Vikings & Vlachs: Mentions of Romanians in Early Norse Sources

[Romano-Dacis]

I did a little history project in my spare time, and made two videos on this subject, and I would like to share them with the community at VV to get some feedback. While this is not intended as a university essay or anything like that, I still wanted to make it somewhat academic and would like to know if the argumentation is sound. The videos cover the mention of Romanians (Blakumen/Blokumenn) in three Norse sources:
1) G 134 rune stone found at Sjonhem Cemetery, on the island of Gotland, dated from 1000-1100 (likely close to 1000).
2) The Saga of Eymund, an 11th century (1015-1028) saga preserved in a 12th century manuscript.
3) The Miracle of St. Olaf, a 12th century saga preserved in a 13th century manuscript.

The first one mentions Blakumen [Vlach-men], the second Blokumenn [Vloch-men, same thing, different morphology], and the 3rd Blokumannaland [Vloch-men-land].

I had to split my video in two because YouTube does not allow videos over 11 minutes in length.

First Part:

Second Part:


For those of you who don't have 13 minutes to watch it or would prefer to read my script, I will post it up upon request.

My main argumentation deals with proving that Blakumen/Blokumenn refers to Vlachs/Wallachians/Romanians (the standard interpretation among historians) rather than the fringe interpretation of "BlacK Men" or "Black Cumans."

I'm particularly interested in what people like Atterdag or others more familiar with Viking sources have to say about this.

[diegis]

I did a little history project in my spare time, and made two videos on this subject, and I would like to share them with the community at VV to get some feedback. While this is not intended as a university essay or anything like that, I still wanted to make it somewhat academic and would like to know if the argumentation is sound. The videos cover the mention of Romanians (Blakumen/Blokumenn) in three Norse sources:
1) G 134 rune stone found at Sjonhem Cemetery, on the island of Gotland, dated from 1000-1100 (likely close to 1000).
2) The Saga of Eymund, an 11th century (1015-1028) saga preserved in a 12th century manuscript.
3) The Miracle of St. Olaf, a 12th century saga preserved in a 13th century manuscript.

The first one mentions Blakumen [Vlach-men], the second Blokumenn [Vloch-men, same thing, different morphology], and the 3rd Blokumannaland [Vloch-men-land].

I had to split my video in two because YouTube does not allow videos over 11 minutes in length.

First Part:

Second Part:


For those of you who don't have 13 minutes to watch it or would prefer to read my script, I will post it up upon request.

My main argumentation deals with proving that Blakumen/Blokumenn refers to Vlachs/Wallachians/Romanians (the standard interpretation among historians) rather than the fringe interpretation of "BlacK Men" or "Black Cumans."

I'm particularly interested in what people like Atterdag or others more familiar with Viking sources have to say about this.

Excellent work RD
Another interesting and controversial writing related with the subject is "Gesta Normanorum", where is said that a refugee from Dacia (which is quite acurate described, including the "core" of the country, know today as Transilvania, souronded by mountains like a crown) become the first duke of Normans, sometimes in IX century. His name is Rollo, a name who isnt related with nordic peoples, but who is almost similar with geto-dacian names as Roles and Oroles.

[Romano-Dacis]

I wonder if Dacia in that case is actually Denmark. Can you provide the relevant quotes regarding the description of the country?

[Athenogoras]

I wonder if Dacia in that case is actually Denmark

True. Denmark is often latiniced as Dacia in this period.

As for Rollo, the main theory is that he was probably a norwegian chief called Gengu-Hrolfr(walking-Rolf). Named so because he was allegadly to big to be carried by a horse(hehe poor Rolf was afraid I say).
According to this theory his name was Hrolfr Ragnvaldsson, son of the Jarl of Möre Ragnvald Öysteinsson and his wife Hilda. Rollo or Robert would be a "frankisation" of that name.

[hindov]

I wonder if Dacia in that case is actually Denmark. Can you provide the relevant quotes regarding the description of the country?

Yes, in the case of Gesta Normanorum, Dacia is actually Denmark. Dudon of Saint Quentin used the assonance Dacia-Dania as Jordanes used the similarity Getia-Gothia. Besides, this "confusion" between Dacia and Dania is to be found in many medieval sources until the 15th century. Pius II (Aenea Silvio Piccolomini) who knew very well were Dacia was, used sometimes in his works the title "king of Dacia" for the king of Denmark.

[diegis]

I wonder if Dacia in that case is actually Denmark. Can you provide the relevant quotes regarding the description of the country?

" For indeed there is there a tract for the very many people of Alania, and the extremely well-supplied region of Dacia, and the very extensive passage of Greece. Dacia is the middle-most of these. Protected by very high alps in the manner of a crown and after the fashion of a city. With Mars' forewarning, raging warlike peoples inhabit those tortuous bends of extensive size, namely the Getae, also known as Goths, Sarmatians and Amacsobii, Tragoditae and Alans, and also very many nations who live by cultivating in the Baltic marshes."

http://www.the-orb.net/orb_done/dudo/dudindex.html

This is the passage from "Gesta Normanorum" who describe quite acurate what we know today as Transilvania, who was the core of Dacia (and today Romania), with Carpatians like a crown around it, with Greece and Alania (today Ukraine and/or Poland i think) around, with mention of Mars who was considered by romans like Vergilius that was born among Geto-Dacians, and Jordanes said that Getae offer him bloody sacrifices of prisoners.

http://www.deloriahurst.com/deloriahurst%20page/3310.html

And here some reasons why Rollo and Hrólfr is not the same person. As i said before, Rollo is not a name found in either nordic or french/latin of those times, but is more close to geto-dacian names as Roles and Oroles, and in my opinion Rollo and his group is just some refugees from Dacia from IX century, who manage to impose themselves as the leaders of another ethnic group, something who wasnt at all unusual back then. Later they being a small minority, they mix with some nordics and they heritage was lost. The fact that a country like that Dacia existed here back then is reinforced by the oldest turkic chronicle (of pechengs/cumans), called "Oguzname", and who mention in the same IX century a country called "Balak" (Valah), who was for sure the same with Dacia of Dudo (again, a name who remember the dacian Dudas or more modern romanian Duda, but not very seen to nordics or french).
Anyway, nothing is too sure, but this is a suposition who deserve to be mentioned betwen other maybe less posible to prouve.

[iudas]

It's widely known that the Vlachs were in fact black. Hungarian historians have proven this.

[Romano-Dacis]

It's widely known that the Vlachs were in fact black. Hungarian historians have proven this.

Not to joke entirely, but I recall some Ustasha historians actually claimed the "Morovlachs" were called "Morovlachs" ("Black Vlachs") because they were the offsprings of Trajan's Mauretanian cavalry, depicted on his column... quite absurd given that they were in fact Caucausian .

[Odovacar]

It's widely known that the Vlachs were in fact black. Hungarian historians have proven this.

Maybe. I'm not well read in the historiography of our martian colonists....

[Carpathian Wolf]

RD is this why that idiot off youtube is confused between Getae and Goths?

[clandestino]

RD I'm sure that video is very intresting but is it possible to post it in writen form?

[Romano-Dacis]

RD I'm sure that video is very intresting but is it possible to post it in writen form?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Moldavia has held a special place in Romanian history. It was the one territory of Romania to have never been conquered by the Romans and it was the most exposed to the barbarian invasions throughout the Dark Ages. Yet in spite of all these setbacks, or perhaps because of them, Moldavia actually holds the most resilient and expansive Romanian population. The Latinity that flowered out of Moldavia has expanded well beyond the Nistru, and Romanians could be found in mid-Ukraine even in the mid-20th century.

We should not be surprised then, that the Moldovan Romanians were some of the first Romanians mentioned in medieval chronicles. Though some Hungarian historians believe only the Gesta Hungarorum mentions the Romanians North of the Danube prior to the 13th century, we find that there are several very important references to Romanians in some of the oldest Norse chronicles. This movie will cover these documents and what their implications are for Eastern Latinity.

The first written mention of Romanians by the Norse comes in the form of a runestone placed in the cemetery on the island of Gotland. This large stone was erected between the years 1000 and 1100. It reads as follows:
“Rodvisl and Rodälv had these stones erected in memory of their three sons. This stone in memory of Rodfos. He was betrayed by Wallachians on an expedition abroad. God help Rodfos’ soul. God betray those who betrayed him”.
[0] [http://www.gotmus.i.se/1engelska/bil...a/sjonhem.htm]
“Roþuisl : auk : roþalf : þau : litu : raisa : staina : eftir : sy[ni : sina :] þria : þina : eftir : roþfos : han : siku : blakumen : i : utfaru kuþ : hielbin : sial : roþfoaR kuþ : suiki : þa : aR : han : suiu”

Several things strike us on this runestone. First and most important of these is the mention of Wallachians, Blakumen, on the stone. However, the stone itself does not make any specific references to the location of where these Blakumen were encountered. To do this, we need to analyze the stone further. Judith Jesch, in her book “Ships and men in the late Viking Age: the vocabulary of runic inscriptions”, has done a comparative analysis of the words used to those on other runestones. Her first conclusion is as follows: “The traditional interpretation of the sequence blakumen is that it refers to ‘Wallachians’ or Vlachs, the inhabitants of a region of present-day Romania.”
[1] [Jesch, Judith. Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age: the Vocabulary of Runic Inscriptions. Boydell & Brewer. 2001. P. 257. See: http://books.google.ca/books?id=p8ZK3v0hrk4C&dq=]
Next, she finds two key words: “siku” and “suiki/sviki.” These roughly translate as “betrayed” in English, which tells us a lot about the event. First, Rodfos had placed a certain level of trust in these Wallachians, indicating that they were likely mercenaries hired by Rodfos. Second, since they were mercenaries, Rodfos is most probably a merchant on his way to Constantinople. According to Kristel Zilmer’s analysis: “G 134 [that is, the number of the runestone] is thus made in memory of Hrodfuss… It records death through betrayal – an incident that happened during a voyage to a faraway destination, as indicated by the ethnic name Blakumen.” Footnote 430 continues the analysis: “Jesch (2001: 258) believes that Hrodfos was on a trading voyage and had entered into some kind of contract with local merchants along the way, who then betrayed his trust.”
[2] [Zilmer, Kristel. ‘He drowned in the Holmr’s Sea – His Cargo-Ship Drifted to the Sea-Bottom, only Three Came Out Alive’: Records and Representations of Baltic Traffic in the Viking Age and the Early Middle Ages in Early Nordic Sources. Tartu University Press. P. 179-180 See: http://www.fl.ut.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=110134/zilmer.pdf]

The fact that Rodfos was a Norse merchant helps us localize this event. He would have likely been travelling on the main route of the Varygs, or Varangians. This went from the Baltic, through Russia and Kiev, all the way to the Black Sea, where the Varangian traders would have embarked on a boat for Constantinople. Rodfos therefore must have encountered these Wallachians, or Romanians, on land, far North and East of the Danube, likely at the Dniepr river or Black Sea ports in Ukraine.
Regarding the dating of the runestone, though officially it could range anywhere from 1000 to 1100, we are lead to believe the date is closer to 1000 than 1100 due to the prayer on the stone. As Dr. Stephan Grundy points out: “God help Rodfos’ soul! God betray those, who betrayed him” – the Heathen concept of a runestone’s curse on the foe surviving into the christian era.”
[3] [Gundarsson, KveldúlfR Hagan. Wotan: The Road to Valhalla. P. 128. Available at: www.scribd.com/doc/4915037/Wotan-The-Road-to-Valhalla]
The presence of a pagan prayer leads us to believe this was just at the onset of the conversion of the Vikings, making an 1100 date improbable.

One interesting thing to note is the word used for Vlachs: Blakumen. As Zilmer points out “The literal meaning [of the term] would be ‘black men’; it is suggested that the references is made to Wallachians who lived in the region of present-day Romania.”
[Zilmer reference]
There are several reasons why we should interpret this word as Wallachians instead of Black Men. Firstly, in all other Viking chronicles, whenever the Vikings wish to describe people who are Black they actually say Blamenn. John McKinnell provides an essential analysis of Sorla Saga Sterka and the placename Blaland, writing: “Blaland is named after the blamenn, ‘black men’ who lived there.”
[4] [McKinnell, John. Meeting the Other in Norse Myth and Legend. DS Brewer Publishing. 2005. p. 139. See: http://books.google.ca/books?id=P2x2x3neFywC&pg=PA139&dq=]

The term “Blamenn” is used to describe “black men” so if the author of the runestone intended to say black men, he would not have used “Blakumen.” The same thing is noticed in the chronicle of Theodoricus Monachus, who writes: “This Haraldr had performed many bold deeds in his youth, overthrowing many heathen cities and carrying off great riches in Russia and in Ethiopia (which we call Bláland in our mother tongue).”
[5] [Monachus, Theodoricus. An Account of the Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings. Edited by Anthony Faulkes and Richard Perkins. XXVIII. P. 46 See: http://www.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Text%20Series/Theodoricus.pdf]
Lastly, in the Saga of the Ynglings, as edited by Lee Milton Hollander, we find “Blaland” refers to “Blackman’s Land” or Africa.
[6] [Sturluson, Snorri ed. Hollander, Lee Milton. Heimskringla. Part 7227. University of Texas Press. 1964. p. 6. See: http://books.google.ca/books?id=qHpwje7-wNkC&pg=PA6&dq=]

Even if we were to just take the words “blakr” and “menn” in old Norse, meaning “black” and “men”, it still does not explain why there is a ‘u’ inserted in the middle. It would be impossible to reach this sort of morphology if the author intended “black men.”

But then what explains the fact that a word like Blakumen is used to represent “Vlach”? There are several very logical reasons for why Vikings wrote the term “Vlach” as “Blakumen”. First we should note that B and V were frequently interchanged during the high Middle Ages when people wrote of the Romanians. This shows influence from the Byzantine chroniclers, who called the Romanians “Blaxoi.” Simon de Keza for instance calls the Romanians “Blackis.”
“Ethela licentia impetrate transierunt, Blackis, qui ipsorum fuere pastores et coloni remanentibus sponte in Pannonia.”
[7] [Aurel-Pop, Ion. Românii şi maghiarii în secolele IX-XIV. Geneza statului medieval în Transilvania, Cluj-Napoca, 1996]
In another example we see in a peace treaty between the Holy Roman Emperor and Ioannitsa-Kaloyan, Emperor of the Vlachs and Bulgars, that the Vlachs, or Romanians, are once again referred to as “Blachorum”
“dapifer magnus Constantopolitani imperatoris (Isaac) qui exercitum pergrandem adunaverat, ut Blachorum hostium publicorum agmina perturbaret… Christi sibi transmitteret in adiutorium ad dimicandum contra Blachos. Ipsa nichilominus die Kalopetrus Blachorum dominus itemque a suis dictus imperator Grecie…”
[8] [Wolff, R. The 'Second Bulgarian Empire.' Its Origin and History to 1204. footnote 44. See: http://groznijat.tripod.com/bulgar/wolff_3.html]
If crusader chroniclers were influenced by the Byzantines in the name they gave to the Romanians, it is only logical to conclude that the Varangians, who had been trading with Byzantium for centuries by the 11th century, were also influenced in how they wrote the word “Vlach.” “Blachoi” clearly became “Blaku”, and “men” was added at the end in order to designate “Vlach men” or “Vlach people.” The entire morphology of the word is therefore explained.

Some Hungarian authors have proposed that the term “Blakumen” actually refers to “Black Cumans.” This is done by separating the term “Blakumen” into “Bla-“ and “-kumen.” Hence, they propose two different words were conjugated. This interpretation is given by Ervin Láczay in a journal paper. Incidentally, he also claims the words “Blachis” and “Blackis” which Simon de Keza refers to are not Romanians but rather but rather to Bulak Turks. Istvan Vasary, one of the most prominent Hungarian historians in the West, gravely criticized such theories, stating: “He tried to prove that the Blaci of Transylvania had nothing to do with the Vlakhs, but were a Turkic people named Bulaq, and that the Vlakhs and Bulaqs were later confused in the sources. Unfortunately, this theory cannot be corroborated by any sound evidence, and every historical argument speaks against it. … Hungarian nationalism has tried to minimise the Romanian presence in history”
[9] [Vasary, Istvan. Cumans and Tatars: Oriental military in the pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365. Cambridge University Press. 2005. p. 29. See: http://books.google.ca/books?id=8C6P3PYaPmQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false]

In order for us to clarify this, we shall use a second Norse source, the Saga of Eymund. This source covers the deeds of Eymund, a Varangian mercenary in the service of Yaroslav the Wise. There is one particular phrase of interest. The saga mentions that Svyatopolk, the half-brother of Yaroslav the Wise, went into the “land of Turks” to retrieve allies of Turks and Blokumenn. Now, it is impossible that Svyatopolk travelled to the Middle East to settle his dynastic disputes in Kiev, so most scholars have interpreted Turk as meaning “pecheneg.” For instance, Heinz Kilngerberg says that the Tyrkir are “bösem Volk”, using the Hungarian word for Pechenegs.
[10] [Klingenberg, Heinz. Odin und die Seinen: Altisländischer Gelehrter Urgeschichte anderer Teil. P. 5. See: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~alvismal/2odin.pdf]
The fact that Cumans and Pechenegs are already covered by under the name “Tyrkir” makes it impossible to believe that Svyatopolk was collecting an army of “Cumans and Cumans.” The army could not have contained both Cumans and Pechenegs since these two tribes were at war with each other constantly. The fact that the name uses an “o” instead of an “a” makes it impossible that word could be a conjugate of “black” so it cannot be “black men” either. By process of elimination then, the Blokumenn could only be Vlachs. Indeed, this has been the standard interpretation of the sentence for over 150 years. We even find studies from 1846 which state that Blakuman is only a Norse corruption of Vlach:
“Blakumanni (Blakumenn, Blakkamenn, Blökkumenn, Lokumenn)... Traditur hoc loco magnus exercitus Turcarum et Blakumannorum Gardarikiam vel Russiam invasuros fuisse. Uti Turcis (Tyrkjum, nom Tyrkir) populus hoc nomine notissimus significatur, sie Blakumannis Valachi, vel incolae terrae Blakumannorum [Valachiae] notantur nomenque a Normannis iis datum e pronuntiatione Valachorum correpta prefectum est“
[11] [Pintescu, Florin. « PRESENCES DE L’ELEMENT VIKING DANS L’ESPACE DE LA ROMANITÉ ORIENTALE EN CONTEXTE MÉDITERRANÉEN. » Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, VIII, Iaşi, 2001. p. 6. See: http://cisa.uaic.ro/saa/saa8/SAA8_Pintescu.pdf]
The corruption of Vlach happens in the same way as last time, with the replacement of V by B, but the name used shows influence from the Eastern Slavs. The Eastern Slavic term for Romanians is “Volochi” (волохи), hence the substitution of “a” with “o”, turning “Blakumen” to “Blokumenn.” The morphology of the word is once again easy to explain if we conclude the Blokumenn are Vlachs; no need to jump through hoops like with the other theories, that suggest impossible conjugations.

This is the same interpretation used by Samuel Hazard Cross, writing “Eymundr also reported that this time Svyatopolk-Burizleifr was collecting reinforcments among the Turks and the Wallachians (Tyrkir ok Blokumenn).”
[12] [Cross, Samuel Hazzard. “Yaroslav the Wise in Norse Tradition”. Speculum, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Apr., 1929), pp. 177-197. See: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2847951]
Even Russian historiography freely admits that these Blokumenn were Vlachs. To quote the Scandinavicist Melinikova,
“The Blökumenn mentioned in Б-III.4.5 are usually interpreted as valakhs, vlakhs, the population of the Dnestr region. They are also named in several sagas, once together with Turkic nomads as participants in their raid against Rus'.”
[13] [Melinikova, E. A. СКАНДИНАВСКИЕ РУНИЧЕСКИЕ НАДПИСИ.See English summary. http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/1064671/]


This interpretation is in fact so common that Icelandic-English dictionaries even list it as a given that Blokumenn means Wallachians. It’s an established fact to any objective researcher: the Blakumen are Romanians.

The last Scandinavian source I will cover is the Miracle of St. Olaf, preserved in the book Heimskringla, the Ring of the World, written by Snorri Sturluson in the 13th century. The actual saga of St. Olaf is much older, at least dating to the early 12th century. The chronicle reads as follows:
“The following happened in Greece, the time King Kirjalax ruled there and was on an expedition against Blokumannaland [Walachia]. When he arrived at the Pezina Plains, a heathen king advancaed against him with an irresistible host.”
[14] [Sturluson, Snorri, Ed. Hollander, p. 787.
http://books.google.com/books?id=qHpwje7-wNkC&dq=]
Blokumannaland could only be Wallachia if we admit, and there is no reason why we shouldn’t, that the Blokumenn are Vlachs, as it is just the conjugation of Blokuman with “land”, in other words “the land of the Vlachmen” or the “land of the Vlachs.” In the text cited this interpretation is already a given. Kirjalax is interpreted as being Alexios I Komnenus, by the name “Kyrios Alexios” “Lord Alexios” in Greek, hence Kirjalax.
Alexios I reigned between 1081 and 1118, which is significantly early date to see a source referring to the territory of Romania as “land of Vlachs”, long before the foundation of Wallachia. It is impossible to believe that this Wallachia was South of the Danube because the chronicle mentions that Alexios went into the Pezina Plains, meaning the plains of the river Bezina, today called the Don river, in Ukraine. The only way Alexios could meet them is if Blokumannaland, Wallachia, was indeed North of the Danube at this time.

Three sources, of the most unlikely origin, are thus a key deciding factor in the debate of Romanian continuity in Moldova and North of the Danube. These sources establish the presence of the Romanians in the High Middle Ages firmly North of the Danube, and show the Romanians were recorded even as far away from the Balkans as the Dnestr river or further. The next video in this series will cover corroboratory sources.
END HERE

BTW, I am aware "Blamenn" actually means "blue men" (not black men) in a literal sense, but whenever "Blamenn" is used it is always in reference to "black men."

[Manco]

Euhm? Rollo is pretty well established as the frankization of Hrolfr, similar to the latinized Roluo. And it's quite obvious the name is found in Latin and Frankish sources, since that's where we got the name from.

Your Dacian etymology is incredibly far fetched and just based on a superficial similarity. On top of that, why would a Norman historian suddenly mean Romania, if in his entire work Dacia is used for Denmark and is mentioned often together with Norway and Sweden.

(talking about Diegis here, not the OP)

[clandestino]

Thank you very much, as I expected it was very interesting and instructive

[Romano-Dacis]

My pleasure.
As the ending suggests I am also researching on corroboratory evidence, like for example a quote by Niketas Choniates about Andronikos being captured by Vlachs as he reached Galicia, in 1164. The book which got me inspired on all of this was Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages by Florin Curta, where I first found out about the Sjonhem runestone.

[clandestino]

It's always nice to learn new things especaially if you research them on your own. By the way, incidentaly, I got Kurta's '' Making of the Slavs '' today