Talk:Costoboci/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

June 2011, original research

The purpose of this article appears to be an original research meant "to produce new knowledge rather than to present the existing knowledge" For example, see the account of Ammiannus in sections and in notes. This ancient source is analyzed by the wikipedia editor without any reference to an modern historian source

Boldwin (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wholesale rewrite by Daizus without consensus

It appears that Daizus has ended his recent (very welcome) self-suspension from editing Wiki. The unfortunate consequences are already evident: without so much as a word of explanation on this page, let alone a obtaining a consensus, he has completely rewritten this article, omitting whole sections from my own far more informative version and, naturally, suppressing any evidence that the Costoboci were Sarmatians. I propose, subject to comments on this page, to revert to my original. I freely admit that original is lacking many refs, but I am working on it, and will revert a fully referenced text.EraNavigator (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I self-suspended myself from articles on Dacian topics where other uncooperative editors were active. Since this article was not edited in months, I thought I can resume my activity here.

I have not completely rewritten the article. I mostly reverted several edits (and to be sure, all your changes were submitted without consensus), most of which were just casting some doubts on scholarly arguments without additional bibliography and sometimes also lacking evidence (e.g. [1] what earthquake? CAH XI, p.172: "[Costoboci] destroyed the shrine of the Mysteries at Eleusis" - for Birley there's no "probably" nor any other doubt). More recently I started to eliminate the un-needed bibliography (e.g. Schütte presented all his arguments in his 1917 book, all the other books just echo the same arguments, so they are not really necessary). Other things that should be done:

• Moving that array of ancient Latin and Greek names to "Onomastics" (and perhaps a short discussion?). Make sure all the English names are redirected here and perhaps listing some of them in the lead (Costobocs, Costoboci, Costobocae, Costoboces, etc.)
• Eliminating all interpretations relying solely on primary sources.
• Replacing, if possible, sources not related to the topic with more relevant literature (e.g. Jazdzewski's Atlas to the prehistory of the Slavs, Shchukin et al's Des Goths Aux Huns, Maenchen-Helfen's The world of the Huns - especially that they are used only once)
• Expanding "Material culture". Unfortunately a considerable part of the relevant literature is in Russian or Polish.
• Rewriting "Origin and tribal identity". The linguistic details concerning their names must be relocated to "Onomastics". The archaeological evidence must be moved to "Material culture". That section is confusing also because it uses different references and sometimes wording for arguments spelled out elsewhere in the article. It is obvious that it was used as a battleground by editors to promote various views and theories.
• Using a single citation style for the entire article. I think "sfn" template is the best choice because the refs no longer need names to be reused: in this case the ref on Cotobacchi must be integrated in the main text.

I'm sure many other things can be done to improve the article, this is just a short list to start with. Daizus (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you get on with it, then. I shall certainly not be participating in your resurrection of obsolete World War I-era scholars like Schutte.

As for "your" version (WP:OWN?), it was certainly not more informative, and if you plan to push your pet theory that Costoboci were Sarmatians, not only I will revert it, I will also consider reporting your continuous disruption of this site to promote your personal theories. Daizus (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, this article was a stub when I expanded it. You are the one who has persistently disrupted this site, changing it to substantially the same, truncated, third-rate version that you have just reverted to (for the third time?) Here. EraNavigator (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Before your expansion the article was not a stub and you had no consensus for the information you removed and your "Sarmatian spin". To be sure, the original version had more details on Lipitsa culture (true, unsourced), details not present in the current version of the article.

However most of your edits were not reverted, I simply removed the inappropriate material (mostly original research, how is that a disruption? WP:OWN again?). If the result is almost the same (so that it looks like a revert), it is because of your POV-pushing: your diatribe against Bichir, Russu and other Romanian scholars, your inept personal comments about Ammianus Marcellinus and other ancient authors, and so on. And not only here, but also in the articles on Carpi, Bastarnae, Free Dacians, on various Dacian language topics, and many other articles.

As for "obsolete World War I-era scholars", you're quite funny. Your latest "discovery" is a late 19th century AJA article but you dismiss Schutte? Daizus (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have discovered more powerful evidence that the Costoboci were Sarmatians: an inscription found at Eleusis, dated to the rule of Marcus Aurelius, mentions a hostile attack on the Sanctuary by the Sauromatae. The reviewer, in American Journal of Archaeology (1895) no. 4, suggests that these were the Costoboci who probably sacked the Sanctuary during their invasion of 170 (the reviewer gives the date as 167, because in 1895, inscriptions proving the 170 date had not yet been found). See the review here (final paragraph): [2] PS: this evidence has been suppressed by Dacianists EraNavigator (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Who are the "Dacianists"? Most authors I cited are not even Romanian, is it a worldwide "anti-Sarmatian" conspiracy or what? :) Look, I know there is a minority (and obsolete) viewpoint that Costoboci were Sarmatians (the current version of the article cites Ormerod for that), but that inscription is not even directly related to the Costoboci, nor to the events of 170-1. You're free to digress about the this inscription, as long as you stick to the sources, I also want to digress on Aelius Aristides and his mournings in the Eleusinian Oration (dated aprox. to June 171). Daizus (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I am also gathering materials on that inscription. According to von Premerstein (1912, p. 147), the Costoboci (Kostoboken) were a Dacian tribe (dakischen Volksstamme). This inscription also refers to them, sondern erklärt sich aus der Lage ihrer Sitze im europäischen Sarmatien. Also you should check what von Premerstein wrote of Pliny and Ammianus. Daizus (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I find von Premmerstein's argument that the Costoboci were referred as Sauromatae because they lived in Sarmatia unconvincing. After all, the Costoboci were familiar to the Romans at this time, and are referred to by their own name in several contemporary records. So why not here?

Goths were called Scythians because they lived in Scythia. It's a quite typical practice, especially for Greek authors, to use names in this manner. Re-reading Croitoru he refers to the same inscription as evidence for a raid carried by both Costoboci and Sarmatians at the same time. Daizus (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It was common to call the transdanubian peoples "Scythians" (although this usage came in later, in the 4th/5th centuries, e.g. Zosimus). But, as far as I'm aware, it was not used with "Sarmatians", which was always used to denote ethnic Sarmatians. As regards Croitoru's suggestion, it lacks evidence: all the surviving records of the Costoboci invasion of 170 mention the Costoboci alone.

Untrue. Dexippus in the 3rd century called Goths Scythians. Even in 1st-2nd centuries the Greek and Roman authors called Sarmatians and Dacians Scythians. Even the name on this inscription is Sauromatians, an archaic form of the name.

As for the names of the invaders, there's only one mention in Greek about Costoboci invading in Greece (Pausanias on Elateia), this is no evidence the Greek authors and lapicides referred to the invading party as Costoboci alone - testis unus testis nullus. On this inscription they are called Sarmatians. In all the other cases the enemy is unnamed. Daizus (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And on the Sarmatians as umbrella term, here's an example: on Tabula Peutingeriana we can read about Amaxobii Sarmatae, Lupiones Sarmatae and Venadi Sarmatae. Were they all "ethnic Sarmatians" as you imply? Some scholars went so far to suggest that Lupiones should be read Lugiones.Daizus (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

They are probably wrong: the "Lupiones" are more likely to be the "Lupienii", an Alan tribe located by Pliny in the N. Caucasus in his time (VI.11); the (H)amaxobii are denoted a Sarmatian group by Pliny (IV.12.80); the "Venadisarmatae" are probably the Antes, an originally Sarmatian tribe that became Slavic-speaking by the 6th c after ruling a southern group of Venedi (the Roman term for Slavs) for several centuries (note that the Venedi proper are denoted without the Sarmatae epithet in the Tabula). Thus these 3 groups probably were ethnic Sarmatians. But in any case, the Tabula is 4th c, and usage may have changed since the 2nd c. I hold to my view that in the 1st/2nd c, the term "Sarmatian" was used only for ethnic Sarmatians.EraNavigator (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, untrue. Venedi is not the Roman term for Slavs (only the 6th century Gothic historian Jordanes called Sclavenes and Antes Venethi, in Getica, a quasi-fictional account of Goths and their history; and to be sure there's no evidence whatsoever Antes were Slavs - many of their names are Germanic, it is also uncertain the Sclavenes were Slavic speakers - see Curta's The Making of the Slavs). The Romans knew of this tribe long before the TP. For Tacitus the Veneti "borrowed from Sarmatian ways", but they are of "German race". However in TP all these Sarmatae live north of Pannonia and Dacia and (north-)west of the Bastarnian Alps, so certainly they were no tribes living in Caucasus. Amaxobii (Ἁμαξόβιοι) may have been Sarmatians however, as it is a Greek name meaning "wagon-dwellers". Of the other tribes we have no positive evidence, but the Sarmatian culture was a nomad one and they lived in rather fertile lowlands, growing horses and cattle. There's no evidence for Sarmatian languages (whatever they were) spreading in the mountainous and forrested regions of Central and Northern Europe. Moreover this usage was not new in TP, as von Premerstein noted, it goes down to 1st-2nd century sources, such as Ptolemy. In his huge European Sarmatia (between Vistula and Don), there were many nations, such as Bastarni, Costoboci, Venedi, Finni, Iazyges, Roxolani, Alani, etc. Only a part of them were "ethnic Sarmatians", i.e. nomadic Iranic speakers. Daizus (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You are avoiding the issue. The Romans (and Greeks) denoted ethnic Sarmatians by the epithet Sarmatae after the name of the tribe in question e.g. Iazyges Sarmatae, Roxolani Sarmatae etc. Can you provide a single instance where a reputable 1st/2nd c author (Strabo, Pliny, Tacitus, Ptolemy) or even 4th c Ammianus, where such a tag is attached to a definitely non ethnic-Sarmatian tribe? Eg "Bastarnae Sarmatae", Fenni Sarmatae, Anartes Sarmatae, Venedi Sarmatae or Gepidae Sarmatae? The only example you have produced is Venadisarmate in the Tabula: but this doesn't count as (i) it's 4th c; (ii) it may not relate to the Venedi, as Venedi are shown without the Sarmate tag; (iii) the Tabula is not a reliable source for people beyond the empire's borders. It was designed as a road-map for travelers within the empire, and its barbarian rubrics are decorative in purpose, to fill empty spaces.

I provided evidence from TP, a map created well before the 4th century. Maybe you failed to notice, but TP shows the Roman roads and towns in Dacia, but these existed no more in the 4th century! So that's evidence the Roman used Sarmatae for populations which were not Sarmatians. The other evidence comes from Tacitus, considering tribes "Germans" or "Sarmatians" based on their lifestyle, weapons, etc., not based on their language or whatever criterion you consider vital for your identity groups. Daizus (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Venedi, or Venedae or Venethi is almost certainly the Latinisation of the early German term for Slavs, Wenden, which, although only documented from the 8th c onwards, is probably much older. The Romans probably heard the term from the Germans neighbouring their borders. Tacitus clearly distinguishes the Venedi from the Germani (he locates them outside his "Germania Magna"). He also says they occupied the entire landmass between the Fenni (NW Russia) and the Peucini (SE Ukraine). These regions are still today dominated by Slavic speakers: it also shows that the term was generic: the Venedi were more than just a minor tribe on the Vistula. Add in Jordanes' evidence, and the case that the Venedi were Slavic speakers is reasonably robust - or as robust as the fragmentary evidence allows.

This discussion is not on topic here, but it can help in improving the Vistula Veneti article. The so-called evidence is not at all robust, it's a collection of dubious factoids and non sequiturs (e.g. the medieval name the Germanic speakers had for Slavs and the languages spoken today in those territories are irrelevant - this anachronism is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy). Let's start with Tacitus, he claims the Venedi are rather Germans (also an umbrella term, but that's another discussion): Venedi [...] inter Germanos potius referuntur (Germania, 46). Even though many Roman authors wrote about Venedi (in Latin or Greek), none whatsoever mentioned anything Slavic about them, not the ethnonym (derived from *s(k)lav- / *s(k)lov- ; the k may well be epenthetic in Greek), nor any other Slavic name or word. Jordanes's Getica is unreliable and mostly fictional (do you believe the Goths fought the Amazons and the Egyptian pharaohs?). Arne Søby Christensen deconstructed its narrative and pointed out the lack of historical basis. Florin Curta described how Jordanes imagined the Venethi as ancestors of the Sclavenes and the Antes (the tribes who were inhabiting Scythia in his day), to create a history of the Goths in Scythia (who fought the Venethi, the Amazons and other similarly fabulous enemies). Daizus (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The last thing we should be doing is listening to Curta. He is the ultimate material culture=ethnic group advocate. His identification of half-sunken houses (despite the fact that these were universal all the way to Siberia) with Slavic-speakers has led him to the ludicrous conclusion that Slavic speech originated in Wallachia in ca. AD 200! When it us clear that Slavic must have developed far earlier, in ca. 1500 BC, somewhere in European Russia/Ukraine. There may well have been Slavic groups in the Carpathian region around 200: the Carpi are the strongest candidates. But they moved into the region from the North.

Obviously you have read nothing authored by the man. He's the ultimate critic of culture history. Curta claims the sunken huts prove no ethnicity, it was just a way of life for all the people in south-eastern Europe. Curta claims there was no Slavic ethnicity before 6th century (and therefore no Slavs whatsoever), but that was formed in the 6th century north of Danube (in Wallachia and neighbouring territories). Curta claims we have no evidence the Sclavenes spoke Slavic. Maybe some of them spoke it, maybe they didn't. We don't know who are the tribes speaking Slavic before the expansion of this language first inside and then outside the Avar khaganate. Daizus (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What Curta observed about sunken huts is that the 6-7th century ones have usually an oven in a corner of the building (usually the north-eastern one). Sometimes it's made of clay, sometimes of stone, sometimes of brick (in and near Roman forts or in regions under considerable Roman influence). As the clay/stone ovens distribution is not a perfect match for the clay/stone availability distribution, Curta suggested the cluster of sunken huts with clay ovens in central-southern Wallachia may also represent a stylistic adaptation, not only a replacement of stone with clay for economic reasons. Daizus (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the Wends, that tradition is mostly made up by various literary accounts. The name first appears in the 7th century. The most famous mention is in the chronicle of Fredegar, where we can read (XLVIII) about Sclavos cognomento Winidos fighting contra Avares cognomento Chunos. So for Fredegar the relation between Slavs and Wends is more or less the same as the relation between Avars and Huns. It's interesting to note that for Fredegar the Avar "king" was named Gaganum, so he knew little about the real Avars and Slavs. What's also interesting is that for Fredegar Winidi befulci Chunis fuerant. "Befulci" is a Frankish (Germanic) term, probably meaning "guardians, protectors" or something like that, so the actual Wends (Winidi) were rather some military units in the Avar army, who rebelled under Samo. Samo's Wends were probably located in Lower Austria or the region of the border between Austria, Slovakia and Czech Republic, where many warrior burials were discovered, all dated to 630 and little after. Their relation with the Veneti/Venedi known to Roman authors and later to Jordanes is thus dubious. Fredegar did not learn of these double names from local informants, nor from Jordanes (at least not directly), but from Jonas of Bobbio’s Vita Columbani (Fredegar quoted a full passage from this work) where we can read about Venetiorum qui et Sclavi dicuntur. This latter account was based mostly on missionary reports. It's hard to say whether this equation has real ethnographic value, or it can be eventually traced to Jordanes. Without additional evidence however, it's more like wishful thinking than fact. Daizus (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt your interpretation. Cognomento is medieval Latin for "known as": thus "Slavs known as Wends". This confirms, rather than denies, the Slav-Wend connection.

In Italian, bifolco means peasant. I may be wrong, but I believe befulcus had the same meaning in medieval Latin. If so, Fredegar may simply have meant that the Wends were serfs of the Huns (or Avars), producing their food while the Avars were the military elite.

If you read again my previous reply, I suggested that if you use this account for Slavs=Wends, then it means also that Avars=Huns. Either Fredegar is using older names (Venedi, Huni) to denote contemporary tribal names (Sclavi, Avari), or he's right and the Wends were Slavs and the Huns were Avars (and viceversa). Daizus (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The Italian dialects borrowed this word from some Germanic dialects and its original meaning was lost in time. Befulci is a Germanic term which was Latinized: Der Terminus technicus befulci (Plur.) gehört als personenbezogen gebrauchtes Verbaladjektiv (Prädikativum) zum Verb german. felhan falh fulgum, ahd. bifelhan , mhd. bevelhen "zum besonderen Schutz anvertrauen, übergeben". Daizus (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I found Vita S. Columbani Abbatis online (page 97 in the pdf). Considering the context and the form Venetiorum, I guses another scenario is also possible, that these Slavs were from north-eastern Italy. This would mean Fredegar's account of Wends ultimately refers to the Italian Veneti, therefore unrelated to Tacitus' Venedi. Daizus (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ingenious, but hardly convincing. The fact is that the term Venedi must have derived from some source, almost certainly Germanic. And the similarity with Wenden is striking. Note that Fredegar's independent Latinisation produces virtually the same result: Winidi. The fact that Wenden is not attested until the 7th c is hardly significant, as very little literature survives from the Dark Age Germany. My own view is that Wenden was used by the early Germans to denote Slavs generically, in the same way as they called Romans (or Latin-speakers) Welscher. Later, the Germans adopted "Slav" as the generic term from Greco-Roman sources, but kept Wenden to refer to those Slavic tribes neighbouring them in the East.

There's no reason to assume to Venedi must come from another Germanic source (Fredegar was a Frank, thus his native language was a Germanic dialect). The Wends (Wenden) are attested only later, Fredegar's Winidi are a rendition of Venedi/Veneti, most probably from Vita Columbani a work Fredegar used to compile his own chronicle. But as pointed above, these Veneti may well be the Italian Veneti, because the Sclavi which Columbanus wanted to convert were apparently living in or near Italy. Since the 7th century we have plenty of mentions of Slavs in Italy, as raiders, mercenaries, prisoners, or simply inhabitants. This aside, neither Samo's Winidi nor the Veneti from Vita Columbani are nowhere near Vistula, so the connection with the other Venedi/Veneti is spurious. Daizus (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

By "the Venedi should be classified as Germans", Tacitus did not mean by language or blood, but on the basis of their lifestyle, which, he believed, was more sedentary than the Sarmatians'. The Romans didn't use the ethnonym s(k)lav because they had absorbed the Germanic Wenden, in my view.

But Tacitus and the Roman authors used lifestyle as an indicator both for "Germanic ethnicity" and "Sarmatian ethnicity", which is why when they write about Germani or Sarmatae, we can't say anything about the languages of those tribes. Daizus (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but there is evidence, with the Germani at least, that they spoke Germanic languages, both from their personal names and from the fact that the Gothones, on the eastern fringe, also spoke Germanic. I'm not saying all the "Venedi" were Slavic-speaking, but that most of them were.

For most Germanic tribes we don't know any name but their tribal name. Which often enough it doesn't look particularly Germanic. Daizus (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And somehow related to Sauromatians on this inscription, was Marcus Aurelius (Antoninus) an "ethnic Ausonian"? Daizus (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I accept that the language used is poetic, but nevertheless it is odd that the Costoboci are referred to as Sauromatai and not as Dakai, if that is what they were.

Because there are no Dacians in Herodotus and the other Classical Greek authors. Using that language, they could only be referred as Scythians or Sauromatians or some other tribe known back then north of Danube. Daizus (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In more recent editions that inscription is dated post 176. I still have to find out who are the scholars arguing for a late date and then present this evidence with due weight to each POV: early (possibly Costoboci) and late dates (possibly a different Sarmatian raid, though the inscription could mention a past event). Daizus (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no other Sarmatian raid recorded as reaching as far as Eleusis in this period (although given the scarcity of records such a raid cannot be ruled out). Nevertheless, the Costoboci raid must be the most likely event referred to. The inscription is tough to translate for someone with scanty ancient Greek like me (I followed a self-teach course at basic level when I was a university student). Here is my (partial) attempt:

" And [among?] the apparitions of the famous and sacred nights,

You see the celebrated priestesses Deous and Kore,

Who when the criminal and burning Sauromatae drove the mysteries and spirits from their home,

Initiated...the illustrious Antoninus..." EraNavigator (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no raid by Costoboci raid recorded to Eleusis, it is a conjecture based on a significant amount of circumstantial evidence pointing to a barbarian raid around 170. Aelius Aristides gives no names, nor several other inscriptions mentioning a "hateful war" and "enemy's onslaught". A better translation for this inscription is: You are looking at the displayer of solemn nights, also famous for his wisdom, the holy attendant of Deo (Demeter) and Kore, who, avoiding the unlawful work of the Sarmatians, saved the mysteries and his life for his country and displayed the ceremonies and elevated their reputation like wise Eumolpus and very holy Celeus and initiated the very glorious Antoninus of Rome. Based on the initiation of Marcus Aurelius this inscriptions is dated post-176. Daizus (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You've certainly changed your tune on the Eleusis raid. Before you were deleting "probably" from my statement that the "Costoboci probably destroyed the Eleusis sanctuary"! I'm glad you have finally realised why I used "probably" and you should reinstate it in the text.

Since there's no reason to doubt the raid in 170-171, and no scholars doubt it, I don't see why should we use "probably". Understanding scholarly arguments doesn't mean we have to doubt everything, otherwise we should use "probably" in every sentence. It's not at all certain Astingi and Lacringi were Vandals, it's not all certain Astingi attacked Costoboci (we have only one source and that story looks anecdotic), etc. But we don't use "probably" in every sentence just because we realize other scenarios are possible, do we? Daizus (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my translation is more poetic (even though it may be wrong). OK, clever dick, where did you find this translation (am I right in assuming that you didn't produce it yourself?). EraNavigator (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the standard translation of the inscription (see the bibliography I added in the article). Your translation is not more poetic, it is clumsy and factually wrong e.g. ἄθεσμος = ἀθέσμιος = unlawful (θέσμιος = lawful, settled; check also LSJ), not "criminal and burning". More serious is the fact you can't identify the subjects and the predicates in a sentence. E.g. ἐξεσάωσε is a 3rd person singular aorist from ἐκσῴζω "to save, to keep safe", a verb you failed to translate and probably that's why you missed the point of the inscription: it is about a person, not about a fictional "you". Daizus (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's easy when you've got the translation in front of you - and about as admirable as cheating at cards.

To use LSJ and not Google Translate and to know some basic Greek grammar is something completely different. In your translation you simply invented words and grammar. That's no knowledge, but fiction, but this already is a tradition in your "translations" :) Daizus (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You really are wrong about those names, you know:

• Daizus: no such name is attested in the epigraphic record: if you don't believe me, search for it on the Klauss-Blaby database. The name is attested in 2 nominative forms: Daizis (dative form: Daizi); and Daizo (dative form: Daizoni eg M. Aurelius Daizo CIL III.14507). Also Comozoi* is the dative form of Comozois (or Comozis). Sorry if this invalidates your username!

His name is Daizus Comozoi. Comozoi is the genitive of Comozous, i.e. this man is Daizus, son of Comozous. It is ludicrous to read Comozoi in dative, as it is no Roman cognomen (the first name is not Roman). Daizus (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

PS. The database is Clauss-Slaby. Daizus (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

PPS. I've just read carefully the text of the inscription myself. D(is) M(anibus) Daizi Comozoi (filii) - both Daizi and Comozoi are genitives, I don't understand why you started arguing on datives. Daizus (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You should use Clauss-Slaby, not truncated snippets of text in google books. It appears that the "(filii)" interpolation is an invention by Russu. The reason I go on about the dative is because that is the normal case for dedications: it conveys the sense of "(dedicated) to". It is almost always used in dedicatory inscriptions e.g. Marco Ulpio Traiano imperatori Dacico maximo. In the case of the Daizis inscription, the dative case is confirmed by patri bene merenti ("to [our] well-deserving father"), which would be patris bene merentis in the genitive.

• Timon: this Greek personal name was used unchanged by the Romans: no Timonius is attested. Eg: M. Aurelius Timon (CIL III.1016; IV. 37444) see also AE (1905) 157EraNavigator (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I repeat: there is no Timonius (sic) attested in Clauss-Slaby. There is attested a cognomen Timonianus, but that is a derivative. The decurion's name was Timon Dassus.EraNavigator (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

AE 2005 1315 gives Timonius Dassus. Apparently Timonius is attested on CIL XIII 6401. Daizus (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are some of the most ignorant statements from your side. First, Clauss-Slaby database is a collection of inscriptions (snippets if you wish, often enough important information is omitted; funny how you dare to pretend you're an expert when not long ago you called it "Klauss Blaby") published in corpora like AE, CIL, etc. Second, both my readings are from AE. Timonius Dassus is the name published in AE 2005 1315. This name is also attested in CIL XIII 6401: Mercurio Timonia Vittuo. The parallel with M. Aurelius Timon is flawed, in this case Timon is a cognomen. In AE 1901 49 (Russu was born in 1911, but when ignorance is seconded by hate it is unstoppable) the inscription is edited like this: Daizi (filii) Comozoi (see p. 335), so again both names in genitive. It's undeniable Comozoi is a genitive, because this guy is no Marcus to claim the name a cognomen, so it must be a patronym. As for dedications you're again wrong. On funerary inscriptions the dedication in dative is D(is) M(anibus). On such inscriptions often D M is followed by the genitive of the person commemorated (in our case "To the spirits of Daizus, son of Comozous ...", but it also can be "To the spirits (of the dead and to the memory) of Daizus, son of Comozous ..."), but it also may be followed by nominative ("To the spirits of the dead. Daizus, son of Comozous ...") or dative ("To the spirits of the dead, to Daizus, son of Comozous ..."). On our inscription the name is almost certainly in genitive. There's no grammar constraint whatsoever on the name of the dead to match the dative patri, the full sentence (again your failure to properly identify subjects and predicates) is Iustus et Val(ens) patri b(ene) m(erenti) posuerunt. i.e. "Justus and Valens placed [this epitaph] to [their] well deserving father." To be sure, in the previous sentence the deceased is in nominative (... interfectus a Castabocis.). This discussion is somehow pointless: dozens of scholars say the man's name is Daizus, you alone claim otherwise. Any attempt to change that in the article will be reverted per WP:NOR. Daizus (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, as it's Timon adapted as a (Roman) female name.

Indeed it is: and if it is not Timonius as a cognomen, it is even less likely to be Timonius as a praenomen, since the Greek praenomen is Timon. Furthermore, it would be Timonii in the genitive, not Timoni (cf Dassi is gen of Dassus, not Dassius).

Actually, the dative is the normal case even in DM inscriptions, especially where the dedicator(s) are specified (as they are in this case). A quick consultation of Clauss-Slaby proves this. "Dis Manibus" returns some 57,000 results. Taking the first 100 as a random sample, the subject is in dative 45 times, nominative 38, genitive 13 and uncertain 4. But 21 of the nominatives don't name a dedicator: it's just "so-and-so lies here". If we strip these out, then the dative is used in 57% of the sample. The genitive is thus the least common form in this kind of inscription.

As usual when your argument doesn't stack up, you hide behind a Wiki acronym. As you have rightly noticed, your presumed genitive doesn't agree in case with either interfectus or patri. But these two words show that the subject must be either in the nominative or in the dative (in which case interfectus is a mistake and should be interfecto). The nominative is a possibility: Daizi would be an unusual ending, but possible since it's a non-Roman name. But, overall, I still prefer the dative option. Rather than Daizis, however, the name is probably Daizo (which is attested), which has been given an ungrammatical dative (should be Daizoni). NB: (filii) is a straight invention: it is not in the inscription at all: it does not even fill gaps where the lettering is lost. Having said that, it is certainly possible that Comozoi is a patronymic.EraNavigator (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Timonia is the feminine of Timonius (like Lucretia is the feminine of Lucretius not of Lucret, Livia of Livius not of Liv, Iulia of Iulius not of Iul, Antonia of Antonius not Anton, Claudia of Claudius not Claud, Aurelia of Aurelius not Aurel, etc.) The Roman cognomina were often enough names which were actually either nicknames (Strabo, Cicero, etc) or names which were not always Latin/Latinized (but sometimes they were) - Greek or barbarian. The Roman nomina were either Latin or Latinized. The names in -ius often are written in genitive with only one "i" (search your database): Publi, Iuli, Ulpi, Flavi, Aureli, etc., i.e. Timoni is expected for Timonius, Dassi is expected for both Dassius and Dassus. In the article I chose Dassus because that is the AE variant, which I considered more authoritative. Daizus (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Your statistic is unreliable, also because of the sample size (100 out of 57,000 you say? but in such statistics it's more important the region and the period - to identify their epigraphic habits and formulae), but also because so far you proved you have difficulties in recognizing the grammatical case. Let's note that Timoni Dassi is also a genitive following D(is) M(anibus) (he's interfecti). Daizus (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the second inscription, the text should be read D(is) M(anibus) Daizi Comozoi (filii). [the rest of the epitaph]. 1. The dedication. 2. Something about the deceased and his life. 3. The dedicators. The attestation Daizo (a man from Scupi) also strengthens Daizus, because it suggests the original name (Illyrian, Thracian, Dardanian?) had back vowel. There's no reason why Romans would perceive such a name as "Daizis". Also please learn how to read inscriptions before arguing here, [filii] should fill the gaps, (filii) should not. That Wiki acronym is another way of saying: scholars (knowing Latin and epigraphy) read the inscription in one way, you read it in a different way. Scholars = 1, you = 0. Daizus (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Two other inscriptions praising an Eleusinian priest

I see a "fix" comment in the article. Here are the passages in English (from the cited refs):

• I took the mystic treasury of secrets to Athens during the hateful war. For this reason, the Cecropidae have crowned me with headbands and have dedicated me in the sacred precinct (?) of the everlasting ceremony.
• who displayed the ceremonies and the all-night mysteries to the mystai, pouring forth the charming voice of Eumolpus, and who did not flee from the enemy’s onslaught, but saved undefiled the secret rites for the Cecropidae.

As for the damage, we have Aelius Aristides lamenting in 171 the damage inflicted to the sanctuaries of Demeter and Kore. Daizus (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning edits like "the barbarians reached near Athens, where, some scholars believe, they sacked the famous shrine of the Mysteries" - there are scholars believing otherwise? Given the available literature it's fair to say "all scholars believe", so we can write "where they sacked". Mutatis mutandis, we don't have to cast doubts in other similar cases, where we have no reference to source our doubts. You should also read WP:NPOV. At some point you'll encounter this wording: "facts (uncontroversial statements)". Daizus (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Histria

Era, in one of your edits you commented: "you cannot state as categorical fact what is simply speculative interpretation of archaeology: eg fire at Histria may have been accidental or caused by different raid".

• From the 1999 excavation report: "o situaţie stratigrafică care a surprins două niveluri de distrugere [...] care reprezintă cele două momente de distrugere ale Histriei de către goţi şi respectiv costoboci"

• Matei-Popescu 2009, p. 309: "Chiar la Histria, distrugerea de la zidul de incintă, abandonul cartierului extra muros, distrugerea celor două edificii termale au fost puse pe seama aceluiaşi tragic eveniment."

• Petolescu 2006, p. 377: "după ce au trecut Dunărea au incendiat un cartier mărginaş al cetăţii Histria"

• Histria III, p. 64: "Abandonarea locuirii într-o zonă a platoului de vest al cetăţii, transformarea suprafeţei respective în necropolă plană începînd cu sfîrşitul secolului al II-lea, ca şi restaurarea portului şi gimnaziului local sînt considerate ca fiind consecinţele evenimentelor amintite în viaţa Histriei. Întreruperea constată în seria inscripţiilor din Scythia Minor după anul 170, explicată ca o urmare a invaziei costobocilor, este valabilă în special pentru teritoriul histrian. Aici s-au descoperit pînă în prezent un monument dedicat lui Marcus Aurelius în 169 şi cinci monumente posterioare anului 175, deci o lacună între 169 - 175 care poate fi pusă în legătură cu urmările atacului costobocilor."

And I can cite more works, but I hope you've got the point. There's more to it than some "fire" evidence. And I've found no other explanation in these studies but the Costobocan raid. Daizus (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed back the last edit on Histria because it was also biased and unfactual. The circumstantial evidence is numerous (see above), either you present it all (probably in a distinct sub-section, but for that it's better to edit Histria), or you just use a summary (like Petolescu 2006). Daizus (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Curta

Having now read The Making of the Slavs, I retract my (foolish) comments about Curta. Actually, he's absolutely brilliant. His demolition of establishment "Slavic archaeology" is a delight, especially his disproof of Russaneva's Pripyat marshes "Slavic Urheimat". Also I had to laugh at his scathing Niculescu-esque comment on Romanian archaeological interpretation (p231): "In Romania, the site at Ipotesti gave its name to the Ipotesti-Candeste culture, "invented" by Romanian archaeologists to illustrate the life of the civilised Romanians before the arrival of the savage Slavs. The site produced a relatively large quantity of wheel-made pottery and fewer shards of hand-made pottery, which could arguably be attributed to the Slavs. Eager to use this argument to demonstrate an earlier date for the [wheel-made] ceramic - much earlier than the Slavic migration - Romanian archeologists failed to notice that one of the two sunken buildings [containing hand-made pottery] excavated at the site produced a coin issued for the Roman emperor Trajan in 96-8 but no artefacts clearly dated for the 6th century".

Curta proves the point I outlined in my footnote on the material culture=ethnic group fallacy (which you removed from the article despite its direct relevance, and to the detriment of readers): that in order to draw any conclusions about ethnicity from material remains you need a far more sophisticated approach than the crude equation of "cultures" and ethnic groups. The analytical techniques used by Curta are indeed ultra-sophisticated. The scope and depth of his research are amazing.

I agree with much of what Curta says. But I remain convinced that the Wenden/Tacitean Venedi/Sclaveni/Slavic connection is right. The Romans Latinised native names either directly (e.g. the Veneti of Armorica (Brittany) in Gaul, defeated by Julius Caesar, was the Latinisation of the Gaulish name *Uenet, which survives today as the Breton Guened and Welsh Gwynedd); or indirectly, as is likely in this case, since the Venedi lived far from the Roman borders, beyond the German tribes, making a Germanic source-name highly probable. This in turn would have been a Germanisation of one group of Venedi's own name for themselves. If you had to reconstruct the Germanic name Latinised as "Venedi", your result would be identical, or very similar, to Wenden. The Greco- Romans could disinguish the branches of Indo-European: "Celtae" referred to tribes that spoke Celtic languages (as far apart as Brythonic and Galatian) and "Germani" to Germanic-speaking tribes, as is confirmed from the tribal names themselves, and personal names. It is thus likely that the Tacitean Venedi, occupying the vast region of European Russia, also referred to a group of tribes speaking dialects belonging to a broad linguistic branch. Slavic is the most likely candidate, although Baltic and (less likely) Finno-Ugric are also possibilities.

It is the Tabula that provides the crucial "missing link" in support of Jordanes' Sclaveni = Venedi identification. This shows the Venedi (sic) occupying Wallachia, probably in the 4th c (but possibly as early as the mid-3rd c). They probably migrated there from western Ukraine in the aftermath of the upheaval caused by the Roman Tetrarchy's genocide (by war and mass deportation) of the Carpi. This group of Venedi evidently called themselves Sklav or similar, a name which, in the Hellenised form of "Sklavenoi", by 500 had replaced "Venedi" in the conventions of Byzantine chroniclers. The Venedi of Wallachia were joined at a later stage by another Slavic-speaking group, the Antes. These were originally a Sarmatian/Alanic tribe (documented as the "Anthi", located in the N. Caucasus region, by Pliny). Moving westwards, in tandem with other Alanic groups such as the Lupenii, they ruled for over 200 years over a southern group of Venedi in Ukraine, adopting the Slavic tongue over time, but retaining their distinctive culture and names: Ardogastes, one of their 6th c kings, is an Iranic name. Their character as Sarmatian-ruled Slavs accounts for the distinction in both name and culture, between Antoi and Sklavenoi in the early Byzantine chronicles, and their frequent mutual hostility: the Antes appear to have had more hierarchical social structure than the "democratic" Sclaveni.

We should therefore talk of "Daco-Slavic continuity" rather than Daco-Roman. Placename evidence proves that Dacia was predominantly Slavic-speaking before it became Romanian-speaking. Slavic is characterised as a "superstratum" of the Romanian language: in fact it is its main substratum, far more influential than the trivial impact (if any) of Dacian. Romanian, a Latin dialect that first developed among the Illyrian-speaking Dardani, was introduced gradually, by elite transfer by a Vlach military elite which seized Dacia (or rather Sclavinia) during the Vlach-Bulgar empire era, supported by large-scale immigration by Vlach refugees from Byzantine terror after the second Vlach-Bulgar empire collapsed. Sclavinia was thus mainly Slavic-speaking between ca. 300 and ca. 1400. EraNavigator (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

We know the names of several men identified in the ancient sources as either Sclavenes or Antes. To my knowledge few have acceptable Slavic etymologies, and most if not all have acceptable Germanic etymologies. For Antes see the study of Bohdan Strumins'kyj "Were the Antes Eastern Slavs?" (cited also by Curta for his doubts on who spoke Slavic in the 6th century) published in Harvard Ukrainian Studies vol. 3-4 (1979-1980), pp. 786-796, concluding the Antes were Pontic Goths. In particular the names ending in -gast (the Antian Kelagast and the Sclavenes Ardagast and Peiragast) have their last element reflecting the Gothic *-gasts ( < PGmc. *-gastiz; see the Frankish general Arbogastes; Cunigastus, a influential Goth in 6th century Italy, Armogastes, a Christian under the Vandal king Geiseric; Wisogastis, Bodogastis, Salegastis, and Widogastis, the legendary compilers of Lex Salica, probably also Franks, etc.) So there's no evidence whatsoever that any of the inhabitants north of lower Danube spoke Slavic in 5th, 6th, or even 7th century, though the possibility cannot be excluded. Perhaps some of the few words attested by Priscus in 5th century are Slavic (e.g. strava), but that would suggest an early Slavic presence in the Carpathian basin, on the middle Danube (a theory held by some scholars). Even if it would be so, the subsequent spread of the language remains unknown. Moreover the significant influence of Slavic (there are few words with controversial etymologies) upon Balkan languages such as Romanian, Albanian or Greek cannot be dated to earlier than ca. 8-9th century AD. Either the language was hardly spoken, or the interaction between Slavic speakers and local speakers was minimal. The latter alternative seems unlikely, as we know not only of Sclavene raids, but also settlements (e.g. near Thessalonica). Daizus (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Using Venedi or any other ancient group and assuming a (vast) Slavic homeland is a path that is obsolete and unfruitful. As this discussion rather belongs to Early Slavs, please also check my last edit. There's no evidence as to how Venedi called themselves, there's no evidence as to how Slavs called themselves, to be sure the first certain self-identification of Slavs as Slavs is attested only in the 12th century, in Nestor's Russian Primary chronicle! Daizus (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That Celtae referred to Celts (i.e. Celtic speakers) and Germani referred to Germans (i.e. Germanic speakers) is simply untrue and not confirmed by sources. I already mentioned Tacitus considering the Venedi Germani! For example, the "Germanic" tribe of Cimbri (also mentioned by Tacitus) had apparently a Celtic name (perhaps *Kombroges = "compatriots"), moreover their chieftains had Celtic names: Boiorix, Gaesorix! There is no attested Cimbrian with a clearly Germanic name or speaking a Germanic dialect. Yet both ancient sources and modern scholars keep calling them a "Germanic" tribe. Daizus (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The criticism of Romanian archaeology is of little relevance. First is that the scholarship for this article is not only Romanian, but Ukrainian, Polish and Russian. Second is that neither Curta, nor Niculescu did not criticize the information presented in this article, so a long vituperating digression would not be informative, but confusing. To be sure, Curta too uses material culture to search for the formation of ethnic groups, the so-called "emblemic style" (e.g. bow fibulae for the low Danube Sclavenes). I appreciate you enjoy his readings, however I'm not sure if you really understand his points. In most of your contribution I see a flavor of 19th century Herderian nationalism, equating ethnic groups with languages, and this is one of the many things criticized by Curta. Daizus (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The exact opposite is true: my analysis above is not concerned with ethnic groups at all, but with linguistic groups. Glottogenesis, not ethnogenesis (the study of which I regard on a par with astrology in terms of scientific value), is what interests me. Curta's dissertation concerns "ethnogenesis", the process by which a group of individuals is coerced by external pressures, and manipulated by internal propaganda, into thinking that they constitute a "nation". (In reality, of course, "nations" do not exist, only individuals and families exist). Curta argues that the "Slavic nation" was created by the interaction between the people of Wallachia and the Byzantine military. Maybe so, but who cares? Unlike Romanian scholars, I am not obsessed with ethnogenesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.180.151 (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What really does interest me is historical linguistics. The evolution of languages, their spread over time, their relationship with other languages. I would love to know which of the peoples mentioned by the ancient authors spoke which languages and how that changed over time. With regards to Slavic, who spoke Slavic at the time of Tacitus, that of Ammianus and that of Procopius. Curta has little to say about this, as it is not the focus of his essay. He suggests that Slavic became the lingua franca of the Avar empire. But it seems more likely that if that empire had a lingua franca, which is doubtful, it would have been Avaric Turkish, since that was the language of the Avar warrior elite. (This receives a little support from Procopius' report that some Sclavene warriors could sing Avar songs). If the Avar elite had adopted another language, it was surely more likely to be Germanic rather than Slavic, since the Avars took over Pannonia/Hungarian Plain from a period of Lombard/Gepid hegemony. The only plausible mechanism I can see by which Slavic had become predominant in Hungary is if the Carpi were Slavic-speakers and had introduced their language to Pannonia as a result of their mass deportation there in the late 3rd c. This is certainly possible, but unproven.

In my view, Wallachia and Moldavia became predominantly Slavic-speaking (if it had not been so previously) in the period following the upheavals of the late 3rd c: the Roman evacuation of Dacia and the quasi-elimination from the region of the Carpi. This created a power-vacuum that would certainly have resulted in substantial political changes, such as the takeover of Wallachia by a group of Venedi, as documented in the Tabula.

You say that the thesis of a vast Slavic-speaking zone in European Russia/Ukraine during the Roman imperial era, is "obsolete and unhelpful". Maybe so, but this does not mean that it is wrong. In fact, taking all the evidence into account, not least the present-day distribution of Slavic-speakers, it remains the most likely scenario. Of course, this does not tell us where the urheimat of Slavic was. Languages, even highly successful ones like Slavic, often start as dialects with a very small urheimats. Latin started as an Italic dialect spoken in the Alban Hills near Rome. Romanian probably started as the Latin dialect of the Dardani tribe in Macedonia. English was originally a Germanic dialect on the West coast of Schleswig-Holstein. Unfortunately, with Slavic the evidence is not there to make a firm determination: archaeology is of course useless for this purpose. You notice I didn't mention archaeology at all in my analysis above. (It is only of limited use in defining ethnic groups and none for linguistic boundaries). Only toponyms are valuable, and comparative linguistics. An interesting point here is that river-names in White Russia/Muscovy appear to be Baltic in origin, pushing the possible Slavic urheimat further West and South (Ukraine perhaps?). Another big issue is when Slavic split off from the Balto-Slavic branch, with estimates ranging from 1500 BC to AD 500. I regard the earlier end of the range (before 1000 BC) as far more likely. Glottochronology could resolve this, but only if it becomes much better calibrated.

The toponymic evidence of Romania rules out Daco-Roman continuity. The vast majority of Romanian toponyms are of Slavic origin, or at least pre-Slavic transmitted by Slavic. This is quite different from other neo-Latin countries, where Roman continuity is certain and the vast majority of toponyms are the same as they were in Roman times. That Slavic is the main substratum of "Daco"-Romanian is demonstrated by the fact it contains far more Slavic words than Aromanian, the Romanian spoken in the Dardanian urheimat, even though Aromanian exists in a region which became (and remains) predominantly Slavic-speaking. That is because it developed before the Slavs arrived.

Well, despite your claims, your analysis has been primarily focused on ethnic groups, not linguistic groups. For instance, in this discussion you wrote about "Venedi were Slavic speakers", "if the Carpi were Slavic-speakers" etc. equating linguistic groups with "ethnic" groups (Venedi, Carpi, etc). Moreover you asserted the "ethnic" groups of Sarmatians, Celts, Germans were groups of Sarmatian, Celtic, Germanic speakers. After all, it was your initiative to consider the Costoboci (an "ethnic" group) Sarmatian speakers using non-linguistic evidence (most recently by pointing out they might have been called Sa(u)romatians on a contemporary Greek inscription). As for the "ethnogenesis obsession", you have promoted "ethno-linguistic" sections in many articles (in this article I struggled to detach language/onomastics from the other identity aspects) and in general your theories are about the origins and ethnogeneses of various groups. More to point: we can say nothing about the Slavic linguistic group(s) in the 3rd century AD, because we have no attestations. We only know of various "ethnic" groups, which have been considered Slavs using dubious arguments and commiting the Herderian fallacy mentioned above. Daizus (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Ethno-linguistic affiliation" is a standard term, used by Renfrew, for example. But I have been looking at linguistic affiliation only in my analysis. I agree that the Wenden/Venedi/Sclaveni/Slavs connections are unproven, but they constitute a credible hypothesis. Jordanes does state specifically that the Antes and Sclaveni were part of the Venedi group. It is possible that, as Curta argues, he simply invented the connection. But it is even more possible that he did not and was simply stating a well-known fact. I don't find Curta's explanation, that he wanted to give the Antes/Sclaveni an ancient pedigree, convincing. Why would he want to do that? He was a propagandist for the Goths, not for the Slavs. At the end of the day, for all his faults, Jordanes is evidence. Where is Curta's evidence that he is wrong? And how does Curta explain the presence of the Venedi in precisely the region that he argues the Sclaveni/Antes were raiding from (Wallachia)?

"Ethno-linguistic" may be a standard term for historians and archaeologists with little regard to linguistics, social anthropology and other disciplines but it's eventually a fallacy (most if not all modern studies - example - do not correlate unequivocally ethnicity with language). Jordanes wrote a fictional history of the Goths (see bibliography cited above) using Greek and Roman sources. To do that he equated his contemporary "ethnic" groups with those found in these sources: Goths with Scythians, Thracians, Moesians and Getae, Sclavenes and Antes with Venedi, and so on. Thus his claims are of no value. To consider Sclaveni and Venedi one and the same and Slavic speakers, is to consider Goths and Getae one and the same and Germanic speakers. Were they? Even if one ignores logic and evidence and chooses to use these claims at face value, Jordanes describes "ethnic groups", not "linguistic groups". Jordanes does not say what languages were used by Venedi, Sclaveni and Antes. Daizus (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As for Venedi "precisely in the region the Sclaveni/Antes were raiding from", the Romanians are "precisely in the region the Dacians lived and ruled and also raided from", does that mean anything? Daizus (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the theory of a vast Slavic homeland is wrong - a homeland cannot be too vast: "the basic fact of pre-state language distribution is that no single language can occupy, for more than a few centuries, an area too large for all its native speakers to communicate with each other regularly" (and your further examples confirm it, the birth of many languages can be traced to a relatively small region). Daizus (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

We may be confusing terms here. I'm not saying that the Slavic urheimat was vast. Quite the contrary: I wouldn't be at all surprised if Slavic turns out to have started in a single Carpathian valley. What I am saying is that, by Tacitus' time (i.e. over 1,000 years after the language's first appearance), Slavic languages had spread to all of W. Ukraine/ European Russia/White Russia. No doubt, by this time, proto-Slavic had split into numerous sub-languages, some of which may not have been easily mutually intelligible. But they were recognised by the Greco-Romans as being related, hence the umbrella term Venedi. The argument that a coherent language-branch could not survive over such a large area is nonsense, as shown by numerous examples e.g. the Turkic languages. Apparently, Anatolian Turkish and Turkmen are mutually intelligible, despite the huge distance separating them (not to mention completely different historical development), and even the Uigurs of western China can follow Anatolian Turkish without too much difficulty.

Per my previous comment, your hypothesis is unlikely. Common Slavic was a language with virtually no dialects in ~8-9th centuries AD, thus it was the result of a very recent spread (and for another point of view you can compare the modern Slavic dialects in -let's say- Balkans with the Romance or Germanic dialects in Western and Central Europe, the former are notably less diverse), certainly not one dating with 1000 years before. Turkic languages are not mutually intelligible, moreover they also spread during the Early Middle Ages (in Anatolia the first Turks showed up relatively late, the Seljuks in 11th century AD) Daizus (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Procopius only reports about a Gepid who knew Avar songs, who spoke Latin (fluently), and who also was a friend of a Sclavene king. However the historical and literary evidence indicates that Avars communicated with the Sclavenes and Antes in whatever languages they used without translators. Read this essay to see the available evidence, it apparently was a language of the Sclavenes (Slavs). There were certainly some Slavic languages spoken in Pannonia. Almost all pre-Hungarian toponyms are Slavic, and none is Turkic (the Turkic toponyms in Hungary are of a later date). Daizus (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Curta's case for a Slavic lingua franca is ingenious but contrived. It is inherently more likely that the Avar elite would communicate with their subjects in their own language, Avaro-Turkish, since that is what overlords generally do. Especially as Turkish, a language with minimal morphology (like English, but unlike Slavic, which is a morphological nightmare like Latin), is easy to learn and perfectly suited to be a lingua franca. The point is that only the non-Avar elites and soldiery would need to learn Turkish, their own peasantry could go on speaking their native languages. So the absence of Avar-era Turkish placenames in Hungary is irrelevant (if the Turkic placenames are indeed from a later period: how can we tell that they are Cuman?). The elites would need to learn Turkish in order to keep their positions of influence (and their heads). Thus the Gepid above, doubtless a high-status individual, would not only need to learn Avar songs, but also to sing them well, if he didn't want his skull to end up as a drinking-cup for the Avar khan! The Slavic placenames in Hungary, such as they are, cannot obviously be dated accurately enough for this purpose: they may have become established before, during or after the Avar period (after all, there was a 200-year gap between the Avar departure and the arrival of the Magyars).

Curta used circumstantial but persuading evidence (Life of St. Pancratius: somewhere in southern Italy they apparently used Slavs living in Sicily as translators to communicate with some Avar prisoners - thus the Avars spoke the language of the Slavs, not viceversa). The Gepid the Romans met north of Danube, knew some Avar songs (but who could force him to sing them well to his Roman audience?), but his languages were: his native one (presumably a Germanic dialect), Latin and perhaps the language of the Sclavenes (because he was a friend of their king and he knew some "barbarian" words). Daizus (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Unlike English, Turkish has morphology, mostly agglutinative (and in my opinion is not the easiest language to learn: check for example the noun declension and how agglutination works in Istanbul Turkish), so this is not an argument. Also the "overlords" often learn and use the language of their subjects, because linguistic prestige is not only fueled by military power. So were the stories of the Goths in Spain and Italy, probably also of the Vandals in North Africa, of the Franks in Gaul, of the Bulgars in Balkans, of the Rus in Eastern Europe, and there were dozens of similar scenarios worldwide (e.g. Quechua and Aymara in Andes). Daizus (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There are pre-Hungarian Slavic placenames in Hungary, and there's only a 100-year gap between the fall of the Avars (ca. 796) and the coming of the Magyars (ca. 896). Moreover we have reports of Sclavenes as subjects of the Avars, and even if only some of them spoke Slavic, then it's more likely their language left traces in toponymy, not the language of an unknown and short-lived group. Daizus (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Curta is great, but I would not agree with all his conclusions. Eg Slavs did call themselves "Slavs" before 12th ceuntry - see all the Croatian inscirptions from 9th century, or the Litutrgical writers from 10th century Macedonia ("hark all ye Slavs ! " ). Whether this was indended for an external audience (as Curta) claims or not, there is clear etic and emic use of the term. ANd whilst the Sklavenes as a distinct ethnos might well have formed in 6th century Wallachia, the SLavic language did not form ex nihilo. For it to have been used as a lingua franca by the Avars, it must have already been an established, well used language (see Nichols in Arch and Language), possibly by the Antes and Sklavenes which came under Avar orbit, and most likely earlier still. Undoubtedly, Gothic was the widespread language in SEE barbaricum prior to this (they wrote a Gothic bible), and even some of the Sklavene chiefs have names which sound totally un-Slavic (eg Perbundos, Musokios) which almost sound Thracian or something Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Jorgen Udolph incidentally places the earliest Slavic hydronyms in Bukovina, broadly coinciding with the area of discussion (that is, if you suscribe to place-name evidence) Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any evidence Slavs calling themselves Slavs before the 12th century. But true, I don't know about the 10th century Macedonian manuscripts. First of all, if a Slav, knowing the Western perceptions, would say in Latin he's a Slav, does it mean the Slavs from Central and Eastern Europe, ignorant of Latin and of Western perceptions, would call themselves Slavs? I assume you refer to the inscriptions of Branimir, a late 9th century Croatian dux. In three inscriptions he's described as ruling over some people. As detailed by Daniel Dzino, we notice that Branimir called himself a dux Cruatorum, he was called dux Slcavorum(sic!) by foreigners such as the abbot Theudebert, and he was called dux Clavitnorum in an inscription ordered by one of his zhupans. Some assumed "dux Clavitnorum" is a corrupted rendering of "dux Sclavorum" (or rather "Sclavinorum"?). Even if accept this problematic assumption, as Curta pointed out, Pristina, addressing a Latin-reading audience, "mangled the name of the people to whom he allegedly belonged, but not his title or social rank", which indicates a "proceess of inventing a history and identity for the justification of its own power". Long story short, in none of these inscriptions we have Slavs calling themselves Slavs. Daizus (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Slavic was spoken before the Avars, but there's no evidence whatsoever Antes or Sclavenes initially spoke it and not some other group. What do you mean by "earliest Slavic hydronyms"? Daizus (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

After a little research, it seems Jürgen Udolph placed the most ancient Slavic hydronyms in Galicia. Henrik Birnbaum, also a supporter of a north-Carpathian Urheimat, wrote [JSL 1993, p. 360: "In negative terms, Popowska-Taborska thus concludes that at the present stage of our knowledge and understanding we are not in a position to determine unequivocally the location of the earliest homeland of the Slavs on the basis of hydronyms, otherwise throughly studied in recent years in particular by J. Udolph, who, however, saw fit to draw some definite conclusions from his findings and placed the Slavic protohome in an area immediately north of the Carpathians. "

Udolph's method was summarized by Paul Barford here: "Identifying Slavic river names that seem to be derived from archaic roots would mean that they were named by local people speaking that archaic form of Slavic, and thus enable the identification of a region where the most archaic river names appear as the Urheimat. Aleksander Pogodin concluded that the two regions with the oldest river names of Slavic origin were Podolia and parts of Volhynia, while Jürgen Udolph's employment of the same type of evidence located the Slavic Urheimat in Galicia."

Udolph's book was published in 1979 and at p. 619-620 you can find his conclusions. His method is not particularly convincing, as many of his etymologies are speculative and often without actual evidence. Tellingly enough, various scholars using the same material argued for different homeland locations. Curta is aware of Udolph's proposal and in The Making of the Slavs (2001, p. 8) he also mentioned such theories met "heavy criticism". He collectively named them "the Indo-European argument". Daizus (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I for one do not see hydronyms as 'solid' evidence- ergo Georgiev and all his theories. Re: Pristhina, etc; as I stated, even if he had adapted this term from a Latin audience and used it primarily for them, what we are seeing essentially is internalizing this exonym. Granted, the meaning of "Slav" changed over time, from a group of raiders from Wallachia, to new ruling groups in 9th century Balkans, then to people and nations later on. Did not Duarentius, the Sklavene leader exclaim to the Avar khagan "We are Slavs, others do not conquer our lands, but we theirs" (or something along those lines)? And I wouldn;t say that there is NO evidence that Antes or SKlavenes spoke Slavic - we do have a whole bunch of anthroponyms. Even as Strumskii has argued that many names could be Gothic (eg those ending in -agastus), when someone is called Budimir (awakener of glory), Hvalimir (gratitude for glory), Branimir (defender of the glory), one doesn;t need a PhD in SLavic linguistics to differentiate them from Gothic forms (eg Thiudimir with the Germanic sound shifts) Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The name used by the Croatian zhupan is Clavitni, not "Slavs". If it's not a corruption but a distinct ethnonym, then there's no discussion. However if it's a corrupted form of Sclavi, then this is the adapted term (though Branimir calls himself dux Cruatorum). I'm not sure I understand "what we are seeing essentially is internalizing this exonym".

Daurentius/Dauritas did not say "We are Slavs". Budimir, Hvalimir and Branimir were neither Antes nor Sclavenes, but chiefs from later centuries (9th century or so). Daizus (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing dubious use of Batty 2008, p. 378

Batty argues that the presence of Dacian-style pottery and other artefacts is an indicator of the material level attained by the indigenes, but does not prove their ethnicity. Batty notes that the Lipiţa region was also inhabited by the Bastarnae, a Celto-Germanic federation of tribes. Batty argues that the Lipita culture "is a poor match for the Costoboci, who appear a mobile, semi-nomadic people" and suggests that the culture may represent a "substrate population".

These paragraphs were tagged for a while now. No quotes provided and it's very likely original research, as Batty apparently doesn't make these arguments. Daizus (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The disputed paragraph is correct. Batty states: the Lipita culture is "one strand of the Costoboci, or the material culture of a sedentary, substrate population in the area they controlled". (p 275) Later he adds: the use of "Dacian pottery" - 'shows us the material level they attained but has no actual bearing on the ethnicity or identity of the people"

I'd agree with Batty. Pots dont speak, so its ludicrous to presume that those who used such pottery (if it even exists - Curta's critique of "Prague" pottery has merely not yet been matched for "Dacian" pottery) spoke Dacian, although they might well have spoken a related language. What's even more absurd is to call the Costoboci and Carpi "Dacians" - the Dacians existed in Transylvania c 100 BC to 100 AD. They were a completely different ethnos.

The Dacian pottery reflects a level of technological / economic development in the Carpathian region under a variety of influences; its spread had more to do with economic activities (possibly related to Decebalus' wide-ranging power) and trade from Black Sea along the Sire and Prut through to Transylvania, rather than a consolidation of "Dacian ethnicity" - which never happened. Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

So only the "does not prove their ethnicity" part is correct. Please note the quote provided for the Lipita culture was "is a poor match for the Costoboci, who appear a mobile, semi-nomadic people" which now appears to be a fabrication. So Lipita is either the culture of the Costoboci (a part of them) or of a sedentary, substrate population they controlled.

I'm quite sure on tribal level the Costoboci and the Dacians of Decebalus were two different (ethnic) groups. But linguistically, the Costoboci had Dacian names (see the section in the article). Few would object to call the tribes from Macedonia and Bithynia to north of Haemus Thracian, but I don't think they were one huge ethnos, even though they may have spoken closely related languages. Same goes about Celts, Germans, Scythians, Indians, Ethiopians, etc.

As for pots, it's true, they do not prove ethnicity, however the "Dacian pottery" has some special types (like the so-called "Dacian mugs") and some specific details related to production or usage may be related to Curta's "emblemic styles". Daizus (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the other quote "..poor match..". I don't have Batty's book on me, only notes that I took, and some direct quotes which I kept. However, the "...poor match.." I don't have. However, on page 250, Batty goes at length to dismiss the entire idea of a "Daco-Getan" culture, pointing out to numerous regional differences, drawing references to nationalist -tinged archaelogy of Birchir, and the equation of the Lipita culture with the Costoboci specifically.

I wasn't aware of the anthroponymic evidence; that certainly lends weight to the general concesus, and I think the way it has been cautiously worded in the article is good. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide here more quotes so we can integrate it in the "Material culture" section? Thank you in advance. Daizus (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to get get the book again for direct quotes. The only other (short) quote I have is his critique of the concept of a Daco-Getan culture "regional differences abound". (pg 250)

RE 'emblemic styles'. One must ask, what identity was this communicating exactly ? Does having a Dacian bowl communicate one' belonging to a group of "Dacians" (which I doubt), or is it a prestige item which communicates wealth and ability to entertain by hosting feasts, etc ; Ie elite identity 10:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I want to know his arguments strictly related to Costoboci and Lipitsa and add them in the article with due weight. That book was harshly criticized by Everett Wheeler, and it seems to contain many inaccuracies (e.g. confusing Sarmizegetusa Regia with the Colonia having the same name), outdated views (e.g. the uncritical handling of ancient authors such as Ovid) and considerable bias (e.g. Batty's "feeble discussion and perverse attempt" to represent the Balkan troops as unreliable). I'm sure there are regional differences, but also there are common points. On one of them read below.

On Dacian pottery I'm now using a study by Alexandru Diaconescu concerning material culture and mentalities in Roman Dacia. First and foremost, the clay used in native pottery has a particular, uniform composition, suggesting that, as in Late Iron Age Britannia, there was a specialized production (few main centers responsible for the objects distributed over vast areas). Now about the "Dacian mug". Some of the objects found have traces of burning/smoke inside. So it can be assumed that they were used to produce light. As the oil for oil lamps was not cheap (imported), tallow/fat was often used instead. The latter is more viscous, so the lamp needed a wider pouring hole. To be sure, in Dacia the pouring holes became larger as the society plunged into economic crisis, and also the traditional Roman oil lamps were replaced completely by wheel-made oil lamps looking like a smaller vase, but still having the nozzle. A cheaper alternative was the candle. Nevertheless any kind of oil lamp requires a fine clay which does not absorb the oil. It doesn't seem to be case here, moreover the texture and the color of "Dacian mugs" bears a striking resemblance to the vessels known as turribula, used to burn spices. The special clay and the thick walls made the vessel resistant to the smoldering fire inside. The foot allowed occasional transport and the placement of turribulum on a support. It's unlikely the "Dacian mug" was used in this way in Roman Dacia, otherwise they used the traditional turribulum. As the mugs have one or two handles, sometimes replaced by sockets at the base of the mug, it is probable the mug was handheld. Moreover the mugs have more or less the same size (unlike the turribula having various dimensions), and this also points out to a handheld usage instead of placement on a support. All these clues suggest the smoke was for inhalation, not for gods. There are literary accounts like Herodotus IV, 74-75 on Scythians inhaling hemp-seed smoke or Strabo VII, 3, 3-4 on the Moesian priests called καπνοβάται (perhaps "smoke-treaders"). This practice was probably not restricted to priests, which would explain why the "Dacian mug" was popular in the military forts of Dacia Porolissensis. Of course, the "Dacian mug" is not a certain indicator of native, Dacian communities, as through acculturation foreigners (let's say auxiliary soldiers of other origins) could follow such practices. Here the interpretation of Diaconescu ends. However for some communities objects such as the "Dacian mugs" could have been used as elements in an "emblemic style", separating the group from the neighboring groups. Other pottery forms could have been used as well. In Making of the Slavs Curta makes a similar case on clay plans, a particular pottery form appearing on 6th and 7th century sites in Romania, Moldova, Ukraine. As the intra-site distribution suggests, these pans were used for special foods (flat loaves of bread?) consumed in special occasions. Daizus (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, I had read prior that they were used possibly as oil lamps, but this new interpretation makes sense. Maybe I need a Dacian mug. Sure, I;d be happy to get Batty's book again and provide references specific to Costoboci and Carpi. Im happy to help you lads out in reaching a concensus. Might have to be the weekend till I get some spare time Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, thank you! Daizus (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

On Chronology of Lipita culture

The article states that the Lipita culture developed in La Tene period. This is add major odds with Shchukin, who has made a strong argument that it dates from latter 1st century AD, ie way after the La Tene.

During most of the La Tene period, the area where Lipita later forms was part of the Lukashevka-Poienesti culture (related / offshoot to Zarubintsy culture). Then there is somewhat of a 'blank' apart from two sites showing some "Zemplin" affinities in 1 c BC. Then he describes the "Zvenigrod horizon" (a "horizon" because it is short lived and limited in sharing of attributes) formed in the final stage of La Tene/ early Roman period (ie earlier 1st c AD), and characterized by apparent mixture of Przework-appearing burials as well as Dacian and Sarmatian objects. Then this gives way to Lipita culture in latter 1 c AD, but mostly existing in 2 c AD, marked by a more obvious penetration of Dacian pottery, although earlier phases also contained Dacian pottery. Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Mikołajczyk 1984, p. 62: More tangible traces of this expansion are to be found on the sites of the Lipica culture, dating from the Late La Tène period and located on the northern side of the Carpathians, in a triangle between Drogobyč, Kosov and Lvov (Śmiszko 1931, pp. 171-177, 178-182).

However at in least in the territory of Roman Dacia, the Late La Tène period ends with the Roman conquest. ( [3] ) Daizus (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion, it seems to me, demonstrates the futility of attempting to draw conclusions from archaeological cultures about the ethnicity and history of this people (or of any barbarian people). There are several unanswerable questions:

1. Did the Lipitsa culture actually exist as something distinct from other "cultures" in this region or is it simply an artificial classificatory invention of modern archaeologists? For example, I can see little significant differences between Lipitsa and the "Daco-Carpic" culture identified by Bichir in Moldavia (or indeed between the "Daco-Carpic" culture and Cernyakhov). It may be that the whole Pontic region shared essentially the same material culture for the entire Roman imperial era and attempts to link particular sectors of it to particular ethnic groups are pointless.
2. Even if Lipitsa was a distinct culture, can it be attributed to the Costoboci exclusively (or at all)? The problem here is (1) the vagueness of the geographical positioning offered by Ptolemy: the Costoboci could be either inside or outside Roman Dacia (or both), and if outside, in N. Moldavia or SW Ukraine. If the former (the option shown in the Barrington Atlas), then the Costoboci would be represented by Bichir's "Daco-Carpic" culture; if the latter, Lipitsa is present here: but several other peoples are attested as resident in SW Ukraine: the Celtic Anartes and Taurisci and the Germanic Bastarnae. It is likely that Lipitsa represents all these groups, not only the Costoboci.
3. The above comments concern the sedentary cultures of SW Ukraine and Moldavia. But this region shows, from the 1st century onwards, remains of a nomadic steppe culture alongside the sedentary culture, most likely attributable to Sarmatian tribes. Was Costoboci the name of the nomads or of the sedentary people? The answer depends on the power-relationship between nomads and settled people. Normally, in this region in this period, the nomads were the overlords of a subject sedentary population, and thus the nomads' name was used by Greco-Roman writers to denote the whole population, even though they were almost certainly a minority of that population e.g. the "Iazyges" of the Hungarian Plain, who in reality were the Sarmatian overlords of a majority Celto-Germanic population; or the "Roxolani" Sarmatians of the Wallachian Plain, which probably contained a Geto-Dacian majority. By analogy, "Costoboci" could be the name of a Sarmatian group which ruled over a sedentary majority.
4. Romanian archaeologists insist, however, that Costoboci was the name of the sedentary majority and this majority was Dacian in speech and culture. The evidence for this is remarkably thin: the name of a single Costobocan king (which may, in any case, be Thracian rather than Dacian); the fact that Ptolemy includes the region of SW Ukraine between the Upper Dniester and the current Romanian border in his definition of "Dacia"; and the supposed "Dacian" characteristics of Lipitsa. But all of these points are weak: king Pieporus may have borne a Dacian name because the Sarmatian ruling family had intermarried with Free Dacian nobility (as, eventually, did Pieporus himself); Ptolemy's Dacia probably showed the borders of king Decebal's kingdom and was not exclusively ethnic-Dacian, since he included the Celtic Anartes and Taurisci in it; finally Lipitsa almost certainly represented some non- Dacian peoples: you cannot draw conclusions about ethnicity from pottery styles and decorations, as I explained in my footnote on "material culture and ethnicity" (now removed by Daizus)

These were the issues that I was trying to explore in my original article, before Daizus replaced it with current dreary orthodox babyfood. EraNavigator (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about your points above; almost entirely. As we've discussed previously, the problem lies in the scholars - most of the work is decades old and from non-Anglophone circles (not imparting judgement as to superiority), and discussion of this areas (apart from work on latter period ie Goths and Slavs) does not approach anything to the complexity and skill written with regard to 'Gauls', 'Franks', etc (AFAIK). The Lipita culture, like any other 'culture' might well be the construct of archaeologists' minds which at times hinder rather than facilitate an understanding of the processes which created local communities and the contexts of their interaction with the greater world, which in turned shaped the malleable and porous nature of individual, local and group identities. I don;t think we can attribute any one culture to this or that named 'tribe', because archaeological remains represent a crust of a totality of ethnic, social, religious and economic dimensions to the communities which left them behind; and groups such as the "carpi" were but social group comprised of 'big men' and followers of young men which only existed transiently and were drawn from various loco-regional communities. The communities of the upper Dniester region and surroundings were neither Carpi, nor Basternae, nor Sarmatians; whatever identities they had was likely complex, multifaceted & malleable. "Carpi" and "costoboci" were mere names given by Graeco-Romans to militarized groups emanating from these broad regions who at time to time created conflict in responce to grivences over trade access, or at times of economic decline.

I totally share your frustration, as my dealings with other articles have demonstrated, older historiography is at times not only outdated and inflexible, but fundamentally incorrect. However, we still have to follow what has been written in traditional scholarship, as limited as it is; lest we publish something and include it with due weight.. . Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If anyone can read Russian, look at this recent article about Lipita culture [4]. It would take me weeks to translate this, but I;ll try Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

SV, thank you for that article. I can read a bit of Russian and I'll see if I'll be able to compile something about Lipitsa. However it seems to be the same narrative about "ethno-stuff", the "ethno-cultures" seem to be described rather in terms of appearance. The pictures are illustrative (though probably not free, and cannot be included), especially the map. The Lipitsa region is in the Podolian uplands, quite at a distance from the north-Pontic steppes. I would like also to see some distribution maps. For instance recently I found this article about scabbards, connecting a site in the western(?) Lipitsa area with other sites from Central Europe (regardless if the object was imported, or a local copy). But here, too, as in other works, the objects are Celtic or Germanic.

Also, as much sympathy I have for your discourse, it's on one hand a rara avis (EraNavigator, too, is obsessed with connecting the groups from literary sources to languages and territories), on the other hand I'm not sure if it's justified to entirely dismiss the traditional framework and relativize everything. There were some groups, there were some identities which arguably could be called ethnic, and thus some cultural artifacts (language, religion, material objects etc) were manipulated in order to substantiate such identities and to create differences between the neighboring, competing groups.

Take a look at Iron Age Dacia. A particular aspect of this society is the very small number of burials (about 50 in Late La Tène Romania for a period of more than 200 years!), apparently rather reflecting Dacian religious beliefs and practices (e.g. exposure or cremation with ashes being scattered), and not (just) a state of research. This study, though inaccurate and stereotypical to a degree (especially when dealing with literary sources), it also gives a fresh perspective: the author identifies three competing groups (defined by clusters of high status burials) - one around Sarmizegetusa, another one in Wallachia and a small one in Central Moldavia. Nevertheless it would disingenuous to deny the Sarmizegetusa group represents a Dacian power center, and moreover that around 100 AD this was the kingdom of Decebalus. So we do have an archaeological culture, a distinct entity which can be associated with this kingdom. For the archaeology of settlements and hillforts see also I. A. Oltean's book above - it has a full chapter on pre-Roman late Iron-Age. That (many of) these individuals had (also) a Dacian identity we learn from epigraphic sources: for example from the Roman Egypt we have a large corpus of letters on ostraca, some of soldiers writing or receiving the letters are Dacians and it's important they also call themselves Dacians (in Greek). Thus we read of a Dacian soldier who wrote that he heard "all Dacians" will be gathered in Alexandria (apparently including himself and his friend in this group). Had they truly a Dacian identity or they just used a Graeco-Roman concept learned as they learned Greek and/or Latin? Nevertheless whatever non-Roman identity they had, it was not forming around some local chiefs anymore (though undoubtedly, figures like Decebalus were important for many Dacians in the empire). Daizus (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

One last point, the "Anglophone scholars" are often (but not always) just as bad. So much is written about Germanic (sometimes Gothic, Frankish, etc) and Celtic cultures (and ethnic groups), which are in many regards, not different from the Dacian and other eastern macro-groups. Daizus (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about Dacia, and certainly distinctions in material culture can be seen between different ethnic groups (eg later Lombards and Gepids could distinguish themselves). The problem is, in Iron Age/ La Tene Moldavia and NW Ukraine, the literary evidence is far too enigmatic to allow the kind of (thoughtful and probably correct) analysis which has been afforded to more proximate territories. I'm not saying that archaeology here is incapable of highlighting "emblemic styles" which could be representations of some form of identity, however, exactly what this identity was is harder to determine - an ethnic one ? professional/ social ? religious ? Case in point - how do we know that the "nomadic" burials of the Carpic culture (ie inhumations with Sarmatian mirrors, etc) were "ethnic Sarmatians", ethnically distinct to the "Carpo-Dacian" who cremated their deceased ? Could not these merely be differences in the religous beliefs. Or a "differential access to a diversity of interactions" local communities could entertain ? (as Franchetti stated). People had a plurality of ways to express their identities and beliefs, so it would be presumptuous to conclude that their material remains were a passive reflection of ethnicity. For a similar train of thought, see Curta's essay on the NW Pontic area in the 6th/7th centuries and apparent distinctions between sedentary Slavs and "Turkic" nomads [5] (I think its accessible via academia.edu or something along those lines) Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

And I didn't mean to diss E.E. scholars, WE have been jsut as biased of course. That Dacian article looks good, ill check it. And you;re right about Batty, he does indeed on the one hand dismiss some culture-history aspects, but then turns around and talks about migrations, Celts, etc in a converse vain. Eg he talks about Huns "arriving from central Asia" - which I find to be a mortal mistake - there is no evidence for this. However, I retrived some further quotes from him

• The "remarkabe symmetry of Daco-Getan culture and modern national boundaries reveal more than what archaeology alone should offer. Such statements.. are more a reflection of a national and political ideology than they are of credible archaeological results.” (page 51)

• He compares his above statement to that of Birchir “In conclusion, the archaeological evidence shows that the whole territory of Moldavia was inhabited by a population of Thraco-Dacian origin, regardless f whether they called Carpi or Costoboci. “ (Birchir, p 162)

• "It is increasingly doubtful that the users of Daco-Getic ware were in fact Daco-Getae at all" (Batty, p 51)

For the "Celticization" of part of EE, see [6] Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Batty is absolutely right. The above quote (taken out of context) is a reaction against Bichir's dubious interpretation of the archaeological data (a tendency he shares with many Rom scholars, as Curta himself points out). A characteristic of Bichir is that some conclusions he draws appear in direct contradiction with the data he himself presents. For example, he tells us that the Sarmatians continued to bury their dead according to the prevailing inhumation rite of contemporary steppe nomads into the 3rd c, and did not apparently adopt the cremation rite of their "Daco"-Carpic hosts. In the few "mixed" cemeteries excavated, Sarmatian graves (identified by artificially elongated skulls), both adults and children were buried, in contrast with the cremation-urns of the great majority of graves. In some graves which Bichir identifies the parents as mixed Sarmatian/"Daco"-Carpic, the children are also inhumed. Despite this, Bichir reaches the astonishing conclusion that the nomads adopted the culture of the sedentary majority and "accepted Dacian citizenship" (!). In reality, the evidence points to the opposite conclusion: that the nomads retained their distinct culture and did not assimilate. Indeed, the evidence of the mixed graves suggests an overlord-subject relationship between Sarmatians and "Daco"-Carpi as the children of mixed marriages were apparently buried, not burned (and some infants' skulls elongated). EraNavigator (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No, Batty is mostly wrong (see also Wheeler's merciless review) and so are you when claiming that Bastarnae were Celtic or Germanic, or that Anartes were Celtic, and so on, but at the same time denying the Carpi were Dacian The arguments of Bichir for the Dacianess of Carpi (their material culture: pottery, burial rites, swords, helmets, etc.) are employed (by Batty and others) to prove other tribes are Celtic, Germanic or Sarmatian. Considerations like "nomads retained their culture" are just as spurious. Daizus (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are no such tendencies among Romanian scholars; Curta doesn't point out such a thing, moreover he often cited or even quoted Romanian scholarship. As Zosia Archibald noticed in a more polite review, a "close analysis of Batty's bibliographic entries reveals that the majority are synthetic studies rather than analyses of specific locations, such as site reports, or case studies." Ergo Batty knows next to nothing about Romanian archaeological scholarship. His confusion of Sarmizegetusa Regia with the Roman homonymous colony (p. 529 and fig. 41.8 at p. 290 with muddled geography) is illustrative for his "expertise". More to point, the Lipitsa culture is mostly in Ukraine, the Lipitsa sites were mostly excavated and published by Russian and Ukrainian scholars, so what are you talking about? Daizus (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that article by Curta, and yet it's not so much about sedentary Slavs vs nomads (that's the interpretation he challenged), but how dubious are sometimes even the concepts of sedentary and nomadic communities (p. 175: "equally hard is to draw a distinction between 'nomads' in the steppe and agriculturalists in the uplands; in fact, there are more indications of commonality than difference" - that's also why I asked EN about the "nomadic culture" north of Carpathians). What Curta observed is that the distribution of settlements and burials is complementary in 6-7th century in the lowlands between Dnieper and Danube, and thus we don't have here two distinct societies, but one and the same. The inhabitants in the north buried their heroes in a no-man's-land separating their own lands from the neighboring territories (p. 176: "monuments for the commemoration of power and prestige" which "were also markers of territory and influence"). Please also note such conclusions are drawn from archaeology alone, for no reliable written sources describe these lands and their inhabitants, we have just stereotypical reports of various "Scythian" or "Hunnic" tribes.

This brings me again back to Batty. Sure he's right to criticize Bichir in some regards, but at the same time Batty is so mistaken. Archaeology alone can illustrate group boundaries (see Curta's study above); they may overlap or not over modern frontiers (sometimes geography is important, a large river or a high mountain can separate distinct societies and cultures both in ancient and modern times). Also Batty fails when he uses Bichir to generalize on the "remarkable symmetry of Daco-Getan culture and modern national boundaries", because the so-called "Daco-Getan culture" was discovered also in northern Bulgaria and Serbia, Hungary, Ukraine and even Slovakia. At the same time on the territory of modern Romania there is a significant amount of contemporary "Sarmatian" burials, published and acknowledged in various studies. And here Everett Wheeler is right on spot with his observation: Batty's bibliography is out-dated or even cherry-picked. Nevertheless we could make some use of these quotes (and again, thank you for your time and effort!), but they digress. The Costoboci are located by many scholars in territories which are today in northern Romania but mostly in Ukraine. Discussing about the so-called Carpic culture in Moldavia, or even about Bichir's "Carpi or Costoboci" seems un-necessary at this point. Daizus (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

As for local identities and the presence of special objects such as the "Sarmatian mirrors", sure, you're right: just their presence doesn't say much; however further careful analysis - manufacturing details, distributions, etc. - may suggest some plausible interpretations. I don't know of any such studies carried on the material culture(s) under discussion, else I'd very much like to cite them in the article. Daizus (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Two additional requests if you don't mind. Can you tell me if the quotes above are connected? I.e. when Batty doubts the identity of the users of the "Daco-Getan" culture, he includes the Costoboci (explicitly)? Also, if some of these quotes and claims have foot-notes or end-notes, can you cite the bibliography? Thanks. Daizus (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Check also these papers. There are some of them promising a nice read. Daizus (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Those papers look great, when do they come out ? Batty's book is currently loaned out, I'll have to wait for it and get it through when i comes Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Era, you don't have the faintest idea what it means to write an encyclopedic article, even less what it means an article here. Most of your articles read like personal essays (high school essays, considering the amount of bias, factual mistakes and inept digressions). You can write on your blog like that, you can write a book if you can publish and sell it. This site has some rules, because an encyclopedia is something different. An encyclopedic material does not "explore", it summarizes, it reflects what has been explored by others. An encyclopedic material is "orthodox".

You always rant against Romanian scholars, but you don't know much about scholarship. Let's see who argues the Costoboci were Dacians or that Lipitsa culture belonged (mostly) to Dacians. Is Peter Heather a Romanian? Anton von Premerstein? Mark Shchukin? Denis Kozak? The onomastic evidence is not only about the king Pieporus, but about his entire family, and the names are Dacian (Tiatus, Drilgisa, Natoporus), not Thracian. This evidence alone annihilates the "Sarmatian overlords" scenario, at most the Costoboci were "Dacian overlords" ruling over some other groups.

You claim the Costoboci weren't Dacians, but at the same you claim the Anartes and Taurisci were Celtic, or that Bastarnae were Germanic (but from Batty: "Celtic penetration of this region makes even more sense, however, when we recognize that groups of Celts probably formed part of the broader tribal group known to us as the Bastarnae"), but also the mind-numbing Geto-Dacian and Celto-Germanic groups under Sarmatian overlords (Tolkien stories?). What is "Celto-Germanic" anyway? Your double-standards are amazing! (as are Batty's, he rants against the "Geto-Dacian" culture, but he has no hesitation to write of "Celtic penetration") Except for your obvious crusade against Romanian scholarship and your attempt to minimize the presence of Dacians, what other reasons could you have to promote such inconsistencies?

As for Lipitsa, where/which are the sites (burials only, I assume) and what are the characteristics of "a nomadic culture" in this region? I am also interested where they grazed their cattle and their horses. Daizus (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In meadows like everyone else, idiot. I am looking at my vegetation atlas and there is plenty of grasslands between the Carpathians and the Upper Dniester. In fact, the Podolian region is ideal for grazing, hence the fact that even in the 18th c, this region was where the horses for the National Cavalry of Poland-Lithuania were bred. I don't know about Sarmatian sites here, but I do know that steppe nomads were in this region since at least 500 BC, as Herodotus' Alazones, a Scythian group, have been located in this region by scholars.EraNavigator (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Now you show your true face. So I'm "idiot" because you had an answer only to the last two sentences from my entire reply?

So where were the grasslands 2000 or 2500 years ago? Where are the skeletal remains? The buried horses? The horse riding equipment?

Identifying Herodotus' tribes in Europe is worse than locating tribes and settlements based on Ptolemy's maps. Nevertheless you're wrong again, for Herodotus (IV, 17.1) the Alazones are north of Olbia (on the Southern Bug river maybe?), so they were not "in the region". Daizus (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Be nice, fellas.

The interesting thing is Podolia and the upper Dniester region has always been a highly complicated region showing integration of different elements- hardly surprising given its location central between the Vistula trade route on the one hand., and the steppe and lower Danube on the other. That is why the Lipitsa, Zvenigrod, etc cultures are difficult to define in traditional culture-historical approaches - it contains elements considered "Baltic/ Germanic", "Dacian", and steppe -nomad. Now, there is no reason to assume automotically that the Podolians were a mixed or fused bunch of immigrants from this and that direction, rather, they autochthonic communities who had the choice of displaying status and identity via several different cultural means. Incidentally, there are Cimmerian era [7] (pg 38) and Scythian era finds in this region [8] (pg 287), but of course, it does not necessary follow these people were Scythians, let alone Alizones (although many would have that they were) Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's doubtful Cimmerians ever existed north of Black Sea: [9] [10] [11] (see also pages 104 and 105). In the first book I see three spots with "horse bits of north-Caucasian types" (but apparently there are more such finds in Central Europe than in the North-Pontic steppes - are these "Scythian artefacts"?). As for the second book, again the so-called Scythian culture (incidentally on this map most of the finds lie outside the Lipitsa territory - in upper Vistula basin) is rather present in Central Europe: on this topic see in Fingerprinting the Iron Age the abstract of Alexandra Ghenghea's "The ethnical construction of Early Iron Age burials in Transylvania . Were they really Scythians?" and there are many such studies, criticizing the so-called "Scythian culture" as being nothing but an artificial construct, based on dubious readings of literary sources (mostly Herodotus) and other groundless assumptions (burials with no settlements -> nomads -> Scythians). Sure culture-history is problematic, but sometimes these alleged cultures and horizons are not supported by any evidence: some criticism comes also from the traditional archaeology. Daizus (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Whilst you're right about the historiography of Cimmerians, there is no doubt that there was a Scythian style. THis might have meant people who used its animal art, or horse bits were "Scythians", but if Daco-Getan fruit bowls and lamps could be used as emblemic styles, the "Scythian" motifs definitely could Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Was there a Scythian ethnic group stretching from Central Europe to Central Asia? And if this group had some "emblemic styles" (such as the vaguely defined "animal art"), how did the remote groups communicate, to make sure they send a similar message to their neighbours? Daizus (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This was an emblemic style, but symbolizing the belonging to an "international chiefly class" who distinguished themselves from the 'commoners" 10:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't the explain how this same message was employed in Central Asia and Europe? So the Thracians were Scythians or were their chiefs part of the same community/class? Regardless, what makes one believe the Thracians used the "animal art" in the same way as the tribes in the lower Don or Volga basins? Daizus (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No. The use of anumal style, eg, symbolized the 'exotic'. It mean that its user/. holder could transcend local landscape and participate something more 'global'. This is what it meant - it was an elite marker. What it mean might have varied from person to person, group to group, ie the artefact was 'internalized' and given meaning by its unique user. Thus the Thracian elite who used it did so to distinguish themselves from those that ruled, they had not become Scythians, but rather divorced themselves somehwat from the toils and burdens of peasant farming life and engaged in equestrianism, etc, and marked this by use of horse gear, etc. Such contacts were 'supra-dynastic', occasional, not highly institutionalized, thus not true 'trade' Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this interpretation is entirely correct. Let's take a look at Thracian rhyta (often with animal foreparts), most likely a cultural import from the Achaemenid (and not Scythian!) world, and other contemporary metal objects with "animal art". While these were luxury items, they were not so much an expression of a "divorce" between "classes" (declared long time before, I don't think that the Thracian elites or commoners had any doubts about it), rather were prestige goods used to send symbolic messages between competing elites (we're talking mostly about 4th century BC northern Balkans, divided in many tribal factions). It's somewhat expected that they chose to illustrate scenes related to horse riding, hunting, hawking, if these were part of their daily life. Daizus (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with that Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)