Talk:Dacia

Roman Empire as the Dacian Empire

My senses tell me the sources original author may not have been citing a real historical reference, nor am I seasoned enough to do the research on my own ;) Can someone please follow up with a non-primary source? I'm thinking of re-wording this topic to sound less as factual history, or maybe just outright deleting it. Thanks. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

The brief mention of language here seems to presume the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity, which is controversial, to say the least. I'm not expert enough on this period to venture to make a proper correction, but it seems to me that at least there should be some indication that there is no certainty that contemporary Romanians owe their Romance language to the Latinization of the Dacians.

Yes, that's right. The Dacian romanization is just one of the three possible explanations:

1. Dacians were romanized by the conquerors
2. Dacians had a language close enough to Latin and no Romanization was required
3. A Romanic population from came from South and asimilated the Dacians.

It should be discussed (from a NPOV) on Origin of Romanians. (My opinion is that the second option is the closest to the truth).

Bogdan 12:44, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"aiurea" which means b.s. Similar comments could be made about the implication that the Tarbostesei became the Boyars, rather than merely having a comparable social position. Jmabel 14 Nov 03.

explanation #2 is utter fantasy and has no support from historians - Latin evolved in Italy, and the Dacians were far apart in time and distance HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll correct it.

---

It would be more correct to say that Burebista was taking control (conquer or just be recognise as suzerain) by Greek towns on the Pontus Euxinus from Olbia (the northest, at the river mouth of Bug, today Ukraina), to Apollonia (the southest, somewhere near today Varna, Bulgaria). [User: MihaiC] 19 Dec 03

---

If you can, Translate it for it is worth it! http://casanoastra-romania-dacia.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/dacii-sau-getii-sau-gotii-sau-geatii.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILISANU (talk • contribs) 12:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Tartaria

The discovery of Tartaria tablets seem to indicate that the dacians were the first ones to use writing (as far as we know it by now). The tablets were dated 7300 years BC.. that is ~9300 years ago and ~2000 years before the Sumerian tablets previously known as the oldest discovered writing.

The tablets were written by pre-Indo-European people (before the IE invasion) and Dacians, as Indo-Europeans couldn't be the authors. You may argue that genetically, the Tartaria people were the ancestors of the Dacians, but the Dacian culture/language/civilization is clearly of Indo-European origin. Bogdan | Talk 13:05, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

The discovery of Tartaria tablets seem to indicate that a population living in the teritory of today Romania used symbols that can be considered as a form of writing Criztu

The whole issue about the authenticity and the dating of the tablets is highly controversial. Regardless though about whether they are authentic or not or whether the dating is reliable, no formally trained archaeologists (in particular, none of the ones that have worked on that excavation site) has ever claimed that the tablets were written by the Dacians. They are considered to be written by the people of the Vinca culture (or the Vinca-Tordos sub-culture), which lived throughout southern Transylvania and south in the other Balkan states. --O crandell (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For further explanations see Symbols and proto-writing of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture~~

Cohors Primae Dacorum

The article on Dacorum says that this refers to Danes, not to Dacae. What is the citation for the etymology presented here? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:42, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Also, while "cohors" is correct where it appears in a Latin proper noun, I believe that everywhere else it should be "cohort", unless I am misunderstanding the word. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:42, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

---

Denmark was known as Dacia in early medieval maps, and Dudo of St. Quentin in his Gesta Normannorum speaks of dacian king Rollo (Hrolf Ganger) coming from Dacia(Denmark). COHORS PRIMAE DACORUM is how the roman empire notitia dignitatum called the 'first cohort of dacians'

Dacorum in Britain refers to Normans that invaded England (Anglia, former Britania) under Wilhelm the Conqueror, ofspring of Hrolf Ganger (Rollo) -- Criztu

So, why should we think any of this has anything to do with this Dacia? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:25, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

yes, 3 disambiguation pages are required:

• Dacorum - Cohors Primae Dacorum - cohort of dacians recruited from Roman province Dacia
• Dacorum - a shire in England reffering to normans - called dacians in neo-latin/romance/early medieval chronicles

• Dacians - designating normans coming from Dacia(Denmark) in neo-latin chronicles - Dudo of St. Quentin Gesta Normannorum
• Dacians - designating dacians(getae) living in ancient Dacia (a Roman Province) - Trajan's Collumn

• Dacia - a Roman Province
• Dacia - designating Denmark in medieval Maps and Chronicles - see Denmark based Order of Dacia and Malta and Boëthius of Dacia -- Criztu

You start by saying "yes", but then you write something that seems to mean "no". Is or is not the link to the article about the English town of Dacorum you added to this article intended as a claim that the English town gets its name from Dacians rather than from Danes? Dacorum in Cohors Primae Dacorum is a Latin genitive plural, right? So it is not at title at which we would normally put an article. Adding these disambiguation pages would be a good idea, and I'll do it, but, am I correct that there is no reason for this article to link to Dacorum, neither the English town nor the genitive plural form of Dacae (or Dagae)? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:18, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Dacorum shire is also the latin form, meaning 'of the dacians'(normans came from Dacia(Denmark)) -- Criztu. the form Dagae appears on Tabula Peutingeriana.

I've added Dacorum (disambiguation) and Dacia (disambiguation). I've made Dacians a redirect to Dacia (disambiguation) rather than Dacia, where it previously redirected. My original question about the link in this article is still unanswered. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:05, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Cohors Primae Dacorum are attested also in Armenia, Syria, etc. i think this Dacorum should be linked with dacians or the dacian cohort ... it is tempting to think that Dacorum stationed in Deva(Chester) are at the origin of Dacorum. -- Criztu

It may be tempting to think so, but with no evidence the link does not belong in the article. I will remove the link. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:21, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC) Dee is a large river/water name root same as danube dneiper don and indeed tay etc. Deva is simply a place on the Dee.

What is intriguing is the use of Dacia for Denmark home of the Geats

Burebista

We currently use "Buruista", "Burebista", and "Boerebista". Assuming that I am correct in understanding that these all refer to the same person (will someone confirm) can we please put all variants and the link on the first occurrence and just use "Burebista" thereafter. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:53, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) Come to think of it, isn't is "Burebişta"? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:21, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Burebista is the oficial romanian name of Burobosten/ Buruista/ Boireboste -- Criztu

Thanks on that. Meanwhile, am I correct that these all refer to the same person (in which case I will make the proposed edit)? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:21, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Incomprehensible paragraph

The following paragraph is incomprehensible to the point where I can't be sure enough what it means to edit it:

The Getae as formidable opponents of Lysimachus, who was defeated and captured by Getae king Dromichaetes, and a description of Getae strategy in defeating the Macedonians and the decision of Dromichaetes to release Lysimachus after assembling the council of the country, are recorded in Plutarch's work 'Life of Demetrius' (part 30).

Does this mean that all of this is in Plutarch's Life of Demetrius? If so -- and that seems the most reasonable way to read it -- this may be the most extended use of passive voice I've ever seen in English, and should be:

Plutarch's work 'Life of Demetrius' (part 30) records the Getae as formidable opponents of Lysimachus, who was defeated and captured by Getae king Dromichaetes, and contains a description of Getae strategy in defeating the Macedonians; it also records the decision of Dromichaetes to release Lysimachus after assembling the council of the country.

If someone can confirm this as what was meant, please either make the change in the article, or just say so here and I will. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:31, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

---

indeed, the Lysimachus article gives satisfactory reference to chroniclers accounting the Getae episode. i think the paragraph shoud look like this:

Greek and Roman chroniclers record the defeat of Lysimachus by the Getae (Dacian) lead by their king Dromihete, their military strategy in defeating Lysimachus, and his release following a debate in the assembly of the Getae. Criztu

That's certainly more comprehensible, though any of these where you know specifically where they are recorded, you should cite specifically, it's always helpful. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:12, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice if in the future more photos of sites & artifacts could be added to articles like the Dacia article, for outsiders to see. (Decius)

roman province Dacia vs. kingdom of Dacia

the borders of roman province Dacia are not the same as the borders of the kingdom of Dacia. i'd like to replace these paragraphes:

Dacia, in ancient geography the land of the Daci or Getae, was a large district of Central Europe, bounded on the north by the Carpathians, on the south by the Danube, on the west by the Tisa (Tisza river, in Hungary), on the east by the Tyras (Dniester or Nistru, now in eastern Moldova). It thus corresponds in the main to modern Romania and Moldova.

Towards the west it may originally have extended as far as the Danube where it runs from north to south at Waitzen (Vacz). Julius Caesar in his De Bello Gallico (book 6) speaks of Hercynia forest extending along the Danube to the teritories of the Dacians. Ptolemy puts its eastern boundary as far back as the Hierasus (Siret river, in modern Romania).

with

Dacia was the name of a Roman province, established after the Dacian Wars, consisting of parts of the lands of the Dacians, corresponding to the Romanian provinces of Banat, Oltenia and Transylvania. A Kingdom of Dacia reached its maximum extent under Burebista, stretching from the Danube in Hungary to the Southern Bug in Ukraine, from the Balkan mountains in Bulgaria to the Beskides mountains in Slovakia. Its political and military centre was Sarmisegetusa, in the Southern Carpathian mountains, in today Hunedoara county in Romania.

while it would be useful to know the borders of the ancient Kingdom of Dacia, Ptolemy speaks of eastern boundary of Dacia Traiana, it's confusing. Criztu 18:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mostly agree, except

1. we should not lose the words Daci and Getae
2. we should refer to "modern Romanian provinces", "modern Slovakia", etc.
3. shouldn't we say "before Roman conquest a Kingdom of Dacia reached..."? Otherwise, to one who doesn't know the history it could as easily mean after the Roman's left.

Also, I'd rather see us try to expand upon and explain any confusion in the ancient texts rather than drop the mentions. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:26, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Transylvania 'Disputed'

I don't think the Transylvania issue is really a serious territorial dispute: Hungarians constantly whine about, yet it is not a real dispute at the level of other territorial disputes in the world. We shouldn't even give anybody the impression that the dispute is at that level. Alexander 007 05:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What in the article are you referring to? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I erased the one word that I was referring to (" the disputed area"). Alexander 007 06:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I recommend you all read the History of Austro-Hungary, and then compare to Dacia, the Dacians, and see where things don't line up. So are there any experts who can put this puzzle together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.101.128.116 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

chopped off from the main article

which, as the ode was written on March 1, 29 BC, probably refers to the campaign of Marcus Crassus (30 BC-28 BC), not to that of Cornelius Lentulus, who was not consul until 18 BC. Marcus Crassus is supposed to be long dead by 30 BC; something needs to be done about this mistake. (Criztu, 2 Jan 2005)

That's all well and good, but why did you delete this?:

:"The inhabitants of this district are considered as belonging to the Thracian stock. The Dacians were known as Getae (pl. Geton) in Greek writings, and as Dacus (pl. Daci) and Getae in Roman documents; also as Dagae and Gaete — see the late Roman map Tabula Peutingeriana. Ancient writers are unanimous in considering the Getae the same as the Daci."

Please at least make comments when you delete substantive statements.

Jmabel | Talk 22:25, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

This artice should not be deleted - it is historical truth. Dacians are a part of the so called "Thracians" (in fact - Bulgarian tribes). The Romaninan language was formed after a strong Latin influence over a part of the Dacians and other "Thracians" in the area. You can easily check the connection between modern Romanians and Bulgarians through reading some DNA researches, showing more than 90% proximity of blood. Unlike the proximity between Bulgarians and any "slavic nation" - Shisharki

No one was talking about deleting the article, and as the comments below show, Criztu did not actually remove that paragraph above from the article. No reputable scientist believes that the Thracians were Bulgarian tribes: the Thracians did not speak a Slavic language. Romanians and Bulgarians absorbed Thracian peoples, but neither Romanians nor Bulgarians are pure Thracians. The Thracians are extinct. Unless the Albanians are Thracian or Dacian descendants, rather than Illyrian (see Origin of Albanians).Alexander 007 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And how does this "Thracian" language sounds like? Any clue? Or just hypothesis based on guesses? There aren't any, just because there are no evidences for the existence of a nation called "Thracians"... There were hundreds of tribes with the same culture, language, and origin - none of them was called Thracians. Dacians are among them. At teh same time some greek sources say that the people living north of ancient Greece are the lagest nation in their known world after the Indians. Any idea where they all left? If anyone can cite a source (Roman or Greek or any) mentioning the word "Thracian", let all of us see it and learn. Thanks! --Shisharki 23:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A lot of work has been done on the Thracian language, a lot of it done by Bulgarians: and it is overwhelmingly agreed that the Thracian language was not a Slavic language. However, you will be interested to learn that there is one linguist — a controversial linguist — who suggests that the Thracian language may have been a type of conservative Paleo-Slavic language:Mario Alinei (I'll get the link later). Yet his theory about the Thracian language has been so far ignored. The Thracian language is known from some words cited in ancient glossaries, and from many personal names, town names (see List of ancient Thracian cities), place-names, etc.; there are also some longer inscriptions which may be written in Thracian (see Thracian language#Inscriptions) and they are not close to Slavic. The word "Thracian" is from Latin and Greek sources, and is first attested in Homeric Greek I think, in the Iliad; it is found in numerous classical texts, including Herodotus: Herodotus book 5, chapter 3. It's online at [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu, and the word Threikon (=Thracian) can be seen. Alexander 007 23:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

i only created a Geography cathegory for Dacia and added info that Sarmisegetusa was its capital, the above paragraph is still there Criztu 00:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any idea what was up with how the diff looked to me; presumably my error. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:42, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dissappearence of the names

Roman names for the cities, mountains, and rivers disappeared altogether beyond the Danube

That's wrong. Here is a short list of rivers and cities that kept their ancient names:

Tisa - Tissia - river

Olt - Alutus - river

Prut - Poratum - river

Siret - Sieratus - river

Argeş - Argessos - river

Someş - Samus - river

Mureş - Maris - river

Timiş - Tibiscum - river

Mediaş - Mediam - city

Abrud - Abruttum - city

Piatra Neamţ - Petrodava - city

Bogdan | Talk 09:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

categories

Western border of Dacia was river Tisa, and that mean that part of Dacia (Western Banat) was located in the territory of present day Serbia and Vojvodina, so I am putting these categories back. User:PANONIAN

UNRV

Recently added link: UNRV Dacia article. Can anyone explain what UNRV is? The linked article looks fine, but the site seems an odd combination of things... -- Jmabel | Talk 07:00, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

from that site's "About" section:

UNRV... United Nations of Roma Victor, represents the all encompassing power of Rome in the ancient world. United and Romanized, through conquest, or absorbed through its culture, Rome still stands today as a legacy to the achievement of mankind, and its failures. Bogdan | Talk 08:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but does it make sense? How do you "represent" a defunct empire? And have you noticed the type of things that are for sale on the site? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:55, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

If Savescu's "Dacia.org" can be given as a link, what's wrong with giving UNRV as a link. I haven't seen them selling anything unusual so far, mostly books and coins, but I haven't really paid attention to the merchandise. The most off-beat thing I saw so far was a link to a site selling ninja swords. Basically, the site is a so-so source of info on the ancient Roman empire, about each province, et cetera. Alexander 007 01:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not objecting, just trying to get my head around what the site is. Maybe we should have an article on them? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:01, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I have no idea who runs the site or what their agenda is. I think they are just "romanticists". There seems to be a vaguely sinister aura around the site, but I think that is because of the dark blood-red color they use as a background (suggestive of the Roman's preference for red, the color of Mars, the god of war). Alexander 007 03:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

dacia where is i5 ?

(heading put here without further content by anon 23 March 2005)

Dacia was roughly where Romania is now. I-5 is a freeway in the Western United States. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:37, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Eutropius the Exaggerator

Eutropius says some things that are obviously dramatic exaggerations: "All Illyricum and Moesia had been depopulated (vastato omni Illyrico et Moesia)"---it is extremely unlikely that all Illyria and Moesia had been depopulated in the sense that the word is usually used (made a wasteland, totally unpopulated). It is also extremely unlikely that Dacia was depopulated, in the sense that the word is usually used. His poor word-choice and his dramatic slant on things have warped history. I'm going to read through his work one of these days and look for more exaggerations. Alexander 007 00:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, while he applied vastato omni to Illyricum and Moesia, he didn't apply it to Dacia:

abductosque Romanos ex urbibus et agris Daciae in media Moesia collocavit

---There's no omni involved here, which is read into by some commentators. Alexander 007 06:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It must be remembered that in Latin "vastato omni Illyrico et Moesia" could simply mean "all of Illyria and Moesia were ravaged" or "devastated", not at all necessarily "depopulated completely" or even "nearly completely" (leaving aside vastato, even depopulatio in Latin could simply mean 'a pillaging') . This is Latin we are reading. The politically-motivated presumption that "all of Dacia was depopulated" is based on an incorrect gloss of this sentence. Alexander 007 06:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

should you be able to provide a better translation/link to a translation of the passage, pls do that :) , i'm also unsatisfied with the english translation from the link i provided ... i mean, Eutropius also tells about the same "vastatio" hapening in Spain and Gaul, and yet nobody uses Eutropius's words to "debate" about the galo-roman-frankish origin of the French nation :0( -- Criztu 10:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Word up. Alexander 007 11:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Though the Franks would not be included in Eutropius' statement in any case. You mean the 'gallo-roman' origin in this context. Franks came in later, and extensively shaped the French language, while the substratum Gaulish element in French is known to be negligible. Alexander 007 06:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Has to be addressed eventually

Eventually, most likely, somebody is going to come by and protest this sentence: "The Dacians adopted the religion and language of the conquerors---the modern Romanian language being a Romance language." I suggest we deal with this 'in-house'. It is true, based on archaeology & other historical sources, that by far most of the Dacians within Roman territory (and probably some outside of) adopted (forcefully or otherwise) the Latin language (or Popular Latin) and Roman religion. Yet the next phrase forces on the reader the viewpoint that this Romanization led to the Romanian language developing in early Romanized Dacia---regardless if it did or didn't, it is not yet proven that it did or didn't (others suggest that Romanian developed from Romanization in Moesia, etc.), so Wikipedia ethics means that we have to be NPOV. I'm going to find a npov solution. Alexander 007 04:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Bendis

The article says that the Dacians worshipped Bendis, a Thracian goddess. That has to be verified, because according to Hoddinott, the goddess Bendis was "worshipped by Thracians in Attica (including in Athens), but documented in Thracian lands only in Bithynia and a small area of Aegean Thrace---Philippi, Drama, and Thasos". Alexander 007 06:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Sentence trails off into nowhere

From the article:

There's also a theory that the Albanian language is

The suspense is killing me. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL! OK, I finished it. bogdan | ^Talk 09:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Daco-Romanian continuity

I've done my best to copy edit a poorly written recent addition to the Roman conquest section. I don't think the discussion of language should be there, and especially not the backdoor smuggling in of the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity. If we want to discuss the latter, we should take the topic head-on in a section or article of its own; if we just want to mention it in passing, I think it belongs in the language section of the article. In either case, not here. - Jmabel | Talk 07:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a good faith insertion by Proturism (talk · contribs) of the Dacian was a Latin language idea [1], which is totally different from the concept of Daco-Roman continuity (I subsequently explained the problem of including that idea in main Wikipedia articles to Proturism on Talk:Dacian language#Update, and he apparently agreed to the policy, of which he was not aware, so it was good-faith editing on his part). I plan on starting a specific Wiki article on the Dacian-Latin idea. It is notable enough, but not authoritative enough to be discussed in these main articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight). I plan on removing the idea from Origin of Romanians as well, once I (or someone else) start(s) the specific article. Alexander 007 06:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Roman conquest

The following sentence was recently removed without comment: "Eighty percent of the former territory and people [of Dacia] remained outside the empire. I don't have a citation for this, but it accords with what I'm quite sure I'd read elsewhere. Assuming it is correct, it seems an odd thing to remove. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 12 January 2006 (UTR)

I think 80% percent is an exaggerated figure, but I don't have the references at hand ATM. It seems okay if it's left out till 80% is backed up with a proper citation. Alexander 007 06:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Blue - Dacians in the Roman Empire
Yellow - "Free Dacians"

It depends how you compute the area. There were some Dacian outposts as far as southern Poland, but that doesn't mean that all the area to Poland was inhabited by Dacians. Anyway, see the map. (it includes the areas where could be found "-dava" cities southern of the Danube and Moesia) bogdan 09:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like 80%... What's your source? Alexander 007 09:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No source. It's based mainly on the toponym maps. Of course, it doesn't look like 80% -- that is the figure repeated by Napoleon Săvescu. :-) bogdan 10:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Question: how is possible that a roman road pass the "free dacians teritory"?CristianChirita 16:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In most maps I saw, including this one, the northern limit of dacian inhabited teritory is more or less the northen boundries of today Romania. I have to ask if this is a simple asumption born out of lack of evidence? If not, who inhabited what is today south western Ucraine? Where they paleo-slavs? If they where what was the delimitation (geografical lingustic and cultural) between them and the dacs? Was not the Costoboci a dacic tribe? I have the impresion that the northen limit of dacic habitat is artificialy restricted. There may have been dacic tribes much to the north of todays Romania. I am curious to know if there are arguments suporting the claim that northern of todays Romania lived a non-dacian culture.

Dawa

The Classical Latin phone represented by the letter v is considered to be w (or a slurred u sound approximating to w; see Latin spelling and pronunciation). I don't know if Dacian -dava was recorded in any Latin texts of the Classical Age, nor am I sure how standard the Classical pronunciation was among Latin speakers of the time, or exactly when the letter v began to represent the sound v. But I just thought it would be worth mentioning that -dava may have been pronounced -dawa (PIE base *dhe-) in Dacian. Alexander 007 11:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, it would be informative to find out where -deba and -daba are attested. It may be in Byzantine Greek writings, and by then beta indicated a voiced labiodental fricative, so it would actually be -deva and -dava. Alexander 007 12:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know of ancient Greek texts having a β for Dacian -dawa, -dava? Procopius does but he's Byzantine. I think Criztu added the -deba, -daba stuff, & he got this info from secondary or tertiary sources, etc.. I'm updating it, because AFAIK the older Greek texts set it down as -daua. Alexander 007 18:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, readers should realize, that for toponyms only attested in the work of the Byzantine Procopius (and other late writers) who was listing contemporary toponyms as far as Dacian and Thracian are concerned, I think,...there is no evidence that such towns were around in the time covered by this article, and perhaps should be removed. They will be found in List of Dacian cities, which will soon have details on attestation/ dates. Alexander 007 19:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Links

There are getting to be an awful lot of links here. It would be great if someone would go through them and work out which are actually worth keeping. - Jmabel | Talk 06:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How about the site for the museum in Deva. They have info for tourists to visit the Dacian sites in the Sureanu mountains. O crandell 13:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

dacia.org

dacia.org is a private owned site, it is not an uncontested academical/official source. i will also remove the "masagaetia and other provinces" until evidence (other than dacia.org) of such divisions of Dacia will be provided. i will remove Daco-Tracia also. provide evidence of the existence of a state named Dacia prior to Burebista Criztu 21:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)criztu

this info should be ordered, selected, evidenced, then inserted back to frontpage

"The Daco-Thracia 2000-560 BC comprising the regions known as: Susudava, Selidava, Costobocia, Pannonia, Maramabista, Tiragaetia, Masagaetia, Crisia, Moldadava, Arutela, Tauro-Thracia, Sigynia, Gaetia, Moesia, Thracia, Macedonia, Phrygia, Bithynia and Pont.

..., comprising the regions known as: Selidava, Pannonia, Maramabista, Tiragaetia, Masagaetia, Crisia, Moldadava, Arutela, Sigynia, Gaetia, Moesia, Thracia, and Macedonia. " Criztu 22:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)criztu

dacia.org is sheer pseudohistory, see Dacianism. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Diurpaneus -- Decebalus?

I can find nothing in any reference work that substantiates the comment that Decebalus' name was originally Diurpaneus. The name Diurpaneus doesn't appear in Britannica, the Oxford Classical Dictionary, Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, or Illustrated History of the World, all of which have entries on Decebalus. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

Some of the sites given as external links seem to advocate Dacomania. Shouldn't we clean up a little bit? Plinul cel tanar (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned it up some. The links I removed, I did so on the basis of either being non-English on the English Wikipedia; they were marginally related to Dacia, or they were identified as malware by my browser. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some additional information that misght be included

I would like to help with this article, in a good faith for the historical truth Blurall (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Borders of Dacia

The borders are written by some sources Dio, then later Crassus, also Traianus. The basic consensus (as the borders were moving since the decades) that the borders of Dacia was Black Sea and Tisa/Tisza, and Danube from South. Firstly, we need to write that we have no data on the North border, we are just guessing. Secondly, people do not recognise that rivers are not static for 2 millineum. According to geologists, in Dacian times, the Tisza River was flowing roughly where the Romanian-Hungarian border is now. Maros/Koros rivers have piled up some earth on the lower part of the river, so it "pushed" slowly the Tisza westward. A good proof of this is Hortobágy, where there is a 9-hole bridge over a very small river. In the past this was a much bigger river. In the 19th century the Tisza was "regulated", and it became straight, as they "cut off" some curves. So to conclude, we can use the maps as per included in the article, but to be precise, we need to add this information, too. Abdulka (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia

Hi, WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The most unreadable run-on sentence ever written on Wikipedia.

"Dacia had in the middle the Carpathian Mountains and was bounded approximately by the Danubius river, in Greek sources Istros (the Danube) or, at its greatest extent, by the Haemus Mons (the Balkan Mountains) to the south–Moesia (Dobrogea), a region south of the Danube, was a core area where the Getae lived and interacted with the Ancient Greeks–Pontus Euxinus (the Black Sea) and river Danastris, in Greek sources Tyras (the Dniester) to the east (but several Dacian settlements are recorded in part of area between Dniester and Hypanis river (the Bug), and Tisia (the Tisza) to the west (but at times included areas between Tisza and middle Danube)." Kaldari (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

:-) I agree. Thanks for the help with the cleanup. The article needs a lot of help.--Codrin.B (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you guys finally have some competition for worst sentence in Wikipedia: Talk:Fall of Man#Worst sentence in Wikipedia.3F :) Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving religion, occupations, culture, language from Dacia to Dacians

Hi all! I am planning to move the religion, occupations, culture, language sections from Dacia to the Dacians article since I think it pertains to the people not the geographical region. It is also consistent with the Thrace/Thracians and Illyria/Illyrians, as well as the tree in Category:Dacians and Category:Thracians. The Dacians article also has Dacians#Religion and language sections which are just stubs. Anyone who has objections or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! --Codrin.B (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Primary topic

There's a discussion at Talk:Dacia (disambiguation)#Primary topic over which article should be the Primary Topic for the name "Dacia". Comments welcome -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is the pronunciation given for Romanian? It certainly doesn't sound like any way the word would be said in English. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Galerius the Dacian?

The section on Galerius as a Dacian is based solely on Lactantius, who had a major axe to grind. The paragraph presents it as fact, whereas it was probably a caricature, since Lactantius was in the business of making the emperors who persecuted the Christians look bad. I'm guessing maybe he had a Dacian origin (most of the emperors at that time came from the frontiers, which were the main reservoirs of military strength) -- I'll try to go check and then revise it. Horatio325 (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing the external link leading to KMZ file

Dear Sarah, sorry but your motivation is based on WP:EXTERNAL - "Links normally to be avoided". This is special case because:

1. the link provides only one Google Earth KMZ file;
2. the KMZ file provides an insightful picture of the subject;
3. the content KMZ file is based on reliable sources;
4. Wikimedia Commons does not store KML/KMZ files and thus Google Earth Community was chosen to store the file;
5. there is no intention to chat nor socialization on that link;
6. this is an external link mutually accepted for long time by the members of WP:Dacia.

If you are interested on Dacia, we gladly invite you to this project. -- Saturnian (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Herodotus did not mentione d Dacians ,take away this lie

Dacians are not mentioned by Herodotus Getae are mentioned by Herodotus . Getae is a Iranic Scythian name there , two of them Massagetae and TyragGetae were attested as Scythian-Iranic people . Edit away that lie of Herodotus mentio ing Dacians Edelfred (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The two terms are interchangeable. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, they are not! The Daci were originally Thracian tribe that came under the domination of sarmatian Getae. They eventually came to speak the same language as Getae, but under no circumstances are they the same thing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.211.148 (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Its a South European culture name, regardless of its origin, so its "dah-" not "dei-", and because Latin mostly used c instead of k, its actually "dah-kee-ah", as evident by the Greek written form, but without the Greek ending. Even though its an applied Greco-Roman ethnonym, with unclear origin, its basic to not read "da-" as dei, and "c" for s. -Inowen (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Tarabostes ... who?

There's a photo of his depiction on the Arch of Constantine, but no reference to him in the text. Please expand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.85.11 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

In the section with the image you refer to, the term "Tarabostes" is explained. It refers to a social class, not to an individual.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Istros or Tyras: which is it?

Dacia was bounded in the south approximately by the Danubius river (Danube), in Greek sources the Istros, or ... the river Danubius, in Greek sources the Tyras. Maybe there's an obvious answer that eludes me. Dgndenver (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Begin year

That Dacians existed then? Point granted. That the state of Dacia existed? WP:CITE WP:RS to that extent, but not Dacianism makulatur. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Latin language

That Dacia had Latin as official language is not true for all of its BCE history. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu do you think the data in the "Currency" line of the infobox is correct? First, I'm not sure if the "koson coins" can be called a currency. Second, denarii and currencies of Greek states were used everywhere in the Barbaricum. Gyalu22 (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

This article has completely abandoned historicity for revisionist claims with absolutely NO historical basis

I have attempted to fix some of the problems I've first seen when loading the page but it seems like every other sentence is wrong. None of the geographic descriptions are accurate, most of them seem to instead be based in romanian ultranationalist historical revisionism, heavily implying that Dacia was the source of all human civilisation. Nearly the entire article needs to be rewritten to match the historical record. I am unfamiliar with the process for requesting edit protection from wikipedia as I do not do much editing here. Can anyone help? Iceylore (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Rome vs dacins

Org Dacia service Wiki iformation for now carpets have these models fore romans.daciawiki/org.comwikipedia final carpets for romans are secole I for now carpets and lecers are metropolitan/org 5.14.146.26 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)