Talk:Costoboci/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

Costobocii-Dacians ==

• Ptolemy i think mention them among his list of Dacian tribes, as well acording with < Ancient Illyria : an archaeological exploration Arthur Evans, Publisher: London Tauris 2006 (Texts and introduction originally published in various sources, 1885-1976) / Archaeologia, or, Miscellaneous tracts relating to antiquity by Society of Antiquaries of London: The Society of Antiquaries of London, 1770 ISSN: 0261-3409> and with <The provinces of the Roman empire from Caesar to Diocletian, by Theodore Mommsen, Translated with the author's additions, by William P. Dickson, London, Macmillan, 1909.> the names of Costobocii king, Pieporus, as well other names related with them, as Bithoporus (another Costoboci king) and Natoporus, are all Dacian names.
• the fact that they are show in Sarmatia too, first by Pliny the Elder, must be either a confusion, either the fact that during Burebista expansion in east (when he conquered and incorporated in his empire city of Olbia, near Crimeea), some Dacian tribes moved more in east as well (logical, especialy since they are first mentioned exactly in that period).

Pliny the Elder didnt clearly say they are Sarmatians, but that they live there. This doesnt mean they are really Sarmatians, but can be as much as well Dacians. Sarmatia wasnt a country or a kingdom with a well established ethnicity, but a teritory named like that inhabited by several diferent peoples.

• Lipita culture is considered Dacian as well, which need to be mentioned too on article
• That text mentioning Zia, the Dacian wife of Pieporus can be interpretated that maybe he had a Sarmatian or Germanic wife too (it wasnt uncommon to have more then one wife, such habit of Thracians are mentioned by Herodotus as well), or that pure and simple a statement of their Dacian ethnicity, since all names mentioned in that inscription are Dacian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.42 (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Pliny the Elder: This author (VI.7.19) states unequivocally that the Costoboci were a Sarmatian tribe: Tanaim amnem incolunt Sarmatae, Medorum, ut ferunt, suboles, ipsi in multa divisi genera: primi Sauromatae Gynaecocratumenae, connubia Amazonum, dein (list of tribes follows)...Costoboci... Translation: "The region of the river Tanais (Don) is inhabited by the Sarmatians, who are said to be descendants of the Medes. The Sarmatians are themselves divided into many tribes: to begin with, the Sauromatae Gynaecocratumene, husbands of the Amazons, then...the Costoboci..."

Ptolemy: Ptolemy (III.8.3) does NOT say the Costoboci are ethnic-Dacian, simply that they inhabited the northern part of Dacia (as defined by himself). As the article points out, since he also mentions two Celtic tribes, the Anartes and Taurisci as inhabiting northern Dacia, it cannot be assumed that the Costoboci were ethnic-Dacian, only "Dacian" in the sense that they inhabited Dacia.

Zia: What is the evidence that PIEPORUS and other names in the inscription are Dacian? Very little is known about the Dacian language, so I would be surprised if there is any certainty about this. PS: If the names of Zia's grandchildren's are really Dacian, these could have been given to them by their (half-Dacian) mother.

Lipita culture: Your statement that this culture was Dacian proves nothing, as it cannot be proved that Lipita belonged to the Costoboci. Nor, for that matter, can it be proved that the Lipita people were ethnic-Dacian, no matter how many "Dacian pots" they used. EraNavigator (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• it was posted on the first paragraph of the discussion the sources who said that those names was Dacian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.164.138 (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Zia:Pieporus is 100% a Thracian name, as is Zia, and their childrens names. If the Costoboci were Sarmatians they sure had a Dacian/Thracian royal family... The actual text of the roman inscripition reads: D(is) M(anibus) / Ziai / Tiati Fi(liae) / Dacae uxori / Piepori regis / Coisstobocensis / Natoporus et / Drilgisa aviae / cariss(imae) b(ene) m(erenti) fecer(unt)." If the children were given Thracian names by their mother, who gave Pieporus his Thracian name? Oh, wait, maybe he had a Dacian mother too... But that would make him also at least half-dacian, and so on...

Regarding Sarmatians: where is the proof that they were even ethnically homogenous? And why is there a need for the Costoboci to be either this or that? The simple existence of their own name hints that they were an identity. The material culture and the written sources hint to a mixed cultural heritage for this people, which is in itself neither bad nor good. comment added by Leinarius (talk • contribs) 08:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Zia inscription: OK, anonymous editor, if you have a source, why did you not add it as a reference when you wrote the new paragraph on the Zia inscription? Any statement in the article must be supported by an academic reference, giving the author, work, date of work and page number where your statement is supported (see my references for examples of how it's done). I have added "citation needed" where the reference must be entered. You cannot just state that the names in the Zia inscription are Thracian and expect readers to take your word for it. Same for your paragraph, Leinarius. What you say makes a lot of sense (and I agree with it). You can say what you like on this discussion page. But for the article's text, there are rules. Firstly, all statements must be supported by reference to a published academic source. Secondly, original research (OR for short) is not admissible. That means that your personal opinions are not admissible in Wikipedia articles. You may only present the opinions of published academic authors. Both of you, unless you add the necessary references, I shall be obliged to delete your contributions. EraNavigator (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The names on the Zia inscription are Dacian, EraNavigator. Both names with -per/poris and -gisa/-giza/-geis(s)a are atested on the egyptian ostraca and in Moesia- see http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main?url=oi%3Fikey%3D168614 and http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main?url=oi%3Fikey%3D170551

and also there is a study by Dan Dana of an ostraca of Dacian born soldiers in an army in Egypt which displays names like: Aptasa, Avizina, Bastiza, Blaikisa, Kaigiza, Damanais, Dekinais, Dida, Diernais, Diourpa, Eithazi, Rolouzis, Thiaper, Zourai, Zourazi,Dekibalos, Diourdanos, Natopor and others.

It is not only possible, but quite very probable that the king Piepor was a dacophone. I would say that otherwise his familly displays a curious daco-phile tendency :) —comment added by Leinarius (talk • contribs) 11:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)<!

An extra factual point about the Zia inscription: the persons who set up the memorial (Natoporus and Drilgisa), were the grand-children, not children, of king Pieporus and Zia (avia means "grandmother" in Latin: the children's parents are not named in the inscription. Most likely the family were hostages held in Rome as guarantees of the good behaviour of their grandfather, who was probably an amicus populi Romani, or client-king. Imperial Rome was full of the relatives of client-kings held as hostages, often for years (and for their entire adolescence in the case of children). They would be treated in accordance with their royal rank, and the children educated by top Greco-Roman tutors, alongside the children of noble Roman families. The holding of hostages to guarantee treaties was normal diplomatic practice in the ancient world - it was not considered, as we do today, a terrorist or criminal act).

Because of the fragmentary evidence, things are rarely certain in the ancient world. In the article text, it is unwise to make categorical statements such as "the names are Thracian". It is better to always qualify and say "the names may be Thracian" or, at most, "the names are probably Thracian". Note that in the article, I give two heavyweight ancient sources that attest the Sarmatian origin of the Costoboci (Pliny the Elder and Ammianus). But I do not say "the Costoboci were Sarmatian". I say: "the Costoboci may have been Sarmatian". This is because the ancient sources can be wrong - and frequently are. (Of course, they vary widely in their reputation for reliability and accuracy, with Pliny and Ammianus at the top end of the range and Zosimus at the bottom).

Regarding the ethnic origin of the names on the Zia inscription, a Sarmatian origin cannot be excluded. Obviously the names ZIA and of her father TIATUS must be Dacian, as that is implied by the inscription. But for the other names, I am looking at F. Justi's Iranisches Namenbuch (1897), the supreme authority on ancient Iranic names (not just those from Iran itself, but also of the Iranic peoples of the Eurasian steppes - Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans etc). In this work, one can find close parallels to the names in the Zia inscription. For PIEPORUS, there is PORPES (meaning "Lucky"); for NATOPORUS there is NATAOR or NATRA-PUR (note that barbarian names were often distorted when Latinised or Hellenised e.g. Xerxes, which is the Greek form of the Old Persian name Kshayarsha); and for DRILGISA there is DILGIR (also a girl's name). OK, none of these parallels are conclusive, but I am simply making the point that a Sarmatian origin is a possibility. What are the parallels with attested Thracian names?

As pointed by Leinarius above, these names are well attested in Dacian (and sometimes Thracian) onomastics, and also their morphology is rather uncontroversial. These Iranian parallels are not close, but ludicrous, and as far as I know you're the only one suggesting them, comparing names like Pieporus with Porpes or Drilgisa (which almost certainly is a man's name) with Dilgir! In fact this approach is pseudo-scientific and it was widely criticized. Most readers will agree that Porus is much closer to Pieporus than Porpes, but how many of them will go further to say this royal family was speaking Sanskrit? Or maybe Pieporus was speaking English, and his name is a "distortion" of his true name which was "Pepper king" because he was importing Indian spices? Despite what you may believe, many of these "distortions" are not at all random, however to understand them one needs some basic ideas about ancient languages and language contact. Xerxes is almost a predictable Greek rendering of the Old Persian name, because Greek language had no "sh" and also had to adapt this foreign name to its own morphology. Daizus (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if we accept that the names are Thracian in origin, that does NOT necessarily mean the Costoboci were Dacians. That is because the Thracians may have been a different ethnic group from the Dacians, with a completely different language. It was the Augustan-era geographer Strabo who is the main support for the Daco-Thracian hypothesis. That is, the theory that Dacian and Thracian were essentially the same language. Indeed Strabo says that 3 nations spoke the same language: the Thracians (South of the Balkan Mts); the Moesians (between the Balkan Mts and the Danube), who Strabo says are the same people as the Mysians in Asia Minor; and the Dacians (North of the Danube). But Strabo's thesis has been strongly challenged by the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir I. Georgiev, who agrees that Dacian and Moesian (Daco-Moesian) were similar, but argues that Thracian was quite different from Daco-Moesian. The main support for this view comes from place-name evidence. Above all, towns in Dacia and Moesia commonly end in -DAVA, while towns in Thracia mostly end in -PARA. For the distribution of DAVA and PARA placenames, see this map (scroll down to lower map): [1]. It has been suggested that while Daco-Moesian may derive from the Mysian language, Thracian may derive from Phrygian. If Georgiev is right, then the Thracian origin of the names in the Zia inscription proves that the Costoboci were NOT Dacian!

A Sarmatian or "Georgievo-Thracian" origin for the Costoboci would explain the reference to Zia as the Dacian wife of king Pieporus. As I explained in the article, before this sentence was deleted by Anonymous Editor, this emphasis on the grandmother's nationality suggests that it was different from that of Pieporus. The logic is thus: Say you are Romanian, and your grandparents (and parents) were all Romanian. If you drafted the epitaph for your grandmother's tomb, would you state: "to Elena, Romanian wife of Dan Ionescu"? You would not, because it would not occur to you to mention the grandmother's nationality if it was the same as her husband's and your own. But, if your grandfather was an Englishman who married a Romanian woman, and the family was mainly English, you might well mention her Romanian nationality because it is different. It would not seem strange to write: "to Elena, Romanian wife of Dan Taylor".

There is a final point about the name-evidence of the Zia inscription. It was not uncommon (and is still not uncommon today) for peoples to adopt the names of other ethnic groups, especially neighbours or those with whom a group had strong contacts. For example, the nephew of Chnodomar, the high king of the Alamanni at the Battle of Strasbourg, was given a Greek name, Serapio, by his father, who had become enchanted with Greek civilisation while a hostage of the Romans. If the Costoboci had a close association with their neighbouring Free Dacians (see my article on these), as the Zia marriage implies, then it is entirely possible that they might have adopted some Dacian names.

In conclusion, for these various reasons, the name-evidence of the Zia inscription cannot be considered reliable evidence for the Costoboci's Dacian ethnicity. EraNavigator (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• those names are from Dacian origin. Thracians at that point wasnt independent since a long time, and in no way able to pass over Dacians, from the roman empire, and form the rulling class of a Sarmatian tribe, this is really too fantastic. Thracian and Dacian was diferent dialects of the same language, according with modern researchers as Sorin Paliga and Sorin Olteanu.
• there was other name related with Costobocii, as Bithoporus (and a dacian name Mucaporus, from a tomb inscription with other dacian names from Adamclisi area), so its clear the names of Costobocii are Dacian.

It is then more likely they was Dacians, and other theories are less probable, since not just the names, but archeology show that they was Dacians, as well other circumstantial prouves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.41 (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You have largely misunderstood the paragraph of mine that you deleted. First, I do not say that there was a Thracian ruling class over a Sarmatian tribe (if anything, the opposite!). What I am saying is that, if the names are Thracian, then maybe the Costoboci were a Thracian, not Dacian, tribe. Yes, Thracian tribes in Thrace proper (i.e. Bulgaria S. of Balkan Mts) had been under Roman rule for about a century in AD 140. But there were probably several Thracian tribes outside the empire. For example, the BIESSI mentioned by Ptolemy as residing in Sarmatia, most likely a branch of the Bessi of Thrace. You cannot just dismiss Georgiev's thesis that Thracians spoke a different language from Daco-Moesians. Sure, Paliga and Olteanu may support Strabo's claim that they spoke essentially the same language. But in Wikipedia articles, editors are not permitted to take sides in academic disputes, but must present all opinions even-handedly. I am not clear about the relevance of BITHOPORUS and MUCAPORUS. Are you saying that the ending in -PORUS is typically Dacian? But they could equally be Iranic names, which commonly end in -PUR (Hellenised as -POROS, compare POROS, the king in India who fought Alexander the Great). Also, they may be Thracian, not Dacian names.

• Biessi might be as much a Dacian tribe, it is very unlikely to be a southern thracian one. Dont forget that Moesi was as well a Dacian tribe, and Getae inhabited both south and north of Danube, up to Haemus mountains, and , as Leinarius said, some names was pan-thracian, and appear at both northern and southern branches.
• Porus was an indian king, not an iranic one

Also, you seem to have changed your position. Before, you wrote in the article that the names are Thracian. Now you say that they are Dacian. And again, you have failed to add a supporting reference. In an article at this level (B or above), all statements of fact MUST be supported by a reference to a published academic source, or they will be deleted. Please add a reference NOW. EraNavigator (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• i added the references, they are on romanian page too. I might several references in romanian, but i dont have time now

I am deleting your suggestion that the Costoboci could be a Dacian tribe that moved eastwards. This is unsupported by any reference. You say they are first mentioned during the period of Burebista's eastwards expansion. But Burebista's rule came to an end in 44 BC, while the earliest mention of the Costoboci, I believe, is in Pliny the Elder, writing in ca. AD 60, about a century later. Since Pliny makes clear that, at this time, the Costoboci were a Sarmatian tribe, your argument is clearly nonsense. EraNavigator (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• your sayings that they migrated westwards is as well not suported by any evidence, they maight be already there and apear "on radar" after the fall of Decebalus kingdom. Those are both supositions, and either we put them both, or none of them. Fact that they was in Sarmatia is not a definitive prouve they was Sarmatians

I disagree with your insistence that the proto-Slavs did not enter the Carpathian region before ca. AD 500. For example, Tacitus, writing in ca. AD 100, states: "The Venedi roam in their predatory excursions all the wooded and mountainous regions between the Peucini and the Fenni" (Tacitus Germania 46). Tacitus states that he was not sure whether the Veneti should be classified as Germans or Sarmatians (which, together with the Celts, were the main ethno-linguistic affiliations familiar to the Romans). This supports the Venedi's much later (ca. 550) classification as Slavic by Jordanes. Tacitus adds that the Venedi were more like the Germans in that they had settled homes and generally moved around on foot, whereas the Sarmatians lived on horseback and in wagons; however, the Venedi shared many customs with the Sarmatians, notably their propensity to raiding. The territory "between the Peucini and the Fenni" is the vast area between the Danube Delta region (where the Peucini Bastarnae lived) and the Baltic states (where the Fenni apparently lived) i.e. western European Russia, White Russia, Slovakia, W. Ukraine, Bessarabia, Moldavia - this makes sense as most of these regions are still today dominated by Slavic-speaking peoples. This passage implies that proto-Slavic groups were active in and around the northern and eastern Carpathians at the time of the Dacian Wars - indeed, they may have taken advantage of the collapse of Decebal's state to establish themselves in Bukovina/Moldavia. It is therefore wrong to exclude the possibility of a proto-Slavic identity for the Carpi and Costoboci. EraNavigator (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• we know nothing about proto-slavs, we have no idea where those Venedi moved (btw Moldova, Basarabia and even parts of Ukraine are dominated by romanian language, not the slavic one), they are usualy placed north of Dacia, at a quite big distance, no near Danube Delta. More then that, at Dniester river (on both parts, so up to river Bug, are located the Dacian tribe of Tyragetae, and Ptolemy give us even their capital, Clepidava (btw, no much conections betwen dacian and slavic names). Then in the region apear Costoboci, Carpi, free Dacians, Bastarnae etc. It is just a baseless speculation, with no prouve (chronics, archeology, linguistics) that some of them was slavic. Slavs will be formed (probably from a mix of diferent peoples) long after

I gave the reference for the dacian nature of the names and I do protest that you apply double standards: you deny the possibility of a dacian origin for the Costoboci based on a sharp sense of proof/argument being mediocre but you seem keen on embracing a possible "proto-slavic" nature for the same nation based on nothing but wishfull thinking.Some of the Dacian names were indeed "pan-Thracian" but there are specific enough. A thracian ancestry at least for part of the dacian tribes can not be ruled out. The association that the old greeks made between the Getae and the Thracians is proof.Also I can argue that although names of nations and identities may not change simultanously with the languages. People of a certain nation may speak the same language as another but have a different self-awareness due to long-time historical antagony or other factors or they can have the same name as their ancestors but speak a different language.--comment added by Leinarius

Indeed. The Costobocci, or Carpi, could have spoken a wide possibility of languages. A mosaic of interrelated idioms could have existed from village to vilage, with intersecting glosses going in many directions. Thus, one cannot draw a line separating, say , "Dacian" to some pre-Slavic dialect. In any case, they are likely to have been quite similar.

What is certain is that Costobocii were not a 'people', but like other 'barbarian tribes', a mixed colleciton of young warriors drawn from the various communities beyond the Danube. One language might have dominated, but likely the men were multilignuial (or multi-dialectical), being from different villages.

Only with more organized political structures, such as the 4th century Goths or 7-9th century Avars did languages homogenize, whether through the use of a lingu franca or by linguistic convergence, to form a more unified linguistic state- that being Gothic and Slavic, respectively. Arguably, the same might have happened with Decebalus' state and Dacian Hxseek (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• there is no prouve of what main language spoked even Goths during they stay in Dacia so you can say they spoke even klingonian language. Fact is that the names, which are thraco-dacian, show what language is the most probably Costobocii speak. Slavs wasnt even in existence back then, and for sure wasnt around even their suposedly ancestors (whoever they may be).

I am pleased that you are finally entering references. However, you are still not doing it correctly. You must give the page number of the quote which supports your particular statement. If you follow the way it's done in the article, the in-line citation should be an abbreviated entry, with author's surname, year of publication (in brackets) and page number. The full name, title and other details of the publication should be entered in the list of References at the foot of the article. Also, you don't need to enter more than one citation for each statement (unless the statement contains more than one fact). So I've removed all but the Mommsen reference. Please enter the page number in the citation now. One final point: in general, it's best to use the most modern sources possible. Although Mommsen is very authoritative, he was writing over a century ago. There has been a vast amount of archaeological discovery since, which he obviously could not be aware of.

Your claim that the Costoboci were a Dacian tribe that moved eastwards at the time of Burebista is speculation and cannot be admitted, because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Pliny the Elder clearly states that these tribes were Sarmatians. Also, I object to your removal of my referenced statement that a Sarmatian origin for the names cannot be excluded. You cannot remove statements simply because you don't agree with them, but only if they are not supported by evidence. Please note that it is only some, not all, scholars who believe the Costoboci were Dacians. Others think they are Sarmatian, Celtic or Germanic.

If we stop this childish arguing and take a balanced and objective view of the thin available evidence, the most likely scenario is that the Costoboci were a group of Sarmatian tribes residing around the Don/Dnieper region during the whole Roman imperial era. One of these tribes moved into the Carpathian region, probably in the period following the collapse of Decebal's state in 105, and, through mixing with Free Dacian elements, acquired elements of Dacian culture and possibly language (although, given the relatively short period of their occupation, they most likely remained bilingual). In 171, they were invaded and occupied by Germanic elements and lost their separate identity. I don't think any reasonable person could dispute this.

Gh. BICHIR, a senior Romanian archaeologist who has personally excavated many sites in Moldavia (and supports the Geto-Dacian paradigm), admits that the sites identified with the 3 DAVAs mentioned by Ptolemy as on the East bank of the Siret, including Poiana-Tecuci (probably PIROBORIDAVA) were abandoned at the end of the 1st century AD, at the time of the Roman conquest. Bichir (1976) p141: "It is known that the Dacian settlements in Moldavia ceased at the end of the 1st century and especially at the start of the 2nd century (esp. Poiana-Tecuci). Their destruction was connected with the 2nd Dacian War (105-6)". This supports what I said in the Carpi discussion, that these DAVAs were outposts of Decebal's kingdom and were already destroyed by the time Ptolemy wrote about them in ca. 150.

BICHIR goes on to admit that the archaeology of the region shows that the Sarmatians took advantage of the Dacian collapse to invade Moldavia in strength. BICHIR (1976) p162-4: "The Sarmatians played an important role within the Carpic tribal union. They spread to the West of the Prut from the first decades of the 2nd century, as shown by the finds at Stefanesti and Vaslui; they lived with the Carpi and the Costoboci in the territory of Moldavia. The defeat of the Dacians by the Romans facilitated the penetration of some Sarmatian groups West of the Prut... The Sarmatian presence in Moldavia is attested by their graves ... Until now [1976], Sarmatian tombs have been discovered in the territory of Moldavia in about 38 places, especially on the plain... The large majority of the Sarmatian graves discovered in Romania are flat-graves [i.e. not tumuli], these are burials of men, women and children and this shows that the Sarmatians were with their families [i.e. settlers, not just raiders]".

This all fits well with the scenario of the Costoboci being a Sarmatian tribe that entered Moldavia in the aftermath of Trajan's victory and then mingled with Free Dacian refugees, Bastarnae and possibly Celtic elements in this region.

Although I need to do much more study of the archaeological issues for the Carpi and Costoboci articles, it is immediately apparent from reading the "high priest" of Carpi studies, Gh. BICHIR (History & Archaeology of the Carpi - 1976) how his interpretation of data has been distorted by nationalist ideology, in line with Niculescu's criticism. Bichir is a professional and honest archaeologist, who refuses to suppress archaeological data: for example, he makes clear that there is abundant evidence, in the form of Sarmatian graves and deformed-skull burials, of a substantial influx of ethnic-Sarmatian settlers into the whole of Moldavia and even Muntenia after the Roman conquest of Dacia in 106. He rejects attempts by Geto-Dacianists to either ignore this evidence, or to pretend that it was Dacians imitating Sarmatian customs. Bichir presents the archaeological data in a clear, thorough and honest manner. But Bichir is himself a convinced Geto-Dacianist, so that, after presenting the data, he often draws conclusions which are totally contrary to what the data indicates. Sometimes, Bichir's self-contradictions are almost comical (although , to be fair, he was writing during the Ceausescu nationalist-communist era, when academics were under pressure to conform to the official orthodoxy on Romania's past, and could lose their jobs if they did not).

For example, Bichir gives the following data on post-106 burial customs in Moldavia (p18): "The Carpi generally practiced the rite of cremation. Inhumation is scarcely attested." In contrast, the Sarmatians mostly practiced inhumation. Then he states that (p164): "There exist inhumation graves within Carpi cemeteries... Consequently, the most plausible explanation is that the inhumation graves represent the alien population, namely the Sarmatians, and the children interred in inhumation graves were for the most part the progeny of marriages between Sarmatians and Carpi". As stated above, in the initial phase of Sarmatian occupation, these used flat-graves, in contrast to the "classic" tumulus-graves of Sarmatia. However, from 200 onwards, according to Bichir (p. 163), the Sarmatians of Moldavia often buried their dead in "secondary" tumuli i.e. tumuli already in existence, an apparent reversion to traditional Sarmatian practice.

From this data, Bichir draws the absurd conclusion (p163) that the Sarmatians "accepted Carpi supremacy" and "lost the distinctive features of their funerary rites under the influence of the Daco-Carpic indigenous population". In fact, the exact opposite is true, since the Sarmatians clearly did NOT give up their rites, insisting on inhumation, even in "Carpic" cemeteries; and it was the "Daco-Carpi" who gave in to Sarmatian influence, by agreeing to bury their children! Indeed, the Sarmatians apparently reverted to more traditional burial practices after 200 (although this may be due to a fresh wave of Sarmatian migrants into Moldavia at this time).

Bichir also has the problem that the Roxolani Sarmatians are clearly described in ancient sources as dominant on the Wallachian plain, including the southern part of Moldavia. He deals with this by drawing a distinction, totally without proof, between the Sarmatians in Carpi-land from the Roxolani. He then claims that the latter, unwilling to accept indigenous domination, moved to the Hungarian Plain to join their cousins, the Iazyges. Again, this flies in the face of the evidence.

• what evidence you talk about? And you consider Bichir a very good scholar just when he is on agree with your views? What you have to disaprove this? Who studied more the sites and the history of the place?

Bichir's broad conclusion is that, on the currently available evidence, the Carpi culture can be dated between AD 106 and 319. (p 144). These are the dates of the end of the 2nd Dacian War and the last acclamation of Carpicus Maximus (that of Constantine I). One obvious possible conclusion is that the Carpi entered Moldavia after 106, and were totally resettled in the Roman Empire by 319. But Bichir will have none of this. In his ideology, the Carpi were Geto-Dacian indigenes who had inhabited the area for time immemorial, and continued to do so for centuries after 319. Prior to 106, their culture was "classic" Dacian and after 319, it was Sintana- de- Mures/Chernyakhov. But he fails to explain why their culture should change at those dates. Also an examination shows that the differences between Bichir's "Carpic culture" (e.g. Poienesti) in the 3rd century and other Chernyakhov sites are not very significant. Also, there are other possible explanations for the post-106 archaeological data. One obvious possibility is that the Carpi (and/or the Costoboci) were Sarmatians themselves, whose entry into Moldavia after the abandonment of Dacian outposts is attested in the archaeological record. Alternatively, the Carpi may have been a non-Dacian indigenous people, under Dacian hegemony until 106, and under Sarmatian control; or non-Dacian migrants who entered Moldavia after 106, at the same time as the Sarmatians, and formed a fused culture with them. These and other options fit the data as well as, if not better than, the Geto-Dacian continuity theory. But the alternative possibilities are not even mentioned, let alone explored, by Bichir and other Romanian archaeologists of the region.

EraNavigator (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Bichir is pretty much right about archeological findings, see what i post on Carpi discussion page. Costobocii and Carpii had a clear Dacian culture, from burial rites (very importnt) to poterry and lifestyle (sedentary one). Sarmatians can be clearly observed too, they doesnt had localities, was nomads, had diferent burial practices, and diferent pottery. It is impossible that numerous sarmatian tribes instantly renounce at their lifestyle and belives and traditions and adopt Dacian ones, and any transition phase to not be observed. And why other sarmatians didnt do that? It is the most logical and realistic to say that Costobocii and Carpii was Dacian tribes who preserved the Dacian culture, but under new realities after the fall of Decebalus kingdom, they regrouped at the new frontiers of roman empire and gradualy adopted some roman influences and some sarmatian ones (but keeping obviously as main culture the dacian one). Not forget the Tyragetae on both sides of the Dniester and their capital Clepidava mentioned by Ptolemy

Archaeological interpretation: Anonymous, you are completely out of touch with modern archaeological theory. The view that specific ethnic groups can be defined by reference to notional material "cultures" discerned by archaeologists has been generally discredited since the 1960's (except in Romania, where the Ceausescu nationalist-communist regime prolonged this nonsense until the 1990's). This is ABSOLUTELY NOT the mainstream view in modern archaeology, as you will see if you read Archaeology by Colin Renfrew, one of today's leading archaeological theorists.

The traditional approach to archaeological interpretation was defined in the 1920's by Gordon Childe as follows: "We find certain types of remains - pots, implements, ornaments, burial sites, house forms - constantly recurring together. Such a complex of regularly associated traits we shall term a "cultural group" or just a "culture". We assume that such a complex is the material expression of what today would be called a "people". " (quoted in Renfrew, p163) This is precisely the methodology adopted by most Romanian archaeologists until ca. 2000.

But Renfrew points out that "since the 1960's, it has been recognised...that to equate such notional "cultures" with peoples is extremely hazardous... The notion that such features as pottery decoration are automatically a sign of ethnic affiliation has been challenged." (p180-1) "The traditional explanations rest on assumptions that are easily challenged today. First, there is the notion that archaeological "cultures" can somehow represent real [social] entities rather than simply the classificatory terms devised for the convenience of the scholar. Second is the view that ethnic units or "peoples" can be recognised from the archaeological record by equation with these notional cultures. It is in fact clear that ethnic groups do not stand out clearly in archaeological remains. Third, it is assumed that when resemblances are noted between the cultural assemblages of one area or another, this can be most readily explained as the result of a migration of people. Of course, migrations did in fact occur, but they are not so easy to document archaeologically as has often been supposed." (p445) EraNavigator (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In practical terms, this means that a material "culture" can be shared by more than one ethnic group (which is frequently documented in archaeology); or belong to a sub-group of an ethnic group; or several sub-groups of different ethnic groups. Indeed, a "culture" may not reflect ethnicity at all, but may simply be an artificial construct of modern scholars. EraNavigator (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Cremation burials: Noone is suggesting that these were Sarmatian. In fact, as you can see in the Material Culture section, Sarmatian burials are defined as predominantly inhumation. The point is that you cannot claim definitively that they are Dacian. Cremation and burial of urns with ashes was extremely common in the ancient world (and practiced by the Romans themselves). So it is possible that these rites were (also) carried out by the Bastarnae or some other group that inhabited the Lipita domain at the time.

Anonymous, can you please not discuss ethnic affiliation in the Material Culture section. This section should simply describe the features of the finds without attempting ethnic identification. Also, please stop placing "this was Dacian" at the end of each sentence. The Dacian hypothesis is clearly laid out and discussed in the Ethno-Linguistic Affiliation section and you don't need to repeat it endlessly.

Anonymous, I'm removing your suggestion that the Costoboci were a Dacian tribe that migrated eastwards at the time of Burebista as you have failed to provide any reference or supporting evidence.

I am also removing your claim that Lipita burial customs were clearly Dacian. References to other websites are inadmissible, and must be to published academic works (these may be online, but must be in academic format, with full citastions and references. EraNavigator (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Zia inscription names: Leinarius, would you please add your contributions in sequence (i.e. at the foot of the page), otherwise it is easy to miss them and the discussion becomes a mess. The links that you provided show names that have nothing to do with the Zia inscription. You mention an article by Dan Dana. The ostraca clearly has some Dacian names (Dikebalos is obviously a Hellenised variant of Decebal), although only one, Natopor, is the same as on the Zia inscription. But how can we be sure all the names are Dacian? Roman auxiliary units, although they carried the ethnic name of the tribe they were originally recruited, recruited a wide mix of nationalities and mainly the indigenes of the province in which they were stationed. Also, can you please provide the exact reference for Dana's article so I can find it? It is probable that Pieporus could speak Dacian (if only because he had a Dacian wife). But whether he or was Dacian himself is much more dubious - just the fact that his wife is called Dacian in the inscription but her husband is called Costobocan strongly suggests a difference. You said I should discuss the possibility of the names being opf Sarmatian origin. I have (above), showing Iranic names similar, but not identical, to the Zia names. But it is true that this needs further support by an academic source, so I have added [citation needed] to this sentence. EraNavigator (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• this burial of children and incineration of adults is the common practice of Dacians, and not a sarmatian inlfuence lol. See here (this is from Transilvania area, not far from Sarmisegetuza, the capital of Dacia) http://eprints.jiia.it:8080/148/1/Luca_dacian-warriors.pdf

As well carpic (of dacian facture) burial sites as about 10 times more numerous then sarmatian ones

Carpic burial rites: If what you say is true, then that is a another reason to doubt that the Carpi/Costoboci were Dacians! As Bichir's data makes clear, the Carpi cremated all their children, with the possible exception of those from mixed unions with Sarmatians: "[In Carpi cemeteries], cremation was used for both adults and children" (p.19). On page 32, Bichir presents a table analysing 49 Carpic cemeteries all over Moldavia. Of these, 43 are cremation-only cemeteries (i.e. "pure" Carpic), in which all adults and children were cremated. Of the 6 cemeteries with both cremation and inhumation graves, in only 2 had the inhumed skeletons been investigated. At Poienesti, 23 individuals (6 adults and 17 children) were inhumed, of which 9 had deformed skulls, leading Bichir to conclude that the adults were Sarmatians and the children probably mixed progeny of Sarmatian/Carpic unions (p. 29-31). (This latter conclusion, however, is dubious, as no evidence is produced that these children were not pure-blood Sarmatians). EraNavigator (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Carpic burial sites are NOT 10 times more numerous than Sarmatian ones. According to Bichir, by 1976, 43 Carpic cemeteries had been identified in Moldavia (p. 32), 6 mixed Carpic/Sarmatian (p.32) and 38 Sarmatian sites (p.162). It is true, however, that far more Carpic graves have been found in total than Sarmatian. But that could be partly because Romanian archaeologists have devoted vastly more time and attention to Carpic sites than Sarmatian ones. As Bichir himself admits, a much higher proportion of Carpic sites have been excavated than Sarmatian, and many Sarmatian sites have been destroyed before excavation (p.162). It is thus impossible to draw valid conclusions about relative population numbers from the raw totals of graves discovered. Perhaps a better, though still very approximate, guide would be the total graves found on the 6 excavated mixed cemeteries, whose relative numbers presumably reflect, very roughly, the relative proportions of living individuals in these mixed communities. In these, cremation graves outnumber inhumation graves by 770 to 327 (from Table on p. 32), or roughly 2.5 to 1. This would appear to justify Bichir's conclusion that the Sarmatians never formed a majority of the population in Moldavia (p.164). But it was probably a substantial minority (25-30%).

EraNavigator (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What you said above, about alternative theories being weaker than the Geto-Dacian paradigm, shows that you are unaware of an important Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) - read this policy. This requires that we editors must remain neutral in academic disputes about historical issues and present the various theories neutrally i.e. not take sides, by saying that theory A is more likely than theory B. We must not present our own opinions, only those of published academics. The purpose of this is to ensure that articles remain authoritative and do not degenerate into propaganda platforms.

You are obviously paassionately committed to the Geto-Dacian paradigm. I am much more sceptical, although I do not rule it out completely. But in a Wikipedia article, we must keep our own opinions to ourselves. We must present the evidence as objectively as possible and let readers decide for themselves. EraNavigator (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• regarding Batty, i added a critical point of view on him, from another scholar, and i believe he is not quite a reliable scholar

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42602500/DacianWarsPt-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.116 (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Having read Batty, I strongly disagree. His book contains by far the most detailed accounts I've seen of the many peoples of the Danubian region, both inside and outside the empire, with a wealth of references. Even more impressively he does a superb job of integrating analysis of the geography, archaeo-economy and history of the region (why don't you read it yourself?). Anyway, general criticism of an author is not admissible, unless it directly relates to a point of dispute. EraNavigator (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• well, it is your opinion, but from a neutral point of view it must be pointed out the opinion of a known scholar, who clearly disagree with Batty, especialy with the work we talk about. All of it, so including Costoboci and Carpi as well. And i tend to trust him quite much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.164.138 (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but unless the author disputes Batty's specific discussion of the Costoboci, you cannot quote his general criticism in this article. If he does challenge Batty specifically on the Costoboci, then you must quote the page number(s) where that criticism is made. EraNavigator (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm, this is a kind of double standard for you, since you criticise the entire romanian historyography (well, the "traditional" one as you said) in the same manner, or even more general. Everett L. Wheeler is a very competent scholar, and his comentaries about Batty's "Rome and the Nomads: Te Pontic-Danubian Realm in Antiquity" cannot be dismissed. So, as long as you qoute Nicolescu, it is very NPOV and correct to quote Wheeler criticism on Batty, or the reader will remain with the wrong impression that Batty is somehow an uncontested authority —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.36 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point. But this is an article on the Costoboci, not a discussion on the merits (or defects) of individual authors. So any criticism of Batty (or any other author) must be pertinent to the discussion of the Costoboci. If Wheeler contests Batty's views on the Costoboci (does he, by the way?) then, sure, you can mention that in the article. But vague generalisations that Batty is "disappointing" (to whom?) or "tendentious" (in what way?) fail the relevancy test. EraNavigator (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC) PS: I don't see how a reader would get the impression that Batty is uncontested, since the article quotes authors whose views are quite different from Batty's. EraNavigator (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

PPS: If you really feel that the reader needs to know about Wheeler's criticism of Batty's work, it would be acceptable to include such criticism as a footnote to the article, but not in the main text. Such a footnote, to have any informative value for the reader, would need to be much more specific than just the generalisations mentioned above and to detail exactly what Wheeler is criticising. EraNavigator (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC) PPPS: I see you've already done this. OK, let me clear up the grammar and presentastion and we'll let this footnote stand. EraNavigator (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. I hope you find the edited version of the footnote acceptable. I have only included those criticisms which are pertinent to ethnography, for relevance and in order not to make the note too long. EraNavigator (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• well, thank you for a better write there, but, i still see some inconveniences. For ex. at "Material culture" is quoted just Batty, without any criticism to him, and Bichir is missing. At "ethno-linguistic" part there are some unsuported stuff (related with a possible iranic origin of kings names, coming from an obscure XIX century historian, idea not held by any others, and not by modern historians. The last part of the chapter 3 is POV, there is no such prouve, and we can say even more logical that the presence of a small nomadic steppe culture can mean that Sarmatians was subjugated by Dacians, which is consistent with the fact that Costobocii kings names was Dacian (and i think Bichir said that too). I hope you wouldnt mind if i make some small corrections, and if i add the criticism on Batty on Carpi page too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.36 (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you can add the Batty footnote to Carpi (people). But I absolutely cannot accept the removals you have just made, of quotes from Batty and Justi. If by "inconveniences" you mean that you are going to suppress all quotes and evidence that you disagree with, that is not acceptable. If a quote is pertinent and properly referenced, then you cannot remove it unilaterally. In general, I would be grateful if, before removing text, you proposed it on this Discussion Page so that we can discuss it, in line with Wikipedia etiquette.

Whatever Wheeler thinks of his work, Prof. Batty's book is a scholarly work which is fully referenced. As for Ferdinand Justi, he is NOT "an obscure XIX century historian". He was as eminent in his field, Oriental Studies, as his contemporary Mommsen was in Classics. It's unacceptable that you present the view that names ending in -por were Dacian, but suppress the evidence that they were Iranic also. You are right that some of the text needs referencing. But you should know that I have added all the "citation needed" tags myself - so I have not spared myself from this discipline. I am working at providing full references for all the text. But you must be patient: I only have limited time to devote to editing Wiki. EraNavigator (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You question whether the Sarmatians, as a minority, would have subjugated the Lipita people, and argue that the opposite is more likely. But that ignores all the available evidence that that is precisely what the Sarmatians did e.g. the Iazyges, who dominated an indigenous people called the Limigantes on the Hungarian Plain, and the Roxolani on the Wallachian Plain, who dominated the indigenous Geto-Dacians (there is no dispute about these cases, even Romanian historians accept this e.g. Bichir). Indeed, if you look at the barbarian kingdoms that succeeded the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, they all consisted of tiny barbarian minorities dominating huge indigenous Roman minorities e.g. North Africa, where ca. 100,000 Vandals and Alans dominated ca. 2 million Romans for more than a century. Batty's view is in line with the evidence. EraNavigator (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• i removed Batty from "Material culture" because is just his POV or personal interpretation (combated by others as you saw) and is not a neutral one. How is presented now is much more neutral, and in consistance with the reality from the field. I might agree to Batty be posted there if Bichir for ex. is posted too, for an equilibrium in sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.36 (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must remove the Batty note from both this article and Carpi (people). General criticism of an individual author is not sufficiently pertinent and risks turning the article into another Discussion Page. Already another User is telling me that he wants to insert a note supporting Batty. Where would this end? Would there next be criticism of the critic? Unless Webster comments on something that Batty says about the Costoboci specifically, this kind of criticism cannot be admitted here. It would only be appropriate in an article about Batty himself. PS: This is not double-standards, as you claimed above. Niculescu's critique, which I summarise in a note, is about a theory, not about individual authors. This is perfectly legitimate, as the Geto-Dacian theory is entirely pertinent to the subject.

I think you misunderstand POV rules. These state that the article must not take sides in a scholarly dispute, but should simply set out the various opinions impartially. Furthermore, editors should not introduce their own opinions or theories. The article adheres to this. The arguments in favour and against the Dacian theory are laid out in a clear fashion and the conclusion is reached that the ethnicity of the Costoboci remains uncertain (which is stated by the Cambridge Ancient History, a very authoritative source). As regards the Batty quote that you removed, this action is NOT legitimate: the quote is from a published academic source and it is 100% pertinent. EraNavigator (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding sources

• i start this new section to make the page more readeable infact. I saw your several new changes, and i want to discuss them first
• 1- you removed Batty, but this is wrong, he is criticised exactly on the matter we talk - populations on Danube area in the period we talk. So i will add again thise critics. If someone want to defend him, is free to do (even i dont see what can be say more). Or if you think is too complicated, we can remove him all, since he is obviously a controversial and, in my opinion, a tendentious and less reliable source

It is not for you to decide if Batty, or any other author, is tendentious or unreliable. I rearranged the paragraph with the Batty quote to respond to your complaint that he should be balanced by an opposite view such as Bichir. So, I set out Bichir's view that Costoboci was the name of the sedentary population and that the sedentary population dominated the nomadic element - and then added Batty's contrary view. This is exactly how a Wiki article should set out academic disputes, putting both sides of the argument and not taking sides in it. It is you who are violating POV rules by tryiing to suppress views that you do not agree with. As for the Batty note, I repeat what I already said. Criticism of an individual author cannot be admitted unless it specifically relates to the Costoboci. EraNavigator (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Batty was called tendentious by a respectable american scholar specialized in military history of Roman Empire, and who studied his book. And that quotes specifically adress to our discussions about Costoboci and Carpi. So we need to point them out. I know that you base an important part of your article on Batty, and is hard to see him criticized. But if he is a controversed historian, we need to point out this, so the reader to not remain with the impresion that every historian agree with Batty

Since I present Bichir's contrary views, how can the reader get the impression that every historian agrees with Batty? Bichir can equally be criticised for the many contradictions in his work (and has been so criticised, by both Batty and Todd, among others), but you notice that I have not included those criticisms in the article - because, I repeat, this is an article about the Costoboci, not a debate about the merits of individual scholars. We must not go down that road, or the article will degenerate into another Discussion Page. EraNavigator (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Batty is an unreliable one, Wheeler clearly point out this. I dont know who Todd is, but if you wish names, i can give many, who support Bichir. The mainstream historyography support his idea, the minority one you picked up cannot be presented as relevant

• 2- The Tomaschek afirmation that Pieorus name have relation with the name of Dacian tribe of Piefigi cant be removed, since it brings not just more evidence that is a Dacian name, but eliminate the hypothesis that might be Sarmatian/Iranian (didnt see yet who said that).

The reason I removed the Tomachek quote in order to keep the article as concise as possible. We have already stated that some scholars consider the Zia names to be Dacian: do we really need to add every little detail why they believe this? This is not an article for an academic journal, but an article for the general reader. EraNavigator (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• • This is noy about Zia name, but about Pieporus. And is precisely said that both parts of his name, Pie and Porus are for Dacian origin, related with Dacian tribe of Piefigi, thus eliminating the hypoteses of a relation with an Iranic name. And this is ofcourse important in solving the controversy.

OK, you can restore Tomaschek's quote, as it's legitimate, but please remember that the Ethno-linguistic Affiliation section is already very long. I would like to see more input in the other sections. Tomaschek's quote does NOT "eliminate" the Sarmatian hypothesis (or any other hypothesis). His view that the name Pieporus is linked to that of the Piephigi tribe is not Gospel Truth, it's just one man's opinion, clearly not shared by some scholars. The pie- element shared by the two names may be just coincidence. I have already demonstrated that -pur (Latinised as -porus) was also a common Iranic name-suffix.

• • • • Tomascheck is a respected scholar after all, and i dont see anyone to combat what he said. So yes, i think he pretty much eliminate the "iranic connection"

• 3- About Romanian archaeological interpretation now - you said that "pottery styles and decorations are today viewed as among the weakest potential indicators of ethnicity, because of their transferability between ethnic group", but in the same time that "It continues to be accepted that certain cultural customs and artefacts can have ethnic connotations". This mean that burial customs for ex. are accepted as having ethnic conotations, and this hard evidence, combined with names of peoples and "weaker" evidence as poterry show us that the much greater probability is that Costobocii and Carpii was indeed Dacian tribes. Either that, or Sarmatians coming in contact with Dacians adopted the Dacian culture, so recognized that as superior one, and they as inferior culture was subdued by Dacians. But since we saw a minor Sarmatian presence as well, this mean the first hypothesis is more probable, and both a Dacian majority and a Sarmatian minority co-existed preserving much of their culture, even if influences was present of ofcourse.

We are going over old ground again. You have just repeated Bichir's view. And I have presented that view in the paragraph. So what is your objection? It is simply that you are trying to suppress other views, which is unacceptable. [In fact, there are many reasons to doubt Bichir's thesis: the fact that in the ancient barbaricum, different peoples did not, generally, peaceably share the same territory. One group, usually the nomads, dominated the others, ususally the sedentary people. The Sarmatians, in particular, are known from other examples. such as the Roxolani and Iazyges, to have dominated the tribes that they lived amongst. I have already explained that their minority status did not mean they were dominated by the majority. Also the sedentary culture (which you insist on calling "Dacian" , ignoring everything that has been said about ethnic identification of material remains) was shared by many different peoples such as Bastarnae, Celts etc. Although ethnic-Dacian elements were probably present in Moldavia/Bessarabia, they were not necessarily the majority of the sedentary population (although they very probably were the majority West of the Siret, indicated by Ptolemy as the eastern border of ethnic Dacia). There is simply not enough evidence to make firm conclusions.] Regarding burial customs, I have already said above that burying ashes in urns was extremely common practice in the ancient world (including among the Romans) - so it cannot prove that the people who did this in 2nd century Moldavia were ethnic-Dacians. EraNavigator (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• • it is not just Bichir view, but is the view of the mainstream historyography. Niculescu is pretty much alone, or with few. You are wrong about "usualy" barbarian nomads dominated sedentary peoples, for ex. in Burebista time it was the other way around. Even in the period when we talk, it is clear that Sarmatians didnt dominated anything in Carpi or Costoboci areas, as both was strong and independent enemies of Romans, and no one mention Sarmatians as at that level, or comanding Carpi for ex. So its more likely to be the other way around. The last part, with burial habits, it is obvious the urns with ashes belong to Dacians, and not to Sarmatians. Other peoples (as Romans, or others, can be safely excluded). Carpi and Costoboci apeared right after the fall of Decebalus kingdom, in an area where populations was known for long time. THey was the only new, and most likely is that they was newly formed entities, from Dacian tribes.

You are just not paying attention to anything I have said. I said that nomads usually dominated sedentary people in the barbaricum: "usually" does not mean "always" - of course there are exceptions. But there is little evidence that the Carpi and Costoboci were such exceptions. You say that these were "strong and independent enemies of Rome" - so were the Roxolani and Iazyges. Noone disputes that they dominated the sedentary population in their territories, since there is no dispute that these names are Sarmatian. So it's perfectly possible (I would say likely) that the Carpi and Costoboci were also the names of Sarmatian tribes who dominated their sedentary population. The sedentary population may indeed have been ethnic-Dacians (at least partly), but their urn-burial customs were also shared by the Bastarnae and Celtic tribes, so these could have formed part of the sedentary population. Your final point: "Carpi and Costoboci appeared right after the fall of Decebalus kingdom" simply reinforces the sarmatian hypothesis, since according to Bichir himself, it was precisely at this time that Moldavia was settled by substantial numbers of Sarmatians. EraNavigator (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am adding one more comment here because I don't think you're entirely honest in this debate. You keep writing of "Sarmatian hypothesis" or of what is possible and not, but at the same time you asserted clearly that in your opinion Costoboci are a Sarmatian tribe (not possibly, not likely), and moreover you want this illustrated on the map used in this article. Daizus (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • • your suposition are groundless. Iaziges was moved by Romans in Panonia, and controled small part of teritory there, a kind of "nomanlands". Roxolani was allowed to move closer to the empire after Decebalus kingdom fall, and have a rather meteoric presence. Costoboci and Carpi was realy independent and strong tribes, and pretty much all evidences (names, burial rites, pottery) show that they was Dacians. Ofcourse, some tendentious one as Batty might disagree, but after i saw what Wheeler said about him, is hard to take him in consideration

• 4- Daco-Roman continuity and romanization of Dacians. - Contacts betwen Dacians and Romans occured long before the wars of Traian. Dacian kings after Burebista made roman denars, the only 100% sure Dacian inscription is in latin, Dacian tribes as one from Moesia and today Dobrogea (souteastern Romania and today Bulgaria) was integrated in the Roman empire a century previously then Traian. All Walachia was part of the empire at some point, and even after was put betwen roman province of Dacia and Moesia. Dacia was the most intense colonized roman province, ever, and many of the colonists was in fact from neighbour provinces (Moesia, Thracia, Panonia - meaning already romanized Dacians, Iliria, and even straight from Italia). Roman influence continued after Aurelian retreat as well, in fact even Goths before to enter in empire was quite heavy influenced by roman culture.
• Migratory peoples who pass by in Dacia was even less then in other provinces of Roman Empire. The most important ones, Goths, was indeed a mix of peoples having already a Dacian component and adopting Roman culture at least partialy. Others was based mostly in Panonia, not in Dacia, and controled mostly nominal, not for real, the area, or parts of the area, and yes, they was culturaly inferior, that is no doubt about this. Fact that Dacia have more then 30% of the teritory mountaneus, other 30% rugged terrain (hills and so) and about 70-80% covered with thick forests, and have few cities, provided as well a natural defence against stepes migratory tribes (numericaly inferior) who usualy go for richest targets and prefer the fields where they can employ their tactics of quick moves with cavalry, feel protected and can rise their cattles (their main ocupation beside plunder).
• Spain for ex. was way more affected by migrations, an open field practicaly, with germanic, goths, berbers, maurs and arabs ocuppying the land for centuries, yet the romanized iberics resisted well. Greece was attacked and ocuppied, partialy or totaly, by thracians, persians, romans, slavs, western europeans (mostly germanic or "latins" how was named) and turks, as well for even much longer period then Spain. Italia was ocupied (so not just some migrators passing by then leave) by goths, by germanic peoples, south was greek, arabs comes too, north was germanic, Normans comes too, byzantines before, Rome fall down from 1 million to couple tens of thousands inhabitants, yet no one can deny that italians preserved a latin based language, even if the migrators or the ones who ocupied it have a way much free terrain in front of them, and italians doesnt have where to hide, nor the power to resist them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.232.221 (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

First, I want to clarify that the note on Romanian archaeological interpretation is simply a summary of the main points of Niculescu's paper, no more, no less. It sets out the main features of the Geto-Dacian paradigm, and the main objections to the paradigm. It does not express an opinion on whether the paradigm is right or wrong. If you wish to debate these issues on this Discussion Page, fine, but you have no basis to remove or change the note. The note is a summary of an academic document, not a discussion page.

• • as i said, Niculescu is a minority, and his critics cannot be presented in a manner that is something big who change the all what mainstream historyography say. You are against critics of Batty (a single person), coming from a respectable historian, but easily agree with the critics of one agains the mainstream. This is weird, and more like your POV

I repeat my point above: Bichir can equally be criticised for the many contradictions in his work (and has been so criticised, by both Batty and Todd, among others), but you notice that I have not included those criticisms in the article - because, I repeat, this is an article about the Costoboci, not a debate about the merits of individual scholars. We must not go down that road, or the article will degenerate into another Discussion Page. EraNavigator (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Fact is that Bichir is not alone, the mainstream historyography is on his side. Niculescu is a minority. And i wouldnt trust too much critics from Batty

We have already discussed these points at length:

1. Sure, Roman influence had been felt for a long time by the Dacians - but the same is true of the Germans along the Rhine, or the Sarmatians along the Danube. No doubt, many barbarians along the Roman borders could speak some Latin, from trading-contact and due to its status as an international language - just as many Romanians today can speak some English. But that is far from saying that these tribes gave up their native languages and adopted Latin as their normal speech. We know from Ovid's Tristia poems that the Getae in the lower Danube region were not Latin-speakers in the time of Augustus (start of the 1st century AD). Ovid tells us that he learnt the Getan tongue from them and even wrote some poems in that language. It is known for a fact that the German and Sarmatian tribes did not become Latin-speakers. For example, the branch of Iazyges that occupied the Hungarian Plain during the 1st century AD. Despite being surrounded on three sides by Roman provinces (Pannonia, Moesia Superior and Dacia) for centuries, they are specifically described as Sarmatian-speaking by Ammianus Marcellinus, writing in ca. AD 400. As for the Free Dacians, their record of repeated attacks on Roman Dacia (the title Dacicus Maximus was taken by many emperors throughout the period 106-336) shows that they harboured a deep and lasting hatred of the Romans and a burning desire to regain their ancient homeland. I find the notion that such people would happily adopt the customs and language of their arch-enemies absurd.
2. Your comparison with what happened in the Roman territories in the West (Italia, Gallia, Hispania) is completely invalid.

• • My comparation is valid for a part, as dismiss your idea that some migrators can necessary hugely influence local peoples. In Italia, Iberia, Grecee, much bigger waves of migrators (some as arabs in Spain or Italia even having a very rich culture at that point)invaded a much more unprotected lands, and local peoples suffered much more during those invasion, yet still they didnt disapeared, and preserved their language too.
  • About Dacia, as i said, first was occupied Moesia and Panonia, and romanized. Those was teritories inhabited as well by Dacians. Dacia province was the most colonized province ever, in history of Roman Empire, and many colonists was not just from Italia, but from Thracia, Moesia and Panonia too, and those was probably bilingual, so they get along much better with Dacians north of Danube. We dont know how exactly was Dacian language, so we can make just speculation. Alf Lombard for ex. said that in romanian language was preserved characteristics already outdated at Rome in Augustus times. Dacian words (there is still controversies among lingvists about their numbers) are in a bigger number in Romanian then Gallic words in French for ex. Yes, Dacians didnt liked too much Romans, which didnt mean they dont adopted partialy some of their culture, especialy related with language. But Dacian heritage is by far the majority when we talk about Romanian mythology or folklore

All the above is just nonsense. You are right that we don't know much about the Dacian language. But what we DO know (from place-names, personal names and plant-names) is that it was completely different from Latin (it appears closest to the modern Baltic languages). The argument that modern Romanian preserves Latin features already outdated by the time of Augustus is ridiculous, since the Roman empire did not even include Thracia, Pannonia and Moesia before Augustus. You cannot say that Romanian contains many Dacian words, because you cannot be sure that any of those words are actually Dacian and not from some other origin - such as Thracian or Illyrian. Indeed many probably are from those other origins, as they also exist in Bulgarian, Serbian and Albanian (and even in modern Greek): the so-called "Balkan substrate" words. EraNavigator (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • • The argument is gived by a respected scholar as Alf Lombard. I imagine you know who this is. The words in Romanian with Dacian origins are not few. Thracian and Dacian are sister languages (some said that ilyrian was too), and your outdated view that are separated based on a bulgarian scholar from 1960 is not anymore take it in consideration. You shouldnt trust to much wikipedia when make researches. Try to find Sorin Olteanu and Sorin Paliga, both modern scholars. There is most probably that Thracians and Dacians, who practicly ruled the Carpathians and Balkans are at the origin of this "balkan sprachbund"

First, there is no doubt that these lands were 100% Latin-speaking when they were invaded and had been for centuries. This is certainly not the case for Greater Romania: only about half, the occupied part, was Latinised. There is no evidence at all that the rest ever had been, or ever became, Latin-speaking. Your "evidence" of the Zia inscription is pathetically inadequate. This was found in Rome, not in Moldavia. It was written by two young people of royal rank who had spent their entire childhood in Rome, and been educated and brought up as Romans. The grandmother they were honouring clearly died in Rome (where the tombstone was erected) and it is likely that this branch of the royal family had lived in Rome for 3 generations (probably as hostages for their king's good behaviour). These were indeed Romanised Dacians (or part-Dacians). But it is absurd to claim that this single item proves that the Costoboci people in general were Latin-speaking.

• • i am not saying that Costoboci was latin speaking as an all, this is you made up. What i said is that during time the vulgar latin from the area, mixed with dacian language formed the Romanian language today. It wasnt done in couple years, but in centuries.

No, linguists will tell you that modern Romanian is not a "mix" but a pure neo-Latin language descended from Eastern Romance, which in turn developed in ca. AD 500-800 from the Vulgar Latin commonly spoken all over the former western Roman empire. There is no hard evidence that the ancient Dacian language has played any role at all in the formation of modern Romanian. Indeed, Dacian was probably extinct by AD 400, long before proto-Romanian developed after ca. 800. EraNavigator (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • • what on earth are you saying there? Is just nonsense with no conection with real facts. Proto-romanian language was already formed in VI century AD, with a Dacian substrat and a Latin stratum. This was before the arrival of slaves, who added an adstrat (some 20% in vocabulary, most outdated today). The grammar, syntax, even vocabulary, was already formed before slavs come around. This is what any serious linguist will tell you, i dont know what kind of linguists you read

Second, the Western lands were never evacuated by the Romans, unlike Roman Dacia, where most, if not all, the Roman population was withdrawn in 275. In this regard, the fate of Britannia is closer to Dacia. Britannia WAS evacuated by the Romans, in 410, and there is evidence that the provincial population started to emigrate in large numbers to northern Gaul from the great barbarian invasion of Britannia in 367, probably because they no longer felt secure in the island, despite the restoration of Roman control. And it is interesting that the Latin language did NOT survive in Britain.

• • Romans evacuated just administration and army (2 legioans, each having around 1000 soldiers, so not at all a big deal). I already show you (with modern scholars researchers) that most of common peoples remain, as the new commers was indeed their brothers (free Dacians) and much more prefered then heavy taxation from the empire and resettling who knows where. In fact there are later writings who mention peoples runing from empire and settling north of Danube, where life was more free. There is i think not just one roman writers who mention that life was better under "barbarians" then in roman empire, with his heavy taxes, bureucracy and corruption.

Wrong. Legions in 275 still contained ca. 5,500 soldiers (They were only reduced, gradually, to 1,000 men under Diocletian in the period 284-305). In addition, some 40 auxiliary regiments were normally stationed in Dacia. The total garrison of Dacia has been estimated at 35-40,000 men. Together with dependents and civilian support-staff, we are talking about ca. 150,000 people. The population of Dacia at this time has been estimated at ca. 700,000 (down from ca. 1 million due to the Plague of Cyprian and to barbarian invasions). A further 20% (140,000) were urban and 15% (120,000) slaves. So at least half the population, 350,000, were withdrawn, even if every single free peasant remained. Furthermore, I do NOT accept the thesis that most of the rural population remained. The main aim of the evacuation was to repopulate the border provinces, devastated by plague and wars - which is why as many as two million barbarians were also relocated into the empire in the period 270-300. The biggest problem was the lack of peasants to cultivate food for the army. So leaving the peasantry in Dacia would have defeated the purpose of the exercise. You must understand that the evacuation, ordered by imperial decree, was NOT voluntary - but compulsory. The peasants and their families would have been rounded up by the military and forced to march, with their animals and possessions, to south of the Danube, where new plots of land (which had been abandoned and which the government desperately needed to bring back into cultivation) would have been assigned to them. You cannot simply dismiss the ancient records as propaganda. You must explain why Eutropius, regarded as a relatively reliable chronicler, would have any interest, writing about a century later (in 361), in distorting the facts. OK, I accept that a fair number of peasants, especially those in the mountain regions, would have been able to escape the evacuation - most by hiding in the forests or fleeing across the border into Free Dacian territory. But they cannot have numbered, even on a generous estimate, more than 100,000 people - a very different scenario than the 12 million Italians, 10 million Gallo-Romans and 7 million Hispano-Romans. EraNavigator (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • • i dont think is need for you to accept or not, i tell you what scholars say. Those two legions who retreated from Dacia in 274 had just 1000 soldiers. Legions "at peace" wasnt in full number (6000 soldiers), and one in Dacia by the time of evacuation was very depleted. This soldiers wasnt able ofcourse to round up half a million of peoples spread all over the teritory. And many doesnt had any particulary interest to leave, i point out the resons previously. Just patricians, their slaves, administration or merchants probably. Eutropius is contradicted first by archeology, i show you a book who specificaly deal with that. There is lots of uncovered villages and even towns, visible by aircraft (a modern technic) which wasnt know previously, but unfortunately there is not money for big researchers on the ground. Eutropius was a propagandistic writer, in Wheeler article, when he criticize Batty, he mention too the studies who show that Dacia wasnt at all depopulated after Traian wars (as Batty or Eutropius imply). A number aroun 1 million peoples remain, and combined with maybe another million of free Dacians as Carpi and Costoboci. Keep in mind as well that the teritory was protected by mountains, thick forests, lack of many roads and of many big towns, compared with Italia, Iberia, Galia or Greece, practicly running fields crosed all over by migrators. Population there wasnt anymore that big either. Rome was deserted at some point, peoples decreased hugely in numbers, barely surviving eating fruits in woods

• • Britania was evacuated and new peoples settled there in big numbers, saxons, vikings, normans etc. which is not the case with Dacia, where new peoples was in fact the same, Dacians. Contacts with Roman empire was maintained. In fact a series of roman emperors was from Dacian origin, one as Galerius even wanted to change the name of Roman Empire in Dacian Empire, if you read Lactantius.

Not a single Roman emperor was born in Dacia after 275 (and, I think, only one before 275). Galerius was born in Moesia, south of the Danube. His father was Thracian. His mother WAS from Dacia, but she had left the province (before 275) to escape the constant menace of Free Dacian attacks. This, by the way, shows that it is by no means certain that the Roman provincials of Dacia, who were of very mixed origins from all parts of the empire, regarded the Free Dacians as their "brothers". More likely, they saw them as a huge threat to their lives, lands and possessions. Even those who were of ethnic-Dacian descent probably hated the Free Dacians after 150 years of Roman rule (just like the South Koreans today hate and fear the North Koreans). I mentioned above that the peasants were forced to leave Dacia in 275. But many may have been very willing to leave, and to get lands in the safer provinces South of the Danube, just as many Romano-Britons voluntarily emigrated to Gallia after 367.

• • • • yes, his mother was Dacian, and left her TOWN because of wars, nothing unusual here. And he clearly point out his Dacian heritage, even wanted to revenge on Romans, if you see Lactantius. Peasents didnt wanted to leave too much. They didnt know what and when will receive lands, taxes for empire was huge, and their land north of Danube was better. The newcomers was infact Dacians as well, and life here was better then in empire, constantly attacked, and with heavy taxes.

Britannia was indeed settled by large numbers of foreigners. But that is exactly the same as Dacia. The 100,000 surviving Latin-speakers were occupied by the Taifali, then the Gepids. These alone could quite easily have outnumbered the 100,000. The Slavs definitely occupied Wallachia in large numbers.EraNavigator (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • • There wasnt 100,000 survivors, this is laughable seriously. Dont know from where you pull out this numbers. Gepids controled a small part of Transilvania. Slavs doesnt occupied anything in large numbers, read Curta about this. In fact some archeological sites atribute to them previously (under influence of Romanian Soviet friendship from the 50's) are not considered Slavic anymore. As well, Slavic and Turkc presence are not related with Carpi and Costoboci, dont know why you put those in the article?

It is mainly a question of relative numbers. In Gallia, 10 million Gallo-Romans were dominated by a few hundred thousand Germans (Visigoths, Franks, etc) - and note that the entire country adopted the name, "Francia", of the tribe that dominated it, the Franks. In Africa, as I mentioned before, ca. 2 million Romans were under the rule of barely 100,000 Vandals and Alans. With the indigenes retaining such an overwhelming majority, it is not surprising that the indigenous language prevailed, despite the political dominance of the migrators. In contrast, in Romania, only half of the territory, the Roman province of Dacia, was Latin-speaking to begin with. Even if we accept the paradigm's claim that a substantial proportion of the Roman provincial population was not evacuated by Aurelian (which contradicts the available documentary evidence), the remaining Latin-speakers cannot have numbered more than ca. 300,000 (the total population of the province was ca. 1 million, of which a third were troops and their dependents and another third townspeople and slaves, all of whom would definitely have been evacuated). This small number then suffered repeated Germanic, Slavic and Turkic invasions, during which many would have been killed or dragged off into slavery in other regions. The Slavic invasions were especially decisive, as they involved far greater numbers than the others, which is why such large parts of the Balkans are Slavic-speaking today. It is likely that in the 6th/7th centuries, Wallachia was Slavic-speaking.

• • There was not any big evacuation, just in Eutropius propaganda. See the modern references i gived to you (based on archeology as well). Your numbers are hilarious (330,000 troops and their families hahaha?) Man, there was 2 legions, each of 1000 soldiers, so 2000 soldiers in total. Some of them probably doesnt have a family there. There was no cities bigger then 40.000 inhabitants, and those was very few at best. More then that, we know from archeology that even those cities wasnt evacuated with all, or deserted, but still inhabited, even a century after. Sarmisegetuza Ulpia Traiana for ex. have some wals builded inside the city, in IV or V century AD if i remember corect. Just when the usual roman style economy fall they was gradualy abandoned (and to avoid attacks from outsiders too). It was just Eutropius propaganda saying that all peoples was removed, so those in Rome to not blame the emperor that he "abandoned" someone. Common peoples stayied, and even some from south come in north. There is not know what numbers was in north, probably more then 1 million (see the book), and to this was added the free Dacians, Carpi or Costoboci. There was not any repeated invasion of Germanic peoples. Goths was a Daco-Germano-Sarmatic peoples, with a major Dacian part (at least until they leave Dacia and move deep in the empire) and even a heavy Roman influence. Gepids was a small peoples who controled parts of Transilvania. Slavs come much later, and settled mostly in south of Danube. Turks coming way much later, didnt controled entire teritory either and we know from now that they didnt mix with the locals. Pechenegs was pretty soon destroyied, and Cumans we know that moved in Hungary. None of this can be compared with major invasions in much less protected lands of Italia, Greece, Spain or even Galia.

I can see no valid basis for your reversion of my last revisions, and so I will reinstate it. We have now spent enough time debating this article. The article as it now stands is fully-referenced (just a few refs missing), balanced and informative. It is by far the best such article on the internet. You must now cease your guerilla tactics and leave it alone, unless you have something new (and referenced) to add. You have made some useful contributions to both this article and to Carpi (people) and you have spurred me to improving quality. But your intervention now is in danger of becoming negative overall, and if you continue to remove text arbitrarily and insert your own views, I may be obliged to ask Supervisors to impose a lock on these articles. EraNavigator (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• • well, this is your POV. We need for ex. to eliminate Niculescu if so. He is a minority rejected by mainstream historyography, references to Slavs or Turks migration have nothing to do with Carpi or Costoboci, and is clear that Bichir and others dont rely only on pottery to relate the peoples with an ethnicity, but to burial rites too, which is even by Reinfrew, a hard evidence. The notes part is in this case a bit irelevant, and too bulky, and represent just your POV (comparation with what happened in other parts of empire was removed, critics about Batty was removed, critics of a minor POV as Niculescu is presented). So, i doubt is quite a good balanced article, but is unbalanced in one direction, even if that is one of a minority. I doubt as well that any sane Supervisor will block an article such inbalanced, just if he is biased somehow. I am not saying is not good in some parts, but as an all is really unbalanced

This is really nonsense. Every paragraph in the article contains both points of view: pro-paradigm and anti-paradigm. What you really mean is that the article is too balanced for your liking. You would prefer the article to support the paradigm. Sorry, but that IS POV. Look, apart from the issue of objectivity, if the article simply parroted old and established theories, it would be very boring and uninformative. It is much more fun to expand the horizon and to provoke reactions. Just the fact that you have felt compelled to intervene proves the success of this approach. The tensions caused have been very creative in producing better research and more ideas. EraNavigator (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • • it is not POV, it is presenting the mainstream believes as its fit, and not some minor controversial ones on the same rank

PS: May I suggest that your time would be better spent translating these 3 articles (Costoboci, Carpi (people) and Free Dacians) into the Romanian Wiki. If you look at the Romanian articles, you will see they are nothing compared to mine. EraNavigator (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend to Romanian editors not to do that. All three articles are biased and poorly written, promoting your own views and disregarding scholarship. The Romanian article on Costoboci contains information and bibliography which is missing here, and at least in this case it might better to work and improve the existing text. Daizus (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• • i dont have time for that, unfortunately, and as i said i dont agree in some parts with this articles

You don't need to agree with every part of the article in order to translate it. I find it astonishing that you say you don't have time. You clearly have enormous amounts of time to write reams of notes in these Discussion Pages and to research contributions to the articles themselves. If you are a native Romanian-speaker, then it should not take you very long to translate it. It would really be fun to see the reaction by Romanian readers! The cat among the pigeons. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • • yes, i spend enough time in this talk page, so dont have time for many other. And i dont research much for my point of views, since i read a lot before, and i know where to search. Regards to you as well

New paragraph

I wish to discuss here the changes, and if anybody have something helpful to say, please do here, so avoid childish war edits usualy done on wikipedia, without discussing. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.211.230 (talk) 08:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Badly written

Here's my review of this article authored mainly by EraNavigator (henceforth EN).

1. The names from CIL VI 1801 are Dacian (or Thracian for those who hold Dacian and Thracian to be one and the same language).

Mainstream scholarship considers these names Dacian or Thracian.

• Dimiter Detschew in his monograph on the Thracian language Die thrakischen Sprachreste (1957) accounted for Drigis(s)a and Drilgisa on p. 157-8, Zia p. 186, Natoporus p. 328, Pieporus p. 366, Tiatus p. 502. Costobocae and the other variants of this name are discussed on the page 256.
• Ion Iosif Russu published the article "Les Costoboces" in Dacia, NS 3 (1959), p. 341-352. He argumented the Costoboci were a Thracian tribe, and also these five names being Thracian (page 344: following previous studies by Wilhelm Tomaschek and Gheorghe Mateescu).
• Vladimir Georgiev studied the Thracian and Dacian onomstics in "Thrakische und Dakische Namenkunde", in ANRW II.29.2 (1983), p. 1195-1213. On page 1212 all these names are listed under dakischen Personennamen.
• Recently Dan Dana published several articles on Dacian onomastics. For the five names of CIL VI 1801 see "Les daces dans les ostraca du désert oriental de l'Égypte. Morphologie des noms daces" in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 143 (2003), p. 166-186 and "The Historical Names of the Dacians and Their Memory: New Documents and a Preliminary Outlook" in Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai - Historia (2006), nr. 1, p. 99-127. Dana's position is quite clear (2006, p. 110): "An inscription from Rome, around AD 171-200, informs us about a Dacian royal family of the tribe of the Costoboci".

Contrary to what's claimed in EN's article, the Dacianess of these names is not merely relying on the "suffix -poris/porus/por" (sic! for Georgiev and others both Natoporus and Pieporus are Zweistämmige Personennamen). Following Dana's most recent contributions, all the roots identified in these names are further (and some of them richly) attested in the onomastic material of certain or probable Dacian or Thracian origin. Moreover some of the names are also attested, see a Dacian Νατοπορ (on a ostrakon found at Mons Claudianus in Egypt, published in 1997 in the second volume of the series, under number 404) and a Dacian Nattoporis (RMD V 368) or two Drigissa in Moesiae (CIL III 14421 and 14507).

The Iranian parallels are dubious, and EN's article displays here a flagrant case of original research quoting no scholar to support the claims being made in the text (Justi's Iranisches Namenbuch presents Iranian names, not Iranian-Costobocan onomastic parallels). However outside Wikipedia, it would be a very unlikely hypothesis. Arguably Natoporus should rather be related to Nattoporis and Natopor, not to Shapur, Drilgisa should rather be related to Drigissa, not to Vologaesus and its variants suggested by EN (quoting Justi 345), etc.

2. Ammianus mentioned a tribe of Costoboci somewhere between Dniester and Danube

Despite what EN claimed in his article, Ammianus did not list any gentes Costobocae (sic!) "in the region of Sarmatia lying between the Tyras (Dniester) and Tanais rivers". In book XXII of his Res Gestae we find the "European Halani, the Costobocae, and innumerable Scythian tribes" (8.42, the translation is from Loeb edition, the Latin text is Europaei sunt Halani et Costobocae gentesque Scytharum innumerae). Also, as it is well known and quite clear in the text of Ammianus, he made an excursus on Black Sea's geography following the coastline in anti-clockwise direction. Thus these Halani, Costobocae and countless of Scythian tribes are located between Tyras (22.8.41) and Danube (22.8.43), which is roughly in the later region of Moldavia (shared today by Romania, Ukraine and Republic of Moldova), that is exactly where most other ancient authors and modern scholars locate them. So Ammianus is one more source accounting for this tradition.

Ammianus and also other primary sources should not be quoted directly in encyclopedia articles whenever possible (and certainly the quotes should not be in Latin). It's not only a matter of understanding Latin, but of acquaintance with classical philology. Many of these ancient writers are rather unreliable witnesses by modern standards. Jan Willem Drijvers in an online paper "Ammianus Marcellinus on the Geography of the Pontus Euxinus" takes note of Ammianus' "imprecise knowledge" and warns the readers to consider this digression "a piece of literature and not [...] a geographical treatise for practical use". One way in which ancient authors fool the unprepared modern readers is that sometimes they use the names of Germans, Celts, Ethiopians, Indians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Goths, Huns, even Thracians as umbrella-terms and not true ethnic names. For example, Dexippus called the Goths Scythians (in his Scythica), while Cassius Dio said the Dacians are "Scythians of a sort" (51.22.6) and the Bastarnae "properly classed as Scythians" (51.23.3) and of "Scythian race" (51.24.2). There are numerous modern studies about the stereotype of the "Scythian barbarian" in ancient literature from Herodotus to Late Antiquity (see F. Hartog's Le miroir d'Hérodote or A. S. Christensen's Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the history of the Goths). About what kind of "Scythians" Ammianus was writing here? (let's note he wrote here of Scythians and not of Sarmatians, a population of which he was well aware of).

These being said, the claim of "ancient group of tribes which resided, during the Roman imperial era, scattered over the northern Black Sea region, between the Carpathian Mountains and the river Don" is a figment of imagination, and not a reflection of sources, ancient or modern. With the notable exception of Pliny (finding on Tanais a Sarmatian tribe named Costobocae - the same tribe? a homonymous one? Pliny's error? a corrupted name "restored" by later copyists?), all the other authors speak of a single tribe, located between Danube and Dniester, as represented on article's map as well. The ad hoc invented branch of "Carpathian Costoboci" is to be discarded as original research.

Unfortunately EN's selective readings are not restricted to primary accounts. Thus in CAH XI, p. 171, Anthony R. Birley mentioned the "Costoboci, a people of uncertain origin who lived to the north or north-east of Roman Dacia", while in the same volume, on p. 631 Barbara Levick wrote of "Costoboci, coming from the region of Poland in 170 or 171". I guess this is about southern Poland, but nevertheless it's clear that the CAH view opposes the theory of a steppe origin.

3. Romanian historiography?

Some of the flaws omnipresent in this article are the original research, the undue weight and the weasel words. In my opinion some of the sections are so corrupted that they need to be completely rewritten. The mentioned flaws are not just mechanisms to push EN's pet theory of a Sarmatian origin, but also the weapons of his crusade against Romanian historiography, this article being (unfortunately) only one of EN's several battlegrounds. The readers are tormented by the obsessive rhetoric, and probably many wonder as I did when reading of these Costoboci, what purpose serve the various digressions on the sins of Romanian archaeology, the Thracian names of Bosporan kings, the Anglo-Saxon cemeteries and other such irrelevant topics? In my opinion those enormous notes and all the similar deviations in the text should be eradicated, or if indeed needed, be transformed to links to other relevant articles.

While EN chose to bash Romanian scholars, I am wondering who are those infamous Romanians, what is the Romanian historiography made of? The only two Romanian authors quoted by EN are two archaeologists: Gheorghe Bichir and Gheorghe Alexandru Niculescu. Ironically enough, they often hold opposite views. Does the Romanian historiography include Niculescu or not? But is Dan Dana one of these infamous scholars, being of Romanian origin, but working in Paris and a regular contributor to prestigious journals such as ZPE ? EN's rhetoric provides no answers, thus I can't make any sense of his diatribe.

The winner was already decided in the conflict Batty vs Bichir by EN's arbitration. Thus while Batty "argues", Bichir "claims" and "speculates" (however in one instance Bichir also "argues"). But not Batty, EN himself judged Bichir's arguments as "inconsistent" (in the current version this part was fortunately removed by another editor). Leaving aside the unencyclopedic tone, I can't see how the interactions between Roxolani and Daci in eastern Muntenia are relevant to what happened with Sarmatae and Costoboci, nor how or why "cultural domination" should be reduced to burial rites.

More problematic is the general perspective. Niculescu did not criticise the "determination of ethnicity by the typology, or by the relative quantity of finds" as "pseudo-scientific" and certainly the criticism aimed at "determination of ethnicity by the typology [...] of finds" is not "in accordance with mainstream archaeological theory". EN also accepted this while he wrote (fortunately this note was also recently removed) that "[i]t continues to be accepted that certain cultural customs and artefacts can have ethnic connotations". For a current debate about "emblemic styles" being able to reveal or not ethnic identities see Florin Curta's, "Some remarks on ethnicity in medieval archaeology" in Early Medieval Europe 15 (2007), nr. 2, p. 159-185. Also it should be noted that this strategy to undermine the attempts of ethnic identification is in sharp constrast with EN's way of writing articles with a section on "ethno-linguistic affiliation", of taking primary accounts at face value, of identifying patterns of Dacian-Sarmatian "cultural" or "ethnic" interaction, etc.

Because of all these and several other flaws, in opposition to EN's own appreciation, I find this article unbalanced, badly-referenced and un-informative (or well, mis-informative). Daizus (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, here is my own review of contributor Diazus' "review" of this article.

First, Daizus would have more credibility as an impartial reviewer in this matter if he were not Romanian himself. Since most Romanians have been brought up on a diet of "Daco-Roman Continuity" nationalist propaganda, this is like a trial where the prosecutor and the judge are the same person.

I haven't said anything of "Daco-Romanian continuity" or of me being a Romanian. None of my arguments above imply the "Daco-Romanian continuity" or that I have to be a Romanian to support my position (is Georgiev a Romanian?). I can't take fault for someone else's incapacity of reading or understanding. Daizus (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is criticised as "unbalanced, badly-referenced and mis-informative". Daizus has evidently not seen the article on the Costoboci in the Romanian wiki, or indeed in any other language! If he did, he would have to admit that this article is superior to them all by a long distance. Taking each point in turn:

Maybe you don't know much about ancient history, but try to get your facts straight about this discussion at least. Daizus did read the Romanian article, which is far more balanced and informative. Once one removes all the bias and irrelevant claims from your article, all what's left is a short (and often speculative) history of Roman-Costobocan affairs in the 170s. Daizus (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Unbalanced": This is an absurd criticism, since every paragraph in the "Ethno-linguistic Affiliation" section, which is what is contested, contains both arguments for and against the Daco-Roman paradigm. What Daizus really means is that the section is too balanced for his liking, as he wants it to affirm as fact that the Costoboci were ethnic-Dacians, when in reality the available evidence is ambiguous. Note that the section concludes (in accordance with CAH XI 2nd ed) that the ethno-linguistic affiliation of the Costoboci must be considered "uncertain". This is, almost by definition, a balanced conclusion, as it does not take sides in the dispute and leaves the matter open.

You're mistaken. I don't dispute the "ethno-linguistic affiliation" section only, but the entire article from lead ("ancient group of tribes which resided, during the Roman imperial era, scattered over the northern Black Sea region, between the Carpathian Mountains and the river Don.") to the preposterous, enormous end-notes. The article argues and suggests obsessively the Costoboci were Sarmatians, which is anything but balanced. Daizus (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Badly-referenced": There are 56 citations in this article, all from authoritative sources, which is creditable for a shortish piece. OK, a few citations are missing, but that's because I am still working on the text. If only all articles were as well-referenced as this one! It would transform Wikipedia's reputation, which currently largely seen in academia as an amateurish, unreliable chat-forum for bored (and often ignorant) teenagers. As regards the sources used, the article draws on a wide range of both ancient and modern works (and is the only one of the articles on the Costoboci to quote from Gh. Bichir's work). It is true that ethnic identifications by ancient authors must be treated with caution: but that is mentioned in the text. (BTW, this also also applies to authors that provide (limited) support for the paradigm such as Strabo. The theory that the Thracians, the Moesians, the Getae and the Dacians were essentially the same ethnic group, with the same language, is entirely based on a report by this one author. Strabo's report has been challenged by several modern historians and linguists, who argue that Thracians and dacians (and even Getae), were distinct ethnic groups with different languages, but Strabo's report is treated as Gospel Truth by the paradigmers. But then it is typical of the paradigmers' tendentious and selective approach that unfavourable evidence from ancient sources (e.g. Pliny, Eutropius) is dismissed as unreliable or propaganda, while favourable evidence is hailed as incontrovertible fact).

Quantity is not quality. Important claims in the article have no citation: that Costoboci were a group of tribes, or that there are Iranian parallels to Costobocan names (Justi says nothing of Costoboci, therefore that citation is just a mask to hide your original research). An important part of the cited literature has no relevance whatsoever to Costoboci: I. Hodder, F. Justi, S. Lucy, Gh. Al. Niculescu, C. Renfrew. Important claims made in the quoted books are conveniently avoided (in CAH it is said the Costoboci came from Poland, you're not mentioning it probably because it would make their Don origin unlikely). But worse is that important relevant literature is left aside.

Your rants against "paradigmers" are seriously misguided. Many scholars (from those quoted above on Costobocan names: Vl. Georgiev and D. Dana) argue Dacians and Thracians spoke different languages and had different names.

Thus thanks to you this article is divorced from mainstream academic research. It's authors like you who keep Wikipedia on an amateurish, unreliable source. Daizus (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Mis-informative": How are readers being mis-led? Is it by being informed at all of views contrary to the Daco-Roman paradigm? Even the Romanian Wiki article admits that: unii consideră că originea acestui trib din nordul Daciei Romane este incertă. Există și opinii privind o origine germanică, sau o origine sarmato-scitică sau o origine slavă. That really would be misinformation, censoring articles so that readers only get one side of an academic dispute.

The readers are misled to believe that Costoboci were (possibly, probably, likely) Sarmatians (and unfortunately this view is augmented in other articles, e.g. in the similarly poorly written article on Free Dacians you wrote: "it is unlikely that the Costoboci [...] were ethnic-Dacian" and "the Costoboci (probably Sarmatian)"). The readers are misled to believe that Ammianus wrote of several Costobocan tribes, somewhere east of Dniester (which he did not). The readers are misled to believe the Costobocan names have Iranian parallels (and no one tells them that EraNavigator, the Wikieditor, is the author of those parallels, not some linguist) The readers are misled to believe there are no convincing Dacian onomastic parallels (but there are). The readers are misled to believe the Romanian archaeology is pseudo-science (Niculescu asserted nothing like that) or that Bichir's arguments are inconsistent (by your own verdict). And so on, so forth - see my detailed criticism above.

As for the Romanian article, that is fine. I don't care if someone mentions (citing reliable sources, of course) that Costoboci were assumed of Sarmatian, Slavic, Germanic, etc origin. But I do mind if the Costoboci are said to be (possibly, probably, likely) of Sarmatian origin (censoring other hypotheses and not acknowledging that at least the Dacian origin of their royal family is virtually uncontested) or even worse that their names are Iranian (without citing any author whatsoever to support such a claim; even if it would be one, an informative and balanced article would say "most scholars argue the Costobocan royal family had Dacian names, but scholar X argues otherwise").

It seems you failed to realize that my general criticisms are the conclusion of my specific points. Next time try to read my "review" from beginning to end, not vice-versa ;) Daizus (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So much for Daizus' general criticisms. As regards his specific points:

1. I reject Daizus' objections to the Notes to the articles. Again, his motive is to suppress inconvenient information. Since the text mentions "mainstream archaeological theory" regarding ethnic identification from material remains, it is entirely pertinent (and useful) to explain to readers what this "mainstream theory" actually consists of. As for the note on the Bosporan Kingdom, this is also pertinent. The paradigmers claim that since the names of Costoboci royals on CIL VI.1801 are "Dacian" (actually, the attested parallels given are Thracian, not Dacian, of which more below), this is "proof" that the Costoboci people in general were ethnic-Dacians. On this basis, then the people of the Bosporan Kingdom should be considered ethnic-Thracians - except that in this case we know for sure that they were not. I see nothing preposterous about the Notes. They are as long as they need to be to convey the necessary points. The whole point of Notes is that they are explanatory material that should not be placed in the main text, but are pertinent to it. I absolutely refuse to remove or change them in any way.

The main problem with those notes is that they have no relevance whatsoever. They amount to more than half of the text of the article (is this article about Romanian archaeology and issues of ethnic identification?) a fact which by itself stands for poor writing.

As for Thracian names in Bosporan kingdom, the question of irrelevance is doubled by original research. If no scholar quoted the Thracian names in Bosporan kingdom as evidence against the Dacianess of Costoboci, then it cannot be considered one. You're not entitled to judge what's evidence and what's not. To be sure, the Thracian names in Bosporan kingdom were often interpreted as evidence for a local Thracian community or at least a royal dynasty (for example here interpreted as a connection with the Odrysian dynasty). Maybe these Costoboci spoke several languages. I don't know if they did, but if we have no scholar to promote this view, it shouldn't be quoted at all. Dura lex sed lex.

Another major problem with your digressions is that they don't explain, they are diatribes against Romanian scholarship and overall confusing. For example your assertion that "determination of ethnicity by the typology [...] of finds has been criticised as pseudo-scientific by Niculescu, in accordance with mainstream archaeological theory" is completely unfactual. First, Niculescu does not use the word "pseudo-science" (that's your invention). Second, as explained in your own footnote (and also in the article above about ethnicity in medieval archaeology), in accordance with mainstream archaeological theory "it continues to be accepted that certain cultural customs and artefacts can have ethnic connotation". Thus contrary to your earlier claim, typology of finds can be used to determine ethnicity.

Lastly the Costobocan names have parallels in Dacian (and not Thracian) onomastics. For Natoporus, Drilgisa and Tiatus we have (almost) exact matches, for Pieporus only partial matches: pie- or -por(is/us). For Zia there are also exact matches, not sure if Dacian or Thracian, but the inscription states clearly her Dacian origin. Daizus (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Daizus' point that the Sarmatian origin of the CIL VI.1801 names is not supported by a citation is true, but obvious from the "Citation Needed" tag entered (by myself). The reason for this is I did come across a ref for this, but did not make a note of it at the time and have failed to find it again since. But I will find it (if not, I shall remove that passage).

Actually the Iranian parallels are not supported by a citation and the possible Sarmatian origin of those names is original research. Daizus (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Niculescu clearly regards the traditional methodology of Romanian archaeologists as pseudo-scientific, indeed that is the central point of his paper. In one passage, he ridicules Romanian archaeologists (quoting): "This representation of society [i.e. the Daco-Roman continuity theory] pre-exists the interpretation of [archaeological] finds... Thus, it is believed that an assemblage of artefacts of different ethnic origins could be assigned to one of them by assessing their [relative] proportion. Some artefacts (such as the "Dacian mug") and other features have gained the status of "ethnic indicators", of being more "ethnic" than others. The same status has been claimed for some other artefacts, which has led to a variety of conflicting ways to imagine what the archaeological record of the Romanic population should look like".

Maybe you should improve your reading skills, because he does not claim what you suggest. Your quote above says nothing of pseudo-science. The fault he finds in Romanian archaeology is that it follows obsolete models (such as Kossinna's culture-historical archaeology).

Despite what you believe, some artefacts are "ethnic indicators", like certain types of belts, fibulae, etc. Of course also the context is important (how the artefact was worn and valued in that society), however in a careful study the artefacts can be analyzed like that. Daizus (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed the paragraphs on Ammianus because those can be verified easily using Wikisource. I also added some inline tags in the lead and in the first section. I will not tag the entire article in the same fashion but I hope the current tags illustrate better my criticism. Once you agree with it, I can help you with bibliography to straighten up those points. Daizus (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)