User talk:Daizus/Archive 1

Iancu
First of all, it wasn't "my criteria", it was the Britannica's (a tone which I kept as reasonable as I could). Secondly, we could do without it altogether, but I was solely trying to make sentences less abrupt. Do not assume. Dahn 12:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If I'd have to write an article on physics, I wouldn't refer to Britannica. I'd like if we could treat history like a science and not just a collection of opinions. Britannica is not an authority in history (and that's a dangerous remark, we could open an endless debate about what such an authority may mean). A potential controversial claim can be preceded by "in the opinion of historian x". Especially in Hungaro-Romanian history which is full of bias on both sides.
 * In Britannica's article we find Szörény (with no alternate denomination) but Belgrade (and not Nándorfehérvár). Somewhere at the core there are some frustrated opinions, I haven't found any other way to say it but bluntly. As we have our "dacists", others have the "apostolicists" dreaming of a great but long ago faded Hungarian medieval kingdom. Daizus 17:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hungary:Historical demographics
Salut, Daizus. Am vazut ca ai dat niste surse interesante in Talk:Hungary. Ai putea sa imi dai si mie referintele exacte? Multumesc, Dpotop 12:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Cele mai multe informaţii de-acolo le vei gasi in Şt. Pascu - Voievodatul Transilvaniei, vol II. Referinţele lui Pascu sunt variate, dacă te interesează ceva anume fii mai explicit. Daizus 23:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion ?
Since I noticed your qualified interest in (Romanian) history, I’d like to bring to your attention a phenomenon I observed. Various entries related to Romania like Matthias Corvinus of Hungary, John Hunyadi, Judeţ, Romanian Old Kingdom, Islam in Romania ( the list is larger) contain linked mentions to the entry Danubian Principalities. This intrigued me, since the term “Danubian Principalities” is a sort of historical and geo-political moniker of a very specific and limited use, which is by no means suited to the content of the articles it was referred to. Going to the entry Danubian Principalities I realized that the article actually substituted an entry which should be called “Romanian Principalities”. Than, I clearly indicated in the lead section of that entry the temporal, spatial and semantic limits of this term: it was an Austrian word construction of the late 18th – early 19th century, it circulated outside the Romanian space as late as the Union of the Principalities and it was a term of exclusively informal use. I think that raising this term to the status of an historical term is utterly misleading. I ignore the reasons of this. It could be accident, ignorance, semi-educated guess, it could be nevertheless intention. The fact that entries like United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, Romanian principalities, Moldavia and Wallachia are redirected to Danubian Principalities make me to rather think of the last. Whatever the reasons may be, usurping legitimate and recognized historical concepts by a geo-political moniker is unacceptable. Moreover, the term Danubian Principalities has been further promoted, being systematically wikified in many Romania-related articles, usurping established scientific concepts like Romanian principalities. Things have gone even farther, “Danubian” being autonomously used instead of “Romanian” in some articles. I think that the situation deserves careful consideration and adequate measures. If you consider this issue worth of interest, please check the facts and let me know your conclusions.--Vintila Barbu 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are seem to be right. But unfortunately we don't have a page on 'Romanian principalities' so we have to fight to make the meaningful content (extending that page or creating another and wait for users to note and acknowledge the two concepts or eventually propose a merge). I've browsed those pages and I think the first step is to struggle a bit to legitimate the expression 'Romanian principalities' (I've seen some opposition to it) as a noteworthy historiographical concept and eventual show the 'Danubian principalities' is rather the exception, the remnant of some historical context of the past. Daizus 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

May I remind you that the usage in English is not determined by what some Romanians like, but about tradition. Both Britannica and Columbia refer to the "Danubian principalities", and the latter term was consistently used at the time when Anglo-Saxons were referring to two separate countries (this also makes the notion that "it became outdated" utterly irrelevant - since people were using it in that form and no longer use it to refer to something in existence). Dahn 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Materials from MSN Encarta refer to them as Romanian principalities (e.g. http://uk.encarta.msn.com/text_761575697__1/Austria.html ). Many other encyclopedias possibly (I don't have them in original, must be checked) use the same name. But this is not the real argument. The real argument is in scholarship (in English language, of course). It is tradionally 'Romanian principalities'. According to Wiki's criterions on sources, the scholarly material is a secondary source while the encyclopedias are a tertiary source. Wikipedia's policy states articles should rely mostly on secondary sources. So bring me scholars, not encyclopedias. Because I'll bring scholars. Daizus 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "In English scholarship"? "Traditionally"? Prove it. Dahn 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you can read beacause I've said "English language" not "scholarship". Anyway, I've proved it already here (and you have even English scholarship - Adam Neale's testimony was reprinted in 1970 in New York!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Danubian_Principalities Daizus 00:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As for my end... google book hits: James Henry Skene, The Danubian Principalities, the Frontier Lands of the Christian and the Turk; Thad Weed Riker, The Making of Roumania: A Study of an International Problem, 1856-1866; Edward Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty: showing the various political and territorial changes; Barbara Jelavich, Russia's Balkan Entanglements, 1806-1914 and History of the Balkans; Čedomilj Mijatović, James David Bourchier, Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, A Short History of Russia and the Balkan States; Charles Alan Fyffe, A History of Modern Europe, 1792-1878; Robina Napier, Gerard W. Smith, Alphons von Klinkowström, Memoirs of Prince Metternich: 1773[-1835]; R. G. (Robert Gordon) Latham, The Nationalities of Europe; Emil Lengyel, The Danube; Frederick Kellogg, The Road to Romanian Independence; Piotr Wandycz, Donald Warren, Treadgold, Peter F. Sugar, The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795-1918; D, Tziovas, Greece and the Balkans: identities, perceptions and cultural encounters since the Enlightenment; Sorana Corneanu, Sorin Mitu, National Identity of Romanians in Transylvania. I'm not saying that your variant is not used, but you will note that this is the traditional Anglo-Saxon term (at best, the other one is used *as much*, but not *for as long a time*). Dahn 00:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, here are mine: Adam Neale, The Romanian Principalities, 1818; Radu Florescu, The Struggle Against Russia in the Romanian Principalities: A Problem in Anglo-Turkish Diplomacy, 1821-1854 ; Vlad Georgescu, Political Ideas and the Enlightenment in the Romanian Principalities (1750-1831); Nicolae Roddy, Sociocultural Appropriation of the Testament of Abraham in Eighteenth-Century Romanian Lands; Radu Carp, Governmental responsability and Parliamentary irresponsability in the Romanian Constitutional tradition; Angela Jianu, Women, Family and Society in the Romanian Principalities, c. 1750-1850; Michaela Mudure, Sexual Inter-courses: Romanian Master - Gypsy Slave; Norbert Blistyar - Use of the "Porto" Markings by Austrian Posts in the Romanian Principalities; John R. Lampe, Marvin R. Jackson - Balkan Economic History, 1550-1950: From Imperial Borderlands to Developing Nations; Viorel Achim - The Roma in Romanian history; Al. Gh. Savu - The army and the Romanian society; Valeriu Stan, Nicolae Balcescu, 1819-1852; Pompiliu Teodor - Enlightenment and Romanian Society; Tahsin Gemil, The Romanian principalities in the international political context (1621-1672); Kemal Karpat, Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays; Daniel Chirot - The Origins of Backwardness in Eastern Europe: Economics and Politics from the Middle Ages Until Early Twentith Century; Horia C. Matei - National Report. Romania; Zoltan Barany - The East European Gypsies in the imperial age; G. A. Niculescu - Disciplinary identity and autonomy at the beginnings of archaeology in Romania; Manuela Boatca - Peripheral Solutions to Peripheral Development: The Case of Early 20th Century Romania; Istvan Vasary - Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365; Barbara Jelavich, History of the Balkans (where she uses also Danubian principalities); Jean W. Sedlar, East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500; Marija N. Todorova - Balkan Identities: Nation and Memory; Keith Hitchins, The Romanians, 1774-1866';  Bela Kalman Kiraly, Gunther Erich Rothenberg, War and Society in East Central Europe
 * Also from the books you mentioned, the book edited by Dimitris Tziovas mentions 'Romanian principalities' (e.g. at page 180, in Chapter 12: Music Encounters at the Greek courts of Jassy and Bucharest in 18th century by John G. Plemmenos.
 * As you can see your "more traditional" qualifier doesn't seem to be supported. Daizus 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, I cannot see that at all. For one, those were not by any means the only sources out there. Secondly, many of the ones I cited at the top of my list are from the period in question, and, if we are to limit ourselves at it in order to uncover the traditional use, you'll find that it is likely that "Danubian" outnumbers "Romanian" by very, very much. As for "using several", the opposite is just as present, which leads us back to the original point. Dahn 01:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can't see maybe you should get professional treatment and stop spamming my talk page (I don't recall to have invited you here and the topic of this discussion I already started in talk page of Danubian principalities, as I already have told you).
 * I proved I can create meaningful lists, larger than the one you provided to argue an "Anglo-Saxon" tradition. The period covered by 'Danubian principalities' Wiki article starts in 14th century, not in 18th and the term is in use even now, in 21th century (to denominate a historical reality of those times). I fail to find the "likely outnumbering" you're advocating. While I realize I'll have a hard time create much larger lists than you if you'll stubbornly persist to prove the opposite (as my resources are limited), with no doubt I can create lists large enough to prove some improper claims as false "'Romanian principalities' is not a traditional term in English scholarship", "'Romanian principalities' was invented by Communist historiography" etc., therefore I have reasons to label as POV the current usage of these two terms here on Wiki. Daizus 09:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoring common sense in the “Romanian vs. Danubian principalities” issue
It really appears that the systematical substitution of “Romanian principalities” by “Danubian Principalities” is not accidental but rather a campaign aimed at avoiding the designation “Romanian” in the history as long as it goes, namely up to…1864 (!). This absurd and ridiculous undertaking is that what I call an  ideological motivated  semi-educated original research . This seems to be the work of a semi-educated spinner who appears to be driven by what s/he thinks to be post-modern anti-nationalism (!) In his uneducated imagination, calling the Romanian feudal states “Romanian” is a proof of “nationalism”. Hence, s/he fights his own war on the Wikipedia, cleansing the using of the name “Romanian” in historical contexts, wherever s/he can. To this purpose s/he abusively promotes that informal geopolitical moniker (Danubian) to the rank of an historical concept in order to substitute “Romanian”. (This behaviour strangely resembles with that of the “România Mare”’s contributors: same fanaticism arisen from semi-educated ignorance, same weird agenda, this time however, with an inversed algebraic sign. I cannot stop noting the immanent irony of this circumstance: among the monsters borne by the communism here we have now this pair of twins: national-communists and over-acculturated anti-nationalists.) This can really happen only in Wikipedia, the only place where everybody can write anything. I wonder why and how long should we put up with this crap. I take the liberty to be a guest on your talk page out of two reasons: 1. in the hope that this Rică Venturiano will have the minimal decency not to interfere again after being explicitly invited out; 2. to try clarifying with you some principles. You say that “the first step is to struggle a bit to legitimate the expression 'Romanian principalities' (I've seen some opposition to it) as a noteworthy historiographical concept”. I think that you’re a little too pessimistic: the expression 'Romanian principalities' is already legitimate by 150 years historiography: from the romantic precursor Bălcescu over Kogălniceanu, the “founding fathers” Xenopol and Pârvan up to the “classics” like Iorga and Brătianu, there are no other designation for the two Romanian states in the historical research than “Principatele române” or “Ţările române”. (The form “principate dunărene” is occasionally employed in very specific contexts and nobody would come to the weird idea to consider it as a permanent substitute for “principate române”). As to the usual form in English, you already made the demonstration, better than I could do: “Romanian Principalities” is the one and only designation used in the modern scientific community. Of course, nobody denies the existence of the term “Danubian Principalities” as a term of limited use for specific historical contexts. A good example of dealing with historical terminology offers the entry Habsburg Monarchy, where alternative names of the Austrian Empire are briefly mentioned in a special section (there you find the term “Danubian Monarchy” as well). Nobody would however open a special entry for “Danubian Monarchy”, not to mention substituting established names like, say, “Habsburg” or “Austrian” with “Danubian” (!) I don’t think therefore that we have to struggle to legitimate what is self-evident. The only fight will be to face the incredible energy which bad-faith and frustrations seem to generate. I know that Wikipedia attracts weird personalities and semi-educated wannabes to an even greater measure than other forms of anonymous activities on the web. I hope however that they will not eventually succeed imposing their distorted views. --Vintila Barbu 09:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My demonstration had a limited purpose. Yes, it is a traditional form in English, but I cannot say is usual. For instance, it's hard for me to prove (and maybe it's not even factually correct) that let's say for the history of Romanian principalities between 1774-1848/59/61 "Romanian principalities" was more used than "Danubian principalities" (with irony I noticed the reference to justify the term is not even an English one, but a German one - Donaufürstentümer; basically the article falls under OR, the editor(s) invoking a common usage in English from its usage in German language!). I believe on the contrary. Yet, for most of their existence (if you look at Dahn's books, they mostly cover 18-19th centuries) I think the right term is "Romanian principalities" and not otherwise. I suggested in the talk page of the article a split (both in article, both in references in other Wiki articles) of the two terms. I don't want necessarily to minimize "Danubian principalities" (which had a historical usage and is in use today in a number of works) just to restore "Romanian principalities" to its real value. Daizus 10:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Getae
I reverted because there was clearly a dispute on the talk page, and dispute tags shouldn't be removed if there is. Khoikhoi 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thank you. Daizus 09:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at my last proposal (check the history, I presume Dahn has already changed it). It's less weaselish in wording, because it doesn't promote Boia's deconstructionist approach. I'm a bit tired of Dahn. BTW: If he reverts your edits, then go for 3RR (he's got 3 recently). Dpotop 20:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Boia's deconstructionist approach is useful in his domain - historigraphy. It is a bit illintended when directed to Strabo (for instance, some thracologists and linguists consider both shores of the Danube together with a large part of our today country was part of the same dialectal space - "Daco-Moesian"; their evidence comes from toponymy and antroponymy - the main sources of Thracian language). Also to my knowledge most cases of travellers or geographers reporting linguistical affinites were actually proven true. However this issue is relatively minor to the question, I don't think Strabo's reliability is actually an issue (could be in the page on Strabo, but I guess there other editors would diqualify Boia's comment as irrelevant or unscholarly).
 * I'll take a little break from the edits on that page, to start compiling some worthy materials. It's a good thing sections were created, that means there's an impetus to develop that page and that's good! Daizus 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Two comments
If you have not heard of it before, you may be interested in the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. Also, you might want to think about making a user page; rightly or wrongly, many editors are wary about contributors whose personal pages are red-links. Cheers, Olessi 19:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Albert Wass
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --InShaneee 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look more carefully, you'd see there are no 4 reverts
 * 11 Feb, 20:48 server time - revert names
 * 11 Feb, 21:12 server time - revert names
 * 11 Feb, 21:19 server time - add tags
 * 12 Feb, 16:45 server time - revert names, revert tags
 * Therefore I must use the unblock tag:

I haven't reverted anything in Burzenland article more than once. I can't even find a 3RR report on me. Please provide evidence for this accusation. Daizus 12:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I had to restore
Khoikhoi's version (actually Dahn's) in order to give him the opportunity of explaining his reverts. I doubt however, that he will do it. Feel free to restore the last version before the reverts of Khoikhoi. I, for one, wouldn't like to reach the 3RR threshhold.--Vintila Barbu 21:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Culianu conference 1986
Hi, in Witch-hunt you've included a reference to this conference dating from 1986, however there is no publication information given. Are you working from your own personal notes here, or is there a published transcript available? If there is a published transcript, we need the publication details so the information can be checked. If not, then the information from this conference can't be used. Thanks for your help, Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting modern Romanian history
I see that you are just checking the sourcing of Organic Statutes (BTW, why actually the Romanian name and not the English one - anyway, this should be the least of our concerns).

I think you are doing an excellent work, since I had my doubts and suspicions, but couldn't find the time to check the sourcing. I find Djuvara a charming and fascinating gentleman, but in the historical research he remains a dilettante, maybe good to impress the public on talk shows. Of course, compared with impostors like Cioroianu (i mean Cioroianu is no historian), Djuvara has anyway more serious credentials, but he's definitely not an authoritative source.

Your initiative will encourage me to follow you in checking the sources of that article.

I just restored some information in Islam in Romania. I wonder, what your opinion should be on this. (it is self-evident that i am by no means alluding to any "support" for my edits)

Keep on the good work--Vintila Barbu 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To put or not to put the tag
I have started Romanian principalities, however for only three paragraphs in the lead it took me more work than I thought and I cannot go on right now, just as things get really interesting, dealing with structural homologies between the two principalities. Now, if I put the stub tag, wouldn’t it be an invitation for vandalizers ? …or am I on the verge of developing a paranoia syndrome ? :) --Vintilă Barbu 09:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF :P Daizus 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

MedCab case
Hi all. I'm currently mediating this case.

Every editor can see how's going the mediation and voice his opinion here.

For a successful mediation, I need to hear every position and its arguments.

In order to keep mediation-related stuff all together, I prefer if we discuss on the mediation page rather than here.

I'm at your disposal for every question.

Happy editing,

--HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I read your arguments and I agree with your position. --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 13:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding the Mediation Case on Ionesco, they put that their goal was to "abide by wikipedia policy and give a good secondary source precedence over a primary one." I'm assuming by this they meant that Ionesco's daughter's biography is a primary source and EJ is a secondary source. This makes no sense. Ionesco's daughter's biography is secondary while EJ, as an encyclopedia, is tertiary. Maybe if you clear this up they'll drop it. This was mentioned on the talk page a while back. Usedup 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fais gaffe, Hizkiah is a certified Bonaparte clone, starting from yesterday. I have falled for him, too. :) Dpotop 13:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I'm already debating it but apparently I only persuaded the mediator, not the users opening the case. Daizus 12:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * More likely, you haven't persuaded the user who opened the case. How does a registered username get an anon's email address suggested by "I am in contact with the anon"? Hmm. Usedup 14:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be taking over your mediation case. If you have any questions, leave a message on my talk page! mcr616 Speak! 20:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Principalities
I was happy to read your message. When informing about the term “Romanian Principalities” (Romanian Lands), the purpose of the article is undoubtedly showing “why the principalities are to be taken together” and why the term is far from being “just a historiographical nationalistic mood”, to cite you. Unlike, say, “Danubian Principalities” which is a conventional name arisen from external geo-political considerations, the term “Romanian Principalities” points to a complex socio-political and historical reality. In order to explain this, I suggested the mentioning of the common religion, political, social and cultural structure of the two principalities. You’re bringing now two important examples: Mihai Viteazul and “Dacia”.

Of course was Mihai a great general (not a simple condottiere, be it a great one) and an extraordinary adventurer. Nevertheless, he was a man of vast ambitions and visions, one made out of the mould of great conquistadores and dynasty founders. Someone about whom chronicles write "Mihai vodă începu a să scrie şi a să mărturisi cum că iaste domn a trii ţări" and who explicitly notes down “Hotaru Ardealului, pohta ce-am pohtit, Moldova, Ţara Românească” and gives his envoys instructions such as “Iar voi să căutaţi pre această pohtă ce-am pohtit noi (Ardealul)...iar voi să mergeţi să grăiţi împăratului să faceţi tocmeală pre această pohtă...” and “Să-i socotească pentru această slujbă şi nevoinţă ce s-au nevoit, să-i lase Ţara Românească şi Ţara Ardealului, să-i fie de moşie lui şi cine va ţinea den feciorii lui, să le fie moşie” is certainly not a short-term venturer or a mercenary.

The arguments against the political heritage of Mihai are a sort of semi-educated straw man tactics: he was not that important for today Romania, since he couldn’t have intended a Romanian political union. Of course not. Neither could Mihai have thought at a Union in the sense of 1859 nor in the sense of 1918. As a man of his time, he planned and realised a Union in the terms of 1600, reuniting with the sword three countries under his sceptre. Not having heard of the principle of auto-determination of a certain Mr. Wilson, Mihai might have invoked as legitimacy principles for his political actions the divine grace and the benevolence of the great powers of the moment (Austrian Emperor and the Sultan).

However, a certain national aspect cannot be ruled out from his governing, as he took clear measures in favour of Transylvanian Romanians, freeing Romanian clergy from corvées, building the Metropolitan Romanian Church in Alba, allowing Romanian villages to bring their cattle to neighbouring Hungarian pastures, bringing the Romanian Transylvanians under the jurisdiction of the Walachian Metropolite, imposing Romanians in the Transylvanian Diet, allowing Romanians to exert jurisdiction in Transylvania, using Romanian as a language of official documents and preparing the recognition of Orthodoxy. Of course, he took all these measures not as a “national liberator” (since the nation in the modern sense was not yet invented) but as a reigning prince anxious to enlarge and consolidate his power basis. (Actually he enraged the Hungarians).

As you point out, Mihai’s personal union of the three countries corresponded to a clear ideological, historical and political framework of the time, namely “Dacia” as a lost but nevertheless coherent entity. Actually, Mihai’s Dacian project was more imminent as one might think, since intentions of “restoring” the (legendary) “Kingdom of Dacia” are attributed to Sigismund Báthory. It appears that Mihai was simply faster. He also seems to have been called “restitutor Daciae”. Interestingly, the term “Dacians” covered for several centuries in Middle Ages the meaning of “Romanians”, as Stelian Brezeanu shows in a study published in the early 1990s.

Moreover, Romanians from all three medieval countries were clearly aware of their shared identity. In 1629 Gabriel Bethlen asks advice from Patriarch Kiril Lukaris about the conversion of Transylvanian Romanians to Calvinism. The Patriarch of Constantinople answers: “The blood and feelings bond which exists secretly but so much stronger between Romanians of the Principality of Transylvania and the inhabitants of Walachia and Moldavia” will prevent such a conversion all the more the Princes of the later principalities “will undoubtedly never agree with this and will certainly hinder it, if not by arms, at least through covert support”. (my translation, sorry !) This analysis, coming not only from one of the highest spiritual and cultural instances of the time, but from an intimately expert in Romanian issues (in his youth, the Patriarch travelled and lived in the Romanian Principalities) teaches us about the existence of a “secret but so much stronger” conscience of religious, national and cultural togetherness as well as of a common political will and action to preserve it. You hardly find a more authoritative and relevant testimony about what “Romanian Principalities” really meant in late Middle Ages.

You’re perfectly right writing that “many other periods of the history are ignored and Michael the Brave is considered the one and only who attempted to unify the principalities”. This happens when history gets into pop culture. Ironically, we are here on wikipedia, that is, in the very epitome of …pop culture. Should we combat it from inside ?! OK, than, let me briefly recapitulate what we have for now.

Rom. Princ. is a historical term resting upon:
 * Romanian people in the three medieval countries have always called themselves Romanian
 * A sense of religious, ethno-linguistic and cultural togetherness and a political will to conserve it can be traced back to Middle Ages (see Lukaris, Romanian chroniclers)
 * The Middle Ages cultivated a homogeneous perception of the three countries (Dacia) being inhabited by a homogeneous population (Dacians = Romanians) see Brezeanu
 * This geo-political area (Dacia) has been object of several geo-political projects, of which Mihai’s one could be temporary accomplished
 * For the two Orthodox Romanian Principalities the mixture between Byzantine heritage and Slavic influence constituted a kind of identity matrix, creating structural similarities in
 * Religious life
 * Political life, administration, military (ex: role and functions of the Domn, throne succession, aristocracy organisation, etc.)
 * Social and economical life
 * Though very often adversarial, the relations and exchanges between the three medieval countries have been permanent and very intense (not more adversarial than relationships between German respectively Italian medieval states)
 * Foreigners, especially the suzerain Ottoman power treated identically the two Romanian Principalities (ex: the suzerainty conditions, the Phanariote period, etc)

Now, this is a provisional list of suggestions, for the time being…. --Vintilă Barbu 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think it's worth, please don't hesitate naming those points of disagreement. This could be an excellent basis for making the work progress. Anyway, your allusion to lucidity tends making me think at some misunderstanding due to what you could interpret as a ...patriotic tone. It's just an assupmtion. Maybe there are really content-related differences. It cannot be that bad...As for the Rovine story, I'll try to become familiar with the topic. --Vintilă Barbu 16:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the wiki article about Rovine: it’s quite poor, recalling some high school presentation…As for the paper of Mureşan, this could really be a source for improving that poor Rovine thing. Of course was Rovine no military victory for Mircea: this is an established piece of historical knowledge. It’s but our dear national historiography which made a victory out of every not-so-severe defeat, see Călugăreni, see Mărăşeşti…It’s like Luxemburg celebrating being beaten by Germany with just 3 goals to 4 in the World Cup final tournament…Fully understandable…

As for my suggestions regarding Romanian Principalities, allow me firstly clearing one thing: those were some thoughts with no value other than sketching possible directions of further enquiry. That’s why I took the liberty of quite concise wording, which, I see now, involuntarily encapsulated some “broad generalizations”. I meant the medieval concept of Dacia it was not intended to other people course not, I exaggerated for the sake of the demonstration I mentioned homogeneity in a specific context of the use of the medieval term Dacia, giving an example of how the medieval perception subsumed the territory of the three principalities to a homogenising concept- “Dacia” never said otherwise said exactly the same
 * "Dacia" (the territory it represented) was not always a "geo-political" area
 * (perhaps you didn't insinuate it, but some people may understand that way)
 * the Ottoman treatement of the two Principalities was not identical,
 * the homogenity must be confronted with the diversity
 * for instance, Transylvania, whatever the majoritarian ethnicity/religion was, was perceived in many occasions as a Catholic (Christian) land as its rulers were as such,
 * while the other two principalities as Orthodox

Germans use to say that meals are never being eaten as hot as they are cooked.

Beyond all this, showing why Rom Princ are called this way seems really to be a work of large synthesis. I hope it’s worth. Have an excellent evening, --Vintilă Barbu 18:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Macrohistorical Battles involving invasions of Europe
Daizus Greetings my friend! While you and I are being attacked for being politically correct for daring to try to be historically accurate on Martel, (sigh), have you looked lately at the Macrohistorical Battles involving invasions of Europe article? In addition to some very major rewriting, I have added maps, pictures, a new intro written by one of the assistant military coordinators, Wandalstouring, and generally tried to improve it - please let me know what you think! I have also worked some this afternoon on correcting the Martel article. It will get there, I am going completely through it, and rewriting a bit at a time. old windy bear 20:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

on medieval battles
Just another two words…That war “is just a continuation of politics with other means” should be clear to everybody since the 18th-19th centuries, as the correlation between state policy and warfare became more and more evident. (Once the industrialisation of warfare was carried out during the WWI, war became not only continuation of politics but part of economy. Nowadays, warfare is a part of both economy and politics in such highly intricate ways that even a caricatural figure like Bush jr. could promote as a spokesperson of the system.)

However, war was always an expression of politics, even in early times as combat technology confined warfare to battle(s). Thus, it is methodological misleading to scrutinise a battle only in terms of “who won” on the battleground. Actually, traditional military theory associates defeat in battle with retreat from battlefield, taking as a criterion for “victory” the fact of standing on the battlefield, quite regardless of casualties. A certain Pyrrhus could make some interesting comments on how this really works. In assessing a battle I would rather concentrate on the political consequences of that confrontation. My methodological approach would be considering battles as political gestures, evaluating them from within the respective political system and power network.

From that perspective, the battle of Rovine, though not technically won by Mircea (neither by Baiazid, as it seems), was in the long run quite a good thing for Mircea and his heirs. I think that the political message which that battle delivered to the Turks was that the cost-benefit ratio of that campaign was greater than one, with a significant risk of recurrence. As responsible statesmen, the Ottoman leading got the message and tolerated the maintenance of a buffer state north of the Danube (which later turned into two, then three buffer states – the medieval Dacia, object of “desire we desired” of not only Mihai).

(Just en passant, I don’t think that younger generations should smile bossily about the national-heroic historiography which changed some undecided battles into victories. First, it’s quite problematical to explain to 6th grade pupils how comes that a lost battle can bring long-term political benefits…Secondly, the task of nation building requires founding myths…) It seems I simply couldn’t refrain from this quite pro domo discourse… :) --Vintilă Barbu 12:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom/Soviet occupation of Romania
Filed. Please confirm awareness. -- Biruitorul 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Roman Dacia
I have fixed up the entire article on Roman Dacia. I removed as much original research as I could find. I don't think I found all of it. Since you're pretty active in the article I was thinking you could help. I also added a Reference section and removed all information that I couldn't find in my References. Mrld 23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC) PS Sorry it is really Mrld!! I forgot to sign in. Ignore the IP address. Mrld 23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dacian script
I have tried to edit the "Dacian script/writing" article to a somewhat more acceptable form, more close to the truth. Previously, the article had a "daco-traco-manic" look. The article still needs lot of improvements, howewer. i strongly suggest do not delete it. I study this matter for my master in archeology. I reccomand to read the books of romanian doctor in archeology Silviu Sanie, these books contain good examples of geto-dacian writings outside the famous "Decebalus perScorilo". With respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.59.81 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

do you really believe the Dacia-Romanian theory?
I am from the States, we stole land from the Indians, I accept it, it was wrong. We did not make up a crazy theory to say we were there first. Just accept you stole the land from the Hungarians, what's with the big charade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.28.2 (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is terrible :-) The IP of the guy is from Hungary or Romania :-).--Codrin.B (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Cheers for those reference suggestions. I'll be sure to check them out, although it is hard to introduce any view, no matter how WP:RS it is, which goes against the view of cerain editors regarding that issue Hxseek (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Roman Empire Map
Thank you for your constructive suggestions regading the Roman Empire map. Take a look at the new version and tell me if I should make further corrections.

P.S. You write very well in English. Do you live in Britain? I'm from Sibiu and I'm currently a student in London. Poti sa-mi scrii in romana daca vrei.

Salut,

Andrei Nacu

Andrei nacu (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia
Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you could join. I saw many of your posts showing a lot of knowledge and thoughtfulness, which could be very useful to the project. Please let us know if you have any questions, suggestions or if there are certain areas where you have expertise and want to participate. The project pages, categories and templates are almost done and functional, although there is plenty of room for improvement. Looking forward to collaborate on great articles! --Codrin.B (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw you added your support on the proposal page. We have the project now, so you can [ add your name] in the list of members.--Codrin.B (talk) 05:44, 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) 16:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ostraca de Krokodilo.
Daizus, during this crazy conflict, you mentioned this great archaeological finding, Ostraca de Krokodilo. I new about it and I was looking for the book everywhere. Do you happen to have access to the book? I think it would be great for some articles. Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is suppose to be the list of names, but I am not sure...--Codrin.B (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Roman Empire map & other issues
Hi Daizus,

Perhaps you should also read what I wrote on Codrinb's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Codrinb

Cheers,

Andrei (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agee, maybe you want to read it...--Codrin.B (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Costoboci
Buna. Let me know if you need any help on the Costoboci article, with sources etc. I admire your work. Regards.--Codrin.B (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Moved to the article page. Please contribute there. Codrin.B (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Dacian tribes
Do you have any comments on the Category_talk:Ancient_tribes_in_the_Balkans? I think it is better to split the Dacian and Thracian categories out of this again. It's cleaner and more consistent with the other categorization.--Codrin.B (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please move conversations to corresponding article talk pages
Daizus, interesting debate, but please move the conversation to corresponding pages for Talk:Dacian language, Talk:Costoboci, and File_talk:Roman_Empire_125.svg. It is impossible to follow it at this point and others may want to join. Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Dacian-Baltic connection Codrin.B (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Origin of the Romanians Borsoka (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Any comments? Codrin.B (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Mafia Codrin.B (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Daizus, I'm deeply sorry I had to involve you in this dispute regarding the Wiki project Dacia. My issue is with Codrin, his Dacomanic beliefs and how he's running the wiki-project, not with you. I would be more than happy to see you head this project instead of the Dacian-biased Codrin. I appologize if you ever felt insulted in any way by me and I retract everything I said about you being paid by some organization.

Andrei (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Again I feel sorry I involved you. Mea culpa! It was a wrong tactic. And I now have nearly removed you from the Incidents noticeboard. I really have nothing against you, please understand.

Andrei (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. If you don't want to lead the wiki-project do you at least have some prosposals?

I know I should have appologized earlier. I made a tactical error. Sorry about that.

Andrei (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ringe
Thanks for that article, I had not seen it beofre, although I have read a lot of Nichol's works. Good article ! BTW, see my reply to it (R George) Hxseek (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

About Indo-European languages, ancient tribes and para-groups :))
I would agree that it would indeed be a stretch to label Dacians Balto-Slavic. Dazius, u have issues with a Balto-Slavic subgroup - most linguists do support it. ALthough, as ALexander SChenker said - the debate is really a matter of terminology, and one cannot seperate 'genetic' relatedness from ongoing secondary convergences. We no direct evidence as to what language the Aesti or Veneti spoke. However, most scholars have presumed that they spoke some form of Balto-Slavic. THis is not unreasnoable assumption, although admittedly not based on real proof. Ofcourse I am aware of Cruta's critique of JOrdanes, however you should also read Heather's rebuttle on this issue. Nevertheless, I accept that the Venethic were not "Slavs", but this does not reule out that they might have spoken what I;d term as some kind of para-Balto-SLavic language. Because the linguistic nature of Basternae is also based from the word Basternae and none else.

Even grroups which have not been disputed to be Germanic, eg Hermanduri - how do we know what they actually spoke ?

If Andrei wants to leave Aesti & Veneti as Balto-Slavic, that;s fine, but he would have to source that back to a modern author, not Tacitus, becuase he had no knowledge of Balto-Slavic. But, Carpi and Costoboci would also have to be left as unknown

Otherwise, if this is going to be an ongoing problem, then (as I said) forego all the labelling, and have the barbarian tribes one colour

Hxseek (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not have issues with Balto-Slavic group as a linguistic construct. It's valid and mainstream. However not all tribe-language associations on this map are mainstream, some are cherry-picked (see below on Carpi) and in some cases are not supported at all (Dacian as a Balto-Slavic language).
 * Most linguists/slavists (Z. Gołąb, H. Lunt, H. Birnbaum and many others) argued Common Slavic was a language with virtually no dialects, therefore the search for a Slavic Urheimat was usually the search for a region not too vast, such as the Pripet marshes (in today Belarus and Ukraine) and there were other proposals as well (in Pannonia, for example). A similar logic applies to Baltic group and many other similar cases of prehistoric languages. Following this beautiful essay by Don Ringe, in prehistoric Eastern Europe many different languages (probably also belonging to different groups and families) must have been spoken. The pre-IE languages were apparently even more diverse, and there's no evidence at all the barbarian Europe was entirely IE-speaking by AD 125. Celtic and Germanic languages might have been somewhat more widely spoken because of a combination of military, economic and social factors, not necessarily sheer numbers of (initial) speakers. Daizus (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's see now the examples from this discussion.
 * CAH (one of the sources for this map) has Costoboci of uncertain origin, while showing a CARPI/DACI tribe attacking Dacia from east (in volume XII, p. 215). Peter Heather (mentioned by you) also believes Carpi are Dacians and so do many other scholars. I haven't really researched this extensively, but it seems that Carpi as a Dacian tribe is a mainstream position held by many authors today (probably using Zosimus and other circumstantial evidence). I agree with you this map is better without linguistic speculations. However the problem is: some of the scholars arguing the Veneti are Slavs, they also might argue (based on similar evidence and interpretations) the Carpi are Dacians. To use a source to show the Veneti are Slavs, but not also that Carpi are Dacians (because we don't like this second conclusion) is also original research.
 * You say no one would dispute Hermunduri are Germanic speakers. I'm not so sure about that. In Barbarian Tides (especially in chapter 7, "None of them were Germans"), Walter Goffart shows tribal groups such as Sciri and Herules were not Germans (in identity). After we deconstruct the literary sources, there are no reasons whatsoever to assume these Iron-Age tribes were all Germanic speakers (some were, some may have been not, and how can we know?). And Goffart is not alone in his skepticism.
 * As for Veneti (or Venedi), I'm not sure how many scholars would actually have them Slavs (or proto-Slavs, or whatever). Gołąb suggested they were not Slavs, but speakers of another Indo-European (but centum) language. As you noted, also Florin Curta denies their link with the Slavs. I don't know Heather's rebuttal, but I do know Heather's reading of Getica was both praised and criticized. Florin Curta's treatment of Jordanes is in full agreement with most studies today on Jordanes (Arne Søby Christensen with Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths, the chapters Goffart has on Jordanes in The Narrators of Barbarian History and in The Barbarian Tides, Andrew Merrils' "Jordanes" in History and Geography in Late Antiquity, etc - few would take Jordanes' ethnography at face value). Following our previous discussion, here's Guy Halsall on Peter Heather's reading of Getica ("Movers and Shakers" in Thomas Noble's From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms)
 * [Heather's] analysis irreparably damages the Getica's value for Gothic 'prehistory' yet, to reinstate the Gothic migration from the Baltic, he has to accept the value of at least a kernel of Jordanes' account; he accepts this on the basis of a reading of archaeological data which is itself driven by the uncritical 'pre-Heatherian' interpretation of Jordanes.
 * and
 * Heather refutes the idea of the Traditionskern, the core of tradition, 'borne' by a small, royal and aristocratic nucleus within the larger 'ethnic' group: myths which unified a greater body, composed of people of diverse origins. His work on Jordanes, mentined above, demolished the idea that such authentic bodies of tradition existed, and showed that the claims to long-standing Balt or Amal ruleships were so much fifth- or sixty-century eyewash. However, Heather deploys this refutation of the Traditionskern to argue that Gothic identity was not restricted to a small core but was widespread among a large body of freement. Surely this does not follow. Surely what his earlier, brilliant, analyses of Jordanes show is that even at the very political core of the Goths, Gothic tradition was malleable, and situationally-constructed Gothic identity 'up for the grabs'. The ineluctable lesson is not that access to 'genuine' Gothic tradition and identity was common but that it did not exist anywhere; Heather is hoist with his own scholarly petard.
 * My guess is Heather 'needs' the Veneti/Venedi and other populations there to secure and explain the Gothic migrations from the Baltic. But the truth is once Getica is no source for anything earlier than 5th century, we're left with less evidence to link the Veneti/Venedi to Sclavenes (Slavs). Daizus (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and what 'para-Balto-Slavic' means? :) Daizus (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I totaly agree with your first paragraph.

I also agree with your second point, for consistency and 'fairness', if we keep Venedi as Slavic, then Carpi be Dacians, given that mainstream scholarship consider them as such, respectively, despite doubts and criticisms.

For the side issue of Hermanduri - I said what you did - there is not any evidence that they actually spoke Germanic, incl Sciri, etc. I totally agree about Celtic and Germanic (and I add Slavic, later) spreading as languages of merceneries, traders, etc along the periphery of the 'civilized' Meditteranean world (in fact I am in the process of writing a peper on the appearance of GErmanic in central Europe). It is, however, interesting that all these spreading, 'warrior' languages (if we also include Scythian/ Sarmatian) were Indo-European ! !

Lastly, I also agree that Heather's position on Veneti/ Slavs (in his latest 2010 book - which he wrote some 50 page chapter on Slavs) obviously has something to do with his position on Goths and their supposed Baltic origins based on Getica.

A para-language is a concept I borrowed from David Anthony (The Horse, the wheel...). A "para"-language is one which is related to another langauge or langauge group, but not quite part of it, nor directly before it (as in a pre-language). Illustrative point: He sees Anatolian as para-Indo-European, not quite Indo-European becuase of some distinctive differences. I used it in regard to Baltic becuase, as you're probably aware, Balticists and linguists in general suppose a large Baltic Urheimat stretching from Berlin to the Volga before the Slavic and Germanic expansions in historic times, based on river names. I think this is a stretch to call it all "Baltic", becasue we have no idea exaclty what those langauges' relation would have been to historically attested Baltic. In any case, Baltic languages are so heterogeneous that East and West Baltic are no closer to each other than to SLavic. This fits with the archaeological picture of these remote 'forest peoples' who had a rather parochial existence, facilitating relatively adnvaced dialectical divergences Hxseek (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hxseek (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not only Indo-Europeans managed to spread their languages in 'warrior' cultures. Starting with the Akkadian empire (if not earlier), Semitic languages spread over the plains of Near and Middle East. The Turkic languages expanded greatly in late ancient and medieval times. Even Anatolia, a land with "Indo-European traditions" (and the cradle of Indo-European languages according to some theories) is today mostly Turkic speaking (with some Armenian, Kurdish, Greek and other minorities). There are also "minor" spreads, like Etruscan or Magyar. Of many pre-IE languages such as Minoan or Hattic we simply don't know enough to realize their true extent.
 * I am not sure about those Scythian languages. Scythian is a meaningless label if we're interested in languages (Goths were Scythians for some ancient authors!), and as far as I know, there is no reliable evidence for what languages were spoken 2-3000 years ago in the vast territories between Black Sea and today Western China. Some maps have a huge Scythian/Iranian label over there, but it's more like filling a gap than reflecting true knowledge.
 * David Anthony's The Horse, The Wheel, and Language is great, and please check figures 1.2 (p. 14) and 3.2 (p. 57). The first figure shows major Indo-European groups. As you can see, except Iranian group (see my note above), all others are confined to smaller territories (and Baltic languages, in particular, are represented north of Slavic languages). Sure, it's an approximation, but it's a far cry from that huge "Berlin to Volga" territory. Then let's move to second figure, where you can see a tree-model following the studies of Don Ringe et al. (here's more about various contact hypotheses between proto-languages, of course under a tree-model assumption) The last three branches, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian and Germanic, are rooted in a sort of "dialect continuum". However I have strong doubts it's fair to say Germanic or Indo-Iranian languages are para-Balto-Slavic, let alone Balto-Slavic. Because for Anthony, this para- seems more like an explanatory addition (some scholars say Anatolian languages are not really IE languages - see the "daughter" or "cousin" question and the Indo-Hittite hypothesis), and not a classification term for "closest language to a certain group", though in informal discourse certainly can be used that way. Daizus (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As for Heather, the question is whether his analysis of literary sources is confirmed by those who study Getica and other such works outside a "great historical narrative". In the view of this discussion, I don't think the Goths must necessarily come from Scandinavia or Baltic shores, just because their legendary (and possibly later invented) accounts say so. Daizus (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry friend, I only have Heather's new book as hard copy (I did not know it was available electronically ? )

I did not mean that germanic and Iranic are para-Balto-Slavic. I used the term to refer to some hypothetical, unattested languages which linguists merely presumed were spoken by communities in north-eastern European forest zone, based on what they deem to be Baltic-sounding river names. And yes, they do think this stretched from berlin to urals ! (Eg see mallory's in search of the IEs).

I meant that all the languages spreads In Europe were IE, this is rather interesting, and clearly has significance - (a) either IE was already widespread in Europe or (b) there is indeed a significant 'genetic' relationship between continental Celtci, early germanic and early Slavic, accounting for there succesion and easy spread through central Europe (to the latter I 'd like to add Dacian :) ]

Ringe's analysis, based on Nichol's, about linguistic diversity and density is great. However, I have a few issues with it. Firstly, he sees the medditerranean basin as dense and diverse, due to prospect for self-sufficiency of its peoples. However, i see the opposite -> a great propensity for amalgamation due to long-lasting and widespread contacts which were mediated by this sea route. It was a communication medium, not a barrier. Secondly, he suggests that northern Europe would have been lignuistically uniform. Sure, this is supported partly by, eg, the presence of Uralic type languaegs throughout the sub-Arctic zone. However, the archaeologcial evidence suggests that communities were very parochial, little evidence of marked regional trade 9but this could simply be becuase they were undeveloped). Any how, modern Baltic and Uralic langauges attest that they are, amongst themselves, quite heterogeneous, suggesting a rather 'deep-seated' differentiation, so much so that some doubt that there was ever anything as proto-Uralic. I do agree with him that the steppe allowed great linguistic expansions due to economy and militarism of nomads, and do agree that mountainous zones, eg Dinaric and caucasus regions, would have been quite diverse. It is worth noting, that Dacia - Pannonia have always been a part of central Europe (take for eg the ample evidence of Celtci finds) on the one hand, as well part of the steppe nomad millieu from the east.

I shall read that second paper of his too

Hxseek (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not all language spreads in Europe were IE, see my list above. The IE spread was only the last major spread (leaving aside the Magyars, the Turkic speakers in Eastern Europe and other recent intrusions)
 * Mallory indeed assigns a wider territory to ancient Balts, from Vistula to Upper Volga, however "south almost as far as Kiev" (thus Dacians and other southern tribes are left out of it). He also points out that the Baltic linguistic area is "immediately north of the Slavs". However the evidence for this is tenuous. These "once included regions" (not attested by historical records) are considered Baltic based on river-names. Mallory claims Volga has a Baltic name, but this is not at all certain (Witold Mańczak: "Par exemple, le nom de la Volga a une étymologie slave et une étymologie finno-ougrienne.") Postulating a huge Baltic territory on such evidence is not really convincing, and Anthony's map is a good illustration for this (so "they do" holds only for some scholars).
 * On the other hand, Mallory is also an advocate of smaller linguistic territories, especially for settled societies:
 * Mobile subsistence economies such as hunter-gatherers, or more certainly pastoral nomads, frequently retain linguistic uniformity over a wider area than is typically found among agriculturalists among whom long-term village settlement will probably promote regional developments.
 * Our picture of a linguistically fragmented Eurasia 4500-2500 BC is also a natural consquence of accepting an average linguistic area of about 250,000-1,000,000 square kilometers. [...] Applying our estimate of the average size of linguistic territory, there should have been something like of the order of twenty to forty different languages occupying Europe at the same time as Proto-Indo-European. Now, it might strike one as improbable that so many languages or language families have disappeared without trace, but our earlier review of the historically attested disappearance of Hattic, Hurrian, Sumerian and Elamite in the Near East should have prepared us for just this sort of conclusion. Indeed, Iberian, Tartessian, Basque and Etruscan, remnant languages on the southwest periphery of Europe, suggest something of the magnitude of linguistic diversity that probably once prevailed over the rest of Europe.
 * I think such conclusions can be pushed a bit further, outside the Graeco-Roman world. For the relatively settled tribes in the Barbaricum (the "forest zone"), there's no evidence the IE languages displaced the pre-IE ones as early as 2500 BC. We don't have that kind of evidence for Roman times. Considering other pre-IE Mediterranean languages were still spoken in 1st millenium BC (and Basque still is today), there's quite a possibility pre-IE languages were still spoken in north-Eastern Europe, too, especially in those regions where geography can protect small-scale societies (mountains, dense forests)
 * Ringe's view of ancient Mediterranean diversity is substantiated by solid evidence: he lists 8 possible ancient language families + Proto-Basque (not attested but assumed) with dozens of individual languages. And ancient northern Europe is not presented as "linguistically uniform", but having "fairly little diversity", i.e. at least two different language families.
 * For Celtic spreads in Central and Eastern Europe read this paper by Daniel Dzino. Daizus (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

All great points ! Ok accept that we do indeed have solid evidence of Mediterranean linguistic diversity.

Not to labour the point, but I don;t include the Semitic spread in the NEar East, or Nth Africa, anything to do with EUrope. ANd the Turkic spread was limited to the steppe only -replacing Iranic. Even the Ottoman incursions left only left linguistic pockets. It is interesting that Magyar did not spread, in contrast to Slavic - linked to Avar Khanate and Gothic -linked to Huns (by way of lingua franca). ALl these peoples were based centre on Pannonian basin, a 'hub' for east-west contacts. The Magyars came too late - by 900, 'kingdoms' with 'codified' linguistic identities already existed, in contrast to 400 or 600 AD.

I totally agree with you re: northern Europe. Germanicists, Slavicists and Balticists often argue that the resepctive languages were spoken in the respective postulated 'homelands' as early as the Brnze Age - despite the fact that there is not a shred of evidence. THeir reasoning (as I;m sure you're aware) is that there is general archaeological continuity from Roman Period to Bronze AGe, or even beyond. This, i think, is an unsatisfactory conclusion, and does not allow that for the consideration that, even if there was no wholescale language replacement, that the languages might have significantly developed. eveolved to something rather quite new.

In fact, I think many linguistic conclusions push the date of languages too far. EG Anthony, who's book is otherwise excellent. He argues that given that GReek and IRanic are attested by ~ 1500 BC, and they are considerably differentiated, then pre-Greek and pre-Iranic must have existed since at least 2000 BC (roughly). Thus IE must have broken up by 3000 BC (again rough figures, i donlt have his bok in front of me). He also adds the often cited date that SLavic and Baltic diverged c. 2500 - not showing how he came to this conclusion (becuase there is no evidence for it. THe only data is Novotna & Blazek's date of 1500 BC based on glottochronology - a disputed methodology).

Both him and Ringe emphasise the role of language division - like bacterial mitosis, an situation which is unrealistic for human languages, given that there is no neat cleavage and cessation of contact. Rather, people do remain in contact, although the intesity and directionality of contact varies. THis is why I accept Dixon's puncutated equilibrium theory

There is no denying that the IE have a 'genetic relationship'. Their similarity in syntax, morphology, lexicology, etc is obviously supportive for this. However, after millenia of langauge contact, convergence, etc, would this be so surprising ?

back to Mycaenian Greek and Iranic - there underlying similarity in 1500 BC might reflect another climax in circum-pontic contacts. THis is exactly what Chernyk found archaeologically, describing a circum-Pontic cultural koine which began in the Copper Age, associated with the rise of the cultural hegemony of the steppe nomadic tradition of the fore-Caucas/ Black -Caspian Sea region, evident by the occurrence of adoption of many of the symbolic traits of societal organization characteristic of this region by others, esp in east Balkans and the Tizsa plain, as well as western Anatolia (Gimbutas' "Kurgan invasion). THis cyclye repeated itself later, eg with the so-caled THraco-Cimmerian finds of ~ 1000 BC. So there is no reason to exclude the Greek -Iranic similarities evident in 1500 BC reflect a stage of re-convergence of related dialects already spoken in southern GReece and the Ponto-Danubian region.

Of course, such a scenario is tenuous, I accept. For convergence to produce "genetic relatedness", the languages must already be related, otherwise we get a sprachbund. That the dialects spoken by nomads in the Black Sea region and the shepherd - farmers of central -southern GReece is a stretch, given the historical evidence you described above.

Thanks for referring Dzino's paper. I've read it, n fact I know him personally. IF you want, I can copy and mail chapters of interest in Heather's book

Hxseek (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can send some excerpts from that book (especially those sections where Heather engages Curta's thesis), it would be great! Thank you!


 * My feeling is that most Indo-Europeanists refrain from making strong statements on chronology, location and uniformity.
 * Andrew Garrett suggested an alternative to the Stammbaum model. His hypothesis is that in initial spreads (he identifies several major phenomena - steppe spreads, the collapse of Neolithic systems, the collapse of 2nd millenium BC Aegean systems) the languages were continua of dialects, and only after convergence in situ these dialects became the distinct languages we know. Thus in Europe most language groups (Greek, Italic, Celtic, and so on) were formed in 2nd millenium BC and possibly later. Ringe suggested a similar scenario: "it seems possible that Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, and Germanic were parts of a dialect chain at a very early date" (in From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic, Oxford, 2006). To address the initial point in our discussion, the Dacian-Baltic link, if valid, adds Dacian to an early continuum.
 * Obviously Anthony is correct when saying Greek and Iranic language groups were distinct by 1500 BC. That could also be true for 2000 BC or 2500 BC. However by 2000 BC, the IE cognates are very similar in Proto-Greek, Proto-Indo-Iranian, Proto-Italic and probably in other reconstructions (see table in Garrett's paper). Most scholars date the PIE in 4000-3500 BC. If Baltic and Slavic languages were part of the same initial group of dialects (the so-called Proto-Balto-Slavic), their split must be more recent. And because glottochronology has a tendency to over-estimate time-depths, I think it's reasonable to suggest the Balto-Slavic split should be dated after 1500 BC.


 * As for spreads, I didn't mean the Near East, but rather the domination of Turkic languages in north-Pontic Steppes (Eastern Europe). I would say Magyar is also a minor spread, after all they came as warriors, and unlike Avars or Bulgars, somehow they managed to persuade the indigenous populations: hey, Magyar is cool, why don't you all learn it? :P  Daizus (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Heather, The Creation of Slavic Europe.

RE: Slavic 'homeland' in Pripet marshes and Veneti connection.

" This once standard vision of early Slavic history has recently challenged, however, by FLorin Curta, who argues that, on the contrary, historical SLavs emerged precisely where they are first mentioned: the southeastern fringes of the Carpathian system. His reasoning is based on a mixture of hsitory and archaeology. TO start with, he denies the veracity of Jordanes report that the SLabs derived from the Venedi. Jordanes' history can be shown to depent at certain points upon Tacitus' Germania, and Curta argues that te Venedi-Slav linkage was Jordanes' own invention on the basis of what Tacitus has to say - a further example of a documented tendency for ROman writers to claim that there were no 'new barbarians', merely old ones by new names. On the archaeologcial front, Curta also attacks RUsanova;s clonclusions, arguing that Korchak materials of the sub-Carpathian (p395)|

region are older thatn their equivalents in Polesie...... Many of Curta's points are well taken. His demolition of RUsanova's chronology is entirely convincing. The Polesia Korchak materials certainly post-date their equivalents south of the Carpathians.It is also very likely that somewhere in the Carpathian sustem is the correct zone in which to place the origins of at least those LSavs who ended up in east Roman orbit in the 6th century. Curta himself argues for their origin in its southeastern approaches. {ie Wallachia} Another recent view, proposed by VOlodymyr Baran.. suggests that we should perhaps be looking more to the northeast. Here, in modenr Podolia, large wuantities of early0vintage Korchak materials (much earlier thatn those of Polesie, still further to NE) have been unearthed. The fundamental Korchak dating problem remains (ie lack of assoc. datable metalworks or coins, etc}, but there do seem to be more, slightly earlier , datable imports in Podolia thant in Curta's favoured spot in the SE. Curta's sub-Carp Korchak settlements also came into being after a century of sparse settlement in that region. For these reasons, it seems that the first SLavs explicitly ro appear in the historical record had their immediate origins ina population group from the NE of the Carpathians. IF so, they spread quickly. The Podolian Korchak materials can predated the Wallachian and MOldavian by at most an archaeological genereation (~ 25 yrs) or two. {he footnotes this to Godlowski, Prcewski and Kazanski's works).

I am not conviced, either, that Curta is right to be so dismissive of Jordanes. By definition, since we dont have Jordanes own account of his working methods or any real means of cross-checking, the idea that he invented the link to the Venedi on the basis of Tacitus can only be a hypothesis. It is not demonstrable fact, and there area some teling points against it. Jordanes started life as the military secretary of an east ROamn commancder stationed n the Danube frontier at the very sane time that the SLavic attacks were intesifying. he also provides- again, presumably, drawing from his own knowledge - very precise (p 396) |

information on ther resettlement south of the Loer Danube frontier line of various population fragments from the wreck of Attila's empire. This uderlines his knowledge of the region, and makes it far from implausible that he had authentic information on what the SLavs if this region themselves knew of their origins. ..ALl this is certainly enough to make Curta's dismissal of JOrdanes at best inconclusive, and to my mind it is likely that, for once, the historian actually knew what he was talking about. (p 397) " 

It is certainly interesting, then , that a considerable body of scholars place early SLavic origins in NE Carpathian region, where Carpia have been tentatively placed.

BTW: Garrett's paper is sensational !

Hxseek (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this excerpt!
 * As Halsall pointed out, I think Heather's position is not very solid: on one hand Heather rightfully dismissed many episodes from Getica (the Scandza origin, and obviously all the fabulous encounters with Egyptian pharaohs, Amazons, Persians, and so on), but on the other hand he insisted those episodes supporting his theory (a large Gothic migration from Baltic to Black Sea, and some encounteres in their way) are reflections of authentic oral traditions.
 * There are several problems with this approach. Some historians (for example Walter Goffart in The Barbarian Tides) argued there were no large migrations from Scandinavia or Baltic shores to the Roman frontiers. Some linguists also argued for a Gothic language originating in Central Europe, and not on the Baltic shores.
 * As for Curta, his reading of Jordanes is shared by many scholars. Few example, Andrew H. Merills in History and Geography in Late Antiquity, p. 155: "The description of Scythia forms the final part of Jordanes’ geographical introduction and occupies an anomalous position within it. In contrast to the earlier sections of the introduction, the writer does not specifically tailor his account of Scythia in order to emphasize the veracity of the central Berig migration. The passage stands, instead, as a background to the secondary and tertiary settlement patterns of the Goths once established on the continent. [...] [T]here can be little doubt that the passage was heavily shaped by written authority". Curta's own case on Jordanes and the Slavs is presented in more detail in "Hiding Behind a Piece of Tapestry: Jordanes and the Slavic Venethi".
 * Much of the review is unfair (if complete). Curta discussed Baran's location in Podolia (The Making of the Slavs, p. 235-6),  apparently Heather missed that part. Which are "Curta's sub-Carp Korchak settlements" ? To be sure Curta dismissed "Prague-Korchak-Zhitomir" pottery type as a myth (p. 287-90), thus any rebuttal defining a "Slavic" culture using pottery must first engage with the arguments presented. No discussion about the distribution of bow fibulae and other categories of artefacts Curta focused on, no discussion about the lack of any evidence for a massive migration - neither in literary accounts, nor in the material culture. Check also these two replies from Curta to his critics: The Early Slavs in Bohemia and Moravia and "The Making of the Slavs Between Ethnogenesis, Invention, and Migration" Daizus (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yesp. Heather's a general historian and not an archaeolgist. It is somehat not suprising that he does not grasp the totality of the archaeological issues, although others that aren;t have been able to.

I do disagree with Curta on one aspect though. From my chats with him, he argues that language played no role in creation. maintenence of Slavic ethnos; contra to most others, incl Nichols, Dzino, even the mention in Garrets' paper. I accept this, possibly, as so fat as the 6th century Sklavenes are concerned, as I;m sure you;re familiar with hist arguments about Chilbudius episode, and that it is only assumed that Antes and Sklavenes spoke SLavic. Fair enough.

However, he maitains this to the 9th century ! He argues that the Franks did not use language to define western Slavs (in contrast to Saxons, or Bavarians; who otherwise would must have looked and lived similarly). His arguement was something along the lines that thosw who were enemies of the Franks were SLavs. Yet this does not follow: Saxons, alhtough at times merceneries, had to be militarily subdued. THe ABodtries - Slavs, were Frankish confederates. I would think that by now, Franks and Italians would have had enough contact with SLavs to recognize them as such by the language they spoke. Hxseek (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Languages may or may not be used in creating and maintaining ethnic groups and identities. Here's the summary of a classic study by Michael Moerman:
 * In a study of ethnic relations in Thailand, Michael Moerman (1965) asks himself: "Who are the Lue?" The Lue were the ethnic group his research focused on, but when he tried to describe who they were - in which ways they were distinctive from other ethnic groups - he quickly ran into trouble. His problem, a very common one in contemporary social anthropology, concerned the boundaries of the group. After listing a number of criteria commonly used by anthropologists to demarcate cultural groups, such as language, political organisation and territorial contiguity, he states: "Since language, culture, political organization, etc., do not correlate completely, the units delimited by one criterion do not coincide with the units delimited by another" (Moerman, 1965: 1215). When he asked individual Lue what were their typical characteristics, they would mention cultural traits which they in fact shared with other, neighbouring groups. They lived in close interaction with other groups in the area; they had no exclusive livelihood, no exclusive language, no exclusive customs, no exclusive religion. Why was it appropriate to describe them as an ethnic group? After posing these problems, Moerman was forced to conclude that "[s]omeone is Lue by virtue of believing and calling himself Lue and of acting in ways that validate his Lueness" (Moerman, 1965: 1219). Being unable to argue that this "Lueness" can be defined with reference to objective cultural features or clear-cut boundaries, Moerman defines it as an emic category of ascription.
 * And if we read on, we find a "Barthian" approach on ethnic groups and identities:
 * Does this imply that ethnic groups do not necessarily have a distinctive culture? Can two groups be culturally identical and yet constitute two different ethnic groups? This is a complicated question which will be dealt with at length in later chapters. At this point, we should note that contrary to a widespread commonsense view, cultural difference between two groups is not the decisive feature of ethnicity. Two distinctive, endogamous groups, say, somewhere in New Guinea, may well have widely different languages, religious beliefs and even technologies, but that does not entail that there is an ethnic relationship between them. For ethnicity to come about, the groups must have a minimum of contact between them, and they must entertain ideas of each other as being culturally different from themselves. If these conditions are not fulfilled, there is no ethnicity, for ethnicity is essentially an aspect of a relationship, not a property of a group. Conversely, some groups may seem culturally similar, yet there can be a socially highly relevant (and even volatile) inter-ethnic relationship between them. This would be the case of the relationship between Serbs and Croats following the break-up of Yugoslavia, or of the tension between coastal Sami and Norwegians. There may also be considerable cultural variation within a group without ethnicity (Blom, 1969). Only in so far as cultural differences are perceived as being important, and are made socially relevant, do social relationships have an ethnic element.
 * Curta focused on those cultural differences which are displayed, which are "perceived as being important, and are made socially relevant". For early Slavs language doesn't seem to be one of them. The early Slavs wouldn't be the only barbarians not "defined" by a single language: Huns, Goths and many other similar groups are also known as speakers of several distinct languages. From 9th century onwards (or maybe even later) a Slavic language started to gain weight in defining Slavness. I'm not sure if the written culture has anything to do with this. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. More probably it can be correlated with the rise and development of medieval states (Bulgaria, Rus, and all the others). Perhaps not all Bulgars in early 9th century were Slavic speakers. But after a while they became Bulgarians speaking a distinct Slavic dialect/language.
 * In the eyes of the Franks not all the enemies were Slavs, the Slavs were one enemy, a "gens in a political sense" with "a place among other gentes". Fredegar gave them a name ("Wends") and a origo gentis. The Lombards had a different perspective indeed. For Paul the Deacon there are no Slavic kings of polities, but he mentions a language of their own: Raduald, the duke of Benevento could speak in the language of these Slavs, and in that language Carnuntum is corruptly called Carantanum. But using this account we can't infer the spread or the importance of this language among the Slavs, we only know such a language was spoken in Western Balkans in mid 7th century (or maybe 8th, in case Paul is giving here the ethnography of the Slavs from of his own days)
 * For Dzino the Celtic groups in Eastern Europe were not defined (or defined themselves) using language. "Language does not reflect ethnicity, as the assumption that those who spoke, what linguists call Celtic language(s), must identify themselves as ‘Celts’, or be a compact group that shares the same identity makes no sense, as a linguistic group cannot be equated with ethnic group by default. In addition to this, there are only a few place-names in southeastern Europe that could be safely identified linguistically as Celtic, and it seems that these toponyms and names were concentrated in isolated enclaves. This might correspond with the above-mentioned views of sporadic population movement, and the concept of ‘cumulative Celticity’. The names of the ‘Celtic’ Scordisci are mainly non-Celtic with only occasional names that might be interpreted as ‘Celtic’." For Dzino "[t]he ‘Celts’ in southeastern Europe were not necessarily an entirely different and foreign ‘ethnic element’ or ‘stratum’, but the same people with a different way of expressing identity."
 * On Slavs, read also Dzino's "'Becoming Slav’, ‘Becoming Croat’: New approaches in research of identities in post-Roman Illyricum". Dzino seemingly agrees with most of Curta's thesis (and he has a good understanding of it - see also Curta's reply in Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana). Dzino links the Slavic language to the 'Slavic' culture ("'Common Slavic' would represent a part of the cultural habitus of the trans-Danubian population") but eventually the name 'Slav' is an umbrella-term: "the process of acculturation, 'becoming Slavs', which resulted with the transformation of cultural habitus that was perceived by outside observers as 'Slav', but it was in fact hiding a heterogenous population." He also maintains that "the population of post-Roman Dalmatia had no reason to construct and define their identities before the ninth century." Daizus (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

All great articles and points. Dzino, however, does think that language played a role in the Slavs being categorized as such. Like I said, I do agree that language did perhaps not play a role in this process in the 6th century, but certainly did from 8th or 9th. I agree, this probably had something to do with the foramtion of Slavic statelets - and the literacy, ideology, etc associated with it. This, i think, is crucial. THis is why earlier language spreads in barbarian Europe did not creat ethnic commonality, eg the La Tene peoples, where Celtic was widely spoken, or early Germani. These people did speak similar, even mutually intell. languages, however, they did not create lasting states, and thus language as a way of recognizing 'us' from 'them' did not have a chance to play out its role in such pre-literate societites, despite all the sophistication of Celtic art and weaponry.

There is no article for this, but I ocasionally have email chats with Curta. He argues that even into the 9th century, SLavic language played no role for Slavic self-definition. He argues, validly, that Bulgarains did not see the Rus as brothers, despite the fact that they were (mostly) Slavic speaking. Moreover, he argues that the use of the term "Slav" by Croat or Bulgar rulers served primarily an etic purpose, not emic. In fact, he maintains that we still have no proof Slavs spoke 'common Slavic". I agree it might not have been some dialectless uniform entity, but I must maintatain that they did speak a series of interrelated dialects, at least by 8th & 9th centuries

When I aksed him the question of western SLavs, after Fredegar and Paul's time, ie with regard to Saxo, Einhard, etc who chronicle the 9th century westernmost Slavs. What was their criteria for defining Slavs ? Eg how did they differentiated an Elban Slav, from a Saxon, or a Norseman? I argued that language must be the factor. For a Wilz, an Abodrite, or Sorb would surely look like, and otherwise have a similar habitus to a Saxon - who themselves were organized into heterogeneous tribes, leading a pagan existence, in primarily self-sufficient agricultural communities. Surely, the Norsemen might be more definable on the basis of their sea piracy. I did not buy Curta's responce with certainty. He argues that, eg Einhard, calls those who opposed Frankish authority "Slavs"; ie the Wilzi. So "Slavs" was flexible political/ military criaterion. He argues, that is why he dos not refer to the Saxons and Abodrites as Slavs (although historians generally take the latter as "Slavs"), becuase they were Frakish auxilliaries. However, these same Frankish sources did not call the Saxons "Slavs" during their earlier rebellions and wars.

Hxseek (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see your point, yet I don't see where and how Dzino would say the Slavic language was an ethnic badge before the 9th century. He concluded the name of the 'Slavs' was hiding heterogenous populations, and also that, at least in Dalmatia, there was no need for a Slavic identity before the 9th century. According to Dzino, the triggers were the building of the Carolingian Empire and the creation of the thema of Dalmatia. However I don't know if language was part of this identity. But the existence of a Bulgar or Rus state was not followed by a sudden shift to a Slavic dialect. For example in early 9th century Bulgaria Turkic and Greek were still around, as languages in administration at least. The survival of Romance speakers in Balkans also indicate that at least until the 11th century they were seen as part of the Slavs or of the Romans (Byzantines). Albanians were also considered Slavs, when not Romans. Now why would the situation be different for the Western Slavs?


 * The ancient and medieval minds were classifying populations in broad categories: Germans, Celts, Ethiopians, Scythians, Huns, Slavs, Saracens, Norsemen, Tatars. Most of the times language was not even an issue. Procopius wrote about the common language of Sclavenes and Antes, "an utterly barbarous tongue". In other words, Procopius did not have any information about the language(s) spoken by those barbarians, so we can't possibly expect Procopius or his sources to identify the Slavs based on the language(s) they spoke.


 * If indeed for Franks the 'Slavs' were those fighting Frankish authority on the eastern borders, then once a community became loyal to Franks and known by a different name, I assume the 'Slav' label wouldn't apply anymore, even in case of rebellion. Daizus (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Your very wize. (BTW, please dont delete this page, so i can come back and note down all the references) Hxseek (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I give up.
The 125 AD map by Andrei Nacu is in hundreds of articles I'd like to see you tag the caption of the map in every single article where the map appears. No? Well, OK I guess, because I give up.--Agamemnus (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW
I,ve opened up a can of worms in AM. I'd welcome ur comments Hxseek (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Relaţii interetnice în spaţiul românesc - Populaţii şi grupuri etnice (sec II î. Hr. - V d. Hr.)
I stumbled over this work and I thought it might be useful, including for Carpi and Costoboci articles. Cheers! --Codrin.B (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Invite to commetn
Would u mind commenting on my "disruptive editing", here please

thanks Hxseek (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * thanks for u'r comments, and references. I'm aware of most of those refs. Basically, the 2 broad spectra of theories are (I) Macedonian is Greek with significant non-Greek influences, (ii) it is a non-Greek language which became Hellenized. Interesting in itself, but of secondary relevance as to their identity,as u well know, as does j hall. The fact is, the Greeks did not, in general, see the Macedonians as Greeks until much later, they only accepted the royal family as greek, and even then, not everyone (c/f Demosthenes). The article has conveniently left out a whole body of contemporary authors who clearly state that the Macedonians area barbaroi. At least, there is dialogue now.

I hope to soon return to Dacian language soon. Btw, did u know that the very suffix donia has been proposed to be Thracian, a/p Mygdonia, Krestonia, Edonia, Macedonia, although the prefixes are themselves Greek, eg Maced omens tall, or highlander, and Grist- means ? Valley or something like that. THus a name like Macedonians mappears to be a kind og etic, generic classification ? Hxseek (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No I am not implying that Macedonian is a Thracian (or some other non-Greek Language) - Greek pidgin, or creole. Such languages are simplistic languages, occurring between langauge of entirely different nature and technical development, eg English cntact with natives from the Pacific Islands, New Guinea, etc. Macedonian is certainyl not a creole, it is a complicated language, like other IE languages. I dont really think we can think of the Macedonian language as a mix, because it implies that languages existed as distinct groups in the first place. Rather, a linguistic continuum functioned across the northern Greek - central Balkan region, there was probably no clear transition from Illyrian to Greek speaking villages.

A language can borrow substantial amounts of lexis. Although it does seem that so much of attested Macedonian names, inscriptions and glosses are essentially Greek. what other dielcets were spoken and how they related to that attested is an uncertaunty. It would be useful to analyze where the attested insriptions were found. One has to keep in mind that attested inscriptions were in Greek in Thrace and other non-GReek areas. It does not mean that all, or any, spoke it as their major anguage Hxseek (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ill check those references shortly. I did not mean that Thracians spoke GReek, by the dialect continuum, but rather, the 'middle ground' would have been Macedonia. As that article on Edonian inscriptions suggesed, Macedonia might have been a phrygian- Greek-Thracian 'conglomerate'.


 * if you think about scio-linguistics, and the early Iron Age period, then the dominant language must have been Phrygian or a form of Illyrian. Archaeologically, there is hardly anything which is "Greek" even in Macedonia. If Vergina was the economic hub of the region, as is proposed, and its contacts were mostly with the north, then this might lend us an opinion as to how that speech communitiy was alligned. I suspect Greek influence, linguistically, came late, but overhwelmingly, paralleling the archaelogical picture. Greece 1000-800 BC was in Dark Ages, the ore-mining 'princes' from Glasinac (east Bosnia, SW Serbia, Nth Montenegro) had political and cultural dominance at this time.


 * what is more, linguists do not think that NW GReek is really a distinct sub-group of Greek dialects. Ie c/f Ionian, Attic, etc, because it lacks any innovations which are not already possessed by the others. It is as if NW GReek is an imperfectly learned Greek by originally non-GReek speakers. The evidence is supportive: if we have evidence of (Mycaenean) Greek from central and soethern Greece from as early as 1200 BC (!), then its failure to appear in Epirus and Macedonia (literally just up the road) until 400 BC is surely significant. What is clear is that the Arhcaic dialects formed after the Mycaenean collpase. This core region was in central and south-eastern Greece. The NW / Doric dialects are peripheral to this. The key is to understand how and when NW dialects spread. My guess would be that it all began ~ 800 BC. For Macedonia, one can look at contacts with Thessaly, the colonies in Thermaic gulf and contacts from Ionian coast via Epirus. Hxseek (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW: can you please mail me the chapter of A.M. and Doric from the history of GReek language book you recommended. Hxseek (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A sprachbund, now that's a possibility - where different language families come into contact and converge in some of their structural features (but not koinize, as would already related dialects, eg the Greek dialects).

If using Greek inscriptions doesn't translate the Thracian inscriptions from Ezero or Plovdiv, then it is fair enough to presume that the dialect of THracian spoken there was sufficiently different from Greek. (BTW, have you read this joker )

However, there was no standard dialect of Thracian. How do we know that the "Thracian" or Phrygian (whatever the case might have been) which was spoken in the Thermaic gulf hunterland, or originally in Pierian coast, wasn't closer to Greek. This is what I mean by linguistic continuum. Ie villages in a middle region, could have spoken dialetcs which show both features. There is no real reason to think that Greek and Thracian existed as mutually exclusive, well delineated entities, despite the fact that eg the Ezero inscription (which is from further north), is entirely different from Greek. It's location is a too big a 'jump'. And, the continuum would have existed before 500 BC, then was broken due to extension of Attic

What I understood from that article on Edonian coin inscriptions is that there was a variety of dialetcs employed from them, primarily Ionian. This in itself suggests lack of standardized beaurocrati practices and a wide variety of influences. Errors in writing suggest some imperfect learning, whilst some structural features suggest that Thracian had some structural similarity to local GReek dialects.

As for Macedonian specifically - there is no reason, again, to assume that there was such thing as "standard" Macedonian. What we do know is that some local vernacular, eg Arethousa and Pella, was Greek - NW Greek according to Masson, but Hatzopoulos suggests that Aeolic (Thessalian) influences are present also which Dubois originally excluded. In addition, the well-discussed issue about plain voiced vs unvoiced aspirates suggests some kind of substratum or adstratum effect (? Brygian)- which is not universal, but seen mostly in onosmatics, place names, months, religions terms - suggesting a particularly ancient, conservative feature. All this would, then, appear to suggest that Macedonian dialects were formed by some kind of fusion. However, what about upper Macedonia? We have little evidence from here apart from a few onosmatics, few of which are entirely non-Greek. AS J Hall stated, we cannot generalize the situation based on one curse tablet. So there was perhaps no single "Macedonian" language, just like there was no Macedonian tribe before ~ 600 BC. Rather different people from differen communities merged at an opportune time to creat a new ethnos, and already used Attic as early as 5th century to facilitate inter-tribal communication as well as with outsiders, others in the Aegean region.

I would further argue and state that the people at Vergina were originally non-GReek speakers. They continued to live there, there was no "Argead invasion"- evident by settlement and burial continuity. These people simply shifted their language, ie adopted a GReek one, from c. 800 onwards. When people adopt new languages, the lexical change is huge (ie virtually all Macedonian wrods have GReek correspondences), however, where the substratum effect is most felt is in phonology, syntax, etc (the 'structural' component), as we have already seen. Language change can be rapid, almost comlete within 2 generations ! I thik the population at Vergina changed their language due to the rise and pervasiveness of Greek trade from the Early Iron Age - from the Ionian coast overland via Epirus, and obviously from the Thermaic gulf. Methone was right next to vergina - the two must have engaged in intensive contact early. This represented the first ("base") phase of Hellenization. Stories of the Iliad circulated, religious influences (a/p Dodona), etc. Then later came political & infrastructural Hellenization c/w Atticization (from 5th century).

Hxseek (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

For language contact.

. ~ p 35,. Especially

Cheers Hxseek (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Did u get a chance to see that article by Seragimov? I don't know what his credentials are ? Hxseek (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

--> I think I got it: there must have been a Phrygo-Macedono-Greek dialectical continuum. Thracian, and perhaps Dacian, probably did not partake, because they likely underwent Satemization, forming a circum-Pontic sprachbund with Iranic and pre-Balto-Slavic, thus were essentially "newer" forms. In turn, P-M-G were newer c/f Anatolian, which might have been a " pre-Greek" substratum in the Aegean. Illyrian would be hard to place, but many have been inclined to place it within a central European millieu, ie remotely related to italic, Celtic. Obviously, illyr, thr, gr & mac were ' in contact' in Macedonia. However, they must have formed a sprachbund rather than a dialectical-continuum. Hxseek (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Origin Romanians
I'm not particularly up to date with the Origin of Romanians, if indeed there are any recent English works langauge at all. However, we have to realize couple of things. There are seperate, yet inter-dependent, components to this question. There is the issue of demographic continuity - did people still live in Dacia ? Few would doubt that some kind of population continued to lived their from pre-Roman to post-Roman times. Does this imply linguistic continuity ? The answwer could be yes or no, however, there is not any evidence. Is there ethnic continuity ? This would probably be a no. For the Dacians, properly speaking, were Decebalius, his men and their immediate succesors, for the "ethnic" names referred to in sources actually referred to such politically and militarily active groups. When defeated by the Romans, the Dacians ended; no matter how modern historians try to reconstruct continuity.

The Vlachs appear at the turn of the second millenium AD as pastoral merceneries entangled in affairs with Serbs, Bulgarians, Byzantines, Hungarians and steppe nomads. They themselves were probably diverse, and did not 'come from' any one place, nor did they necessarily speak one language, although they must have at least spoken Vulgar Latin dialects. This could place them anywhere in the Balkans north of central Greece. Obviously some could also speak various SLavic and GReek dialects. Some were able to create their own polities, the voivodes in Wallachia and Romania, under fielty yet also opposition to Hungary, Bulgaria or the Rus. Perhaps actively choosing to speak a Romance language helped them distinguish themselves from 'the others' Hxseek (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reversions
Go ahead. It's incredible that you accuse me of disruptive editing, in view of your disgraceful guerilla tactics and arrogant conduct. I have no doubt that you will join CodrinB. in the editing doghouse. PS. see also Talk page of Costoboci. EraNavigator (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Limigantes (Iazyges serfs)


--Codrin.B (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Helmet of Iron Gates
Hey Daizus! How are you? I tried to get WP:DYK for Helmet of Cotofenesti and Ziridava but they were considered too late... I would still love to get the to WP:GOOD. If you are interested, let's try to get to DYK with the Helmet of Iron Gates, but working on this draft instead and then pasting the 5x work. I just got some new high res pictures from the museum in Detroit. Regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! Anything helps! I will try to find the material I listed in further readings. Let me know if you need it. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great content! Keep it coming! I'll work on the translation although some of the terms are a pain in the ... Could you please add detailed references to the other 2 books you mentioned, not just the one by Sârbu? I am planning to have articles for each Daco-Getian helmet (5 of them) and I am planning to use the location of where they were found it. It is customary for all found archeological objects, even though, some might be referred more or less by other names. Tomorrow it could be moved to another museum and then you would need to rename it. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

John Hunyadi
Hello.

I'd like to invite you to participate at the discussion about the origins of John Hunyadi. I think it is given undue weight to his possible Cuman or Slavic origin.

I notice that Romanian history is one of your favourite topics, so I think you may be interested in this subject. (Iaaasi (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

From Iaaasi's talk page
"Indeed it seems a case of undue weight, but I'm not sure how to help. It seems you already found a lot of sources and you discussed some of them on the talk page.

But also please note the difference between Hungarian/Romanian and of Romanian origin. I'm sure most sources agree on him being of Romanian origin, I'm not so sure if they all agree of him being a Romanian."


 * Hi, apologies for seeming to interfere but I feel that a reply is necessary and Iaaasi cannot as he is now blocked.
 * The main sources state that his father was not Român, but probably born in Wallachia, and that his mother was a Român. If this is not quite accurate, it is still true that his mother was of Transylvanian/Wallachian origin. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Torna
That's fine. i just thought it was a valid point from Winniforth. I am not an expert on the matter; although I tend to agree with hi focus on the Via Egnatia as a focus of Latin speakers. Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess we would look to the western end of Via Egnatia, around the (my homeland) of ancient Erigon and Pelagonia. (My uncle (in law) is Vlach, btw). The epigraphic evidence doesn;t disprove much; the Jirecek line is based on where Latin and Greek epigraphies dominate, but this does not necessarily reflect the spoken situation. As a point of comparison: it is rather interesting that Greek inscriptions are first found in Paeonia and SW Thracian communities earlier than in SW Macedonia- the 'heart of Macedon', and the 'storehouse' of proto-Greek speakers.


 * I totally agree with you on Bellwood. Aigest is a migrationist and an Anatolianist (if I may label him as such :) ). As I mentioned to him; I support a later PIE emergence, modified by three clarifiers: (1) there is no single "homeland" (2) there was never a single, homogeneous PIE language, nor people (3) the spectrum of languages called today "PIE" developed through a series of multiple processes of linguistic convergence (in the broadest sense) involving migration, language contact, etc, etc over thousands of years, emanating from multiple loci. In this sense I agree with Renfrew's position that language change is the result of multiple processes, and a homeland is a meaningless postulate but rather there exists a broader "language area". I strongly agree with Gillet's paper Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Btw, have you read a paper by one Leonid Gindin re suffixation -don


 * It analyses the distribution of the morpheme -don in the Balkans, and proposes it represents another layer of Thracian toponymy. He draws comparison between names like Sarpedon (a fort in the Haemus named by Procopius), Siggidon (pre-Roman name for Sigidunum), Mygdon, Makedon, etc - correspond to a broad Thracian linguistic stratum, and agrees with Duridanov who translates -don to mean country, territory or village in Thracian, and certainly uncharacteristic for Greek. (as an aside, Maketa means great/ long/ big not only in Greek, but also Phrygian; and the morpheme -ata, -eta (in Mak-eta) is found also throughout northern Balkans). Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I quite liked that Heggarty article. You're bank of linguistic articles is most welcome Slovenski Volk (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back
I am glad to see you back and keeping up the balance in Carpi and Costoboci. I am sorry for our earlier heated discussion. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try to stay out of Dacia Project articles for a while. That is until I see collaboration and users willing to create a neutral and informative content, instead of promoting own theories and views. Your apologies are accepted, however only a change in attitude will make me spend time and resources in Dacia-related articles. Daizus (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi
How've you been old friend ? What interesting historical topics have you recently been concerned with ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey! I've read several good papers on archaeology and group identities. On Academia.edu there's a growing community of scholars publishing their papers online. Free access! I've read also some papers in linguistics and epigraphy. Perhaps related to your interests in ancient Greek - non-Greek interactions is this study on Thracian graffiti at Zone and Samothrace.
 * The Ancient Macedonians is looking much better, good job! Daizus (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * thanks ! It's been difficult but rewarding . It's hard to introduce changes related to concepts which go beyond traditionalist nationalist-historiography and culture-history, at any rate, let alone in Balkan articles. I'll be sure to check out those articles. Lately I've been doing quite a bit of reading on the northeast 'Thracian' areas, ie Moldavian iron age. Btw, how securely located are the -davae presumed to be in the east Carpathian region mentioned by Ptolemy ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Usually if the toponyms are not confirmed by independent sources, it's a mistake to translate Ptolemy's coordinates directly on a modern map (there are several good studies on systematic differences between Ptolemy's coordinates and real ones in e-Perimetron online journal). In a recent study (unfortunately in Romanian) two scholars identified Ptolemy's Arcobadara with modern Ilişua using a local inscription. Furthermore they noticed a significant longitudinal difference: between Porolissum (49°) and Arcobadara (50°40') there are 1°40' = 123 km (using 1 stadium = 185 m), however the real distance is around 70 km. Thus perhaps all the easternmost Dacian toponyms are actually in Transylvania. Some of them have Latin names (e.g. Angustia), so it's more likely they were in Roman Dacia, not in Barbaricum. Daizus (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * can we accurately place any -davae in Moldavia region ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC) And if you have the time, can you comment here


 * I don't think so. There are hilltop fortified sites such as Bîtca Doamnei, but their identification with a -dava toponym and their "Dacian" character are rather assumed than proved, even though that's the mainstream scholarly position.
 * As for sources, I understand your concern. However you can have 20 "old" scholars making claim A and 10 "new" scholars making claim B (using new discoveries, modern theories), but in another case 20 "old" scholars vs 2 "new" scholars. Should we favor the "new" theory in the second case? As Andrew Lancaster put it, you should think of writing "something which gives the same overall effect that someone would get if they read the literature of the field". Saying in a short summary the Ancient Macedonians were Greek is not that bad, considering their history between Philip II and the Roman conquest. It's true their origins and their identity is more complex than that, but you can discuss it in a relevant section. Daizus (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks.So you'd say the map here isn't verifiable ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is verifiable per WP:V, as various scholars placed those -davae there. Daizus (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dromichaetes
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Intrebare
Buna ziua,

Va scriu in "limba noastra cea frumoasa" deoarece engleza mea e cam primitiva.

Asa cum ati lasat paragraful mi se pare OK.

Daca este clar si pentru mine ca termenul "Vlachs" (aparut in sec. XI in Kedrenos) nu are nimic comun cu termenul "Traco-daco-romani" (creat de Densusianu prin 1900), in schimb tot nu inteleg cum populatiile denumite "Vlachs" ar putea proveni din alti stramosi decat din "Traco-daco-romani" ? Cunoasteti autori care au alte ipoteze ? Si care ? Din Italia, tardiv ? (am auzit ca exista autori rusi cu aceasta ipoteza, dar n-am gasit nimic pe internet). Din Greci latinizati ? (am auzit ca exista aceasta ipoteza in Grecia, si daca o cuplam cu Rössler, atunci suntem toti descendeti ai vechilor elini, dar nici aici nu am gasit nimic). Din vechii Macedonieni sau din populatii indo-europene inrudite cu Latinii dar anterioare lor ? (ipoteze vazute pe internet, dar neacceptate de universitari)...

Spuneti-mi va rog la ce anume va referiti, ca sa ma lamuresc si eu. Multumesc, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Desigur, este evident, suntem în acelaşi caz, dar nu la inevitabilele amestecuri mă refeream, ci la faptul că dacă pornim de la premisa că NU se poate dovedi nici-o legătură între romanizarea daco-tracilor şi vlahi, atunci ORICE năstruşnicie este posibilă, cum sunt cele pe care le-am evocat (direct din "Arieni" sau din vechii Macedoneneni, sau dimpotrivă tardiv din imigranţi italieni veniţi pe corăbiile Genoveze şi amestecaţi cu ţiganii dunăreni, cum spune Vladimir Jirinovski... sau chiar hibernarea timp de un mileniu prin peşterile Carpaţilor şi Balcanilor, variantă evocată râzând de Neagu Djuvara ! ;-) Cu bine, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Moldovan
Hello Daizus,

I saw the discussion between you, Anonimu and AdiJapan on Talk:Moldovan language from several months ago. If you are still interested, I would very much like to help make Moldovan language into an article about a language or language variety rather than just a page about the name itself. AdiJapan stated that the entire contents of the page are a compromise; this isn't entirely accurate. Obviously, within the science of linguistics, the language-dialect distinction is seen as rather arbitrary and often based in politics, that is why most linguists referred to a "Serbo-Croatian language" just a few years ago, but now the majority refer to three separate languages. The linguistic facts on the ground haven't changed much, but the political, social and cultural facts have changed by leaps and bounds, and the decision to call two speech varieties "languages" rather than "dialects" is all about social dynamics, not the actual science of linguistics. I had actually tried to introduce some sources and information in the article in the past about Russian influences in the Eastern Romance speech of R. Moldova, including information on syntactical influences, calquing, loanwords and the like, but unfortunately it didn't last long as it's such a controversial topic.

I think the best strategy is to add the content to the page, or even to initially work out the content in user space and later move it to article space so as to avoid controversy about article naming until after we have some content. Given the fact that the name "Moldovan language" seems to be generally applied to the language of Eastern Romance speakers in R. Moldova, including all registers (from the literary/formal register that's almost identical to Romanian, to the most informal rural register that is heavily influenced by Russian and local forms), and no other English name seems to be commonly used in the literature as far as I can tell, I still believe the article should ultimately be located at Moldovan language, but this is a separate issue that can be dealt with later.

Let me know if you're interested at all. ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
You were mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_would_like_to_report_the_activities_of_some_editors_.E2.80.93_ethnic_abuse_and_edit_warring_from_the_side_of_eastern_european_editors --Samofi (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

this map
Hi Dazius. I used the template originally used in and copied the 'culture' areas from Shchukin's book, as stated in the file. What's the exact issue? Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: Scythian groups; noting the limitations of the concept of an archaeological culture, the influence of Scythian culture varied from place to place. For the Getans, Zosia Archibald argues this was limited to elite culture - a few horse burials and Scythian type weapons; but also contributed to theformation of so-called "Thracian animal art" - previously Thracian metalwork was rather conservative and slow to 'flourish' (as per Hoddinott). Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Buta-ul
I asked you not to edit that article in two hours so that I can finish with my changes. Do I asked too much? PANONIAN 12:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OWN? I only have noted how the article was transformed in a presentation of Tutorov's theory. Daizus (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to prevent possible edit conflicts, but what ever... PANONIAN  19:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A heads up
You have been mentioned in a thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts regarding Butaul. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey Daizus, thanks for contributions to Argidava, Decree of Dionysopolis and such. It's good to have you back. --Codrin.B (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Scythians
I replied here not to clog up the Costoboci page with somewhat unrelated topics. I agree, Scythian archaeology is perplexing, confusingly written and still very culture-historical. Case in point, ludicrous conclusions such as the "Scythians originated in Siberia" based on the apparently old age of the Arzhan burial. There is no need to equate "Scythian" type finds with Scythians any more than linking the early Bronze Age kurgans and shell-tempered pots with non-existant Indo-Europeans. I;m actually tying to write a paper on Iron Age of the forest-steppe +/- NE Carpathian area. Its slow going, but Id like yu to have a look at it when I finish (if ever). Also, see my final reply to this thread Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dromichaetes
Excellent expansion! I am glad you got the DYK too. I did some cosmetic changes and added a few clarification notes for some sources. I am especially interested on who suggested those locations in Romania as Helis, so I can dig deeper. The end goal is to have articles for each significant archaeological site.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I hope I addressed the clarification requests. I also removed the information on Argedava and Burebista as I don't think it's suited in that context (4th-3rd centuries BC). Maybe it's worth a mention in the "Legacy" section, if there are scholars connecting Dromichaetes' residence to Burebista's and implying some sort of continuity. I think the Popeşti dava deserves its own article, or at least a section in some other article (maybe Argedava?). Then we could link every mention of it to this article/section and not to Mihăileşti. Daizus (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the book where I found the other proposals. From pages 95—96:
 * Problema ce se pune este dacă nu cumva această uniune de triburi constituie „ţara lui Dromichaites", iar în legătură cu aceasta, întrebarea privind locul unde se afla cetatea Helis. V. Pârvan înclina să creadă că Helis era la Piscul Crăsani20, sau undeva spre Buzău. C. Daicoviciu l-a situat la Popeşti pe Argeş21. Alte ipoteze ar fi acelea ale stabilirii lui la Zimnicea sau într-una din cetăţile din zona Alexandria-Roşiorii de Vede, zonă în care se află un puternic nucleu tribal cu mai multe cetăţi de pămînt bine întărite22. N-ar fi exclus însă ca el să fi fost situat tot pe Argeş, dar ceva mai la vale, între Hotarele şi Radovanu, pe dealurile ce străjuiesc rîul la apus (Scărişoara, Crivăţ, Radovanu-Jidovescu).
 * 20 V. Pârvan, Getica, 1926, p. 63.
 * 21 C. Daicoviciu, Dacica, Cluj, 1969, p. 97—100.
 * 22 D. Berciu şi Em. Moscalu, în SCIV, 23, 4, 1972, p. 663—640.
 * I could check only Pârvan so I did not add the references for the other proposals. We should also add a short description of each site, like I did for Sboryanovo. There were also some other proposals in southern Moldova. Daizus (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detail and updates to the article. Makes sense. I think User:Saturnian already started a stub for Dacian fortress of Popești (as he did recently for many other since he created the Infobox dava). Or this is another Popești? I fully agree that we need to expand this one, and link to it all possible identifications. I would keep the reference to Burebista and Argedava since I think is relevant. Maybe in "Legacy" but maybe even better, in a section create specially for Popești. Regarding italic for Latin next to Greek, I tried to follow the convention from lang-grc for consistency--Codrin.B (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could be, but looking at the map, it seems it's about a village in the Argeş county, whereas our Popeşti is in the Giurgiu county, near the Argeş river. I agree to have Greek transliterations in Latin alphabet in italic font, I reverted myself on that. Anyway, thank you for your edits in that article. Daizus (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Getae
I organized a bit the 1st section of Getae as I think it was just an amalgam of paragraphs and ideas about the Getae and Dacians. If you can, please take a look. I did not add new information but tried to make it clear for the reader and break things down by different opinions and sources. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"POV-pushing"
Again, "POV-pushing" according to whom? What position do you have with respect to me, to be entitled to state that I am "POV pushing", in other words to label me in a certain way and act according to the rules created and ascribed to that label by you? Are you more gifted from an intellectual point of view? Richer? Have a longer penis? ¬¬¬¬--85.122.25.209 (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not only I am and have all that, but you did push a POV. You removed the content I added even though it was sourced and supported by the source. And you also commented on that talk page: "I would rather trust the Romanian scholars listed above, than the foreign researchers with limited knowledge of Eastern European history and who, in most case, only touch upon the topic cursory and, as I've noticed it is often the case, cite each-other and are given credit solely based on the fact that they are 'western' (albeit quasi-anonymous popularisers)" I guess that rests my case about what you're doing in that article. Daizus (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad
Just took a look at Glad (duke). Seems very loaded with WP:POVs. Would be good if you could check some of those sources. Regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits
The Bulgar edits are under accordance with wiki rules, so how can you say they are unreliable. May I ask what is your problem with the edits? Also, you may consider trying to discuss before you remove edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Nomad (talk • contribs) 14:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Scythians
Hey buddy. Are you aware of any new/ good articles about Scythian identity and archaeology in Pontic area ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Books (limited preview):
 * Askold I. Ivantchik, "The Funeral of Scythian Kings" in Larissa Bonfante (ed.), The Barbarians of Ancient Europe (2011)
 * Renate Rolle, "The Scythians: Between Mobility, Tomb Architecture, and Early Urban Structures" in Larissa Bonfante (ed.), The Barbarians of Ancient Europe (2011)
 * Danish Centre for Black Sea Studies:
 * BSS 6 (2007)
 * BSS 8 (2008)
 * BSS 12 (2010)
 * And other papers:
 * Various other books and studies:
 * Nomads of the Eurasian steppes in the Early Iron Age (1995)
 * Human - Environment Interactions in the Northern Pontic Steppe, Southern Russia (2010)
 * The chronology of the great Ryzhanovka Kurgan (2000)
 * Classical Olbia and the Scythian World, From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD (2007) (this one is nice) Daizus (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Legend ! Some great papers there, some of which I knew, other I didn;t. As part of my paper, I am going to try and argue that the "Scythians" did not arrive from "Central Asia". Rather there was secondary colonization of the steppe from the Moldavian and Ukrainian forest-steppe, Chersonese, and fore-Caucasus; just like in the Eneolithic (late Cuceteni -> Usatavo; as like Curta argued for the 6th century). Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Are you familiar with any papers about archaeological features of Moldavia region during Iron Age ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? Early Iron Age or Late Iron Age? All Moldavia or just some regions/cultures? Daizus (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * pretty much anything in the "East Carpathian" region (as per topographical naming of the mountains) ie Siret-Dniester region, moreseo from the highland and forest-steppe region rather than the Black Sea littoral. Period: from 1000 BC to 0, especially during Scythian period and settlement data. I have come accross few articles mostly concerned with dating of late Bronze Age on the basis of axes, etc. And we have Shchukin's stuff on Poienesti culture, but little else I have encountered. Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, do you have Curta's latest article on 'neither Gothic, nor Slavic" fibulae. I cant even find it on google scholar yet Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Check here. Daizus (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Roman Dacia citation question
Hi Daizus,

How are you? With regards to my use of the term "inevitable" when it came to the dissolution of Burbebista's kingdom, although I do not have a source that says "inevitable", it is my understanding of Schmitz's use of inverted commas when he comments on the Dacian "empire" - that it was no empire in the manner of a state that had longevity or structure, but something that came into existence with Burbeista, and therefore would dissipate with the death of Burbeista. However, if you feel that this is too much of a stretch, I can reword to remove the term "inevitable" (which I have done). Please note what the István Lázár source says - if the empire disintegrated as a result of his death, it implies that the empire was held together by him. One follows from the other and does not constitute original research. Oatley2112 (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Oatley,
 * If one event happened (like the disintegration of an empire or an "empire") it doesn't mean it was inevitable. There was a Roman defeat at Adrianople, it would be a stretch to say it was inevitable. István Lázár doesn't say " the empire disintegrated as a result of his death" but "the rapid disintegration of the Dacian Empire following the murder of its charismatic leader": there are two consecutive events, not one event causing the other. As for what held the Dacian tribes together, we don't really know and sources give various interpretations on Burebista's power: e.g. Oltean, p. 47: "His position was brought about by the more careful control over the territory and its subjects, but especially by religious recognition ensured by association with Dekaineos, the great priest, as the second man in power." Was Burebista the man who kept the tribes together? Dekaineos? Both? Perhaps some other leaders? Daizus (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As for original research, the policy clearly states: " To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." Daizus (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Daizus - thanks for all of your effort in tracking down all of the plagerized material. As you can tell, I have removed the contentious statement from the earlier portion of the article, just to keep things simple. Since I am not familiar with the material presented in the article, I have been limiting myself to rewording the article as it stands, not commenting of the accuracy of the material presented. Given that so much of the article has been sourced from Grumeza, and you seem to be certain that he is an unreliable source, is the exercise of rewording the existing text worth the effort if much of it will have to be removed or rewritten using more reliable sources? What do you think? Oatley2112 (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Grumeza is some sort of fringe and independent scholar, he has a Masters Degree (not sure in what), and from his personal website and the lack of scholarly citations referring to his book (searching on books.google.com with "grumeza" and "dacia" returns two books, both authored by him), he doesn't seem to have any authority or expertise on the history of the Roman Empire. Grumeza wrote that book "as a Romanian whose roots go back to Dacian times", p. VII, and on Amazon he's presented as an author "whose family name is Dacian".
 * As for the material sourced by him, I think it should be either removed or rewritten and resourced (depending on each case; for example various claims on Dacian autonomy and power after 106 AD are dubious and probably should be removed) Daizus (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Then maybe the easiest thing is to quickly reword the article as is and once that's done go through each of the material sourced from Grumeza to confirm or remove / revise. Oatley2112 (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course. That's why I did not remove the possibly unfactual claims, just tagged them for future investigations. Daizus (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

PIE
Hi. Another editor and I are having a discussion on PIE here, if you'd care to comment Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will take a look. Daizus (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, back to my earlier non-specific request, I was wondering if you'd come accross anythign re: the Moldavian "Thracian Halstatt" period which followed the "Noua" culture Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This article (in Romanian but with easily readable maps and tables) describes the main cultural groups from early and middle Hallstatt. In middle Hallstatt southern Moldavian territory is covered by the Basarabi culture (which is often assigned to northern Thracian tribes). In late Hallstatt (after 600 BC) there are also visible Greek and "Scythian" influences but I am not really sure which are the cultural groups but there are many sites such as: Curteni and Corni-Huşi in Vaslui district, Brădiceşti in Iaşi district, Bărboasa and Găiceana in Bacău district. There's also a number of fortified settlements from late Hallstatt/early La Tène: Stânceşti  (Botoşani district), Cotnari and Moşna (Iaşi district), Mereşti (Suceava district), Arsura and Buneşti-Avereşti (Vaslui district), Butuceni (Orhei distrct in Rep. of Moldova). There are also some "Scythian" burials (inhumations, with weapons such as akinakes or three-edged arrowheads): Trestiana (Vaslui district), Cimbala (Bacău district) in 6th century BC, Mileşti-Parincea (Bacău district) probably in 5th century BC. Daizus (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated. Ill get google translate onto job ! Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you read thi ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the whole book. There are some nice studies in that section you linked, as Carola Metzner-Nebelsick's on Early Iron Age Hungary (about a pastoral society, but against the obsolete "Thraco-Cimmerian" theory). Daizus (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * yeah, really nice piece of work that Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Roman Dacia
Hey there! Do you know what is the status with Roman Dacia plagiarism investigation. It is a pity for such an important, featured article to be off for more than a month now. Thanks.--Codrin.B (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyright problems is backlogged. It was overlooked last week when it was due for closure. It should be dealt with on the weekend, but there's no guarantees. It is very likely that the article will be summarily delisted as a GA. MER-C 03:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Codrin, some of its "featured parts" were visibly copied (almost) word by word from various books. It was not about few words, not only about a paragraph or a section, but a procedure widely employed in several articles authored by the same editor. I marked them with the "close paraphrasing" tag but there was no reaction (e.g. this GA article was tagged two weeks before my CCI report). Anyway the infringing content must be removed and rewritten, in my opinion this is a good task for WikiProject Dacia. I also have in plan an expansion on native Dacians in the Roman army, which is one of the many sub-topics of "Roman Dacia". Daizus (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed your plagiarism page. You did an amazing job gathering all that. The strange thing is, this article went through a lot of scrutiny about 1 year ago, when it got the FA status. I know it needs some work now, but I am concern since the entire article has been practically "offline" for a month. Users world wide can't read a sentence from it anymore. And many articles link to it. I would rather remove the offending paragraphs or mark them as problematic, than keep it like this. Feel free to add the task on the WP:DACIA list anytime. But I guess right now is kind of locked? --Codrin.B (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I need you help here since you specifically identified the plagiarism. Please take a look at Talk:Roman Dacia. I think the current measures are very disproportionate with the offense. If we don't move fast we will lose all the work done in this article, which will be a real pity. I need your help to identify those copyvio statements and remove them from the article or rephrase them. I salvaged the article here. Thanks.. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is the right thing to do. There are full sections which are copy-pasted or very closely paraphrased and I haven't verified all the citations in the text. Without a careful verification, I suspect the lead is a fair synthesis of the topic as presented in the article (they usually are and also many editors keep changing them). For the rest of the article who can tell? As I said, it's not like it's one sentence or paragraph, there are dozens only in this article and more than 100 in all the articles authored by this editor. Daizus (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the help. I didn't imagine the extent of this. Very sad. It looked like a great article... Feel free to join the WP:DACIA anytime, if and when you wish. You are doing some of the best work in this space and your name deserves to be in the list...--Codrin.B (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! Thanks again for the work on Roman Dacia draft. Looks like we are getting closer to salvage it, as others are helping too. I spent some good time cleaning all references, adding more detail to each and standardizing on sfn, cite book and so on. Many of the plagiarized phrases don't have references to pages and it would be great if you could help adding the missing info (since you already collected most of the specific page references), using the   format. Thanks and regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Lipița culture images and sources
I found some images on Ukrainian and Russian books, as well as sources. So of them look old so maybe the could be added to Commons, but need to confirm that. I will try to get the help of some Ukrainian or Russian editors. Take a look at Talk:Lipiţa culture for different search options and a few samples. Regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

commons:File:A view on 6th to 8th century ethnic distribution in Romania.png
Any view on this?--Codrin.B (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Etymolgy
Hi. There is a river called Bistritsa in Romania. What does it mean and is it from ? Dacian. Because there is a village called Bistritsa in Macedonia just outside Bitola Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The name is of Slavic origin, cognate with words like быстро (Russian). It means "the fast one/river". -itsa is a very common Slavic toponomastic suffix. Daizus (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, ti si mnogy bister. BTW, what exactly does semibordeie mean ? Is it semi-sunken dwelling ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Some Romanian archaeologists use two different concepts for sunken houses: bordei and semibordei (-e is the plural). Some of them argue that a semibordei is < 0.5m deep, while a bordei is > 0.8m, others use different numbers in their definition, anyway their point is that a semibordei is not fully sunken. Some other scholars argue the distinction is meaningless and they use bordei or locuinţă adâncită (lit. "sunken house") for them all. Daizus (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have read and translated quite a bit of the Romanian article about Halstatt era settlements in Moldavia. It described well about the nature of settlements found there. However, whilst it stipulates that the paper deals with the period `11-7th c BC, I did not get from it how the situation progressed chronologically; eg whether the number of settlements increased over time, stayed statis, moved or declined ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

More on bordei vs semibordei: in that study, authors define three types of dwellings (p. 52): surface = type I, half-sunken = semibordei (0.2-0.3 up to 0.6-0.8 m deep) = type II, and sunken = bordei (more than 0.8-0.9m deep) = type III.

On p. 53 you'll find a table with excavated dwellings with the cultures in chronological order (see p. 51 for geography). The relevant text starts on p. 54. Here's a table I compiled from those pages.

Daizus (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes thanks. It is curious that during this period 12- 7 c BC, there are numerous settlements known in sub-Carpathian Moldavia, a/p this article. Similar situation in Ukraine forest-steppe ("Chernolesskaya culture"). Yet, concurrently the open steppe was virtually entirely uninhabited, neither settlements nor burials were found.


 * I found another very good article about "Cimmerian" culture
 * Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Daizus. Further regardiung Kasuba's article; it appears to me that he is not very precise about the chronology of his settlements. Ie he gives a ball park figure of 12 - 7 c BC, however, doesn;t discuss whether they arose in the 12th mostly, or 9th or if they continue into the La Tene period. Did you ascertain this at all from the article ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a study on dwellings, it gives little details on chronology and continuity (I assume they - Maia Kaşuba and Aurel Zanoci - merely cited other authors on dates like 12th century). Daizus (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Dacian soldiers
Thought you might want to take a peak at this: Recent event at Trajan's Market on the Dacian soldiers in Roman army. Regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, this is brand new Catalin BORANGIC, Razboinici nord-dunareni in armuri de zale (sec. II a. Chr.-sec. II p. Chr.) - partea I / North-Danubian Warriors in Chain Mails (2nd Century BC - 2nd Century AD) - Part I (from SEBVS 3 / 2011). Happy holidays! --Codrin.B (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you and happy holidays to you, too! Daizus (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Dacian burials
Hi again. I while ago you pointed out a paper on the formation of identities through burials in Dacian era spreading from Transylvania to Muntenia and southern Modlavia. I can;t find it amidst the pages of discussions we've had. Can you remember what it was ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See newer version and relevant discussion  Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This one? Daizus (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha, yes. I found it stuck in middle of Avars talk page. Have you seen this collection of gems ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. Curta's paper was already published on academia.edu. Daizus (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I purchased several. Do u want me to email you them ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If possible, please do and thanks a lot! Daizus (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I need to email it to a personal email of yours, coz I cant attach files to Wiki email. To maintain your privacy here, Wiki-email me your personal email Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Buyla inscription, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Buyla inscription DYK
No issues with your DYK nomination, but I just wanted to direct you to the comment I made there about including an image in the nomination. You should think about doing so. Let me know on my talk page or the nomination page if you have any questions or comments. Silver seren C 00:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your article
Mate I had a read of the Buyla inscription article, its great ! Nothing I can really add/ reccommend. Its is particularly enligtening about langauge debates on Avar - Oghuric, and enlightening on certain South Slavic institutions (zhupan, ban, etc).

I've been churning away at a series of Russian and Romanian articles about the NW Pontic region in the Halstatt, "Scythian" & "early Getic" periods. Slow going process, but its very interesting. Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If you need help with translations from Romanian just let me know. Daizus (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Butaul
OK, you have been reported, please see the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Revert_warring_-_removal_of_link_from_the_article PANONIAN  07:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Moldavia
Sorry to see your frustrations above. Typical Balkan article stuff..Let me know if I can help, but Im not extremely familar with Buyla, but certainyl know the history and archaeology of that region very well. To take your mind of it, I will direct you to another topic: As you know Ive been reading about eastern Romania in I.A. It seems that it was rather well populated in the early - middle Hlastatt period 1000 - 750 BC, then it there is a 1-200 year relative hiatus. Few if any settlements are known, except in extreme NW of Moldavia which abuts west Podolia. Other settlements appear to concentrate along the southern and south-eastern Carpathian mountains, the so-called "Ferigile" groups. And thirdly there is NE Dobdrudja which also shows continuity from Badabag II phase of early Halstatt. From 7th century, there are increasing evidence of "nomadic" burials in steppe part (incl Budjak).

A "getic" culture forms from latter 6th century in Dobrudja, under impetus of influences from Odrysian Thrace mixed with local factors and Greek colonies. And from here it later spread to the rest of the Carpatho-Dniester region, although not completely (as per Lukashevka -Poienesti cutlure).

The main debate lies between Russian and Romanian scholars. Russian scholars see clear evidence of discontiuity in eastern Romania between 7 - 6th centuries BC (something even Vulpe admits to in his summarical analysis of the central site of Popesti {I have article}), they include the northern Moldavian sites in the Ukrainian forest-steppe Scythian groups of Ukraine. However, Romanian scholars try to minimise the chronological gap and argue that there is clear evidence of continuity from middle Halstatt cultures (eg SOldanesti-Besarabi with "early Getic"). Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Buyla inscription
Materialscientist (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very nice work on this! Congrats for DYK! And Happy New Year! Saw the block, just take it easy. No need for edit wars in the future. Waiting for you to return. Regards.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania
--Codrin.B (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Gothic migration
Hey, Daizo! Long time no hear. Are you doing any Wiki editing these days? Regarding the issue of whether the Goths migrated from the Baltic region (Jordanes) or were indigenous to Pontic region (Curta) see this article on linguistic support for Jordanes (not conclusive, of course, but interesting): Regards. Write to me. EraNavigator (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)