Talk: Dacia

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

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

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

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

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

Bogdan 12:44, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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

I'll correct it.

---

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

---

Contents

1 Tartaria 1 Cohors Primae Dacorum 2 Burebista 3 Incomprehensible paragraph

Tartaria

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

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

---

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

Cohors Primae Dacorum

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

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

---

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

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

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

yes, 3 disambiguation pages are required:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It may be tempting to think so, but with no evidence the link does not belong in the article. I will remove the link. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:21, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Burebista

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

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

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

Incomprehensible paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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