Talk:Dacology

Dacology?
The article starts with "Dacology is a branch of Thracology which focuses on the scientific study of Dacia" - but it doesn't quote any reliable reference for how things are today. Au contraire, the article admits the Congresses of Dacology are organized by Săvescu, and any online search on dacology (dacologie, etc) will send you to unscientific materials. So how is this Dacology a scientific study today?

The text mentions the "ancient Dacian culture from c. 1000 BC" - say what? Why not 5000 BC? Come on!

"It is directly subordinated to Thracology, since Dacians are considered a branch of the Thracians by most mainstream research and historical sources". This attempt of legitimation is clearly WP:OR - the two references provided say nothing about the relations between Thracology and Dacology, more exactly do not make any mention about these two. "... and as such Dacology has the potential to evolve as an independent discipline from Thracology" is again WP:OR.

The section of "History" is worse. As explained in the article, there are Institutes of Thracology, but not of Dacology, nor of Thraco-Dacology. With no institutes, diplomas, conferences, etc what kind of discipline is that? Moreover one can easily find that in some pre-1989 academic journals "Dacologist" was a pejorative term. I. I. Russu in a devastating review pointed out "lipsa de orientare în materie la autor, aproape ca la oricare dintre aşa-numiţii 'dacologi' şi tracizanţi amatori". And this article claims Russu is a Dacologist! I don't think a text from Revista arhivelor is a reliable source to legitimate a term (or the existence of a discipline!). The reference to Radu Vulpe is just wrong. Starting with page 95 we can read the study of M. M. Rădulescu, "Contributions to the study of Romanian substratum", an author who indeed wrote of dacology, but such a mention cannot be considered more than one opinion - Russu himself distanced from 'dacologists'.

I think it's obvious that everything what's to be said on this topic should be said either in Thracology, or in Protochronism. And, most imporant, read your sources! Daizus (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Andrei Vartic is a protochronist. Daizus (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, although I don't think the tone and suspicion is warranted. These are the best sources I found. I think all your objections are valid. But I don't share the view that the term Dacology is cursed, doomed forever and more dirty than Thracology and Egyptology, even if it has been hijacked by Dacomans. Please feel free to modify, correct, delete, whatever helps. I am tired of all this. --Codrin.B (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And if Thracology is the scientific study of Ancient Thrace and Thracians, and if we agree that Dacia is not Thrace and the relationship between Dacians and Thracians is disputed, then please, let me know how you define the scientific study of Dacia and Dacians? What term would you use to define that without risking of being associated with Protochronism? --Codrin.B (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, Dacology is a manifestation of Protochronism. You try to prove otherwise, why wouldn't I be suspicious? You can believe whatever you want about Dacology, the question is if the extant sources substantiate such an article. And the answer seems to be no.
 * The Dacians are studied by archaeologists, historians, classicists. Some scholars indeed call themselves (or each-other) Thracologists (probably following some sort of tradition of Egyptologists, Byzantinologists, etc), but that's no reason to assume there are also Dacologists, Scythologists, Carpologists, Gothologists, Avarologists, Vikingologists, Mongologists and so on :) Well, the Dacologists do exist, but not as reputable scholars. I hope this answers your question. Daizus (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a little game.
 * University of Bucharest: dacologie tracologie
 * Romanian Academy: dacologie tracologie
 * Institute of Archaeology "Vasile Pârvan": dacologie tracologie
 * Got it? ;) Daizus (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, I already knew all this. I just think is sad and unfortunate. Bulgarian Thracologists are respected, along with their title and their impressive successes in archaeology. Thanks... --Codrin.B (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a Bugandologist myself :). Dahn (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Schools of archaeology loosing credit or popularity is not that unusual. Compare with the article on the Biblical archaeology school. It covers both the height of its influence and how it lost support. In this case the article should cover both the enthusiasts who use the term and those who use it as a pejorative term. If the term's history only goes back to 1976, its history should not be hard to track down. Dimadick (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bu we aren't talking about a school of archeology around here. Dacology is a manifestation of Protochronism which was once the cornerstone of the official national-communist ideology of Ceausescu's totalitarian regime. This Wikipedia article is definetly not the right place to salvage this concept.
 * http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LLmtfGiClSIC&pg=PA168&dq=protochronism+romanian&hl=en&ei=HNo1TaKUDoi28QOC7-G2BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=protochronism%20romanian&f=false
 * "Dacology is a manifestation of Protochronism which was once the cornerstone of the official national-communist ideology of Ceausescu's totalitarian regime." Which is why I compared it to the Biblical archaeology school. Which also is part research and part propaganda. Now, could you use your sources to explain the amound of support it got from Ceausescu? Any funding for example? Dimadick (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Andrei (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What about Thracology, an article written by Bulgarians. A manifestation of Protochronism? Delete it to? Or Dacians are communists and Thracians are cool Bulgarians?!--Codrin.B (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Check my links, Codrin. Daizus (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, no hits. Academia uses the term Thracology (even if they research Dacians and not necessarily connect the two people), out of fear of linking Dacology with Dacomania. Leaving this Dacomania scare from the picture for a second, with your permission, I think if you analyze it at cold, it is dumb on one end to follow a theory that states that Dacians and Thracians are not (that) related (may be valid, not questioning it here), focus on the research on Dacians (I mean take Dacian pottery out of the ground that used to be Dacia) and then on the other end to call yourself Thracologist (even though you didn't touch the land of Thrace at all). I mean, what?! --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No hits, no "Dacology" as science.
 * The rest of your argument does not follow. That theory you allude to is only about languages, not people. If the Dacians and the Getae were two distinct populations (tribes, whatever), you're also saying your Dacologists shouldn't study the Getae? And how could you not "touch the land of Thrace at all"? For Herodotus Thrace was bordered by Danube, and the Getae were a Thracian tribe. He was right or wrong, but the tradition of Romanian Thracology is not out of fear, it starts with Herodotus and the first literary accounts. Russu, the "Dacologist", has a book entitled "Limba traco-dacilor" and the first chapter is "Tracii. Ţara, cultura, istoria." His concepts and terminology seem somewhat obsolete today, but his works make nonsense of your "'out of fear' argument". Arguably many scholars prefer Thracology (if they'd have a choice, which is not really the case), to integrate the Dacians in a more powerful narrative. Lato sensu they study a Thracian cultural space, even if further research shows a much more complex society than previously imagined. Don't underestimate the power of tradition. Daizus (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it would be hard to imagine the languages being different and the people be the same. Of course if Dacians and Getae are determined to be different, then those studying Getae, if that is their specialty or narrow focus, might as well get the title of Getologist. But I admit, fragmenting and ultra specializing, or having a niche specialty, related to a certain tribe let's say, is not realistic, although few scientists might chose to focus all their career on one specific group of people. The point regarding the tradition is well taken. But the tradition comes from the time when people thought that Dacians = Thracians. If it proves not to be the case, and some scientists want to focus on Dacians determined distinct, how do they call themselves then? Sorin Olteanu, a great Thracologist (sic!) identifies the linguistic separation between Daco-Moesian language(s) and Thracian language at the Balkan mountains, although there is also an overlap zone. This is inline with other sources that place Thrace south of Balkans, although most likely they had tribes/towns north of Balkans. Take a look at the main Thrace article and the maps too. So I am not sure what to make of Herodotus. He might have been off after all or partially right. I understand your point about Russu, no need to insist. But the reference I provided (from 70s-80s, I know) does mention him as Dacologist, whether ironical or not. Based on his work, I would assume he would have preferred the term Thraco-Dacologist, used by others before him. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You cited one opinion saying Russu contributed to Dacology, (in direct opposition with Russu's own perspective upon 'dacologi'). If Russu would have been alive, this text would have been deleted with no further discussion (per WP:BLP). You also found that mention of "Thraco-Dacology" in Revista arhivelor, but this is no reliable source. If notable, this should be discussed in the Protochronism article, as evidence for the invention of "scholars" and "disciplines".
 * You accept that creating disciplines for each tribe is not realistic, why then ask me "how do they call themselves then?". Sorin Olteanu's site is dedicated to Thracology. He indeed supports the idea of different languages and dialects, however he studies them all. Daizus (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I cited what I found. I am glad you found other, better references. I assume that's called collaboration and a wiki. You seem to act more like a very strict professor than an equal collaborator :-) You are already imposing through your knowledge and the quality of your work. You don't have to be dismissive and impose by tone. In any case, no further questions, your honor! :-) --Codrin.B (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Guess what speaks louder than words? Why is this article still here? Daizus (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh god, just delete it if it helps and let's move on. I need a coffee --Codrin.B (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)