The Problem of Barbarians

[Domen]

Oh sorry, I forgot to mention which of Heather's book I bought.

I have "Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe".

Oh, and using DNA evidence to try and show anything here is pretty much bunk as the cause of the collapse of the Roman empire was essentially caused by how people identified themselves. Roman landowners had no problem styling themselves as 'barbarian' warriors to stay in power when the 'barbarized'* Field Armies took over administration.

*Soldiers would often adopt 'barbarian' stylings as 'barbarians' were viewed to be better warriors than Romans.

I can only agree with this.

However, using DNA evidence can show whether there was a population continuity or discontinuity, as well as what was the extent of immigration - and possibly where did immigrants come from, or who they were (if we know genetic profiles of other populations from the same period).

Prof. J. Piontek mentioned by me on previous page, who has started researching ancient DNA in 2014, previously - in 2008 - tried to establish whether there was a population continuity or discontinuity in the area of what is now Poland, using methods of biological anthropology. What he established is that West Slavic populations were anthropologically very similar to previous East Germanic populations. Pay special attention to the blue text, though:

Prof. Janusz Piontek made a demographical simulation, taking into account the level of immigration and assimilation. Thereafter he researched osteological material - examining ancient bones. On this basis he estimated what was the dynamics of demographic developments during the period of Roman influences, and during the early Middle Ages. He compared data concerning Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures and that concerning the early Middle Ages. The results of his research were in disagreement with the popular theory of total depopulation and then re-population (...) Piontek's results are consistent with results of research by dr Robert Dąbrowski, who collected rich craniological material from the period of Roman influences and from the early Middle Ages. He used the method of craniological distances of Mahalanobis, as a method taking into account individual skulls (...) It turned out, that skulls of people representing Wielbark, Przeworsk and Chernyakhov cultures were very similar to early Medieval skulls of Slavic populations. (...) According to prof. Piontek and his team, the theory according to which there took place a morphological discontinuity within populations living in what is now Poland in times between the period of Roman influence and the early Middle Ages, is impossible to sustain. Similarities were extraordinarily high.

- We anthropologists do not claim, that we are explaining political, historical, and ethnic-cultural transformations. - said prof. Piontek - We only indicate, that the popular allochthonistic hypothesis, which assumes a total depopulation of the Odra and Vistula basins and then a renewed colonization of those areas by a distinct immigrant population, is not correct.

Because some of Polish anthropologists and even archaeologists question the possibility of researching genetic similarities between human populations based on craniological and odontological features (comparing skulls, bones and teeth), prof. Piontek presented examples from recent global literature which debunk their assertions. He cited several specific examples from literature on the subject, concerning analyses of ethnogenesis based on nonmetrical features - performed by scientists from Japan. Also commonly accepted are studies on teeth, in order to prove or disprove morphological continuity of population in time - for example research by prof. Joel irish concerning the continuity/discontinuity of settlement in Egypt. Piontek proved that standards he used in his studies on ethnogenesis of Slavs are in agreement with standards accepted today in the scientific world. (...)

- Lack of intergroup differences between populations from times of Roman influences and later West Slavic populations, in terms of craniological and odontological features, testifies to the similar genetic structure of both populations - prof. Piontek finished his lecture.

Translated from: http://archeowiesci.pl/2008/11/12/od-kiedy-slowianie-zyja-nad-wisla-i-odra/

But in the comments section below that article, one person wrote:

Maybe simply Eastern Germanic groups (who are considered by allochthonists to be representatives of Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures) were anthropologically similar to Western Slavs, and distinct only in terms of language and culture?

That's why we need genetic research because DNA is more reliable than comparing bones is. Plus of course DNA studies are O.K., while comparing bones "smells badly" to some people due to the reputation of such studies being tarnished by Nazi and other racist "scientists" in the 20th century.

Another thing is that - indeed - two populations can be anthropologically similar despite having distinct recent genetic origins (migrating separately from each other), as well as two populations can have the same deep genetic origin but be distinct anthropologically (this is what happened to humans in general - we have a common African origin, yet in various regions of the world populations are distinct anthropologically). So ancient DNA > ancient bones.

 

[Domen]

As for the Anglo-Saxon migration:

So far - IIRC - there are no any samples of ancient DNA from Britain available. Except for two from Gough's Cave, including Cheddar Man (7150 BCE):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_Man

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml

All studies which say "how Anglo-Saxon" are the English people, are based on comparisons between modern people of Britain and the North Sea region.

But these similarities and differences might as well turn out to be older (or younger) than Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain. After all, already long before the times of Anglo-Saxons, people were migrating to Britain from the continent (and possibly also from Britain to the continent).

Without actual ancient DNA samples from Celtic and Roman Britain, all calculations based on modern populations will be mostly assumptions.

 

[Wisimir]

"the Slavic migration to South-Eastern Europe (ie. the Balkans) and to what is now East Germany, for which we have actual evidence"

What evidences do we have for Slavic migration to East Germany? Any pre-10th century written sources, ancient DNA samples suggesting that R1b was present in East Germany during the Iron Age, indications of Slavic conquests - destroyed/burned settlements during the 6th-7th century, etc.?

German language in the 10th century (after expansion of the Frankish Empire and Holy Roman Empire)

 

[Domen]

What evidences do we have for Slavic migration to East Germany?

Mostly archaeological and palynological. People of Central and West Germany were illiterate, so they did not leave written evidence, unlike the Romans, who described Slavic migration into the Balkans across the Danube, as well as areas from which they came there.

We have quite a precise description of the area inhabited by Slavs in Byzantine neighbourhood around year 500 AD from Procopius (VII: 14, 30) - who wrote that they lived north of the Danube - and Jordanes (V: 30-37) - who provided more details. He wrote (V: 34-35):

"(34) Within these rivers lies Dacia, encircled by the lofty Alps as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. (35) The abode of the Sclaveni extends from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called Mursianus to the Danaster, and northward as far as the Vistula. (...) The Antes (...) dwelling above the curve of the sea of Pontus, spread from the Danaster to the Danaper, rivers that are many days' journey apart."

Marek Dulnicz, "The Lombard Headman Called Ildigis and the Slavs" (in English), identifies those geographical locations as follows:

http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/lang_en/autoren.php?name=Dulinicz,+Marek



1) Noviodunum - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noviodunum_(castra)

2) lake Mursianus (citation from M. Dulnicz):

"Lake Mursianus was in fact, according to the majority of researchers, the vast marshes at the juncture of the Drava and the Danube; (...) the lake or marshes in question might have extended as far as to the juncture of the Tisza and the Danube. The lake’s name was derived from the town of Mursa (present-day Osijek)."

3) Danaster = Dniester river

4) Danaper = Dnieper river

5) "Alps" = Carpathians

Source of the Vistula is located close to the present-day Bielsko-Biała: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielsko-Biała

And "the curve of the sea of Pontus [Black Sea]" was the coastline (which forms a nice curve) in the region of present-day Odessa.

Basing on that info I made a map showing the extent of Slavs in 500 AD (or rather 2 of their 3 branches - Sclaveni and Antes):

There was also a mixed territory inhabited by both Sclaveni and Antes and they migrated to the Balkans together (archaeological evidence shows this; Zofia Kurnatowska in her book "Słowianie Południowi" distinguishes between settlements of Sclaveni and those of Antes - though differences were relative minor):



AFAIK neither Procopius nor Jordanes wrote where did the third of Slavic branches - the Venedi - live at that time.

 

[Domen]

ancient DNA samples suggesting that R1b was present in East Germany during the Iron Age

Ancient R1b was discovered in samples from what is now Germany dating to Copper & Bronze Ages.

But, it is true that perhaps R1b was less numerous in Germany at that time than today. These graphs (Hammer's 2014 study) show the proportions of Y-DNA (NRY) and mtDNA in Germany throughout history - of course in case of Y-DNA they are based only on a small amount of samples, discovered so far:



R1b from Copper Age - Bronze Age Germany include:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

Kromsdorf [grave 5], 2600–2500 BC, R1b1b2 - Bell Beaker culture
Kromsdorf [grave 8], 2600–2500 BC, R1b - Bell Beaker culture
Quedlinburg [QLB 28], 2296-2206 BC, R1b1a2a1a2 - Bell Beaker culture
Lichtenstein Cave [M9] (near Dorste), 1000 BC, R1b - Urnfield cultures

No R1b from Iron Age, though. At least no is listed here:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ironagedna.shtml

Samples from Kromsdorf and from Dorste (Lichtenstein Cave) are from East Germany:

Kromsdorf (Thuringia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kromsdorf



Dorste (Lower Saxony - but close to Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia):



But in the same cave also two individuals with R1a were found, as well from 1000 BC.

=================================

No R1b1a or R1a1 older than the Copper Age has been found anywhere in Western and Central Europe
(only one Neolithic R1b individual has recently been found in Spain)







On the other hand, both R1a1 and R1b1a were present among hunter-gatherers from what is now Russia:

 

[Wisimir]

All those R1b samples were found west of the Elbe river...


Did R1b ever crossed that river (excluding Jutland Peninsula) before the Middle Ages?

 

[Domen]

Did R1b ever crossed that river (excluding Jutland Peninsula) before the Middle Ages?

I guess we need to wait for more data. Probably there was not as much R1b there as today, but some could be present.

=============================

Meanwhile, we have a study on burials which are believed to represent the Langobards during their migration to Italy:

"Lombards on the Move – An Integrative Study of the Migration Period Cemetery at Szólád, Hungary", November 2014:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110793#pone-0110793-g005

Abstract:

In 2005 to 2007 45 skeletons of adults and subadults were excavated at the Lombard period cemetery at Szólád (6th century A.D.), Hungary. Embedded into the well-recorded historical context, the article presents the results obtained by an integrative investigation including anthropological, molecular genetic and isotopic (δ15N, δ13C, 87Sr/86Sr) analyses. Skeletal stress markers as well as traces of interpersonal violence were found to occur frequently. The mitochondrial DNA profiles revealed a heterogeneous spectrum of lineages that belong to the haplogroups H, U, J, HV, T2, I, and K, which are common in present-day Europe and in the Near East, while N1a and N1b are today quite rare. Evidence of possible direct maternal kinship was identified in only three pairs of individuals. According to enamel strontium isotope ratios, at least 31% of the individuals died at a location other than their birthplace and/or had moved during childhood. Based on the peculiar 87Sr/86Sr ratio distribution between females, males, and subadults in comparison to local vegetation and soil samples, we propose a three-phase model of group movement. An initial patrilocal group with narrower male but wider female Sr isotope distribution settled at Szólád, whilst the majority of subadults represented in the cemetery yielded a distinct Sr isotope signature. Owing to the virtual absence of Szólád-born adults in the cemetery, we may conclude that the settlement was abandoned after approx. one generation. Population heterogeneity is furthermore supported by the carbon and nitrogen isotope data. They indicate that a group of high-ranking men had access to larger shares of animal-derived food whilst a few individuals consumed remarkable amounts of millet. The inferred dynamics of the burial community are in agreement with hypotheses of a highly mobile lifestyle during the Migration Period and a short-term occupation of Pannonia by Lombard settlers as conveyed by written sources.

Unfortunately no Y-chromosomes could be examined - only mitochondrial DNA.

And here some more details:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...stria-hungaria?p=449309&viewfull=1#post449309

The paper is basically a confirmation of the historical record: the Lombards were a migratory group who spent some time in Pannonia before continuing onward and eventually reaching Italy. (...) The reproduced data of 28 individuals exhibited a high variability of mitochondrial haplotypes (78.6%). Twenty-two different lineages were identified. This composition includes a large number of hgs that commonly occur in present-day European populations. There are signs of a lot of violence:

"Four skull fractures and eight traumata on the postcranial skeleton were identified in a total of eight adults and one juvenile individual (Table E in File S1). The skull injuries were exclusive to male remains and included three cases of sharp-force trauma (Ind. 4, 13, 27) as well as one case of a depressed fracture (Ind. 43). Three skull fractures bore traces of healing, whilst one had occurred around the time of death."

It's also clear that they were a heavily militarized group, with a lot of wealth, as exhibited in the grave goods. (...) Although there seems to have been malnourishment among the children and some of the adults (lower status ones?), no attempt was made to access the fresh water fish in a near by lake. If their ultimate origin was around the Baltic Sea, doesn't that seem a little peculiar - Scandinavians who don't like fish? (...)

This is their conclusion from all the data:

The biological evidence suggests that the residents of Szólád were not a close reproductive community. This is in agreement with the notion of a partnership of convenience that resembled Germanic tribe formations with people of different cultural backgrounds maintaining regular contact with other contemporary gentes. Influence from several different European regions is supported archaeologically by the grave constructions that included ledge graves and graves with straight walls, some of which were surrounded by rectangular or circular ditches. The stylistic analysis of the grave goods, such as brooches and weaponry, revealed parallels to south-western and central Germany, Moravia and the middle Danube as well as to Italy. The latter also indicates the possible presence of members of the Roman population of Pannonia, who had settled the area prior to the Lombard period.

So - to summ up - the paper seems to confirm migration, but doesn't seem to confirm ethnic homogeneity of the migrating group.

 

[Domen]

Dachs:

(...) Historians are not immune from similarly bizarre reasoning, of course. The counter-revisionist offensive (I use the word deliberately) against more subtle ways of thinking about the fifth century has been led by British historians from Oxford. Peter Heather has repeatedly deployed the notion that, because wagons, women and children are occasionally mentioned in sources concerning the barbarians, the barbarians must have been ‘peoples’ on the move. (...) The barbarians still conquered the various territories of the Empire and thus brought down the imperial state; there just weren’t as many of them – they were a military élite. (...)

Well, we have accounts of similar migrations of entire peoples from earlier times - e.g. the 1st century BCE mass migration of the Helvetii, as well as associated and allied tribes - described in "The Gallic Wars", by Julius Caesar. Why do you think that few centuries later barbarian migrations did not resemble that of the Helvetii?:

Chapter 2
Among the Helvetii, Orgetorix was by far the most distinguished and
wealthy. He, when Marcus Messala and Marcus Piso were consuls, incited
by lust of sovereignty, formed a conspiracy among the nobility, and
persuaded the people to go forth from their territories with all their
possessions, [saying] that it would be very easy, since they excelled
all in valor, to acquire the supremacy of the whole of Gaul. To this
he the more easily persuaded them, because the Helvetii, are confined
on every side by the nature of their situation; on one side by the
Rhine, a very broad and deep river, which separates the Helvetian
territory from the Germans; on a second side by the Jura, a very high
mountain, which is [situated] between the Sequani and the Helvetii;
on a third by the Lake of Geneva, and by the river Rhone, which separates
our Province from the Helvetii. From these circumstances it resulted,
that they could range less widely, and could less easily make war
upon their neighbors; for which reason men fond of war [as they were]
were affected with great regret. They thought, that considering the
extent of their population, and their renown for warfare and bravery,
they had but narrow limits, although they extended in length 240,
and in breadth 180 [Roman] miles.
Chapter 3
Induced by these considerations, and influenced by the authority of
Orgetorix, they determined to provide such things as were necessary
for their expedition ‐ to buy up as great a number as possible of
beasts of burden and wagons ‐ to make their sowings as large as possible,
so that on their march plenty of corn might be in store ‐ and to establish
peace and friendship with the neighboring states. They reckoned that
a term of two years would be sufficient for them to execute their
designs; they fix by decree their departure for the third year. Orgetorix
is chosen to complete these arrangements. He took upon himself the
office of embassador to the states: on this journey he persuades Casticus,
the son of Catamantaledes (one of the Sequani, whose father had possessed
the sovereignty among the people for many years, and had been styled
ʺfriendʺ by the senate of the Roman people), to seize upon the sovereignty
in his own state, which his father had held before him, and he likewise
persuades Dumnorix, an Aeduan, the brother of Divitiacus, who at that
time possessed the chief authority in the state, and was exceedingly
beloved by the people, to attempt the same, and gives him his daughter
in marriage. He proves to them that to accomplish their attempts was
a thing very easy to be done, because he himself would obtain the
government of his own state; that there was no doubt that the Helvetii
were the most powerful of the whole of Gaul; he assures them that
he will, with his own forces and his own army, acquire the sovereignty
for them. Incited by this speech, they give a pledge and oath to one
another, and hope that, when they have seized the sovereignty, they
will, by means of the three most powerful and valiant nations, be
enabled to obtain possession of the whole of Gaul.
Chapter 4
When this scheme was disclosed to the Helvetii by informers, they,
according to their custom, compelled Orgetorix to plead his cause
in chains; it was the law that the penalty of being burned by fire
should await him if condemned. On the day appointed for the pleading
of his cause, Orgetorix drew together from all quarters to the court,
all his vassals to the number of ten thousand persons; and led together
to the same place all his dependents and debtor‐bondsmen, of whom
he had a great number; by means of those he rescued himself from [the
necessity of] pleading his cause. While the state, incensed at this
act, was endeavoring to assert its right by arms, and the magistrates
were mustering a large body of men from the country, Orgetorix died;
and there is not wanting a suspicion, as the Helvetii think, of his
having committed suicide.
Chapter 5
After his death, the Helvetii nevertheless attempt to do that which
they had resolved on, namely, to go forth from their territories.
When they thought that they were at length prepared for this undertaking,
they set fire to all their towns, in number about twelve ‐ to their
villages about four hundred ‐ and to the private dwellings that remained;
they burn up all the corn, except what they intend to carry with them;
that after destroying the hope of a return home, they might be the
more ready for undergoing all dangers. They order every one to carry
forth from home for himself provisions for three months, ready ground.
They persuade the Rauraci, and the Tulingi, and the Latobrigi, their
neighbors, to adopt the same plan, and after burning down their towns
and villages, to set out with them: and they admit to their party
and unite to themselves as confederates the Boii, who had dwelt on
the other side of the Rhine, and had crossed over into the Norican
territory, and assaulted Noreia.
Chapter 6
There were in all two routes, by which they could go forth from their
country one through the Sequani narrow and difficult, between Mount
Jura and the river Rhone (by which scarcely one wagon at a time could
be led; there was, moreover, a very high mountain overhanging, so
that a very few might easily intercept them; the other, through our
Province, much easier and freer from obstacles, because the Rhone
flows between the boundaries of the Helvetii and those of the Allobroges,
who had lately been subdued, and is in some places crossed by a ford.
The furthest town of the Allobroges, and the nearest to the territories
of the Helvetii, is Geneva. From this town a bridge extends to the
Helvetii. They thought that they should either persuade the Allobroges,
because they did not seem as yet well‐affected toward the Roman people,
or compel them by force to allow them to pass through their territories.
Having provided every thing for the expedition, they appoint a day,
on which they should all meet on the bank of the Rhone. This day was
the fifth before the kalends of April [i.e. the 28th of March], in
the consulship of Lucius Piso and Aulus Gabinius [B.C. 58.]
(...)
Chapter 29
In the camp of the Helvetii, lists were found, drawn up in Greek characters,
and were brought to Caesar, in which an estimate had been drawn up,
name by name, of the number which had gone forth from their country
of those who were able to bear arms; and likewise the boys, the old
men, and the women, separately. Of all which items the total was:
Of the Helvetii [lit. of the heads of the Helvetii] 263,000
Of the Tulingi . . . . . . . . . . . 36,000
Of the Latobrigi . . . . . . . . 14,000
Of the Rauraci . . . . . . . . . 23,000
Of the Boii . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,000
The sum of all amounted to . . . 368,000.
Out of these, such as could bear arms, [amounted] to about 92,000.

One Roman mile = 1,481 km. So 240 miles = 355,44 km and 180 miles = 266,58 km.

So here we have a migration of entire tribe (as well as a few smaller tribes) and numbers do not look improbable - considering the size of their country, their number could well be in the range of ca. 263,000 or even larger (assuming that not all of them emigrated). Here we don't have a movement of an army, but of a peoples.

Why do you think that - by contrast - few centuries later, when Rome was falling apart, only elites or armies migrated, and not entire tribes?

Also your approach - rejecting Germanic migrations - creates a chain of other problems. If you reject Germanic migrations then what took place in Central and Eastern Europe? Had there been no migrations, then what happened to Germanic people living east of the Elbe, as well as between the Danube and the Carpathians?

In the Early Middle Ages we can see no Germanic-speakers in these regions. This entire area is now inhabited mostly by Slavic-speakers.

You cannot explain processes within the borders of the Empire without explaining processes taking place deep inside Barbaricum.

 

[aelf]

Dachs is still around?

And why has this thread become a soapbox for a proponent of racialist theories? I guess I don't need an answer to that.

 

[sophie]

Dachs is still around?

And why has this thread become a soapbox for a proponent of racialist theories? I guess I don't need an answer to that.

Nope. As usual, Domen is having a conversation with himself.

 

[Domen]

Owen, since you've showed up - can you explain what did you mean here?:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=13725086#post13725086

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12014427&postcount=104

"proto-Germanic" is believed to have emerged as an offshoot of Indo-European some time in the early 3rd millennium, having broken off from the Slavic languages around 2000 B.C.

Were the Slavic languages around at that time ??? I think they are younger than 4000 years: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=13723081#post13723081

Or was that a mental shortcut meaning they broke off from the branch which later developed into Slavic, or at first Balto-Slavic?

So do you think that there was a Balto-Slavo-Germanic branch which later split into Proto-Germanic and Balto-Slavic?

 

[sophie]

Owen, since you've showed up - can you explain what did you mean here?:

Nope.

 

[Domen]

After reading the OP and all posts on page 1, it becomes obvious that this thread's foundation is a presupposition that ancient history must be politicized.

Simply madness.

 

[sophie]

Nope.

After reading the OP and all posts on page 1, it becomes obvious that this thread's foundation is a presupposition that ancient history must be politicized.

Simply madness.

And this is why not, in case anybody was wondering.

 

[Domen]

If you want to discuss modern politics - not historical facts - then go here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18

Perhaps this thread should have been in the "Off-Topic" subforum since the beginning.

Maybe under a more general title: "The Problem of Ideologically Uncomfortable Historical Events".

 

[Traitorfish]

Race-theorist Steve

"Don't political history!"

"Now look at this map demonstrating the genetic foundation of pan-Slavism."

 

[Domen]

IIRC the political goals of debunking the barbarian migrations include reducing xenophobia & racism against Slavic (and other) immigrants in the West?

That's what Dachs essentially wrote on page 1.

So what does rejecting modern politics from history have to do with pan-Slavism, or what maps "demonstrating the genetic foundation" of it did I post?

BTW - I'm not sure if debunking migrations is actually the best way to discourage racism. Making people believe in "Paleolithic continuity", or "we have always lived here, this land belongs only to us" can also work in the opposite way - it may incite racist feelings, as well as increase the anti-immigration attitude.

Of course claims like "we came en masse as strong invaders and we conquered this land because we were better" can also work this way.

Basically both points of view can be interpreted in the way increasing anti-multicultural feelings by people who want to do this.

That's - among other reasons - why politicizing and re-interpreting history just for ideological purposes, to achieve political goals, is pointless.

Sure, argue against migrations - but use factual arguments, instead of "we need to reject sweeping migrations because they are right-wing things".

 

[aelf]

Funnily enough, assuming that you simply don't fully understand the complicated English going on here is probably more charitable.

The migration theory, at least in the form peddled by dated or conservative scholars, is not being debunked in order to discourage racism. It is being debunked because it is one way of interpreting historical events that is rather presumptuous for the purpose of privileging a certain ideological point of view. At no point did anyone simply go, "Oh, this theory causes evil things, so let's suppress it no matter how true it is", as you seem to think.

It's quite typical of nutters and conspiracy theorists to think that way.

 

[Domen]

An example of rejecting migrations in order to promote nationalism and racism is Romanian archaeology and historiography:

About the changing attitudes towards Slavic migrations in Romanian archaeology:

[Note: Nestor mentioned in this text is not a Medieval Russian chronicler, but a 20th century Romanian archaeologist]:

http://s23.postimg.org/6a69edicr/Romania_Slavs.png



And about historiography - from "History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness":

http://books.openedition.org/ceup/934

(...) The Slavs, as is well known, had a significant influence on the Romanian language, as well as on early Romanian institutions and culture. In fact the appreciation of their role has also swung between extremes, according to the changing ideological and political conjuncture. In the Latinist phase, and in nineteenth-century historiography in general until quite late on, the Slav factor was eliminated or drastically minimized. The tendency is easily explained in the context of the process of modernization of Romanian society and the desperate attempt (with partial and temporary success) to escape from the Slav space of the continent. It is worth noting that up to B. P. Hasdeu, modern Romanian historians did not even know Slavonic or the various Slav languages, a paradoxical situation given the Slavonic packaging of medieval Romanian culture. Hasdeu himself, who was educated in a Slav environment and who could be considered the first Romanian Slavicist, did not prove to be an upholder of Slav influence. While he sought to moderate Latinism by recourse to the Dacian substratum, where the Slavs were concerned he strove to limit their impact on the Romanian synthesis. Hasdeu considered that the Romanian people had been fully formed when it entered into relations with the Slavs. Slav words had come into the Romanian language not by ethnic contact but through political, religious, and cultural links over some seven centuries, up to the time of Matei Basarab and Vasile Lupu. The reaction towards rehabilitating the Slavs and Slavonic culture in Romanian history came from the Junimists of the late nineteenth century as a reply to Latinism and, in a sense, as an exercise in rising above national complexes. I have already mentioned Panu’s suggestions in this direction. What caused a sensation, however, was the Etymological Dictionary (1870-1879) of Alexandru Cihac, a close associate of Junimea. The etymologies established by Cihac led to the unexpected conclusion that the lexical base of the Romanian language was more Slav (and of other origins) than Latin: two-fifths Slav elements, one-fifth Turkish, and likewise one-fifth Latin. Romanian became a mixed language in which Turkisms and words of Latin origin had about the same weight. The almost simultaneous publication of the dictionaries of Laurian and Cihac illustrates the extremes between which the interpretation of the Romanian language, and of origins and influences in general, was evolving (with the necessary observation that Cihac’s work is appreciated by specialists as being far superior to Laurian’s linguistic fantasies). This etymological Gordian knot was cut by Hasdeu with his seductive theory of the circulation of words. The structure of a language—Hasdeu shows—is not given by the mere number of words but by their circulation. Some words are almost forgotten, preserved only in dictionaries, while others are in constant use. Their value is thus very different. “It is true that Slavisms and even Turkisms exist in no small numbers among the Romanians; in circulation, however—that is, in the most vital activity of Romanian speech, in its most organic movement—they lose out almost completely in comparison with Latinisms.” It is possible to formulate complete sentences only with words of Latin origin, but no sentence is possible using exclusively words of other origins. Hasdeu’s demonstration turned the relationship round again, away from the emphasis on Slav influence. The Slav factor, however, was forcefully highlighted by Ioan Bogdan. For him, the Slavs became a constituent element of the Romanian synthesis: “The influence of the Slav element in the formation of our nation is so evident that we may say without exaggeration that we cannot even speak of a Romanian people before the absorption of Slav elements by the native Roman population in the course of the sixth to tenth centuries." In the Romanian language there are “an enormous number of Slav elements”, adopted either directly, through cohabitation, or through political and literary contacts. The Slavonic language was used in the church and the state, and even in “the day-to-day business of the Romanians” until the sixteenth or seventeenth century; and in the life of the state “almost all our old institutions are either of Slav origin or contain, alongside a few elements inherited from the Romans, a greater number of Slav elements”. Romanian-Bulgarian relations in particular are treated by Ioan Bogdan in a manner which Romanian nationalism could not fail to find disagreeable. While we, the Romanians, “were departing more and more from Roman culture and becoming savage”, the Bulgarians, “who came like barbarians over us, took from their Byzantine neighbors, under the protective wings of an organized and powerful state, a civilization which was then advanced, that of Byzantium, which was none other than the continuation, in a Greek form with oriental influences, of the old Roman civilization”. For three centuries the Bulgarian tsardom ruled north of the Danube; this is the period in which many Slav elements of culture and political organization penetrated Romanian society. (...)

 

[aelf]

And what does that have to do with any viewpoints in this thread? Oh yeah, nothing.