Talk:Costoboci/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

From Ukraine with love

Mykhailo Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus'. Volume One. From Prehistory to the Eleventh Century (1997) - the Ukrainian original was published in early 20th century. Page 99 (I apologize for typos, I only had some fragments from Google Books):

Our sources contain only a few hints about the ethnicity of the Carpathian tribes. The fact that they comprised the northern — Danubian and Transylvanian — frontier of Thracian colonization suggests that they, too, may have been of Thracian stock. A number of other facts seem to support this theory. [...] The name of the king of the Coestoboci, Pieporus, and that of his kinsman Natoporus end in a characteristic suffix that in the form -poris occurs in many Thracian and Dacian names.¹⁸⁵ Even more significant is the fact that Ptolemy lists a number of settlements in the Carpathians and on the upper Dnister and Seret whose names end in -daua [-dava] (δαυα),¹⁸⁶ a common suffix for Dacian settlements found in other Thracian territories.¹⁸⁷ That all these towns were moved from Dacia into the region north of the Carpathians simply because of a lack of space on Ptolemy's map appears unlikely to me.

The facts cited above and some less important circumstances lend credence to the theory that these Carpathian tribes were of the Thracian family. Perhaps originally they had belonged to an earlier, non-Indo-European population that had intermingled with the Thracians and had become assimilated with them.

185. Concerning this suffix, see Tomaschek, 'Die alten Thraker,' 131: 21; also Mommsen, Romische Geschichte, p. 207. The name of Pieporus is reminiscent of the 'Dac(i Petoporiani' on the Tabula Peutingeriana (as has been noted by Zeuss, Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme, p. 697); Tomaschek, 'Die alten Thraker,' 128: 108. Perhaps ' Petoporiani' is an error and should read 'Pieporiani', which would mean that the Coestoboci were Dacian. On Peutinger's map the 'Petoporian Dacians' are located on the eastern slopes of the Carpathians, on the left bank of the Dniester. Perhaps the same name is also contained in that of the city of Piroboridava (Πιροβορίδαυα) in Ptolemy 3.10.15.

186. Clepidava (Κλεπίδαυα) (near the Dnister), Docidava (Δοκίδαυα), Patridava (Πατρίδαυα), Carsidava (Καρσίδαυα), Petrodava (Πετρόδαυα), Sandava (Σάνδαυα), Utidava (Οὐτίδαυα), Zargidava (Ζαργίδαυα), Tamasidava (Ταμασίδαυα ), Piroboridava ((Πιροβορίδαυα) (between the Dnister and the Seret) - Ptolemy 3.5.30; 3.8.6-7; 3.10.15.

187. Tomaschek, 'Die alten Thraker,' 131: 70.

For a slightly different interpretation of TP's DACPETOPORIANI see Gudmund Schütte's Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe : a reconstruction of the prototypes (1917), pages 82 and 143.

Daizus (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits by User EraNavigator

While I welcome the efforts of User:EraNavigator on this subject, I am afraid that a lot of his work is plagued with original research and it is not written from a neutral point of view. I am looking forward to read books by EraNavigator in the future, if he chooses to write his ideas, but Wikipedia is not the place for such activities. I welcome ideas and suggestions on this, but I believe this article needs a lot of rework and lot of external, neutral reviewers, as well as expert advice. --Codrin.B (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dacian language collaboration

Hello from WikiProject Dacia!

Since there are so many religious wars going on at the moment around Dacians and their language, we are proposing to all involved to use their creativity, knowledge and energy in creating separate articles for different language affinities. Stop deleting and reverting and start creating!

Instead, expand or create the articles listed at the WikiProject Dacia's Current Collaboration, using as much academic evidence you can gather.

Once these separate articles went through a lot of scrutiny and have reached a good article status, we can discuss the addition of links to the various theories and potentially even add sections about them in the Dacian language and Dacian tribes articles.

Let the Daciada begin! Thanks for your support! --Codrin.B (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Roger Batty

EraNavigator reverted a constructive edit by an anonymous editor. A part of the reverted content was a justified criticism against Roger Batty.

Everett L. Wheeler, "Rome’s Dacian Wars: Domitian, Trajan, and Strategy on the Danube, Part I" published in The Journal of Military History 74 (October 2010): 1185–1227.

p. 1186, n. 1: R. Batty, Rome and the Nomads: The Pontic-Danubian Realm in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), attempts to trace the history of migrations from the Ukraine into Romania and Bulgaria (fifth century B.C.–fourth century A.D.). Although supplementing Stefan’s tome [my note: Alexandre Simon Stefan, Les guerres daciques de Domitien et de Trajan: Architecture militaire, topographie, images et histoire, Collection de l’École Française de Rome 353 (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2005)], Batty’s disappointing work suffers inter alia, as this paper’s commentary will document, from factual errors and out-of-date or omitted bibliography (e.g., ignorance of A. Suceveanu and A. Barnea, La Dobroudja Romaine [Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedica, 1991]; and A. Alemany, Sources on the Alans: A Critical Compilation [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000]). His curious pronouncements about Roman policy on the Lower Danube derive exclusively from a very limited (cherrypicked?) knowledge of the literature on Roman strategy (discussed in Part II of this article).

p. 1190, n. 8: Batty (Rome and the Nomads, 485) erroneously believes that Trajan’s wars depopulated Dacia; for correctives, see Babeş , "'Devictis Dacis'", and literature at note 38 below. [...] Batty (Rome and the Nomads, 250), who strangely omits discussion of the Sîntana de Muresh-Cernjachov culture, is skeptical of Romanian scholars’ identification of various ethnicities (Costoboci, Carpi, Bastarnae) with specific material cultures, although his own views lack appreciation of archaic ethnic terms in late authors for various tribes of their own day, and he uncritically accepts material in (e.g.) Pliny’s Natural History, where earlier sources are indiscriminately mixed with contemporary ethnographical descriptions.

p. 1197, n. 20: the confusion of Colonia with Regia is perpetuated in Batty, Rome and the Nomads, 529, whose fig. 41.8 (290) also incorrectly transposes the locations of the forts Blidaru and Costesti.

p. 1210, n. 58: Oescus, the northern terminus of the shortest route between Macedonia and the Danube, was the first legionary camp downstream from the Iron Gates Gorge and became the base of the legion V Macedonica perhaps as early as Tiberius (r. 14–38), but certainly during Claudius’s reign (38–54) [...] Batty, Rome and the Nomads (405; without sufficient evidence) would have Oescus as a permanent legionary base from 2/3 A.D. or 11 A.D.;

p. 1211-2, n. 63: Batty’s uncritical acceptance of Ovid’s writings from Tomis as accurate ethnography (Rome and the Nomads, 320–38) partially finds correction in J. G. F. Hinds, "Ovid and the Barbarians beyond the Lower Danube (Tristia 2.191–2; Strabo, Geogr. 7.3.17)", Dacia 51 (2007): 241–45. [...] Marcus Aurelius’s concession to the Iazyges in 179 (Cassius Dio 71.19; erroneously 72.19 at Batty, Rome and the Nomads, 440–41) for occasional intercourse through the southern section of Roman Dacia with their Rhoxolan cousins in Wallachia (if the Dacian governor permitted it) might speak for the southern route a century earlier.

p. 1212, n. 64: No evidence, however, suggests that the Iazyges were ever cataphracts (sic, erroneously, Batty, 442; Coulston, "Overcoming the Barbarian", 412)

p. 1216, n. 75: For rebuttal of an alleged hostility of Burebista to the Greek cities (sic Batty, Rome and the Nomads, 507–8), see Stefan 382 with n. 66; [...] likewise, Batty’s skepticism (427 n. 19) about Burebista’s defeat of the Scordisci is groundless: see A. Mócsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia, trans. S. Frere (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974), 18;

p. 1217, n. 76: Slaves as a major export of the Carpathian basin is a motif of Batty, Rome and the Nomads, 124–25, 197, 256, 363 n. 64, although with exaggerations.

p. 1217-8, n. 79: Rome enlisted Dacians for cavalry alae and adopted some Dacian practices (e.g., Arrian, Tactica 44.1), just as Rome heavily recruited Thracian infantry and cavalry in general: see D. Dana and F. Matei-Popescu, "Le recruitement des Daces dans l’armée romaine sous l’empereur Trajan: une esquisse préliminaire", Dacia 50 (2006): 195–206, and, most recently, M. Zahariade, The Thracians in the Roman Imperial Army from the First to the Third Century A.D., 1: Auxilia (Cluj/Napoca: Mega Publishing House, 2009); cf. Batty’s feeble discussion (Rome and the Nomads, 497–98) and perverse attempt to represent Moesian and Thracian troops as unreliable.

So it seems Batty is strongly biased against Dacians and Thracians, asserting with exaggerations that Carpathian basin was a major source of slaves and that Thracian and Moesian Roman units were unreliable or even trying to minimize the activity of powerful local rulers such as Burebista. He also lacks basic knowledge about local archaeology (e.g. he is confused about several Roman and Dacian sites around Sarmizegetusa) and often reads inadequately from the primary sources. His bibliography is out-of-date or omitted, if not cherry-picked to support his often dubious assertions about Roman-barbarian interactions in this region.

If Batty will stay in the article this criticism must be voiced somehow. I'm saying if, because I found several fragments from this book on Google Books. Searching for Costoboci in the book, I found five pages, none quoted in this article(!): 355, 383, 482, 499, 635 (index)

p. 355, n. 15 (about Bastarnae): For the reign of Antoninus, see HA Marcus 22; they are also attested on an inscription from Dacia dated to AD 170 (ILS9171). Dio, writing at the earliest during the closing years of the 2nd century, could note "the Bastarnae, on the other hand, who are properly classed as Scythians", which seems to show first-hand acquiantance with them (51.23.3). It should be noted that Dio's account of the Marcomannic Wars is essentially centred on events in Pannonia; he is seemingly unaware of the movements of the Costoboci in AD 170s. This makes it more intelligible that his account makes no mention of the Bastarnae in this period.

p. 383, n. 187 (about a possible Gothic role in the Marcomannic Wars): Thus, Heather, The Goths, 31-8; Wolfram, History of the Goths, 42. However, the approach is speculative and rather Gotho-centric - explaining otherwise comprehensible events as results of a Gothic influence not perceived by our sources. The latter (chiefly Dio and the HA) list numerous tribes as having a role in events, amongst whom were the Marcomanii, Lugii, Quadi, Iazyges, Costoboci, Astingi, Lacringi, Naristi, Varistae, Hermunduri, Suebi, Buri, Osi, Bessi, Cobotes, Roxolani, Bastarnae, Alani, and Peucini. Had the Goths any part in events, they would surely have surfaced. The case can obviously not be proven archaeologically.

p. 482: Rome, presuming that its powers extended well beyond the linear frontier of the Danube, treated any immigrant peoples encroaching upon its territories as both rebels and outlaws. The invasion(s?) of the Costoboci during the 170s illustrate this point. For Pausanias, 'an army of brigands called the Costoboci' entered Greece. The Costoboci also crop up on a number of inscriptions. On one such inscription, a stone marking the exploits of L. Iulius Vehillius Gratus Iulianus in resisting their predations, they are described as 'rebelles'. As noted, the movement which brought these people down into the Greek peninsula went largely unnoticed. Yet the likelihood is that the attack he mentions was not an isolated affair, and it remains probable that groups of the raiders were left behind long after the initial movement.

p. 499: If Thrace needed to be protected, then the threat may have come from a variety of causes: immigrant populations such as the Costoboci, discussed above; brigands and bandits; mobile, nomadic peoples within Thrace itself; mountaineers from the remoter parts of the Haemus; or the organized attacks of hostile external powers, such as the Sarmatians.

There might be other mentions inside the book not showing up in searches or maps I can't view. Nevertheless Batty seems to suggest (p. 499) the Costoboci were not Sarmatians, that they were a bunch of immigrants, not part of the organized, hostile power of Sarmatians.

Strangely the name of Bichir doesn't show up in the book. In article Batty's book is cited on pages 374, 375 and 378 and 248 (a map). Searching for Lipitsa there's one page 248 - and the map seems to be about material cultures. I have strong doubts Batty (2008) 248 supports the claim "Lipiţa offers a reasonable match, in both geographical extent, and historical era, with the Carpathian Costoboci as defined in the ancient sources". If you can't provide quotes from the book supporting the claims in the article, those will have to go away, being nothing but original research. Daizus (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to use Batty to create some content on Costoboci, but it doesn't work. ILS 9171 is a dedication to Jupiter Dolichenus. Daizus (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

ILS 9171 is a votive bronze hand dedicated to Jupiter Dolichenus, found at Myszkow (in eastern Galicia) and presumably a looted stray. I'm still not sure what Batty tried to point out. Daizus (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on all the erroneous statements in Batty's book, should we continue to reference him?

Codrin.B (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not so sure these are errors. Scholarly works are full of contradictions, based on different evaluation of the sources and archaeological evidence. Maybe this should be better reflected in the article, pointing out different explanations for various events. Do you have access to the various sources listed above? Dimadick (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right that scholarly work is full of contradictions, but also there are scholars writing about things they don't know, scholars holding fringe/controversial views. Not every opinion has the same value (WP:RSUW). Everett Wheeler's article can be read online on ScribD. Batty's book is available only on Google Books, unfortunately in snippets. But as I pointed above, from little what can be read, it doesn't seem to support what's currently claimed in the article. Some full citations would be nice. Daizus (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Using the user space or WikiProject Dacia drafts space for high conflict articles

Given the highly controversial theories regarding this subject, the amount of edit wars and the risk for conflict, I kindly suggest the use a user space or of the WikiProject Dacia drafts space, until the article is ready for prime time and a consensus is reached. You can certainly ask for reviews at the user/draft space. Thanks for your hard work and continued cooperation.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dacians as Slavs, Costoboci uncertain on the Roman Empire Map?

Dacians are marked with the same color as Slavs which is completely incorrect and unfortunate. While Costoboci and Carpi, considered by most historians as Dacian, are in a blue/uncertain color. While Bastarnae who are a Celtic-Germanic mix with possible Dacian elements is marked as Germanic for sure. This is raising serious questions about the map and its neutrality. I suggest at least a distinct Dacian color and section in the legend. The map is here: commons:File:Roman Empire 125.png and here commons:File:Roman Empire 125.svg. Note that util November 19, 2010, Dacians were depicted using a proper, different color. Something dubious happened at that time. --Codrin.B (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Daizus (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• The map is pretty good, and represent more exact the situation, but i think it must be added as well the "Tyragetae", on the Tyras/Dniepr river, as they are mentioned by Ptolemy for ex., and on his map apears even their probable capital, Clepidava.
• i am glad as well to see that other editors joined the discussion and the edit of the article (particulary Daizus seem to be very knowledgeable), after EraNav (who even bring a "pet" in his help i saw) and me had some contradictory talks here a while ago. It is very good that Codrin have the idea of a Dacia project to integrate a little the many articles related with the subject, many of them who need some work on them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.200.62 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Europaei sunt Halani et Costobocae gentesque Scytharum innumerae

Moved from my talk page

3. You can check EraNavigator's knowledge of Latin by reading Ammianus in any editions available:

Ammianus' Latin text: Europaei sunt Halani et Costobocae gentesque Scytharum innumerae

EraNavigator's quote: gentes Costobocae (sic!)

Loeb edition: European Halani, the Costobocae, and innumerable Scythian tribes

EraNavgiator's translation: Costobocan tribes

I guess he doesn't know how the enclitic "que" works. Senatus Populusque Romanus means "the Senat and the Roman people", not "the Senat, the people, and the Roman" ;)

Actually, that is wrong, too. Que does not directly translate to "and"; it "is used especially where the two members have an internal connection with each other" (Bennett's New Latin Grammar, apparently) A better translation would be "The Europeans are / the Halani / and the Costobocae *with* (among? one of the?) the tribes of the innumerable Scythians", suggesting that the Costobocae are connected to Scythians. If Ammianus simply meant to list -- "Halani, Costobocae, and the Scythian tribes" -- he would have just used "et" instead of "que".

senatus populusque romanus = the Senate "and" (meaning "with", or "connected to") the populace -of- Rome

costobocae gentesque scytharum innumerae = Costobocae *with* the tribes -of- the innumerable Scythians

--Agamemnus (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? In Senatus Populusque Romanus, even you translated "-que" by "and", so how am I wrong? The Loeb translation is just fine (Costobocae and countless Scythian tribes), and frankly your rebuttal is OR if anything. Yes, que-relation is stronger than et-relation, but still that word is translated directly to "and" ([1] [2] [3] etc.) And certainly Ammianus does not say the Costobocae were a group of tribes as EraNavigator wants to read here (Costobocae gentes (sic!)). Halani were one tribe, Costobocae were another tribe, and there were countless others. So I'm not wrong at all! Daizus (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I did mean that you were wrong; I said the translations were wrong. I am pointing out that translation is fickle and that even your source, Loeb, is not quite correct -- so where else could he be wrong? I don't know from where you found EraNavigator's translation, though, so I am not really sure where you see him taking the whole sentence and converting it to just "Costobocae gentes" (or whatever else he may have done), or and thus I am not sure what your argument is really about.

Now, on to this "que" business: logically que does not translate directly to "and". It's just logic... If you agree that the "que" relation is stronger than the "et" relation, then the meaning is lost in English if you tranlate directly to "and", and you lose the original difference between "que" and "et". In English, there is no difference between "and" and "and".

Applying this logic: "The Senate and the People/Populace of Rome" cannot be understood without knowing the original Latin. In English, that is simply a sentence fragment, unless we explain that "The Senate and the People of Rome" is an entity, not a sentence. Thus, similarly, the "Costobocae and the tribes of the innumerable Scythians" are an entity, not two separate entities.--Agamemnus (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved the conversation here. And I second Daizus. Please brush up on the Latin.--Codrin.B (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, what? If we're just going to "second" each other, and insult them by saying to brush up on their Latin, then, well, I don't know what to say.--Agamemnus (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The translation is not wrong because you say so. Please check some Latin dictionaries and guides: -que means "and", nothing else. Thus, 'logically', it translates directly to it. No sophism in the world can change that.

Perhaps my example was not the most fortunate, let's take a look at Cicero's letters: quorum auctoritatem dignitatem voluntatemque defenderas commonly translated by "whose authority, rank and policy you had defended" (and certainly not by "authority, rank with policy/will" as you seem to suggest). Yes, using -que implies a different (closer) relation than using et, but sometimes this difference may be rather formal (in this example it's just an emphasis on the last term of the enumeration).

What you say about Costoboci is just original research. Yes, Ammianus may have well regarded them as Scythians (and I argued about that on this talk page), but not because of that -que. Daizus (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As for EraNavigator's reading of Ammianus check his wording from a past version of this article:

In ca. 400, Ammianus Marcellinus also lists the gentes Costobocae ("Costobocan tribes") among the "Alans and innumerable other Scythian tribes".

Thus he concluded the Costoboci "were an ancient group of tribes". Both claims were discarded as original research. Unfortunately the problem still persists in his article on Free Dacians. Daizus (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I am saying nothing about the Costoboci, I am merely translating a Latin sentence.

Second: again, please tell me how you can say at the same time that "que" means only "and", and that "que" implies a closer relationship than "et". We have already agreed that "que" implies a closer relationship than "et". Even with an emphasis on the last term of the enumeration, that emphasis is lost in the English without any changes.

To translate Latin to English and not lose the meaning, we must somehow differentiate between what "que" and "et" means. Otherwise you lose the meaning / "emphasis" / whatever else. Either "que" is different from "et" even a little bit, or it isn't at all. There's no way around it.

Again, my point was that if, for instance the translator suspects/knows that the Costoboci are part of the Scythian tribes, and he sees the original with "que", he could translate it, even without changing any words, differently: in this case, the difference could even only be a comma:

The Europeans are the Halani, and the Costobocae, and the tribes of the innumerable Scythians".

*versus*

The Europeans are the Halani, and the Costobocae and the tribes of the innumerable Scythians".

AS FOR EraNavigator's translation: now that I see it, I can agree that it is not the correct translation in any case. However, just because he translated it incorrectly, I don't agree that you can discount that the Costoboci/ae were *not* a group of tribes (as opposed to a single tribe?); the sentence does not say point blank that they were or were not a group of tribes.--Agamemnus (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You're trying to translate a Latin sentence about Costoboci, therefore you say something about them. As for your last paragraph, if you suggest the Costoboci were a group of tribes you need to provide a source for that, do you have any? If not, thank you for your participation!

In Latin -que means "and" - dictionary definition and end of story. Your suggestion that in our case -que should be translated with a meaning which is not attested, or in a way different from authoritative scholarly editions is ludicrous.

The rest of your reply is a sophism and it does not deserve any answer. There are several online resources (example: [4]) which can teach you Latin if you're interested in learning. Daizus (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Four years of Latin here and a few Certamen medals, but thanks anyway! If "que" only means "and", and you would like to change your past statement and say that it is in no way different from "et" other than how it is spelled and how it is used (ie: grammatically), then OK. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree--

In archaic and official language, -que is preferred to et, from which it is distinguished by denoting a closer connection. --Agamemnus (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wiktionary says the same: -que means "and". One more example, also from Cicero: multi eunuchi e Syria Aegyptoque vicerunt. I'm sure we all agree Syrians are not Egyptians, Egyptians are not Syrians, Syria is not in Egypt, and Egypt is not in Syria. Thus I don't see why would we read in this passage that Costobocae are Scythian tribes. Daizus (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm only saying that the use of "que" means that they are somehow connected other than what the connecting verb says (in this case, "are" would be the verb). Perhaps saying "part of?" is far-fetched, but they could still be more closely connected because they are grouped together; geographically, for instance. (just as in your latest example, incidentally)--Agamemnus (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) To my limited knowledge of Latin Agamemnus is right about the slight differences between et and que. Anyway I think that this is a minor issue and we need other scholars opinion on that topic, and we should not be based on a literal translation of possible original text. We have to keep in mind that this is not the original text but a mere copy of a copy of a copy etc of the original text being transported through centuries so maybe one of the numerous copiers would have changed et with que imagining they were synonyms. This makes the whole sentence very dubious at least, apart from the fact of being a "supposed" primary source. Do we have other scholars opinion on Costoboci? Aigest (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if my position is clear. I didn't say there's no difference (on the contrary), all I am saying is that both "et" and "-que" should be translated by "and" and not by some other words (there's little something that gets lost in translation, but that is true for any two languages). All scholarly editions of this work (that I've read) give there "Costoboci and Scythian tribes". Since such editions contain reliable translations (usually by people who study Latin for a lifetime), this should be enough to settle the question.

On Costoboci, it's my intention too to build the narrative on secondary sources. But EraNavigator's work in this article relied mostly on primary sources, hence the controversies. Daizus (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of citation needed templates from paragraphs that need citations

Please provide arguments for removing the {{Citation needed}} templates from the paragraphs that clearly need citations. Thanks.

I want to raise the issue of the multiple-tags that you attached to the articles Carpi (people) and Costoboci. While I don't claim that these articles are perfect and cannot be improved, the tags seem unwarranted. Most of the citation tags were (wrongly) placed in the summary sections, where citations are not necessary if the statements in question are referenced in the main text. The main text itself is fully referenced, with both ancient and modern sources (20 secondary modern sources in Carpi alone). The neutrality is only disputed by those who think that neutrality requires support for the Daco-Roman continuity theory. If you read through the articles again, you will see thatr all theories are given a fair hearing. The summaries are certainly not long in relation to the main text. As for confusion for readers, this has only been caused by arbitrary removals of text by Anonymous editor, damaging the text's coherence. The consequence of sticking all those tags is to make the articles appear really poor-quality, which is a travesty: if you look at the articles on the same subjects in other languages, you will see that the English ones are far and away superior and more comprehensive. I therefore think that you should remove the tags. You should rely on your own reading of the articles, not on the complaints of others. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have done: see edit history. Refs are not necessary in the summary if the same statements are referenced in the main text. EraNavigator (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I put your other answer here. Please reply on corresponding article pages, so others can see. If those statements are indeed cited in the main text, please add references to the same books the paragraphs which miss citations. You have to do this, especially in a highly controversial article like this one. I appreciate your work, but please don't try to accuse others of supporting certain theories. You obviously support your own with a lot of vehemence. Everyone is entitled to their own believes, but the key is to stay neutral and not introduce original research or unreliable sources. Also, please refrain from arrogant comments in the change history of the article since it is discouraged by policies, and common sense. Please avoid reverts or getting close to an edit war. Given the high controversy of the article and the conflict already started (partially by your edits), I suggest you stop doing any radical changes to this article without proposing the changes on the talk page and reaching agreement. Otherwise you encourage the conflict and reverts. The same goes for the Costoboci and Roman Empire map. The fact that both Romanians and Italians are so hot blooded it should give you a hint to Roman continuity at least ;-) Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What I said of this article, it goes mutatis mutandis for Carpi as well. Quantity is not quality! Most of the claims with indeed require .

A quick example. Yesterday Era removed a from the summary when I questioned the year 171 for the Vandal attack on the Costoboci. But this statement is not referenced in the main text! The only source used here for this information is a passage from Dio, but Dio doesn't give any dates! In one instance I changed "171" to "soon after", but if Era wants to keep that date, he has to provide references for it. This is one example, but the main text has many similar issues and you can check the tags I placed inside the text.

Besides I also mentioned and because the theories are not given a "fair hearing". For example, Era presented Bichir's arguments and evidence as "inadequate", or he repeatedly qualified Bichir's assertions as "speculations". Says who? I haven't read Bichir's book but I don't really care, that theory does not have a neutral presentation. I think Era's hatred against Romanian authors and even editors is no secret. Any argument or evidence that would even suggest a Dacian connection is presented as inadequate or unlikely. This is anything but neutral.

The articles are of poor quality, no doubt about that, and they won't improve if Era, their main author, refuses to cooperate. In the end if you remove tags from the text (which are supposed to help you, to see where the problems are), you will never get rid of the multiple-tags applied to the entire article.

By the way, I am still waiting for those citations from Batty. Daizus (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Fellas, the problem lies with Birchir ! His description of settlement features, etc found in these areas is great, and very useful. However, his interpretation, his methodology, is outdated ! It lags decades behind the kind of quality that Anglophone scholars produce on wetsern European barbarians. His main problem is that he sees 'nomadic' type finds as that of Sarmatians, and 'sedentary' type finds as :Dacian". Moreoever, his arguements that those 'sedentary' type finds resemble Dacian fiinds from Dacia propper are problematic. His comparison is simply intuitive, and merely relies on visual comparison. He offers no stratigraphic examiniation, proper chronological correlation, or anything statistical to support his arguements. Moreoevr, he has isloated finds from one site- Lipita- which he sees as "Carpian" (or was it Costoboccian ? ). Apart from the fact that he has absolutely NO PROOF that this settlement was, in fact, that of the Carpes, he adduces an entire ethnic history from one single site - and as Era stated, from the evidence of one fruit bowl ! This is poor archaeology .

The fact is the finds from 2nd - 3rd century Moldavia cannot be treated in isolation. They are broadly related to other settlements of the forest -steppe, where some would be tempted to place "proto-Slavs" (but again we have no direct evidence for the languages spoken by these communities, apart from abundant archaic-sounding Slavic river names in this area). Nor is he correct to isloate the sedentery from nomadic-type finds. The archaeological material found in these areas reflects a wide variety of procceses, ie religious views, trade links, native traditions, technological prowess, etc. They do not a priori symbolize ethnic boundaries. Eg an inhumation grave does not mean that the deceased was a nomad. Rather, burials reflected an individual's social status or beliefs about the afterlife. Moreoever, ethnographic studies have shown that there was no clear distinction, as often presumed, between nmands and sedentery agriculturalists. The two co-existed, and even one community would partake in both modes of living. We have evidence from throughout history that the nomads in fact often lived in 'settled' communities of the forest steppe areas of Moldavia and northern Ukraine, moving seasonally into the open steppe.

To complicate matters, these finds Birchir describes as "Dacian" - sunken huts with fireplaces, mixed inhumation/ urn cremation burials, etc continue into the Chernyakov "Gothic" era as well as the "Slavic" period. So there is nothing "typically Dacian" about any of these things.

Hxseek (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have Bichir's book (which seems to be focused on Carpi anyway), so I can't comment on that. But similarly way off is Batty (his book is "Rome and the Nomads"), at least in those snippets I've read. For him the Costoboci are essentially "immigrant populations" (interpreting with naivety some accounts - literary or epigraphic). His treatment of sources is dubious at best, e.g when Dio wrote of "Bastarnae who are properly classed as Scythians" Batty saw here evidence of "first-hand acquiantance with them"(!)

As for the other comments on material culture, even today in Western archaeology nomadic and sedentary features are sometimes isolated in the scholarly discourse, and artefact types are used to determine "ethnic boundaries". As I said, I don't have the book you discuss, but what you write there is not something particular to Bichir, to Romanian or even Eastern European scholarship. There are people tracing "archaeologically" Sarmatians, Alans and other such populations in Western Europe! Daizus (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Good points, friend. If I may refer someone to you, read Guy Halsall's work on northern Gaul, etc. It is really good stuff. Another good referece for archaeology of this area is M Schukin, although his premise runs along similar lines as Birchir. Guess we have t publish something, ha ha ! Hxseek (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

From Halsall I have Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West which is just great (regarding ethnic identities, it deconstructs mercilessly even the traditional groups - Tacitus' Germani, Herodotus' Scythians, etc) and I have read several chapters by him in other volumes such as "Movers and Shakers" in Noble's "From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms". This is more history than archaeology, but a very well written one, IMO.

My online searches for Lipitsa culture returned disappointing results. I found this paper in a Polish journal, but it doesn't explain as much as I'd like to, and it also seems written following traditional views. If you know any recent (post-processualist if possible) works on late 2nd century in Ukraine/Moldavia, it would be of great help for this article. Thank you! Daizus (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If I may, I just want to pitch in and say that I love the intellectual and very civil debate! --Codrin.B (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Good ! Yeah, I.m familiar with that A.P. paper. M Schukin's Rome and the Barbarians in eastern Europe is very thorough for our region concerned. It's in my local library Hxseek (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I found Shchukin's Rome and the Barbarians in central and eastern Europe, too, but I don't think it's appropriate as a main source. Examples:

• page 285

The formation of the new Lipitsa culture may have been linked with the migration of a Dacian group into the Dniester region, perhaps of the Kostoboki, who had felt the threat imposed by the Roman conquest of Dacia by Domitian after the campaign of 88 A.D. and the defeat of the Dacians at Tapi.

Memorials of the Zvenigorod type represent a preceding stage, but the organic influx of numerous Dacian and Sarmatian features into their structure does not allow us to include them unquestioningly in the Przeworsk culture. We are dealing here with a short-lived but clear phenomenon of the middle of the 1st century A.D., with its own distinctive Zvenigorod culture or group. Further research needs to be done on its territorial boundaries and the composition of its memorials.

The complexity of the situation in the Upper Dniester region, however, is not just confined to this. Shortly before the penetration into this area of the Dacian population which formed the Lipitsa culture, some groups and bearers of the Zarubintsy culture also appeared here. V.N. Tsygilik excavated three settlements with mixed Zarubintsy-Lipitsa material. These were in the upper reaches of the river Zolotaya Lipa on the northern borderland of the Lipitsa habitat, at Remizovtsy, Maidan-Gologirsky and Voronisky.

• page 306

V.N. Tsygylik excavated a number of distinctive settlements - Maidan Gologirsky, Remizovtsy and Voroniski - situated to the south-west of the Zarubintsy habitat, in the Dniester basin, in the upper reaches of the Zolotaya Lipa. We have already mentioned them in Chapter IV.

From among the Lipitsa pottery of these settlements, V. N. Tsygylik distinguished examples of coarse, cooking pots with embossing along the rim and fragments of black polished bowls which are comparable to the Zarubintsy antiquities. The researcher supposes that the Zarubintsy people made their appearance here somewhat earlier than the bearers of the Lipitsa culture, the representatives of the Dacian tribe of the Kostoboki who, as they advanced northwards, came across the Post-Zarubintsy population in the upper reaches of the Lipa and absorbed them. He has seen Zarubintsy elements also in several more southerly memorials: at Oselivka in Chernovitsy province, in upper Lipitsa itself.

The chain of events as reconstructed by them seems plausibile; however not for the beginning of the 1st century A.D. as suggested by V.N. Tsygylik, but rather for the second half of the 1st century A.D., after the classical Zarubintsy burial grounds had ceased to function and the Zarubintsy population had begun to look for new places to inhabit, when the Dacian tribes were retreating northwards in the 80's under the threat of Domitian's legions. The dated items from the Lipitsa-Zarubintsy settlements point to the end of the 1st century A.D. In Oselivka a coin from Trajan's time was found, in Remizovtsy - a fragment of a late Eye fibula and a spur with a hook above the spike from 2nd century - beginning of the 3rd century A.D., and in Maidan Gologirsky - a bone one-piece comb from stage B₂.

We can include these views, too, but I still hope for more neutral descriptions. While there are differences in details, the essence is the same: the bearers of the Lipitsa culture were Dacians. As I am trying to explain to EraNavigator for a while now, the problem here is not with Bichir, not even with Romanian archaeology - this is culture-history. Daizus (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Spot on. That's simply how they were taught Hxseek (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Headers

Could we at least change the anachronistic headers such as "Ethnic identity" to more adequate "relations to/with other/neighbouring populations" ? Anonimu (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, be my guest. I think that entire section must be rewritten anyway. Daizus (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Form Coertoboci

What do we know about the form Coertoboci? It is mentioned in other articles. Not too many sources though: Coertoboci in Google Books --Codrin.B (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

more on the material culture

Following the last reference added to the article, I found the following Google snippets:

p. 324 part 1 p. 324 part 2 p. 324 part 3 p. 324 part 4 p. 324 part 5 p. 324 part 6 p. 324 part 7

Daizus (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a "verification needed" tag for "The Costoboci Transmontani developed the Lipiţa culture that has a Dacian character ". I can't see anything on page 324 about the "Costoboci Transmontani". It looks like original research to me. Please clarify. Daizus (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

On Lipiţa see also Mircea Babeş' study in the same volume: "L'unité et la diffusion des tribus géto-daces à la lumière des données archéologiques", especially p. 13-14: [5] and [6]. Daizus (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't add "Bichir 324"

Jan Filip's edited material page 1039 "...Il y a d'autres donnee qui visent le peuple dace des Costoboces . Mentionees pur le premiere fois par le geographe Ptolemee its habitaient au nord et a l'est de la Dacie sur les deux versants des Carpates. A l'ouest de la RSS d'Ukraine sur le cours superieur du Dniestr, les Costoboci Transmontani developpent la civilisation nomme Lipicka, ayant un caracter dace...." Boldwin (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Actes du IIe Congres International de Thracologie, Radu Vulpe, 1980, page 324

Temoin la civilisation Lipitza attribuee aux Costoboces, qui este une civilisation dace typique. Son caractere dace se revele dans la ceramique, le rite et le rituel funeraires, ainsi que dans l'ensemb;le de ses traits materiels et spirituels. L'aire de diffusion de la civilisation Lipitza couvre le bassin superieur et moyen du Dniestr, ainsi que le bassin superioeur du Prut, affectant aussi le Nord de la Moldavie Boldwin (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You added "Vulpe 1920:324" which is wrong, because Vulpe edited the volume but the study is authored by Bichir. So I corrected that. In the quote above (you can read it also in my links) Bichir says nothing about Costoboci Transmontani.

As for Jan Filip, he seems only the editor of the volume, not the author of the paper.

We need to see if there's a consensus that Lipiţa culture is only on the northern side of the Carpathians (Bichir seems to suggest the same thing), or if not, to state each POV clearly. Daizus (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe it should be also clarified if Costoboci and Costoboci Transmontani who developed the same culture are different tribes or not. In Jan Filip's edited material the invasion in Greece is attributed to Costoboci Transmontani. I am not archaeologist Boldwin (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems the culture covers a region inhabited by Costoboci on the north-eastern slopes of the Carpathians.

This edit is also problematic: "The finds of the second Iron Age at Lipita like the ones from Zimnicea and Poiana, attest that the Dacians practiced not only the incineration but also the burial". But incineration is also a burial rite! Perhaps you mean "inhumation". I am removing the so-called "Jan Filip" texts and references from "Material culture" until we find their real author, and we get a better understanding of what this author has to say. Daizus (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it! Mihail Macrea, "Les Daces libres à l'époque romaine", p. 1038-1041 Daizus (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you correct this section. I pointed out to the author/editor conclusions, but I didn't extend my refs to details. The content of what I added was correct, yet somehow incorrect ref'ed and edited. I knew it was too early for me to edit this section in wiki. I am sorry for any trouble, and I appologize. Again, thank you for correcting me and this section Boldwin (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. If you have used Google searches, just give me the links to your quotes and I'll try to assemble them myself. Daizus (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

M Schukin covers the Lipita, Poienesti-Luka... cultures in some detail in his Rome and the Barbarians in eastern Europe. Hxseek (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reversions

Daizus, you have no right to revert changes wholesale - that is vandalism. You must justify each reversion. If you read the revised text, you will see that it is far more idiomatic English (you, a Carpathian, is telling me how to write good English!). What I was trying to do was to deal with the citation, OR and weasel word tags that you placed in the article. Also, why do we need a map of Roman Dacia in this article? And why do we need to discuss the Zia inscription twice? EraNavigator (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Era, we've been going in circle for months on this!! When do you stop removing tags and content that you don't like?! You are vandalizing and insulting everyone! How old are you? 15? Incredible.--Codrin.B (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not remove any content - I was trying to turn it into legible English. Have you read the revised version? Clearly not, otherwise you would see that I was modifying the wording to respond to tags. As for the tags, you cannot just swet them up and keep them there forever, even after major changes to the text. You have to review them and justify them. And don't patronise me. You are in no position to throw your weight around, given that you have been banned from editing for misconduct. EraNavigator (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"You, a Carpathian" is an insult. Not that you can do better when you lack arguments.

None of your reverts were justified. You claimed that tags no longer apply. You did not participate in any discussion here since January! In the archive you can find a discussion on Robert Batty, about his reliability, about possible cases of original research. I added {full} tags in the text, so you can work on citations and prove that indeed Batty said what you claim he said. No reply from you but you want the tags removed. Sorry, no. I have tagged several other claims with {or} (mostly beacuse of violations of WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY) and {cn} - none of these were addressed. You want them removed? Sorry, no. Instead of removing the dubios content, I chose to give you (the initial author) a chance to fix it, not to remove the tags and pretend everything is ok, because it is not.

Then you removed a section you don't agree with. The Onomastics section is perfectly justified. It's about the names and their intepretation. It has scholarly sources (footnote 20 is most heavily sourced in the entire article!!). If anything, the "Origin and identity" section should be shortened. I barely touched "Origin and tribal identity" - that section is a mess!

Then you degraded content from neutral to biased/obsolete views. Instead of "Origin and tribal identity" you want "Ethno-linguistic affiliation", instead of "their origin is uncertain" you want "their ethnicity is uncertain".

None of these are cases of bad English, it's about neutral and sourced content you want removed/changed and about you removing valid signals about the quality of this article. Which is vandalism.

There were some other things which were removed and changed. If it's just a choice of wording I guess it's ok, but not always. For instance you also corrected some of your older edits, regardless of what the sources say: you changed " this is inconsistent with what Bichir himself admits " to "this is the opposite of what Bichir himself admits" - a strong signal for original research (already noted in that paragraph). Daizus (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the map of Roman Dacia must be used because it is neutral (no speculative and often-changing "linguistic groups"), is more suited for the 170s (with Legio V Macedonica moved from Troesmis to Potaissa), it has more details, it's less cluttered, and also it's easier to locate the Costoboci on that map than on the big Roman Empire map. Daizus (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not patronizing anyone, but I am outraged and tired of your immature and non-team player attitude. You are killing any collaboration with your disruptive editing, when I thought you can finally collaborate, based on some communication progress and some tiny conensus on List of reconstructed Dacian words. All things pointed out by Daizus are true. Why do you need a map of Roman Dacia? Didn't you and Andrei fought to modify it and keep it? Don't you think it helps to show a map with Costoboci on it? Your are forcing everyone to waste so much time explaining obvious things to you forever and reverting your disruptive edits, instead of allowing people, including yourself, to do something more useful and creative.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Two more notes about the current version of the article and our sources. I have not compiled them all yet, but:

• they rather question/assert their origin not their "ethno-linguistic affiliation"
• they rather locate them relative to Roman Dacia (and that's another reason to keep that map)

For example see CAH XI, p. 171: "Costoboci, a people of uncertain origin who lived to the north or north-east of Roman Dacia". Daizus (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my revised version. Anyone can see that it's superior to the degraded and muddled version you have restored. It is you guys who are guilty of disruptive editing - by adding unjustified tags and arbitrarily removing content that you don't agree with. But rather than waste any more time bickering about this, why don't we ask an independent editor to adjudicate which version is better? I suggest Hxseek. EraNavigator (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about you stand for. You will be reported soon for disruptive editing (you're the one removing content, not me), insults and POV-pushing if you continue your reverts. Push my buttons and you'll see. Daizus (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pausanias

The article quoted Pausanias on "swarms of Costobocan brigands", but I couldn't find that quote in online editions. I used this translation:

"An army of bandits, called the Costoboes, who overran Greece in my day, visited among other cities Elateia. Whereupon a certain Mnesibulus gathered round him a company of men and put to the sword many of the barbarians, but he himself fell in the fighting. This Mnesibulus won several prizes for running, among which were prizes for the foot-race, and for the double race with shield, at the two hundred and thirty-fifth Olympic festival. In Runner Street at Elateia there stands a bronze statue of Mnesibulus."

Also, if you think that it's worth quoting a primary source in full, this might be one of them. Daizus (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

explanations in brackets

EraNavigator often explains place-names and terms in round brackets, but IMO this is not necessary because we have links. Examples from the current version of the article:

• Tanais (river Don)
• Thracia (southern Bulgaria)
• Macedonia (northern Greece)
• Achaea (central Greece)
• duumvir (joint town-council leader)
• Colonia Traiani (Adamklisi), a Roman veterans' colony in Scythia Minor (Dobrogea, Rom.), founded at the site of Trajan's Dacian victory-monument
• decurion (cavalry squadron-leader)
• Elateia in Phocis (central Greece)

Such notes are either redundant (clicking on Elateia, you see Phocis, clicking on Phocis you see central Greece) or incorrect (Thracia is not southern Bulgaria, the ancient name of Adamclisi is not Colonia Traiani, etc). Daizus (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess is a balancing act, depending on how known certain things are. For example, I would keep Tanais (Don river), duumvir (joint town-council leader), decurion (cavalry squadron-leader) but not the rest of the names in round brackets. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

material culture - original research using Bichir (1976)

In that section there are two paragraphs. One is entirely unsourced (and apparently it is supposed to be a summary for the rest of the section):

There are two distinctive cultures documented as cohabiting in the Costoboci region during this period. The main one and the most visible was the sedentary Lipiţa culture. The other culture displays the characteristics usually associated with nomadic peoples from the Eurasian steppes.

The second one has one ref: Bichir 1976, p. 162-4.

The nomadic culture consists of inhumation graves. Several buried individuals have artificially elongated crania, achieved by tightly binding an infant's skull during its early growth phase. This is a custom associated with the steppe nomads of central Eurasia, including the Sarmatians. Such burials also commonly include grave-goods, including mirrors engraved with tamgas, clan or tribal symbols also associated with steppe nomads.

Using Google Books, this is what I could retrieve (there might be some misreadings and typing mistakes):

The Sarmatians played an important role within the Carpic tribal union. They spread to the West of the Prut from the fist decades of the 2nd century A.D., as seems to be supported by the finds at Ştefăneşti (district of Botoşani) and at Vaslui: they lived with the Carpi and the Costoboces on the territory of Moldavia. The defeat of the Dacians by the Romans in 105-106, facilitated the penetration of some Sarmatian groups to the West of the Prut into the Dacian territory. Earlier traces of the Sarmatians also have been discovered in Moldavia in the Geto-Dacian settlements but they do not indicate the effective presence of the Sarmatians in these areas: the objects under discussion demonstrate the existence of trade which was earlier than the Sarmatian penetration to the West of the Prut. We mention the cauldron of bronze (the 1st century B.C.-the 1st century A.d.) found in the Geto-Dacian settlement at Piatra Şoimului (Calu) situated the foot of the Tarcău mountains, in an area into which the Sarmatians never penetrated. The cauldron may be interpreted as belonging to war-plunder. The settlement at Piatra Şoimului (Calu) is dated to the 2nd century B.C.-the 1st century A.a. and not from 1st-3rd centuies A.D. as R. Vulpe believed. It probably ceased as a result of the events of 105-106.

Sarmatian influence is also present in other indigenous sites from the Late La Tène period, such as the citadels at Poiana-Tecuci and Răcătău, both situated on the left bank of the Siret, which certainly had relations with the Sarmatians and the Hellenistic craft-centres of the North-Pontic steppes. The Sarmatian influence becomes gradually stronger from the 2nd century A.D., when they settled on Carpic territory. The Sarmatian presence in the territory of Moldavia and Romania is attested by the graves which have been discovered either by chance or by systematic excavation. Settlements belonging to this pastoral people are not known, but Sarmatian material occurs in various Carpic settlements as I have stated. Until now, Sarmatian tombs have been discovered in the territory of Moldavia in about 38 places situated especially on the plain and very rarely in the rough area of the edge of the plain (Iveşti, Poieneşti). Small groups of Sarmatians infiltrated successively to the West of the Prut as is attested by the fact that their tombs occur in single finds (Vaslui, Focşani, Şendreni, Mitoc etc.) or in small groups consisting of from two (Iveşti, Glăvăneştii Vechi) to 13 graves, as in the case of Truşeşti where the whole cemetery has been excavated. The number of graves is rarely larger. Certainly the number of graves may be larger. In some places, taking into account the destruction of several tombs before they were recorded by archaeologists. However, even taking into account both this destruction and the fact that exhaustive excavations have not been carried out in all places, it is clear that there are no large Sarmatian cemeteries on the territory of Moldavia and Romania, in the way that there are in the USSR, to the East of the Dnieper and particularly in the area between the Don and the Urals. From this point of view the situation existing in Romania is similar to that in the Moldavian SSR This is understandable for the same Sarmatian tribes penetrated both at the same time and practiced the same funeral rituals in both areas.

The Sarmatians lost a considerable part of the distinctive features of their funerary rites after their penetration into the Dacian territory and their culture gained features distinctive to this region under the influence exerted by the Daco-Carpic indigenous population. This explains why barrow-graves are not known in the territory of Romania, although there are relativeyl frequent burials in the earlier barrows belonging especially to the period of transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (the group of graves with ochre: Valea Lupului, Glăvăneştii Vechi, Larga Jijia, Suletea, Bîrlad-Prodana, Şendreni and Tecuci). The secondary (Sarmatian) burials in barrows discovered until now in Moldavia and Muntenia are dated to after 200, and especially from the first half of the 3rd century A.D. Probably the Sarmatians who penetrated into the extra-Carpathian area of Romania, which was under the Carpic domination at that time, did not have the ability to build sumptuous tombs and preferred to use existing barrows. This is an echo of the burial- practices from "home", which the Roxolani could no longer respect on the Lower Danube.

The large majority of the Sarmatian graves discovered in Romania are flat-graves. There are burials of men, women and children and this shows that the Sarmatians were with their families in these areas. The largest number of Sarmatians penetrated into Moldavia and Muntenia at the end of the 2nd century and the first half of the 3rd century A.D. ; they were pressed by the Goths, the new rulers of the North-Pontic steppes, who occupied Olbia and Tyras in about the middle of the 3rd century A.D. The Sarmatians who penetrated the extra-Carpathian zone of Romania in that time, accepted Carpic hegemony. The Roxolani, who did not accept Carpic hegemony, turned West to the Iazyges, their brothers, where they had more freedom. This explains the presence of barrow-burials in the Hungarian plain (Alföldy) and the absence of tumuli in Romania which were under strong domination by the Carpi. It is significant that the Sarmatian barrow-graves are encountered as far as the eastern limit of the territory dominated by the Carpi. We mention the barrow- cemeteries on the Lower Dniester: Katargi, Şabalat and Oloneşti (isolated barrow) on the right side of the river and Korotnoe, Ciobruci, Slobozeia and Sukleia on the left side of the river. The Carpi and the Sarmatians lived in the same territory and influenced each other. The Carpi adopted from the Sarmatians several types of bead, of chalcedony, coral, and lapis lazuli and mirrors with tamgas and other objects, as I have shown in the chapter in which I described the materials found in the settlements and in the cemeteries. In contrast with the earlier phase of the Carpic culture when only finished articles were adopted by the Carpi, in the later period they assimilated and worked Sarmatian elements in the field of pottery, like the vessels with zoomorphic handles and those with handles with knobs or cupulae. The Sarmatian influence on the pottery shows, from the historical point of view, the assimilation of some Sarmatian groups by the Carpi.

The Sarmatians used to the full the Daco-Carpic wheel-made pottery as is shown by the grave-goods discovered in their tombs: dishes (Tecuci, Focşani) amphorae of Carpic type (Pogorăşti) and especially jugs and single handled mugs (Ciolnagi-Balinteşti, Focşani, Tecuci, Iveşti, Epureni, Unţeşti, Şerboteşti, Vaslui, Popeşti, Valea Lupului, Leţcani, Pogorăşti, Ştefăneşti). Jugs of Daco-Carpic type also occur frequently in Sarmatian graves from the Moldavian S.S.R. (Bocani, Şoldăneşti etc. Pl. CXXXII).

Then Bichir continues on Ptolemy and Tyrasgetae and more about Carpic-Sarmatian interactions. But as it can be seen, there's little about Costoboces. It's not at all clear which sites are in the area inhabited by Costoboces, nor if they are contemporary, so the assertions made in the article seem to be ungrounded. Daizus (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is laughable to claim that the Daizus version of this article is more "balanced" than my original. In fact, the text of the ethnicity section is now 90% davoted to supporting the view that the Costoboci were Dacians - despite the clear statement by a contemporary author of repute - Pliny the Elder - that they were an ethnic Sarmatian tribe. There is no valid reason to doubt this attribution. It is the only unequivocal evidence for the Costoboci's ethnicity in the extant ancient sources and it obviously trumps the alleged Dacian origin of king Pieporus' name: it could be Sarmatian, but even if it was Dacian, so what? It was common practice for barbarian rulers to adopt foreign names (as I demonstrated in the note on the contemporary Bosporan monarchy, removed by Daizus, despite its direct relevance). The adoption of a Dacian name for a Costoboci king is is all the more plausible if, as is likely, the Costoboci ruled over a sedentary (partly) Dacian population. As for the attempts to prove that the elements of the name Costoboci were Dacian, this is pure speculation.

Much of the evidence adduced by Daizus to support a Dacian ethnicity for the Costoboci is either shaky or spurious. e.g. the Lipita evidence. This is the classic circular argument so characteristic of Continuitate studies. The logic is as follows:

Proposition (1): The Lipita culture is Dacian because the Costoboci were Dacians

Proposition (2): The Costoboci were Dacians because the Lipita culture was Dacian

EraNavigator (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR, thus irrelevant Daizus (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some new attempts by you to clean up some inline tags, which are not acceptable:

• [7] The reference provided here is fictional. The text says "It is also inconsistent with the archaeological evidence presented by Bichir himself" - such a criticism can come only from some other scholar but Bichir.
• [8] Apparently the name of Bichir is not mentioned in Batty's work. Thus "against Bichir" is rightfully questioned for an extra ref, until you can provide a full quote.
• [9] The verification tag cannot be removed. You must supply a full quote from that book to prove it says what you claim it says: namely that Batty criticizes Bichir and makes those arguments on Lipiţa and Costoboci. Daizus (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The rest of your recent edits are cases of obvious vandalism, as discussed above: removing valid maps, valid and sourced content and now also adding back original research based on primary sources and your own interepretations (but regarding your attitude, see also WP:OWN). If you will continue to deliberately compromise whatever is good in this article to suit your personal views (e.g. "as I demonstrated in the note on the contemporary Bosporan monarchy" - you're not allowed to demonstrate anything in Wikipedia articles), I will consider having you reported for an article ban or a topic ban.

All the things you want changed were discussed on this talk page. If you want improvement, join the discussions. Daizus (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's absurd that you are trying to discuss what Bichir and Batty say when you clearly have not read either work. Batty does criticise Bichir, for example where he ridicules Bichir's statement that (quoting) "the Sarmatians accepted the Dacian citizenship". (By "citizenship" I believe Bichir, whose English is not always idiomatic, means "culture" or "customs"). But this statement directly contradicts the evidence presented by Bichir himself, that the Sarmatians did not adopt the sedentary population's cremation customs, but retained their own inhumation rite, and in addition, insisted that the progeny of mixed Sarmatian-sedentary marriages should also be buried according to the Sarmatian rite. I agree that the citations in this paragraph needed improvement, which is what i tried to do, only to find the refs reverted by Daizus.

As regards the charges of vandalism, this is amazing from someone who has substantially changed my original text without obtaining a consensus on this Talk Page. EraNavigator (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have discussed Batty's quotes on Costoboci on this talk page. Your assertions on what Batty says on Bichir are unsupported, so you must provide full quotes to prove them. Even the so-called quote from Bichir is wrong, the actual quote is "a part of the Sarmatians amalgamated with the Carpic community and they acquired the Dacian 'citizenship'" - so it's not about Costoboci, but about Carpi. Your comment on "Bichir, whose English is not always idiomatic" indicates you haven't really read the book, because it was translated not by Bichir, but by Nubar Hampartumian ('citizenship' does not mean culture nor customs, maybe you should check your own English first). The rest of your assertions about Bichir contradicting himself are WP:OR.

I was trying to be kind to Bichir. If he really means citizenship, then the quote is even more ridiculous: did the Sarmatians apply for Dacian passports? All the continuitate supporters have a totally unrealistic iidea of the material level of the sedentary inhabitants of Carpia/Costobocia: they seem to think that they were on the same level as the Romans, or at least, Decebal's kingdom, with an organised state, regular army, cities etc. But the archaeology shows that they were no more advanced than the other sedentary groups in the region: Bastarnae, Celts etc. They lived in mud and straw huts. They were illiterate: not a single "Daco-Carpic" inscription has survived. They did not have a monetary economy: unlike Decebal's kingdom, or the more advanced Roman client-states (e.g. the Bosporan kingdom), they did not issue their own coinage, and relied on barter. They were subsistence peasants, forced to give vhalf the food they produced to their Sarmatian overlords, who in return provided them with protection from neighbouring nomadic groups, both Sarmatian and of other ethnic origin (e.g. Turkic and Finno-Ugric). EraNavigator (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

All the text I removed was either unsourced, or a blatant case of original research. The text you want to remove is heavily sourced (such as the Dacian names of the Costoboci).

And several of the changes were supported by two or more editors and were discussed on this talk page. If you did not join those discussions, it's not our fault. Especially when your claims are unsourced as the current case with Bichir (writing on Carpi, not on Costoboci). Daizus (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, it seems that:

• Much of the arguments from this 'Bichir controversy' do not concern the Costoboci. What Bichir seems to say about them is that they lived together with Sarmatians, and that in general Sarmatians were assimilated by Dacians in this region. Granted, other scholars had other views, and there's probably more to discuss about it. Nevertheless Batty is not one of them.
• The claim that Bichir contradicts himself is Era's WP:OR
• The claim that Batty argues against Bichir or about/against matching Costoboci with Lipiţa is similarly WP:OR (apparently there's only one mention of "Lipitsa" on a map at p. 258).

If there's nothing else to save from the last paragraph in "Origins and tribal identity" section, I think it should be removed in entirety per WP:V and WP:OR. Daizus (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverts and vandalism

I wonder when all these reverts end. This is incredibly detrimental to the article. Can you guys fight paragraph by paragraph instead of keeping to push two different versions of the article forever? I will have to request outside reviewers and if necessary get the article locked by an admin... --Codrin.B (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not I who started this edit dispute, it was Daizus who unilaterally introduced substantial changes to the text without consensus. But I would welcome a review by an independent (i.e. non-Romanian and non-Balkan) editor. I am confident that such a review would conclude that my version is more balanced and relevant, better-written and in more idiomatic English than the mess produced by Daizus et alii.

The edits were supported by other editors. The rest of the comment is a xenophobic insult. Daizus (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

CodrinB, regarding your transfer of the Background section of List of reconstructed Dacian words to Dacian language: it is not enough to just dump blocks of text into the existing article. You must integrate the two texts. If you read Dacian Language now, it is a mess of contradictions, repetitions and unidiomatic English. It is also badly structured. When will you and Daizus understand that Wiki articles are for the benefit of the general reader: they must be in perfect, idiomatic English (if your English is not native-quality, you should not be editing articles in English), clear and easily readable, and not confusing. Even you must surely agree that Dacian Language does not meet these standards. I am willing to improve this article's quality, but I will only do so if you and Daizus ask me to do so. Otherwise, I would doubtless be accused of vandalism. EraNavigator (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You can start improving by providing full quotes from your so-called sources. Daizus (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Era, your xenophobic comments and insults are a great way to say thank you. You discredit yourself completely and you can't seem to even remotely understand how Wikipedia works. I gave you countless opportunities to show team-work and do something constructive. I am not going to ask you to do anything. It is better if you leave Wikipedia to others, more able to communicate and collaborate properly. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Outdated scholarship?

• i wonder if some editors dont rely too much on outdated scholars as Georgiev for ex, who is contradicted by most others, like Paliga and even Olteanu. Georgiev just tried to imply that Getae/Dacians are a completely separated entity to Thracians from the south, when actualy they belong to same peoples, Thracians and spoke dialects of the same language and not separated languages. Georgiev just tried to transform southern Thracians in something separate so make them more close to Bulgarians, but his ideas is usualy dismissed today by modern linguists. I think this should be emphasized more if he is used on the article

FYI, Sorin Olteanu endorses Georgiev's theory (with different arguments, or disagreeing in some details): [10] map [11] (Latin caput = Thracian *kel(l)a = Daco-Moesian *wuyša) [12] (see esp. note 10: "Unii autori antici au afirmat chiar că dacii aveau aceeaşi limbă cu tracii, fapt infirmat însă de cercetările mai recente şi greu de acceptat chiar şi teoretic. Se poate însă admite că toate aceste triburi vor fi aparţinut unei unice subramuri indo-europene.") etc. Daizus (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorin Paliga is not a reliable source (PhD in Czech studies, self-published or by obscure / non-academic publishers such as Meteor Press). Regarding your last edit, Ion Grumeza is also not a reliable source (a self-titled historian and independent scholar; he has a master degree but he doesn't say in what). There's no Susudava, but Susudata (Σουσουδάτα). Daizus (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• yes, Georgiev is outdated and kinda tried to make thracian a completely diferent language then dacian on nationalist reasons, to try make a separate and old history for Bulgaria. Olteanu just said that Thracian and Dacian are related languages or dialects of the same language, like Romanian with Italian and Spanish, or French with Occitan if you wish, so obviously they had many things in common even if they wasnt practicly one and the same (which is debatable, many said they was simple dialects of the same language). Paliga is a linguist, how is unreliable? What books published Olteanu, and where? Grumeza is a historian with a master degree, the fact that he is independent (meaning he doesnt work on permanent basis for an university) is nothing to make him unreliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.221.82 (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, he's not. His position that Thracian and Dacian are distinct language is widely held today (it's usually suggested there were two or more different languages spoken in this region). Sorin Olteanu argued several times that Thracian and Dacian are possibly related but distinct languages (not dialects of the same language - if you can't read Romanian I can translate for you). He published articles in scientific journals (some of them are mentioned on his site - read my links carefully). Sorin Paliga is a protochronist and he was criticized for it (he promotes a fringe theory of Proto-Borealic languages, draws parallels between Carpathians and Sumer, denies many standard etymologies, arguing that Romanian has many words not from Latin or Slavic, but from Dacian); nevertheless he has no competence in ancient languages (classical philology, epigraphy, etc), nor Indo-European studies. Grumeza doesn't have a master degree in history, so his self-given title is irrelevant. Daizus (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Is widely held? By who, i may ask? Except that bulgarians? Sorin Olteanu is contradicted by much renowned linguist as I.I. Russu, and there is others (including foreigners) who consider that thracians and getae/dacians are if not same peoples, at least very closely related, and speake similar language or dialects of the same language. This is the most widely view, and is backed even by genetics (see here - http://www.ziuaveche.ro/stiinta-it/stiinta/alexander-rodewaldo-ev-mitocondrial-din-tracia-se-afl-la-originea-romanilor-9203.html).

Dana 2003 (see the article for full ref), p. 182: "le dace était une langue indo-européenne différente du thrace, mais apparentée"

J. Nichols in Archaeology and language, vol. II (1998), p. 250: "The other early IE languages of the Balkans are conventionally listed as Macedonian, a divergent dialect of Greek or it near sister, just to the north of Greek; Illyrian, along the Adriatic coast; Thracian, to the east of Illyrian; and Dacian, north of Illyrian."

V. Stanišić, "Two types of ancient Indo-European isoglosses in the Albanian language" in Balcanica XXIX (1998), p. 325": "Still, Georgiev's hypothesis, though set out in the early sixties, has not been seriously contested, but rather approved of"

B. W. Fortson, Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction (2nd ed. 2010), p. 464: "All attempts to relate Thracian to Phrygian, Illyrian, or Dacian are likewise purely speculative."

i can post too several scholars who disagree and consider them if not the same, at least dialects of the same language. And as you can see in that article, this is confirmed by genetic studies too, as Thracians (aka southern Thracians) and Getae/Dacians (northern Thracians) are actualy the same stock. And not just many modern scholars say this, but ancient ones prety much consider them the same too, or very closely related peoples. Its just Georgiev who tried to make a completely diference for nationalist reasons, as creating a separate and oldest as possible history for peoples in Bulgaria.

You're confused, the argument is about languages and genetics is not about languages. The scholars I quoted published in the last 10-15 years (thus Georgiev's theory is not obsolete) and not Bulgarians (thus it's not a "difference for nationalist reasons"). Your ill-informed objection was thus refuted. Daizus (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

yeah, peoples with same genes, sharing same area or neighbour teritories, considered by all their neighbours as speaking the same language, actualy speaked completely diferent and unrelated languages, because the ending of many of their towns are diferent (some other, and some names, are actuly the same or close, but what the heck, why to mention that, if its not suit your politics?). Are you kidding or something?

about the authors you posted, none of them deal specificaly with Tharcian/Dacian language, and none of them are above I.I. Russu for ex.

Dana's studies are on Dacian names, almost all unknown to Russu and others because they were discovered in the last 10-20 years. Daizus (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

there are other names, already know to Russu and others, who show otherway

Most of the Dacian names were unknown to Russu (see Limba traco-dacilor, only several are listed), and no names prove otherwise. There are no Thracians named Decebalus/Decibalus, (A)vezina, Dekinais/Deceneus, etc. Daizus (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, there is not a Decebalus (who is possible to be actualy a title/nickname/surname and his name was Diurpaneus), but there are other names (usualy ones with the ending "ilo/ila". Even Olteanu is forced to agree that there are parallels betwen Getae/Dacian names and south Thracian ones http://soltdm.com/langtdm/thes/s/Scoris.htm. The most widely view in Romanian mainstream historyography (and worldwide) is that southern Thracians are same stock as Getae/Dacians (aka northern Thracians) and even if is possible to exist some langauage diferences, there is no such thing as completely diferent langauges, but merely dialects or very close ones coming from the same root. All over MNIR site you'll find mostly "Thraco-Dacian" term. And, above all, a genetic study from 2010, done by Germans scientist reinforce this view, with clear scientifical datas

There are several Dacians named Decebalus. There are several Dacians named Diurpaneus, there's no Thracian with this name. According to Olteanu, there's no Thracian name Scorilo, there's actually no Thracian name ending in -(i)lo, only Dacian names ended with this suffix.

yeah, and there is no italian name as Salustius, Crassus or Vegetius. Is this a proof that italian and latin are completely diferent languages and arent related in any way? Your examples are childish, at best, to not say in other way. I find funny too the fact that you pick up on my english grammar small or irelevant problems but you wasnt able to comprehend a text in romanian, and how bessian name Scoris is related with dacian Scorilo.

Italian and Latin are different languages, not dialects of the same language. Olteanu does not claim Scoris is a "Bessian name" but "Numele Scoris poate deci aparţine aceluiaşi neam daco-moesian care avea toponimele în –dina, probabil cel al crobyzilor." Apparently you're the one with comprehension issues :) 09:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The rest of your claims are false, and I already refuted them (even your own references disagree with you, see Grumeza on Thracian and Dacian). MNIR is a history museum, not a department of linguistics. Daizus (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• yeah, i am sorry for you, but you seem to live in an alternative reality, where you impose your wishes at will and everything is happen acording to them. Wake up kid, you didnt refuted anything, you just shoot yourself in the foot. You reject Grumeza as not being a real historian and as unreliable, then use him when you see fit to prouve your point. Then you are not able to comprehend what your own reliable and prefered source, Olteanu, said about.

I don't care about your personal opinions about me, Mr. Diegis. Read also WP:NOT. In this "alternative reality" of mine your edit was reverted. If you don't want to understand why, then rant all you want if that makes you happy. Daizus (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As i said, Olteanu didnt published any book,

Scholars don't have to publish books, publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals is good enough.

so why you bring up this point?

You brought it up. Daizus (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

hmm, read a while back, but whatever, is not that important.

I did: you ranted about Olteanu not having books published. Daizus (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, OK, whatever

Fact is that pretty much everybody who count consider thracian and dacian as related, diference is that ones (main view i consider, or most important scholars) said that if was not the same language, at least dialects of the same language, and others said that are diferent languages, but coming from the same root, like romanian and italian if you wish, so close anyway

Untrue, as proven above. Daizus (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

allow me to doubt you prouved anything above

so your attempt to bash Paliga is kinda futile (he actualy published some, and articles as well). And as you said, his first specialisation is in slavic languages, so i am prety sure he knows better wich words are slavic, which are latin and which are autochtonous.

Paliga's protochronist views are refuted by almost all linguists studying the history of Romanian language (Rosetti, Graur, Tagliavini)

Putting "stamps" on someone would not make him wrong actualy. He is a renowned scholar and the fact some others dont agree with him, or stick with the oficial or imposed dogma (fortunately some are not) doesnt make him "protochronist". I think you use anyway wrong this word, in his case, and its already became a stereotype empty of content

Paliga is an obscure scholar, whose "innovative" etymologies were rejected or ignored by virtually all linguists. This is no stamp, but fact. Daizus (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Paliga have more in common, or close, with Russu or even Hasdeu, is in the same road, maybe he try to push further. And i wouldnt put much trust in DEX etymologies anyway, some are laughable or dumb, they are keept because they are oficial dogma, just that

No, he has not. Russu identified 160-170 "autochtonous" words, suggesting a safe number is around 150. Most of his etymologies are similar with Graur's, Rosetti's (and most of them are in DEX). Paliga claims thousands of "autochtonous" words in flagrant contradiction with virtually all other linguists.

btw, Dana is a linguist, is a historian, is an archeologist? I saw this name several times, but i didnt get what exactly is his specialisation? And well, Paliga have a point, and modern DEX have some problems, thats for sure. Mostly because many etymologies are based on Iordan, or even Cihac, and is based in "soviet" period of our history (50's) which are way outdated and give hilarious problems, as same word considered from Romanian origin by Bulgarians, and Bulgarian by our DEX. Its enough to look at etymologies and origins given for the names of months, all of them, and see what the mess is there

Dana is a classical philologist.

• good to know

Most DEX etymologies are based on the work of Rosetti, Graur, Puşcariu, Sala, Iordan and other reliable linguists. As far as I can see, the month names are correct. I guess you're upset they didn't find a Dacian origin for them; well, tough luck! :) Daizus (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

However I don't think someone like you, speaking a sort of English-based pidgin ("Paliga have", "he work", "he give" etc.), has anything meaningful to say on what's laughable and dumb when it comes to linguists and languages :) Daizus (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, hahaha, this is becomening funny, and interesting in the same time. Are you feel grumpy and insecure because of some "bad" person who dont agree with you, so you want to attack him with something unrelated with the subject haha? Boy, this is a sign of weakness, but anyway i am glad to see that only my english grammar flaws are a problem here. You should think however, that if even a person like me, speaking that sort of English, find some problems with some words there, things are not that good. Unfortunately most of the flock stick with the dogma and is too blind (to not say dumb) to check by themsleves if there is something wrong

You don't seem to get it - you know nothing about languages. You can't even figure out a basic grammar! (becomening, are you feel, person who dont agree, etc) How can anyone take seriously your allegations that mainstream linguistic work is laughable and dumb? Such personal opinions are worthless. See also WP:RS. Daizus (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

hahaha, cool, whatever. As i said, you just show some signs of weakness and grumpiness, but not necessarily for you i mentioned the problems with DEX. Others might read here and maybe are interested or want to check by themsleves. And i give an example, to check the etymologies or origins for the names of all 12 months, and see what the mess is there

The DEX entries for month names are correct. Daizus (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Grumeza, from what is write in that link you posted, is a historian with a master degree, just that he didnt work on permanent basis for an university (but i understand he held conferences there?).

Grumeza doesn't have a master degree in history. Look, if you can't read properly in English, try arguing on some Romanian forums. Daizus (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

oh, really? so how exactly you, such a fine english speaker, translate this in Romanian: -"a Romanian-born historian and independent scholar whose work has been published in the United States and Romania." - "After completing his Masters degree at the University of Bucharest, he began studying in the United States" - "His articles on military and political events have been published in military magazines and journals, and he has lectured at private and public schools in the United States."?

"După ce a terminat masteratul la Universitatea din Bucureşti ..." Ce facultate? Masterat în ce? Unde vezi tu "masterat în istorie", "la Facultatea de Istorie"? Grumeza was a "trainer of gymnast and boxers", "a certified fitness specialist at the YMCA of Westport, Connecticut", also, "a restoration consultant and contractor", and also a "Ph.D. Philosopher Of Metaphysical Sciences", "an unaffiliated scholar and a geo-political historian", "a Kentucky Colonel" (see also this). If he describes himself as a historian, this is no evidence he is. Daizus (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

yeah, so he work (if is the same person) in USA as trainer or consultant, man needed to do something there, if he didnt find a place as full time historian at some university. However, i doubt that if he wasnt a real one, he will be published somewhere, or invited for lectures on private and public schools.

He was not published or invited as a historian in academic circles. Daizus (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I just read few pages from his book. Leaving aside the factual errors and all kinds of pseudo-scientific absurdities, it's quite hilarious Grumeza claims (p. 83-4) Dacian and Thracian were two distinct languages ("But eyewitnesses to that ancient period who heard both languages testified that Dacians and Thracians spoke differently."), echoing Georgiev's theory ("It is likely that the Dacian language was spoken in Moesia as far south as the Haemus Mountains, while Thracian was spoken from Rhodes to Thessaly, the land of the Bessorum and home of the Bessi tribe. For sure their city names ended mostly with para and bria and not in Dacian dava."), and claiming they belong to different language groups ("It might therefore be reasonable to think that the Dacians spoke a Centum language related to the Celtic, German, and Latin dialects. [...] The eastern Thracian tribes spoke the tongue of the Mysians of Western Anatolia in Asia Minor, who belonged to the Satem language group." [...] "As for the Greeks and Thracians, their language might have been be related, but it differed from that of their neighbor, the Macedonians.") Daizus (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• the name gived by Ptolemy is Sousousdavta, not Susudata (dont rely too much on wikipedia, is considerent unreliable even by wikipedia itself), and the correct translation seem to be Susudava, not Susudata —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.221.82 (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? [13] [14]: Σουσουδάτα. Or is there a particular manuscript you have in mind? Daizus (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Texts/Ptolemy/2/10/home.html. Sousousdavta - 38*30-53*50, probably a mistake in name writing. Yes, someone mistranslated it as Susudata, which is wrong, most probably was Susudava (and i think all Parvan, Daicoviciu and Glodariu use the name Susudava). However, not far is another one, Setidava (or Getidava i saw too) which is undoubtly Dacian.

The v in sousousavta is a mistake, see the Greek text on the same site: Σουσουδάτα. Obviously you can't read in this language! Daizus (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

i would be glad to know why that "v" is a mistake, and the the "t" isnt? And how that Ptolemy (who is known to make sometimes some mistranslations of names, (in Greek or Latin etc.) didnt make a mistake with that name, because is close to another "dava", Setidava, and Susudava sound way more close to reality then Susudata coming from a supposed germanic "susutin" (never heard of, doesnt find any meaning of this word or its existance). And, as i said, there are historians who give the name "Susudava".

Because the Greek text is Σουσουδάτα, with the letter τ. You can argue all you want - your edit on Susudava was reverted. Daizus (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

i think you, or that translation of the site to be more precise, are wrong. This is Getica of Parvan, check for Susudava here http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/parvangetica/ParvanGeticaOProtoistorieADaciei.pdf

he give enough sources for that, with a better translation, and actualy give more Getae-Dacian names in that area (today Poland and Germany), which if are not related directly with Costoboci (probably they are, he mention Costoboci anyway, in many other ocassions) show anyway a Getae/Dacian presence there. And he is one of those who mention that Thracians and Dacians are actualy very close related and find similarity in names. You can find common names even at Olteanu

You're wrong. Ptolemy wrote in Greek and that is no translation, but the original text based on the available manuscripts. Pârvan was no linguist and Olteanu mentions no Susudava. Try dacia.org if you look for Dacians in Germany. Daizus (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• i base my views on real historians, and important and known ones. Parvan mention in his book (which i see you didnt bother to check) other scholars who refer to Susudava, foreign scholars (including Schutte, who is a German or Danish scholar and studied too Ptolemy map). I am kinda disapointed anyway, i believed there is something to discuss with you, you seemed kinda knowledgeable but i see that aparently you are just too stuck on a rather narrow view (promoted probably too by some of the scholars you mentioned) and unable to consider anything else. Some peoples just cant took off those horse goggles and imposed dogma is too strong, either the old one either the new one.

I know Pârvan's book, I don't have to check it. He was an erudite historian and archaeologist, a nationalist, but he was no linguist. Schutte read no Susudava, but Susudana (p. 107, 113), and he considered it a corrupted name (= Setidava). As for your personal opinions about me, I don't really care. Daizus (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• aha, Pârvan is a nationalist, but Georgiev not? Cool. And where is Susudata there? How that Schutte didnt mention anything like that (obviously Pârvan being a nationalist didnt mention it either, right? Or maybe any of them wasnt able to read a word in greek? How you explain?). At least i am glad that such a fine english language specialist and historian as you agree with Setidava and its presence there (i understand it was discovered archeologicaly too). But Pârvan mention anyway even more Getae/Dacian names present in those areas, without the usual "dava" ending but with Dacian (or Thracian) roots nevertheless

Some manuscripts give Susudana, others give Susudata. In most editions of Ptolemy's text, Susudata was considered correct. Daizus (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• • • • good God, i didnt know someone can be such pathetic hahahaha. Now you manage to erase my last post here? What was the problem, the fact that neither Schutte nor Parvan didnt mention any Susudata? The mess with some words i pointed out from DEX? The fact that are mentioned other Thraco-Dacian (so ones who have corespondence in Thracia-see the same Parvan which you said you know very well) names of towns/places far west or north-west? Gosh, there are some mention by Parvan right in Dacia outside Roman frontier, mentioned by Ptolemy, like Petrodava, Carsidava, Patridava, Clepidava. Soon the article need to be improved, maybe if i will be in the mood or have time