Talk:Costoboci

(From Batty):

• p29: This study is concerned...with demonstrating a persistent state of flux in the ethnic composition of the Pontic- Danubian zone...The traditional view of tribal archaeology has placed emphasis on material remains - on cultural 'hardware'. Maps which come with such work usually show long-term and fairly static 'homelands'. But for [such] archaeologists...the Pontic-Danubian region presents frightening complexity. Ultimately it is extremely hard to argue who was where, precisely, or what they thought about themselves, at any particular moment in time" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.100.144.61 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• p50: "The archaeology [of the Pontic-Danubian region] provides not just support for this study, but numerous obstacles..The chief reason for this has been the unfortunate politicisation of archaeology in many of the cultures under study"

• p51: [Gives as example quote from Bichir (1976) p162: "In conclusion, the archaeological evidence shows that the whole territory of Moldavia was inhabited by a population of Thraco-Dacian origin, regardless of whether they were Carpi or Costoboci"] True or not (and it must be doubted), such statements about the distribution of 'Daco-Getic' material are more a reflection of a national and political ideology than they are of credible archaeological results...Certainly, it is now increasingly in doubt whether the users of 'Daco-Getic' wares were in fact Daco-Getae at all [especially as] many of the assorted groups were 'mixed' populations". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.110.89.71 (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• p237: "The Bastarnae have not been the subject of very intense study, which... is very curious...[as] their impact on the [Pontic-Danubian] region was quite profound. They...appear to have occupied...a very large tract of land indeed, stretching from the northern Carpathians through Moldavia and down to the Danube delta. They continued their existence...from the 3rd century BC into the 3rd and possibly the 4th c AD"

• p246: "The Poienesti-Lukashevka culture [attributed by Babes and Teodor to the Bastarnae and present mainly in northern Moldavia (also in N Bessarabia/SW Ukraine) until the time of Augustus] consists basically of a relatively limited amount of pottery and a few weapon types, which owing to their 'Germanic' nature have been attributed to the Bastarnae...The discussion is marred from the start by an insistence [by Romanian archaeologists] that the majority population of the area [of this culture] were Geto-Dacian. We might plausibly suppose that Getic elements contributed to the Bastarnae, but no more than that...The influence of Celtic elements must have been equally strong, given what we know of their history [of migrations into this region]...indeed in the Poienesti-Lukashevka area we can find strong Celtic traces"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.110.89.71 (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• (p245: "A number of attempts have been made to link [the Poienesti-Lukashevka culture] with a 'Germanic' culture to the North. Both Babes and Schukhin have argued for connections between the finds at Poienesti and a number of sites in Pomerania on the Baltic coast...but the Pomeranian fibulae on which this argument is centred (a specimen of which was discovered at Poienesti) are extremely poor evidence on which to make such a large conclusion")

• p250: "A number of Romanian scholars have documented the existence of a 'Daco-Getic' culture to the borders of modern Romania and even to the borders of Bessarabia...but even [they] have had to allow that the history of the region will simply not permit [the Daco-Getae] to occupy this area by themselves. [Furthermore] the 'Daco-Getic' cultures do not themselves form a cohesive or uniform body of material. Regional differences abound, and it is easier to identify archaeological "micro-regions" than major groupings...(ref: I. Ionitsa, 1982, Din Istoria si Civilisatsia Dacilor liberi pp 76-7). Thus, the standard identification of the 'Lipitsa' culture with the Costoboci, a 'Poienesti' culture with the Carpi or indeed the P-L culture with the Bastarnae rests on a shaky basis"

• p247: "The chronology of the P-L culture indicates that it was defunct by the turn of the millennium, when Moldavia was something of an "archaeological blank" (ref: Schukhin, Rome and the Barbarians p74). Yet the Bastarnae, as attested by our sources, continued to be present there...well beyond that date"

• p250: "It is not out of the question that the sites currently attributed to Getic or "Free Dacian" communities... [may actually belong to] peoples associated in some way with the Bastarnae. This raises the problem[s] of cohabitation...[Foremost among which] is how to determine the relative strength of the population groups involved and which group is represented by which objects (ref: S. Teodor Asezarea de Epoca La Tene de la Botosana, jud. Suceava SCIV 31 1980 pp 181-228). The issue is fraught with theoretical and practical difficulties..."

• p374: "there is little reason to discard the connection between the Costoboci who appear in a few historical sources of the 2nd century and the Cotobacchi mentioned by Pliny (NH VI.19. The variation on the name need cause no concern: of the dozen or so references to this people extant, hardly any have the same spelling)...In any case, Pliny was not alone in seeing the Costoboci as Sarmatians. For Ammianus Marcellinus, the Pontic steppes were inhabited by the "Alans, the Costoboci and innumerable Scythian tribes..." Groups of Costoboci may still have been located on the steppes in Ammianus' day" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.100.144.61 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• p374: "Nothing would have prevented this people from drifting westwards...After all the Sarmatian peoples had generally moved in that direction"

• p375: "We should not be too disturbed by the absence of any widespread 'Costobocan' [nomadic] material culture. Key Sarmatian peoples such as the Roxolani and Iazyges are similarly unattested. A numerically small, but aggressive, group of nomads would leave...almost no material record...The culture currently associated with [the Costoboci], the 'Lipitsa' culture, is a poor candidate all told; it may represent only one strand of the Costoboci, or the material culture of a sedentary, substrate population in the area they controlled" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.100.144.61 (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• p375: "The general location of the Costoboci [in the 2nd c was] either just inside or along the northern and eastern edges of Roman Dacia...This, of course, would superimpose them on territories where we know other peoples [resided]: the Bastarnae, Sarmatian peoples and quite possibly many smaller Germanic groups [such as the Astingi and Lacringi]..." EraNavigator (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

From the above quotes (most of them not about Costoboci, but about Bastarnae, Getae, Dacians, etc) I note:

• To Batty the Bastarnae are a "Geto-Celtic" group (p. 246 and 250, especially "we might plausibly suppose that Getic elements contributed to the Bastarnae" and "the influence of Celtic elements must have been equally strong").
• As noted before, Batty works with double standards (p. 245 against "Germanic" fibulae, p. 51 against "Daco-Getic" wares, however p. 246 "in the Poienesti-Lukashevka area we can find strong Celtic traces" which serves as arguments for "the influence of Celtic elements"; let's note no primary source attests the migration of Celts in this region, north and east of Carpathians, so it seems Batty uses archaeological evidence only)
• In the quote from p. 375 the "nomadic" addition is not Batty's; eventually the author concedes Lipitsa "may represent only one strand of the Costoboci" (thus their material culture needs not to be 'nomadic'). Several such bracketed additions are biased and counter-factual.
• His bibliography (as criticized in the aforementioned review) is slim, dated and sometimes also ignored. For example on p. 247: "by the turn of the millennium" "Moldavia was something of an 'archaeological blank'" which is not true by 2011 (and I assume also not true by 2008 when Batty published his work), see RAN sites such as [1] [2] [3] and various studies such as [4] [5] [6] etc. Batty also cites works in languages he can't understand, e.g. p. 250 where Batty mangles the author's name, the title and misinterprets the cited work (regional differences exist but there are no "micro-regions" defined, nor is it possible to define them based on the insufficient evidence which is available - please note this book was published in 1982). Daizus (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• p376: " An inscription in Rome attests the family of a Costobocan king - presumably one who negotiated surrender or was taken captive. The Latin text is simple, but, along with the monument itself, indicates an acceptance of Roman power"

• pp22-3: [Batty discusses the difference between a barbarian raid and a full-scale invasion or migration. He argues that the Costoboci invasion of 170/1 was much more than a simple raid, because of the distance traveled overland and that a major population movement, including women and children, cannot be ruled out. He suggests that pockets of Costoboci (esp in mountain areas) were may have been left behind after their main force was defeated/expelled, living off pastoralism and/or brigandage]

• p232: "The earliest archaeological evidence for the Sarmatians in the western edge of the Pontic steppes comes from midway through the 1st century AD in the form of isolated burials, and one clearly 'Sarmatian' (archaeologically speaking) cemetery on the upper Dniester at Ostrovets (ref: Schukhin p76) [Batty's map 4.12 shows Sarmatian remains on both banks of the upper Dniester, in the same region as the Lipitsa culture, shown on map 4.14a) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.102.150.131 (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.103.136.142 (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fortunately in Google Books snippets I could read also from p. 22. EraNavigator did not quote from that page and also did not use in the article that page, because it is against his theory and his misuse of this book. Check this out: "The points of transition from raid to invasion to migration remain unclear. Consider an exterem example that is discussed later in this book - an invasion, sometimes called a raid, by the Costoboci, a 'Geto-Dacian' (?) people, against the Roman Empire, around AD 170-1. This 'raid' went from the territory of present-day Moldavia and reached as far as central Greece, where the 'raiders' were eventually destroyed." So Batty believes Costoboci were probably a 'Geto-Dacian' people. Daizus (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

False. I summarised the discussion about raids in my own words because it runs to two full pages (pp 22-3) which cannot be reproduced for copyright reasons. As the excerpts above demonstrate, Batty favours the view that the Costoboci were Sarmatians, and repeatedly expresses doubt (as Daizo's quote above itself shows) about the majority scholarly view that they were Dacians. Here is another example:

• p378: "Similarly, we have little reason to believe [Bichir's view] that the Carpi lived in peace and harmony with the Costoboci, merely because both were 'Dacian' peoples (itself a dubious conclusion)"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.102.120.1 (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The discussion it doesn't run on two full pages (at least not on p. 22) and so far you reproduced many excerpts. In the past you also falsified the quote from p. 375 omitting "it may represent only one strand of the Costoboci" and also several quotes from Heather. Moreover you used Batty in past to doubt the Dacianess of Costoboci and to emphasize their Sarmatianess, but this is not what this author says. On p. 378 Batty doesn't claim Costoboci weren't 'Geto-Dacian' (maybe he believes Carpi weren't) and so far you produced no quote from Batty claiming the Costoboci were Sarmatians. Here's another quote from p. 384, n. 190: "The 'Scythians in the mood for fighting' could have been one of a number of groups from the Sarmatians, to the Costoboci, or even the Bastarnae, whom Dio also described using the same term: see above, p. 401." (so Costoboci, Bastarnae and Sarmatians are to Batty three different groups) and p. 499: "If Thrace needed to be protected, then the threat may have come from a variety of causes: immigrant populations such as the Costoboci, discussed above; brigands and bandits; mobile, nomadic peoples within Thrace itself; mountaineers from the remoter parts of the Haemus; or the organized attacks of hostile external powers, such as the Sarmatians." (Costoboci are described here as an "immigrant population", not just nomads, and certainly not Sarmatians) Daizus (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The raids discussion, to be precise, runs from the middle of p22 to the middle of page p24. As for the Sarmatian identity of the Costoboci, have you not read the quotes from pp374-5 above? He does not state it specifically, but he clearly favours it over the mainstream view that they were Dacian. The rest of your commentary above is nonsense: I have warned you not to rely on Google snippets before. If you read the whole work, you would know that far from seeing the Costoboci, Bastarnae and Sarmatians as different peoples, Batty regards them as often indistinguishable eg he says that some Bastarnae groups became assimmilated as Sarmatians, others as Carpi. But rather than wasting my time with your silly ill-informed commentary, why don't you let me finish posting my illuminating quotes and then we can have a proper discussion?

First time you said the raid discussion is on pp. 22-23, if you can't figure out what is that discussion about and how is Batty presenting it, it's not my fault. Daizus (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did read the quotes above and in none of them Batty says "Costoboci, a Sarmatian tribe/group/people/whatever" (he merely draws analogies between Costoboci and other populations such as some Sarmatian tribes - e.g. they migrated, or he recalls the testimony of Pliny and Ammianus - wrongly on Ammianus). I don't care about your misguided warnings, you have not read the whole book, or if you have, you have falsified quotes on purpose (as proven several times already), so they are not illuminating, but distorting. Fact 1: Batty calls Costoboci "a 'Geto-Dacian' (?) people". Fact 2: in none of your quotes Batty calls Costoboci "a Sarmatian something". So if anything, your comments are ill-informed and based on cherry-picked, fragmented and even altered sentences from this book. Daizus (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• p28: "In the fluid non-national world of antiquity, it is not clear that we should ascribe much importance to ethnicity at all. But the concept might still be useful in understanding how wider political units came into being and faded away"

• pp28-9: [Batty's conclusions about ethnicity in the ancient Pontic-Danubian region]:

1. An ethnic group is not the same as a political group
2. There were few, if any, wholly stable ethnic groups in the region...
3. Ethnicity in the region was largely uncoupled from language use...
4. Ethnic cohesion was probably not much sought after, nor deliberately pursued, by most of the people of the region...
5. The peoples of the region shared material culture, which was produced for common use...without reference to anything other than the economic status of the consumer
6. People could, and did, change ethnicity, often rather rapidly. This process was often forcible
7. Ethnicity often came from economic base...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.99.182.35 (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If Batty applies this reasoning directly to Costoboci (and you have to quote him on that), then obviously he doesn't regard them Sarmatians, Dacians or anything like that. But at least in some regards, Batty's claims are self-contradicting (e.g. "the peoples of the region shared material culture" vs quotes above on Celtic material culture and Sarmatian burials; thus Batty's "Celts" and "Sarmatians" could be speakers of any languages sharing some common material culture - as Batty also believes ethnicity was largely uncoupled from language use). Daizus (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The conclusions above are general, applying to all the peoples of the region (inc the Costoboci). I agree that there are contradictory elements, as there are throughout the book. But that simply reflects the often ambiguous nature of the evidence. It has to be said that the book is much better at asking questions than in providing answers. Batty often offers more than one answer to a particular question, thus incurring the charge of self-contradiction: but that is just his way of saying that no definitive answers are possible in the present state of knowledge. That, plus the conclusion that analysis of antiquity cannot succeed with modern preconceptions, are the central themes of the book. The value of the book is precisely in asking those questions and, uniquely, attempting to take a holistic approach to the history of the region, encompassing physical geography, vegetation zones, climate, types of subsistence, transhumance patterns, etc.

Cute, but wrong. Batty's own arguments and stances are self-contradictory, not the evidence he presents. On one page he's claiming material culture is irrelevant to ethnicity, on other pages he's writing about Celts (i.e. Celtic speakers according to the primitive ethnicity=language view) and Sarmatians (i.e. Iranic speakers), detected using archaeological evidence. Batty offers more than one answer precisely because he lacks a holistic approach, he lacks the understanding and he lacks the bibliography, or in your words because of his analysis cannot "succeed with modern preconceptions". In his merciless review, Everett Wheeler considers this book "a disappointing work" suffering from "factual errors and out-of-date or omitted bibliography". Wheeler also remarks Batty's "curious pronouncements" deriving "exclusively from a very limited (cherrypicked?) knowledge of the literature", his inadequate use of ancient literary sources accepted "uncritically", and several other wrong, confused, groundless, exaggerated, feeble and even "perverse" arguments and positions. Daizus (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Batty's points about ethnicity obviously demolish completely the foundations of the Geto-Daco-Roman Continuity myth, which is a bogus construct based on projecting XIX century nationalist ideology onto the past. They also expose the simplistic, shallow and vacuous nature of your "improved" version of the Costoboci article. It seems something copied out of a Romanian Tourism Ministry promotional brochure than a serious analysis of the subject.

Au contraire most of Batty's arguments are irrelevant to the "Daco-Roman Continuity" (in short this theory claims Romanian, a Romance language, was spoken in Transylvania from ancient times until today) and when they are on tangential topics they seem to be wrong (e.g. p. 485 where, according to Wheeler, Batty "erroneously believes that Trajan’s wars depopulated Dacia"; see also the bibliography from one of my drafts on the recruitment of Dacian Soldiers). However they demolish all your fabulous theories - that Costoboci were Sarmatians, that Bastarnae were a Germanic tribe (see also the quote below from p. 241-2), that Huns, Avars or other "overlords" cared about ethnic purity and did not mix with their subjects (per your summary above: "ethnic cohesion was probably not much sought after, nor deliberately pursued, by most of the people of the region")

As for the quality of the materials I added, your assessments are misguided and actually worthless considering the crap I had to remove. I sourced some arguments and claims with four or more different scholars, many of them non-Romanian. E.g. for the claim the Costoboci were a Dacian tribe, the cited authors are Anton von Premerstein (1912) and your beloved Peter Heather (2010) - (I deliberately avoided to use Romanian scholars on this verdict) I'd be happy if Romanian promotional brochures would cite and reflect scholarly works. Daizus (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• p235: "We cannot, as some have tried to argue, see an enduring Sarmatian empire or other extended dominion over these lands...They may on occasion have dominated the political environment of a vast swathe of territory including Moldavia, Wallachia and the Dobruja, or they might have done so only briefly, but that might not of itself show up clearly in the archaelogical record"

• p241-2: "The ethnic uncertainty which surrounded the Bastarnae seems to have been noted by more than one [ancient] writer...The Bastarnae, whether one group of them were of German origin or not, cannot, by the time Tacitus is writing, have borne any resemblance to the 'German' people in the then accepted sense of the word. This illustrates a vital point: that the ethnic origins of the larger tribal units in the region were so confused as to be almost meaningless in some cases"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.110.65.32 (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.98.100.240 (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

May I suggest to divide topics in chapters and the subtopics in sub-chapters. Eg

and so on. It is very very difficult for the others to follow your arguments guys. Just a suggestion. Bests Aigest (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

"who considers the sedentary Lipiţa culture a poor match for the Costoboci, argues that it belonged either to a subgroup of the Costoboci or to some sedentary population they ruled over" is self-contradictory and confusing. Besides we should synthesize, not just paraphrase. At some point (also on p. 375?) Batty adds that pottery "shows us the material level they attained but has no actual bearing on the ethnicity or identity of the people".

Batty's own reading of Ammianus is not acceptable. If I change the text to "Batty interprets the passage as referring to the Pontic steppes in general, and suggests that groups of Costoboci may still have been present in the steppes in Ammianus' day. However he was sharply criticized by E. L. Wheeler .... [ref to Wheeler, 2010, p. 1190, the relevant quotes are: 'his own views lack appreciation of archaic ethnic terms in late authors for various tribes of their own day' and 'he uncritically accepts material [...] where earlier sources are indiscriminately mixed with contemporary ethnographical descriptions' ]", readers and editors will wonder why Batty's opinions even matter? For that we have WP:FRINGE and other similar policies, allowing us to limit the tiny minority views (usually held by one author, sometimes - as in our case, as well - not even an expert in the field). We can't write about Costoboci in the north-Pontic steppes in the 4th century AD only because Batty believes so.

We should present divergent views when they are likely to be shared by more scholars, even if we only can cite one for the moment (e.g. on material culture and ethnicity, similar points were made about other cultures or about other 'ethnic' groups, so I don't think Batty's skeptical position is fringe). As for "this region was also populated" part, it's irrelevant if it's not directly connected to Lipitsa. The section is about material culture, and Batty's view that the culture could belong to a subject population is mentioned. The quote "The general location of the Costoboci either just inside or along the northern and eastern edges of Roman Dacia [...] This, of course, would superimpose them on territories where we know other peoples: the Bastarnae, Sarmatian peoples and quite possibly many smaller Germanic groups" should be used in the "Territory" section (but with due weight, if other scholars have different views about what populations inhabited this same space - and they do). Daizus (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Response:

1. I agree that Batty's wording could have been clearer (a criticism that applies in many places in his text: he has a rather elliptical, verbose and woolly style, which contrasts with the direct, concise and precise prose that I employ). Even so, it is certain that he favours the view that the Costoboci, Sarmatians or not, display nomadic characteristics (in another passage he describes them as a "mobile" people). The reason he does not regard Lipitsa as a good fit is because it was a sedentary culture and the quote should specify that.
2. Batty's view that groups of Costoboci were scattered throughout the Pontic steppes is shared, at least implicitly, by the other scholars who consider them Sarmatians. To the question: why should we care about Batty's views? my response is: why should we care about Wheeler's views? As regards Wheeler's "merciless" critique of Batty, it boils down to (a) a series of petty nit-picking points of detail, such as whether the 5th Macedonian legion was based at Oescus from AD 11 (Batty) or from AD 14 (Wheeler) (a discrepancy which is anyway meaningless in the context of fragmentary sources) and (b) issues where Wheeler simply disagrees with Batty eg: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.110.84.177 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.110.84.177 (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

If in the previous quote we add "nomadic" to Costoboci we get "who considers the sedentary Lipiţa culture a poor match for the nomadic Costoboci, argues that it belonged either to a subgroup of the nomadic Costoboci or to some sedentary population they ruled over". So if the sedentary culture is a poor match for a nomadic group, how can it belong to a subgroup?

Batty is alone (at least so far) in describing Costoboci in the steppes in the 4th century AD. All the other histories end in the late 2nd century. H. A. Ormerod did not account for Ammianus (and he apparently followed Frazer, cited in the footnote). According to J. G. Frazer "the seat of the tribe is vaguely described by Ammianus" (and this location was "to the north of Dacia") but he did not mention they were still living there in Ammianus' day. Moreover it's widely acknowledged that Ammianus' Black Sea geography is derived from earlier sources: [7]

Wheeler is a historian, Batty is an economist. And some of Batty's views are fringe, meaning for such views you'll find little if any support in the existing scholarship. Daizus (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

(resuming from above): Wheeler criticises Batty for belittling Burebista. But it's high time this individual's achievements and historical significance were given a reality check after two centuries of gross exaggeration by Romanian scholars. If you listen to the latter, Burebista was a Dacian Augustus who established an a sophisticated empire stretching from the Vistula to the Crimea. The glorification of Burebista culminated in the ludicrous celebrations of the "2,050th" anniversary of the foundation of the Dacian "state" staged by the Ceausescu nationalist-communist regime in 1980. In fact, it is not even certain if Burebista controlled all the Getan tribes, let alone anyone else. Nor can his brief hegemony over Dacia be called a "state", even in the ancient sense: it was just a grouping of tribal chieftains who were impressed/intimidated by Burebista's personality, which fell apart as soon as that personality disappeared. Even the vaunted "cities" of Sarmizegethusa etc were built by Greek architects and craftsmen hired from the coastal cities and paid from the proceeds of Burebista's brutal raids across the Danube. In reality, Burebista's Dacians were actually totally awesome indeed!

• p258: "Even at its maximum extent, kingdoms such as that of Burebista cannot have been based on anything other than the personal magnetism of the leader. It seems implausible to attach to any of these leaders any codified legal rights over the lands and people within the area of their predominance, and hereditary rights will have passed on to their sons in only exceptional cases, with disputes among other kinsmen probably accounting from the subsequent disruption of what stability had been achieved" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.108.216.93 (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.102.221.191 (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

First of all, during Burebista's time Dacians were not "a backward lot". They had fortified settlements, not only in Sarmizegethusa, but throughout Transylvania and there are similar fortifications - usually believed to be Dacian - in all the neighbouring territories from SE Slovakia (Zemplin) and SV Ukraine (Malaia Kopania) to southern and eastern Romania (Cârlomăneşti, Piscul Crăsani, etc). Their soldiers were well equipped with weapons and armor of various traditions: own (the famous sica), "Celtic", "Thracian", "Greek", "Scythian". They received Roman and Greek coins and also had their own imitations minted locally. In the 1st century BC Dacian sites (settlements or burials) there's a variety of artefacts: Greek amphorae and kantharoi, bronze mirrors, glass beads, silver rings, all kinds of pendants and fibulae, etc. As for materials, it was not only a culture of mud and straws, but a civilization of gold, silver, bronze, iron, glass, bone, amber, stone, wood.

As for the hateful and ignorant "two centuries of gross exaggeration by Romanian scholars", let's see some quotes.

Non-Romanian scholars:

• Michael Schmitz: "The situation changed under the leadership of the king Burebista [...] Dacians became a united nation under a single ruler, and a potential threat to the nearby empire of Rome"
• Andras Mócsy: "... the strengthening of the Dacian state, now united under Burebista ...", "According to Strabo, Burebista carried out his conquests within a matter of few years. [...] His operations had, however, a lasting effect on the history of the Carpathian region, inasmuch as they put an end once and for all to Celticization in many areas."
• Paul L. MacKendrick: "the powerful and ambitious Burebista, 'the greatest and the most important of the kings of Thrace', as a contemporary as a contemporary inscription calls him", "the Geto-Dacian king Burebista, who by diplomatic and military genius", "the remnants of the Dacian state between Burebista's death in 44 BC and Decebalus's accesssion in AD 87"
• Barry Cunliffe: "the emergence, in the first century BC, of the Dacian state", "Burebista seems to have been a military leader of equal stature to Caesar, Ariovistus, or Mithridates Eupator"

Ancient sources:

• IGBulg I² 13 (Dionysopolis, today Balchik in NE Bulgaria — ca. 48 BC), r. 22-25: "the king Byrebista became the most important and the greatest of the kings of Thrace and conquered all beyond the river and from these parts" and r. 32-34 "[Acornion, the Greek honored in the decree] being sent by king Byrebista as ambassador to the Roman autocrator Cnaeus Pompeius, son of Cnaeus"
• Strabo, VII, 3, 5: "This custom persisted even down to our own time, because some man of that character was always to be found, who, though in fact only a counsellor to the king, was called god among the Getae. [...] So, too, at the time when Byrebistas, against whom already the Deified Caesar had prepared to make an expedition, was reigning over the Getae, the office in question was held by Decaeneus" and 11: "Boerebistas, a Getan, on setting himself in authority over the tribe, restored the people, who had been reduced to an evil plight by numerous wars, and raised them to such a height through training, sobriety, and obedience to his commands that within only a few years he had established a great empire and subordinated to the Getae most of the neighboring peoples. And he began to be formidable even to the Romans, because he would cross the Ister with impunity and plunder Thrace as far as Macedonia and the Illyrian country; and he not only laid waste the country of the Celti who were intermingled with the Thracians and the Illyrians, but actually caused the complete disappearance of the Boii who were under the rule of Critasirus, and also of the Taurisci. To help him secure the complete obedience of his tribe he had as his coadjutor Decaeneus, a wizard, a man who not only had wandered through Egypt, but also had thoroughly learned certain prognostics through which he would pretend to tell the divine will; and within a short time he was set up as god (as I said when relating the story of Zamolxis). The following is an indication of their complete obedience: they were persuaded to cut down their vines and to live without wine." and 12-13: "But though the tribe was raised to such a height by Boerebistas, it has been completely humbled by its own seditions and by the Romans; nevertheless, they are capable, even today, of sending forth an army of forty thousand men. [...] although the Getae and Daci once attained to very great power, so that they actually could send forth an expedition of two hundred thousand men, they now find themselves reduced to as few as forty thousand, and they have come close to the point of yielding obedience to the Romans, though as yet they are not absolutely submissive, because of the hopes which they base on the Germans, who are enemies to the Romans."
• Jordanes, Getica, 67: "Then when Buruista was king of the Goths, Dicineus came to Gothia at the time when Sulla ruled the Romans. Buruista received Dicineus and gave him almost royal power. It was by his advice that the Goths ravaged the lands of the Germans, which now the Franks possess." and 69: "And when he [Dicineus] saw that their minds were obedient to him in all things and that they had natural ability, he taught them almost the whole of philosophy, for he was a skilled master of this subject. Thus by teaching them ethics he restrained their barbarous customs; by instructing them in the science of nature, he made them live naturally under laws of their own, which they possess in written form to this day and call belagines. He taught them logic and made them skilled in reasoning beyond all other races; he showed them practical knowledge and so persuaded them to abound in good works. By explaining theoretical knowledge he urged them to contemplate the progress of the twelve constellations {of the zodiac} and the courses of the planets passing through them, and the whole of astronomy. He told them how the disc of the moon waxes or wanes, and showed them how much the fiery globe of the sun exceeds in size our earthly planet. He explained with which names or designations in the arching heavens the three hundred forty-six stars hurtle from their rising to their setting."
• Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 36, 4 (late 1st century AD): "The city of Borysthenes, as to its size, does not correspond to its ancient fame, because of its ever-repeated seizure and its wars. For since the city has lain in the midst of barbarians now for so long a time — barbarians, too, who are virtually the most warlike of all — it is always in a state of war and has often been captured, the last and most disastrous capture occurring not more than one hundred and fifty years ago. And the Getae on that occasion seized not only Borysthenes but also the other cities along the left shore of Pontus as far as Apollonia."

So the "glorification of Burebista" and his "sophisticated empire" are in fact supported by sources. To be sure, if one believes Jordanes on Venedi, Sclaveni, and Antes, why wouldn't we believe the same author that the Getae taught by Dicineus had their own laws. Daizus (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• p292: "Daicoviciu, in a work designed to promote ideas about the continuity of the 'Dacian' state of Burebista, speaks of a region in which [saw] "the flowering of urban civilisation characteristic of the Dacian state" (ref: Daicoviciu, Dacia pp199-200)...much of this is connected to the often highly inflated accounts of the Daco-Getic 'state' and 'empire' that [Romanian authors] would like to see in the region, even in the period before Burebista and after his death. The fortifications and signs of civilian development at places such as Blidaru, Costesti and Sarmizegethusa are irrefutable...Nevertheless, [these sites are not typical compared to] the multitude of smaller Geto-Dacian establishments found throughout the region. The work done on these sites reveals that there was a broad continuity in function and purpose of the rural villages bearing little relation to the development of administrative systems of what might be called a state. The villages lie huddled in river valleys, comprising a mixture of dwellings, many of which remain of the half-sunken or subterranean types. There is little to suggest that any of these sites were likely to develop into larger agglomerations"

The Diceneus story has evidently been inflated by classical authors who were fascinated by Druid-like wise men. Doubtless, D was very cultured indeed and seems to have been hired by Burebista as a kind of personal astrologer/rainmaker/chief secretary; also no doubt he gathered around him a group of initiates to whom he imparted a lot of Egyptian mumbo-jumbo. But to go further, and say he codified "laws" is absurd, since the Dacian quasi-troglodytes were universally illiterate: not a single Burebista-era Dacian inscription has ever been found (other than inscriptions made by the Greeks). It is in fact unlikely that Burebista himself could read and write: probably a key reason why he hired Diceneus, in order to communicate with the literate world: the Greeks and Romans. The Dacians obviously had laws, but they would have been the unwritten customary laws of the various tribes. Not only was the standard dwelling of a Burebista Dacian much the same as that of the first groups of Homo Sapiens to reach the Carpathians ca. 100,000 years earlier; but their military was backward too: even in the time of Decebal, Trajan's Column shows that Dacian warriors (except high-status individuals) wore no body armour and had no cavalry: they were obliged to rely on Sarmatian allies (presumably the Roxolani and Costoboci) for cavalry cover. As for Burebista himself, his position and powers seem similar to that of Attila the Hun or Bayan the Avar khan: a regional bully-boy, who relied on intimidation to hold his ramshackle coalition of reluctant subjects together.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.107.93.176 (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

There many more fortifications, as I said, from Slovakia to Danube and in east beyond the Carpathians (e.g. Bâtca Doamnei, Brad, Răcătău). The rest of the paragraph is sheer nonsense: should a state have only cities? if a village on a remote valley is not a city (d'oh!), does that mean Dacians did not have larger settlements? Sure they did, and if Batty knows only of three prominent fortifications and several villages, his dilettantism (he's no historian, no archaeologist and he writes crap) cannot be taken seriously (and as Wheeler pointed out Batty was also unable to correctly locate Sarmizegethusa, Blidaru and Costeşti on a map!) For Dacian "core area" I suggest I. A. Oltean's book on Dacia (2007), but I know of no overview of the settlements in this entire space. E.g. p. 89 : "evidence of extensive settlement has been recovered in the vicinity of Sarmizegetusa Regia, Deva, Costeşti and, to a smaller extent, Cucuiş. In the last three cases, the settlement was scattered in character and spread over a very large area. The fourth (Sarmizegetusa Regia) was somewhat more compact in nature though extensive and elaborate in terms of existing amenities." and in the next pages there's a detailed descripion of each site with its fortifications, houses, temples, workshops, etc. Daizus (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the Dicineus story was more inflated than that of Venedi, Sclaveni and Antes, or many other stories which you interpreted ad litteram when it suited you. Dicineus couldn't have been a "astrologer/rainmaker/chief secretary who "gathered around him a group of initiates to whom he imparted a lot of Egyptian mumbo-jumbo" unless he was also a lawgiver. I'm too lazy to explain now why, but it doesn't really matter, because regardless of who the real Dekinais (this is the real Dacian name, first recorded by Strabo, and then further Latinized) was, the Dacians had laws: almost all ancient people were illiterate but virtually all of them had laws (written or not), and this is also confirmed by modern anthropological research of the tribal societies worldwide. In Iron Age Dacia there are inscriptions in Greek, and such laws could have been written in Greek (as many non-Roman laws were written in Latin: e.g. see Early Germanic law). The Dacians were no more "quasi-troglodytes" than Celts, Sarmatians or many Roman provincials. Daizus (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

As for the Dacian villages, the lowland villages were of sunken houses, the upland villages of surface buildings. In these villages there were excavated imports of Greek pottery, kantharoi, sometimes also amphorae, iron tools (hooks, nails, anvils, hammers, tongs, sickles, chisels, etc), weapons, and various other artifacts (e.g. a bronze weighing scale in the settlement from the Piatra Coziei hill, west of Deva). Some of the richest settlements were the individual homesteads: e.g. one glass bead and an iron arrowhead in one isolated sunken house at Vinţu de Jos, or in a ceramic pot from an isolated house at Sărăcsău: "eight brooches (four large and four small), one brooch pin, three necklaces, four bracelets and six finger rings of silver" (Oltean, p. 75). "Quasi-troglodytes" but rich! Daizus (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You then say the "standard dwelling" (which one?) was "much the same as that of the first groups of Homo Sapiens to reach the Carpathians ca. 100,000 years earlier" - here's too much nonsense in one sentence to even try a reply. The Dacian military was top notch for that era - just check their settlements and burials: horse-gear, body armor, helmets, arrowheads, spearheads, swords and daggers of various types. It is also widely acknowledged in the literary sources - either by acknowledging the Dacian victories over their various enemies (including Rome), or simply by praising their martial prowess. Many (most?) scholars agree that for 1st century BC-1st century AD the Dacians were one of the most formidable enemies Rome had on its northern frontiers. Daizus (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

And one more note about ancient spellings, to address an earlier puzzling and inane remark from Batty ("there is little reason to discard the connection between the Costoboci who appear in a few historical sources of the 2nd century and the Cotobacchi mentioned by Pliny" as "the variation on the name need cause no concern: of the dozen or so references to this people extant, hardly any have the same spelling"). Often the spellings are not random (even scribal error - ancient or medieval - have justifications). For example the name of Burebista starts with Βυρε- on a contemporary inscription, and with Βυρε- and Βοιρε- in Strabo's work. As in this period the Greek υ stood for ü, yu, uy, these spellings suggest an original Buyre-. Now let's turn to Costoboci. In a contemporary inscription the name starts with Coissto-. In early 2nd century AD Ptolemy recorded Κοιστο-. Probably the members of their royal family are the most reliable account, so this should be closest to the original name. The double s was also a letter for the "barbarian" sh, so the name could have started even with Koyshto-. The Costo- name can be a real variant or even an alternative Greek rendering (depending on the actual pronunciation of the oys/oysh sequence). The same is true for Casta-. An open o could be understood as a by some Roman ears (e.g. like in the English "hot"), but there was also an o/a alternance (some examples from the study are not valid as they can be better explained in a different manner, but there are some good pairs like Potaissa/Patavissa). Daizus (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

We can exclude Russu's silly idea that the Cotobacchi were a distinct tribe. Not only are they unattested elsewhere, but Roman names never ended in "chi"; placing an "h" between "c" and "i" is a characteristically Italian means of hardening the "c" to a "k" sound (as in Italian - as in Romanian? - "c" followed by "e" and "i" is soft, pronounced as "ch" in English). In addition, other variants found in Pliny manuscripts are Coetoboci and Coertoboci. It is thus overwhelmingly likely that all three variants are corruptions, due to miscopying by medieval monks, of Costoboci in Pliny's original.

It's not Russu's silly idea, this argument existed all along (Cotobacchi is after all a different name): in the article we cited also von Premerstein (1912) but most important the Barrington Atlas (2000). There are lots of names unattested elsewhere (read about hapax) and Cotobacchi is not a Roman name (however for Roman names, see Gracchus, -chi). Variae lectiones in manuscripts for Cotobacchi are Cothobaci, Chotobacchi , Cotebacchi, etc. Daizus (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree that Batty's view on development of villages under Burebista (see quote from p192, above) makes little sense. Why should rural villages show signs of state administrative systems? Or signs that they would evolve into larger agglomerations? Nevertheless, the basic point that Batty makes, that there is little evidence of a Dacian "state", is valid. The supposed "unification" of the Dacian tribes by Burebista (another concept of XIX century nationalism inappropriately applied to ancient societies) is clearly illusory, since his "unified state" collapsed into several pieces as soon as he died. this obviously casts doubt on the existence of a "state", which would, almost by definition, be more resilient than a temporary alliance of tribes held together by a charismatic personality. There is no evidence of a state bureaucracy or standing army (beyond temporary tribal levies) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.103.136.116 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.99.16.188 (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

But the argument is not about villages (rural villages? are there villages which are not rural?), but about a great king who dominates the Greek coastal cities and has Greek citizens as his subjects and even ambassadors. Thus Burebista's tribal union had some administrative structures, and it can be called a "state" as so many scholars do call it. And his "unification" is not at all illusory, as that contemporary inscription shows us, Burebista was the first (most important) and the greatest of the kings of Thrace and he was the conqueror of "all" lands on both sides of the Danube. What happened after his death is of little relevance: Austria-Hungary was dissolved soon after Franz Joseph's death, and this fact it doesn't make it less of a state. We can debate what "state" means for an ancient or medieval kingdom, but as long as the concept exists, then certainly it can be applied in our case, as well. Daizus (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

well, i think Michael Schmitz and Julian Bennett (if i am not misspelled his name, the one who wrote "Trajan, Optimus Princeps" or so), to mention some foreign historians, consider that Dacia of Burebista was "an empire", only viable "barbarian empire" able to rival Rome. However, it was probably a proto-state, with few standing army and in time of needs with a much larger "conscript" army. The fact that a law as "cutting" the vine was imposed (even if not totally), or the descriptions give by Jordanes about Deceneus and his teachings, or that Acornion stuff, show that it wasnt a simple tribal union, but had some "state" characteristics. Even the construction of those impressive fortifications in Orastie Mountains show a coordination and an effort of an organized structure, and those fortifications and fortresses are start to be build during Burebista time. And second, i understand that Batty is an economist, not to mention he was kinda destroiyed by Wheeler, a real historian, why is he still mentioned around? Is almost as i bring in the writings of another person who is not historian, but write history, doctor Savescu (which was very criticized as well, but i definately can find couple stuff there who are true) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.221.188 (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Doctor Who? Daizus (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

More on Cotobacchi vs Costoboci. There are many manuscripts of Pliny. In some of the important manuscripts this name shows up as Cotobacchi (in Codex Florentinus Riccardianus written around 1100) and Chotobacchi(?) (in Codex Monacensis Pollinganus - 15th century). This name was connected to the Costoboci, as it can be seen in Mayhoff's edition (but not in the contemporary edition of Detlefsen) This is a Renaissance tradition, apparently starting in the 15th century. Ermolao Barbaro in his Castigationes Pliniae (abbreviated as B. in the Mayhoff edition) compared the name Chottobocci (I don't know the manuscript) with the name Costoboccae(sic!) from the other ancient sources. Daizus (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another note: Coertoboci is not from Pliny's manuscripts, but Ptolemy's: Κοιρτοβῶκοι instead of Κοιστοβῶκοι. Daizus (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I may be wrong, but I think Costoboccae (or similar) actually appears in one Pliny manuscript (apologies for mistakenly quoting Coertoboci from Ptolemy). In any case, it's clear that Cotobacchi is a corruption. At the same time, Ammianus' Costobocae are clearly linked to Sarmatians/Alans and any objective reading of the relevant passage would agree with Batty that it refers to the Pontic steppes in general, not just the region between Danube and Dniester - whatever Den Boeft might say. (BTW, Batty is not the only author to hold this view: unfortunately my original notes on this are lost, but I am looking for the ref again). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.108.124.101 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

If Cotobacchi is a corruption, then the original version can be as well Cotobaci, Cotobachi, Cotobahi (Latin ch also stood for Greek χ - see ophiuchus, -i) etc. As for Ammianus, it's not only about Den Boeft, see also Drijver's study: "It is obvious from this structure that Ammianus’ main course is to follow the coastline of the Black Sea in an anti-clockwise direction with the Thracian Bosporus as starting point." Here's the structure of Black Sea excursus from book XXII, chapter 8:

As noted by scholars, the account is confused, e.g. by placing the Maeotis in the east of the "Scythian bow" (§10-11): "according to the testimony of all geographers it has the form of a drawn Scythian bow. And where the sun rises from the eastern ocean it comes to an end in the marshes of the Maeotis". Nevertheless if it follows an actual voyage along the shores, at least the order is correct. Now, if we move on the description of the (north-)western coast, we find the following:

§40: Next the Borysthenes, rising in the mountains of the Nervii, rich in waters from its own springs, which are increased by many tributaries, and mingle with the sea in high-rolling waves. On its well-wooded banks are the cities of Borysthenes and Cephalonesus and the altars consecrated to Alexander the Great and Augustus Caesar.

§41: Then, a long distance away, is a peninsula inhabited by the Sindi, people of low birth, who after the disaster to their masters in Asia got possession of their wives and property. Next to these is a narrow strip of shore which the natives call Ἀχιλλέως δρόμος, memorable in times past for the exercises of the Thessalian leader. And next to it is the city Tyros, a colony of the Phoenicians, washed by the river Tyras.

§42: Now in the middle space of the bow, which, as I have said, is widely rounded out and is fifteen days' journey for an active traveller, are the European Halani, the Costobocae, and innumerable Scythian tribes, which extend to lands which have no known limit. Of these, only a small part live on the fruits of the earth; all the rest roam over desert wastes, which never knew plough nor seeds, but are rough from neglect and subject to frosts; and they feed after the foul manner of wild beasts. Their dear ones, their dwellings, and their poor belongings they pack upon wains covered with the bark of trees, and when the fancy takes them they change their abode without trouble, wheeling their carts to the place which has attracted them.

§43: But when we have come to another bend, abounding in harbours, which forms the last part of the curve of the bow, the island of Peuce juts forth, and around this dwell the Trogodytae, the Peuci, and other lesser tribes. Here is Histros, once a powerful city, and Tomi, Apollonia, Anchialos, and Odessos, besides many other cities which lie along the Thracian coast.

§44: But the river Danube, rising near Augst, and the mountains near the Raetian frontier, extends over a wide tract, and after receiving sixty tributaries, nearly all of which are navigable, breaks through this Scythian shore into the sea through seven mouths.

Summarized:

Daizus (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Someone saying they were backward clearly shows a lack of knowledge on the subject. Regardless of the veracity of Burebista running a "state", there is no question of the Dacians/Getae having a rather advanced military system and cultural level as high as that of any other "barbarian" tribal unit, if not a higher one, considering that the surrounding Celts that came with the Galatian invasion that began around 280BC started to adopt Dacian customs down to funerary rites. It's particularly this kind of western biased ignorance that marginalized historical Eastern European factions that were actually far more developed than Western Europe. Thus we have many tales about Celts and Germanics in the west, but those Slavs, Dacians, Thracians, Illyrians, Scythians, etc? What are those?StevenJac (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi

During the copyedit a few things came to light that may need attention:

Lead

• "ancient people located, during the Roman imperial era, between the Carpathian Mountains and the river Dniester." - Were they only located there during that period? did they move somewhere else? did they shrink/expand their territory before/after?

Most sources and the archaeology, linguistics indicate them as a Dacian tribe. These tribes lived in the area at least starting with Iron Age but we don't know exactly what is their origin. After south-western Dacia was conquered by the Romans, it is assumed that the Free Dacians were formed from Dacian tribes expelled or seeking refuge outside Roman Dacia and those Dacian and non-Dacian tribes who already lived in to the north and east of Dacia. Most likely the Costoboci tribe was already there (north east of Dacia) and got an influx of refugees. But it is speculative. We don't know how much of the territory of Costoboci was conquered by the Romans and incorporated into Roman Dacia. In general we know were little of what Dacian tribes, Germanic tribes, etc were doing north of the Roman borders, because the Romans didn't know, or write about it. Archaeology and linguistics come to help, but they are not written accounts. The (Roman and/or Greek) written accounts are also confusing, sometimes contradictory, some are propaganda, some are incorrect. The further north and east you go in Europe before and during Roman Empire and during the Early Middle Ages, the less the written accounts and the fuzzier the knowledge. See also Dacians#Origins and ethnogenesis. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Needs some linking to the Roman Imperial Era to establish a time it existed, or needs explanation in the lead

Extracting content from Roman Dacia#Dacian Kingdom and the Roman Empire and Free Dacians should help setting the context. I would also summarize in the lead the fact that archaeology and linguistics lead to Dacian origin, above other possibilities.

• How long were they around for? In other words, there is no time-frame for how long they had been in existence prior to 170 AD, nor to when they were invaded by the Astigni tribe of Vandals

As I said at the first point, the Dacian tribes lived in the area at least starting with Iron Age, but we don't know when specifically the Costoboci tribe appeared. They show up in the Roman sources only they were attacking the Romans. Vandals appeared soon after 170 AD at the borders of Roman Dacia so some scholars assume that period would be the end of Costoboci or maybe they found refuge with the Carpi (people) who appear in the sources till much later.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

• "invaded the Roman empire in AD 170 or 171" - strange, the map on the right of this sentence seems to show that the area (Carpathians) was already part of Dacia, and a part of the Roman Empire. How can this lead sentence be correct - either they invaded other parts of the Roman Empire, or they were not part of the Roman Empire to begin with (or at least some of them).

Romans conquered south-western Dacia in 106 AD. By 171 AD, Roman Dacia was part of Roman Empire. Costoboci were living at the north of the borders of Roman Dacia or were pushed there. See also answer to first question.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

General

• It would be nice to have a map, or even some text, illustrating the relationship between the current maps and the present-day world.

I am organizing the commons:Category:Maps of Dacia, commons:Category:Maps of Roman Dacia, commons:Category:Maps of the history of Romania. Do any of them look useful? What do you have in mind? --Codrin.B (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have made a start on looking at the article. The first thing I do is read it. I then make basic grammar and punctuation changes and start a second edit process going into more detail.

After reading the lead, and the first two sections, I will await responses to these first issues before continuing with any editing. I will read the article though, as well as follow some of the links to try and gain more understanding of the article. I have started to read some of the talk page, mainly the discussions on sources and agreements over accuracy and reliability, though I suspect there is too much there for me to read and comprehend in one or even two sessions. I would hope to be ready to start editing again by this evening.

I have also tried to run the citation bot to sort out the refs, unfortunately it seems to be a little confused - it has been running for over an hour now and is still going! OK, it timed out after an hour and a half. I will try and use the scripts and methods given to me by another GOCE member. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for trying to help on this CE. As you can see, this topic is full of controversy and we have so little sources. I tried to respond to your questions punctually, above. It would help to read also Free Dacians, Carpi (people), Lipiţa culture, Roman Dacia, Dacians, Dacia to get a full understanding.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think it is probably best for me to be patient on this one, rather than going ahead and copyediting it right now. Even for me to try and correct the basic prose needs a deeper understanding of the topic, as such I am going to carry on researching and reading the suggested articles for context. I would hope to be able to do the copyedit in the next 24-48 hours, though I will be editing it more extensively once furhter data is made available. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. No rush. I think most of the pertinent and modern sources available are already mentioned in the article. Let me know if you need help actually find them. I might have some of them.--Codrin.B (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply