Back to Homepage Annuario 2002
p. 19
Toponymy and ethnic
Realities at the Lower Danube
in the 10th
Century.
Stelian Brezeanu,
University
of Bucharest
De administrando imperio, the most important work
of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, has been clearly subdued to the most ample
investigations among the historian's works. Nevertheless, it contains some
passages still obscure that has not been satisfactorily analyzed by the modern
scholars. Among these passages, a special part is taken by the one referring to
"the deserted cities" from the Lower Danube.
"Isteon, oti enqen tou DanastrewV potamou proV to
apoblepon merosthn Boulgarian eis ta peramata tou
autou potamou eisin erhmokastra kastron prwton to onomasten para twn
Patzinakitwn Aspron dia to touV
liqouV
autou fainestai kata leulouV,
kastron deuteron to Touggatai, kastron triton to Kraknakatai, kastron tetarton
to Salmakatai, kastron pempton to Sakakatai, kastron ekton [to] Giaioukatai. En
autois de tois twn palaiokastrwn ktismasin euriskoutai kai ekklhsiwn gnwrismata
tina kai stauroi laxeutoi eiV
liqouV
pwrinouV,
oqen kai tineV
paradosin ecousin, wV
Rwmaioi pote taV
katoikiaV
eicon ekeise"[1].
In
translation:
"On this side of the Dniester river, towards the part
that faces Bulgaria, at the crossings of this same river, are deserted cities:
the first city is that called by the Pechenegs Aspron, because its stores look
very white; the second city is Toungatai; the third city is Kraknakatai; the fourth
city is Salmakatai; the fifth city is Sakakatai; the sixth city is Giaioukatai.
Among these buildings of the ancient cities are found some distinctive traces
of churches, and crosses hewn out of porous stone, whence some preserve a
tradition that once on a time Romans had settlements there".
The savant-emperor's text raises some
problems that are difficult to be interpreted and that have discouraged the
modern scholars to approach it.
First, while the first among the six
"deserted cities" is not difficult to be identified - since Aspron means "white" in the
Pecheneg language, as it resulted also from the text, it could only be Rom. Cetatea Albă or Sl. Bielograd, on the right bank of the Dniester, on the river mouth to
the Black Sea -, the other five seem to be enigmatic, difficult if not
impossible to be deciphered. Consequently, it should not be surprising that the
Romanian historians has not paid any attention to them[2],
while the historians outside of Romania that
p. 20
have
dealt with the Byzantine historian's text simply confined themselves to mention
them as they are[3].
The Constantine VII's specifications
around the ancient cities' settlement are also difficult to be interpreted.
What does "on this side of the Dniester river, in the side that regards to
Bulgaria, on this river's passings (ta peramata)"
mean? Should we understand that all the six cities are to be found out in the
immediate proximity of the river's right bank? There is nothing to forbid us to
suppose that they were by the Bulgarian region, which has the Danubian line as
frontier with Patzinakia, as the
historian informs us on other occasion[4].
In addition, we should not surpass the possibility of some inaccuracies in
their placement, because of either the informer or the way in which the information
was interpreted by the cabinet savant Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who was
never passing in the described region. This larger interpretation of the text
referring to the cities' placement is also imposed by the fact that the Roman
domination in the region, whether it did exist, did not penetrate in the depth
of the Northern Pontic territory, the empire confining to control the sea's
shore.
Thus, here is the most difficult point
raised by the text: the existence of a Christian Roman domination on the
Dniester's right bank or of a kind of control that is to explain the Christian
remnants in the region during the first decades of the 10th century.
It is especially because the author expresses some doubts in connection with
the existence of such a control, when he considers that there are "some
[persons]" (tineV) to
promote the tradition of the Roman presence in the region.
a. The Southern Moldavia and the Roman Imperial Policy
We are to begin with the matter of the Roman
presence in the Northern Pontic area and especially in the region of the
Dniester's right bank. The information in connection with this presence are
more numerous and more conclusive than it could be noted at a first sight. For
the Christian period, there are two texts to clarify this aspect: The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius
and Chronographia of Theofanes the
Confessor.
Evagrius Scolasticus, the author of the
first text, was born to 536 and lived by the first years of the 7th
century. He lived the last part of his life in Constantinople, where he wrote
his work. Well informed and having Tucydides as pattern, it covers the period
between 431 and 594. The author describes the Northen Pontic realities on the
occasion of the Avars' coming in Europe in 558, event that provoked an
impressive echo in the 6th century Byzantium. "After they had
left the shore of the Pont called Euxinus", Evagrius notes, "where
there were all the different kinds of barbaric nations, while the Romans had established cities (poleiV), military camps and some
stations for the veterans and for the colons (apoikiwn) sent by the emperors [emphasis mine], they [the Avars] opened a
pass and fought against all the Barbarians encountered in their way, since that
they achieved the Istrus' banks and sent envoys to Justinian"[5].
The text of the ecclesiastic author indicates a very complex reality in the
space between Crimea, named as the Cymmerian Bosphorus by the Byzantine
authors, and the Lower Danube. Beside the "Barbarian nations", very
p. 21
different
by their origins, languages and even political interests, there were also Roman
establishments, having an essentially military functions, in order to preserve
a political stability in the region, in the sense of assuring the Christian New
Rome's security on the Bosphorus. The author does not specify since when the
"cities", the "military camps" or Roman
"colonies" has been dated. Probably, they were not the exclusive work
of the 6th century emperors. On the other side, although the text
refers to the "Barbarian" opposition against the Avars, it permits us
to suppose that the local "Romans" also opposed to the newcomers.
The second text has the same importance
for our investigation. Its author, Theophanes the Confessor, writes to 815 and
inspires himself from an important number of Byzantine sources from the 7th-8th
centuries that has not been preserved by now[6].
The 9th century chronicler depicts another event, the second as
importance for the Northern Pontic area, after the coming of the Avars: there
is the coming of the Protobulgarians led by Asparuch to 679. Theophanes
describes the succession of the events that preceded the establishment of the
newcomers at the Southern Danube: the retirement of the Asparuch's clan towards
the Danube because of the Khazars, its establishment in the Oglu region (somewhere between the
Northern Pontic rivers and the Danube's mouths), the unfortunate expedition of
the Emperor Constantine IV to the Istrus and its failure, followed by the
river's passing by the Protobulgarian clan. On this occasion, the chronicler
delivers one of the most important information for our investigation,
specifying that the emperor found out that the Asparuch's Barbarian nation
"settled in Oglu, beyond the
Danube and, invading the territories neighbor to the Danube, it devastates the country now dominated by them, but on
the Christian domination on those times [emphasis mine]"[7].
Although the passage seems to have especially Scythia Minor into account, the
expedition's stage demonstrates the Empire's interest also at the North of the
Danube's mouths at least. As a consequence, after more than a century after the
Avars' invasion in Europe, the territory continued to be under the attention of
the "Christians" (Romans). The strategic importance either of the
territory remained the same for Constantinople, since even under dramatic
conditions for the empire - the first great Arab siege on the New Rome
(674-678) just came to an end - the emperor gathers the last resources for an
expedition on the Danube against the new danger appeared there. The Theophanes'
text has a double importance for the present investigation. First, it
demonstrates a continuity of the New Rome's military presence during at least
two centuries in the territories of the Danube's mouths, because of the their
strategic importance, despite the new situation occurred in the Balkans during
the 7th century. Secondly, the Byzantine defeat in front of the new
nomads come on Danube closes a particular epoch for those territories: for three
centuries, Constantinople abandons politically and military the region that,
when Theophanes writes his chronicle, was already under the control of the
khans in Pliska. This fact explains why the domination of the
"Christians" in the region remains explained as a
"tradition" by Constantine VII, who, in 950, seems to have some
doubts about it. On the other hand, the abandonment of the Northern Pontic
cities by the Roman emperors was to happen on the occasion of the coming of
Asparuch's Protobulgarians.
p. 22
While the two texts presents an
undeniable importance in attesting a Byzantine presence in the region and in
establishing a terminus ante-quem
for its ending, the analyzing, even summarily, of the beginnings of this
presence in this territories is not lacking of significance.
The Northern Pontic territories, from
Chersones to the Danube's mouths, were being in close contact with the
Mediterranean world since the first centuries of the 1st millenium
a. Chr. First, it was through the agency of the Greek colonies that established
the link between Chersones and the colonies in Scythia Minor and that had an
essential part in draining the hinterland's huge wealth towards the Greek
world. In the Roman period, the interest for the region grows, but the military
preoccupations predominates on the economic ones and they are in order to stop
the torrent of the nomadic populations come from Euro-Asian steppe, which
warned to overflow on the Danubian territories, especially after Trajan had
created his province at the Northern of Danube just as a spear jabbed in Barbaricum. At the beginning of the 20th
century already, V. Pârvan foresaw the entire importance of the Roman action in
the region, beginning with Trajan, who raised the numerous castra on the Sereth Valley that makes the junction between Scythia
Minor and his new province. The action culminated with Trajan's successors,
when "the entire Wallachian field and the Southern Bessarabia with the
region to Cetatea Albă (Tyras) were brought in that moment from the Dacian way
of life to the Roman one"[8].
The post-war researches definitely confirmed the emminent archeologist's
intuition and the results were synthetized by Radu Vulpe in some studies
dealing with the Roman military and political presence in these territories in the
1st-4th centuries[9].
For Eugen Lozovan, the central point of the Rome's interest was represented by
the Southern Moldavia, a real "connection point between the imperial
authority solidly implanted in Scythia Minor and in the Transcarpathian Dacia
and the Roman camps dispersed in the Northern Pontic steppe"[10].
While the abandonment of Dacia by Rome
meant for some decades a retirement of the imperial positions on the Danube
line, the strategic importance of the territories from the Danube's mouths
becomes vital after the transfer of the imperial metropolis on the Bosporus
shores by Constantine. In the vision of Constantinople, Scythia Minor and the
neighbor Northern Pontic territories constitute an outpost in front of the
migratory waves that could overflow to the South through this region. There are
numerous news that indicate the imperial authorities' care at the Lower Danube
since the reign of the New Rome's founder. First, it is about the Constantine
the Great's military campaigns on the North of the river that are to transform
the Wizigoths in empire's foederati,
action renewed four decades later by Valens. The same care for the area's fate
and for the Roman population in the region should be also observed in the
creation of the Bishopric of Gothia,
which titular is mentioned among the participants at the first ecumenical
council at Nicea, in 325[11].
It is
p. 23
certitude
that this population was formed by prisoners transferred there by the Goths
during their raids in the Balkans and in Minor Asia, by Roman merchants, but
also by the descendants of the Romans brought by Trajan and his successors for
military reasons. The same care to consolidate the empire's positions at the
North of the river explains also the conversion to Christendom of the Goths in
the Wallachian Field and in the Southern Moldavia, work promoted by Wulfila
after 340[12]. At least the same importance is represented
by the archeological testimonies that demonstrate the 4th century
empire's efforts not only to consolidate the Danubian boundary especially on
its portion in Scythia Minor, but also to install at the North of the river a
defensive system of castra and
earthen walls, the most famous being undoubtedly "Trajan's wall",
which the most important part is dated in this period[13].
In the 6th century, after
their diminishing consequently to the storm unleashed by the Huns in 376, the
news regarding the empire's care for the territories at the Danube's mouths are
more numerous. They owe all their importance to the information later delivered
by Evagrius and Theophanes the Confessor. The most important data are in
connection to the activity promoted by Justinian on the Danubian border.
Procopius of Cesarea illustrates the emperor's effort to consolidate the
Danubian limes, effort related by the
historian with one carried on by his forerunners, conferring its entire
proportion in the 6th century. "The former emperors", he
writes in De aedificiis,
"covered with fortifications all the river's bank, not only on the right
side of the river, but they also built small cities (polismata) and cities (frouria) on the opposed side
... Later, when Atila rushed with a large army, he destroyed these
fortifications, without any difficulty, and laid waste the greatest part of the
Roman territory without any resistence. But the Emperor Justinian rebuilt the
destroyed fortifications, not as they were previously, but much stronger; and
he repaired many of them and also he renewed them. In this way, he gave the
lost assurance back to the Roman empire"[14].
In more sober terms, the same information is to be detected in one of the
Justinian's Novel in 535, referring to the jurisdiction of the new
Archbishopric of Prima Justiniana,
created by the emperor. Not only the metropolitan churches and bishoprics on
the South of the Danube was to be under its titular's authority, but also the
left right of the river's eparchies. It was "because nowadays, with the
God's assistance, our state grew, so that the both banks of the Danube are
inhabited with our cities and both Viminacium, and also Recidiva and Litterata,
which are beyond the Danube, were again subdued under our domination"[15].
Indeed, the document indicates the Danubian cities on the left side of the
p. 24
Danubian
limes that were under the
jurisdiction of the new created Archbishopric. Still, there is no doubt that
Justinian's action to recover the Northern Danubian cities had also the right
side of the Roman frontier at the Danube's mouths into consideration. This care
is proved by the emperor's decision in 536, mentioned by John Lydos, to create
a military prefectura of Scythia
Minor, having Odessos (nowadays Varna) as residence. It was to have not only
the Lower Danube in its obedience, but also other three naval provinces:
Cyprus, Caria and the island in the Archipelago. While the purpose of this
decision is already clear, being connected to the assurance of the
Constantinople's and the straights' security in front of an possible peril
coming from the Northern Pontic steppes, John Lydos puts it under the
circumstances of the recovering by Justinian of the territories once conquered
by Trajan and then lost by the empire. It was because that "not desiring
to be somehow inferior to Trajan, [the Emperor] decided to preserve for the
Romans the Northern region that once get out of the yoke"[16].
Whether we left aside the imperial propaganda's aims that are natural in the
text of a Justinian's high magistrate as was John Lydos, we are to remark the
Constantinople's care for the Northern Pontic regions, which strategic
importance for its security was undeniable.
In order to distinguish the New Rome's
strategic conception at the Lower Danube during the 6th-7th
centuries, it is necessary to also make referrals to another episode in the Menander
Protector's work that takes the Slavic-Avar-Byzantine combats into account. The
author narrates the success of the imperial diplomatic action during the reign
of Tiberius II that counteracted the Avars against the Slavs in the Southern
Moldavia and in the Eastern Wallachia. An imperial high office worker
transferred the Avars of the Khan Baian from the Northern to the Southern of
the Danube in the region of the Roman Pannonia. Afterwards, the Avars crosses
the imperial territory on the road to Scythia Minor. They passed again the
Danube in order to attack the Slavs, the emperor's enemies. Surprised, the
Slavs were defeated by the momentary allies of the Byzantine sovereign[17].
The evolution of these events makes obvious the concern of Constantinople to
control also the cities on the Northern bank of the river, in order to be able
to advance offensive actions against the migratory nations in the region (as it
occurs in the case of the event presented by Menander Protector, or the ones
promoted by the empire in the last decade of the 6th century in
Banat against the Avars and the Slavs). However, the New Rome continues to
regard the Northern Danubian territories, once dominated by the empire, as a
land belonging de jure to the empire,
only temporary submitted to the Barbarians. Among other arguments that sustain
this conception of Constantinople, there is also a detail in The Wars of Procopius. Confronted with
the Slav danger, Justinian makes to the Slavs the proposal to occupy to Turris, a city once built by Trajan but
abandoned by the Romans because of the Barbarian attacks. The Byzantine
historian adds the fact that the emperor promised also the territory around the
city to the Slavs, "because it was belonging to the Romans since the very
beginning"[18].
p. 25
On the most occasions, the Roman sources
of this centuries mention about fortifications and cities in which shadow the
people that brought the stone and the iron into life animate. The modern
archeologists neither make many times exception from this rule, especially when
they notice the cities' abandonment under the pressure of the invasions. The
mentioning of the sources about "the cities" and "the
colonies", as it is the case of the Evagrius' text that is mentioned
above, are still rare. There are to be attached other two texts, although they
do not present the same testimonial value about the human realities in the
region. A Justinian's Novel in 538/539 makes referrals to the law sanctions in
case of the abuses of the military commanders in connection with the theft from
the fiscality. The punishment regarded not only the guilty ones, but the entire
military unit, which "will be transferred from the region and ordered
beyond the river of Istrus or the Danube, in order to guard those
boundaries"[19]. The imperial
document attests the presence of some military forces in the Byzantine cities
to the North of the river. Moreover, it also demonstrates that the guard
mission in this region was regarded as one of the most difficult ones for the
soldiers. The other text belongs to Cosmas Indicopleustes, the author of Christian Topography and tireless
traveler that also visited the Northern Pontic regions to the middle of the 6th
century. Among the territories where he met and saw "churches and bishops,
martyrs, hermits, monks, in all the places where the Christ's gospel had been
announced", there are also the ones "towards the North, belonging to
the Scythians ... to the Bulgarians" and to other peoples[20].
The Scythians' regions in the Cosmas' text could represent the Scythia Minor,
which religious life in the 6th century is attested by a very rich
sources. In exchange, the Bulgarians' ones could not be identified in other sources than with the Northern
Pontic ones and even with the Danube's mouths in 550. From that region, the
steppes' nomads organized robbery raids in the empire's Balkan province. In
this case, the Christians that are referred in the text are not the Bulgarians,
but the populations under their hegemony or in community with them.
Such different by their nature, all
these sources impose the conclusion that the territories at the Danube's mouths
was characterized by a Roman military presence during six centuries, from
Trajan to Constantine IV, with an interruption of a century in the context of
the Hun invasion. This presence was materialized by the cities, the earthen
walls, but also by troops, which goal was to secure the right flank of the
Roman front at the Lower Danube. It also suppose a human permanence,
represented by soldiers, but also by their families, by manufacturers and
merchants, indispensable for the military activity in the region, as it is
clearly expressed in the Evagrius' relation. At the same time, the human
permanence means the existence of the Christ's faith among the soldiers and the
other Romans and implicit of the churches and the other Christian symbols,
especially after Constantine the Great. The different Christian vestiges would
be the ones mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus after some centuries.
Still, the historian's mission connected
with the detection of information referring to the Rome's military and human
presence in the Northern Pontic region from the Dniester' left side, which
explains also the "deserted cities" existence in the 10th
century, is not to finish here. It is necessary to investigate also the
medieval sources, especially the Romanian ones, respecting these ancient
vestiges. The Romanian medieval data are indeed very
p. 26
numerous
and presented in various sources, from the official acts to historical works of
the 17th-18th Moldavian scholars. There is a crowd of
information about these traces in the official acts and even in toponymy. The
most of them refers to the "troiene",
the earthen walls attributed to Trajan by the Romanian medieval tradition and
that crossed the Wallachian Field from Severin to the Dniester, identified by
the commoners with "Trajan's wall". Certainly, the ruins of the
antique cities are interesting here. The most important testimonies about them
are specified by Miron Costin and by Dimitrie Cantemir.
Educated at the University of Liov,
Latin speaker and expert in Roman history, the former offers many information
about some "năruite /
destroyed" cities, included a "devastated city" in the Southern
Bessarabia, on the Cogâlnic river, considered by him as being Greek[21].
Still, the author pays attention to the vestiges between Pruth and Sereth
rivers, where there are "năruiturile
... cum ieste mai sus de Gălați, ce-i zic Gherghina, și pe Milcov, mai sus de
Focșani, de care pomenește Ureche - vornicul, că o cheamă Crăciuna / the
ruins [...] as it is farther than Galați, called Gergina/Gherghina, and on the
Milcov [river], farther than Focșani, which is mentioned by Ureche-the VORNIC
as being called Crăciuna"[22].
While the referrals to Crăciuna stops here, the ones concerning the city near
Galați are more ample and they interest the present investigation. "La năruiturile cetății de la Gălați, din
sus, unde cade Bârladul în Dunăre / At the ruins of the city in Galați,
farther than it, where the Bârlad [river] flows into the Danube", it was
found out, as Miron Costin points out, "o piatră mare adusă la Gălați, la biserica Dii, mai mult nu s-au putut
înțelege, făr' de atâta, lătinește: Severus,
imperator Romanorum, iar românește: Sever, a Râmului împărat / a big
stone brought from Galați, at the church of Dii, it could not be deciphered,
just that, in Latin: Severus, imperator
Romanorum, that means in Romanian: Sever, emperor of Rome"[23].
Whatever the lecture of the inscription
made by the humanist scholar is correct or not, it is interesting here the
Latin feature of the writing on the stone discovered in the city of Gergina
near Galați. A particular importance is suggested by his mention that he
considers that these cities had been raised by the Dacians and by the "râmleni / the Romans", "cum iaste deschis la Cetatea-Albă / as
it is clear at Cetatea Albă"[24].
Dimitrie Cantemir's information from Descriptio Moldaviae confirms the Miron
Costin's news and offers more precision. First, he also refers to "orașele frumoase de odinioară, cum o arată
ruinele unor vechi clădiri (veterum
aedificiorum ruinae) / the beautiful former cities, as it is proven by the
ruins of some ancient buildings"[25].
The most of these ancient cities are settled in the Southern Bessarabia, so
that in the territory between Dniester and Pruth. Some of them are recent,
built by the Moldavian princes or by the Turks. Others are ancient, rebuilt by
the Prince Stephen the Great. Thus, the scholar notes, "pe râul Ialpug ... nu departe de gurile lui,
sunt urmele altei cetăți mai vechi, numită obișnuit Tint. După ce căzuse în
ruină, Ștefan cel Mare a refăcut-o; mai târziu însă turcii au făcut-o una cu
pământul / on the Ialpug river [...] not far from its mouths, there are the
remnants of another more ancient city, usually called Tint. After it had fallen
into ruin,
p. 27
Stephen
the Great rebuilt it; yet, the Turks definitely destroyed it later"[26].
Cetatea Albă is specially mentioned by Dimitrie Cantemir: "numită odinioară de romani Alba Iulia, de
greci Moncastron, de poloni Bielograd / formerly named Alba Iulia by the
Romans, Moncastron by the Greeks, Bielograd by the Poles"[27].
Still, Cantemir also offers the most details in connection to the city of
Barboși, near Galați. "Nu departe de
aici", he writes, "la
gurile Siretului se văd ruinele unei cetăți foarte vechi, care astăzi este
numită de locuitori Gherghina. Ca dovadă că aceasta a fost întemeiată pe vremea
lui Traian sunt monedele dezgropate în timpul nostru din dărâmăturile ei și de
asemenea o piatră de marmură cu această inscripție: Im. Caesari. Div. Filio.
Nervae. Traiano. Augusto. Germ. Dacico... / Not far from here, at the
Sereth's mouths, one could see the ruins of a very ancient city, which now is
called Gergina by the inhabitants. As a proof that it had been founded on the
times of Trajan, there are the coins dug out in our times from its remnants and
also a marble stone with this inscription: Im.
Caesari. Div. Filio. Nervae. Traiano. Augusto. Germ. Dacico..."[28].
The inscription is not the same as the one on the stone depicted by Miron
Costin, but it offers solid basis for authenticity[29].
Consequently, the Romanian medieval
sources confirm the existence of some earthen walls and of some cities in the
Southern Moldavia, between Dniester and the Eastern Carpathians. All of them
are of Latin origin. Among the cities, there are explicitly mentioned Cetatea
Albă, the city of Tint on the Ialpug river, the city of Gergina near Galați,
and the city of Crăciuna. Also, the sources specify the tradition of their
Roman origin, argued either by the Latin inscriptions near Galați, or by the
Latin name of Cetatea Albă.
b. Galați. The Origin and the Evolution of a Toponym
As a consequence of these data from the
antique and medieval sources, there is surpassed the first difficulty in the
Constantine Porphyrogenitus' text that deals with the Roman presence in the
Southern Moldavia between Sereth and Dniester, from Trajan to the end of the 7th
century. Thus, it is removed any doubt about the possibility that some Roman
Christian vestiges in the "deserted cities" in the region in the
middle of the 10th century exist, as palpable stains of the Rome's
military and human presence. The task of identification of these cities, as it
is written to the year 950 by the cabinet savant Constantine Porhyrogenitus
seems to be much more difficult.
The Byzantine historian's work has a
special place not only among his other works, but in the whole New Rome's
historical-political literature. As it has been remarked, it is not a work of
imperial propaganda, destined to a large public, but a confidential document
that was supposed to be read exclusively by a restraint circle of the high
dignitaries in Constantinople, involved in the state's foreign policy[30].
This is the explanation for the presence in the work of some news coming from
different secret ways in the metropolis, as there are the ones regarding the
Northern territories of the Pont and of the Lower Danube, where the post-900
events was characterized by a specific dynamic that vitally interested the
empire. At the same time, the fact explains also the concrete feature of the
information that clearly presents the toponymy, retaken from the alive speaking
of the
p. 28
populations
in the region, and not in its formal expression, borrowed from the antique
sources. The Byzantine historian explicitly refers to the manner of collecting
the information through imperial agents (1, 18-20), to his envoys' contacts
with the Pechenegues at Chersones, Dnieper, Dniester and Danube (6, 3-5; 7, 3-8
and especially 8, 5-9) and to the presence of some Pechenegue hostages at
Chersones and Constantinople (1, 18-20; 7, 5-6). These data suppose also his
information's actuality.
Still, the manner of collecting the
information, of its sending to Constantinople and its annotation in a written
form in Constantine VII's working office suppose also the possibility of some
errors or at least of different modifications due to these successive
linguistic mediations. On the other side, the extremely heterogeneous ethnical
landscape of the region also presuppose the existence of a borrowed toponymy.
It could be possible even a translated toponymy by the newcomers, from the
native inhabitants, just as the steppe's conquerors could impose some toponyms
to the dominated population. Just as an example, the city of Aspron, which meant White City (Cetatea
Albă) in the language of the nomads, as the author himself informs us, knew
special shapes for each populations in the region during the middle ages: Cetatea Albă for the Romanians, Belograd or Bielograd for the Slavs, Maurocastron
for the Greeks, Moncastron for the
Italians, and Akkerman for the
Turks. While the last three seem to rely on the late Greek form of Maurocastron, meaning "The Black
City", the Romanian and the Slavonic forms have one and the same meaning
with the Pechenegue toponym of Aspron.
Since the toponym was translated from one language to another, there should be
put the natural question, which is the original and which are the copies?
Actually, the attested age of the Pechenegue form does not represent a decisive
argument in the favor of its acceptance as original.
Other possible errors from the toponyms'
shape in the Porphyrogenitus' text could originate in the manuscript transmission.
These errors are well known by the modern historians, especially when it is
about foreign toponyms and anthroponyms, unknown by the Greek copiers[31].
In this context, it should be noted that the work has not been conserved in the
Constantine VII's original manuscript[32].
The editors established that it was copied by a scribe to 980, in an also lost
manuscript. The work's most ancient manuscript dated from the 1059-1081 period
and is the working result of a certain Michael, "servant of the Cesar John
Dukas", the latter being the Emperor Constantine X Dukas' son and the
Emperor Michael VII Dukas' brother. Just that this manuscript, which relies on
the one in 980, presents corrections, additions and modifications belonging to
the 11th-14th centuries. As the editors consider, they
come from "six different hands"[33],
and they much altered the 10th century manuscript's text[34].
These observations impose more prudence
and risks for the modern historian. Taking them into consideration, it should
be noted the names of the six "deserted cities" (eremokastra) in the Byzantine text. They are: Aspron, Tungatai, Cracnacatai, Salmacatai, Sacacatai
and Giaiucatai. The last five seem
to be composed by two letter groups, between which the last one is a constant, catai. Even Tungatai contains the same letter group. Undoubtedly, it is about a
Pecheneg term that could only mean "city", since it is about
"abandoned cities" and the term is also utilized in the explanations
about the "city" of
p. 29
Aspron
and is retaken in the name of the city on the Dniester in Romanian, Slavonic or
Greek. Still, this Turkish term is well known in the Eastern Europe and the
Middle East. It present the form of kala
/ kale or kalat / kalaat. This is
the term that the toponym of Caracal,
"the Black City" originates in, probably taken by the Romanians from
the Cumans, coming from kara,
"black" + kale,
"city". The other form, kal'at
/ kalaat, with the long stressed
syllable, is to be detected in tenths of toponyms in the region of the Latin
Kingdom of Jerusalem, meaning "city", "fortress",
"castle": Kal'at Sanjil (=
Château St. Gilles), Kal'at Jahmar
(= Chastel Rouge) and others[35].
They are created by the Seldjouk Turks, deriving from the French or Latin names
of the fortresses raised by the crusaders, just as the name of Galata of the ancient district of Pera in Constantinople should also have
a Turkish origin, provided by the neighbor Seldjuks or Ottomans, and should not
be put in connection with a hypothetical memory of the antique Celts, Gallatae[36].
Consequently, the form of catai in the Constantine VII's text
could be a corrupted form of the Turkish cale
/ calat. The deformation is due to
one of the manuscripts' copiers or even to Constantine VII himself, who could
very well make a confusion between one letter or another from the informative
notes. Actually, the most recent editor of the work, that is Gyula Moravcsik
remarks the many errors committed by the copier Michael, some of them being
close to our investigation, as there are the substitution of the - e - vowel with - ai -, and especially by the
copiers that transcribed his manuscript because of the particular forms of the
letters utilized by Michael[37].
Therefore, the - t -
letter could very well be confounded with - l -, so that - t - with - l
-, just that the - ai - ending in catai
could be read as - e -. These corrections specified, it should be passed from
the catai in the text to kale, word that mean "city"
in the Turkish languages. Still, the editor notices another particularity in
the copier Michael's writing: the rising of the - t - letter over the other
letters, just like the - i - vowel, but also the writing of the - i - vowel in the ending
position in the form of - ï -. This could provoke the confusion between -
ï - and - t -[38],
fact the allows the reading of catai
by kalat, meaning the other Turkish
term for "city".
The proposed hypothesis - the correction
of catai in cale or calat - should
be verified by analyzing the Pechenegue-Cuman toponymy in the Romanian space.
The form of cale is already detectable
in the toponym of Caracal and in
some other toponyms. More important seems to be the toponym of Galați, which is largely distributed in
the Romanian space, fact that kept the linguists' and historians' attention.
Beside the Galați toponym on the
Lower Danube, settled in the proximity of the Roman-Byzantine cities on the
both sides of the river and especially near the city of Bărboși, there are
known other five homonymous settlements in the medieval Transylvania. They are
settled on a circle arch that is spread in the internal Carpathian side, from
Bistrița to the Banat. There have been three etymologies proposed for this
toponym. For G. Weigand and G. Kisch, it has a Celtic origin, a later
p. 30
remembrance
of the antique name of the Galats
tribe, which crossed the Dacian space and that was to borrow the name to the
later Constantinople's Galata[39].
On the contrary, N. Drăganu, I. Iordan, C. C. Giurescu and others consider it
as having a Slavonic origin, derived from the anthroponym of Gal[40].
Other followers of the Slavonic origin connect the name of the Danubian city
with a supposed domination of the Galitian Principality towards the river's
mouths, so that its name mean "the small Galici" - Galiæ[41].
Surely, under this new etymology, the toponyms in Transylvania remain
unexplained. Al. Philippide and E. Lozovan propose a Cuman origin, from the
term of kalat "city",
"fortress", with the K / G alternation, frequent in the medieval
sources[42],
which would confirm our hypothesis, at least to a certain extent. It is
because, while the Danubian toponym could be explained through the Cuman way,
the five homonymous Transylvanian toponyms could not be connected with any
presence and even any domination of the Cumans in the Romanian territories on
the internal Carpathian side.
A Celtic origin is difficult to be
admitted, since it supposes the maintenance of the Celtic tribe's memory in the
Romanian space during two milleniums. Also, in the case of other toponyms, such
as Galata, this etymology was put
under question mark. Neither a Slavonic etymology could not be admitted, since
the a > o transformation is not present in the case of the most toponyms,
while it exists in the case of the two toponyms in the Banat (Goliecz, Golecz) and in the Bistrița area (Golaz, Goloz, Galoz). Still, even in this latter
case, there is not a convincing explanation between "word" and
"thing", between Wörter
and Sachen, essential in the
explanation of the toponyms. Henceforth, there remains to examine the
Pechenegue origin of the toponym, which would supposed the presence of the
nomad clan in all the territories that the toponym is present.
For the toponym on the Danube, this
presence should not be demonstrated anymore, being beyond any doubt. In
Transylvania, the first of the five toponyms, settled in the Bistrița region
and present under the form of Galaz[43],
is surrounded by some settlements which names contain the ethnonym of Besseni that designate the Pechenegues
in the Latin medieval sources. Not far of the Galați in the Bistrița region, there is attested a villa Paganica, while in 1432 the
village would return to the form of monte
Besenew alias Heidendorff[44].
There are also two toponyms on the internal side of the Eastern Carpathian,
which are derived from the ethnonym of Besseni[45].
The second toponym of Galați[46]
is
p. 31
attested
in the Făgăraș area, in front of the city of Făgăraș, on the right bank of the
Olt river. There is a village named Bessenbach[47]
("the river of the Pechenegues" in German) and in the same area was
undoubtedly the silva Blacorum et
Bissenorum in the Andrew II's Golden Bull in 1224[48].
The third toponym of Galați is
attested in the Hațeg region in 1443, when is described as a possessio valachalis[49].
In neighborhood, in the Hunedoara area, near another Galați[50],
there is a certain Bezenew (1509)
that is then mentioned as Oláhbeseniö
(1620)[51],
meaning "the Romanian Besseniö" in Hungarian. The last toponym of Galați, in Banat[52],
is surrounded by some more toponyms that prove the Pechenegues' presence in the
region, such as terra castri Boseneu
(1213), Beseneu (1230), forum Byssenorum (1390)[53],
Pechenezka (1540)[54]
and others[55]. Thus, all
the five toponyms of Galați in
Transylvania are located in regions with toponyms that derive from the etnonym
of Besseni. Nevertheless, the toponym
of Galați in the territories inside
of the Carpathians rises some important questions.
First, it is always or should be near an
ancient city. For the toponym in Banat, the presence of a castrum or a forum is
explicitly attested. The same is for the Galați
in the Făgăraș region, in which proximity a Romanian toponym is present, that
is "Cetatea Veche / Ancient City"[56].
The two examples, just as the Danubian Galați, impose the idea that all the
homonymous toponyms in the Romanian space are connected to the existence of
some "ancient cities", named Kalat
by the steppes' horsemen. Secondly, it is about the milieu in which the toponym
had been preserved. Since the very beginning, one could notice that the most of
these toponyms are settled in ancient "Romanian countries", like
Făgăraș, Hațeg, Hunedoara or Banat. Even in the region of Bistrița, during the
middle ages, there is also present a concentrated Romanian population, which,
according to Simon of Keza, had a coexistence with the newcomer Szeklers in the
13th century[57].
The medieval sources bring into light the appearance of the toponym in a
Romanian area; in Făgăraș, a Romanian-Pechenegue symbiosis is attested in 1224
in the toponym of silva Blacorum et
Bissenorum, while the Galați in Hațeg is identified with a possesio valachalis, and the one in
Alba with an Oláhbeseniö. The
hypothesis is also sustained by Romanian phonetics of the toponym of
p. 32
Galath-Galați, despite the linguistic expression of the medieval sources
that mention it (Latin, Hungarian, German or Slavonic). Although, in Bistrița
and especially in the Banat, it appears in a "Slavonized" form -
Golaz / Goloz, respectively Goliecz / Golez -, that supposes either the
presence of a Slavic population in the region, or the adaptation to the Slavonic
phonetics through the offices, at least in the Banat.
Another question is connected to the
origin of the cities that are linked with the Pechenegue-Romanian toponym of Kalat / Galați. At the Danube area, they are clearly antique Roman. For
those in Transylvania, a Hungarian origin is out of question, since the toponym
is absent in the areas of Hungary where the Hungarian-Pechenegue coexistence is
attested. The non-Hungarian origin of the city is clear in Făgăraș, where the
"Cetatea Veche / Ancient City", in the neighborhood of the newer city
of Făgăraș, is previous to the Hungarian and Saxonian presence in the region.
It also dates from the period of the Romanian-Pechenegue symbiosis in silva Blacorum et Bissenorum. As to the
toponym in the Banat, here is mentioned a castrum
or a forum Byssenorum that excludes
a Hungarian origin of the "city". Then, should it be accepted a
Pechenegue origin of the cities? Still, the steppe's horsemen were never rising
any city anywhere. Even in the Latin East, the toponym of Kal'at is connected to the Frankish fortifications. Most probable,
this toponym should be associated with the presence in Transylvania of some
ancient Roman or Dacian cities, like at the Lower Danube, without excluding the
possibility of some Romanian earthly cities. In the case of the toponym in the
Banat, where one could detect a castrum
Bissenorum, it could be about the Pechenegues' settlement around or inside
of such an ancient city.
Finally, another question raised by the
toponym of Galați in Transylvania is
the moment of the Pechenegue element's penetration in the Romanian population
area. At the middle of the 10th century, Constantine Porphyrogenitus
indicates that there is a distance of four days between Patzinakia and Tourkia
(meaning, Hungary) (DAI, 37/48).
While the Pechenegue domination was extended towards the Sereth line or even
the Eastern Carpathian one in the West, the Hungarians did not surpassed
Crișana at their Eastern limit. It was especially because the tribes of Arpad,
still nomadic, were not conversant with the mountainous areas. The region
inside of the Carpathian Mountains that covered the four days walking between
"the Pechenegues" and "the Turks" was a kind of no man's
land between the two rules of the steppe's nomads and was previously avoided by
the two Turanic clans because of its relief and landscape. By the middle of the
next century, the position of the two rules would not be essentially modified.
It would be only to 1050 when the Pechenegue clan would move, pressed by the coming
of the Uzzes, which dislocate Patzinakia. The largest number of the Pechenegue
forces penetrates to the South of the Danube, where it is definitely defeated
only in 1091 by Alexius Comnenos at Lebounion[58].
Meanwhile, groups of Pechenegues entered in Transylvania by the Carpathian
gorges, and organize robbery raids in the Arpadian Kingdom. It would be only in
1068, when the Pechenegues would be definitely defeated by the Hungarians. The
vanquished groups would be colonized at the Western frontiers of the kingdom,
paid by the Hungarian Royalty to defend the boundaries against the German
attacks. Actually, in the area there had been
p. 33
installed
horsemen groups of the same race with them, still beginning with the 10th
century, which left there a toponymy of Pechenegue origin[59].
However, other Pechenegues settled in
the middle of the Romanian population in the Transylvanian "țări / terrae / countries", much before the effective Hungarian
domination in the region, materialized in a royal administration under the form
of the counties and installed only beginning with the 12th-13th
centuries. The Pechenegue elements probably constituted in real 'leaders' of
the Romanian society, fact that is to explain the prestige of a toponym such as
Kalat > Galați, which could very well translate the Romanian toponym of
"Cetatea / the City", as it
seems to be the case of the Galați in Făgăraș area, where the two forms of
Galați / Cetate are attested. The Romanian-Pechenegue symbiosis is clearly
proved in the Făgăraș country, where silva
Blacorum et Bissenorum is previous to the coming of the Saxons and the
Hungarians in the region. It is possible that the Pechenegue leaders to
organize the Romanian population's resistance against the Arpadian penetration
in Transylvania. Also, it could not be excluded the possibility that, in a
later period, after the constitution of a Hungarian ruling administration in
the province, to exist Pechenegue groups in the service of the royalty, as some
toponyms in Crișana or even in the Banat, connected to the Pechenegue names
seem to attest[60]. The
process of the inclusion of the Pechenegue element inside of the "Romanian
countries" is attested in the sources. Thus, the Galați in the Hațeg is a possesio valachalis, while the one in
Sebeș is a Oláhbeseniö, not before
suggesting their presence in the toponym of Galați or in the ones that have their names as derivation. Still,
this process of assimilation of the Pechenegues was slow, whether it is
observed their presence in the Hungarian armies in the 13th century[61],
their mention in Făgăraș in 1224, in silva
Blacorum et Bissenorum, or the fact that the Saxons created some toponyms
that derive from the ethnonym of Beseni,
under the form of "the pagans' village" (Heidendorff) or, in Latin
form, of villa Paganica. It would be
only after their christianization, probably in the 13th-14th
centuries, the Pechenegues' assimilation in the Romanian milieu in Transylvania
would be faster.
The relationship between
"name" and "thing" and between the Romanians and the
Turkish clans in the Northern Danubian space in the clarification of the
toponym of Galați is also clear in
the case of another Romanian toponym, that is Calafat, although this latter should be put into connection the
Romanian-Cuman relationship. The new clan of the Cumans that substitutes the
Pechenegues at the Lower Danube in the second half of the 11th
century extend its hegemony towards the West to the river of Olt, so that the
Wallachian Field becomes a Cumania
before the Tartar invasion. The toponym of Caracal
- Caara + cale, "the Black City" is into connection with the
Cumans. It belongs to the same semantic family of cale / calat
"city". The Cumans, opponents to Constantinople and allies of the
Wallachian-Bulgarians in the South of the Danube, passed the Danube in their
robbery expedition through a ford in front of the city of Vidin, the ancient
Roman Bonnonia, where the toponym of
"Vadul Cumanilor / the Cumans'
ford", nowadays Comana, is
attested on
p. 34
the
left side of the river[62].
There are nowadays two Romanian toponyms, Cetatea
and Calafat near this ford. In the
perimeter of the village of Cetatea,
it was discovered some Roman vestiges belonging to the 2nd-3rd
centuries[63]. It is to
be supposed that the Romanian toponym is associated with the presence here of a
Roman fortification, the pair of the much more known antique city of Bonnonia, on the right side of the
river. The existence of some pairs of Roman-Byzantine cities on the two banks
of the Danube is a frequent phenomenon. The other toponym, that is Calafat, which has not satisfactorily
explained, could only originate in the Turkish word, come from Cuman way, of Kalaat, received by the Romanians under
the form of "Calafat". The Cuman only retook the Romanian in their
own language the toponym of "Cetatea", existed among the natives by
nowadays, they preserving also the Cuman name of the place. Undoubtedly, it is
not excluded that the steppe's horsemen to build here a fortress in order to
control the traffic on the Danube, "pe
drumul Diilui / on the way of Diiu" in the Romanian medieval
documents. Anyhow, Galați / Caracal / Calafat belong to one and the same semantic family and are toponyms
preserved by the Romanians from the Pechenegue-Cuman language.
c. "The deserted Cities"
We already established the inseparable
connection between the toponym of Galați
and the Pechenegue presence at the Lower Danube and in Transylvania in the 10th-13th
centuries. Consequently, the toponym originates in the word of calat, also present in the case of the
"deserted cities" (eremocastra)
in Moldavia, although there could not be definitely excluded the correction of
the word catai to cale, the latter and the Turkish calat / calaat being semantically alike. Henceforth, we have the right to read
the six cities in the Constantine the Porhyrogenitus' text as Aspron, Tung, Cracna, Salma, Saca and Gieiou. Let us
make an attempt to identify them as far as possible, in the light of the
ancient and medieval sources.
"The City of Aspron", perhaps Asprokalat in the Pechenegue language,
does not present any identification problem. It is settled on the Dniester's
Moldavian bank, where it is placed by the Byzantine author, and it does not
represent anything else than Cetatea
Albă for the Romanians, Belgorod
/ Bielgorod for the Slavs, Maurocastron for the Byzantines, Moncastron for the Italians, Akkerman for the Ottoman Turks[64].
The river of Aspros is also
mentioned by Constantine VII (DAI,
9/91) in its proximity, still the town's name comes from the antique city's
walls, as the Byzantine historian explicitly indicates. It is not difficult to
conclude that the city's name has the same meaning for the Pechenegues,
Romanians and Slavs, that is "the white city", while it takes the
meaning of "the black city" for the Greeks, Italians and Turks. In
the latter case, it is probable that the city be renamed by the Greeks after
the 10th century, the meaning being then retaken by the Italians and
the Turks. On the contrary, the endeavor of the name giving to the medieval
city remains unsolved. The city at the Dniester's mouths is known by the Greeks
and the Romans in the Antiquity, because of
p. 35
its
settlement in the contact area between the Northern Pontic steppes and the sea.
Its antique remnants, Greeks and Roman, have been discovered and researched[65].
Its strategic position explains the importance in the Moldavian defensive
system in the 15th century and later in the Ottoman one. Its
impressive fortifications built by the Romanians and the Turks, preserved by
nowadays, stands as testimony.
Among the other five cities' names, Cetatea Saca is the most important. The
toponym of Saca / Seaca is present all around the
Romanian medieval period. It is not anything else than the Romanian adjective
of "sec / seacă", meaning "dry", belonging to the same word
family like the verb of "a seca", meaning "to drain" - to
dry a river's or a lake's water or the tree's sap. It originates in the Latin sicco, -are, just like the adjective of
siccus. In Romanian, it often
appears in the toponyms of Valea Seacă
/ Saca, Apa Seacă or Râul Săc: a
river and the neighbor village, another village and so on[66].
In Wallachia, it is present in many toponyms in the form of Seaca, but also in the name of the
village of Seaca / Saca, regarded as "the deserted
village", with the conservation of the diphthong of [ea]. On the contrary, in Transylvania there is the same form like
in DAI and in the Moldavian toponymy
of Saca / Zaca, with the S / Z interchange, known in the Latin and Hungarian
sources[67].
The same toponymic family also includes Secatura
/ Săcătura / Secătură, and in the Transylvanian toponymy there is also Zakatura[68].
Having an exceptional frequency on the two rages of the Carpathian Mountains, from
Bukovine towards the Banat, this toponym, together with the one of Runc, also of Latin origins, defines a
cleared land by the draining of the forest by the human being[69].
What is the meaning of Saca in the toponym of "Cetatea
Saca"? The connotation could only by the one of "deserted",
"abandoned", "emptied", "waste" city.
Nevertheless, the remarkable fact is the identity between the meaning of the
Romanian toponym and the Greek term for "deserted", "waste"
cities (eremocastra) in the
Constantine VII's text. The fact allows us to suppose that the Byzantine
historian simply translated the Romanian toponym. It is clear that the
Pechenegues simply retook the city's name from Romanian, which is present in
the scholar emperor's text in a Romanian-Pechenegue mixed form, that is Sacacalat, "Cetatea Saca",
that is "the Deserted City". We are to emphasize below its
identification.
The third on the list, the city of Cracna is difficult to be identified,
because of the form that the toponym presents in the text. It could be the Crăciuna in the Moldavian sources,
transmitted in the form of Crac[iu]na,
especially because it is retaken in a close form in a Moldavian chancellery's
act dated 1416, that is Craæ[u]na[70].
While the solution of the manuscript transmission seems to be satisfactory, the
difficulty comes from another point. The later Romanian city Crăciuna, which
was for a long time the dispute object between Wallachia and Moldavia, was
located on the Milcov river, too far from the Danube's mouth, although it was in
the proximity of a Roman "troian". By its geographic position and the
Romanian medieval sources' testimony, the identification with the city of
Bărboși near Galați, the medieval Gherghina,
seems more acceptable. It is also present in
p. 36
the
Latin of Dimitrie Cantemir, transcribed as Gergina.
The transformation from the Romanian Gergina
to the Greek Krakna looks possible,
whether the G / K interchange in the Byzantine historian's text is taken into
consideration. Among other cases, this interchange is present in the name of an
Armenian prince, that is Grigorios / Krekorikios (DAI, 43, 7). It is also detected in the numerous deformation of the
human and places' names in the work, either due to the errors of transmission
from the informer to the author's working cabinet, or to the successive copies
of the Constantine Porphyrogenitus' manuscript. Therefore, the Romanian
transcription of Gergina / Gherghina, frequent in the medieval
anthroponymy and toponymy, to Krakna
looks possible.
The solution is sustained by the
presence in the surroundings of the city of Galați of the antique relics -
Latin inscriptions, Roman coins -, remarkably documented in the Romanian
medieval sources and the modern archeological discoveries. It is also sustained
by a toponymic argument. The present day name of the city is Bărboși, some centuries ago attested.
The toponym is very spread in the subcarpathian regions in Moldavia and
Wallachia. Marele Dicționar Geografic al
României [The Great Geographic
Dictionary of Romania], issued a century ago, mentioned some tenths of them[71].
Bărboși is nothing more than a
translation of the Hungarian toponym of Sakall
/ Zakall, which, at its turn, relies
upon the Romanian Saca that we dealt
on other occasion[72].
The presence of the Hungarian toponym in these regions, where many Hungarians,
Romanians and Szeklers from Transylvania was established during the middle
ages, is connected to the Hungarian Kingdom's interests in the corridors in the
extracarpathian space that permitted them the acces towards the Danube's mouths
through the Buzău and Sereth valleys. Louis of Anjou's privilege accorded to
the merchants in Brașov in 1358 attests the presence of the Transylvanian
businessmen at the Sereth's river mouth to the Danube, so that at Galați. Here
the continuity Rom. Saca > Hung. Sakall / Zakall > Rom. Bărboși
is thus documented. In this case, there is remarkable the presence in the
Romanian medieval toponymy of the city of Gergina
/ Cracna's name in the 10th
century, but also of the toponym of Saca,
changed in the present day in Bărboși
through the Hungarian Sakall.
Moreover, the Romanian medieval city of Galați
was built in their vecinity, and it should be connected with the Pechenegue
toponym of Kalaat, "the
City". Also here, the Pechenegue name is nothing else than a retaking of
the ancient Turris, "the
Tower", "the City", borrowed by the steppe's people from the
descendants of the ancient Roman population at the Danube's mouths.
The second in the Byzantine historian's
list, the city of Tung or Tunc seems to be the same with Tint, mentioned in the Cantemir's work
and settled at the Ialpug river's mouths, at the river mouth in the Black Sea.
As we already noticed, for the Moldavian erudite, it is an ancient city,
rebuilt by Stephen the Great and entirely destroyed by the Turks, when they
conquered the Bugeak after 1538. Its memory is retaken during the 18th
century in many documents. The most important document is dated 1759, in
connection with the estate of "Tentil". The latter extended "de lângă troian [valul lui Traian], pe Cahul, despre răsărit / from the
trojan [the Trajan's wall], on the Cahul, towards the East" and that also
comprised the village of "Bărboși" on Ialpug in its enclosure[73].
The identification between the city of Tintil
and the "deserted city" in the Byzantine historian's work is
p. 37
supported
by the presence of the village of Bărboși on Ialpug in the enclosure of the 15th-16th
centuries Moldavian fortification. As in the case of its homonym near Galați,
the toponym of Bărboși relies on the evolution Rom. Saca > Hung. Sakall
> Rom. Bărboși. The Hungarian
influence in the Southern Bessarabian toponymy should be connected with the
Hungarian Kingdom domination at Chilia and the surrounding area during the 15th
century. The value of this testimony is determined by the fact that it attests
the city's existence on the way between Cetatea Albă and the Danube's mouths,
near the earthen wall built by the Romans in the Southern Moldavia for
defensive purposes. It is difficult to specify the toponym's meaning that does
not seem to have Romanian origins. Anyhow, we are not to know whether the
Pechenegue or the Byzantine form be original, which should suppose a deformed
transmission to the Romanians, or, on the contrary, a transcription error of
Constantine VII.
The last two cities, Salma and Gieou, raises other kind of problems in their identification. While
the three "deserted cities" that we proposed an identification are in
the Southern Moldavia, between Dniester and Sereth, the two seem to be settled
on the Danube's right bank, in the North of the Scythia Minor. Salma could be the ancient Thalamonium, identified with the city
at Nufărul, on the river's Southern branch, that is St. George, taking also the
medieval Th / S interchange into account, which could lead to the form of Salamonium. The difference between Salma and Salamonium could be an objection. Still, it is necessary to do not
regard the form in the antique Latin and Greek texts, but the one that was in
use in the inhabitants' way of speaking in the 10th century. In the
same region of Scythia Minor, the city of Carsium
was spelled as Cars, as it is often
mentioned in the sources and as it represents the basis for the Slavized modern
form of Hârșova. Therefore, the
ancient city's name could be in use the inhabitants' spelling under the form of
Salama or something, fact that would
explain the toponym transmitted as Salma
in the Greek text.
Transcribed as Gieou, the other city could a corrupted form for Aegyssus (the present day Tulcea),
another ancient city on the Danube's same branch. In the natives' language, the
toponym could be in use under the form of Igis
or Egis. In the Byzantine
historian's transcription, the initial vowel fell and the toponym took the
Genitive form of Gieou, as it is present
in the name of the city of Axiopolis
> Axioupolis[74].
This identification is supported by the material remnants brought to light by
the archeologists as the massive walls of the ancient cities[75].
Anyhow, the major obstacle is represented by the settling of the two
cities on the river's right bank. Still, the difficulty is diminished whether
some details connected to the limit between Patzinakia and Bulgaria in the
Byzantine text are taken into consideration. On the one hand, the historian
affirms that the Pechenegues' domination extends towards the neighborhood of
the Bulgarian city of Silistra on the Danube (DAI, 42/20-21), on the other hand, he asserts that there is a half
day distance between the two rules (DAI,
37/48). The fact made the experts confused. Still, the deadlock could be
surpassed whether we admit that this no man's land of a half of day distance is
settled in the North of Scythia Minor, having a
p. 38
totally
different relief and landscape than those of steppe in the Northern half of the
region. The last two "deserted cities" were to be found in this no
man's land between Patzinakia and Bulgaria, in a territory not entirely unknown
for the Pechenegues. It should be added that the maintaining of the two ancient
toponyms in the 10th century is not to be a singular case, whether
we take into account the city of Carsium > Cars > Hârșova, which name has
been preserved by now in the region's toponymy, or the name of the more
distinguished antique city of Durostorum
/ Dărstor / Silistra.
In connection to the six "deserted
cities", it is necessary to specify the place where Cetatea Saca was located. The most plausible version is its
identification with the medieval Isaccea,
also settled on the Danube's bank in Dobroudja. The medieval city was situated
on the antique Noviodunum's
settlement, having a very important strategic position in Scythia Minor, since
it controlled the passage way on the Danube's most important ford in the mouth
river's area. The antique city was abandoned during the 7th century,
no later than once with the arrival of the Asparuch's Protobulgarians. Thus, at
the middle of the 10th century, it was an "deserted city"
or, in the Romanians' language, a Saca.
After 971, when the Byzantines return at the Danube as military power, the city
is rebuilt and has the same importance in the New Rome's defensive system. The
new fortifications and the huge quantities of Byzantine coins in the region
stand as testimonies[76].
The name of Satza, a leader of the revolt in Paristrion against Byzantium on
1072[77],
is to be probably regarded as the toponym's Greek form retaken from the
Romanians: Rom. Saca > Gr. Satza. Under the circumstances of the
Constantinopolitan power's decay at the Danube after 1204, the medieval city
fails in importance, but a century later, to 1300, the Tartar Khan Nogai and
one of his sons establish here their residence and a coinage workshop. The city
is mentioned in the Eastern sources as Saqcia
/ Sacdji[78],
that probably relies on the Romanian toponym of Saca, also present in the Constantine Porphyrogenitus' text. The
later Ottoman form of Isaccea
supposes an original Romanian Saca,
which the Turks took the present form, on the pattern of Gr. Smirna > Tk.
Izmir, Gr. Nicaea > Tk. Isnik or Gr. Vlachia > Tk. Iflak.
Whether the six "deserted
cities" in the Byzantine text are attentively regarded, there are three of
them settled on the North of the Danube, while the other three are to be
detected on the South of the river. The first three - Aspron / Cetatea Albă,
Tunc / Tintil and Cracna / Gergina - certainly belong to the Pechenegues'
domination area, while the ones in Scythia Minor - Salma / Thalamonium, Saca /
Isaccea and Gieou / Aegyssus - are to be found in a territory controlled by the
nomads or at least on their invasion way to the Bulgarian Tzarat and later to
the New Rome's empire. Eventually, the enumeration for the ones at the North of
Danube is from the Dniester to the West - Cetatea Albă, Tintil, Gergina -, but
for the South of the river their mention does not follow any logical order.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus presents them as Salma-Saca-Gieou and not from the
upstream to the river's mouth, Saca-Giaiou-Salma, as it was natural. Whether
the identification that we advance is correct, then the author's error comes
from the information received by him in Constantinople.
p. 39
d. The Southern Moldavia: a Romanian nucleus of
civilization?
Under the circumstances of the existence
of some Romanian toponyms in the Southern Moldavia - that is, Saca and Gergina - to year 900, it is not lack of interest to emphasize some
hydronyms in Constantine Porphyrogenitus' work, having the same origin.
Certainly, the most important of them is
Siret / Sereth. We approached its
Romanian origin on another occasion[79],
so that we only present here the essential points. First, the evolution of the
Moldavian river's name imposes the conclusion that there is a definite gap
between the antique forms of the hydronym - Tiarantos (Herodotus), Hierassos
(Ptolemaios) and Gerassus (Ammianus
Marcellinus) - and its medieval one, of Siret
/ Seret. It is in opposition with
the most of the important Romanian hydronyms that present more or less a
continuity from the antique names to the medieval ones. This conclusion
determines another one: a new population in the river's basin substituted the
ancient population that had named the river in the classical antiquity,
substitution occurred during the last antique centuries and the beginnings of
the middle ages. The caesura appears for the first time in Constantine
Porphyrogenitus' work. For him, the river's name has two forms: one
"Byzantine-Hungarian", Seretos,
and the other one "Pechenegue", Sarat.
Still, the analyzing of the hydronym's forms in the Romanian medieval texts
provokes another surprise: the form Seret
/ Siret is accompanied by another
one, that is Săret, the latter
having more versions (Săriat, Săreat). This form is mentioned in the
17th-18th centuries Romanian texts, in alternation with Siret. The hydronym Săret relies upon the Romanian
collective noun of Săret, "the salty river", "salt", surely
derived from "sare / salt". It was formed like many Romanian
collective nouns as Nucet, Făget, Cornet and many others, massively present in the Romanian toponymy.
To prove the relationship between "names" and "things" (Wörter und Sachen), the Sereth river
contains the greatest quantity of salt dissolved in the water among the big
rivers in the Romanian space. The conclusion goes without saying: the hydronym Seret is nothing else than a
Slavic-Hungarian form, derived from the ancient Romanian hydronym Săret, present in the people's
vocabulary by the dawns of the modern era. Still, its foreigner
Slavic-Hungarian pear, Seret, was
extremely presented in the Moldavian chancellary, where it was imposed by the
norms against its commoner rival. The hydronym's Romanian origin is confirmed
by the existence in Transylvania of the toponym of Seret / Zereth, Szeretfalva in Hungarian, Sărățel in Romanian[80].
Saratžthe river's other name in Constantine
Porphyrogenitus, considered as "Pechenegue", is only another Romanian
form for the hydronym. Sarat is
"the Salty River", and one and the same form is to be found in the
Romanian toponymy and hydronymy: Sarat
or Sărata[81].
The renouncement to the river's ancient name should be put into connection to
the substitution of the Dacian-Iranian population on the river's lower flow
with a Romanic one, on the way of becoming Romanian at the beginnings of the
middle ages.
Also, the river of Pruth has a double
form for the Byzantine historian: Broutos
and Bourat. As it looks like, the
second one would be Pechenegue, received by the steppe's horsemen from the
natives, whether it is not to be deformed by the Greek author or by the
copiers. On the contrary, the "Byzantinized" form of Broutos could bring the Romanian
p. 40
name
of the Prut river into light, by the
B / P interchange. The name of the Pruth river prolongs the antique,
Scythian-Dacian one of Porata.
The Dniester's name is also important.
It also appears in a double form: Danaster
and Trullos. The former has an
antique, Scythian-Dacian origin[82].
Also Greecised by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the latter is still Trul and considered as
"Pechenegue". He is also present in the 12th-14th
centuries sources, under the form of Turla
/ Turlu, utilized by the Turkish
populations in the region and also retaken by the Latin sources[83].
Without denying the possibility of a Pechenegue origin, it is not excluded
that, taking the region's toponymyc "milieu", it to derive from the
Romanian hydronym of Nistrul, by the
retaking only of the final syllable from [Nis]Trul by the steppe's horsemen[84].
The fact that the hydronym would subsequently take other forms derived from
Turlu / Turla should not be surprising, since they could only adaptations to
the Turkish nomads' spelling in the region.
Saca,
Gergina, Săret / Sarat / Seret, Prut and maybe [Nis]trul are Romanian toponyms attested in
the first decades of the 10th century in the Southern Moldavia. Whether
the solutions advanced are correct, there could be added the antique ones of Igis (Aeggysus) and Salma (Salamonium). The hydronym of Dunăre (Danube) should not also be
underestimated, since it comes from the Dacian Donaris directly into Romanian, or the toponym of Cars (Carsium), later
"Slavonized" as Hârșova. The mentioning of some "deserted
cities" does not necessarily mean the existence of a deserted region at
the Lower Danube, or the fact that the region was to be exclussively inhabited
by the Pechenegues, as could result from the Constantine Porphyrogenitus' work.
On the contrary, retaken by the newcomers from the natives, this toponymy
supposes the existence of a post-antique sedentary population that conserved or
create them in the dark ages of the great migration's millenium. The toponymy
does not put the ethnic-linguistic feature of this population into shadow. It
is Romanian and comes directly from the late Romanity at the Lower Danube. The
conclusion confirms Vasile Pârvan's intuition that three quarters of century
ago considered that since the times of Trajan "the entire Moldavia and the
Southern Bessarabia were annexed to the Roman territory and civilization"[85].
Meanwhile, the 10th century's toponymy at the Danube's mouths region
wastes all the suspicions connected to the Romanian population's presence at
the beginnings of the middle ages in a territory that had never belonged to the
Trajan's province.
Moreover, the Romanian toponyms in the
Byzantine historian's work also bring into light other Byzantine information
that deal with the ethnical realities at the North of the Danube or some
controversial matters connected to the beginnings of the Romanian medieval
history.
p. 41
Among the Byzantine sources presenting
details concerning the North Danubian world around year 1000, there is a speech
belonging to the Metropolitan John Mauropus, dated the years before the middle
of the 11th century. The high clerk delivers information about the
Byzantine-Pechenegue relationship in the Danube area, at the beginnings of the
steppe horsemen' great attacks in the Balkan provinces of Constantinople. The
speech makes also referrals to the population found out by the Pechenegues in
the territory at the North of Ister taken into domination. "By robbery,
Mauropus notes, [the Pechenegues] also gained the country that they have
inhabited by now, banishing the ones that had lived there before and that were weaker; [our] previous rulers did
spare no pains regarding those latter [emphasis mine]"[86].
The "weaker" one that had inhabited the Southern Moldavian region
before the Pechenegues' arrival and that the Roman rulers "did spare no
pains" could only be the descendants of the antique Romanity at the Lower
Danube, according to the toponymy presented in the 10th century Imperial
scholar's work and to the other news presented above. As for the information
delivered by the Byzantine metropolitan that the Pechenegues were to banish the
ancient region's inhabitants, it allows us to suppose the demographic
modifications in these regions during the 3rd-5th decades
of the 11th century, when the Pechenegues' motion under other
Turanic peoples, broke the frail balance established in the region more than a
century before. Under these circumstances, the Romanians in the Danubian
territories are pulled out in the forest zones in the North, where they would
find more security.
In this matter, the archeological
argument, having no relevance whether it is taken separately for the study of
the ethnic-linguistic feature of the population, sustains the historical and
linguistic data. In a pertinent analysis of the demographic situation in
Moldavia endeavored in an ample monography, Victor Spinei notices around 400
settlements in the region of the future Romanian principality for the 9th-11th
centuries. Among them, more than a half are located on the lower flood of the
three main rivers of the region: Sereth, Pruth and Dniester[87].
Remarkable for those times, the settlements' density presents a long tradition
sedentary population, which could not be represented by the steppe horsemen
that dominated that space; they only represented a superstratus, having military and political functions, dominating
the many and "the weaker", according to the John Mauropus' text[88].
Still, the archeology also demonstrates the violent motions occurred about the
year 1050 that bring the material culture in the region created in the period
between 800 and 1050 to an end. It also elucidates the gradual appearance of a
new material culture in the hilly Moldavian territories after the middle of the
11th century, this latter originating in the ancient disappeared
civilization[89]. The three
arguments - linguistic, historical and archeological - come to a common point,
in order to elucidate the ethnic-linguistic feature of the population in the
Southern Moldavia during the 10th-11th centuries and the
violent modification occurred to 1050 in its existence.
p. 42
The Romanian-Pechenegue coexistence in
the 10th century, convincing illustrated by the toponymy in the
Constantine Porhyrogenitus' work, allows us to also explain some controversial
news in other 10th-11th Byzantine sources, connected to
the same North Danubian ethnical realities. First, there is the passage in the
Suidas lexicon, saying that "the Dacians, that now are called as Pechenegues."
There are to be added two mentions in the most ancient manuscript in the 11th
century belonging to the Constantine Porhyrogenitus's work, that is De Administrando Imperio that represents
the object of our investigations. The two mentions are: "the Pechenegue
Dacians" and "the Pechenegues that previously were called as
Dacians". Finally, the Zonaras lexicon also explains that "Dacians:
Pechenegues"[90].
Gy. Moravcsik and other historians considered the "Dacians" in this
notes as an archaic term utilized for the Pechenegue nomad clan by the
intellectual milieu of the Hellenized New Rome, as a consequence of the ancient
Dacia's memory in the 10th-13th centuries[91].
On our turn, we proposed a different interpretation for these notes: the North
Danubian "Dacians" that the Byzantine intellectuals named the
Romanians in the region were called as "Pechenegues" because of the
name of the dominator clan[92].
We sustained this interpretation by mentioning the medieval Byzantine and Latin
authors' practice to denominate the Roman populations in the ancient Eastern
Empire's space by the ancient provinces' denominations: Gallians, Hispanians, Africans, Pannonians, Rhetians, Noricians, Dacians, Mysians, etc.
Consequently, the name of "Dacians" given to the Romanians in these
notes, as in other later sources, belongs to an almost universal practice in
the medieval world, culturally connected to the ancient Greek-Roman
civilization. For instance, in the 15th century, Chalkokondylas
specified that the Vlachs in the Pindus Mountains, in the Northern Greece
"speak the same language with the Dacians and are like the Dacians on the
Ister". Also, much earlier, during the 11th century, Kekaumenos
identifies the Vlachs in Thessaly with "the Dacians" in the ancient
province of the Aurelian Dacia, at the South of Danube[93].
On the other hand, the information is also available in other similar cases
during the middle ages, where a territory and its population are named on the
dominator clan. Thus, the Gaules-Romans took the name of the Clovis' conqueror
Franks, the Hispanian-Romans was renamed as "Wizigoths" in the 5th-7th
centuries, the South Danubian Slavs definitely took the name of the Asparuch's
Turanic conquerors, while the Eastern Slavs took the name of the Warangian clan
of the "Russ"[94].
The Romanian toponymy in the Byzantine text confirm the interpretation proposed
for the 10th-11th centuries Greek notes. It is especially
because the growing relationship between Constantinople and the Lower Danube
world in this period brought more precision in the knowledge of the
ethnic-linguistic realities in the region, illustrated by Constantine
Porhyrogenitus or John Mauropus.
Among the controversial matters
regarding the Romanian medieval beginnings, there is also the theory of
"the Romanian language's nuclei". Six decades ago, the Romanist
Sextil Pușcariu launched the idea of some areas of conservation and then of
expansion of
p. 43
the
Romanian language in the North Danubian space, relying on the still partial
data offered by "Atlasul Lingvistic
Român / The Romanian Linguistic Atlas", issued by the School of Cluj[95].
E. Petrovici proposed the existence of five "nuclei" on the
Carpathina's internal side[96].
They both commenced the investigation from the existence of some archaic
isoglosses in some linguistic area, counterlapped to some new areas. Still, the
reactions against appeared, connected either to the frailty of the isoglosses'
argument, or to the existence of some linguistic conservative areas also on the
external side of the Carpathian crown[97].
On the other side, another Romanist, that is E. Gamillscheg, embraced the
hypothesis and proposed the existence of a "fireplace" (Kerngebiet) on the Lower Danube, between
Giurgiu and Cernavodă[98].
Later, seduced by the German Romanist's hypothesis, E. Lozovan retook it, but
he placed this "nuclei" towards the West of the Wallachian Field, in
order to cover also the Vlașca region, which name made the theory more powerful[99].
The Romanian toponymy in the Southern Moldavia and the antique toponyms in the
Northern Scythia Minor brilliantly confirm the hypothesis of the existence of a
Romanity area at the Lower Danube, having unflinching arguments. The only point
is that it should be localized towards the East, in the Southern Moldavia, in the
space of that "strategic area" of the Rome's interests and, later, of
Constantinople, are that the empire built tenths of cities on the both sides of
the river, with important military forces, together with the civilians.
In this Romanity area at the middle of
the 10th century, it is surprising the absence of any trace of
Slavic toponymy or at least of Slavic phonetics, excepting perhaps the hydronym
of Rom. Săret > Seret, if Seret does not represent a Hungarian influence. The phenomenon
could have two explanations. P. P. Panaitescu regarded the Romanians' and
Souterhn Slavs' coexistence at the beginnings of the middle ages as
"strata of populations"[100],
where the majoritarian Romanians assimilated the Slavs at the North of the
Danube, while the Slavs absorbed the Romanic element in the Balkans. Under
these circumstances, the Southern Moldavia during the first medieval centuries
was inhabited by a huge "stratum" of Romanity, while the East of the
Wallachian Field, having the main hydronymy slavonized (Ialomița, Dâmbovița,
Prahova etc.), could be found a "layer" of Slavic population. Still,
it would be more probable that the explanation for the Slavic influence's
absence be another one. By the 10th century, when the Northern
Danubian Slavs are christianized through the agency of the Bulgarian Tzarat
recently embracing the faith in Christ, the dialogue and the symbiosis could
not be established between the Christian Romanians and the Pagan Slavs. It
would be only afterwards that the Slavic element would
p. 44
be
absorbed and also that it would influence the Romanian toponymy[101].
The most of the linguists consider that the Constantine Porphyrogenitus'
period, if not later, was the period of the Slavonic influences on the Romanian
language. Among other proofs, the fact is confirmed by the toponym of Galați, presenting typical Romanian
phonetics everywhere, excepting the two settlements beyond the mountains, in
Bistrița and Banat, where there are also some mentions with a Slavonic
phonetics, because of some influences resulting from Romanian-Slavic ethnical
contacts or by chancellery.
Once in this point of the dialogue among
the medieval populations, we are not to avoid the matter of the Byzantine
interlocutor in the Lower Danube space, at least in the case of Constantine Porphyrogenitus.
The question was generally raised by E. Lozovan, who excluded the Turanic
horsemen from the possible interlocutors of Constantinople. He also excluded
the pagan Slavs[102].
Lozovan's hypothesis is confirmed by the episode of the Bulgarian state's
christianization that we analyzed on another occasion[103].
Having the anthroponymy of the embassies' members sent by Boris to Rome and
Constantinople, we concluded that the Zar in Pliska negotiated with the Pope
through the agency of subdues having typical Romanic names (Ursus, Martinus,
and maybe Cerbula), while he envoys messengers having Greek names to the basileus (Alexios and Stasis /
Anastasios). The episode of the Bulgarian christianization put the Zar in the
situation to promote elements belonging to the Romanic and Greek Christian
population. Does this very fact not allow us to search for the interlocutors or
at least the mediators of the dialogue between Constantinople and the steppe
horsemen among the local Romanic Christian population? A positive answer to
such a question relies on two arguments. One of them is connected to the
region's toponymy, which could be transmitted in the respective terms only by a
Romanian-speaker. As we specified above, the most convinving toponym for these
direct linguistic contacts between the Byzantines and the Romanians is Saca, "the deserted City",
similar to the term of "the deserted cities" (eremocastra) utilized by the Byzantine historian to appoint the six
castra in Southern Moldavia having Roman Christian traces. The other is
furnished by John Mauropus, whose speech makes referrals to the
"weak" ones under the Pechenegue domination that enjoyed the ancient
Roman sovereigns' care. The two arguments are clear: Constantinople maintained
direct contacts with the Christian Romanian population in the North of the
river.
A last problem of the Romanian medieval
history that Constantine Porphyrogenitus' text brings into light is the
tradition of the Romanians' Roman origins. In opposition with other new-Latin
peoples, such as the Frenchmen and the Spaniards, which built new identities
during the first medieval centuries by "Troyan" and
"Gaethic-Gothic" origins and the abandonment of the ethnonym of
"Romans", the Eastern Romanity preserved the memory of its antique
origin[104]. The name
that its members had given to themselves, of rumâni / armâni / rumeri, derived from romani, is a capital argument to
sustain that their memory was connected to their Roman origin. In this point,
Constantine Porphyrogenitus brings the first firm testimony about the Roman
origin tradition for the
p. 45
Balkan
branches of the medieval Latinity, even if merely for the island in Dalmatia.
It is also significant that he promotes the name of rhomanoi that its members named themselves, and that he also adds
their colonization by Diocletian[105].
Moreover, the Byzantine historian also
speaks about a "tradition" (paradosis)
of the Roman sovereigns' domination in the space of the "deserted
cities", which he connects to the Christian vestiges in the area. It is
true that the author seems to be skeptical as regards this tradition that he
attributes to "certain persons" (tines).
Who are these "certain persons"? Are they somehow the Byzantine
scholars around the learned emperor? It is not to be out of question, although
he was to offer more ample referrals about the "tradition" in this
case. Still, there are two facts that impose us to search for the source for
this "tradition" somewhere else. As the Roman origin's memory was
present in Dalmatia among the Romanity in the region, connected even to the
names that its members gave to themselves, we are right to suppose that the
emperor's interlocutors or the mediators of the dialogue between him and the
Pechenegues could only be the Romanians that preserved the name of "Romans"
and the memory of their Roman origins. Certainly, this memory was more vague
than for the "Romans" in Dalmatia and relies on the Roman vestiges in
the territories that they inhabited in and on their Christian faith. The other
fact is the medieval tradition of the Roman origin of the Romanians, later
attested and connected to the "trojens", the "Trajan's
walls" that passed through their fields or even their settlements and that
are present in the collective memory and then in the official acts or in the
scholars' works. They are also connected to the remnants of the "deserted
cities" on their territory by the dawns of the modern era. We cannot leave
aside the connection between the "tradition" that the 10th
century Byzantine historian refers to and the later people or cult Romanian
tradition about the Romanians' Roman origins, connected to the Cesars'
domination to the North of the Danube.
*
* *
At the end of the analysis around the Constantine
VII's text, we are to formulate the most important conclusions.
a)
a) The late antique sources confirm the
existence of a Roman domination in the space between Dniester and the Lower
Sereth, having a specific military function, that is to dam the passing way of
the Turanic peoples towards the Wallachian Field and Scythia Minor that assured
the New Rome's security. This domination was illustrated by the walls, by the
tenths of cities on the Lower Danube's both sides and in the Northern Pontic
steppes, as by the Roman "cities" and "colonies" mentioned
by Evagrius, inhabited by soldiers and civilians that exploited the stone and
the iron. The main chronological guiding marks of this Roman "island"
are: the Trajan's rule that establish its commencement and, six centuries
later, the arrival of the Asparuch's Protobulgarians to 680, fact that meant
the end of the Imperial Roman domination in the region and the abandonment of
the Roman cities.
p. 46
b)
b) The names of five among the six
"abandoned cities" contain the expression of -catai- (-katai), erroneously transmitted in the manuscripts of the Byzantine scholar's
works, which should be read as -calat
(-kalat) or
-calle- (-kale) that mean
"city", "tower" in the Pechenegue language. The term proves
to be extremely fruitful in the Romanian toponymy, from the Danubian Galați and the five homonymous
settlements in Transylvania to Caracal
and Calafat, the last two on the
Cuman channel. All these toponyms translated the Romanian toponym of "Cetate / City", "Turn / Tower" in the horsemen'
language. The most significant among them is the one at the Lower Danube, Lat. Turris > Ancient Rom. Cetate / Turn > Tk. Kalat
> Rom. Galați.
c)
c) The most names of the "deserted
cities" are Romanian innovations or preserved in the antique toponymy in
the Romanian milieu. Anyhow, among them there are Saca (Isaccea), Gergina,
but also Cetatea Albă, translated in
Pechenegue as Aspron or Asprocalat. Among the last ones, there
are the two cities in the Northern Scythia Minor, Salma < Salamonium
and Gieou < Aegyssus. The origin of the last city's name, that is Tunc, probably Tint (?) in the Moldavian medieval sources, remains uncertain.
There also to be mentioned the Romanian hydronyms in the Constantine
Porphyrogenitus' work, such as Sarat
/ Săret > Hung. Seret, Prut / Gr. Broutos and
probably [Nis]Trul, and also the certain presence in the region of the hydronym
of Rom. Dunăre < Dacian Donaris or the toponym of Lat. Carsium > Ancient Rom. Cârs > Rom. Hârșova, the latter
through Slavonic intermediary.
d)
d) The toponymy in the Southern Moldavia at the
beginning of the 10th century definitely demonstrates the existence
of an extent "stratum of Romanian population" or of a conservation
nucleus and later a demographic expansion of the Romanian element. More
exactly, it proves a native "Romanian land", relying on a community
of law that later would be mentioned in the formulae of "legea țării / the law of the land",
"legea românească / the Romanian
law" or jus valachicum, as in
many other "Romanian lands". Its existence is sustained by
historical, linguistic and archaeological sources, which also bring into light
the fate of this Romanic community after the violent events at the middle of
the 11th century. It means its dislocation by the new storm burst out
by the Turanic peoples in the region and the Romanian population's retirement
towards the hilly zones in the North, where it was to be safer before it would
create its own state structures inside of the Moldavian principality.
For this material, permission is granted
for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and
personal use.
Whether you intend to utilize it in
scientific purposes, indicate the source: either this web address or the Annuario.
Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica 4 (2002), edited by Șerban
Marin, Rudolf Dinu and Ion Bulei, Venice, 2002
No permission is granted for commercial
use.
© Șerban Marin, August 2002, Bucharest,
Romania
Back to
Homepage Annuario 2002
[1] Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio [hereafter, DAI] (ed. by Gy. Moravcsik, R. J. H. Jenkins),
London, 1949, ch. 37: 58-67.
[2] Some summary
referrals to the Constantine VII's work are only in connection to Cetatea Albă, see C. C. Giurescu, Târguri sau orașe și cetăți moldovene din secolul al X-lea până la
mijlocul secolului al XVI-lea, Bucharest, 1997: 208-213.
[3] Gy. Nemeth, "Zur Kenntnis der
Petschenegen", Körösi Csoma-Archivum
1 (1921-1925): 219 ff.; K. H. Menges,
"Etymological Notes on some Pācānāg Names", Byzantina 17 (1944-1945): 272-273; Gy. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, Berlin, 1958: II, ???; DAI :, II. Commentary (ed. by R. J. H. Jenkins),
London, 1962: 149.
[4] DAI: 37, 41; 37, 48; 42, 20-21.
[5] The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrios with
the Scholia (ed. by J. Bidez,
L. Parmentier), London, 1898:
V,1; Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanae
[thereafter, FHDR], Bucharest, 1970:
II, 526.
[6] About Theophanes
the Confessor and the sources of his work, see K. Krumbacher, Geschichte
des byzantinischen Literatur, Munich, 1897: 342-347; Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica: I, 531-537; H. Hunger,
Hochsprachliche profane Literatur,
Munich, 1977: 334-339.
[7] Chronographia (ed. Bonn): 359; FHDR: II, 618.
[8] V. Pârvan, Începuturile vieții romane la Gurile Dunării, Bucharest, 1923: 138.
The author mentions the existence of some important Roman military units in the
city of Bărboși, near Galați, and at Tyras (Cetatea Albă), see ibidem: 132-133, 140.
[9] Radu Vulpe, Studia Thracologica, Bucharest, 1976: 164 ff. The historian
gathered all his contributions referring to the relationship between the
Dacians in the Wallachian Field and the Imperial Rome.
[10] E. Lozovan, Dacia Sacra, Bucharest, 1998: 175. Here it is republished in
Romanian version an author's excellent study, first published in French,
dedicated to "the Scythian Romanity" at the Danube's mouths.
[11] On the aims of this
Bishopric of Gothia, connected with
the presence of some "Christian Romans" in the region, see H. G. Beck, "Christliche Mission und
politische Propaganda im byzantinischen Reich", in Idem, Ideen und
Realitäten, London: Variorum Reprints, 1972: 654-655. From this viewpoint,
the ancient debate around the establishing of the Bishopric of Gothia - in the Southern of Moldavia or
in Crimea -, which titular was present at Nicea in 325, is out of question
since it could very well comprise all the "Romans" from the Northern
Pontic steppes and from the Danube's mouths, meaning from the all space
dominated by the clan of the Goths.
[12] For the entire
matter and the bibliography, see Em. Popescu,
Christianitas Daco-Romana, Bucharest,
1994.
[13] On the Roman
offensive policy during Constantine the Great at the North of the Danube, see
I. Barnea and O. Iliescu, Constantin cel Mare, Bucharest, 1982: 107-123; D. Tudor, "Preuves archéologiques
attestant la continuité de la domination romaine au Nord du Danube après
l'abandon de la Dacie sous Aurélien", Dacoromania
1 (1973): 149-161.
[14] Procopius, De aedificiis, in IDEM, Opera
omnia (ed. by J. Haury), IV,
5, 2, 6, 7, 8; FHDR: II, 460, 462.
[15] Novellae (ed. by R. Schoell, G. Kroll), Berlin, 1968, XI, 2; FHDR: II, 378.
[16] Ioannes Lydos, De magistratibus (ed. by R. Wuensch),
Leipzig, 1903, II, 28: 83; FHDR: II,
492.
[17] Menander Protector, Excerpta de legationibus (ed. Bonn),
Berlin, 1903: 48: FHDR: II, 516, 518.
[18] Procopius of Cesarea, The Wars, in Opera Omnia (ed. by Haury),
VII, 14, 33; FHDR: II, 444. The same
conception would be reiterated when it is described the debate between the
general Priscus and the Avar Khan Baian around the domination of the city of
Singidunum on the Danube, related by Theophanes
the Confessor, see Chronographia:
276-277; FHDR: II, 610.
[19] Novellae, the Edict XIII, ch. XI, 25-27;
FHDR: II, 386.
[20] The Christian Topography of Cosmas
Indicopleustes (ed. by E. O. Winstedt),
Cambridge, 1909: III, 169, C-D; FHDR:
II, 399.
[21] M. Costin, Opere (ed. by P. P. Panaitescu),
Bucharest, 1965: II, 42.
[22] Ibidem.
[23] Ibidem: 42-43.
[24] Ibidem.
[25] D. Cantemir, Descriptio Moldaviae, Bucharest, 1973: 84.
[26] Ibidem.
[27] Ibidem.
[28] Ibidem: 76.
[29] Ibidem. For the discussion around the
Trajan's inscription dated in 112 a. Chr., see ibidem: 99.
[30] DAI, Introduction: 12.
[31] Ibidem: 18-19, 28 ff.
[32] For the manuscript
tradition, see ibidem: 34.
[33] Ibidem: 18-19.
[34] Ibidem: 28 ff.
[35] R. Dussand, Topographie historique de la Sirie antique et médiévale, Paris,
1927; Lozovan, op. cit.: 172-173.
[36] For Turkish
toponyms in the sultans' 16th century Constantinople, see Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica: II, 204 (Mpalata kalhsi - Osm. Balata kapisi and other examples, with
the literature of the matter).
[37] For the frequent
utilization of the diphthong [ ai ] insted of the [ e
]
vowel, see DAI, Introduction: 17. For
the copiers' errors in general, see ibidem:
27 ff.
[38] The confusion could
also come from the writing of stressed [ i ] in the form of [i
] and
the rising of [ i ], see ibidem:
17.
[39] G. Weigand, in Balkan Archiv 1 (1921): 5; G. Kisch,
Siebenbürgen im Lichte der Sprache,
Leipzig, 1929: 182-183.
[40] N. Drăganu, Românii în veacurile X-XIV pe baza toponimiei și a onomasticei,
Bucharest, 1933: 280-281; I. Iordan,
Nume de locuri românești în Republica
Populară Română, Bucharest, 1952: 229; Giurescu,
op. cit.: 233-235.
[41] B. Grekov and A. Iakubovski, La Horde
d'Or. La domination tatare au XIIIe et au XIVe
siècle de la Mer Jaune à la Mer Noire, Paris, 1939: 182-185.
For other similar opinions and their critics, see Lozovan, op. cit.:
170-173.
[42] Al. Philippide, Originea românilor, Bucharest, 1927: II, 374-375; Lozovan, op. cit.: 131, 172.
[43] Coriolan Suciu, Dicționar istoric al localităților din Transilvania, Bucharest,
1967: I, 250: Galaz, Goloz, Golaz (1345), Galaz
(1356), Galacz, Heresdorf, Galaț (1854).
[44] Ibidem: II, 247: villa Paganica (1432), vinee
in monte Besenew alias Heidendorff (1432), Beșineu (1750) etc. (the nowadays Rom. Viișoara, Hung. Besenyö,
Germ. Heidendorf).
[45] Ibidem: 228: poss. Beseneu (1349), Bessenew
(1414), Besenye (1414) etc.
(nowadays, Rom. Valea Izvoarelor, Beșineu; Hung. Buzásbessenyö); ibidem: 29: Besenczed (1332), Bessenyw
(1484) etc. (nowadays, Rom. Pădureni, Beșeneu, Hung. Sepsibesenyö).
[46] Ibidem: I, 250: poss. Galath (1396), Galach (1432), Galacz
(1528), Galatz (1637) etc.
[47] Ibidem: II, 15: Bezenbach (1529), Bessenbach
(1534) etc. (nowadays, Rom. Olteț, Beșimbac; Hung. Besimbák; Ger. Beschenbach).
[48] Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen im
Siebenbürgen, Sibiu, 1892: 35. For localization, see A. Lukacs, Țara Făgărașului în Evul Mediu, secolele XIII-XVI, Bucharest, 1999:
157-158.
[49] Suciu, op. cit.: I, 250: possessio
valachalis Galacz (1443), Galacz
(1447), Galaz (1500) etc.
[50] Ibidem: Galac (1505), Galacz
(1733), Galatz (1760-1762).
[51] Ibidem: II, 113: Bezenew (1509), Oláhbeseniö
(1620), Besseneu (1733) etc.
(nowadays, Rom. Secășel, Beșinău; Hung. Besenyö; Germ. Heidendorf).
[52] Ibidem: I, 268: Goliecz (1468), Golacz
(1501), Galach, Galacz (1531), Gollecz
(1840) etc. (nowadays, Rom. Galeț, Hung. Galacs).
[53] Ibidem: 212: terra castri Boseneu (1213), Beseneu
(1230), forum Byssenorum (1232), Bessenew (1369) etc. (nowadays, Rom. Dudeștii
Vechi, Beșenova Veche; Hung. Obenesyö, Germ. Altbeschenowa).
[54] Ibidem: II, 32.
[55] Ibidem: I, 212. Almost ten medieval
toponyms, derived from the Pechenegues' ethnonym, are nowadays dissappeared as
settlements (Ibidem: II, 298).
[56] D. Prodan, Urbariile Țării Făgărașului, 1970: I, 393; A. Lukacs, op. cit.: 67.
[57] Simon de Keza, "Gesta Hunorum et
Hungarorum", in Historiae Hungariae
Fontes Domestici (ed. by M. Florianus),
Pecs, 1883: II, 70: "sed [Zakulos] cum Blacis in montibus confinii sortem habuerunt".
[58] G. Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates, Munich, 1963: 296-297; P. Diaconu, Les Petchénègues au Bas-Danube, Bucharest, 1970: 130-133.
[59] I. Kniesza, "Ungarns Völkerschaften
im XI. Jahrhundert", Archivum
Europae Centro-Orientalis 4 (1938), 1-3: 347 ff.
[60] Suciu, op. cit.: II, 298.
[61] Among the most
important royal expedition, in which the Hungarians have "the Saxons, the
Wallachians, the Szeklers, and the Bisseni"
as allies, is the one commanded by the Count Joachim of Sibiu against the city
of Vidin, see Documenta Romaniae
Historica, D series: I, 28-29.
[62] The first mention
of the toponym of the "Vadul Cumanilor" is dated in 1385 and is
present in the first documents of the Wallachian office, see Giurescu, Istoria românilor, Bucharest, 1935: I, 279 ff.; Iordan, Toponimia românească, Bucharest, 1963: 270.
[63] D. Tudor, Oltenia romană, Bucharest, 1968: 25, 256; Idem, Orașe, târguri și
sate în Dacia romană, Bucharest, 1968: 321.
[64] Giurescu, Târguri sau orașe: 208-213; Mariana Slapac, Cetatea Albă.
Studiu de arhitectură militară medievală, Chișinău, 1998; N. Bănescu, Maurocastron - Moncastro - Cetatea Albă, Bucharest, 1941.
[65] Slapac, op. cit.: 27 ff.
[66] DRH, A series: Moldova, III, d. 48; XXI, d. 106.
[67] Suciu, op. cit.: II, 93, 102, 428.
[68] Ibidem: I, 365; II, 102.
[69] Iordan, Toponimia românească: 24-26, 127-129.
[70] I. Bogdan, Documentele lui Ștefan cel Mare, Bucharest, 1913: I, 113.
[71] Marele Dicționar Geografic al României,
Bucharest, 1898: I.
[72] S. Brezeanu, "Terra Zek". Toponimie și drepturi regaliene în Transilvania
medievală [forthcoming].
[73] Giurescu, Târguri sau orașe: 295-296.
[74] For the toponyms of
antique origin in Scythia Minor, see Notitia
Dignitatum, Or. XXXIX, in FHDR:
II, 208.
[75] A. Opaiț, "Aegyssus 76. Raport
preliminar", Pontica 10 (1977):
307-311; Al. Suceveanu and Al. Barnea, La Dobroudja roumaine, Bucharest, 1991: 189; P. Polonic, "Cetățile antice de pe
malul drept al Dunării (Dobrogea) până la gurile ei", Natura 24 (1935), 7: 25.
[76] Suceveanu and Barnea, op. cit.:
187-189; Gh. Mănucu-Adameșteanu, Istoria Dobrogei în perioada 969-1204.
Contribuții arheologice și numismatice, Bucharest, 2001: 55-65.
[77] Anna Comnena, Akexiada: VI, XIV, 1.
[78] V. Spinei, Moldova în secolele XI-XIV, Chișinău, 1994: 210-214.
[79] Brezeanu, Hidronimul Siret. O reinterpretare [in print].
[80] Suciu, op. cit.: II, 107.
[81] Ibidem: 106; DRH, A: Moldova: I, doc.
20, 134 and passim; Ibidem, B: Țara Românească: II, doc. 43 and passim.
[82] V. Pârvan, "Considerații asupra unor
nume de râuri scito-dacice", Memoriile
Istorice ale Academiei Române, 3rd series, 1 (1923): 6-8; G. Schramm, "Der Rumänische Name der
Donau", Dacoromania Jahrbuch für
östliche Latinität 1 (1973): 230.
[83] Spinei, op. cit.: 41.
[84] For this
hypothesis, it is interesting the presence in the Cuman anthroponymy in Codex Cumanicus of some Romanian people
names having the articles of -ul, -ula (Mantula, Omul, Turtul), just like in the hydronym of [Nis]Trul, see P. P. Panaitescu,
Introducere la istoria culturii românești,
Bucharest, 1969: 253. More important for our hypothesis is the Romanian
medieval form of the city of Vidin, Dii
and Diiu (DRH, B.: III, doc. 141: Bdii:
II, doc. 155: "drumul Diiului /
the way of Dii"; XXII, doc. 288) that obviously relies on the Slavic
toponym's last syllable, which could be borrowed by the Romanians from the
Cumans in Calafat.
[85] Pârvan, Getica, Bucharest, 1982: 71.
[86] FHDR, Bucharest, 1975: III, 4.
[87] Spinei, op. cit.: 434-435.
[88] For the sedentary
Romanic population's part in the Lower Danube, under the circumstances of the
Barbarian 'empires'' succession during the middle ages, see L. Musset, Les vagues germaniques, Paris, 1969: 63; Brezeanu, Romanitatea
orientală în evul mediu. De la cetățenii romani la națiunea medievală,
Bucharest, 1999: 40 ff.
[89] Spinei, op. cit.: 114-115.
[90] For sources and all
the discussions, see Brezeanu,
"Les «Daces» de Suidas. Une réinterpretation", Revue des Etudes du Sud-est européen 22 (1984), 2: 112-122,
reprinted in Idem, Romanitatea orientală: 74-82.
[91] Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica: II, 116.
[92] Brezeanu, "Les «Daces» de
Suidas".
[93] L. Chalcocondylas, Historiarum Demonstrationes (ed. by E. Darko), Budapest, 1927: II, 92; FHDR: IV, 484. For Kekaumenos' information, see Kekaumenos, Sovety i rasskazy Kekaumena (ed. by G. G. Litavrin), Moscow, 1972: 268l FHDR: III, 40.
[94] Brezeanu, Romanitatea orientală: 40, 233 and passim.
[95] S. Pușcariu, "Les enseignements de
l'Atlas Linguistique de la Roumanie", Revue
de Transylvanie 3 (1936), 1: 13-22; Idem,
"Le rôle de la Transylvanie dans la formation et l'évolution de la langue
roumaine", in Transylvanie,
Bucharest, 1938: 37.
[96] E. Petrovici, "Siebenbürgen als
Kernland der nördlichen der Donau gesprachenen rumänischen Mundarten", in Siebenbürgen, Bucharest, 1943: 309-317.
[97] L. Támas, "Sur la méthode de
l'intérprétation des cartes de l'Atlas Linguistique Roumain", Archivum Europae Centro-Orientalis 3
(1937): 228-243; Al. Rosetti,
"Sur la méthode de la géographie linguistique", Bulletin Linguistique 12 (1944): 106-112.
[98] E. Gamillscheg, "Zur Frühgeschichte
des Rumänischen", in Gedächtnisschrift
für Ad. Hämel, Würzburg, 1952: 6572; Idem,
"Romanindad oriental y romanidad occidental", Cahiers S. Pușcariu 2 (1953), 1: 1-11.
[99] Lozovan, Dacia Sacra: 68-69.
[100] Panaitescu, Introducere la istoria culturii românești, Bucharest, 1969:
120-121.
[101] Brezeanu, Romanitatea orientală: 18-19.
[102] Lozovan, op. cit.: 67.
[103] Brezeanu, "Grecs et Thraco-Romains
au Bas-Danube sous le regne du tsar Boris-Michel", Revue des Etudes Sud-Est Européennes 19 (1981), 4: 643-651
(reprinted in Idem, Romanitatea orientală: 66-73).
[104] Idem, Romanitatea orientală: 7 ff.
[105] DAI: 29 / 5-6. For the comments on this
tradition belonging to the Byzantine historian, see the still available study
of K. Jireèek, "Die Romanen
in den Städten Dalmatiens während des Mittelalters", Denkschriften der k. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. 48-49 (1902):
44 ff. On the contrary, the authors of the commentary to the last critical
edition of the Constantine Porphyrogenitus' text do not say anything about the
Dalmatian Romanity presented by the Byzantine historian.