Dacian language

Dacian
Native to	Romania, northern Bulgaria, eastern Serbia; also (possibly): Moldova, SW Ukraine, eastern Hungary, southern Bulgaria, northern Greece, European Turkey, NW Anatolia (Turkey)
Extinct	probably by the 6th century AD
Language family	Indo-European Daco-Thracian? Dacian
Language codes
ISO 639-3	xdc

The Dacian language may have developed from proto-Indo-European in the Carpathian region around 2,500 BC. and probably became extinct by AD 600.. In the 1st century AD, it was the predominant language of the ancient regions of Dacia and Moesia and, possibly, of some surrounding regions.

It belonged to the Indo-European language family. As far as can be ascertained from the scarce available evidence, the Dacian language belonged to the satem group of the Indo-European languages.

Dacian is considered by some scholars e.g. Baldi (1983) and Trask (2000), to be a dialect of the Thracian language , or vice versa (the term Daco-Thracian, or Thraco-Dacian, is used by linguists to denote such a common language, or its presumed parent-branch of Indo-European); or a separate language from Thracian but related to it and to Phrygian;; or a language unrelated to either Thracian or Phrygian (except in the distant sense of sharing an Indo-European origin) e.g. Georgiev (1977).

The Dacian language is poorly documented. Unlike for Phrygian, only one Dacian inscription is known to have survived. In ancient literary sources, the Dacian names for a number of medicinal plants and herbs survive in ancient texts that includes about 60 plants names with Dioscorides. Dacian language is also known through about 1,150 proper names, about 900 toponyms. Finally, there are few hundred words in modern Albanian and Romanian languages, which have been suggested to originate in ancient Balkan languages such as Dacian (see List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin).

Origin

There is scholarly consensus that Dacian was a member of the Indo-European family of languages. These descended, according to the two leading theories of the expansion of IE languages, from a proto-Indo European tongue that originated in an urheimat ("original homeland") in S. Russia/ Caucasus region, (Kurgan hypothesis) or in central Anatolia (Anatolian hypothesis). According to both theories, proto-IE reached the Carpathian region not later than ca. 2,500 BC. Supporters of both theories have suggested this region as IE's secondary urheimat, in which began the differentiation of proto-IE into the various European language-groups (e.g. Italic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Celtic). There is thus considerable support for the thesis that Dacian developed in the Carpathian region during the 3rd millennium BC,although by which evolutionary pathways remains uncertain.

According to one scenario, proto-Thracian populations emerged during the Bronze Age from the fusion of the indigenous Eneolithic (Chalcolithic) population with the intruders of the transitional Indo-Europeanization Period. From these proto-Thracians, in the Iron Age, developed the Dacians / North Thracians of the Danubian-Carpathian Area on the one hand and the Thracians of the eastern Balkan Peninsula on the other..

According to Georgiev, the Dacian language was spread to South of the Danube by tribes from Carpathia penetrating the central Balkans in the period 2,000-1,000 BC, with further movements (e.g. the Triballi tribe) after 1,000 BC, until ca. 300 BC. According to the ancient geographer Strabo, Daco-Moesian was further spread into Asia Minor, in the form of Mysian, by a migration of the Moesi people (Strabo asserts that Moesi and Mysi were variants of the same name).

Sources

A fragment of a vase collected by Mihail Dimitriu at the site of Poiana, Galaţi (Piroboridava), Romania illustrating the use of Greek and Latin letters by a Dacian potter (source: Dacia journal, 1933)

Many characteristics of the Dacian language are disputed or unknown. No lengthy texts in Dacian exist, only a few glosses and personal names in ancient Greek and Latin texts. No Dacian-language inscriptions have been discovered, except of names in the Latin or Greek alphabet. What is known about the language derives from: Ο

Gold stater coin with legend ΚΟΣΩΝ (Coson) Obverse: Roman magistrate with lictors, inc. (left centre) monogram BR or OΛB. Reverse: Eagle clutching laurel-wreath. Probably minted in a Greek Black sea city (Olbia?), commissioned by a Thracian or Getan king (Cotys? Koson?) or by a high Roman official (Brutus?), in honour of the other. Late 1st century BC. But possibly minted in Dacia, as found in Transylvania, Romania.

• Placenames, river-names and personal names (including the names of kings). The coin inscription KOΣON may also be a personal name, of the king who issued the coin.
• The Dacian names of about fifty plants written in Greek and Roman sources (see List of Dacian plant names). Etymologies have been established for only a few of them.
• Substratum words found in Romanian, the language that is spoken today in most of the region once occupied by Dacian-speakers. These include about 400 words of uncertain origin (such as brânză 'cheese' and balaur 'dragon').

However, the value of the substratum words as a source for the Dacian language is limited by the fact that there is no guarantee that they are of Dacian origin:.

1. Some may derive from other little-known ancient languages at some time spoken in Dacia or Moesia: for example, the Sarmatian, Avar or Cuman languages., or, conceivably, some unknown pre-Indo-European language(s) of the Carpathians . (An illustration of the latter possibility are pre-Indo-European i.e. Basque words in another modern Romance language, Spanish e.g. "fox" = zorro, from Basque azuri, instead of proto-Romance *vulpe).
2. About 160 of the Romanian substratum words have cognates in Albanian and therefore may be of Illyrian origin rather than Dacian, as many contemporary scholars consider Albanian to be a modern descendant of the ancient Illyrian language .
3. The numerous Rom. substratum words which have cognates in Bulgarian may derive from Thracian, which may have been a different language from Dacian (see below, Thracian).

The substratum words can be used to corroborate words reconstructed from Dacian place- and personal names. This has been possible in some cases, for example Dacian *balas = "white" (from personal name Balius), Rom bălan = "white-haired"; (even in this case, it cannot be determined with certainty whether the Romanian word derives from the presumed Dacian word or from its Old Slavic cognate belu). The Romanian substratum word spânz is another example, used along with a Dacian form and Baltic words to support a Dacian word that meant "shiny".Template:Specify Dacian word and IE etymology

Geographical extent and linguistic area (Chronologically)

File:Celts400BC.png

Celtic, Illyrian and Dacian languages 4th - 3rd century BC

Map of Dacia 1st century BC

Dacia's map from a medieval book made after Ptolemy's Geographia (ca. 140 AD)

Linguistic area

Probably Dacian used to be one of the major languages of South-Eastern Europe, spoken from what is now Eastern Hungary to the Black Sea shore. According to historians, as a result of the linguistic unity of the Getae and Dacians that result from the record of ancient writers Strabo, Cassius Dio, Trogus Pompeius, Appian and Pliny the Elder, contemporary historiography often uses the term Geto-Dacians to refer to the people living in the area between the Carpathians, the Haemus (Balkan) Mountains and the Black Sea. Strabo gave the more specific information recording that “the Dacians speak the same language as the Getae” a dialect of the Thracian language. The information provided by the Greek geographer is complemented by other literary, linguistic, and archeological evidence. According to these, the Geto-Dacians may have occupied the territory in the west and northwest as far as Moravia and the middle Danube , to the area of present-day Serbia in the southwest, and as far as the Haemus Mountains in the south. The eastern limit of the territory inhabited by the Geto-Dacians may have been the shore of the Black Sea and the Tyras River, possibly at times reaching as far as the Bug River, the northern limit reached the Trans-Carpathian Ukraine and southern Poland.

Over time, some peripheral areas of the Geto-Dacians' territories were affected by the presence of other people, such as the Celts in the West, the Illyrians in the Southwest, the Greeks and Scythians in the East, and the Bastarnae in the Northeast. Nevertheless, between the Tisza River, the Haemus Mountains, the Black Sea, the Dniester River, and the northern Carpathians, a continuous Geto-Dacian presence was maintained, according to some scholars.

According to the Bulgarian linguist Georgiev, the Daco-Mysian region included Dacia (approximately contemporary Romania and Hungary to the east of the Tisza River, Mysia (Moesia) and Scythia Minor (contemporary Dobrogea).

Chronology

1st century BC

In 53 BC, Julius Caesar stated that the lands of the Dacians started on the eastern edge of the Hercynian Forest. This corresponds to the period between 82-44 BCE, when the Dacian state reached its widest extent during the reign of king Burebista : in the West it may have extended as far as the middle Danube River valley (present-day Hungary), in the East and North to the Carpathians (in Slovakia) and in the South to the lower Dniester valley (southwestern Ukraine) and western coast of the Black Sea as far as Appollonia. At that time, some scholars believe, the Dacians built a series of hill-forts at Zemplin (Slovakia), Mala Kopania(Ukraine), Onceşti, Maramureş (Romania) and Solotvyno (Ukraine). {{Temporary occupation of a region by the Dacian military does not mean that the indigenous people became Dacian-speakers e.g. the natives of Slovakia, the Cotini and Osi were Celtic-speaking and remained so until at least the time of Tacitus' publication - AD 100)}} The Zemplin settlement appears to belong to a Celto-Dacian horizon, as well as the river Patissus (Tisza)'s region, including its upper stretch, according to Shchukin (1989). According to Parducz (1956) Foltiny (1966), Dacian archaeological finds extend to the West of Dacia, occurring along both banks of the Tisza. Besides the possible incorporation of a part of Slovakia into the Dacian state of Burebista, there was also Geto-Dacian penetration of south-eastern Poland, according to Mielczarek (1989). The Polish linguist Milewski Tadeusz (1966 and 1969) suggests that in the southern regions of Poland appear names unusual in northern Poland, possibly related to Dacian or Illyrian names. On the grounds of these names, it has been argued that the region of the Carpathian and Tatra Mountains was inhabited by Dacian tribes linguistically related to the ancestors of modern Albanians.

Also, a formal statement by Pliny indicated the river Vistula as the western boundary of Dacia, according to Nicolet (1991). Between the Prut and the Dniester, the northern extent of the appearance of Geto-Dacian elements in the 4th century BC coincides roughly with the extent of the present-day Republic of Moldova, according to Mielczarek.

According to Müllenhoff (1856) Shütte (1917) Urbannczyk (2001) Matei-Popescu (2007) Agrippa’s commentaries mention Vistula river as the western boundary of Dacia. Urbannczyk (1997) speculates that according to Agrippa’s commentaries along with the map of Agrippa (before 12 BC) Vistula river separated Germania and Dacia. Map is lost and its contents are unknown (See one possible reconstruction: [1] ) However, later Roman geographers, including Ptolemy (AD 90 – c. AD 168) (II.10, III.7) and Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117) (ref: Germania XLVI) considered the Vistula as the boundary between Germania and Sarmatia Europaea, or Germania and Scythia..

1st century AD

Around 20 AD, Strabo wrote the Geographica that provides information regarding to the extent of regions inhabited by Dacians. On its basis, Lengyel and Radan (1980), Hoddinott (1981) and Mountain (1998) consider that the Geto-Dacians inhabited both sides of the Tisza river prior to the rise of the Celtic Boii and again after the latter were defeated by the Dacians. The hold of the Dacians between Danube and Tisza appears to have been only loose. However, the Hungarian archaeologist Parducz (1856) argued a Dacian presence west of the Tisza dating from the time of Burebista (Ehrich 1970). According to Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117) Dacians were bordering Germany in the South-east while Sarmatians bordered it in the East.

In the 1st century AD, the Iazyges settled West of Dacia, on the plain between the Danube and the Tisza rivers, according to some scholars' interpretation of Pliny's text: “The higher parts between the Danube and the Hercynian Forest (Black Forest) as far as the winter quarters of Pannonia at Carnuntum and the plains and level country of the German frontiers there are occupied by the Sarmatian Iazyges, while the Dacians whom they have driven out hold the mountains and forests as far as the river Theiss”. Archaeological sources indicate that the local Celto-Dacian population retained its specificity as late as the third century. Archaeological finds dated to the 2nd c. AD, after the Roman conquest, indicate that during that period, vessels found in some of the so-called Iazygian cemetery reveal fairly strong Dacian influence, according to Mocsy. M. Párducz (1956) and Z. Visy (1971) reported a concentration of Dacian-style finds in the Cris-Mures-Tisza region and in the Danube bend area (around Budapest). These maps of finds remain valid today, but they have been complemented with additional finds that cover a wider area, particularly the interfluvial region between the Danube and Tisza (Toma 2007). However, this interpretation has been invalidated by late 20th-century archaeology, which has discovered Sarmatian settlements and burial sites all over the Hungarian Plain, on both sides of the Tisza e.g. Gyoma (SE Hungary) , Nyiregyhaza (NE Hungary). The Barrington Atlas shows Iazyges occupying both sides of Tisza (map 20).

2nd century AD

Central Europe map that includes Dacia

Written a few decades after the Roman conquest of Dacia 105-106 AD, Ptolemy's Geographia defined the boundaries of Dacia. According to some scholars' interpretation of Ptolemy (Hrushevskyi 1997, Bunbury 1879, Mocsy 1974, Barbulescu and Nagler 2005) Dacia was the region between the rivers Tisza, Danube, upper Dniester, and Siret (although Ptolemy (III.8.1) actually specifies the Thibiscum (river Timiş River) as the western border of Dacia). The mainstream of historians accepted this interpretation: Avery (1972) Berenger (1994) Fol (1996) Mountain (1998), Waldman Mason (2006). Ptolemy also provided Dacian toponyms in the Upper Vistula (Polish: Wisla) river basin (Poland): Susudava and Setidava (with a manuscript variant Getidava). This may be an “echo” of Burebista’s expansion. It appears that this northern expansion of the Dacian language as far as the Vistula river, lasted until AD 170-180 when the Hasdings, a Germanic tribe, expelled a Dacian group from this region, according to Shutte (1917) and Childe (1930). This Dacian group is associated by Shutte (1952) with towns having the specific Dacian language ending 'dava' i.e. Setidava. A previous Dacian presence that ended with the Hasdings' arrival is considered by Heather (2010) who says that the Hasdings Vandals “attempted to take control of lands which had previously belonged to a free Dacian group called the Costoboci” On the northern slopes of the Carpathians were mentioned several tribes that are generally considered Thraco-Dacian, i.e. Arsietae (Upper Vistula) , Biessi / Biessoi and Piengitai. Schutte (1952) associated the Dacian tribe of Arsietae with the Arsonion town. And, the ancient documents attest names with the Dacian name ending -dava 'town' in the Balto-Slavic territory, in the country of Arsietae tribe, at the sources of the Vistula river. The Biessi inhabited the foothills of the 'Carpathian Mountains,' which on Ptolemy's map are located on the headwaters of the Dnister and Sian Rivers (right-bank Carpathian tributary of the Vistula river). Biessi (Biessoi) probably have left their name to the mountain chain of Bieskides, that continues the small Carpathian Mountains towards the north (Shutte 1952). Ptolemy (140 AD) lists only Germanic or Balto-Slavic tribes, and no Dacians), on both sides of the Vistula (ref: II.10; III.7), as does the Barrington Atlas (map 19)

After the Marcomannic Wars (166-180 AD), Dacian groups from outside Roman Dacia had been set in motion. So were the 12,000 Dacians "from the neighbourhood of Roman Dacia sent away from their own country". Their native country could have been the Upper Tisza region but some other places cannot be excluded.

Dacian linguistic zone in the era of Augustus

Core zone

At the start of the Roman imperial era, during the rule of the emperor Augustus (30 BC - AD14), the Dacian language was spoken, North of the Danube, in the ancient region of Dacia, defined by Ptolemy (Geographia III.8) as the area contained by the river Ister (Danube) to the South, the river Thibiscum (Timiş) to the W., the upper river Tyras (Dniester) to the N. and the river Hierasus (Siret) to the E. )The line of the Timiş, extended northwards, corresponds to the line of the modern Arad-Timişoara highway, and it appears that the -dava placenames in Georgiev's map lie East of this line (although some cannot be located with precision).

South of the Danube, a dialect of Dacian was probably spoken in the region known to the Romans as Moesia, which was divided by them into the Roman provinces of Moesia Superior (roughly mod. Serbia) and Moesia Inferior (mod. N. Bulgaria as far as the Balkan range plus Rom. Dobrogea region). The main evidence for this is the distribution of -dava placenames, which occur in the eastern half of Moesia Superior and all over Inferior.) These regions were inhabited by tribes believed to have been Dacian-speaking, such as the Triballi, Moesi and Getae.

The northernmost part of Dacia as defined by Ptolemy, i.e. the region between the northern Carpathians and the upper stretch of the Dniester, may not have been mainly Dacian-speaking.) Ptolemy (III.8.3) lists two Celtic peoples, the Taurisci and Anartes as resident alongside the Costoboci. )(The latter are considered by mainstream scholarship to have been ethnic Dacians, but this is disputed by several scholars). The Germanic Bastarnae are also attested in this region in literature and the archaeological record during the 1st century BC.

Other regions

It has been argued that the zone of Dacian speech extended beyond the confines of Dacia (as defined by Ptolemy) and Moesia. An extreme view, presented by some outdated scholars, is that Dacian was a major language spoken all the way from the Baltic sea to the Black and Aegean seas. But the evidence for Dacian as a prevalent language outside Dacia and Moesia is inconclusive.

To the South, it has been argued that the ancient Thracian language was a dialect of Dacian (or vice versa) and that therefore the Dacian linguistic zone extended over the Roman province of Thracia (Bulgaria S of Balkan Mts, northern Greece and European Turkey), as far as the Aegean sea. But this theory (the Daco-Thracian, or Thraco-Dacian, theory) , ultimately based on the testimony of the Augustan-era geographer Strabo (Geographica VII.3.2 and 3.13), is disputed, with opponents arguing that Thracian was a distinct language from Dacian, either related or unrelated (see below, Thracian).)

In addition, Strabo (VII.3.2) equates the Moesi people with the Mysi (Mysians) of NW Anatolia, stating that the two forms were Greek and Latin variants of the same name. The Mysians, he adds, were Moesi who had migrated to Anatolia and who spoke the same language i.e. Dacian. But there is not sufficient evidence about either Dacian or the Mysian language to verify Strabo's claim.) It is possible that Strabo was making a false identification based solely on the similarity between the two tribal names, which may have been coincidental. The need for caution about Strabo's linguistic linkages is demonstrated by his further claim that the Mysians' neighbours, the Phrygians, were descended from a Thracian tribe and thus also spoke a similar language to the Thracians/Dacians. This is rejected by mainstream scholarship today, which considers the Phrygian language, which is much better documented than the other two, a separate branch of IE, and a language unrelated to Thracian or Dacian.

To the West, some scholars have asserted that Dacian was also the main language of the sedentary population of the Hungarian Plain, at least as far as the river Tisza, and even as far as the Danube. Statements by ancient authors such as Caesar, Strabo and Pliny the Elder have been (controversially) interpreted as supporting this view, but these are too vague to be of much geographical value.) Otherwise, there little evidence to support the thesis of a large ethnic-Dacian population on the Plain:

1. Toponyms: None of the 8 placenames on the Plain given by Ptolemy (III.7.1) carry the -dava suffix.)

1. Archaeology: The archaeology of the sedentary population of the Plain has been interpreted by some scholars as showing Dacian (Mocsy 1974) or Celto-Dacian (Parducz 1956) features. But Maráz (1974), Szabó (2005) and Almássy (2006) consider that the sedentary population of the Plain 100 BC - AD 100 was ethnic Celtic (possibly mixed with remnants of a Scythian people) and that any Dacian-style features were cultural imports. Of 94 sites dated to this period excavated 1986-2006, the vast majority have been identified as Celtic, while only two as possibly (and none as certainly) Dacian, according to Almassy. Visy (1995) also concludes that there is little archaeological evidence of a Dacian population on the Plain before the Sarmatian occupation in the later 1st century AD.
2. Epigraphy: Inscription AE (1905) 14 refers to a campaign of the Augustan-era general Marcus Vinucius across the Danube in 14-12 BC. It states: "Marcus Vinucius... governor of Illyricum, the first [general] to cross the river Danube, defeated in battle and routed an army of Dacians and Bastarnae, and subjected the Cotini, Osi and Anartes to the authority of the emperor Augustus and of the people of Rome." [2] It has been suggested that the latter Celtic tribes constituted the native population of the Plain, who, until Vinucius' offensive were subject to Dacian political hegemony, but became tribute-payers to Rome thereafter.

To the East, beyond the Siret, it has been argued by numerous Romanian scholars that Dacian was also the main language of the modern regions of Moldavia and Bessarabia, as far East as the river Dniester. The main evidence adduced to support this consists of 3 -dava placenames which Ptolemy located East of the Siret (but described as pará - "very close" - to that river e.g. Piroboridava, identified with Poiana-Tecuci, is just 3km E of the Siret); and the mainstream identification as ethnic-Dacian of two peoples resident in Moldavia: the Carpi and Costoboci (but the Dacian ethnicity of the Carpi and Costoboci is disputed in academic circles, and they have also been variously identified as Sarmatian, Germanic, Celtic or even proto-Slavic. In any case, numerous non-Dacian peoples, both sedentary and nomadic, (Scytho-Sarmatian Roxolani and Agathyrsi, Germanic Bastarnae and Celtic Anartes), are attested in the ancient sources and in the archaeological record as inhabiting this region. The linguistic status of this region during the Roman era must therefore be considered uncertain.

To the Northwest, the argument has been advanced that Dacian was also prevalent in Slovakia and parts of Poland. The basis for this is the presumed Dacian fortress of Zemplin in Slovakia (dated to the era of king Burebista) and Ptolemy's location of two -dava placenames on the lower river Vistula in Poland. But even if Slovakia was occupied by Dacian troops for a period in the 1st century BC, it does not follow that the indigenous population became Dacian-speakers. The evidence, accepted by mainstream scholarship, is that the indigenous population of this region was composed of Celtic-speaking tribes: the Osi and Cotini, according to Tacitus' Germania (ca. AD 100). As regards Poland, the two -dava names are suspect. Setidava also appears near the Danube in Ptolemy's account of Dacia proper; while Susudata appears a mis-spelling of Susudava. It is thus possible that the inclusion of these names on the Vistula was due to a copying error by a medieval monk. In any case, the hypothesis of a substantial Dacian population in Poland is not widely supported among modern scholars, as this region is generally regarded as inhabited predominantly by Germanic tribes during the Roman era e.g. Heather (2009). According to Heather (2007) between about 180 and 320, Germanic groups from the north-west, largely from what is now central and northern Poland advanced around the outer fringes of the Carpathian Mountains, North of the Black Sea, by competing against each other, against indigenous populations such as the Dacian-speaking Carpi and Iranian-speaking Sarmatians and against Roman garrison forces.

Dacian vocabulary

See also: List of Dacian names

Settlements and fortresses

See also: List of Dacian towns

Dava element

Main article: Davae

Onomastic range of the Dacian towns with the dava ending, covering Dacia, Moesia, Thrace and Dalmatia

Ptolemy gives a list of 43 names of towns in Dacia, out of which arguably 33 were of Dacian origin. Most of the latter included the added suffix ‘dava’ (meaning settlement, village) But, other Dacian names from his list lack the suffix (e.g. Zarmisegethusa regia = Zermizirga) In addition, nine other names of Dacian origin seem to have been latinised.

The Dacian linguistic area is characterized mainly with composite names ending in -dava (-deva, -daua, -daba, etc.) ‘a town’. The settlement names ending in -dava, -deva, are geographically grouped as follows:

1. In Dacia: Acidava, Argedava, Argidava, Buridava, Cumidava, Dokidaua, Karsidaua, Klepidaua, Markodaua, Netindaua, Patridaua, Pelendova, *Perburidava, Petrodaua, Piroboridaua, Rhamidaua, Rusidava, Sacidaba, Sangidaua, Setidava, Singidaua, Sykidaba, Tamasidaua, Utidaua, Zargidaua, Ziridava, Zucidaua – 26 names altogether.

2. In Lower Moesia (the present Northern Bulgaria) and Scythia Minor (Dobruja): Aedabe, *Buteridava, *Giridava, Dausdavua, Kapidaua, Murideba, Sacidava, Scaidava (Skedeba), Sagadava, Sukidaua (Sucidava) – 10 names in total.

3. In Upper Moesia (the present districts of Nish, Sofia, and partly Kjustendil): Aiadaba, Bregedaba, Danedebai, Desudaba, Itadeba, Kuimedaba, Zisnudeba – 7 names in total.

4. Besides these regions, similar village names are found in three other places: Thermi-daua (Ptolemy), a town in Dalmatia. A Grecized form of *Germidava. This settlement was probably found by immigrants from Dacia.

Gil-doba – a village in Thrace, of unknown location.

Pulpu-deva in Thrace - today Plovdiv in Bulgaria

Settlements with irregular names

See also: List of Dacian towns

There are a number of Dacian settlements which don't have the usual -dava, -deva or -daba ending. Some of them include: Acmonia, Aizis, Amutria, Apulon, Arcina, Arcobadara, Arutela, Berzobis, Brucla, Diacum, Dierna, Dinogetia, Drobeta, Egeta, Genucla, Malva (Romula), Napoca, Oescus, Patruissa, Pinon, Potaissa, Ratiaria, Sarmizegetusa, Tapae, Tibiscum, Tirista, Tsierna, Tyrida, Zaldapa, Zeugma and Zurobara.

Tribal names

See also: List of Dacian tribes

In the case of Ptolemy's Dacia, the tribal names include mostly names similar to those from the list of civitates and very few others. Georgiev counts the Triballi, the Moesians and the Dardanians as Daco-Moesians.

Names of kings and leaders

See also: List of Dacian kings

Plant names

Main article: List of Dacian plant names

Dioscorides, De Materia Medica, Byzantium, 15th century.

In ancient literary sources, the Dacian names for a number of medicinal plants and herbs survive in ancient texts. that includes about 60 plants names with Dioscorides.

The Greek physician Pedanius Dioscorides, of Anazarbus in Asia Minor, wrote Περί ύλης ιατρικής in Greek or De materia medica in Latin about the middle of the 1st century AD. In Wellmannn’s opinion (1913), accepted by Russu (1967), the Dacian plant names had been added in the copies of the 3rd century AD from a Glossary edited by the Greek grammarian Pamphilus of Alexandria (1st c. AD). The Dacian glosses had been probably added to the Pseudo-Apuleius’ texts, by the 4th century. The mixture of the autochthonous Dacian, the Latin and the Greek words in the lists of Dacian plant names could be explained by the linguistic crossing process occurring in that period.

The toponyms of Dacian, ambiguous though they may be, are better guides than the names of medicinal plants provided by the physician Dioscorides (1st century AD), and which lead to speculative comparisons; out of 57 plants, 25 learned guesses are perhaps half wrong. According to the Bulgarian linguist Decev, only 25 out of the 42 Dacian plant names of the Dioscorides work are in Dacian while 10 out of 42 are Latin and 7 out of 42 are Greek. Also, only 14 out of the 31 Dacian plant names recorded by Pseudo-Apuleius are in Dacian while 9 out of 31 are Latin and 8 out of 31 are Greek.

Examples of common Dacian, Latin and Greek words within Pseudo-Apuleius text:

• Dacian blis and Latin blitum (<from Greek bliton) 'Purple Amaranth'
• Dacian amolusta and Campanians amolocia 'Chamomile'
• Dacian dracontos and Italic people dracontes 'Rosemary'

Reconstruction of Dacian words

Main article: List of reconstructed Dacian words

Both Georgiev and Duridanov use the comparative linguistic method to decipher ancient Thracian and Dacian names, respectively.

Georgiev (1976) argues that one can reliably decipher the meaning of an ancient place-name in an unknown language by comparing it to its successor-names and to cognate place-names and words in other IE languages, both ancient and modern. Georgiev considers decipherment by analysis of root-words(Wurzeletymologien) to be "devoid of scientific value". He gives several examples of his methodology, of which one is partly reproduced here:

The town and river (a tributary of the Danube) in eastern Romania called Cernavodă. In Slavic, the name means "black water". The same town in antiquity was known as Ἀξίοπα (Axiopa) or Ἀξιούπολις (Axioupolis) and its river as the Ἀξιός (Axios). The working assumption is, therefore, that Axiopa means "black water" in Dacian and Cernavodă may be a loan-translation of the ancient Dacian name. In Georgiev's opinion, Dacian Axios probably meant black since there is another major affluent of the Vardar that is called Crna (reka) 'black (river)' in Macedonia. Vardar would have been derived from *sword(o)wori “black water’ cf. Gothic swarts German Schwarz ‘black’. And, one must assume that Dacian Axios comes from *η-ks(e)y-no 'dark, black' cf. Avestan axsaena ‘dark, black’ from IE *η-ksey-no- compound of the prefix *η becoming *a ‘no’ and *xsay- ‘to be brilliant, to shine’. According to Georgiev, the name of the Macedonian Axios was Daco-Moesian (Dardanian). On the basis of the known rules of formation of IE composite words, Axiopa would break down as axi = "black" and opa or upa = "water" in Dacian (the -polis element is ignored, as it is a Greek suffix meaning "city"). The assumption is then validated by examining cognate placenames. The axi element is validated also by the older Greek name for the Black Sea, Ἄξεινος πόντος cf. Avestan axsaena ‘dark, black’ (Axeinos pontos, later altered to the euphemism Εὔξεινος πόντος Euxeinos pontos = "Hospitable sea"). The opa/upa element is validated by the Lithuanian cognate upė ("water") an by the Romanian cognate apă ("water"). The second component of the town's name *upolis can be equated as diminutive of the *upa, with Lithuanian's diminutive upelis. (N.B. This etymology was questioned by Russu: Axiopa, a name attested only in Procopius' De Aedificiis, may be a corrupt form of Axiopolis). And, Fraser (1959) noticed that the root ‘’axio’’ that occurs in the place-name Axiopa is also found in Samothrace and in Sparta (where Athena Axiopoina was worshiped). Therefore, he considers this pre-Greek root as being of Thracian origin, the equivalent for ‘great’.

Reasons for some linguists’ scepticism of this reconstruction methodology of Dacian include:

1. Phonetic systems of Dacian and Thracian and their evolution are not reconstructed from elements from the involved ancient languages but from their approximate Greek and Latin transcripts. Greek like Latin had no special graphic sign for a series of phonemes like č, ġ, ž, š and others, specific – even inevitable – in a satem language like Thracian. If a Thracian word had such a phoneme it is clear that the Greeks could not spell it correctly. Note that since Thracian is classified satem, Greek and Latin are classified as centum languages. It is there at the outset a scholarly problem as to how faithfully the Thracian phonology system has been rendered by the Greek or Latin test of an ancient source.
2. The etymologies that are adduced to back up the proposed Dacian and Thracian vowels and consonants changes (that are used for language words reconstruction with comparative method) are open to divergent interpretations, since the material is strictly onomastic, with the exception of Dacian plant names and of the limited number of glosses. Because of this, there are divergent and even contradictory assumptions for the phonological structure and development of Dacian and Thracian languages. It is there at the outset a scholarly problem as to how faithfully the Thracian phonology system has been rendered by the Greek or Latin test of an ancient source.
3. In the case of personal names, the choice of the etymology is often a matter of compliance with assumed phonological rules.
4. Since, based on the work of V. Georgiev, the geographical aspect of occurrence of sound changes (i.e. o > a) within "Thracian territory" considered in the wider sense began to be emphasized by some researchers, the chronological aspect has been rather neglected.
5. There are numerous and important cases where lack of information obscured in such a way the aspect of the vocalism of these idioms, that generated the most contradictory theories. Now, there are known 3000 Thraco-Dacian lexical units (an important number is literarily and epigraphically attested). In the case of the oscillation *o / *a, the total number of words containing it is about thirty, much more than the ones cited by both Georgiev and Russu, and the same explanation is not valid for all of them.

Sound changes from Proto-Indo-European

Phonologically Dacian is a conservative IE language. From remaining fragments, the sound changes from PIE to Dacian can be grouped as follows.

Short vowels

1. PIE *a and *o appear as a.
2. PIE accented *e, appears as ye in open syllable or ya in closed ones. Otherwise, PIE un-accented *e remains e.
3. PIE *i, was preserved in Dacian as i.

Long vowels

1. PIE *ē and *ā appears as *ā
2. PIE *ō was preserved as *ō

Diphthongs

1. PIE *ai was preserved as *ai
2. PIE *oi appears in Dacian as *ai
3. PIE *ei evolution is not well reconstructed yet. It appears to be preserved to ei or that already passed to i.
4. PIE *wa was preserved as *wa.
5. PIE *wo appears as *wa.
6. PIE *we was preserved as *we.
7. PIE *wy appears as *vi.
8. PIE *aw was preserved as *aw.
9. PIE *ow appears as *aw.
10. PIE *ew was preserved as *ew.

Consonants

Like many IE stocks it has merged the two series of voiced stops.

1. Both *d and *dh became d,
2. Both *g and *gh became g
3. Both *b and *bh became b
4. PIE *ḱ passed to ts
5. PIE *ǵ passed to dz
6. PIE *kʷ when followed by e, i passed to c^ (like in English chart) Otherwise passed to k. Same fate for PIE cluster *kw.
7. PIE *gʷ and *gʷh when followed by e or i passed to g^ Otherwise passed to g. Same fate for PIE cluster *gw
8. PIE *m, *n, *p, *r, *l were preserved.

Note: In the course of the diachronic development of Dacian, a palatalization of k and g appears to have occurred before front vowels according to the following process

• k > [kj] > [tj] > [t∫] ~ [ts] {ts} or {tz} > [s] ~ [z] {z} e.g.:*ker(s)na is reflected by Tierna (Tabula Peutingeriana) Dierna (in inscriptions and Ptolemy), *Tsierna in station Tsiernen[sis], AD 157, Zernae (notitia Dignitatum), (colonia) Zernensis (Ulpian)
• g > [gj] > [dj] > [dz] ~ > [z] {z} e.g.:Germisara appears as Γερμιζερα, with the variants Ζερμιζίργα, Ζερμίζιργα

Classification

There is no dispute among scholars that Dacian was an Indo-European language (IE). Russu (1967, 1969 and 1970) suggested that the phonological system of Dacian and, therefore, of its presumed Thraco-Dacian parent-language, was relatively close to the primitive IE system.

Several linguists classify Dacian as a satem IE language: Russu , Radulescu (1987),, Katicic (1976) and Krizman (1976). In Crossland’s opinion (1982), Thracian and Dacian feature one of the main satem characteristics, the change of Indo-European *k and *g to s and z. But the other characteristic satem changes are doubtful in Thracian and not evidenced in Dacian.

There is, however, much controversy about the place of Dacian in the IE evolutionary "tree". According to a dated view, Dacian derived from a Daco-Thraco-Phrygian (or "Paleo-Balkan") branch of IE. Today, the Phrygian is no longer widely seen as linked in this way to Dacian and Thracian.

In contrast, the hypothesis of a "Thraco-Dacian" (or "Daco-Thracian") branch of IE, indicating a close link between the Thracian and Dacian languages, has numerous adherents, including Russu 1967, Georg Solta 1980, Vraciu 1980, Crossland 1982 , Radulescu 1984, 1987 . Mihailov (2008) and Trask 2000. The Daco-Thracian theory is ultimately based on the testimony of several Greco-Roman authors: most notably, the Roman imperial-era historian and geographer Strabo, who states that the Dacians, Getae, Moesians and Thracians all spoke essentially the same language. (Ref: Strabo Geographica VII.3.2, 3.13). Herodotus states that "the Getae are the bravest and the most just amongst the Thracians", further evidence linking the Getae, and thus the Dacians, with the Thracians. Some scholars also see support for a close link between the Thracian and Dacian languages in the works of Cassius Dio, Trogus Pompeius, Appian and Pliny the Elder.

But the Daco-Thracian theory has been challenged since the 1960s by the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir I. Georgiev and his followers. Georgiev argues, on phonetic, lexical and toponymic grounds, that Thracian, Dacian and Phrygian were completely different languages, each constituting a separate branch of IE, and that no Daco-Thraco-Phrygian, or Daco-Thracian, branch of IE ever existed. Georgiev argues that the distance between Dacian and Thracian was approximately the same as that between the Armenian and Persian languages (which are completely different languages, although Armenian contains many Persian loanwords. These two languages are today generally seen to belong to separate IE branches: the Iranic branch and a stand-alone Armenian branch, respectively).

In elaborating the phonology of Dacian, Georgiev makes considerable use of plant-names attested in Dioscorides and Pseudo-Apuleius, ascertaining their literal meanings, and hence their etymology, with the help of the Greek translations, furnished by those authors. The phonology of Dacian produced in this way is strikingly different from that of the Thracian: the vowel change IE *o > * a recurs, and the k-sounds undergo the changes characteristic of the satem languages. For the phonology of the Thracian, Georgiev adopts the principle that an intelligible place-name in a modern language is likely to be a translation of an ancient name.

Georgiev (1977) also advanced the theory, on phonological grounds, that the modern Albanian language is descended from Dacian, or more precisely from the IE branch which he dubbed "Daco-Moesian" (or Daco-Mysian). But this view has not gained a wide acceptance among scholars and is rejected by most Albanian linguists, who consider that Albanian belongs to the Illyrian branch of IE. (Ref: Lloshi, 1999, p283). Polome accepts the view that Albanian is descended from Illyrian on balance, but considers the evidence inconclusive.

Relationship with ancient languages

See also: Paleo-Balkan languages

Thracian

See also: Thraco-Dacian, Thracian language, and Classification of Thracian

There is general agreement among scholars that both Dacian and Thracian were Indo-European languages. But beyond this, there are widely divergent views about their precise relationship:

1. Dacian was a northern dialect or a slightly distinct variety of the Thracian language.
2. One recent theory sustains that Dacian became distinct from Thracian, but the differentiation took place probably only after 1500 BC. Alternatively, Thracian was a southern dialect of Dacian which developed relatively late. Linguists use the term "Daco-Thracian" (or "Thraco-Dacian") to denote this presumed Dacian and Thracian common language. On this view, these dialects may have been mutually intelligible. A possible modern parallel is the relationship of Danish with Swedish.
3. Dacian and Thracian were not closely related, constituting separate branches of IE and quite different languages. However, they shared a large number of lexica, which were mutual borrowings due to long-term geographical proximity. A modern parallel may be the relationship between Romanian and Bulgarian. These are completely different languages, being descended from the Romance and Slavic branches of IE respectively. But through long interaction with Slavs during the medieval era, the early speakers of Romanian (the Vlachs) acquired a large number of Slavic loanwords, which today amount to ca. 10-15% of the Romanian lexicon.

Georgiev and his followers argue that the phonetic development from IE of the two languages is clearly divergent. Prominent among these differences are consonant-shifts that Georgiev claims occurred in Thracian but not in Dacian: IE *t became Thracian ta, and *m = t. However, Daco-Thracianists deny that such a consonant-shifts occurred, arguing instead that in both languages Indo-European *ma fused into m and that IE *t remained unchanged. Georgiev also argued that the vocalic development of the two languages also diverged. For example, the Indo-European (IE) *e changed in Daco-Moesian to *ie eg the Dacian tribal name Biessoi, but not in Thracian: eg the Thracian tribe named Bessoi. But Russu rejects Georgiev's suggestion that IE *o mutated into a in Thracian. Georgiev also argues that placenames in the Daco-Moesian zone show different and generally less extensive changes in Indo-European consonants and vowels than those found in Thrace.

A comparison of Georgiev's and Duridanov's reconstructed words with the same meaning in the two languages shows that, although they shared some common lexica, most words were quite different. According to Georgiev (1977), Dacian placenames and personal names are "completely different" from their Thracian counterparts. However, Tomaschek (1883) and Mateescu (1923) argue that some common elements exist in Dacian and Thracian placenames and personal names.

Georgiev attempted to demonstrate a linguistically significant toponymic fact: Daco-Moesian placenames generally end in -DAVA (variants: -daba, -deva: "town" or "stronghold"). But placenames in Thrace proper (i.e. South of the Haemus range - Balkan mountains) usually end in -PARA variant: -pera: "village" or "settlement" (cf Hindi suffix -pur = "town" e.g. Udaipur ., or, in fewer cases, in -BRIA ("town") or -DIZA (or -dizos: "stronghold") According to Georgiev (1981), 'para' probably meant river. But Papazoglu (1978) and Tacheva (1997) reject the argument that such different placename-endings imply different languages. Also, Papazoglu (1978) and Fisher (2003) argue that a few -dava placenames are found in Thrace e.g. Pulpudeva and Desudaba, diminishing the validity of the toponymic divide as evidence of separate languages. However, according to Georgiev (1977), East of a line formed by the rivers Nestos and Uskur, the traditional western boundary of Thrace proper, Pulpudeva is the sole known -dava-type placename, and Georgiev argues that it is not linguistically significant, as it was a late foundation by the Macedonian king Philip II (Philippopolis) and its -dava name a Moesian import. (N.B. West of the Nestos-Uskur line, lies a region where -dava placenames, including Desudaba, are intermingled with -para names. This does not necessarily invalidate Georgiev's thesis, as this region was the border-zone between the Roman provinces of Moesia Superior and Thracia and the mixed placename suffixes may reflect a mixed Thracian/Moesian population.) For a map of the dava/para divide, see this (very approximative) reproduction of Georgiev's toponymic map: [3]

Despite Georgiev's approach, the Thraco-Dacian theory retains substantial support among modern linguists. For example:

• Crossland (1982) considers that the divergence of a (presumed) original Thraco-Dacian language into northern and southern groups of dialects is not so significant as to rank them as separate languages.
• According to Georg Solta (1982), there is no significant difference between Dacian and Thracian..
• Radulescu (1984) accepts that Daco-Moesian possesses a certain degree of dialectal individuality, but argues that there is no fundamental separation between Daco-Moesian and Thracian.
• Renfrew (1990) argues that there is no doubt that the Thracian is related to the Dacian which was spoken in what is today Romania before that area was occupied by the Romans.

Polomé (1982) considers that the evidence adduced by Georgiev and Duridanov, although substantial, is not sufficient to determine if Daco-Moesian and Thracian were two dialects of the same language or two distinct languages. Thus it appears that the controversy over whether Dacian and Thracian were the same language, or related or completely different, will not be resolved unless substantial new evidence is discovered.

Moesian

See also: Moesi, Moesia, and Dacia Aureliana

The ethnonym Moesi was used within the lands alongside the Danube river, in north-western Thrace. As analysed by some modern scholars, the ancient authors used the name Moesi speculatively to designate Triballians and also Getic and Dacian communities.

Illyrian

See also: Illyrian language and Thraco-Illyrian

It is possible that Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian proper are three different dialects of the same language. Georgiev however (1966) regards Illyrian as a language closely related on the one hand to Venetic on the other to Phrygian but with a certain Daco-Mysian admixture. Venetic and Phrygian are considered Centum languages, and this may mean that Georgiev, like many other paleolinguists, viewed Illyrian as probably being a Centum language with Daco-Moesian admixture. Georgiev proposed that Albanian, a satemized language, developed from Daco-Moesian, a satemized language group, not from Illyrian which he grouped with two Centum languages, Venetic and Phrygian.

Phrygian

See also: Phrygian language

Scythian and Sarmatian

See also: Scythian languages, Scythia Minor, Getae, and History of Dobruja

Bactrian

See also: Bactrian language

Tomaschek (1883) considers that etymologies proposed for Dacian names, toponyms and plants are better explained by the Aryan language dialects, specifically by the Indian language as well as by the Bactrian language.

Greek

See also: Ancient Greek

Gothic

See also: Gothic language

There was a tradition well established in the 4th century that Getae (Dacians) and Gothi were the same people. i.e. Orosius “Getae illi qui et nunc Gothi” The identity of Getae (Dacians) and Goths was still defended by Jacob Grimm (the discoverer of Grimm's Law). Grimm while pursuing his unfortunate hypothesis proved many kindred features between the Getae (Dacians) and Germans.

Celtic

See also: Celtic language

Among the Dacian names of plants, the only two that can be explained propedula ‘cinquefoil’ and dyn ‘nettle’ are pure Celtic.

Slavic

See also: Slavic language

An analogy between the Getic (Dacian) and Slavic tongues was acutely recognized by Mullenhof.

Relationship with modern languages

Romanian

See also: List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin

There is a general consensus among scholars that Daco-Moesian is the main linguistic substratum of modern Romanian, a neo-Latin (Romance) language, which evolved from eastern Balkan Romance in the period AD 300-600, according to Georgiev. The residual influence of Daco-Moesian on modern Romanian is limited to a modest number of words and a few grammatical peculiarities. According to Georgiev (1981) in Romanian there are about 70 words which have exact correspondences in Albanian, but the phonetic form of these Romanian words is so specific that they cannot be explained as Albanian borrowings. These words belong to the Dacian substratum in Romanian, while their Albanian correspondences were inherited from Daco-Mysian.

Substratum of Proto-Romanian

Main article: Eastern Romance substratum

See also: Daco-Romanian, Daco-Romanian continuity, and Thraco-Roman

Blue=lands conquered by the Roman Empire.
Red = area populated by Free Dacians.
Language map based on the range of Dacian toponyms.

It has been argued that Romanian is, genetically, Daco-Romanian i.e. that it derives from the late Latin superimposed on a Dacian substratum in the Roman colony of Dacia between the second century BC and the third century AD. The Dacian substratum of Romanian contains some 160-170 words, with more than 1400 derivatives. By comparison, in French there are 180 words of Celtic origin. It is argued that the Dacian language may form the substratum of the Proto-Romanian language, which developed from the Vulgar Latin spoken in the Balkans north of the Jirecek line, which roughly divides Latin influence from Greek influence. About 300 words in Eastern Romance (Daco-Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, Istro-Romanian) may derive from Dacian, and many of these show a satem-reflex, as one would expect in Daco-Thracian words.

Whether Dacian in fact forms the substratum of Proto-Romanian is disputed (see Origin of the Romanians), yet this theory does not necessarily rely only in the Romanization having occurred in Roman Dacia, as Dacian was also spoken in Moesia, and as far south as northern Dardania. Both, Moesia and Dacia belong to the Latin-speaking territories: Moesia was romanized shortly after its conquest and the Latinity of the lower Danube territory is confirmed by Christian sources.

The Jireček Line, an imaginary line through the ancient Balkans that divided the influences of the Latin (in the north) and Greek (in the south) languages until the 4th century. This line is important in establishing the Romanization area in Balkans

Dacian / Thracian substratum of Romanian is often connected to the shared words between Romanian and Albanian. The correspondences between Albanian and Romanian reflect a common linguistic background.

By rejecting the thesis of Illyrian- Albanian identification, Bulgarian linguist Vladimir Georgiev concludes that the Albanians came from what is now Romania (or the region of Serbia close to modern Romania) and that their language developed during the 4th to 6th centuries when proto-Rumanian was formed. Romanian he sees as a completely romanized Dacian-Moesian language, whereas Albanian is a semiromanized Dacian-Moesian language. However, Dacian and Illyrian may be more similar than linguists think

Romanian linguist Russu I.I. explicitly assigns a Thraco-Dacian origin of the pre-Roman lexical material shared by Albanian and Romanian. He stated that Albanians descend from a part of the Carpi (free Dacian tribe) Other linguists support that Albanian is a direct continuation of the language of the Bessians, a Thracian tribe living in the Rhodope Mountains.

Aromanian

See also: Aromanian language and Thraco-Roman

Megleno-Romanian

See also: Megleno-Romanian language and Thraco-Roman

Istro-Romanian

See also: Megleno-Romanian language

Albanian

See also: Origin of the Albanians and Albanian language

Georgiev further suggested that Daco-Moesian is the ancestor of the modern Albanian language, based on the phonologies of the two languages. Based on certain marked lexical and grammatical affinities between Albanian and Romanian, he also suggested proto-Albanian speakers migrated from Dardania into the region where Albanian is spoken today. However, this theory is rejected by most Albanian linguists, who consider Albanian a direct descendant of ancient Illyrian. Polomé supports this view on balance, but considers the evidence inconclusive.

Baltic languages

A number of scholars have pointed to the many close parallels between Dacian and Thracian placenames and those of the Baltic language-zone (Lithuania, Latvia and East Prussia, a region where an extinct but well-documented Baltic language, Old Prussian, was spoken until it was displaced by German during the Middle Ages. These Baltic parallels have enabled linguists to decipher many Dacian and Thracian placenames. Of the 74 Dacian placenames analysed by Duridanov in his 1969 essay, a total of 62 have Baltic cognates, the great majority rated "certain" by Duridanov. To explain this, Duridanov suggests that proto-Dacian- and proto-Thracian- speakers were in close geographical proximity with proto-Baltic-speakers for a prolonged period in prehistory, perhaps during the period 3000-2000 BC. Mayer ventures further, suggesting that Dacian and Thracian were what he terms "southern pre-Baltoidic" languages, presumably meaning either proto-Baltic or close descendants of proto-Baltic. The partially satem characteristics of Thracian and Dacian and their similarities to the Baltic group suggest that an ancestral Thraco-Dacian people was settled in Dacia until part of it migrated into Thrace

The fate of Dacian

A map showing a theoretical scenario, the Albanians as a migrant Dacian people.

From the earliest times they were attested, Dacians lived both sides of Danube, and on both sides of Carpathians (see the Northern Dacian town Setidava). It is unclear exactly when the Dacian language became extinct, or even whether it has a living descendant. The initial Roman conquest of part of Dacia did not put an end to the language, as Free Dacian tribes such as the Carpi may have continued to speak Dacian in the area northeast of the Carpathians (in the areas of modern Moldova and Ukraine) as late as the 6th or 7th century AD, still capable of leaving some influences in the forming Slavic languages.

• According to one hypothesis, a branch of Dacian continued as the Albanian language (Hasdeu, 1901)
• Another hypothesis (Marius A.) considers Albanian to be a Daco-Moesian dialect that split off from Dacian before 300 BC and that Dacian itself became extinct.

The argument for this early split (before 300 BC) is the following: Inherited Albanian words (e.g. Alb motër 'sister' < Late IE ma:ter 'mother') show the transformation Late IE /a:/ > Alb /o/, but all the Latin loans in Albanian having an /a:/ show Latin a: > Alb a. This indicates that the transformation PAlb /a:/ > PAlb /o/ happened and ended before the Roman arrival in the Balkans On the other hand, Romanian substratum words shared with Albanian show a Romanian /a/ that corresponds to an Albanian /o/ when the source of both sounds is an original Common /a:/ (mazăre / modhull < *ma:dzula 'pea', raţă / rosë < *ra:tya: 'duck'), indicating that when these words had the same Common form in Pre-Romanian and Proto-Albanian the transformation PAlb /a:/ > PAlb /o/ had not yet begun

The correlation between these two facts indicates that the split between the Pre-Roman Dacians (those Dacians who were later Romanized) and Proto-Albanian happened before the Roman arrival in the Balkans

Extinction

According to Georgiev, Daco-Moesian was replaced by Latin as the everyday language in some parts of the two Moesias during the Roman imperial era, but in others (e.g. Dardania (S. Serbia/N. Macedonian Rep.), Daco-Moesian remained dominant, although heavily influenced by eastern Balkan Latin. The language may have survived in remote areas at least until the 6th century. Thracian, also supplanted by Latin (and by Greek in its southern zone), is documented as still a living language in ca. 500.

In Romanian culture

Like in the case of any Romance language, it is argued that Romanian language derived from Vulgar Latin not only through a series of internal linguistic changes, but also because of Dacian (North Thracian) influences on Vulgar Latin in the late Roman era. (This influence explains a number of differences between Romanian -Thracian substrate-, French -Celtic substrate-, Spanish -Basque substratum-, Portuguese -Celtic substrate ?-)

Romanian doesn’t have any major dialects, a fact that is probably a reflection of its origin in a fairly compact mountain region – a habitat, which was inaccessible enough to discourage outside attack but which still, permitted easy internal communication. The origin of Romanian must of necessity be based on speculation, however for there are virtually no written records of the area from the time of the withdrawal of the Romans (around 300) until the end of the barbarian invasions nearly a thousand years later (around 1300).

Another theory maintains that the Dacians themselves spoke a Latin language rather than a Thracian one and that people who settled the Italian Peninsula shared the same ancestors, yet no ancient texts indicate that the Dacian language was similar to that of the Romans. The Romanian philologist Nicolae Densuşianu argued in his book Dacia Preistorică (Prehistoric Dacia) that Latin and Dacian were the same language or mutually intelligible dialects. His work was disregarded by mainstream linguists as pseudoscience, but it was revived by the Nicolae Ceauşescu regime, which encouraged an ideology called Protochronism and stressed the important role of the Dacians in the creation of the modern Romanian people.

The first article to revive Densuşianu's theory was an unsigned article named "The Beginnings of the History of the Romanian People" published in Anale de istorie, a journal published by the Romanian Communist Party's "Institute of History of the Party".

The article claims that the Thracian language was a pre-Romance or Latin language using a demonstration which Lucian Boia describes as "a lack of basic professionalism and a straightforward contempt for the truth". Arguments used in the article include the lack of interpreters between the Dacians and the Romans, as depicted on the bas-reliefs of Trajan's column. The bibliography includes, apart from Densuşianu, the work of a French academician Louis Armand (who is in fact an engineer), who allegedly showed that "the Thraco-Dacians spoke a pre-Romance language". Similar arguments are found in Iosif Constantin Drăgan's We, the Thracians (1976).

This generated a great interest on researching of history of Dacia and many (often non-rigorous) works were published, among them Ion Horaţiu Crişan's "Burebista and His Age" (1975), who concluded the need of writing a monograph on the subject of "Dacian philosophy". There were voices claiming the need of reconstructing the language and of the creation of a Dacian Language department at the University of Bucharest, but such proposals failed because of the lack of the object of study.

After the 1989 Romanian Revolution, this theory continued being supported by Drăgan and the New York City-based physician Napoleon Săvescu, who published a book named We are not Rome's Descendents. Together, they issue the magazine Noi, Dacii ("Us Dacians") and organize a yearly "International Congress of Dacology".

See also

• List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin
• List of Dacian names
• List of Dacian plant names
• List of reconstructed Dacian words
• Thracian language
• Thraco-Roman
• Phrygian language
• Davae
• List of ancient cities in Thrace and Dacia

References

Ancient

• Ammianus Marcellinus Res Gestae (ca. 395)
• Dioscorides De Materia Medica (ca. AD 80)
• Jordanes Getica (ca. 550)
• Pliny (the Elder) (2000) [77-79 AD]. Natural history Volume 2, Issues 3-7. Harvard University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Ptolemy Geographia (ca. 140)
• Pseudo-Apuleius De Herbarum Virtutibus (5th c.)
• Sextus Aurelius Victor De Caesaribus (361)
• Strabo Geographica (ca. AD 20)
• Tacitus Germania (ca. 100)
• Zosimus Historia Nova (ca. 500)

Modern

• Academic American Encyclopedia (1994). Academic American encyclopedia: Volume 10. Grolier Incorporated. ISBN 978-0717220533.
• Almassy, Katalin (2006): Celts and Dacians(?) In the Great Hungarian Plain 1st c. BC to 1st c. AD
• Asher, R. E.; Simpson, J. M. Y (1994). The Encyclopedia of language and linguistics: Volume 3. Pergamon Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Abramea, Anna P (, 1994). Thrace. Idea Advertising-Marketing. ISBN 978-9608560918. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
• Antoniewicz, Jerzy (1966). "Acta Baltico-Slavica, Volumes 4-5". Białostockie Towarzystwo Naukowe Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Asenova, Petja (1999). Bulgarian in Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. ISBN 978-347039390. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Avery, Catherine (1972). The New Century handbook of classical geography. Appleton-Century-Crofts,. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
• Baldi, Philip, Ph.D. (1983). An Introduction to the Indo-European Languages. Southern Illinois University Press. ISBN 978-0809310913. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Barbulescu, Mihai; Nägler, Thomas; Pop, Ioan Aurel (2005). The History of Transylvania: Until 1541. Romanian Cultural Institute. ISBN 978-9737784001. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Candea, Virgil (2001). Mostenirea timpurilor indepartate. Editura Enciclopedica. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Berenger, Jean (1994). A History of the Habsburg Empire 1273-1700. Longman Group United Kingdom. ISBN 978-0582090095. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Bolovan, Ioan; Treptow, Kurt; et al. (1997). A History of Romania. East European Monographs. ISBN 978-0880333450. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last3= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (2000)
• Ion (2005). A short history of Romania. Bucharest; Meronia Publishers. ISBN 9789738200739.
• Bunbury, Sir Edward Herbert (1979) [1883]. A history of ancient geography among the Greeks and Romans: from the earliest ages till the fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 2. J. C. Gieben. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Carnap-Bornheim, Claus (2003). Kontakt, Kooperation, Konflikt: Germanen und Sarmaten zwischen dem 1. und dem 4. Jahrhundert nach Christus. Wachholtz. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Georgiev, V (1972). "The Earliest Ethnological Situation of the Balkan Peninsula as Evidenced by Linguistic and Onomastic Data". Aspects of the Balkans: continuity and change edited by Birnbaum Henrik and Vryonis Speros. Mouton. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Georgiev, V (1981). Introduction to the history of the Indo-European languages. Bulgarian Academy. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Giurescu D, Dinu (1974). Istoria Românilor: Din cele mai vechi timpuri pînă la întemeierea statelor românești. Editura Stiintifica. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Gordon, Childe (1930). The Bronze Age/With Map. Biblo-Moser. ISBN 978-0819601230. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• CIL: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
• Crossland, R.A.; Boardman, John (1982). Linguistic problems of the Balkan area in the late prehistoric and early Classical period in The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 3, Part 1. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521224963. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Boardman, V (1982). The Prehistory of Romania: from the earliest times to IOOO B.C. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521224963. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Ehrich, Robert W. (1970). Some Indo-European Speaking Groups of the Middle. Danube and the Balkans: Their Boundaries as Related to Cultural Geography Through Time. University of Pennsylvania Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Georgiev, Vladimir I. (1977). Trakite i technijat ezik/Les Thraces et leur langue (The Thracians and their language) (in Bulgarian and French summary). Sofia, Bulgaria: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademija na naukite. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
• Hehn, Victor (1976). Cultivated plants and domesticated animals in their migration from Asia to Europe : historico-linguistic studies. Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science, John Benjamin. ISBN 9789027208712. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Price, Glanville (1998). Encyclopedia of the languages of Europe. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-22039-9.
• Messing, Gordon M. (1972). "'Thrakisch-dakische Studien, I: Die thrakisch- und dakisch-baltischen Sprachbeziehungen by Ivan Duridanov' reviewed by Gordon M. Messing Cornell University Edited by George Melville Bolling". Language. 48 (4). Linguistic Society of America: 960–963. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Du Nay, André (1977). The early history of the Rumanian language. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Duridanov, I. (1969): Die Thrakisch- und Dakisch-Baltischen Sprachbeziehungen
• Encyclopædia Britannica (1993). Robert McHenry (ed.). The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 26. Encyclopaedia Britannica (UK) Ltd. ISBN 978-0852295717.
• Fisher, Iancu (2003). Les substrats et leur influence sur les langues romanes: la Romania du Sud-Est / Substrate und ihre Wirkung auf die romanischen Sprachen: Sudostromania in Romanische Sprachgeschichte. Mouton De Gruyter. ISBN 978-3110146943. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Fol, Alexander (1996). ‘’Thracians, Celts, Illyrians and Dacians’’ in History of Humanity: From Seventh Century B.C. to the Seventh Century A.D. Bernan Assoc. ISBN 978-9231028120. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Fraser, P.M; Matthews (1959). Samothrace: no. 1. The inscriptions on stone edited by Karl Lehmann Phyllis and Williams Lehmann. Pantheon Books. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Eric P., Hamp (1966). Ancient Indo-European Dialects: The position of Albanian. University of California Press and Cambridge University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Heather, Peter (2010). Empires and Barbarians: Migration, Development, and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199735600. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Hoddinott, R.F. (1989). "Thracians, Mycenaeans and "The Trojan Question"". Thracians and Mycenaeans: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Thracology Rotterdam, 24–26 September 1984 edited by Jan G. P. Best and Nanny M. W. de Vries. Brill Academic Pub. ISBN 978-9004088641. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Hrushevskyi, Mykhailo (1997). History of Ukraine-Rus'. Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press. ISBN 978-1895571196. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Jones, A. H. M. (1964): The Later Roman Empire, 284-602
• Katacic, Radoslav; Krizman, Mate (1976). Ancient languages of the Balkans. Mouton. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Radan, George (1980). The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia. University Press of Kentucky. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Lloshi, Xhevat (1999): Albanian in Handbuch der Südosteuropa Linguistik Band 10 (online)
• MacKenzie, Andrew (1986). Archaeology in Romania: the mystery of the Roman occupation. Hale. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Maenchen-Helfen, Otto (1973). World Of the Huns studies in their history and culture. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520015968. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Mielczarek, Mariusz (1989). Ancient Greek coins found in Central, Eastern, and Northern Europe. Zakład Narodowy Imienia Ossolińskich. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Mayer H.E. (1992): Dacian and Thracian as southern Baltoidic in Lituanus Vol. 38 no 2 (online)
• Mihailov, G (2008). "Thrace before the Persian entry into Europe". The Cambridge ancient history: Volume 3, Part 2. Cambridge University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Milewski, Tadeusz (1969). Teils. Panstwowe Wydawn Naukowe, Poland. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Mocsy, Andras (1974). Pannonia and Upper Moesia: History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire. Routledge & Kegan Paul Books. ISBN 978-0710077141. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Momigliano, Arnaldo (1984). Secondo contributo alla storia degli studi classici. Ed. di Storia e Letteratura. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Mountain, Harry (1998). The Celtic Encyclopedia. Universal Publishers. ISBN 978-1581128901. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Müllenhoff, Karl (1856). Ueber die Weltkarte und Chorographie des Kaiser Augustus : Feier des Geburtstatges seiner Majestät des Konigs Frederik's VII. Kiel Druck von C.F. Mohr. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Nandris, John (1976). The Dacian Iron Age A Comment in a European Context in Festschrift für Richard Pittioni zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Wien, Deuticke, Horn, Berger. ISBN 978-3700544203. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Nicolet, Claude (1991). Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire. Univ of Michigan. ISBN 978-0472100965. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Oledzki, Marek (2001). "The Przeworsk culture in the Upper Tisza Basin. An outline of problems". Ethnographisch-archäologische Zeitschrift, Volume 42. Karl-Heinz Otto, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Verlag der Wissenschaften. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Oltean, Ioana Adina (2007). Dacia: landscape, colonisation and romanisation. Routledge. ISBN 0415412528. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Olteanu, Sorin (2007). "Toponime procopiene". SCIVA. 58 (1–2): 67–116. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Olteanu, Sorin (1989). "Kaga şi Kōgaionon. Datele problemei". Thraco-Dacica. X: 215–217. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Paliga, Sorin (1986). The social structure of the South-East European Societies in the Middle Ages. A Linguistic View. Linguistica Volumes 26-29. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Panayotou, A. (2007). "Greek and Thracian". A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521833073. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Papazoglu, Fanula (1978). The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times:Triballi, Autariatae, Dardanians, Scordisci, & Moesians, translated by Mary Stansfield-Popovic. John Benjamins North America, Incorporated. ISBN 978-9025607937. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Parvan, Vasile (1928). Dacia. The Cambridge University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Pelletier, André (1985). "La Médecine en Gaule: villes d'eaux, sanctuaires des eaux". Picard. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Poghirc, Cicerone (1989). "Considerations chrono-geographiques sur l’oscillation a/o en Thrace et en Daco-Mesien" published in Thracians and Mycenaeans: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Thracology Rotterdam, 24–26 September 1984. Brill Academic. ISBN 978-0819601230. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Poghirc, Cicerone (1986). "Linguistique générale et linguistique romane: histoire de la grammaire : actes du XVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et philologie romanes, Aix-en-Provence, 29 août-3 septembre 1983". Wechselnde Verleger. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Polomé, Edgar Charles (1982). "Balkan Languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-Moesian)". Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. III.1. pp. 866–888.
• Popescu-Spineni, Marin (1981). Rumänien in seinen geographischen und kartographischen Quellen (in German). O. Harassowitz. ISBN 9783447025829. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Poultney, James W. (1968). "Introduzione alia storia delle Iingue indeuropee by Vladimir I. Georgiev, 1966. Reviewed by James W. Poultney,". Language. 44. Linguistic Society of America: 334–342. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Renfrew, Colin (1987): Archaeology and Language: the Puzzle of Indo-European Origins
• Renfrew, Colin (1990). Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521386753. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Russu, Ion Iosif (1963). "Die Ortsnamen der Balkanhalbinsel in De Aedificiis". Revue de Linguistique. VIII: 123–132. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Russu, Ion Iosif (1969). Die Sprache der Thrako-Daker. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Solta, Georg Renatus (1980). Berücksichtigung des Substrats und des Balkanlateinischen. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Schütte, Gudmund (1917). Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe: a reconstruction of the prototypes. H. Hagerup. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Schutte, Gudmund (1952) [1952]. "A Ptolemaic Riddle Solved p. 236". Classica et mediaevalia, Volume 13. Vol. 13 (1 ed.). Gyldendal.
• Sluşanschi, Dan (1989). "Kaga şi Kōgaionon. Analiză filologică şi lingvistică". Thraco-Dacica. X: 219–224. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Tacheva, Margarita (1997). The Thracian Bessi domo et militiae. Živa antika - Skopje. ISSN 0514-7727. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Wald, Lucia; Sluşanschi, Dan; Băltăceanu -, Francisca (1987). Introducere în studiul limbii şi culturii indo-europene. Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Walde-Pokorny, Julius (1959). The Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (IEW, "Indo-European Etymological Dictionary") and notes. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Walde, Alois; Pokorny, Julius (1973). Vergleichendes Warterbuch Der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3110045567. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Thompson, E.A. (1982): Zosimus 6.10.2 and the Letters of Honorius in Classical Quarterly 33 (ii)
• Trask, Robert Lawrence (2000). The dictionary of historical and comparative linguistics. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0748610013. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Appel René, Muysken Pieter (2006) Language Contact and Bilingualism, Amsterdam University Press, ISBN 978-9053568576
• Campbell, George L. (1998) Concise Compendium of the World's Languages, Routledge, ISBN 978-0415160490
• Carlos Quiles (2007): A grammar of modern Indo-European, Asociación Cultural Dnghu, ISBN 978-8461176397
• Daicoviciu Hadrian (1972), Dacii, Editura Enciclopedică Română -->
• Dimiter, Detschew (1957). Die thrakischen Sprachreste. Wien.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, N. G. L. Hammond (1971) The Cambridge Ancient History: Early History of the Middle East Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521077910 1971
• Georgiev (Gheorghiev), Vladimir Raporturile dintre limbile dacă, tracă şi frigiană, "Studii Clasice" Journal, II, 1960, 39-58
• Gordon, Martin (2007). The Wars of the Balkan Peninsula: Their Medieval Origins. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 978-0810858466.
• Petrescu-Dîmbovița, Mircea (1978). 'Scurta istorie a Daciei Preromane'. Junimea. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Polome E.C. (1982) Chapter 20e in Balkan Languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-Moesian) from The Cambridge Ancient History, By John Boardman, 2nd Edition, Volume 3, Part 1, The Prehistory of the Balkans, the Middle East and the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries BC ISBN 978-0521224963
• Rankin, David; Rankin, H. D. (1996). Celts and the Classical World, 2nd Edition. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-15090-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Rădulescu, Mircea-Mihai (1984). Illyrian, Thracian, Daco-Mysian, the substratum of Romanian and Albanian. Journal of Indo-European Studies. ISSN 12.77-131. {{cite book}}: Check |issn= value (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Rădulescu, Mircea-Mihai (1987). The Indo-European position of Illyrian, Daco-Mysian and Thracian: A historica-methodological approach. Journal of Indo-European Studies. ISSN 15.239-271. {{cite book}}: Check |issn= value (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Rosetti, A. (1982). La linguistique Balkanique in Revue roumaine de linguistique , volume 27. Editions de l’Academie de la RSR. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Rosetti, Alexandru; Graur, Alexandru (1969). Istoria limbii române: Volume 2. Editura Academiei Romania. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Rosetti, Alexandru (1978). Istoria limbii române: De la origini pina in sec XVII (in Romanian). Editura Stiintifica si Enciclopedica. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Russu, I. I. (1967). Limba traco-dacilor. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică.
• Polome, Edgar C. (1983). Linguistic situation in the western provinces in Sprache Und Literatur (Sprachen Und Schriften). Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3110095258.
• Taylor, Timothy (2001). Springer; 1 edition. ISBN = 978-0306462580. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |chapter e= ignored (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
• Toma, Corina (2007). "Repertoriu orientativ al descoperirilor dacice de pe teritoriul Ungariei, A Catalogue of the Dacian Period Discoveries Found in the Territory of Hungary p=65 - 77" (in Romanian (English summary)). Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor. ISSN 1016-2798. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
• Trask, Robert Lawrence (2000). Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-57958-218-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Urbariczyk, Przemyslaw (1997). Origins of Central Europe Introduction. Warsaw. ISBN 83-85463-56-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Van Antwerp Fine, John (2000). The early medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the sixth to the late twelfth century. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press / ISBN 978-0472081493.
• Vraciu, Ariton (1976). "Sur la methodologie des recherches dans le domain des rapports linguistiques du thraco-dace et des autres langues indo-europeennes". Thraco-Dacica. Institutul de Tracologie (Romania), Editura Academiei. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Waldman, Carl; Mason, Catherine (2006). Encyclopedia of European Peoples, 2-Volume Set. Facts on File. ISBN 978-0816049646. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Krzysztof Tomasz (1994). "Proto-Albanian and the problem of the Albanian nation". Bulletin de la Société polonaise de linguistique, Volumes 50-52. Gebethner and Wolff. ISSN 0032-3802.
• Walters E. Garrison (1989) Syracuse University Press, ISBN 978-0815624400 -->

Further reading

The template {{Expand}} has been deprecated since 26 December 2010, and is retained only for old revisions. If this page is a current revision, please remove the template.

• http://soltdm.com/geo/arts/categs/categs.htm
• http://soltdm.com/sources/inscr/kaga/kaga_e.htm
• http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/damian/onomastica.html
• http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/damian/topo.html
• http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean.html Indo-European Etymological Dictionary - Indogermanisches Etymologisches Woerterbuch (JPokorny). A database that represents the updated text of J. Pokorny's “Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch”, scanned and recognized by George Starostin (Moscow), who has also added the meanings. The database was further refurnished and corrected by A. Lubotsky.

External links

• Sorin Olteanu's Thraco-Daco-Moesian Languages Project (SoLTDM) (sources, thesaurus, textual criticism, phonetics and morphology, substratum, historical geography a.o.)
• Evidence for an Italic substratum of Romanian, by Keith Andrew Massey