Talk:Carpi (people)

t5his section is absolutely ridiculous. i propose that it be deleted. honestly it is nothing more than pure speculation, whomever wrote it didn't even bother to bring some references that supports his/her point of view. take one at a time 1. the argument that the carpi can not be dacians because they did not live in dacia. honestly this is ridiculous to anyone who knows a bit of history. since when do the boundaries of political entities also represent ethnic boundaries? are there no irish outside ireland? are there no germans outside of germany? yes there are. just because they did not live in the kingdom of dacia that does not mean they were not dacians. and here is why: when burebista died his empire was split into five parts, each ruled by one chieftan and named after one of the dominant dacian tribes. one of them managed, mainly due to its geographical position, ro rise from the status of a tribal union to that of a kingdom, while the others (anmely the carpii, costobocii and getae) remained locked in a tribal state. as such the kingdom of dacia only counted for roughly 1/5 th of the entire dacian populations. do you see why this argument is invalid?

2. just because the author says that romans were attacked by dacians and carpians does not prove that they were not of the same ethnicity. when it comes to tribes names are more important than ethnicity. that's why the roman author mentions the carpo-dacii not just dacii, some of the raiders were rebels from the roman province that identified themselves with the old daci tribe while some of them wre part of the carpi tribe. your argument only proves that they were separated politically, which they were. to claim otherwise would be like saying that author X mentions the bavaro-saxons attacking a random german town and that they were ethnically different because they don't have the same name. which is incorrect. political affiliation in different from ethnic affiliation.

3. you are either wrong or just lying. not one of those emperors ever claimed the title dacicus maximus. all of them claimed the title carpius maximus. the reason is simple: the province of dacia was already part of the empire, as such all the emperors you mentioned already had the title of dacicus maximus. there is no point in claiming a title you already own. is there? had dacia not been part of the empire they would have claimed the title dacicus maximus after defeating the carpii (just like constantine I did)

also i find you conclusions to be incorrect. the first german tribe to inhaibt the area (meaning west of siret) were the goths and they were still a few decades away when the carpii are first mentioned. the cannot be sarmatians because if they were all carpii raids would have ceased when the sarmatians became clients of the roman empire. yet it was not so. also the samratians were completely absorbed by the goths and huns. the carpii on the other hand were not. i find your proto-slav hypothesis to be complkete BS. the slavs were still hundreds of km and hundreds of years away from the region (in fact they were in the north caucasus). the slaic migration is to well documented for your argument to make any sense.

based on what i said here i will remove the section. if you want to repost it please provide counter-arguments and some references that back up you point of view. simply adding the chronicles you mention as references does not cut it.

user adijarca (sadly i lost my password) 79.113.1.151 (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

As the original author of this article, I object strongly to your removal of this section, and even more to your implication that I am deliberately introducing false statements. i do not have a nationalist agenda on this subject (i am italo-british) and my sole concern is to present the evidence as objectively as possible.

You have to realize that no matter how hard you worked on an article, you can not own it.Codrin.B (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am not saying that the Carpi were definitely not Dacians, simply that the evidence is insufficient to be certain of the Carpi's ethnicity. The only evidence linking the Carpi with the Dacians consists of Zosimus' single mention of an attack on Rome by the so-called Carpo-Dacians in AD 395. You have conveniently deleted the various possible meanings that I listed for this ambiguous term. You give the example of the Bavaro-Germans. What about the Anglo-French forces on the Western Front in World War I? Does this term imply that these forces were all French? Furthermore, Zosimus is a notoriously unreliable chronicler writing about 300 years after the event, which itself took place over 100 years after the last inscription mention of the Carpi (the issue in 272 of a coin with the legend VICTORIA CARPICA by the emperor Aurelian). Zosimus' quote cannot therefore be considered sufficient evidence that the Carpi were Dacians. EraNavigator (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I reject your accusation that I invented the Dacicus Maximus title. If you look at the original Ethno-linguistic Affiliation section, which you deleted, you will see that these emperors' titles are sourced from the Cambridge Ancient History. So what are you talking about? I suggest that an apology would be in order for this unwarranted insult EraNavigator (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

So if the Romans named themselves Dacius Maximus not Carpius Maximus, doesn't that hint to the fact that they viewed Carpi as Dacians?!Codrin.B (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your personal view of the proto-Slavic thesis is irrelevant. I have produced a referenced derivation of the name Carpi from a Slavic root-word. It is therefore legitimate to add this hypothesis to the article. In fact, the geographical distribution of proto-Slavic speakers is highly uncertain. Some claim they migrated from Scandinavia, others from the Caucasus region. Another view, which I believe is much more likely given the present-day distribution of Slavic-speakers, is that such were indigenous from ancient times throughout central/southern Europe, European and southern Russia (Jordanes classifies the Venedae of European russia and the Antes of S. Russia as Slavic in the 6th c.). It is thus perfectly possible that the Carpi were proto-Slavs. EraNavigator (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not the place for original research, no matter how great it is. This claim is very dangerous, as it is usually abused by nationalistic Slavic or Bulgar descendants to claim that the migration of the Slavs didn't happen and that they were first in Balkans, which is in no way main stream or supported historically. The presence of Illyrians, Thracians and Dacians and of their descendants in Balkans it is very inconvenient to such groups and they push for the alteration or complete removal of their history. I suggest to be careful in not putting yourself as a tool in their hands. As you mentioned, you are an Italo-British and not intimate with the Balkans politics or culture. It is a very sensitive subject, and I suggest that if you want to focus on the history of these lands be extra careful and ask for suggestions and discussion before coming with radical or non-main stream ideas. But I'll try to assume good faith on your side. And don't forget another essential thing, every empire had their scribes write the history they wanted, de-glorifying others and glorifying themselves. Our common ancestors, the Romans where not any different. The Romans wanted Dacians erased from history because of their defiance and they razed a large amount of towns. And I am sure their historians were at least careful what they wrote, to not anger any emperor. Also they had a lot of incomplete information not venturing in the so-called barbarian lands. So take the ancient sources with a grain of salt. Even though they are old and scarce, these sources don't hold the ultimate truth. Archaeology, DNA testing are way better and there is still a lot of work to be done on this subject. Most of the Dacian settlements are still under ground... Codrin.B (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The claim that the Costoboci were also Dacians is another fallacy of the Romanian nationalist-historical paradigm. In fact, as you can see in my article on the Costoboci, the evidence of ancient geographers is that this tribe was Sarmatian.EraNavigator (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

NB: See my revised Ethno-linguistic affiliation section EraNavigator (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think Carpi was more probably a Dacian tribe, first reason being Zosimus mention. There is no logical reason to say that possible they was germanic or sarmatian since there is no any prouve for that (i wonder why they wasnt called not carpo-dacians but carpo-sarmatians for ex.?). Another reason is that sometimes roman emperors use the title Carpicus Maximus and sometimes Dacicus Maximus, this being a kind of prouve that they might be a bit diferent, since for both Yaziges and Roxolani was used Sarmaticus Maximus. But this just prouve that Carpi wasnt in any way Sarmatians, because then was used the title Sarmaticus for them too. Neither germanics, because then will be used the title Germanicus. And having that intermixing of names, Carpicus and Dacicus, and the use of "Carpo-Daci" by Zosimus is much more probably they was Dacians Archeological findings show that they had mostly a Dacian culture and sometimes are included in the same type as Chernyakhov/Santana de Mures type belonged to Goths, a mix of diferent peoples having a Dacian culture with Sarmatian influences, some germanic added too, and even heavy roman influences. As well "The Cambridge medieval history", Volume 2 By Joan Mervyn Hussey, page 203, name them "Dacian Carpi" as well, and show that mainstream historian community acknowledge that Carpi was a Dacian tribe indeed. I hope someone with a cont to make corrections on the main page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.206.193 (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your point, that if the Carpi were Sarmatian or Germanic, victorious emperors would be called Sarmaticus or Germanicus. respectively, is a good one. But it does not, of course, prove that the Carpi were Dacians. It simply strengthens the case that the Carpi may have belonged to another ethno-linguistic group altogether, such as Celtic (as were the Anartes of the northern Carpathians), or to the proto Balto-Slavic group, or simply an linguistic isolate such as the Basques of modern Spain. As for the archaeology, as the article explains, this proves nothing about the ethnicity of the Carpi, as the Chernyakov culture was shared by a large number of groups over a huge area. As for the "mainstream" view, this is simply derived from the Romanian nationalist/historical paradigm, which has distorted debate about these issues for a long time, but is finally coming under increasing challenge by Romanian scholars themselves. The only possible balanced conclusion from the available data is that the ethno-linguistic affiliation of the Carpi remains uncertain. However, the existence of a separate Carpicus victory title favours the possibility that they were quite separate from neighbouring main ethnic groups. EraNavigator (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

NB: See my revised Ethno-linguistic affiliation section EraNavigator (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• i think you make some huge and false generalisations. I restored some parts of articles, and i think we should discuss more before other changes. First of all "slavs" didnt existed back then, or if some proto-slavs groups existed, they was not for sure in the "Carpi" area. 2- Celts as "Anarti" wouldnt be named "Carpi", but keep their name, and more then that, Celts at that point wasnt of any importance in this part of Europe, for sure not in position to attack such vigurously the empire. In fact, after Burebista, any significant and important presence of Celts ceased to exist around Dacia. As well, from archeology POV, they had a "geto-dacian" mainly culture, with foreign influences ofcourse. Singular persons as Niculescu are just against the main current, and we cant use him as only reliable source. I told you that foreign authors (as those from Cambridge) use the same words and consider the same as "mainstream" romanian historyography. Its silly to believe that all those peoples lie, and only few (or one, in this case), Niculescu, is right. He probably just try to make a name challenging older ideas. If you look at Chernyakov culture article here on wikipedia, you will see that modern scholars as Kulikowski, Halsall or Matthews consider that that culture (of Gohts) was probably formed "in situ" with a big contribution of locals (some said even that Geto-Dacians played a major role) so its much more probable that some Dacians regruped after Roman conquest of Decebalus kingdom (who didnt comprise all Dacians teritories) and was a major part not just of Goths, but of Carpi too (probably absolute majority in case of Carpi)

It is you, not I, who are making huge assumptions. I notice that not a single one of your contributions is referenced, which is unacceptable in an article at this level. In future, please always add a reference to support every sentence that you write.

Another problem is that you do not read carefully what I have written. For example, you state: "you will see that modern scholars as Kulikowski, Halsall or Matthews consider that that culture (of Gohts) was probably formed "in situ" with a big contribution of locals". I say exactly the same thing in the Material Culture section, where I state: "One formerly popular "ethnic identification" of material culture is the hypothesis that the Chernyakhov culture originated with, and was spread by, the Goths by their southward migration and eventual hegemony over the northern Black Sea region. But this has been strongly challenged by more recent scholarship, which sees Chernyakhov as indigenous to the region and simply absorbed by the incoming Goths. Todd argues that its most important origin is Scytho-Sarmatian."^[1]

I do NOT claim that the Anartes or the Antes were in reality the Carpi. I am simply giving examples of Celtic and proto-Slavic peoples that are recorded as residing in Sarmatia at this time. (I have revised the wording of this paragraph to make my meaning clearer).EraNavigator (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The so-called "Geto-Dacian" variant of the Chernyakhov culture is a myth. Any objective archaeologist will tell you that there are no significant differences between the finds at Poienesti and finds from other Chernyakhov sites. In fact, Chernyakhov sites are notable for their uniformity over a huge area, as Todd demonstrates. EraNavigator (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do NOT claim that there were no Dacians left outside Roman Dacia. In fact, I say the opposite: that the assumption by several emperors of the title Dacicus Maximus implies that there were many "free" Dacians (both refugees from the Roman conquest and Dacian tribes that had always lived outside Dacia). What I dispute is the assumption that the Carpi were also free Dacians. This may be true, but there is simply not enough evidence to be certain. What you call the "mainstream view" is based on a single ambiguous phrase in an unreliable Byzantine chronicler writing centuries after the event. EraNavigator (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The fact that Niculescu is a minority voice does not mean that he is wrong. In fact, it is mainly those eccentrics who challenge the orthodoxy who are responsible for big scientific advances. For example, until Kepler, the "mainstream view" of astronomers was that the Sun rotated around the Earth. What Niculescu (and I) are saying is: let's ignore established theories and let's only accept what the evidence supports. If there is little or no evidence, then we keep an open mind.EraNavigator (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

An example of the assumptions-without-evidence that you make are the (unreferenced) statement that you just added to the article: that the emperors alternated between Carpicus and Dacicus titles. This is absolutely false. For example, I have just discovered that Aurelian carried BOTH titles at the same time, as did Maximianus. This is very odd, if the peoples that they were fighting were both Dacian. EraNavigator (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Correction: Maximianus only carried Carpicus. But Aurelian carried both. EraNavigator (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• i see your points, but, there is at least one huge flaw in the "ethno-lingvistic" part of the article. If you say that ""A possible counter-argument to the Carpi's alleged Dacian ethnicity is the existence of a separate imperial victory-title for the Carpi: Carpicus Maximus"", it is exactly the same theory for contesting their supposedly Sarmatian or Germanic origin, since Roman emperors always used "Sarmaticus" for Yazigi or Roxolani and "Germanicus" for any germanic tribe. Slavs (as Antes) wasnt near this area at that point, and is no reason to be know under this name. As well Celtic variant is less probable, not that Anarti was not any significant player but they was west of Carpi (and even know under their name, Anarti). So i think that references to a possible Sarmatian or Germanic or other origins are wrong from the same counter-argument stated above

OK, you are right that there is a logic flaw in this argument. So I will remove the Sarmatian and German options, but keep Celtic/proto-Slav/language isolate options, as these are consistent with a separate Carpicus title. By the way, please sign your comments. Who are you? EraNavigator (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do not accept your view that they could not be Celtic or Slavic. Why not? There were Celtic elements in the Carpathian region (Cotini, Anartes, Bastarnae?). The argument that these were not major players is irrelevant to the question of whether the Carpi were Celtic-speaking. As for proto-Slavs, even more likely. The Venedae, which dominated the vast region of European Russia, may well have had split-offs. Or maybe they were proto-Hungarians!EraNavigator (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• About the Dacicus and Carpicus titles, we see that some roman emperors used Dacicus, some Carpicus in the same period. Archeology said that their culture is major dacian (despite some Niculescu disagreements), and Zosimus call them "Carpo-Dacians", which most logical means that Carpi was Dacians. He didnt use Carpo-Sarmatians, or Carpo-Germanians, and other interpretations are forced and without many substance.

• About Chernyakhov culture, well is not quite the place to discuss about here, but from archeological point of view it had a major Dacian component, and was formed in the area, this cant be denied. Goths themselves was a mix of diferent populations, and i believe that Carpi was too, but with a much clear and bigger Dacian component (clearly an absolute majority, even if at Goths too the Dacian component was very significant, at least untile they leaved the area and depart to central and western Europe)

We've already discussed Zosimus' quote and the archaeology. Zosimus' quote is simply not conclusive. And, as you say, this is not the right place to have a detailed discussion about the archaeology. But I would urge you to read the works on this subject in Niculescu's bibliography. They show how tendentious archaeological interpretation has been in Romania in the past - basically, it's only worth reading archaeological works written since 2000. Earlier works are just nationalist propaganda. EraNavigator (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Check out the revised Ethno-linguistic section, to take your point into account.EraNavigator (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• hi, and sorry, i am not the usual editor here, just looked randomly and saw this article, so wanted to add some points, i dont know well the arrangements here.
• About what you said, well, the Celtic/proto-slav origin suffer from the same flaw. Anartes you mentioned was a small tribe who disaperead by the end of II century AD (removed by Romans i think), and they lived toward Slovakia and Poland. Celtic as presence in Dacia ceased to exist by II century BC, and in I century BC Burebista eliminated any significant presence of them even in Panonia and Slovakia. Yes, they didnt disapear with all, but few who remained was either dacized, later romanized, or formed insignificant comunities. About Anartes, only worth to be mention, i said previously
• Proto-slavs wasnt around back then either, some consider Venedi and Antes as proto-slavs, but they are recorded in other areas at that point. And Sarmatia was just a generic name for a teritory of stepes in north of Black Sea, it doesnt mean it was inhabited just by Sarmatians. As well there is no prouve that Carpi was somehow some slavs, is just a simple suposition which isnt based on something material (archeology, chronics, etc.)
• About Carpi being proto-hungarians, this is a joke right? Hungarian peoples and their migration is pretty well documented both by chronicles and archeology (they had a mostly asiatic features according with archeology) and they arrived in the area just around IX-X century AD, long after the events we discuss
• From what i read on Chernyakhov culture, some soviet historians said that it was the base of formation of slavs (they never mention Carpi anyway, but mostly the parts from Ukraine especialy, where Saramtians prevailed anyway), but this is mostly rejected today. Archeological features of this culture in Dacian area show a big Dacian impact and influence, and thats why the Carpi (based on Zosimus too, the only reference we have, and which we dont have too much strong reasons to reject, just supositions again) are much probably and logical to be of Dacian origin. Fact that in the same period of time, diferent emperors fight in Dacia and some took the name Dacicus and others Carpicus may show that as well those names was interchangeable. My opinion, based on all we have discussed until now, is that Carpi was a distinct Dacian tribe, probably outside of Decebalus kingdom, or formed imediatly after the fall of that kingdom, with a mix of dacian refugees and dacians who wasnt part of Decebalus kingdom. They may have some other foreign influences, but as an absoulte majority they was formed by Dacians, but who distinguished as a new independent tribe among "free Dacians". Other possible origins are less prouvable then this origin, who at least is based on ancient quotes and archeology, the others doesnt have even this, are merely supositions
• And about Niculescu, arent you wonder why is he such a singular voice, even at 20 years after the fall of comunism in Romania, and changes of doctrines? Arent you wonder why someone from Cambridge still use in the 2000's, the name "carpo-dacians"? Niculescu just try to make a name, and become more visible with new theories. I think everybody agree that former historyography during comunist era had some wrong (and even weird) ideas, acording with Party wishes (as painting Dacians as a kind of proto-comunist society of peasents and craftmens, fighting just for peace and defence, a peace loving proto-comunist state, etc.), but those was already rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.125 (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Niculescu is not a lone voice. In his important paper, he makes clear that the traditional paradigm has come under growing attack by a number of Romanian archaeologists in recent years. Among the key figures in this revolt are: BABES, HARHOIU, OPREANU and VULPE (see Niculescu's bibliography for details of their publications). These scholars regard archaeology as a science, and apply the scientific method to analyse finds. The scientific method requires that theories should be constructed to fit the facts, NOT that facts should be selected and distorted to fit pre-existing theories.Niculescu gives the following examples of their objections:

1. "The archaeological representation of the Romanic population in Transylvania in 6th and 7th centuries has been recently shown to be inconsistent and reliance on technological continuity to prove ethnic continuity unjustified."
2. "The use of the term "Geto-Dacian" to describe the population North of the Danube has been under scrutiny, with the conclusion that we should not see behind it a culturally uniform population, with a common language and common material culture."
3. "The uniformity of the Dacians living both inside and outside the Roman province, the view that the "Free Dacians", those outside the Roman province, should be considered as comforting for the inhabitants and authorities of the province, have been challenged, as well as the assertions on the "receptivity" of the Carpi towards Roman civilisation".

The proto-Hungarian option was indeed a joke. But now that I think about it, it is possible that the Carpi were Finno-Ugric. Ptolemy locates a group he calls the Phinnoi in SE Poland. This group are believed to be Finno-Ugric. Since most, if not all, the Carpi were transferred to Pannonia (now Western Hungary), this raises the intriguing possibility that that region had became Finno-Ugric speaking long before the arrival of the Magyars in the 9th/10th centuries. This is, of course, pure speculation and thus has no place in the article. But it is important to always keep an open mind. Surprising discoveries can be made. Finno-Ugric groups may have been spread over a much wider area in ancient times. For example, the most recent "hot" theory is that the ancient Etruscan language of central Italy and its cognate the Raetian language once spoken in Switzerland are Finno-Ugric (e.g. Etruscan for "mother" is AITI, Finnish is ATI). If this is true, then Finno-Ugric groups are very old indeed: they may have entered the Italian peninsula before the Italic tribes like the Latins, who are believed to have migrated before 1000 BC.

I agree with you that Niculescu is probably wrong about linking Chernyakhov with the Goths (although the latter may have played a part in spreading that culture). But I do NOT agree with your attempt to prove that there was a Dacian variant of Chernyakhov. This falls into the trap, criticised by Niculescu: "The [Romanian nationalist-historical paradigm] pre-exists the interpretation of finds. It relies on the assumption that ethnic significance can be recognised in all artifacts.Thus it is believed that an assemblage of artifacts of different ethnic origins can be correctly assigned to one of them by assessing their proportion. Some artifacts, such as the so-called "Dacian-type mug", or features have gained the status of "ethnic indicators", of being more "ethnic" than others". This is obviously a totally unscientific approach: distorting interpretation in order to fit an existing theory.

Your explanation of the Dacicus/Carpicus problem is totally unconvincing. You can't have it both ways: either the Carpi were ethnic Dacians or they were different. They cannot be both at the same time. There is no good reason why the Romans would not have used Dacicus for both Free Dacians and Carpi or alternated between them. It was common for emperors to win the same title more than once. For example, Diocletian won Sarmaticus Maximus 4 times, for victories against both Iazyges and Roxolani, the last title being rendered Sarmaticus Maximus IV on inscriptions. The fact is that the existence of a Carpicus title alongside Dacicus is a very serious problem for the theory that the Carpi were Dacians, and you know it.

My own opinion is that the Carpi probably belonged to an ethno-linguistic group outside those familiar to the Romans. Most likely, they were a language isolate like the Basques.

I think the article is now fine. It is by far the most comprehensive, detailed, well-documented and balanced article on the Carpi on the Internet (and even outside the Internet). It sets out the arguments both for and against Dacian ethnicity and reaches the inevitable conclusion that the evidence is inconclusive. You should leave it at that. Cheers EraNavigator (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Hi, and cheers to you too. I make just some small changes, and i agree is quite fine now.
• about Niculescu, it is as i said, trust me. Geto-Dacians is like Suebi-Marcomanni, something like that. Diferent tribes of the same peoples. It is nothing to debate too much here. Fact that Niculescu (and couple others) try to change some vision is good, if not jump on the other extreme (which he did) just to be more noisy and proeminent, and make a name.
• and i still believe that Fino-Ugric variant is a joke. In fact, if you look just at the name of "Carpi" you will see it have nothing to do with fino-ugric languages, but have corespondence in indo-european ones. Maybe fino-ugrics was indeed spread on a larger area, but i think was somewhere toward Urals, Asia and northern Russia.
• its not impossible that Carpi to be as you said, a kind of isolated group, as Basques, but again if we look at archeology, and even their name, the more probable variant is that they was a distinct Dacian tribe, probably with some foreign influence, but more distinctly Dacian. Goths for ex. was a mix of diferent peoples with a kind of fluid ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.88 (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

There you go again, trying to insert a statement that the Carpi were Dacians. The whole point of my lengthy explanations above is that there is not enough evidence to support this. And stop using, or rather mis-using, the archaeology to back your case. I quote from Batty (2008) p378:

"The archaeology of the Carpi is difficult to reconstruct. That the population used "Dacian" pottery and other material goods related to well-established Dacian types shows us the material level they attained, but has no actual bearing on the ethnicity or identity of the people. Like the Costoboci, the Carpi's area of habitation seems also to have held the Bastarnae (see my article on these people), to whom they are linked in our texts. In any event, the archaeology of the region seems to indicate a number of influences, and Sarmatian materials are found alongside "Carpic" objects."

Batty also notes :"The area where the Carpi resided was marked during this period by a resurgence of Celtic forms, which would expect more of the Bastarnae". This possibly strengthens a Celtic affiliation for the Carpi. But what this shows is how you cannot draw firm conclusions about ethnicity from material remains. This is the methodology condemned by Niculescu:

"The [Romanian nationalist-historical paradigm] pre-exists the interpretation of finds. It relies on the assumption that ethnic significance can be recognised in all artifacts.Thus it is believed that an assemblage of artifacts of different ethnic origins can be correctly assigned to one of them by assessing their proportion. Some artifacts, such as the so-called "Dacian-type mug", or features have gained the status of "ethnic indicators", of being more "ethnic" than others".

The Ethnolinguistic section sets out the pro-Dacian case fairly, showing both arguments in favour (Carpo-Dacae) and against (victory-titles). It does not deny the Dacian thesis, but says that overall the evidence is not conclusive. Leave it at that. This is an encyclopedia project, not a platform for contributors to promote their favourite theories.

Why have you removed the criticism of Zosimus as a source? If you are going to rely so heavily on his Carpo-Dacae, the credibility of the source is a crucial question. If it was Ammianus, a reliable contemporary source, who mentioned Carpo-Dacae, even I would accept it as strong evidence for a Carpi-Dacian link (although even then it does not prove conclusively that the two are of the same ethnic group). However, I admit that the Zosimus criticism needs to be supported by a reference, which I will look for.

I agree that the Getae's Dacian ethnicity is well-established, not because I take your word for it, but because I know it is strongly attested by reliable contemporary geographers. However, until we have both read Al. VULPE's essay Geto-dacii? (1998), we should not dismiss his arguments. It may be that the issues and the evidence are more complex than we realise. EraNavigator (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but the paragraph you have added (twice) to the summary cannot be admitted. The summary must contain only points made in the main text. The main text does not state that the most likely ethnic affiliation of the Carpi was Dacian, simply that the evidence is inconclusive. Also, the statement that the Carpi were "differentiated" from the other Dacians as a result of the collapse of the Dacian kingdom is based on your usual pre-supposition that they were Dacians in the first place. But the ancient sources do not mention the Carpi before ca. AD 140. This leaves open several possibilities: They may have been non-Dacians resident in Moldavia. Or alternatively, Dacians, or non-Dacians, who entered Moldavia after ca. 100 AD. Your problem, in common with many Romanian historians condemned by Niculescu, is that you use the paradigm as a proven starting-point. EraNavigator (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I must now insist that you leave this article as it stands. Under Wikipedia etiquette, you should not add substantive statements to existing classified articles without obtaining the agreement of the main author, by proposing it on the Discussion Page. Also any additions must be supported by a reference to a credible academic source.EraNavigator (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• i am sorry for your insist, but it doesnt work like that. First of all, basing your assumption on Niculescu and rejecting others is not a NPOV. Niculescu, as a singular (or one of the very few) voices must be regarded as a secondary importance source in contradiction with main view.
• as well, who made this interpretation, and on which basis: <<<<This term could indeed be interpreted as meaning that the Carpi were Dacians. But it is ambiguous and could mean the "Carpi and the Dacians" or the "Dacians of the Carpathian mountains".>>>> ?
• it is ambiguos for who? And how that could mean "Carpi and the Dacians"? There is any other similar references in ancient historyography? Was Huns called at Campus Mauriacus battle "Huno-Goths"? Was Goths or Carpi called "Carpo-Goths" or "Gotho-Carpi" when invaded togheter the Roman empire? Was Dacians called "Daco-Roxolani" when they invaded together the Roman empire? What really prouves there is to not be Dacians? What prouves there is to belonged to other "nation" as Sarmatians or Germans? Except the supositions based on, well, personal opinions.
• i find biased as well to mention about Chernyakhov culture for ex. that <<<Todd argues that its most important origin is Scytho-Sarmatian.[16]>>> but not mention Matthews, Kulikowski or Halsall, who said that was formed by locals (so Dacians are included), and Matthew clearly mention "Geto-Dacians" major role (Kulikowski too made such an assumption, and Halsall as well). I dont have time (and even mood) now to make some slightly modifications, hope to do that in near future, and i hope you understand my points of view (and you are free to comment ofcourse) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.12 (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

It seems that you simply don't understand the point that archaeology CANNOT be used to prove the ethnicity of a people. Regarding the "Dacian" artefacts found at Poienesti, There is growing dispute about whether the established typology of "Dacian" finds is valid. It is also uncertain (although likely) that Poienesti is a Carpi site. But even if one accepts both these propositions as valid, the presence of "Dacian-type" artefacts at Poienesti does NOT prove that the Carpi were ethnic Dacians. Any more than if you keep Chinese-style furniture in your house, that proves that you are ethnic Chinese. The Poienesti finds also include Sarmatian-type artefacts: does this prove that the Carpi were Sarmatians? Obviously not, since those artefacts could have been imported from neighbouring Sarmatian-populated regions, or even produced by Carpi craftsmen following Sarmatian designs that were popular among the Carpi. The same applies to the "Dacian" (and, of course, Roman-style) artefacts. Even where artefacts contain religious or mythical symbolism, they cannot prove ethnicity. For example, the swastika (hooked cross) symbol. This probably originated in India, and was a religious symbol indicating the universe, or eternity. The symbol became popular among the Romans in the imperial era, who decorated their clothes and other items with it. Does this mean that the Romans were ethnic Indians? EraNavigator (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Carpo-Dacae. Zosimus mentions the Carpi 3 times in the first book of his History (I.20, 27 and 31), describing their role in 247 and 256. He does not call them Carpo-Dacae here. Only in his 4th book, describing events much later under Theodosius, does he use the term Carpo-Dacae. This strengthens the option that he was not referring to Carpi at all, but to Dacians from the Carpathian region.EraNavigator (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've found a crushing quote about Zosimus' credibility: One historian accords Zosimus "an unsurpassable claim to be regarded as the worst of all the extant Greek historians of the Roman Empire...it would be tedious to catalogue all the instances where this historian has falsely transcribed names, not to mention his confusion of events..." (see the aerticle for the ref). The false transcription of names is especially important, as it undermines the validity of Carpo-Dacae. This could be a corruption of another name, or even an invention by Zosimus.EraNavigator (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• oh boy, this need some clean, unfortunately i dont have enough time. For ex. is said there that <<It is possible that the Carpi did not enter this region until (and maybe as a consequence of) the Dacian Wars (101-106), as they are not mentioned in the classical sources until the period following the Roman annexation of Dacia.>> (is no prouve for that) but you erased the other option (much logical), which is that they was a dacian tribe who become visible after the fall of organized dacian kingdom of Decebalus. Then is said that their culture appears to belong to the Chernyakhov culture common to much of the transdanubian region in the 3rd/4th centuries, but the Carpi apear in chronics in II century, so what was their culture until III century then?
• again, this is wrong <<During the period when they are attested by classical sources (ca. AD 140-300), the Carpi are believed to have occupied a region between the eastern Carpathians and the river Prut (i.e. roughly the former principality of Moldavia). This was just outside "Dacia proper", as defined by Ptolemy, whose eastern border was the river Hierasus (Siret). East of this river lay Sarmatia Europaea, a vast region stretching as far as the Crimea, predominantly, but by no means exclusively, populated by Sarmatian tribes>> First of all Ptolemy mention there probably Dacia as was the kingdom of Decebalus, which was smaller then Burebista kingdom and probably didnt reunite quite all Dacian tribes. I saw the map of his Geography where the eastern border of Dacia seem to be Prut river, and not Siret, but if you read what he said for ex. here <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:INDuL2WTRRUJ:penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Texts/Ptolemy/3/5*.html+Ptolemy:+the+Geography+map+of+Dacia&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk> he said that <<the Tyras separates parts of Dacia and Sarmatia at the bend which is located in >> and <<and between the Peucini and the Basternae are the Carpiani,>>.Here are some maps who show their locatine betwen those mentioned http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Roman_provinces_of_Illyricum%2C_Macedonia%2C_Moesia%2C_Pannonia_and_Thracia.jpg>>, <<http://upload.moldova.org/map/dacia-sec_ii-iii.jpg>>, <<http://www.iatp.md/istorie/romana/antica/dacia_romana.jpg>>
• Other proofs that he actualy refers to Decebalus kingdom is that on his map <http://www.nada.kth.se/~ovidiu/maps/images/1482-ulm.jpg> you clearly see dacian towns/fortresses, ended in usual "dava", over the Prut, and it is well known that a dacian tribe, "TyraGetae" was located precisely in Tyras (Dniepr) area. More then that, and this is the most simple debunk of that silly text from the article, Siret rivers is located east of Carpathians, and at least half of Carpi are located anyway in "proper Dacia" as someone called in the article.
• then this <the (probably Sarmatian) Costoboci>? How is Costoboci probably Sarmatian? This need to be discusesd as well, and i need to check the article about them as well, since again is less probable suposition made to look like more probable real then it is in reality
• as well this interpretation i already mention previously <This term could indeed be interpreted as meaning that the Carpi were Dacians. But it is ambiguous and could mean the "Carpi and the Dacians" or the "Dacians of the Carpathian mountains">. Is ambiguos for who, and how it can be interpretated like that? On which basis? I assume this is just a suposition of an anonimus editor, with no real basis whatsoever, and need either be removed, or at least to be bring some prouves that something similar was ever used by ancient authors related with an alliance of 2 separate peoples, and named like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.113 (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I am the sole author of all the text in this article, as you can see by looking at the "History" page. So the "anonymous editor" and "silly text" are mine alone. In answer to your questions:

Borders of Dacia: Sorry, my mistake in giving the wrong reference. This is from Ptolemy III.8, the chapter which concerns Dacia, not III.5, which concerns Sarmatia Europaea. III.8.1 is very precise about Dacia's borders. It states (abbreviated): "Dacia is bordered to the North by the northern Carpathians; to the West by the river Thibiscum (Timiş); to the South by the river Danube, from the point where the Thibiscum flows into it as far as the bend at Dinogetia [where the Siret flows into the Danube]; to the East by the river Hierasus (Siretul)." There is no reason to believe he was describing Decebal's kingdom, which had been destroyed about 50 years earlier by the Romans. More likely, he was describing the ethnic-Dacian zone at this time. This is supported by the list he gives of tribes inhabiting this region, which are mainly regarded as Dacian by scholars. Also, the distribution of -DAVA placenames North of the Danube closely fits Ptolemy's definition of Dacia's borders.

I see the map based on Ptolemy's data shows the Prut as Dacia's eastern border. But you should remember that this is not a map drawn by Ptolemy himself, but by 16th-century cartographers trying to follow Ptolemy's directions, with many errors. The map is simply wrong. The text of III.8 is clear. It states that the Hierasus was the eastern border. This is the Siret (the Prut was known to the Romans as the Porata). Confirmation that it's the Siret is the statement that the Hierasus flowed into the Danube at Dinogetia (near Galati).

Dacians outside Dacia: It is possible that some Dacian or Thracian tribes may have existed in Sarmatia Europaea. Ptolemy mentions the Biessi, which is probably too close to the Bessi of Thracia to be coincidence. But if so, they were not an important element: I am looking at Barrington's Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (2005), the most authoritative, up-to-date and comprehensive atlas of its kind. This work, executed by leading professors in the field, contains all the recorded placenames of the Classical world, fully-referenced. On Map 22, I cannot see a single -DAVA placename attested in ancient sources or inscriptions that is East of the Siret. The only possible exception is PIROBORIDAVA, a location attested in Ptolemy. This place has been identified by Al. Vulpe with a site at Tecuci Poianu, which is on a hill a few miles East of the Siret. But even this identification is uncertain. Otherwise, there were no -DAVAs anywhere in Moldavia or Bessarabia. The -DAVAs shown East of the Prut on the "Ptolemy" map are wrongly located (see Geographia III.8)

Carpo-Dacae: You asked for an example of the coupling of names in ancient sources: well, you have provided one yourself! The Tyragetae, which supposedly means the "Getae of the Tyras (Dniester, not Dnieper, which was then clled the Borysthenes) region". Thus, "Karpodakai" (as it's actually written in Zosimus, in Greek letters) could mean the "Dacians of the Carpathians". In fact, the more I think of it, this is very likely what Zosimus meant by this term (if, indeed, it is not a total corruption or falsification of a different name, in line with many other such by Zosimus).

Costoboci: This people are classified as Sarmatian by Pliny the Elder and Ammianus Marcellinus, both authors considered relatively reliable by historians (see my Costoboci article for refs). There is no good evidence that the Costoboci were Dacian. EraNavigator (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Earliest mention of Carpi: That Ptolemy is the earliest mention of the Carpi is stated in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman geography. EraNavigator (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• hi again. Well, there are 3 "dava" east of Siret on Ptolemy map, Piroboridava, Tamasidava and Zargidava. And they was located archeologicaly as well. Or at least dacian towns/fortresess was located east of Siret, and is considered that most probably this are the towns/fortreses mentioned by Ptolemy. As well, in his Geographia Ptolemy [1] said this: "On the east Dacia is bounded by the Ister river near the bend close to the town Dinogetia, the location of which is in (53*00-46°40) then by the river Hierasus, which near Dinogetia flows into the Ister from the north, and turning eastward extends as far as the indicated bend of the Tyras river". I am not a native english speaker, but from what i understand Dacia estends as far as Tyras river, which is correct if we think that there are located the Tyragetae, a getae/dacian tribe.
• so, thats why i said that Dacia from Ptolemy map is just Dacian kingdom of Decebalus, who didnt incorporated quite all Dacians (as was the case previous with Burebista). In Burebista time for ex. the eastern border was somewhere near Crimeea, as Olbia was incorporated too in his kingdom. Ptolemy was contemporary with wars betwen Decebalus and his kingdom and Trajan, and he probably used the sources from that war to draw the borders of Dacia, as it was the kingdom of Decebalus, and not all teritory inhabited by Dacians
• in the book Book III, Chapter 5 of Ptolemy (the one about Sarmatia Europae) [2]he said that "the Tyras separates parts of Dacia and Sarmatia at the bend which is located in ..." (meaning that border of Dacia and Sarmatia was on Tyras river), and another one i am not sure how to interpret, "The terminus of Sarmatia, which extends southward thru the sources of the Tanais river.....on the south by Iazyges Metanastae then from the southern terminus of the Sarmatian mountains

to the beginning of the Carpathian mountains which is in(46*00-48°30)and by the following part of Dacia along that parallel up to the mouth of the Borysthenes river, and the shore of the Pontus which is near the Carcinitus river". What is this mean in your opinion, that Dacia was extended up to mouth of Borysthenes river (Dniepr of today), as in time of Burebista?

• as well, in the same book Ptolemy mention another "dava", above the Tyras river near Dacia: Clepidava (located in today Rep. of Moldova, probably Soroca area (close to Tyras-Nistru/Dniepr river), so east of Pyretus/Porata-today Prut river, and in the area of Tyragetae.
• more then that, half of Carpi was located west of Siret (inside Dacia of Ptolemy map, so in Decebalus kingdom), they are know after all because they took the name or gived the name of Carpathian Mountains, which was the "spine" of Dacia. The fact Ptolemy already mentioned Carpathian Mountains in his Geography (as part of Dacia and separating from Sarmatian Mountains) means that either Carpi was already there, either a tribe inhabiting those mountains was called like that. And they cant be anything else then Dacians, a distinct Dacian tribe who was individualized after the fall of centralized kingdom of Decebalus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.104 (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
• i dont have enough time now, but i will post something on Costobocii too sometimes later. The romanian page have some good info as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.104 (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Borders of Dacia: In using the translation of Ptolemy on the Lacus Curtius site, you have ignored the warning at the top of the page: "Stevenson's "translation" of Ptolemy is abysmally bad. It should not be used for any serious purpose." I agree 100%. You must understand that much material on the Web is rubbish, and you need to use original sources, or at least reputable academic publications. I did not use this or any other translation, but translated directly from the original Greek myself. I can assure you that in III.8.1 Ptolemy does NOT say that Dacia extended as far as the lower Tyras. That would make no sense, as he has just stated that the eastern border was the Siret. What he says is that from the upper-most part of the Siret (whose source is in the E. Carpathians), the border continued northwards to the upper Tyras (whose source is in the N. Carpathians). Moldavia (E. of Siret) and Bessarabia were thus outside Dacia. The translation of III.5 is also a mess: you noticed yourself that it is confused and nonsensical. You certainly cannot base any conclusions on it.

One more point about Ptolemy. You should not pay any attention to his geographical co-ordinates. One look at the maps drawn up on the basis of his co-ordinates will tell you that they are wildly inaccurate (inevitably, given the state of cartographic knowledge at the time). The only locations you can trust are physical features, especially rivers, since these cannot move. If he says a city is on a certain river (or located between two rivers) that is likely to be reliable. EraNavigator (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Carpi territory: You state categorically that the Carpi occupied parts of the Carpathians. But that is not what Ptolemy says. He places the Carpi in Sarmatia Europaea, i.e. East of the Siret. He does NOT include the Carpi in his list of tribes inhabiting Dacia (III.8). That is why Barrington's Atlas Map 22 shows the Carpi entirely E of the Siret. You must understand that this Atlas is regarded as the best of its kind in academic circles (if you are interested in classical geography, I suggest that you acquire a copy, and stop relying on rubbishy maps on the Internet). You say that the Carpi gave (or received) their name from the Carpathians. This may be true (but does not prove that they still lived there in AD 140). But, as I point out in the article, the similarity of these two names may be coincidence and may derive from completely different roots. (For example, if the Carpi were a Sarmatian tribe that migrated from the Caucasus to the Carpathian region, as probably did the Costoboci). EraNavigator (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Well, i am impresed by the fact you translated Ptolemy from the old greek by yourself (i must said i have history just as a hobby, and i dont have such skills), and i dont deny that, but if you will be in my place, and some anonym guy you debate with will tell you something like that, you will belive him just because he say so? And as academic sources, i think i already posted a map with Carpi related sites, and who come right from Romanian Academy, the most reliable source, since romanians was the ones who discovered them. Yes, you may say that isnt necessary a prouve that Carpi was Dacians because of dacian based (ofcourse with some roman or even sarmatian influences) findings. But, those fidings was done on the both parts of Siret, which prouve that Carpi was without doubts on east, but on west of Siret too. This is another map [3] and [4] And this is one of Ortelius, a famous dutch geograph from middle ages, who, beside those 3 Dacian towns/fortreses put by Ptolemy east of Siret (and who was discovered archeologicaly) put another one [5]. And this is Dacia during Burebista [6], [7], [8].

Those are diferent interpretations, but the borders was around those lines. Thats why i said that Ptolemy map and description of Dacia show just Decebalus Kingdom, who didnt comprise all Dacian tribes

• So, even if, as you say, Carpii wasnt at all located west of Siret (which is not true, at least acordingly with archeology), there was at least 3 (4 acording to Ortelius) Dacian towns/fortresses east of Siret (so in their teritory), as Ptolemy mentioned them, and who was discovered. This is an even more strong proof that they was actualy Dacians.

There is as well another town/fortress located right on Tyras, Clepidava, in the teritories of Tyragetae, which show that Dacians inhabited teritories at least up to Tyras, and i saw theories about some up to Borystenes river (as that "bad" translation said too). It is debatable, sure, but not impossible. We see that, for ex., Costobocii apear mentioned in that area (by Pliny the Elder) precisely during Burebista reign and Dacian expansion in all directions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.99 (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Romanian Academy: Correct me if I am wrong, but this is the same organisation that, in the Communist era, showered honours on Ceauşescu and his wife Elena, at one point awarding the latter the title of Luce della Scienza ("Light of Science" as I read in an Italian newspaper - I don't know the Romanian words); the same group of academics who for decades mass-produced pseudo-scientific papers designed to prove the regime's views of Romanian history: a bizarre combination of ultra-nationalism and Marxist-Leninist bullshit. No, thanks, I don't think I will look at their papers.

Borders of Dacia: Your objections to Ptolemy's borders of Dacia remind me of Niculescu's criticisms of the Romanian nationalist-historical paradigm: "The territory assigned to the ancestors of the nation is the same as the national territory of Romania, or bigger. This is uniformly inhabited by Geto-Dacians until the Roman conquest and by Daco-Romans after it. These have a uniform culture, language and quasi-national consciousness." You suggested above that the borders of Dacia given by Ptolemy in III.8.1 were those of the kingdom of Decebal. This is certainly possible, but it proves nothing about Dacians existing outside this region. You mention the empire of Burebista. The first question is whether it was actually an empire, in the sense of a unitary, organised state. I doubt that this was the case. More likely, there was a strong federation of Getan tribes at its centre (probably over much the same territory as in Ptolemy's Dacia) and a loose alliance of non-Dacian peoples around it. But in any case, the area outside "Ptolemy's Dacia" was certainly NOT majority ethnic-Dacian. While there may have been a few Dacian elements outside Ptolemy's Dacia, the sources are quite clear that Burebista led a multi-ethnic coalition including Bastarnae, Sarmatians, Celts and Greeks. In other words, very similar to the coalition of transdanubian tribes, including the Carpi, led by the Goths in the period AD 250=70.

If I may quote the section on Burebista's coalition from the article that I wrote on the Bastarnae: "The Bastarnae first came into direct conflict with Rome as a result of expansion into the lower Danube region by the proconsuls (governors) of Macedonia in the period 75-72 BC. Gaius Scribonius Curio (proconsul 75-3 BC) campaigned successfully against the Dardani and the Moesi, becoming the first Roman general to reach the river Danube with his army.^[2] His successor, Marcus Licinius Lucullus (brother of the famous Lucius Lucullus), campaigned against the Thracian Bessi tribe and the Moesi, ravaging the whole of Moesia, the region between the Haemus (Balkan) mountain range and the Danube. In 72 BC, his troops occupied the Greek coastal cities of Scythia Minor (modern Dobruja region, Romania/Bulgaria),^{[note 1]} which had sided with Rome's Hellenistic arch-enemy, king Mithridates VI of Pontus, in the Third Mithridatic War (73-63 BC).^[3]

"The presence of Roman forces in the Danube delta was seen as a major threat by all the neighbouring transdanubian peoples: the Peucini Bastarnae, the Sarmatians and, most importantly, by Burebista (ruled 82-44 BC), king of the Getae. The Getae occupied the region today called Wallachia as well as Scythia Minor and were either a Dacian- or Thracian- speaking people.^{[note 2]} Burebista had unified the Getan tribes into a single kingdom, for which the Greek cities were vital trade outlets. In addition, he had established his hegemony over neighbouring Sarmatian and Bastarnae tribes. At its peak, the Getan kingdom reportedly was able to muster 200,000 warriors. Burebista led his transdanubian coalition in a struggle against Roman encroachment, conducting many raids against Roman allies in Moesia and Thrace, penetrating as far as Macedonia and Illyria.^[4]

"The coalition's main chance came in 62 BC, when the Greek cities rebelled against Roman rule. In 61 BC, the notoriously oppressive and militarily incompetent proconsul of Macedonia, Gaius Antonius, nicknamed Hybrida ("The Monster", an uncle of the famous Mark Antony) led an army against the Greek cities. As his army approached Histria (Sinoe), Antonius detached his entire mounted force from the marching column and led it away on a lengthy excursion, leaving his infantry without cavalry cover, a tactic he had already used with disastrous results against the Dardani.^[5] Dio implies that he did so out of cowardice, in order to avoid the imminent clash with the opposition. But it is more likely that he was pursuing a large enemy cavalry force, probably Sarmatians, which was possibly acting as a decoy. A Bastarnae host, which had crossed the Danube to assist the Histrians, promptly attacked, surrounded and massacred the Roman infantry, capturing several of their vexilla (military standards).^[6] This battle resulted in the collapse of the Roman position on the lower Danube. Burebista annexed the Greek cities (55-48 BC).^[7] At the same time, the subjugated "allied" tribes of Moesia and Thrace evidently repudiated their treaties with Rome, as they had to be re-conquered by Augustus in 29-8 BC (see below).

"For 44 BC, Roman dictator-for-life Julius Caesar planned to lead a major campaign to crush Burebista and his allies once and for all, but he was assassinated before it could start.^[8] However, the campaign was made redundant by Burebista's overthrow and death in the same year, after which his Getan empire fragmented into 4, later 5 independent petty kingdoms. These were militarily far weaker, as Strabo assessed their combined military potential at just 40,000 armed men, and were often involved in internecine warfare.^[9][10] The Geto-Dacians did not again become a threat to Roman hegemony in the lower Danube until the rise of Decebal 130 years later (AD 86)".EraNavigator (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

What the above shows is that the non-Geto-Dacians were just as important in Burebista's military line-up as the Getae themselves. Also, it was a loose alliance, not an empire, with each ethnic contingent operating separately although in alliance. Outside Dacia/Wallachia, the vast majority of the inhabitants were non=Geto-Dacian. Inside Dacia/Wallachia, the "empire" wasprobably a federation of Getae tribes, similar to the Alamannic federation in late Roman times, with Burebista, presumably the king of the strongest tribe, acting as president or high king.

DAVAs East of Siret: You rightly raised the question of the 3 or 4 -DAVAs mentioned by Ptolemy, seemingly East of the Siret. 3 are mentioned in III.10, which concerns Moesia Inferior, but at the end seems to refer to the region between the Siret and Tyras rivers. However, Ptolemy states that all three (PIROBORIDAVA, TAMASIDAVA and ZARGIDAVA) were pará the Siret. This word in Greek means "very close to" or, in relation to a river, even "on" the river. The only one of the 3 whose site has been plausibly identified is PIROBORIDAVA, identified as the remains of a fort at Poianu, on a hill a few kilometres East of the river. This clearly does not prove that the Carpi were Dacians, even if they occupied this area at the time the fort existed.

If indeed Ptolemy is describing Decebal's kingdom, then most likely these 3 forts were built by Decebal's regime to protect the Dacian border from incursions by the wild Sarmatian and other tribes on the other side. The fact the fort is on the East side of the river does not contradict this, as forward outposts were commonly used by sedentary empires to control incursions by nomadic peoples beyond their borders: the Romans held multiple forts on the North side of the Danube, even after they abandoned Dacia. We know that Decebal's kingdom was under severe pressure from barbarians on his eastern frontier: as part of his peace deal with Trajan after the [[First Dacian War}}, Decebal was given assistance by the Romans in fortifying his frontier, as both states had a common interest in curbing incursions by the transdanubians. So the presence of these 3 Dacian forts near the Siret actually strengthens the case that the Siret was the eastern border of Dacia. The fourth "out-of-place" DAVA, CLEPIDAVA, is also unidentified and difficult to analyse because Ptolemy's location is not as clear as the other three. It appears to have existed beyond the northern border of Dacia. Again, most likely, it was a Decebalic forward outpost to guard a pass through the Carpathians. In conclusion, you can't use these DAVAs to support the Carpi's Dacian ethnicity. EraNavigator (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Carpi deportation: I've now discovered an inscription that Constantine I did claim the Carpicus Maximus title, sometime before 318. So I'll have to amend the text accordingly. However, this does not change the possibility that the entire Carpi nation were transferred, only the date by which it may have happened (318 rather than 300). EraNavigator (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear anonymous editor, at the end of the day, there is no unequivocal evidence to coinfirm any ethno-linguistic affilitation for the Carpi. What's more, attempts to label them into "Dacians" or what have you are exercises in false logic because "Dacian' is , at the end of the day, a broad linguistic category made up by 19th/20th century linguists, and has little bearing on the situation 'on the ground' on the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Then people share both similarities and differences with neighbours, and langauges were not defined by international boundaries, often changed and were adapted, ceased to exist or amalgamated into new forms Hxseek (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

How can you say that the Dacian language was made up in 19th century? These people spoke their own language 2000 years ago without the need of linguists to tell them what to speak. Look at this quote A Graecis dicitur brionia, alii ampelos leuce, Romani oua taminia, Itali vitis alba, alii coriaria, alii apiastellum, Daci aurumetti, Cilices galadiana, Bessi dinupula, alii discopela (Daci aurumetii om. α, Daci discopela α) from Pseudo-Apuleius' Herbarium. What language is he talking about when he says how Dacians name the plants? Notice he uses Itali and Romani separately, as two different people. Should we assume from here that Itali are some Sarmatian or Baltic tribe separate from the Romans?! --Codrin.B (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Well, i agree in a big part with what you said (less with "Dacian' is , at the end of the day, a broad linguistic category made up by 19th/20th century linguists).But fact is that Carpii apear in Dacian area, exactly after the fall of Dacian kingdom of Decebalus, they was never mentioned before anywhere in other parts, Ptolemy mention 3 towns/fortresess bearing dacian names in their teritory (east of Siret), and after the fall of Decebal kingdom ofcourse, and, wheter some like or not, an archeological culture atributed to them, with a majority of dacian elements was found in both parts of the Siret, from Carpathian Mountains to Prut (Pyretus/Porata) river. This point on the direction that most probably they was a distinct Dacian tribe individualized after the fall of united and more centralized kingdom of Decebal. Other Dacian tribe, Tyragetae, was even more east, occupying the area around Tyras river (mentioned by same Ptolemy if i am not mistake).

I will say something about Costobocii too on their page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.42 (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear anonymous editor (why don't you get yourself a username?), I have already asked if you would please first propose any changes on this page, so that we can discuss them (and correct their rather ungrammatical English) before adding them to the article text. You added: " but in [correction: at] the same time if they was [correction: were) just one of [addition: the] Dacian tribes of Decebalus' Kingdom ([addition: the] most likely situation) it was [correction: there was] no reason [addition: for them] to be mentioned before (as they are not mentioned anywhere at all until this date), but just [only] after they was [were] constituted as a distinct Dacian tribe near the r[R]oman borders, and after they start[add: ed] to make problems to [for] the Romans." (NB: No offence intended. I only show these corrections to make the point that your English is good, but not good enough to be entered into an encyclopedia of global importance without first being corrected by a native speaker).

As regards your substantive point, this is reasonable, although rather unnecessary, as the original text does not say that the Carpi definitely entered the region after the Dacian Wars, simply that it is possible that they did so. I have abbreviated your sentence to simply that this is not conclusive. In addition, the last part of your sentence is incorrect, as the Carpi are mentioned about a century before they started to make problems for the Romans: Ptolemy wrote about them in ca. 140, but their first recorded attack on the empire was in 238.

I will accept your removal of (probably Sarmatian) before the Costoboci. These were indeed probably Sarmatian, but this is not relevant in the summary of this article. EraNavigator (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• i pointed more clear the begining phrase, and i erased some unsubstantiated afirmation, with no any prouve as relation with Slavs (who wasnt even formed yet at that point, and wasnt around) or Fino-ugric (totaly unsubstantiated and even fantastic). It is hard to believe that Greco-Roman authors, who know and mentioned since centuries quite, all peoples in the area (Dacia, Sarmatia, Germania), can miss one , Carpi, who apeared from nowhere. More probably, and logical, is that they was already there, and become distinct after the fall of Decebalus kingdom, who united all tribes in one state

• Costoboci wasnt Sarmatians, or even if had some Sarmatian part they had a bigger Dacian one for sure, and was ruled by Dacians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.164.138 (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am removing your attempt to support the Carpi's Dacian ethnicity with Ptolemy's reference to three DAVAs on the E bank of the Siret. 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 these DAVAs, 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 above, that these DAVAs were outposts of Decebal's kingdom and were already destroyed by the time Ptolemy wrote about them in ca. 150. They cannot, therefore, be used to support the Dacian ethnicity of the Carpi. EraNavigator (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• this is a quite good article, with a very good bibliography (including Bichir among others), related with the subject - both Carpi and Costoboci <<http://www.scritube.com/istorie/Romanitatea-fara-imperiu-sec-I83752.php>>
• unfortunately is just in romanian, but give us some more clear view as
• Carpi culture is a dacian one and a continuation and development of Getae-Dacian Latene III phase culture. It is made a clear distinction betwen this culture and sarmatian one, who enter west of Prut river just after Dacian wars
• Piroboridava is considered indeed deserted/destroyed at the begining of II century, but the other 2, Tamasidava and Zargidava are still in existence during II century
• The burial sites belonging to Dacian cultures (Carpi here) are much more numerous then Sarmatian ones (i saw in other part something like 1500 carpi sites vs 160 sarmatian one). It is a clear distinction betwen carpi burial sites, which are traditional dacians (incineration, and yes, kids are not incinerated, but this is the tradition, not a sarmatian influence), and sarmatian ones, with inhumation and that head modification
• this is a direct prouve that carpi was dacians, since is imposible that a large sarmatian tribe to instantly adopt dacian culture and religion habits, and some others keep their tradition distinct
• carpi have as well medium to large localities, largely with the usual dacian sunken floor houses but all surface types too, sarmatians on the other hand are clearly nomads living in tents and wagons, and all archeological stuff related to them was found outside any location as a village, locality etc.
• More then that, at Bornis ( Dragomiresti village, county of Neamt) was found a piece of ceramic dated II-III century with an inscription of a Dacian name, Scorilo, considered to belong either to a local crastfmen or to a local ruler
• All this clearly show a way much probable dacian origin, and pretty much contradict a sarmatian one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.41 (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, this is all interesting info. But reference to another website is not enough: how do we know its information can be trusted? It does not give its sources. Each and every statement above must be supported by a citation to a published academic work to be admissible to the article. 16:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am currently re-writing the Material culture section, using Bichir as the base material. EraNavigator (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The website you linked to is not bad. It does give a bibliography (although not in-line citations, so we don't know where each piece of info comes from). But the text is very detailed and informative. However, you must yourself have noticed its fundamental weakness. It is propaganda, not investigation. The entire text is dedicated to trying to prove the Geto-Dacian paradigm. Alternative theories or possibilities are not even mentioned, let alone discussed. Inconvenient evidence is simply excluded e.g. Pliny the Elder's statement that the Costoboci were a Sarmatian tribe. Facts are sometimes presented in a tendentious or misleading fashion e.g. the statement you pointed to yourself, above, that occupation of Zargidava and Tamasidava continued into the 2nd century. Indeed so, but if you read Bichir, you will discover that they were abandoned in AD 106, slightly later than Piroboridava, which was empty by ca. 100. In other words, all three were probably shut down by the Romans. I am confident that the article that we are collaborating on is a far superior product to this. EraNavigator (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• it is what that bibliography said, not propaganda. Alternative theories, we must say, realistically, are much weaker and with less prouves, sometimes even illogical. As well i will be glad if you can provide a good link for Bichir, i dont have time to search and i didnt find something good in a short search i did. From what i read was about 1500 Carpi burial sites vs 160 Sarmatian ones, and the fact that Carpi had a dacian culture, compared with a sarmatian one which apear clear too, and contemporaneus, it is a clear sign of their ethnicity. I know, you (and Niculescu) disagree with this view, but it is a logical one. You have a dacian culture, and a sarmatian one, contemporaneus and sometimes intermingled. It is logical to assume that those are 2 diferent peoples —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.40 (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

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) 17:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• 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).

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) 17:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

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) 18:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I eliminate detalied descriptions (including ones related with anglo-saxon) of archeological talks, is not the place in the article, is enough to say that some scholars, as Niculescu, debate against some views on archeological findings, and i find as well weird you eliminated one of Renfrew statements i read somewhere before at you, that some cultural habits and findings are a indication of ethnicity (as burial for eg.). Later migrations (as Slavs or Turkis peoples) are not as well in any conection with the peoples we talk about, and i said about the migrtaions all over the Roman Empire on "Costoboci" talk page. As well "Goths" was a peoples with mixed and fluid ethnicity during time, and at least during their "danubian" period (but in lesser degree after as well) they had a major Dacian component and influence, so didnt change much in ethnic composition of the area, quite contrary, long after they leaved the area they consider Dacian (Getae) as their ancestors (see Cassiodorus writings at the request of Teodoric the Great, Jordanes, and, independent of him, Isidor from Seville) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.211.230 (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dacians are marked with the same color as Slavs which is completely incorrect and unfortunate. While Costoboci and Carpi, considered by most historians as Dacian, are in a blue/uncertain color. While Bastarnae who are a Celtic-Germanic mix with possible Dacian elements is marked as Germanic for sure. This is raising serious questions about the map and its neutrality. I suggest at least a distinct Dacian color and section in the legend. The map is here: commons:File:Roman Empire 125.png and here commons:File:Roman Empire 125.svg. Note that util November 19, 2010, Dacians were depicted using a proper, different color. Something dubious happened at that time. --Codrin.B (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

While I welcome the efforts of User:EraNavigator on this subject, I am afraid that a lot of his work is plagued with original research and it is not written from a neutral point of view. I am looking forward to read books by EraNavigator in the future, if he chooses to write his ideas, but Wikipedia is not the place for such activities. I welcome ideas and suggestions on this, but I believe this article needs some rework and lot of external, neutral reviewers, as well as expert advice. --Codrin.B (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello from WikiProject Dacia!

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

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

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

Let the Daciada begin! Thanks for your support! --Codrin.B (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

I put your other answer here. Please reply on corresponding article pages, so others can see. If those statements are indeed cited in the main text, please add references to the same books the paragraphs which miss citations. You have to do this, especially in a highly controversial article like this one. I appreciate your work, but please don't try to accuse others of supporting certain theories. You obviously support your own with a lot of vehemence. Everyone is entitled to their own believes, but the key is to stay neutral and not introduce original research or unreliable sources. Also, please refrain from arrogant comments in the change history of the article since it is discouraged by policies, and common sense. Please avoid reverts or getting close to an edit war. Given the high controversy of the article and the conflict already started (partially by your edits), I suggest you stop doing any radical changes to this article without proposing the changes on the talk page and reaching agreement. Otherwise you encourage the conflict and reverts. The same goes for the Costoboci and Roman Empire map. The fact that both Romanians and Italians are so hot blooded it should give you a hint to Roman continuity at least ;-) Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Given the highly controversial theories regarding this subject, the amount of edit wars and the risk for conflict, I kindly suggest to use a user space or the WikiProject Dacia drafts space, until the article is ready for prime time and a consensus is reached. You can certainly ask for reviews at the user/draft space. Thanks for your hard work and continued cooperation.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Daizus, exactly which parts of this note (a) (I mean the note as I reinstated it, not the version mangled by Anonymous) are not in Niculescu? If you can show me which bits, I am happy to remove them. What we can't have is the note as it stands now, with Anonymous' garbled and ungrammatical interpolations. And what are these weaseal words you are referring to? That sentence is straight out of Niculescu EraNavigator (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Alternatively, if you object to my summary, why don't you summarise Niculescu's paper yourself for this note? EraNavigator (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You say that:

• However, determination of ethnicity by the typology, or by the relative quantity, of finds has been criticised as pseudo-scientific by Niculescu

No such assessment in the paper, words like "pseudo-science", "pseudo-scientific", etc do not occur at all.

This sentence is not in the Note, but in the main text EraNavigator (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Which is supported by this note and also is original research. Daizus (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• to support the paradigm of "Geto-Daco-Roman" continuity

No such paradigm in the paper, Niculescu writes of "the traditional culture-historical paradigm" or "In Romania, culture-history archaeology is the undisputed paradigm" which is not even specific to Romanian scholars.

This is just verbal quibbling: are you suggesting that Nic. is NOT referring to the Geto-Daco-Roman Continuity theory by "the traditional culture-historical paradigm"? EraNavigator (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Niculescu certainly does not refer to any "the paradigm of 'Geto-Daco-Roman' continuity", that's only your (biased) reading. Niculescu refers to this. Daizus (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nic: "The territory assigned [by the paradigmers] to the ancestors of the nation is the national territory of Romania, or bigger (my italics)". This is uniformly inhabited by first, the "Geto-Dacians" until the Roman conquest and then by the "Daco-Romans" or the "Romanic" population". This certainly sounds like the cont1nuity theory to me. 16:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's original research. He doesn't use the word "paradigmers" (another one of your inventions), but "archaeologists". That's not even a paradigm, it's an assumption, that the "ancestors of the nation" uniformly inhabited a territory. The paradigm, as Niculescu mentions several times in that text, is the "culture-history archaeology". 16:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• the Geto-Daco-Romans preserved their numerical majority

No mention of any Geto-Daco-Romans in the paper

Verbal quibbling again: Nic. calls them the "Daco-Roman" or "Romanic" population - but there is no doubt he means what others call the Geto-Daco-Romans EraNavigator (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

And that is original research, as pointed out in the text. Daizus (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• many Romanian historians and archaeologists has been criticised by some outsiders, and in recent years by some Romanian archaeologists themselves

No occurence of "many Romanian", nor of "many historians", only one occurence for "many archaeologists" ( "admit this form of organization ..." etc, not the claim being made in the article). Therefore you have to say who are those many scholars and who are their critics (and of course, using reliable sources).

• The paradigm portrays the indigenous Geto-Dacians as a culturally homogenous population, who were numerically predominant, during the Roman era, throughout the territory of modern Romania (inc. Bessarabia), if not over an even larger region.

But Niculescu says something else: "This uniformity takes the form of a genetic space for the Romanian people when the archaeological record of the Latène, Roman and Post-Roman periods is repeatedly described as 'unitary' for the whole territory of present-day Romania". While I accept your focus to Roman era as a valid reflection of his view, he doesn't say anything about larger regions, but about the "the space of the Romanian people". Your text may be interpreted that some archaeologists imagine a homogenous population from Portugal to Japan! Maybe they do, but you need to cite a reference for that, or remove the weasel words and reflect properly this author's views.

Nic.'s exact words are: "The territory assigned [by the paradigmers] to the ancestors of the nation is the national territory of Romania, or bigger (my italics)". This is uniformly inhabited by first, the "Geto-Dacians" until the Roman conquest and then by the "Daco-Romans" or the "Romanic" population". Admittedly, he does not use the words "numerically predominant" (which I added for clarity) but there is no doubt that is what he means by "uniformly" (Nic.'s English is not always idiomatic) and also no doubt what the paradigm claims. EraNavigator (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I apologize, I didn't see that one. I will remove that tag. But I will remove the mention of Bessarabia, as Niculescu writes clearly here "national territory of Romania". Daizus (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Moreover Niculescu adds: "This exaggerated and usually undocumented uniformity is also supported by the concentration of archaeological research on the national territory, disregarding the finds beyond its borders, which suggests that they belong to different culture areas." which argues in rather opposite direction to "if not over an even larger region". Saying that, I notice now Niculescu makes no mention on Bessarabia at all. Where did you get that?

I thought most Romanians considered Bessarabia to be part of the national territory? EraNavigator (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure, I don't think so (e.g. "According to a poll conducted in Romania in January 2006, 44% of the population supports a union with Moldova") but even if it would be so, it is a non sequitur to assert Niculescu thinks what most other Romanians do. Daizus (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• preconceived notions of the ethnological history of Dacia

No mention of any "ethnological history" in that paper.

I also added a 'contradict' tag on the entire section, because you first say "determination of ethnicity by the typology, or by the relative quantity, of finds has been criticised as pseudo-scientific" but then you cite Hodder to support that "it continues to be accepted that certain cultural customs and artefacts can have ethnic connotations". So do have artefacts (and their typologies) ethnic connotations or not?

This note is also POV. You're just presenting Niculescu's view, and this note can't be neutral if it does only that.

You are confusing note (a) and (b) Material culture and ethnicity. You are right, this phrase "it continues to be accepted that certain cultural customs and artefacts can have ethnic connotations" is missing a bit: it should continue: "in particular contexts". EraNavigator (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am not making any confusion. I tagged the entire section based on Niculescu's claim (referenced by this note) and another claim from note b. Even if you say "in particular contexts", the contradiction is still there because your wording rules out any "determination of ethnicity by typology". Daizus (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't summarize Niculescu's paper because I think his views are not relevant for an article about Carpi, but for articles about archaeology or Romanian archaeology. But if you want to keep inherently POV and OR content in this article I won't stop you until I or someone else will start some serious work here ;) Daizus (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I really don't get this. The case for classifying the Carpi as ethnic-Dacians rests ENTIRELY on archaeological evidence. So how can a paper dealing with how this evidence is interpreted be irrelevant to this article? EraNavigator (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not true. The case of Carpi being Dacian relies also on their habitation in a supposedly Dacian territory (determined by -dava toponymy) and the account of Zosimus. Niculescu says only one thing which might be relevant for this article, not mentioned so far, that Opreanu contested "the assertions on the 'sensibility' and 'receptivity' of the Carpi towards Roman civilization".

The toponymic evidence is not valid in this case. It consists of Ptolemy's 3 davas pará ("very near") the E bank of the Siret (i.e. they don't cover Moldavia, and may have been frontier fortress-towns). Also, Bichir confirms that these "classic" Dacian settlements in Moldavia were abandoned at the time of the Roman conquest. EraNavigator (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are also davae W of Siret: [9] [10] Hillforts might have been abandoned, but they are taken as evidence for a Dacian speaking space at the beginning of 2nd century. And Ptolemy might have mentioned the Carpi, so here's the connection. Daizus (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your usage of Niculescu here is entirely original research per WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Since Niculescu says nothing in particular about how archaeologists failed to study the material cultures assumed to reflect the Carpic society, you cannot use it as a source here without making original research. You must find someone who criticizes explicitely Bichir's work on Carpi. Daizus (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi fellas. It is true that we cannot synthesize. However, sometimes, frustratingly, there is a general lack of recent, innovative analyses to some old questions; ie Carpi. They have only been looked at in any depth by Romanian historians, archaeologists, etc. often works which date to the 1970s and 80s.

Is it WP:SYNTH to critique, or at least, point out, how these scholars worked ? Whilst there might not be a direct analysis of Birchir's work, there is ample commentary on the methodology that was , and still is, in currency in E.E. If a scholar uses culture-history arhcaeology, stammbaum linguistic approaches, etc, this can all be pointed out without being OR.

Hxseek (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

With all these labels and discussions I am not sure if we are allowed to provide any other input e.g. citations. Therefore, I add here something that could help clearing this section.

According to Tomaschek, (1883, Les restes de la langue dace in "Le Museon Revue Internationale Volume 2, Louvain, page 403) 'Carpathian is a Dacian name with uncertain etymology'. He proposed... it is derived from kar 'cut' and pa-causative Carpathians would mean eventually 'chain of cut / rugged mountains'(?). In the same paragraph he says:... Karpidai were of Dacian origin (the Scythians called them Kalpidai) He mentions an homonymous place that Ptolemy located east of the Haemus and also the Carpodacians of the Zosimus ... "...CARPATA, nom dace de l'immense chaîne des Alpes au Nord, à l'Est et au Sud, qui est coupée par de nombreuses passes et vallées; étymologie incertaine; de kar, couper pa, causatif—chaîne de mootagnes découpées? Il est certain que les Kaρπίδάι étaient d'origine dace (les Scythes les appelaient Kαλιπιδάι), et au temps des Goths nous rencontrons encore la peuplade des Kaρποδάχάι qui vivait libre dans les montagnes (Zosime); à l'Est de l'Hémus Ptolémée nomme aussi un endroit Kaρπουδαιμου..."

His proposal had been accepted by Joseph Van Den Gheyn, S.J. 1885, LES POPULATIONS DANUBIENNES - ÉTUDES D'ETHNOGRAPHIE COMPARÉE (l), Revue des questions scientifiques, Volumes 17-18, By Société scientifique de Bruxelles, Union catholique des scientifiques français, Page 385 "...L'élément Carp qui apparaît dans leur nom semble commun à plusieurs termes des dialectes de la Dacie et de la Thrace. Qu'on se rappelle Carpata, nom dace de l'immense chaîne des Alpes. Il y avait en outre la tribu des Carpi à l'ouest des Carpathes, les Kaρπίδάι d'origine dace que les Scythes appelaient Kαλιπιδάι. L'historien Zosime, au temps des Goths, signale encore la peuplade des Kaρποδάχάι et, à l'est de l'Hémus, Ptolémée indique un endroit nommé Kaρπουδαιμου. Dans la mer Égée les anciens géographes plaçaient une île nommée Karpathos. Enfin Hésychius nous apprend que les Thraces eux-mêmes étaient souvent désignés sous le nom de Karpontiens..."

Boldwin (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Boldwin (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Era, you stated “The ethnicity of the Carpi remains uncertain due to lack of evidence” . Remember that wikipedia requires “avoid stating opinions as facts”

• The article should present whose opinion is this about lack of evidence. Was this Dacian ethnicity attribution "invented"?
• Since there is a modern scholarly opinion that the Carpi were of Thracian – Dacian ethnicity it means there are evidences, at least some evidences.

You could say interpretable, controversial. There were multiple opinions. You focus on Bichir vs Batty, while there are also other archaeologists and historians that need to be cited.

What I meant was "lack of evidence in the ancient sources", and I have modified the wording accordingly. I have also changed "uncertain" to "disputed" to respond to your concerns, although they amount to the same thing. EraNavigator (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bichir v. Batty. The reason I have made heavy use of these two authors is that Bichir is the only broad, detailed analysis of Carpi archaeology available in English. Unfortunately, it was published 36 years ago,and no doubt much new data has come to light since. What is really needed is an update of Bichir's work. I can read Romanian (with a dictionary), but I don't have time to examine more up-to-date Rom work in this field. Also, as this English-language Wiki, it is preferable to cite works in English, which all readers can access. This is where Batty is useful. His book is very up-to-date (2008) and contains by far the most detailed treatment of the region and its peoples, both in terms of ancient sources and modern archaeology. His list of sources is impressive (and includes numerous Rom archaeological works)

These two authors are not necessarily always in contradiction. For example, Batty does not exclude that the Carpi were Dacians, but points out that the same region was populated by Bastarnae, as attested both by ancient sources and modern archaeology (relating to the 1st century BC). But Bichir ignores the Bastarnae altogether, and assumes that they have disappeared from Moldavia, which Batty finds highly questionable. It comes down again to equating ethnic groups with material cultures: Bichir identifies the Carpi as Dacian because of their "dacian-style" culture, but Batty, in line with modern archaeological theory, argues that this culture could equally belong to the Bastarnae. EraNavigator (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

In the article you claim that this hypothesis (of Carpi Dacian ethnicity ) appears contradicted by the evidence of the victory-titles assumed by Roman emperors, which suggest that the Romans considered the Carpi as ethnically distinct from the Dacians

• Whose opinion is this? You should attribute the victory-titles theme regarding specifically to Carpi to particular sources. You present your opinion as an evidence

The problem of the victory-titles, in relation to the Carpi's ethnicity, is discussed in Cambridge Ancient History, a highly authoritative work (the ref is supplied). I do not present my opinion as evidence. I present the evidence as it is (see the new table of the Dacicus and Carpicus titles, with sources given). I then draw the most logical conclusion from that evidence. Note that even this conclusion is not presented as fact: the wording is that the Romans "may" have not considered the Carpi as Dacians. This leaves open the possibility that there are other explanations for a separate Carpicus title. But I accept that this issue is perhaps too detailed for the summary, so I have replaced it EraNavigator (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You know, the cause of science is not advanced by ignoring or suppressing data that conflicts with your favourite theory. The victory-title evidence is a major problem for the Dacian theory, and it should be discussed openly and honestly, and not suppressed by hiding behind Wiki acronyms such as OR and POV. Also, your objections are hypocritical: if the evidence of the victory-titles supported the Dacian theory, I very much doubt that you would be raising any objections. EraNavigator (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

BTW: The victory-titles are not my OR. I found every one, including source inscriptions and dates, in modern sources, mostly in CAH. I am in the process of including those refs. It is thus perfectly legitimate to present those victory-titles in the article, tabulated for clarity.EraNavigator (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Some consider there are reasons for a distinction between Carpi and Dacians, even though Carpi were of Thracian or Dacian ethnicity

Boldwin (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you have found authors who offer alternative explanations why the Romans did not use the Dacicus title for the Carpi, then you are welcome to cite them (providing they are a published academic source and properly referenced).EraNavigator (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

And, you deleted proper wikipedia entries made by others than you. Your article is based in too many sections on primary sources and unbalanced editing, it is in many respects an original research as Daizus and others pointed out earlier Boldwin (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I only deleted an irrelevant quote from Lactantius and an anonymous note criticising Batty. As I have already made clear, general criticism of individual modern authors is not admissible in this article. If you did admit it, you would also have to admit, for balance, praise for that author (and there is plenty of that quoted on the back cover of Batty's book); and of course criticism or praise of every other author cited in the article. Where would this end? This is an article about the Carpi, not about Batty. Only objections to what Batty says about the Carpi is admissible.

The only other deletions I made were to my own previous edits. The aims of the exercise were: to correct factual errors; remove tangential or repetitious material; add more references; and to make the text more concise and readable. Overall, the present version is not greatly different from the previous one.EraNavigator (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is no Wiki rule forbidding the citing of ancient works. It does not count as OR. I can easily supply modern refs to support these citations further. 11:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• the article is a mess right now, made by that guy Era. It needs deleted in most of its part and re-writed from scratch. Is biased, based in big part on original research and personal opinion and interpretation, is one of the worst variants i saw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.212.175 (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
• i think soon i will revert the article at the last form, before Era messed up again. Then only modifications need to be done after discussed on talk page and agreed on. For ex Batty critical rewiew was deleted by that peron Era, without other reasons that he rely heavily on Batty. But as how was presented there, Batty was very poor in his knowledge about the area, doesnt know what ancient authors writed, disregarded archeology, mixed up places and names etc. I propose actualy that Batty to be eliminated with all, as very little reliable and with little real knowledge on the area and history of the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.199.34 (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your proposals are rejected. You have no right to remove or revert content, unless it is (a) irrelevant or (b) not properly referenced. I have had enough of your rude, ungrammatical and unsigned comments. Who are you to criticise Batty's, or even my work, when you have contributed nothing of any value to Wiki articles and can't even write correct English.

The article now contains much the same data as before - minus your inappropriate note on Batty. It has simply been better organised and more clearly written.

I suggest that you disappear and (a) learn English; (b) do some serious research of your own and (c) get a username. At that point you will be qualified to contribute to Wiki. Until then, I suggest that you go back to your game of Grand Theft Auto. EraNavigator (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Era, there are a lot of valid points here. Stop insulting every one. And don't think that you can reintroduce original research and WP:OWN the article just because Daizus is not around. I suggest you focus on writing a balanced, NPOV article or your changes will be reverted. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree with Era here on his theoretical understanding of the issues. Quite simply, there is no evidence that the Carpi spoke Dacian. heck, we do not even really know much about Dacian per se. The fault lies with traditional historiography and the nationalistic tendencies of certain past authors, and also that the area of Moldavia/ NE Romania has received next to nil attention by modern Anglophone scholarship. The moment a post-processual scholar actually takes the time to look at the subject, the "traditional" view that Carpi must have be Dacians (based on a few sherds of pottery !) will be weakened to say the least.

Slovenski Volk (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

This page has a lot of problems. But "a possible argument against the Carpi's proposed Dacian ethnicity is that Roman emperors did not use the long-established cognomen ex virtute Dacicus Maximus" looks also like original research. The argument "such titles were ethnographic, not geographical (i.e. Dacicus meant 'victorious over the Dacians', not 'victorious in Dacia')" is outdated and false. In the 2nd edition of CAH XII there's no such claim on page 140, note 1. However in this volume on p. 471 we read "How far the Romans pursued their defeated enemy is unknown, but Galerius, since he rejoined his Augustus Diocletian in Nisibis, and from an inscription on a triumphal arch in Thessalonica where he is called Persicus Maximus, Armeniacus, Medicus and Adiabenicus, might be assumed to have campaigned in Armenia and Media, as well as Adiabene which is next to the territory of Nisibis." Daizus (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Also, it had been suggested that Carpathian Mountains may derive from the Sanskrit root “kar” 'cut' that would give the meaning of ‘rugged mountains’."

Surely, what is meant here is the Indo-European *(s)ker- root, which is already mentioned above. Sanskrit was not spoken near this area. I suggest deleting this sentence. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

it's not carpi, like carpe diem, it's karpi like slavic karpa (a rock). also it's not the carpathians. it's karpati (the rocky mountains). you english speaking peoples translate everything beyond recognition.89.205.59.148 (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The following text recently added Romanian scholars of the early 20th century, later refined by Giuliano Bonfante, hypotheised that contemporary Albanians descended from the Carpi. Their hypothesis states that the Carpi during the 4th century migrated in a peaceful and slow manner to the Roman provinces of Moesia and Dardania, prior to the Slavic migration into the aforementioned regions. As a result of this migration and assimilation with the local indigenous population, they took on a new identity while preserving their native language. Evidence for such a lineage attests to the affinities between the contemporary Albanian and Romanian languages.^[1][2][3] However, such a theory is challenged by the lack of intemediary places occupied by the migrating Carpi between the Danube region and the provinces of Moesia and Dardania.^[4] was reverted under the justification that the sources are outdated, POV, UNDUE, one of the sources are unreliable and don't refer to current linguistics. @Βατο given that you have made these multiple allegations, could you (or other interest parties) back up these claims with research from current linguistics as I have not found what you are referring to. ElderZamzam (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Quiles'book is unreliable [11]; [12]. Romanian scholar Sorin Paliga is not the best you can find ([13]), also you WP:CHERRYPICKED his publication.

Albanian is among the earliest languages to have been in contact with Latin, not to mention the early borrowings from North-West (Doric) Greek. Albanian is not a language that remained non-Romanized until the 3rd-4th centuries CE (or even 600 CE!) as conjectured by Paliga, this is a WP:FRINGE view; he also states This is, in fact, the theory recently advocated by Matzinger too which is false, Matzinger has rejected the Thracian origin of Albanian. Proto-Albanian has already been profoundly changed by contact with Latin in the first centuries CE. Current top notch academic sources (Hamp, De Vaan, Matzinger, Joseph, Friedman, Trumper, Breu) hold that Albanian-speakers were already at least in northern Albania-Central Balkans at the time of Carpi's first attestation north of the Danube. Furthermore, first contacts between Albanian and Romanian languages occurred south of the Danube; as stated by De Vaan and Joseph, this map is the most likely situation of the early period CE Commons:File:Map Romanian Dawns.jpg. – Βατο (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Quiles is not reliable at all, while the two others are promoters of Romanian nationalist ideas (they claim there is definitive proof that Romanian stems from Dacian in Romania!). Unless recent linguists specialized in Albanian studies are provided, it is just a waste of time. Recent top quality linguists who do specialize in Albanian (Hamp, Matzinger, Friedman, de Vaan, Joseph etc) do not even mention the Carpi fringe non-sense. No need to discuss this again really. At least from me do not expect more elaboration, unless you find recent linguists who specialize in Albanian - sth you can't do. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comment: Carlos Quiles is not a linguist, an archaeologist, an anthropologist or a historian. No Quiles publication can be used as a reliable source, because none of them are academic sources.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Müller (1883), so a very old source, is quoted in favour of the mountains bearing a Slavic-origin name. How can that be even considered, when Claudius Ptolemy names them Karpátēs around 150 and the Slavs were at that time nowhere near the Carpathians? Or are there still accepted theories about an earlier migration of the Slavs, and how reliable are they? The 1880s were a time of national movements and science often did bend over backwards to serve nationalistic agendas. I don't know anything about Müller and his work - is he still a RS? Arminden (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).