|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Two very simple reasons why this is not a plain dictionary entry:
1 - The mention of the drinking horn in literature. 2 - The mention of the drinking horn in Dunvegan castle.
I was amazed actually that Wikipedia had no entries on this subject, but there you go... --MacRusgail 14:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
the article was repeating the common misconception that the drinking horn is somehow native to "Northern Europe" in particular, while it is clearly part of the "cultural package" adopted by the Celts from the Scythians / the Balkans together with iron etc. (which in turn passed from the Celts to the Germanic tribes later on). There remains a strong tradition of drinking horns in the Caucasus, which I suppose can plausibly be assumed as continuity since antiquity. The drinking horn, if "native" to anywhere, should be considered a prehistoric "steppe pastoralist" custom in origin. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it was claiming that it was native to any particular area. However, it became particularly well developed in Northern Europe, and there are many notable examples in myths and history in that region. If anything, the original article which I wrote had a Scottish bias. That's because it was written mainly from copyright free Scottish content - and I'd agree that that was not a good focus. However, it has moved on since then.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
too much or too little detail?
- "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material."
I would be interested, in your opinion, which is it? Is the article missing important content? On what topic? or does it contain irrelevant material? In what section?
Or did you just copy Berig's assessment? Which, of course, applied to an entirely different revision, for which a "C" was actually being rather kind. Or am I missing something? --dab (𒁳) 20:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Adding the article to the Dacian culture category
The article has been added to the Category:Dacian culture since it is clearly mentioning Diodorus's account of a feast prepared by the Getic chief Dromichaites for Lysimachus, where the Getians' use of drinking vessels made from horn and wood is explicitly stated. The article also mentions that the Thracians were known for their custom of drinking from horns. The mainstream theories as well as historical sources, state that the Dacians and the Getae are northern Thracian tribes. Minimally, they share the same religion, have a close, culture, language etc. Furthermore, the mainstream theories substantiated in archaeology, linguistics also assume that Daci and Getae, are different names given for the same people by Romans and Greeks respectively. There are also theories stating they are not the same, but related, with Getae possibly having more Scythian and southern Thracian influence than the Dacian. Burebista also created a federation of Dacian and Getae tribes, proving closeness in their culture. Most evidence proves that Dacian and Getae were the same if not closely related. Evidence showing the contrary is scarce. The definition of Dacia as a region and as a cultural and linguistic space can not limited in any way to Dacia Trajana (a fragment conquered by Romans) and to certain western Dacian tribes. It has a broader range, minimally starting north of Danube, but most likely north of Balkans, at the border between Thrace and of what Romans called Moesia, named after the Daco-Thracian tribe Moesi. We know for a fact that the linguistic (and most likely the cultural) separation between Daco-Moesian and Thracian happen at the natural border formed by the Balkan mountains. You can look at the distribution of the Davae as well. The ancient Thrace is south of the Balkan mountains and the Category:Culture of ancient Thrace covers only that cultural space. By no means the Getic one. Even if the Dacians are so different than the Getae and the Thracians, give the fact that each had settlements in the others territories (which hints to cultural closeness and interaction), it is impossible to assume (especially during Buresbista's time) that the Dacians were looking shocked at the Getae and the Thracians how they drink from their horns, not knowing what they are. Additionally Dacians interacted with Scythians which also had horns. There is also the issue of practicality for categorizing the articles related to the Paleo-Balkans. In order to be perfectly precise, and not knowing 100% how closely related some tribes were, logically we would have to create category trees showing culture, language, weapons etc. for each Dacian, Getae, Thracian and Illyrian tribe. I think that would create an enormous amount of categories which is no feasible or realistic, as well as duplication. Given all this, I believe the Category:Dacian culture together with the Category:Culture of ancient Thrace, should be good enough to cover all the cultural space described in the article without implying anything else. I hope this clarifies the logic.--Codrin.B (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
yes, fine, I do not object to the addition of this category. Since drinking horns have been part of the culture of at least three dozen peoples and nations over time, I still must say it isn't very constructive to go around and tag articles for your personal favourite pet culture instead of looking at the article topic and decide which categories are most relevant to that. --dab (𒁳) 07:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Based on my detailed justification, I don't think it is just about a pet culture. But you are right, you can't categorize very generic concepts with all cultures. Maybe, if notable enough, and supported by enough evidence, a Paleo-Balkan drinking horn section or independent article would more sense. Thanks again. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)