şumla), and Tomis (now Constanţa).Petre P. Panaitescu, Istoria Românilor ("History of the Romanians"), Bucharest, 1942
Very few traces can be found in the Romanian names that are left from the Roman Christianity after the Slavic influence began. All the names of the saints were preserved in Latin form: "Sântămăria" (Mary), "Sâmpietru" (Saint Peter), "Sângiordz" (Saint George) and "Sânmedru" (Saint Demetrius). The non-religious onomastic proof of pre-Christian customs, like "Sânziana" and "Cosânzeana" (Sancta Diana and Qua Sancta Diana) is only of anecdotal value in this context. Yet, the highly spiritualized places in the mountains, the processions, the calendars, and even the physical locations of the early churches were clearly the same with those of the Dacians. Even Saint Andrew is known locally as the Apostle "of the wolves" - with very old and large connotations, whereby the wolf's head was an ethnicon and a symbol of military and spiritual "fire" for Dacians.
|
|
|
Christianity in Scythia Minor
While Dacia was part of the Roman Empire only for a short time, Scythia Minor (nowadays Dobrogea) was part of it much longer and after the breakdown of the Roman Empire, it became part of the Byzantine Empire.The first encounter of Christianity in Scythia Minor was when Saint Andrew, brother of Saint Peter passed through it in the 1st century with his disciples. Later on, Christianity became the predominant faith of the region, as proven by the large number of remains of early Christian churches. The Roman administration was ruthless with the Christians, as the great number of martyrs demonstrates.
Bishop Ephrem, killed on 7 March 304 in Tomis, was the first Christian martyr of this region and was followed by countless others, especially during the repression ordered by emperors Diocletian, Galerius, Licinius and Julian the Apostate.
An impressive number of dioceses and martyrs are first attested during the times of Ante-Nicene Fathers. The first known Daco-Roman Christian priest Montanus and his wife Maxima were drowned, as martyrs, because of their faith, on March 26 304.
The 1971 archaeological digs under the paleo-Christian basilica in Niculiţel (near ancient Noviodunum in Scythia Minor) unearthed an even older martyrium. Besides Zoticos, Attalos, Kamasis and Filippos, who suffered martyrdom under Diocletian (304-305), the relics of two previous martyrs, witnessing and dying during the repressions of Emperor Decius (249-251), were unearthed under the crypt.
The names of these martyrs had been placed since their death in church records, and the find of the tomb with the names written inside was astonishing. The fact that the relics of the famous Saint Sava "the Goth" (martyred by drowning in the River Buzău, under Athanaric on 12 April 372) were recovered by Saint Basil the Great conclusively demonstrates that (unlike bishop Wulfila) Saint Sava was a follower of the Nicene faith, not a heresiarch like Arius.
Once the Dacian-born Emperor Galerius proclaimed freedom for Christians all over the Roman Empire in 311See Galerius and Constantines edicts of Toleration from 311 and 313, at [Medieval Sourcebook], the city of Tomis alone (modern Constanţa) became Metropolitanate with as many as 14 bishoprics.
By the 4th century, a powerful and organised nucleous of Christian monks existed in the area, known as the Scythian monks.
Language
The Roman occupation led to a Roman-Thracian syncretism, and simmilar to the case of other conquered civilisation (see Gallo-Roman culture developed in Roman Gaul), had as final result the Latinization of all Thracian tribes which where on the edge of the sphere of Latin influence, eventually resulting in complete Romanization and the extinction of the Daco-Thracian language. Starting from the second century AD, the Latin spoken in the Danubian provinces starts to display its own distinctive features, separate from the rest of the Romance languages, including those of western Balkans (Dalmatian).Al. Rosetti: “Istoria limbii române” ("History of the Romanian Language"), Bucharest, 1986 The Thraco-Roman period of the Romanian language is usually delimited between the 2nd (or earlier, via cultural influence and economic ties) and the 6th or 7th century. Dicţionarul limbii române (DLR), serie nouă ("Dictionary of the Romanian Language, new series"), Academia Română, responsible editors: Iorgu Iordan, Alexandru Graur, Ion Coteanu, Bucharest, 1983; It is divided, in turn, into two periods, with the division falling roughly in the 3rd-4th century. The Romanian Academy considers the 5th century as the latest date when the differences between Balkan Latin and western Latin could have appeared “Istoria limbii române” ("History of the Romanian Language"), II, Academia Română, Bucharest, 1969; , and that between the 5th and 8th centuries, this new language – Romanian - switched from Latin speech, to a neolatine vernacular idiom, called Română comună. I. Fischer, “Latina dunăreană” ("Danubian Latin"), Bucharest, 1985. A. B. Černjak “Vizantijskie svidetel’stva o romanskom (romanizirovannom) naselenii Balkan V–VII vv; “Vizantinskij vremmenik”, LIII, Moscova, 1992First sample of Romanian language
Referring to this time period, of great debate and interest is the so called "Torna, Torna Fratre" episode. In Theophylactus Simocatta Histories, (circa 630), the author mentions the words "τóρνα, τóρνα". The context of this mention is a Byzantine expedition in the year 587, led by general Comentiolus, in the Haemus, against the Avars. The success of the campaign was compromised by an incident: during a night march...
- : "a beast of burden had shucked off his load. It happened as his master was marching in front of him. But the ones who were coming from behind and saw the animal dragging his burden after him, had shouted to the master to turn around and straighten the burden. Well, this event was the reason for a great agitation in the army, and started a flight to the rear, because the shout was known to the crowd: the same words were also a signal, and it seemed to mean “run”, as if the enemies had appeared nearby more rapidly than could be imagined. There was a great turmoil in the host, and a lot of noise; all were shouting loudly and goading each other to turn back, calling with great unrest in the language of the country “torna, torna”, as a battle had suddenly started in the middle of the night." Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae, II, 15, 6–9, ed. De Boor, Leipzig, 1887; cf. FHDR 1970
- :"A beast of burden had thrown off his load, and somebody yelled to his master to reset it, saying in the language of their parents/of the land: “torna, torna, fratre”. The master of the animal didn't hear the shout, but the people heard him, and believing that they are attacked by the enemy, started running, shouting loudly: “torna, torna”". Theophanis Chronographia, I, Anno 6079 (587), 14–19, ed. De Boor, Leipzig, 1883; cf. FHDR 1970: 604.
An important contribution to the debate was Nicolae Iorga's first noticing in 1905 of the duality of the term torna in Theophylactus text: the shouting to get the attention of the master of the animal (in the language of the country), and the misunderstanding of this by the bulk of the army as a military command (due to the resemblance with the Latin military command).Nicolae Iorga, Istoria românilor ("History of the Romanians"), II, Bucharest, 1936, p. 249. Iorga considers the army to have been composed of both auxiliary (τολδον) Romanised Thracians—speaking πιχωρί τε γλώττ (the “language of the country” /”language of their parents/of the natives”)—and of Byzantines (a mélange of ethnicities using Byzantine words of Latin origin as official command terms, as attested in the Strategikon). “Într-o regiune foarte aproape de Haemus, unde se găsesc nume romanice precum Kalvumuntis (calvos montes), unul dintre soldaţii retraşi din cel mai apropiat ţinut primejduit strigă «în limba locului» ( πιχωρί τε γλώττ ) unui camarad care-şi pierduse bagajul «retorna» sau «torna, fratre»; datorită asemănării cu unul din termenii latineşti obişnuiţi de comandă, strigătul e înţeles greşit şi oastea, de teama unui duşman ivit pe neaşteptate, se risipeşte prin văi”. ("In a region very close to Haemus, where one finds Romanic names such as Kalvumuntis (calvos montes), one of the soldiers retreated from the nearest endangered land shouts «in the local language« (πιχωρί τε γλώττ) to a comrade who had lost his baggage retorna or torna, fratre ("turn back" or "turn, brother"); given the similarity to one of the customary Latin terms of command, the shout is understood heavily (?) and the host, fearing that an enemy had unexpectedly appeared, disperses through the haze." Nicolae Iorga, Istoria românilor ("History of the Romanians"), II, Bucharest, 1936.
This view was later supported by the Greek historian A. Keramopoulos (1939) A. Keramopoullos (A. Κεραµóπουλλου): “Τ ε ναι ο Kουτσóβλαχ” ("Who are the Aromanians"), Athens, 1939: “moreover, the term fratre, betraying the familiarity of the comrades, dismissed the possibility of a military term”, as well as by Al. Philippide (1925), who considered that the word torna should not be understood a solely military command term, because it was, as supported by chronicles, a word “of the country”Al. Philippide, Originea românilor ("Origin of the Romanians"), I, Iaşi, 1925: „Armata, dacă a înţeles rău cuvântul torna, ca şi cum ar fi fost vorba că trebuie să se întoarcă cineva să fugă, l-a înţeles ca un cuvânt din limba ţării, din limba locului, căci doar Theophylactos spune lămurit că «toţi strigau cât îi ţinea gura şi se îndemnau unul pe altul să se întoarcă, răcnind cu mare tulburare în limba ţării: retorna»” ("The army, if it understood badly the word torna, which also could have been the word that turned back someone who ran away, understood it as a word of the language of the country, of the language of the place, because only Theophylactos says clearly that 'everyone shouted it from mouth to mouth the gave one another the impetus to turn around, yelling with great concern in the language of the country: turn back
Starting from the second half of the twentieth century, the general view is that it is a sample of early Romanian language, a view with supporters such as Al. Rosetti (1960)Al. Rosetti, “Despre torna, torna, fratre” ("About torna, torna, fratre"), Bucharest, 1960, p. 467–468.: „Aşadar, termenii de mai sus aparţineau limbii populaţiei romanizate, adică limbii române în devenire, după cum au susţinut mai demult unii cercetători şi, printre ei, A. Philippide, care a dat traducerea românească a pasajelor respective, însoţită de un comentariu convingător. Termenii coincid cu termenii omonimi sau foarte apropiaţi din limba latină, şi de aceea ei au provocat panică în împrejurarea amintită.” ("Thus, the terms from above belong to the language of the romanized population, that is, the Romanian language in the process of development, as has long been sustained by some scholars and, among them, A. Philippide, who gave the Romanian translation to the respective passages, guided by a convincing commentary. The terms coincide with homonymic terms or very close from the Latin language, and from that caused panic in those nearby who heard it."), Petre Ş. Năsturel (1956) Petre Ş. Năsturel, “Quelques mots de plus à propos de «torna, torna» de Théophylacte et de «torna, torna, fratre» de Théophane” ("Those words more appropriate than Theophylactus' torna, torna and Theophanus' torna, torna, fratre"), in Byzantinobulgarica, II, Sofia, 1966: Petre Ş. Năsturel “Torna, torna, fratre. O problemă de istorie şi de lingvistică” ("Torna, torna, fratre: a problem in the history of linguistics") in Studii de cercetări şi istorie veche, VII, Bucharest, 1956: “era un cuvânt viu din graiul populaţiei romanice răsăritene şi poate fi socotit ca cea mai veche urmă de limbă străromână; la fel ca şi φράτρε ['fratre']. Dar tot atunci se păstra în armata bizantină acelaşi cuvânt cu înţelesul de «înapoi», «stânga împrejur», ceea ce a amăgit pe oştenii lui Comentiolus, punându-i pe fugă” ("was a live word in the Eastern Romanic population and could have been reckoned as the oldest utterance of the Old Romanian language; the same also for φράτρε ['fratre']. But still, the Byzantine army retained this word with the sense of "turn back", "left about", as had deluded the soldiers of Comentiolus, putting them to flight") […] “făceau parte din aşa-zisul το⋅λδον, care cuprindea samarele, slugile şi vitele de povară. Măcar ei erau băştinaşi, în sensul larg al cuvântului [...] ei făceau parte din latinitatea răsăriteană din veacul al VI-lea” ("made up part of the so-called το⋅λδον ['the auxiliary troops'], which includes pack-saddles, servants and draft cattle. Even those were natives, in the broad sense of the word [...] they formed part of the Eastern Latinity of the 6th century") […] “Reieşe din aceasta în chip limpede şi cu totul neîndoielnic că cel puţin pentru catârgiu şi pentru tovarăşii lui vorba torna era un cuvânt din graiul lor – la fel cu siguranţă şi φράτρε – pe când la urechile şi în gura oştenilor apărea, cum dovedeşte Strategikon-ul, ca un cuvânt ostăşesc de poruncă. [...]. Cu alte cuvinte, chiar dacă oastea nu a fost alcătuită din băştinaşi, se aflau împreună cu ea oameni care vorbeau o limbă romanică” ("The result of this clearly and without the least doubt, is that for the muleteer and for his comrades, the word torna was a word in their own dialect – as certainly was φράτρε ['fratre'] – which when it appeared in the ears and mouths of the soldiers, as the Strategikon proves, was a was a soldiers word of command. [...]. In other words, even if the army had not been made up of natives, it would turn out that those men spoke a Romanic language") […]„torna era un cuvânt din graiul lor” ("torna was a word of their dialect".) and I. Glodariu (1964).I. Glodariu: “În legatura cu «torna, torna, fratre»” in „Acta Musei Napocensis”, I, Cluj, 1964: „din oameni care transportau bagajele armatei, rechiziţionaţi cu acest scop şi, în sens[ul] larg al cuvântului, erau localnici” ("among the men who transported the army's baggage, requisitioned with such a scope and, in the broad sense of the word, they were locals") […] „torna era un cuvânt din graiul viu al populaţiei băştinaşe” ("torna was a word in the live dialect of the local population") […] “e cert că cei din jur l-au interpretat ca «întoarce-te», dacă nu erau soldaţi (şi termenul folosit de Theophanes ne face să credem că nu erau), sau ca «stânga-mprejur», dacă erau ostaşi” ("It is certain the those nearby interpreted it as "turn around", if they weren't soldiers (and the term used by Theophanes does not make us believe they were), or as "left about!", if they were soldiers")[…] „exista o verigă sigură între lat. frater şi rom. frate” ("there is a sure link between Latin frater and Romanian frate").
See also
Further reading
Online:- Stelian Brezeanu: [Toponymy and ethnic Realities at the Lower Danube in the 10th Century. “The deserted Cities" in Constantine Porphyrogenitus' De administrando imperio]
Notes
References
- Nicolae Saramandru: “Torna, Torna Fratre”; Bucharest, 2001–2002; Online: [.pdf].
- Nicolae-Şerban Tanaşoca: “«Torna, torna, fratre» et la romanité balkanique au VI e siècle” ("Torna, torna, fratre, and Balkan Romanity in the 6th century") Revue roumaine de linguistique, XXXVIII, Bucharest, 1993.
- Nicolae Iorga: “Geschichte des rumänischen Volkes im Rahmen seiner Staatsbildungen” ("History of the Romanian people in the context of its statal formation"), I, Gotha, 1905; “Istoria românilor” ("History of the Romanians"), II, Bucharest, 1936. Istoria României ("History of Romania"), I, Bucharest, 1960.
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.