# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Ancient Aqueduct Found in Bulgaria

## Angela

Our Balkan members might be particularly interested.

See: http://archaeologyinbulgaria.com/201...lgarias-varna/

There are great pictures of the finds.





It always amazes me that they were able to do this so long ago.

----------


## LeBrok

This is amazing! Nicely fitting ceramic pipes. They needed to have some sort of standard and good manufacturing practices. 
Damn Dark Ages!

----------


## bicicleur

> This is amazing! Nicely fitting ceramic pipes. They needed to have some sort of standard and good manufacturing practices. 
> Damn Dark Ages!


there were some pretty dark sides on the Roman empire as well
hence the dark ages that followed

but their organization and engineering skills were very impressive

----------


## Angela

I've been reading about that period in history practically my whole life, and intensively for the last two decades. . Every indication is that the proximate cause of the fall of the Roman Empire was the invasion of the Empire by Germanic tribes fleeing from the Huns and the famine caused by a deteriorating climate, and not any "dark side" to the Roman Empire. Indeed, that deteriorating climate caused the low harvests which were an internal cause, and then you can add in plague. 

Not to say, of course, that the Empire didn't have other internal problems of organization etc.

----------


## bicicleur

i'm not an expert, but I don't think the Roman Empire was sustainable
of course it collapsed on a moment of great pressure and not during a period of relief

there were large unproductive masses to be fed and entertained
there was a lot of corruption, and there were allways fractions competing for power (allthough sometimes there were some good and capable emperors too)
and for their defence they depended on mercenaries

----------


## Taranis

> I've been reading about that period in history practically my whole life, and intensively for the last two decades. . Every indication is that the proximate cause of the fall of the Roman Empire was the invasion of the Empire by Germanic tribes fleeing from the Huns and the famine caused by a deteriorating climate, and not any "dark side" to the Roman Empire. Indeed, that deteriorating climate caused the low harvests which were an internal cause, and then you can add in plague. 
> 
> Not to say, of course, that the Empire didn't have other internal problems of organization etc.


I'm torn, to be honest, what exactly was the reason for the downfall of the Roman Empire. The Hunnic invasion and the Migration Period was the ultimate reason, that I agree on, but I suspect that under very different circumstances, the Roman Empire could have weathered that. I do think that two factors were ultimately responsible, first and foremost the Crisis of the Third Century, which was a prolonged, severe phase of lasting internal instability and infighting, coupled with territorial losses at the rims. The other affect that I see as a contribution to the downfall is, arguably, the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire.

----------


## Angela

I agree with the first; I'm doubtful or at least not convinced about the second. There are other factors as well that I would include although I think that climate change, bad harvests, and the resulting famine and disease were all very important. The ones I would add...too much taxation...too much of the revenue spent on defending perhaps indefensible and not very productive areas, too much dependence on mercenaries (does no one ever learn that eventually they turn on their employers?), too much regulation of commerce, of jobs...I think there are some lessons to be learned there. Also, I think if we know anything it's that eventually all empires fall. The Romans had a good run and a big influence on the world, but they weren't immune from that inexorable process of decline. 

Doubtless we all see the past, no matter how much we read and try to be objective, through the prism of our own particular history. In Luni, from whose inhabitants I am certainly in part descended, even in the late empire ordinary modest people lived in homes with watertight, mass produced ceramic tile roofs, used sophisticated, high quality pottery that came from all parts of the empire, ate relatively well from domestic as well as imported food products, had clean water, effective sewage disposal, schools for at least some of the population, some degree of control over local officials, the opportunity to travel and trade, to engage in crafts like stone carving, and even to create some art. With the dissolution of the empire Luni was repeatedly gutted and burned and ultimately had to be abandoned. Its people, their sophistication and standard of living infinitely depleted fled with their Bishop to Sarzana and surrounding areas. After the fall, that particular area didn't start to recover until the late Middle Ages, and it could be argued that life there didn't achieve the level it had during Roman times until the 19th century. I would hardly tend to be a fan of Rome's dissolution. 

That's the context from which I view these issues. 

How far might these people and the people of the Roman empire as a whole have come in terms of knowledge and standard of living if they didn't have to start from lower than ground zero? That's how I view the collapse of all great civilizations, not just Rome, btw. I've said it before...it sometimes seems as if mankind is doomed to scratch it's way upward to some sort of sophistication and knowledge and a decent standard of living for at least a good portion of its people, and then through environmental change, internal forces that they don't know how to control, and invasions, there is a collapse and people's standard of living and knowledge base plummet and they have to start all over again. It seems such a waste.

I don't like to speak for others, but I think this is the context for LeBrok's remark.

Ed. For a light hearted take on the matter see the link below.:) The last one was "peace". I would add the legal system and the languages of a big part of Europe. 

What do we owe the Romans-Monty Python
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE

Not to say, of course, that there weren't decided negatives to add on to the scale...like most great empires of the past they were brutal in conquest and in response to rebellion, and took a vast number of slaves (although unlike in the American south, for example, you could get out of it and rise to great heights.). I also have no great liking for gladiatorial contests, although I understand how the custom arose in the context of human sacrifice as part of funerary rites.

----------


## Vallicanus

Don't forget that the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium (Constantinople) soldiered on for another 1000 years till 1453.

----------


## LeBrok

> Don't forget that the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium (Constantinople) soldiered on for another 1000 years till 1453.


Interestingly, even though Byzantium had political and cultural continuity through Dark Ages, it also suffered a decline and loss of technical inventions of Roman Empire. There were couple of hundred of years that nothing was build and nothing much was written in Byzantium. Byzantium survived but knowledge was lost anyway. This actually points me to harsh economic times when people think about food mostly, and not about reading and building. Climate and whether are usual culprits in bringing down agricultural economies.

Christianity, and it's intolerance against none christian art and knowledge, should take blame too. The burning of pagan books and pagan art. Devastation of library of Alexandria comes to mind, and death of Hypatia.

----------


## Angela

> Interestingly, even though Byzantium had political and cultural continuity through Dark Ages, it also suffered a decline and loss of technical inventions of Roman Empire. There were couple of hundred of years that nothing was build and nothing much was written in Byzantium. Byzantium survived but knowledge was lost anyway. This actually points me to harsh economic times when people think about food mostly, and not about reading and building. Climate and whether are usual culprits in bringing down agricultural economies.
> 
> Christianity, and it's intolerance against none christian art and knowledge, should take blame too. The burning of pagan books and pagan art. Devastation of library of Alexandria comes to mind, and death of Hypatia.


Ah...one of my heroes.

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

Brittney Hughes does her usual nice job in this documentary about her:



As for the destruction of the library, some of it is definitely down to the Christians, but there were other culprits as well.

I think this is a pretty balanced statement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruc..._of_Alexandria

"Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria: Julius Caesar's fire during his civil war in 48 BC; the attack of Aurelian in AD 270 – 275; the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in 391 AD; and the Muslim conquest of Egypt in (or after) AD 642.[2]"

Plenty of blame to go around.

Nice movie about her as well...although not exactly accurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOXKF1mb9Hc

----------


## Taranis

I'd like to elaborate a bit more there, Angela. With the possible exception of Judaea (then again, it should be noted that the interrelationship between Judaism and Hellenistic culture was more complex, and not always, and not exclusively hostile), the Greco-Roman religion was generally very integrative, and religious conflicts were - at large - a non-issue for Imperial policy. In contrast, the advent of Christianity as a force of significance inside Roman society established religion as a reason for conflict, by establishing both a conflict between Christianity and the old "official" Greco-Roman polytheist faith, the conflict of Christianity against other religious communities (Judaism and Manichaeanism in particular), and by also lifting the rivalries inside Christianity (monophysitism versus dyophysitism, arianism versus catholicism, etc.) to an "official level", meaning that it became necessary for the Roman state to deal with these conflicts (the fact that the Goths and Vandals practiced Arianism - a "heretical" branch of Christianity - was certainly a factor for the Byzantines to wage war against them and, in effect, dangerously overstretch the resources of that empire during the Dark Ages).


Another aspect is the attitude towards slavery. Although we obviously despise slavery today (fortunately!), we should not forget that this was the norm for the Roman Empire, as well as for many of its opposing cultures (Celts and Germanic peoples, in particular - as I mentioned in another thread, slavery was something that, over half a millennium later, the Vikings still practiced), and although Christian Western Europe later on developed its own type of de-facto slavery (feudalism), slavery in its classical form was an important branch of Roman economy (part of the empire was fueled by the influx of slaves from newly-conquered territories), and Christianity, by having that approach of universal,"egalitarian" salvation, called that concept into question. In so far, I definitely see Christianity as one of the factors that contributed to the end of the "Roman way of life".




> Don't forget that the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium (Constantinople) soldiered on for another 1000 years till 1453.


There's a reason that historians use the term "_Byzantine Empire_", because although they refered to themselves as "Romans", it had preciously little to do anymore with the Roman Empire of the classical period. The Byzantine Empire was a transformed entity that evolved out of the rump of the eastern half of the Roman Empire, a continuation in Greek language and under Christian religion, but it was obviously not the same as the Roman Empire of the classical period.

----------


## Angela

> Taranis;456414]I'd like to elaborate a bit more there, Angela. With the possible exception of Judaea (then again, it should be noted that the interrelationship between Judaism and Hellenistic culture was more complex, and not always, and not exclusively hostile), the Greco-Roman religion was generally very integrative, and religious conflicts were - at large - a non-issue for Imperial policy. In contrast, the advent of Christianity as a force of significance inside Roman society established religion as a reason for conflict, by establishing both a conflict between Christianity and the old "official" Greco-Roman polytheist faith, the conflict of Christianity against other religious communities (Judaism and Manichaeanism in particular), and by also lifting the rivalries inside Christianity (monophysitism versus dyophysitism, arianism versus catholicism, etc.) to an "official level", meaning that it became necessary for the Roman state to deal with these conflicts (the fact that the Goths and Vandals practiced Arianism - a "heretical" branch of Christianity - was certainly a factor for the Byzantines to wage war against them and, in effect, dangerously overstretch the resources of that empire during the Dark Ages).
> 
> Another aspect is the attitude towards slavery. Although we obviously despise slavery today (fortunately!), we should not forget that this was the norm for the Roman Empire, as well as for many of its opposing cultures (Celts and Germanic peoples, in particular - as I mentioned in another thread, slavery was something that, over half a millennium later, the Vikings still practiced), and although Christian Western Europe later on developed its own type of de-facto slavery (feudalism), slavery in its classical form was an important branch of Roman economy (part of the empire was fueled by the influx of slaves from newly-conquered territories), and Christianity, by having that approach of universal,"egalitarian" salvation, called that concept into question. In so far, I definitely see Christianity as one of the factors that contributed to the end of the "Roman way of life".



As I'm sure you know, there have been many attempts to explain the dissolution of the empire; I believe someone wrote that we're at 210 causes or factors and counting. Each era has its own "take" on it, usually, in my opinion, based as much on the history and conflicts and preoccupations of the author's time as on what was actually going on in the Roman empire. Members of the educated public like myself, will also have varying opinions. 

I would frame my response by saying that I no longer am much persuaded by Gibbons' analysis, nor by that of A.H.M. Jones published in the 1960s. Nor do I find the analysis of people like Peter Brown totally satisfactory. I admire the newer work of people like Bryan Ward Perkins. I happen to agree with many of his conclusions, particularly because they're so grounded in the archaeology, and in some matters I find Peter Heathers very persuasive as well. I particularly agree with his analysis of the impact of Christianity on the Roman empire. (I do not agree with Heathers, however, that "the fall" was not inevitable; all empires fall eventually.)

I don't want to seem as if I am giving your points short shrift. I'll respond in more detail later when I have some more time. 




> There's a reason that historians use the term "_Byzantine Empire_", because although they refered to themselves as "Romans", it had preciously little to do anymore with the Roman Empire of the classical period. The Byzantine Empire was a transformed entity that evolved out of the rump of the eastern half of the Roman Empire, a continuation in Greek language and under Christian religion, but it was obviously not the same as the Roman Empire of the classical period


.

That's a vast topic that deserves its own thread. In fact, I think it_ has_ its own thread. :) I would just say that there are many historians who would say that even though it is not the _same_ as the western Empire, it was indeed in some ways a continuation of it, even if imperfect, and, of course, Christianity was inextricably, for better or worse, intertwined with it. In my opinion, it had a great deal to do with its continued survival, but perhaps something to do with the lack of creativity and inventiveness as well.

----------


## LeBrok

> Ah...one of my heroes.
> 
> 
> "Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria: Julius Caesar's fire during his civil war in 48 BC; the attack of Aurelian in AD 270 – 275; the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in 391 AD; and the Muslim conquest of Egypt in (or after) AD 642.[2]"
> 
> Plenty of blame to go around.
> 
> Nice movie about her as well...although not exactly accurate.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOXKF1mb9Hc


I agree, and I don't take any part in vindication of any other religion instead. They all had their positive ways and bad sides. However Christianity became the only and the state religion of Roman Empire, and was the most influential force during Dark Ages, and as such was implicated by me in crimes of that period, especially in loss of technological and cultural achievements of the Empire. To be fair I must say, that every other religion would fend equally poorly. The times were very harsh and tolerance, compassion, capital and sponsors of art and education were in very short supply. One could only hope that Christianity, being the true religion, would save the Empire, even if only by God's miracle.
What can we learn by this example. One hundred years after Christianity becomes a state religion, Roman Empire collapses and Europe is shrouded in few hundred years of decline, misery and suffering. Obviously Christian God didn't like Roman Empire, achievements and it's knowledge. Every bad choice of religion by Emperor Constantine. That would be my conclusion if I was a spiritual person.

But more seriously now.
The only thing that could save the empire was to get more technologically advanced, perhaps what Europe represented in Renaissance, better tools, hardy crops, supplies from colonies around the world, cannons, explosives, water mills, or even a steam engine. Who knows if bad climate had hold on another 300 years perhaps they would have achieved it? I doubt though that Roman Empire would survive to our times. It would disintegrate as all of them did, due to new political and economic trends from 18 and 20th century. With one twist, without Dark Ages and loss of civilization we would enter our technological revolution, democratic and tolerant times around 1,000-1,200 AD. A thousand years earlier.
Oh, well, but it would be a different history, a parallel universe, and personally we wouldn't exist. I'll take what we have now, it's not that bad.

----------


## arvistro

Lets imagine XXI century folk having 2 years without sun and then century of temperature cooling.

----------


## bicicleur

as I told you, I'm not an expert on Rome
most well-known here is the period of Cicero and Ceasar
the image is not favourable, it is one about 'panem et circenses'
and Ceasar the mass murderer

----------


## Angela

> as I told you, I'm not an expert on Rome
> most well-known here is the period of Cicero and Ceasar
> the image is not favourable, it is one about 'panem et circenses'
> and Ceasar the mass murderer


Europeans regularly excoriate America for its supposedly substandard education system, but what I, and even the writers of Monty Python, :) have presented here is fairly standard stuff in any European history class here in the U.S. at both the junior high and high school level, and given the system here it is taught not only to those planning to attend university, but to all the students. There's a concerted effort to present not only the ruthless conquests and slavery and the arena, but also the accomplishments and enduring benefits. There's nothing controversial here in my presentation, nor in that of the writers of Monty Python, for that matter. :)

If you have any interest and the time, I would recommend "Rome: An Empire's Story", by Greg Woolf. It's fairly recent, 2012, and published through the Oxford University Press. It's a nice one volume overview. 

There's also "The Roman Empire", by Nigel Rodgers and Hazel Dodge from the School of Classics at Trinity College, Dublin. I particularly like it because of the hundreds and hundreds of beautiful photographs, maps and illustrations.

As to Caesar, there is Adrian Goldsworthy's (Princeton) aptly named "Caesar". I found it particularly informative to read a work on Caesar by a military historian. Goldsworthy has also written "How Rome Fell", which I liked, although he failed to persuade me that the "main" cause for the fall was the series of "civil wars" between different groups of Imperial army forces. 

With regard to the authors I mentioned up thread: 

"The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization", by Bryan Ward Perkins of Trinity College, Oxford.

"The Fall of the Roman Empire", by Peter Heathers of Kings College, London. 

An older but still insightful work that I liked is J.B. Bury's "History of the Later Roman Empire". 

These are just the English language treatments, of course.

In general, my preference, what _I_ find most persuasive, are the authors, like the last three, who posit that the fall was brought about by a confluence of many factors, one of the most important of which were the Germanic incursions.

----------


## LeBrok

> Lets imagine XXI century folk having 2 years without sun and then century of temperature cooling.


We had that during Little Ice Age from 1,600 to 1,900, but by that time, Europe was advance enough to weather that and even grow economically and in numbers. And of course thanks to colonialism and better sea and land transportation, growing trade, moving goods. Also Russians conquered and acted as a buffer against nomadic tribes of the Steppe, so no heavy migratory tribes were wrecking havoc in Europe. By this time Slavs and Germans were civilized too, and it helped.

The year 1816 was the year without the summer followed by another 3 lean years. It wasn't pretty but it didn't destroyed Western Civilization. This is also a time of great invention like a steam engine in 1814 and electric motor in 1821.

In short, we are too resilient, too mobile, too technologically advanced now, to worry much about bad weather, even a very bad weather.

----------


## arvistro

Let's hope so :)

----------


## Angela

Sorry to return so late to the question about the effect of the adoption of Christianity on the fortunes of the Roman Empire. I wanted to get the Peter Heathers book out to refresh my recollection so that I didn't misrepresent what he has to say: 

"But while the rise of Christianity was certainly a cultural revolution, Gibbon and others are much less convincing in claiming that the new religion had a seriously deleterious effect upon the functioning of the Empire. Christian institutions did, as Gibbon asserts, acquire large financial endowments. On the other hand, the non-Christian religious institutions that they replaced had also been wealthy, and their wealth was being progressively confiscated at the same time as Christianity waxed strong. It is unclear whether endowing Christianity involved an over all transfer of assets from secular to religious coffers. Likewise, while some manpower was certainly lost to the cloister, this was no more than a few thousand individuals at most, hardly a significant figure..."

"Nor was there any pressing reason why Christianity should have generated such a crisis, since religion and Empire rapidly reached ideological rapprochement.... After Constantine's public adoption of Christianity, the long-standing claims about the relation of the state to the divinity were quickly, and surprisingly easily, reworked. The presiding divinity was recast as the Christian God...Literary education and the focus on self-government were shifted for a while to the back burner, but by no means tossed out. And that was the sum total of the adjustment required. The claim that the empire was God's vehicle, enacting his will in the world changed little: only the nomenclature changed. "

"Likewise, while emperors could no longer be deified, their divine status was retained in Christian-Roman propaganda's portrayal of God as hand-picking individual emperors to rule with him..."

"None of this is to say, of course, that the Christianization of the Empire was achieved without conflict, or that Christianity and the Empire were perfectly suited to one another...some Bishops and other Christian intellectuals, not to mention Holy Men, explicitly or implicitly rejected the claim that the Empire represented a perfect, God-sustained civilization. But rejection of Christianity was little more than an undertone in fourth-century Christian thinkers. "

"The fourth century was also a crucial moment in the formation of Christian doctrine, a process that generated many inner Christian conflicts into which a succession of Emperors were drawn. Conflicts over doctrine was for the most part confined, however, to the Bishops. There were a few moments when it spilled over into large scale rioting, but it was never widespread or sustained enough to suggest that Christians' capacity to disagree with one another caused any serious damage to the functioning of the Empire. What the rise of Christianity really demonstrates, like the creation of the newly enlarged bureaucracy, is that the imperial center had lost none of its capacity to draw local elites into line...religious revolution was achieved by trickle-down effect rather than by outright confrontation."

There is much more detail in the book, about the numbers of bureaucrats drawn into the Church because advancement depended on it, other "carrot" approaches, the co-existence of Christianity and entrance into and success in the military, etc., but I don't want to run afoul of copyright laws.

As to the inter-relationship of Christianity and slavery, I would have to look through all those sources to refresh my recollection as to whether it's been specifically addressed, but a supposedly strong "devotion" to Christianity didn't seem to stop the Confederate south from going to war to preserve slavery. People are capable of all sorts of intellectual and religious gymnastics to justify what they want to do. In the U.S. those slave owners who were of a particularly religious frame of mind salved their consciences with a determination to be "caring" stewards of "their people".

----------


## Angela

Bulgarian archaeology is in the news recently. Heated "Jacuzzi" and Indoor Pool found in Roman "way station" in Bulgaria:
http://archaeologyinbulgaria.com/201...stra-fortress/

----------


## Diurpaneus

> Bulgarian archaeology is in the news recently. Heated "Jacuzzi" and Indoor Pool found in Roman "way station" in Bulgaria:
> http://archaeologyinbulgaria.com/201...stra-fortress/



Angela,I never thought the Romans could reach that far...
Anyway,they must've been exhausted after such a long trip,so,they might have stayed,at least, for a while.:)

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-14.html

----------


## Angela

> Angela,I never thought the Romans could reach that far...
> Anyway,they must've been exhausted after such a long trip,so,they might have stayed,at least, for a while.:)
> 
> http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-14.html


The site seems to be pretty near the route of the Via Trajana, yes?

"What is more, the site is easily accessible because it is located by a major contemporary road going through the* Troyan Pass of the Balkan Mountains,* which in effect mirrors* Via Trajana, Emperor Trajan’s Road.* *Via Trajana, which runs through the Troyan Pass of the Balkan Mountains, was vital in Roman Emperor Trajan’s* wars for conquering the *Dacians*, the resisting *Thracian tribes* north of the *Lower Danube, in today’s Romania.* *It linked th*e *Ancient Roman city of Philipopolis (today’s Plovdiv in Southern Bulgaria) in the Roman province of Thrace, with two major Roman outposts on the Lower Danube frontier, the so called limes – Ulpia Oescus near today’s town of Gigen and Novae near today’s town Svishtov, in the Roman province of Moesia*."

It appears to be quite a complex...fortress and a sort of ancient spa, with "jacuzzi's" and indoor pools. I'm sure they had good food too. Apparently, high level officials, military and civil, liked their comforts when they traveled. 

As the site was in use for about 400 years, I would indeed say they stayed for a while, at least some of them. :) Of course, with the passing of the centuries it's unclear how many of them would have been auxiliaries. I would imagine it must have been something like the fortresses and surrounding settlements that have been excavated in Britain, many of which had their baths attached. 

Another thing that struck me about those excavations was how much of their own foods they imported, and not just garum! They ate very well, the legionnaires, not just porridge, as used to be supposed. They raised their own cows and pigs (pigs seem by far to have been the favorites for consumption), ate poultry, had fish pools, and then, as I said, imported their wine and olive oil, grapes and figs, lentils and spices like coriander and other foods from the Mediterranean. They also, from the number of shells, loved oysters! In one case they seem to have imported them from a good source in the south of England all the way to the north.
https://www.academia.edu/4818571/For...west_provinces

I wonder if they'll be able to find more evidence of day to day life at a place like this....

Oh, some pictures have turned up:


I like show and tell, so... this is a nice NOVA documentary on them.

----------


## Diurpaneus

Thanks for the information ,Angela!

----------


## Angela

> Thanks for the information ,Angela!


Don't mention it...it's a pleasure to share with people who have similar interests.:)

----------


## Diurpaneus

I apologize for the lack of integrity(post#21).

----------


## Diurpaneus

> Angela,I never thought the Romans could reach that far...
> Anyway,they must've been exhausted after such a long trip,so,they might have stayed,at least, for a while.:)
> 
> http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-14.html



Privacy(non-Bulgarian and almost unironical)issue.

----------


## Diurpaneus

Now it's about Bulgarians:

"The Latin words concerning urban life are entirely absent in the Rumanian language."

​http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Rom...n_Romance.html


https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cetate <=== https://books.google.ro/books?id=ssC...cities&f=false

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/civitas#Latin


Still,I'm not vehemently,and I certainly don't hate them.

On the contratry,the Thracian stubbornness can produce,sometimes, some real creativity.


EDIT(a big one, indeed):

Romanian "pamant"("earth") comes from Latin "pavimentum",while "mormant"("grave") is derived from "monumentum",

that's why it is safer,regardless of the genetic origin of the proto-Romanians, to speak of

EASTERN ROMANS rather than Latinized/Romanized Dacians/Thracians/Illiyrians or Thraco-Romans.See also Wiki's list of Roman Emperors from Serbia.




Another important factor will be common logic,the Slavic/Avar migration/invasions would had automatically implied some hasty dynamincs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Emperors_Route


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_heritage_in_Serbia


https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/p%C4%83m%C3%A2nt


https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/morm%C3%A2nt

----------

