A comprehensive survey of the archaeological finds considered to indicate the persistence of a Romanized population in the territory of former Dacia Traiana is Problema continuit|Űii în Dacia în lumina arheologiei Ői numismaticii (The Problem of Continuity in Dacia in the Light of Archaeology and Numismatics) by D. Protase, Bucharest, 1966. In the Foreword to this monograph, the author states that Awe have collected and selected here all the archaeological and numismatic material published or yet unpublished which was known to us up to 1964B1965.@ According to the Preface written by C. Daicoviciu, Protase´s monograph is

Protase gives a detailed presentation of what he calls Athe vestiges of the Daco-Romans in Dacia between 271 and 450 AD@ (pp. 103B198). In the intro-duction to this chapter, the following statement is made:

Table 8. Settlements and cemeteries where archeological remains attributed to ADaco-Romans@ were described. (On the basis of D. Protase, Problema continuit|Űii în Dacia în lumina arheologiei Ői numismaticii, 1966, pp. 104B 132. The Hungarian names of the places in Transylvania are given in brackets.

Cluj-M|n|Őtur (Kolozs-Monostor):

NoŐlac (Nagylak):

R|cari:

During the Roman period, R|cari was a vicus on the way to become a town.

Sarmizegetusa (Gr|diŐtea) (Várhely):

SebeŐ (Szászsebes):

Soporul de Câmpie (MezĹszopor):

VerbiŰa:

A settlement from the period of Roman domination Aand, possibly, also from the times following the official abandonment of the province.@

VeŰel (Veczel):

A fragment of a silver fibula, dated to the 4th century, with the inscription AQuartine vivas!@ was found there (cf. below, p. 180).

A cemetery of cremation, which dates from the second half of the 4th century (and possibly to the beginning of the 5th). This is the largest cemetery from the period following the abandonment of Dacia Traiana by the Romans. It was found in Bratei, 7 kilometers east of MediaŐ (Hung. Medgyes), on the bank of the river Târnava Mare (Hung. NagyküküllĹ). This cemetery is considered particularly significant:

As on several sites in Transylvania, remains from many different periods and populations, from the neolitic to the 13th century inclusive, were excavated at Bratei. The following survey is based on the article by R. Harhoiu, in DicŰionar de istrorie veche a României, edited by D.M. Pippidi, 1976, pp. 99B102.

Settlement No. 1 (4thB6th centuries AD). Pottery made on a wheel (Aa development of Roman pottery@) and by hand (Aof Dacian origin@), and a small quantity of fine, grey earthenware, Aindicating the presence of a Germanic element@. Settlement No 2, in four levels:

(a) 4thB6th centuries, of the same character as settlement No 1.

(b) 6thB7th centuries, showing traits of the IpoteŐtiBCiurelBCândeŐti culture.

(c) 7thB8th centuries, showing traits of the first phase of the Dridu culture.

(d) 12thB13th centuries; pottery made on a wheel; agricultural and other kinds of tools; vases and cooking vessels of the Petchenegs.

Cemetery No 1, 4thB5th centuries (see below).

Cemetery No 3, 6thB7th centuries, with 300 tombs of inhumation; Gepidic.

The size of the cavities is the following: length, 120 B 150 (180) cm, bredth, 40 B 60 cm, depth (measured from the original surface), 20 B 50 cm.

1. Pots, of Roman origin, also found in the Sântana de MureŐ culture.

2. Large storing vessels are found in almost all tombs. They are known from the Roman period and also from the Sântana de MureŐ culture.

3. Bowls, very frequently found also in sites of the Sântana de MureŐ culture.

4. Amphorae are more numerous than the bowls. In the Sântana de MureŐ culture, amphorae are rare. According to L. Bârzu (p. 39), AThis form is provincial Roman and represents the realization of the red Roman amphorae in a grey paste, of a late period.@ They indicate, according to the same author, that workrooms which preserved the techniques of the Roman provincial pottery existed in Transylvania in the 4th century.

5. Jugs B a small number of fragments were found.

This type is represented less (about 15%) than the pottery made of a rough paste. The Bratei cemetery reveals in this respect a different situation as compared to the sites of the Sântana de MureŐ culture. The forms are largely the same as those in the group made of a rough paste. They must be products of local workshops, which thus produced pottery Aof purely Roman tradition@ in the 4th century and in the first 2 or 3 decades of the 5th. The pots and the bowls, as well as the jugs are similar to those found in the Sântana de MureŐ culture, but the jugs are also found in Roman cemeteries.

About 5% of the pottery found at Bratei were imported. These vessels were made of a fine paste, burned red; there also are enamelled vessels, mostly amphorae and jugs. These were probably made in Pannonia, a province well-known of the production of enamelled vessels in the 4th century. At Bratei, there is a large variety of forms, while in the Sântana de MureŐ culture, the amphorae prevail. This is considered another indication suggesting that the population at Bratei was different from that of the Sântana de MureŐ people.

Although present in almost all tombs, this type is not found in very large amounts. According to differences in the paste and the burning, 3 types may be distinguished. Regarding forms, the pot without handles is most frequent; there is also the censer (c|Űuia) and the lid. The censer is of typical Dacian tradition:

These are few in the cemetery No 1 at Bratei. There are pieces made of iron, silver, and bronze. Objects of iron include farming implements, handicraft utensils and other tools, one weapon, Afusaiol@-s, fibulae, clasps, etc. One entire plough-share and a fragment was also found; they are of the type of the provincial Roman style of Pannonia. Sickles are of the type found among the free Dacians as well as in the Roman world. Of some joiners tools, one is known from the material remains of the free Dacians, the rest from the Roman Empire. Of the awls, one variant, of Roman origin, as well as most of the fusaiol-s are also found in the Sântana de MureŐ culture. Only 19 fibulae were found at Bratei. All are of the type Awith the leg inverted below@; most of them have counterparts in the Sântana de MureŐ culture or in the territory of present day Hungary. The same is true about 8 clasps of iron.

All objects of glass were imported; they are quite numerous. There are vases, bracelets and pearls. The vases are of several types, most of which have counterparts in Western Europe, in the Sântana de MureŐ culture and/or in the territory of present day Hungary. One of the centres of production of these vases was Cologne, but they were also made in Pannonia; those found at Bratei were most probably imported from that province. Pearls are also of several types, and almost all have counterparts in the Sântana de MureŐ culture and/or in Hungary (from the Hunnish period). Certain types were widespread in Europe, and are characteristic of the Abarbarian@ world of the 4th century (Bârzu Cemet p. 72).

These are mostly combs varying in size from 5.2 x 5.2 cm to about 10 x 8 cm. ACombs of this kind are characteristic of some late Roman settlements and cemeteries and particularly of the area of the Sântana de MureŐ-Cerneahov culture@ (p. 74). The number of tiles and of bricks is quite high. They are made of a very rough paste and are bulky. AThese tiles are different from the classical Roman tiles by the quality of the paste, the burning as well as by the bulkiness@ (p. 75). Ligia Bârzu assumes that their presence in this cemetery indicates the existence of an older settlement in the vicinity, from which those who used the cemetery took the tiles.

In the territory of former Napoca and in present day M|n|Őtur, 3 km from the centre of the town, a total of 26 Roman coins from the period after the Roman domination in Dacia (up to the end of the 4th century) were found.

Table 9. Settlements and cemeteries where archaeological remains of free Dacians and other non-Roman populations, who migrated to the territory of former Dacia Traiana after 250B275 AD, were found. (On the basis of D. Protase, Problema continuit|Űii în Dacia în lumina arheologiei Ői numismaticii, 1966, pp. 104B132.)

LechinŰa de MureŐ (Maroslekence):

ProŐtea Mic| (KisekemezĹ)

S|r|Űeni (Sóvárad):

On a hill called AEprestetĹ@, on the eastern shore of the Olt, two tombs, one of cremation and the other of inhumation, were discovered in 1959. This type of tomb of cremation was usual in Dacia Romana, being found also at Apulum, Porolissum, MoreŐti, SebeŐ, and CinciŐ. The cemetery at Bratei, from the 4th century (see above), is of the same type. It is not found in areas which remained extra provinciam.

Soporul de Câmpie (MezĹszopor):

It seems that Dacia Traiana did not take part in the large-scale spread of Christianity during the 3rd century, which characterized the Balkan provinces and also Gallia, Britannia, and the Iberian peninsula. (In the western Asian and northern African territories of the Roman Empire, the new religion had been propagated effectively already before 200 AD.) Discussing the causes of this, Protase stresses the importance of the fact that the socio-economic structure of Dacia Traiana was different from that of other Roman provinces; it was closer to the Abarbarian@ form of life in free Dacia than to a system of a Roman community. Other factors, according to Protase, may have been the stronger supervision exercised by the authorities in this remote province as compared to other regions, and also the interruption of contacts with Asia Minor in the mid-second century.

Protase considers that the significance of the objects of Christian character from the 4th century is that they can be used as a Atestimony of the theory that a numerous Roman population existed in Dacia after Aurelian.@ In IR 1960, the fact is pointed out that, in the 4th century, Christian communities appeared along the Danube and that dioceses were founded in the Danubian provinces: in Marcianopolis, Naissus, Sirmium, Siscia, Durostorum, Tomis, etc. The gains of territory north of the lower Danube in the 4th century, during the reign of Constantine the Great are said to have made the propagation of Christianity in the regions north of the lower Danube possible.

The style of these objects is similar to those made in the period in question in Italy, northern Africa, the Balkan provinces and Pannonia; they were, Afar from

being local products@, imported from some of these provinces.

Protase assumed, as other Rumanian archaeologists, that the owners of these objects were ADaco-Romans@. Other authors, e.g., A. Alföldi, considered that they belonged to the Goths or, as F. Lot, did not attribute any importance to them.

(1) All objects of Christian use f rom the 4th century were found in the territory of the former province of Dacia Traiana. It is true that two inscriptions were found also in Slovakia, but only one of these can be accepted as having been Christian, and they Abelong to Pannonia Romana, from where they may have been imported to Slovakia in a late period.@ Three objects of Christian character were found on the Great Hungarian Plain, but

(2) 306-392 AD. The circulation of Roman coins increases sharply. Most finds are from the period of Constantine the Great, who occupied an area north of the lower Danube (cf. above, p. 154). Most of the coins were made in Siscia and in Sirmium. From this period, which ends with the Hunnish invasion, almost 300 isolated bronze coins were found in Transylvania. Ten hoards of coins, which were either entirely accumulated during this period or whose accumulation ends in this period were found in Transylvania, 19 in the Banat, and 2 in Oltenia. The total number of discoveries from this period is, according to Preda, Aabout 200" approximately 26 for each decade.

The gold coins are considered to have been owned by the peoples who dominated the country B the Goths, the Gepidae, the Huns B representing tribute paid to them by the Roman or the Byzantine Empire. In the following, the circumstances will be summarized which, according to Protase,

(1) The coins were found throughout a large territory and not restricted to some areas with one particular population: Athe attribution of the coins to a population which did not occupy the entire territory of the former province is a priori excluded.@

(3) The coins were mainly found in the vicinity of Roman camps, urban centres, rural settlements, or in places where vestiges from the Romans were found, or in settlements and cemeteries of the autochthonous population founded at the end of the 3rd century or in the 4th century. However, on the same page, Protase states that Alate Roman coins found in places where no kinds of remains from the 2nd and the 3rd centuries or from the following period are mentioned in the literature, are numerous.@ This may, according to Protase, in many cases be explained by our lack of knowledge of such remains because of lack of archaeological investigations in the places in question.

(Ego, Zenovius, votum posui ´I, Zenovius, have placed [this] present´), and a disc of bronze with the monogram of Jesus Christ (X + P). It was found in 1775 in the woods and fields, about 3 miles from Biertan, nearMediaŐ (Hung. Medgyes), together with fragments of a jar and a tureen of bronze. Made in the Roman Empire, these objects probably belonged originally to a bronze chandelier from an altar. The significance of this find is, according to C. Daicoviciu, as follows:

(2) The arch of a silver fibula, later changed to a ring, discovered in 1865 in the MureŐ valley at VeŰel, west of Alba Iulia (Hung. Gyulafehérvár). It shows the inscription: QUARTINE VIVAS; it does not contain Christian features.

The appearance of the Rumanian Linguistic Atlas in the 1930s seemed to have provided linguistic evidence of the preservation of the Latin language in some regions north of the lower Danube. PuŐcariu argued that the presence of Latin forms in the Transylvanian Alps imply the survival of a Latin-speaking population:

This theory has been accepted also by several other European scholars. E. Gamillscheg believed that two areas in Rumania might be considered core areas, AKerngebiet@-s of a Romance population: (a) a small strip of territory along the lower Danube, and (b) the region of the MunŰii Apuseni in western Transylvania. The consideration which led to the hypothesis of the MunŰii Apuseni as a Kerngebiet may be summarized as follows:

The Rumanian sub-dialect spoken there pronounces sclab instead of slab, scloat|, scloi, sclov|, sclug|, etc. instead of sloat|, sloi, slov|, slug|, etc. It is known that in certain areas of Vulgar Latin, k was put between s and l.

Moreover, rinichiu ´kidney´ in Muntenia corresponds to the form r|runchiu in other parts of Rumania (also in the region of the MunŰii Apuseni). The origin of these two forms goes back to the period of the Roman Empire: reniculus was said in Gascogne, in Sardinia, and in the south of the Roman Empire, while renunculus was preferred in northern France, in the provinces of Raetia, Noricum, and part of the Balkan peninsula. This suggests that the Rumanian population originated from at least two areas, one connected with the south and another situated within the area of renunculus.

According to Gamillscheg, the hypothesis of the MunŰii Apuseni as an ancient dialectal area is strengthened by two names of rivers and two placenames of directly Roman origin in this region: Ampoi and CriŐ (rivers), and Abrud and Turda (placenames). The placenames in the valleys of the ArieŐ and the Ampoi indicate that 110 villages were founded by Hungarians, 87 by Rumanians, and 32 by Slavs. On the other hand, out of 17 names of mountains in the same region, only 4 are Hungarian, 13 are Rumanian, and none is Slavic. This would suggest that the mountains there were populated by Rumanians before the Slavs and the Hungarians settled in that region. To all this, Gamillscheg adds, with some reservation (Awenn auch seine Angaben durchaus nicht als einwandfreie historische Zeugnisse gelten können@), the text of Anonymus about a certain Gelu, a AVlachA, who is said to have been living in this region at the beginning of the 10th century. (The narrative of Anonymus is discussed above, p. 156, and below, p. 215B219).

The theory of an ancient Rumanian Core Area (Kerngebiet) in western Transylvania, put forward by Sextil PuŐcariu in the 1930s, was referred to in 1975 by Giurescu & Giurescu:

In the third (1974) edition of IR Compendiu, the idea that early Christianity was spread in the former province of Dacia Traiana in the Latin language appears again (p. 77), but the passage about the word biseric| is omitted.

It is claimed that this proves that Athe oldest and most numerous@ (cele mai vechi Ői cele mai numeroase) Slavic elements of Rumanian could only have been borrowed from the Slavs who lived east of the present day frontier between Bulgaria and Serbia, and north of the highest peaks of the Haemus mountains.

Petrovici remarks that this hypothesis is corroborated by the fact that the Greek language has a Slavic word (blacqi) to denote the Vlachs, which indicates that Ain the early Middle Ages, South Slavs were living between the Greeks and the Rumanians.@

The sound patterns of loanwords and other circumstances indicate that already Balkan Latin was exposed to a certain Slavic influence, beginning with the 6th century. The number of words of South Slavic origin in Common Rumanian was relatively low (only about 70), and the South Slavic influence on Northern Rumanian became most intense AFTER the 10th century. All these facts are described by Rosetti.

A crucial problem of the history of the Rumanian language is WHERE the tremendous South Slavic influence was exerted upon it. No serious linguist can deny that such influence was exerted south of the Danube, but if the theory of continuity is to be sustained, also north-Danubian areas must be assumed. Rosetti (ILR 1986, p. 265) formulated the following statement about this:

Daicoviciu, Petrovici, and Ôtefan (La formation du peuple Roumain et de sa langue, 1963) also restrict their discussion of this problem to the WORDS from the substratum, without mentioning the correspondences between Rumanian and Albanian in other respects. They conclude, referring to I.I. Russu, Limba traco-dacilor, 1967, p. 220, that these words

Rosetti, in Istoria limbii române, 1986, presents the AlbanoBRumanian correspondences in great detail. His conclusion regarding the territory of contact between the two populations is cautious:

The very close correspondences between Rumanian and Albanian would not contradict the theory of formation of the Rumanian language north of the Danube if it could be shown that the same language was spoken in antiquity in Macedonia, in Serbia, western Bulgaria, Oltenia and Transylvania.In that case, the ancestors of the Rumanians could have inherited the ancient, pre-Roman elements from this language north of the lower Danube. (We disregard here the similarities also regarding the Latin elements.) This hypothesis is based on the ancient Greek and Roman terms AThracian@ and AIllyrian@; there is also the term ADaco-Moesian@:

Is there any material evidence in favour of the assumption of the same language in a very large territory: Thracian, Thraco-Dacian, Illyrian, Daco-Moesian, or a ACarpatho-Balkanic word stock@, as assumed by IR 1960? Unfortunately, very little is known about these ancient languages, which makes the answer to this question difficult. But Thracian and Dacian etymologies have been proposed for Rumanian words. Poghirc, in ILR 1969, pp. 329B335 and 355 considers that a Dacian etymology is possible in the following cases:

mic ´small, little´ Aseems to be attested in ThracoBDacian@ in the placename Micia, in the name of a people Micenses, and in the personal names Miccos, Miccas, etc.

zîrn| ´black nightshade, Solanum nigrum´. The second half of the Dacian name pro-diarna may have had the meaning ´dark´. This word was connected with the Dacian placenames Dierna, Tierna, Zerna.

doin| ´elegiac song; doina´. Many etymologies have been proposed. A connection between this Rumanian word and Lithuanian daina, Lettish daina ´popular song´ is generally accepted by investigators of the Baltic languages. E. Fraenkel believed that doin| originated from Dacian.

This list of four words not only gives some examples of possible Dacian etymologies in Rumanian but contains ALL words for which such an etymology is discussed by Poghirc among words of unknown origin.

I.I. Russu has tried to compose a RumanianBThraco-Dacian glossary. The Thracian lexical elements were compiled from Greek and Latin texts; their meanings are either known with some probability or are assumed. Among the Rumanian words in this list, 11 probably originate from the substratum of Rumanian: balt| ´marsh´, brusture ´common burdock´, bucurie ´joy´, c|tun ´small village´, colib| ´hut´, copil ´child´, curpen ´tendril´, gard ´fence´, groap| ´cavity´, spânz ´hellebore´, Űap ´he-goat´.

The fact that the Dalmatian language does not belong to the Balkan Linguistic Union is said to show that Athe Rumanian language was not formed near the Dalmatian@. Similarly, the differences between the two languages, for example those in the treatment of the Latin consonant groups gn, ct, and cs, are said to prove that the south-western part of Illyricum and Old Dalmatia had nothing to do with the formation of the Rumanian language. It is emphasized that Rumanian and Dalmatian were always separated from each other:

Old Germanic populations B in the first place, Goths and Gepidae B were living in several areas of present day Rumania for many centuries after the Roman domination. This is known from written records and from rich archaeological material characteristic of these peoples. On the basis of the theory of Daco-Roman continuity, one would expect some Old Germanic influence upon Northern Rumanian. It is therefore understandable that several authors have assumed an Old Germanic origin of many Rumanian words. Thus, Diculescu assumed that 16 words, 15 personal names, and 5 placenames derived from Old Germanic. It has been shown, however, that these etymologies are based on mere phonetic similarity.

According to M. Isb|Őescu, there are ten Rumanian lexical elements of which Aa Germanic origin seems possible or at least more probable than the other etymologies which were proposed@: bâlc| ´jug; pitcher´, bulz ´chunk, lump; sawn log´, ciuf, ciof ´tuft of hair, shock´, nasture ´button´, rap|n ´scurf, scab´, str|nut ´star´, strugure ´grapes´ , targ| ´ barrow; litter´, tureci ´trousers´ , and zgudui ´to shake´. None of these etymologies is generally accepted and almost all were rejected by scholars who have investigated the problem.

The absence of Old Germanic elements in the Rumanian language is thus generally recognized. According to Daicoviciu, Petrovici & Ôtefan (La formation du peuple Roumain et de sa langue, 1963), this does not contradict the theory of continuity in Dacia, and the same opinion may be read in IR 1960.

were not favourable for the penetration of Germanic elements into the Rumanian language. In IR 1960, it is also affirmed that AGermanic elements would have been transferred to Rumanian even in the case it had been formed in the Balkan peninsula.@

On the other hand, a ADaco-Roman@ element among the Gothic and Gepidic material remains in Transylvania is also asserted. Referring to IR 1960, p. 692, to investigations of Diculescu, Philippide, and Gamillscheg, Rosetti concludes:

Also the very close relationships between the Balkan languages (Greek, Albanian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, and Serbian) are in contradiction with the idea that the ancestors of the Rumanians lived as far away from the areas of these populations as present day Rumania. Explanations: a ACarpatho-Danubian language@, lively contacts between the Empire and the territories north of the lower Danube etc., were discussed above, p. 186. But also the idea itself of a Balkan Linguistic Union has been questioned (cf. above, p. 87). However, Rumanian authors in general accept the idea of Balkan Linguistics (cf., for example A. Rosetti´s volume entitled ´Balkan Linguistics´).

ARumanian placenames which continue autochthonous antique names ... exist.@ Eighteen such names were assumed by Poghirc to belong to this type of place- names; of these, a geographic correspondence (besides the phonetic similarity) may exist in the following cases: Drencova, HîrŐova, Mehadia, Oltina, and B|roi. Drencova, in the Banat, is believed to continue Dric(c)a, mentioned by Iordanes and possibly a tributary of the Danube. Another river, a tributary of the Tisza, is Dregkwn or Drhkwn. HîrŐova is assumed to continue ancient Carsium in Dobrogea. Mehadia is assumed to originate from Latin Ad Mediam; although not from Latin medius but Aprobably from an autochthonous *Mehedia, Mehadia, with an intervocalic h not recorded by the Romans.@ Oltina in Dobrogea continues ancient Altina, and B|roi, ancient Birea, Beroe. (This question is discussed in more detail below, pp. 244.)

Also PuŐcariu wrote about the translation of Rumanian placenames by the Slavs, and, in Transylvania, by the Hungarians:

Not all placenames based on Slavic lexical elements were given by Slavs. There are Rumanian derivatives of Slavic names: Cern|teŐti (cf. Old Slavic …rßnß), PleŐeni (cf. Old Slavic plš/) Awhich may have been given by the respective Rumanian population.@ Also placenames derived from personal names of Slavic origin may have been given by Rumanians: AIf a name of river, such as DîmboviŰa originates from a population which spoke the Old Bulgarian language, the placename Cr|eŐti (Tecuci), for example, does not permit the same explanation because it derives from a personal name (Craiu), from the name of the owner of the estate (Iordan, Rum. Top., 53).@

There are also placenames of Slavic origin given by Rumanians: for example Baia or Bivol, from words of Slavic origin borrowed by Rumanian. However, the number of placenames given by a Slavic population B such as for example Cobia (cf. Old Slavic kob/), Crasna (cf. Old Slavic kras/na) B|lgrad, BistriŰa, IalomiŰa, Ilfov, Prahova, Predeal, Râmnic, VlaŐca, Zlatna, etc. is extremely high in entire Rumania.

In this passage, it is accepted that the names of these rivers were borrowed by a Rumanian population from the Slavs. However, also attempts at explaining these names without borrowing from Slavic or Hungarian have been made. The argumentation is based on certain sound changes: -si- > š and a > o (or, sometimes, u). Thus, ancient Marisia and Timisia would have changed, in Alate Daco-Moesian@, to Mureš and to Timiš, respectively; ancient Samus to Someš and Alutus to Olt. A difficulty is Tisia which, according to this hypothesis, would have changed to something like *Tiš (instead of Tisa). Poghirc, who put forward this theory, assumed that the -si- > š and the a > o (u) changes occurred in Alate Daco-Moesian@, between the 3rd and the 6th centuries. He explains the form of the Tisa by the possibility that the Aautochthonous population@ did not have the same sound on the place of -si- as in Marisia, Timisia, etc. The writing of this name (with tz) by Constantinus Porphyrogenitos in the 10th century is said to support this view.

Rosetti commented upon this as follows: Awhich is not our opinion about the Slavo-Rumanian contacts and the explanation of the Slavic toponymy north of the Danube.@ He continues, however, with discussing certain regions, where, also according to Petrovici, Athe population that spoke Rumanian settled among a relatively sparse Slavic-speaking people.@ Also the hypothesis that Athe Rumanian element penetrated to southern Moldavia, coming from Transylvania, in the 11th and 12th centuries,@ is mentioned in this context. Regarding the toponyms of a Serbo-Croatian or Bulgarian sound pattern in Moldavia and Bucovina (e.g. Sl|nic), Rosetti considered that these Awere introduced in this area by the Rumanian population in Moldavia in the 13th century.@ All these reasonings, beginning with the quotation of Petrovici (1951), are omitted from the definitive (1986) edition of Rosetti´s Istoria limbii române.

THE ORIGINS OF THE RUMANIANS