Dacian language

Dacian (/ˈdeɪʃən/) is an extinct language

generally believed to be a member of the Indo- Dacian
European language family that was spoken in the Native to Dacia
ancient region of Dacia. Region modern-day Romania, northern
Bulgaria, eastern Serbia;
The Dacian language is poorly documented. Moldova, southwestern
Unlike Phrygian, which is documented by c. 200 Ukraine, southeastern Slovakia,
inscriptions, only one Dacian inscription is southern Poland, northeastern
Hungary
believed to have survived.[2][3] The Dacian names
for a number of medicinal plants and herbs may Ethnicity Dacians

survive in ancient literary texts,[4][5] including Extinct 6th century AD[1]

about 60 plant-names in Dioscorides.[6] About Language Indo-European
1,150 personal names[3][7] and 900 toponyms family
Daco-Thracian (?)
may also be of Dacian origin.[3] A few hundred
Dacian
words in modern Romanian and Albanian may
have originated in ancient Balkan languages such Writing Latin, Greek (limited use)
system
as Dacian (see List of Romanian words of possible
Dacian origin). Linguists have reconstructed Language codes
about 100 Dacian words from placenames using ISO 639-3 xdc
established techniques of comparative linguistics, Linguist List xdc (https://web.archiv
although only 20–25 such reconstructions had e.org/web/2020010101010
achieved wide acceptance by 1982.[8] 1/http://multitree.org/
codes/xdc)
Glottolog daci1234 (https://glott
Origin olog.org/resource/langu
oid/id/daci1234)

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 (PIE) language
that originated in an urheimat ("original homeland") in the southern Ukraine/ Caucasus region
(Kurgan hypothesis) or in central Anatolia (Anatolian hypothesis). According to both theories,
Indo-European reached the Carpathian region no later than c. 2500 BC.[9][10]

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.[11][12] 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.[11][12]
According to Georgiev, the Dacian language was spread south of the Danube by tribes from
Carpathia, who reached the central Balkans in the period 2000–1000 BC, with further
movements (e.g., the Triballi tribe) after 1000 BC, until c. 300 BC.[13] 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.[14]

Linguistic classification
Dacian was an Indo-European language (IE). Russu (1967, 1969 and 1970) suggested that its
phonological system, and therefore that of its presumed Thraco-Dacian parent-language, was
relatively close to the primitive IE system.[15]

While there is general agreement among scholars that Dacian was an Indo-European language,
there are divergent opinions about its place within the IE family:

Dacian and the extinct Thracian language were members of a single dialect continuum; e.g.,
Baldi (1983) and Trask (2000).
Dacian was a language distinct from Thracian but closely related to it, belonging to the
same branch of the Indo-European family (a "Thraco-Dacian", or "Daco-Thracian" branch
has been theorised by some linguists).[16]
Dacian, Thracian, the Baltic languages (Duridanov also adds Pelasgian) formed a distinct
branch of Indo-European, e.g., Schall (1974), Duridanov (1976), Radulescu (1987) and
Mayer (1996).[17][18][19][20]
Daco-Moesian was the ancestor of Albanian, belonging to a branch other than Thracian, but
closely related to Thracian and distinct from Illyrian. Proposed by Georgiev (1977),[21] this
view has not gained wide acceptance among scholars and is rejected by most linguists, who
consider that Albanian belongs to the Illyrian branch of IE,[22] either as a direct descendant
or as a sister language.[23]
Several linguists classify Dacian as a satem IE language: Russu,[24] Rădulescu,[25] Katičić and
Križman.[26] In Crossland's opinion (1982), both 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 are not evidenced in Dacian.[27] In
any case, the satem/centum distinction, once regarded as a fundamental division between IE
languages, is no longer considered as important in historical linguistics by mainstream
scholars.[28] It is now recognised that it is only one of many isoglosses in the IE zone; that
languages can exhibit both types at the same time, and that these may change over time within a
particular language.[28] There is 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, Phrygian is no longer widely seen as linked in this way to
Dacian and Thracian.[29]

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,[25] Georg Solta 1980,[30] Vraciu 1980,[a] Crossland 1982,[b] Rădulescu 1984,[c] 1987.[d]
Mihailov (2008) and Trask 2000.[e] 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 the
same language.[31] Herodotus states that "the Getae are the bravest and the most just amongst
the Thracians", linking the Getae with the Thracians.[32] 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.[33]

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 a
separate branch of IE, and that no Daco-Thraco-Phrygian or Daco-Thracian branches of IE ever
existed.[34] Georgiev argues that the distance between Dacian and Thracian was approximately
the same as that between the Armenian and Persian languages,[35] which are completely
different languages. In elaborating the phonology of Dacian, Georgiev uses plant-names attested
to in Dioscorides and Pseudo-Apuleius, ascertaining their literal meanings, and hence their
etymology, using the Greek translations provided by those authors. The phonology of Dacian
produced in this way is very different from that of Thracian; the vowel change IE *o > *a recurs
and the k-sounds undergo the changes characteristic of the satem languages. For the phonology
of Thracian, Georgiev uses the principle that an intelligible placename in a modern language is
likely to be a translation of an ancient name.[36]

Georgiev (1977) also argues that the modern Albanian language is descended from Dacian,
specifically from what he called Daco-Moesian or Daco-Mysian, the Moesian dialect of
Dacian,[37] but this view has not gained wide acceptance among scholars and is rejected by most
linguists, who consider that Albanian belongs to the Illyrian branch of IE.[22] Polomé accepts
the view that Albanian is descended from Illyrian but considers the evidence inconclusive.[29]

Relationship with ancient languages

Thracian
There is general agreement among scholars that Dacian and Thracian were Indo-European
languages; however, widely divergent views exist about their relationship:

1. Dacian was a northern dialect or a slightly distinct variety of the Thracian language.[32][38][39]
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.[38] On this view, these dialects may have possessed a
high degree of mutual intelligibility.
2. Dacian and Thracian were distinct but related languages, descended from a hypothetical
Daco-Thracian branch of Indo-European. One suggestion is that the Dacian differentiation
from Thracian may have taken place after 1500 BC.[40][41] In this scenario, the two
languages may have possessed only limited mutual intelligibility.
3. Dacian and Thracian were related, constituting separate branches of IE.[34] However, they
shared a large number of words, which were mutual borrowings due to long-term
 geographical proximity.[42] Nevertheless, they would not have been mutually intelligible.
Georgiev (1977) and Duridanov (1985) argue that the phonetic development from proto-Indo-
European of the two languages was clearly divergent.

Divergent sound-changes in Paleo-Balkan languages

according to Georgiev (1977)[43]

Proto-Indo-European Dacian Thracian Phrygian

*o a a o

*e ie e e

*ew e eu eu

*aw a au

*r,̥ *l ̥ ri ur (or), ur (ol) al

*n̥, *m̥ a un an

*b, *d, *g b, d, g p, t, k p, t, k

*p, *t, *k p, t, k ph, th, kh ph, th, kh

*s s s ∅

*sw s s w
*sr str str br

Note: Asterisk indicates reconstructed PIE sound. ∅ is a zero symbol (no sound, when the
sound has been dropped).

Divergent sound-changes in Dacian and

Thracian according to Duridanov (1985)[44]
Indo-European Dacian Thracian

*b, *d, *g b, d, g p, t, k

*p, *t, *k p, t, k ph, th, kh

*ē ä (a) ē

*e (after consonant) ie e
*ai a ai

*ei e ei

*dt (*tt) s st

Georgiev and Duridanov argue that the phonetic divergences above prove that the Dacian and
Thracian (and Phrygian, per Georgiev) languages could not have descended from the same
branch of Indo-European, but must have constituted separate, stand-alone branches.[34][45]
However, the validity of this conclusion has been challenged due to a fundamental weakness in
the source-material for sound-change reconstruction. Since the ancient Balkan languages never
developed their own alphabets, ancient Balkan linguistic elements (mainly placenames and
personal names) are known only through their Greek or Latin transcripts.[46][47] These may not
accurately reproduce the indigenous sounds, e.g., Greek and Latin had no dedicated graphic
signs for phonemes such as č, ġ, ž, š and others. Thus, if a Thracian or Dacian word contained
such a phoneme, a Greek or Latin transcript would not represent it accurately.[48] Because of
this, there are divergent and even contradictory assumptions for the phonological structure and
development of the Dacian and Thracian languages.[49] This can be seen from the different
sound-changes proposed by Georgiev and Duridanov, reproduced above, even though these
scholars agree that Thracian and Dacian were different languages. Also, some sound-changes
proposed by Georgiev have been disputed, e.g., that IE *T (tenuis) became Thracian TA (tenuis
aspiratae), and *M (mediae) = T: it has been argued that in both languages IE *MA (mediae
aspiratae) fused into M and that *T remained unchanged.[25] Georgiev's claim that IE *o
mutated into a in Thracian, has been disputed by Russu.[50]

A comparison of Georgiev's and Duridanov's reconstructed words with the same meaning in the
two languages shows that, although they shared some words, many words were different.[51]
However, even if such reconstructions are accepted as valid, an insufficient quantity of words
have been reconstructed in each language to establish that they were unrelated.

According to Georgiev (1977), Dacian placenames and personal names are completely different
from their Thracian counterparts.[35] However, Tomaschek (1883) and Mateescu (1923) argue
that some common elements exist in Dacian and Thracian placenames and personal
names,[52][53] but Polomé considered that research had, by 1982, confirmed Georgiev's claim of
a clear onomastic divide between Thrace and Moesia/Dacia.[54]

Georgiev highlighted a striking divergence between placename-suffixes in Dacia/Moesia and

Thrace: Daco-Moesian placenames generally carry the suffix -dava (variants: -daba, -deva),
meaning "town" or "stronghold". But placenames in Thrace proper, i.e. south of the Balkan
mountains commonly end in -para or -pera, meaning "village" or "settlement"[8] (cf Sanskrit
pura = "town", from which derives Hindi town-suffix -pur, e.g., Udaipur = "city of
Udai").[55][56][57] Map showing -dava/-para divide (http://www.kroraina.com/thrac_lang/thrac
_8.html) Georgiev argues that such toponymic divergence renders the notion that Thracian and
Dacian were the same language implausible. However, this thesis has been challenged on a
number of grounds:

1. Papazoglu (1978) and Tacheva (1997) reject the argument that such different placename-
suffixes imply different languages[58][59] (although, in general historical linguistics, changes
in placename-suffixes are regarded as potentially strong evidence of changes in prevalent
language). A possible objection is that, in 2 regions of Thrace, -para is not the standard
suffix: in NE Thrace, placenames commonly end in -bria ("town"), while in SE Thrace, -diza/-
dizos ("stronghold") is the most common ending.[55] Following Georgiev's logic, this would
indicate that these regions spoke a language different from Thracian. It is possible that this
was the case: NE Thrace, for example, was a region of intensive Celtic settlement[60] and
may, therefore, have retained Celtic speech into Roman imperial times. If, on the other
hand, the different endings were due simply to Thracian regional dialectal variations, the
same could be true of the dava/para divide.
2. Papazoglu (1978) and Fisher (2003) point out that two -dava placenames are found in
Thrace proper, in contravention of Georgiev's placename divide: Pulpudeva and
Desudaba.[46][f] However, according to Georgiev (1977), east of a line formed by the Nestos
and Uskur rivers, the traditional western boundary of Thrace proper, Pulpudeva is the only
known -dava-type placename,[61] and Georgiev argues that it is not linguistically significant,
 as it was an extraneous and late foundation by the Macedonian king Philip II (Philippopolis)
and its -dava name a Moesian import.[56]
3. The dava/para divide appears to break down West of the Nestos-Uskur line, where -dava
placenames, including Desudaba, are intermingled with -para names.[61] However, 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.
Georgiev's thesis has by no means achieved general acceptance: the Thraco-Dacian theory
retains substantial support among linguists. 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.[62] According to Georg Solta (1982), there
is no significant difference between Dacian and Thracian.[46][g] Rădulescu (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.[63] Renfrew (1990) argues that
there is no doubt that Thracian is related to the Dacian which was spoken in modern-day
Romania before that area was occupied by the Romans.[64] However, all these assertions are
largely speculative, due to the lack of evidence for both languages.

Polomé (1982) considers that the evidence presented by Georgiev and Duridanov, although
substantial, is not sufficient to determine whether Daco-Moesian and Thracian were two
dialects of the same language or two distinct languages.[65]

Moesian
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.[66]

Illyrian
It is possible that Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian were three dialects of the same language,
according to Rădulescu.[63] Georgiev (1966), however, considers Illyrian a language closely
related to Venetic and Phrygian but with a certain Daco-Moesian admixture.[67] 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 satemised language, developed from Daco-
Moesian, a satemised language group, and not from Illyrian. But lack of evidence prevents any
firm centum/satem classification for these ancient languages. Renfrew argues that the
centum/satem classification is irrelevant in determining relationships between languages. This
is because a language may contain both satem and centum features and these, and the balance
between them, may change over time.[28]

Gothic
There was a well-established tradition in the 4th century that the Getae, believed to be Dacians
by mainstream scholarship, and the Gothi were the same people, e.g., Orosius: Getae illi qui et
nunc Gothi. This identification, now discredited, was supported by Jacob Grimm.[68] In pursuit
of his hypothesis, Grimm proposed many kindred features between the Getae and Germanic
tribes.[69]

Relationship with modern languages

Romanian
The mainstream view among scholars is that Daco-Moesian forms the principal linguistic
substratum of modern Romanian, a neo-Latin (Romance) language, which evolved from eastern
Eastern Romance in the period AD 300–600, according to Georgiev.[13] The possible residual
influence of Daco-Moesian on modern Romanian is limited to a modest number of words and a
few grammatical peculiarities.[70] 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. Georgiev claimed
that these words belong to the Dacian substratum in Romanian, while their Albanian
correspondences were inherited from Daco-Moesian.[71]

As in the case of any Romance language, it is argued that Romanian language derived from
Vulgar Latin through a series of internal linguistic changes and because of Dacian or northern
Thracian influences on Vulgar Latin in the late Roman era. This influence explains a number of
differences between the Romanian-Thracian substrate and the French-Celtic, Spanish-Basque,
and Portuguese-Celtic substrates.[72] Romanian has no major dialects, perhaps a reflection of its
origin in a small mountain region, which was inaccessible but permitted easy internal
communication. The history of Romanian is based on speculation because there are virtually no
written records of the area from the time of the withdrawal of the Romans around 300 AD until
the end of the barbarian invasions around 1300 AD.[73]

Many scholars, mostly Romanian, have conducted research into a Dacian linguistic substratum
for the modern Romanian language. There is still not enough hard evidence for this. None of the
few Dacian words known (mainly plant-names) and none of the Dacian words reconstructed
from placenames have specific correspondent words in Romanian (as opposed to general
correspondents in several IE languages). DEX doesn't mention any Dacian etymology, just a
number of terms of unknown origin. Most of these are assumed by several scholars to be of
Dacian origin, but there is no strong proof that they are. They could, in some cases, also be of
pre-Indo-European origin (i.e. truly indigenous, from Stone Age Carpathian languages), or, if
clearly Indo-European, be of Sarmatian origin – but there's no proof for this either. It seems
plausible that a few Dacian words may have survived in the speech of the Carpathian
inhabitants through successive changes in the region's predominant languages: Dacian/Celtic
(to AD 100), Latin/Sarmatian (c. 100–300), Germanic (c. 300–500), Slavic/Turkic (c. 500–
1300), up to the Romanian language when the latter became the predominant language in the
region.

Substratum of Common Romanian

The Romanian language has been denoted
"Daco-Romanian" by some scholars because it
derives from late Latin superimposed on a
Dacian substratum, and evolved in the Roman
colony of Dacia between AD 106 and 275.[74]
Modern Romanian may contain 160–170 words
of Dacian origin. By comparison, modern
French, according to Bulei, has approximately
180 words of Celtic origin.[75] The Celtic origin of
the French substratum is certain, as the Celtic
languages are abundantly documented, whereas
the Dacian origin of Romanian words is in most
cases speculative.

It is also argued that the Dacian language may Blue = lands conquered by the Roman Empire.
form the substratum of Common Romanian, Red = area populated by Free Dacians.
which developed from the Vulgar Latin spoken in Language map based on the range of Dacian
the Balkans north of the Jirecek line, which toponyms.
roughly divides Latin influence from Greek
influence. About 300 words in Eastern Romance
languages, Daco-Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, Istro-Romanian, may derive from
Dacian, and many of these show a satem-reflex. Whether Dacian forms the substratum of
Common Romanian is disputed, yet this theory does not rely only on the Romanisation having
occurred in Roman Dacia, as Dacian was also spoken in Moesia and northern Dardania. Moesia
was conquered by the Romans more than a century before Dacia, and its Latinity is confirmed
by Christian sources.[76]

The Dacian / Thracian substratum of Romanian

is often connected to the words shared between
Romanian and Albanian. The correspondences
between these languages reflect a common
linguistic background.[77]

Albanian
Vladimir I. Georgiev, although accepting an
Illyrian component in Albanian, and even not
excluding an Illyrian origin of Albanian,
The Jireček Line, an imaginary line through the
proposed as the ancestor of Albanian a language
ancient Balkans that divided the influences of the
Latin (in the north) and Greek (in the south)
called "Daco-Mysian" by him, considering it a
languages until the 4th century. This line is separate language from Thracian.[78][79]
important in establishing the Romanization area in Georgiev maintained that "Daco-Mysian tribes
Balkans gradually migrated to the northern-central part
of the Balkan Peninsula, approximately to
Dardania, probably in the second millennium
B.C. (or not later than the first half of the first millennium B.C.), and thence they migrated to
the areas of present Albania".[79] However, this theory is rejected by most linguists, who
consider Albanian a direct descendant of ancient Illyrian.[22] Based on shared innovations
between Albanian and Messapic, Eric P. Hamp has argued that Albanian is closely related to
Illyrian and not to Thracian or Daco-Moesian, maintaining that it descended from a language
that was sibling of Illyrian and that was once closer to the Danube and in contact with Daco-
Moesian.[80] Due to the paucity of written evidence, what can be said with certainty in current
research is that on the one hand a significant group of shared Indo-European non-Romance
cognates between Albanian and Romanian indicates at least contact with the 'Daco-Thraco-
Moesian complex', and that on the other hand there is some evidence to argue that Albanian is
descended from the 'Illyrian complex'.[81] From a "genealogical standpoint", Messapic is the
closest at least partially attested language to Albanian. Hyllested & Joseph (2022) label this
Albanian-Messapic branch as Illyric and in agreement with recent bibliography identify Greco-
Phrygian as the IE branch closest to the Albanian-Messapic one. These two branches form an
areal grouping - which is often called "Balkan IE" - with Armenian.[82]

Baltic languages
There is significant evidence of at least a long-term proximity link, and possibly a genetic link,
between Dacian and the modern Baltic languages. The Bulgarian linguist Ivan Duridanov, in his
first publication claimed that Thracian and Dacian are genetically linked to the Baltic
languages[83][84] and in the next one he made the following classification:

"The Thracian language formed a close group with the Baltic (resp. Balto-Slavic), the
Dacian and the "Pelasgian" languages. More distant were its relations with the other
Indo-European languages, and especially with Greek, the Italic and Celtic languages,
which exhibit only isolated phonetic similarities with Thracian; the Tokharian and
the Hittite were also distant."[85]

Duridanov's cognates of the reconstructed Dacian words are found mostly in the Baltic
languages, followed by Albanian without considering Thracian. Parallels have enabled linguists,
using the techniques of comparative linguistics, to decipher the meanings of several Dacian and
Thracian placenames with, they claim, a high degree of probability. Of 74 Dacian placenames
attested in primary sources and considered by Duridanov, a total of 62 have Baltic cognates,
most of which were rated "certain" by Duridanov.[86] Polomé considers that these parallels are
unlikely to be coincidence.[87] Duridanov's explanation is that proto-Dacian and proto-Thracian
speakers were in close geographical proximity with proto-Baltic speakers for a prolonged
period, perhaps during the period 3000–2000 BC.[42] A number[88] of scholars such as the
Russian Topоrov[89] have pointed to the many close parallels between Dacian and Thracian
placenames and those of the Baltic language-zone – Lithuania, Latvia and in East Prussia
(where an extinct but well-documented Baltic language, Old Prussian, was spoken until it was
displaced by German during the Middle Ages).[90]

After creating a list of names of rivers and personal names with a high number of parallels, the
Romanian linguist Mircea M. Radulescu classified the Daco-Moesian and Thracian as Baltic
languages of the south and also proposed such classification for Illyrian.[19] The German linguist
Schall also attributed a southern Baltic classification to Dacian.[17] The American linguist
Harvey Mayer refers to both Dacian and Thracian as Baltic languages. He claims to have
sufficient evidence for classifying them as Baltoidic or at least "Baltic-like," if not exactly, Baltic
dialects or languages[91][20] and classifies Dacians and Thracians as "Balts by extension".[92]
According to him, Albanian, the descendant of Illyrian, escaped any heavy Baltic influence of
Daco-Thracian.[92] Mayer claims that he extracted an unambiguous evidence for regarding
Dacian and Thracian as more tied to Lithuanian than to Latvian.[20][93] The Czech archaeologist
Kristian Turnvvald classified Dacian as Danubian Baltic.[94] The Venezuelan-Lithuanian
historian Jurate de Rosales classifies Dacian and Thracian as Baltic languages.[95][96]

It appears from the study of hydronyms (river and lake names) that Baltic languages once
predominated much farther eastwards and southwards than their modern confinement to the
southeastern shores of the Baltic sea, and included regions that later became predominantly
Slavic-speaking. The zone of Baltic hydronyms extends along the Baltic coast from the mouth of
the Oder as far as Riga, eastwards as far as the line Yaroslavl–Moscow–Kursk and southwards
as far as the line Oder mouth–Warsaw–Kyiv–Kursk: it thus includes much of northern and
eastern Poland, Belarus and central European Russia.[97][98]

Dacian as an Italic language

Another theory maintains that the Dacians spoke a language akin to Latin and that the people
who settled in the Italian Peninsula shared the same ancestors.

The Romanian philologist Nicolae Densușianu argued in his book Dacia Preistorică (Prehistoric
Dacia), published in 1913, that Latin and Dacian were the same language or were mutually
intelligible. His work was considered by mainstream linguists to be pseudoscience. It was
reprinted under the regime of Nicolae Ceaușescu. The first article to revive Densușianu's theory
was an unsigned paper, "The Beginnings of the History of the Romanian People", included in
Anale de istorie,[99] a journal published by the Romanian Communist Party's Institute of
Historical and Social-Political Studies.[100] The article claimed that the Thracian language was a
pre-Romance or Latin language. Arguments used in the article include for instance the absence
of interpreters between the Dacians and the Romans, as depicted on the bas-reliefs of Trajan's
column.[100] The bibliography mentions, apart from Densușianu, the work of French
academician Louis Armand, 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).[100] About the same time Ion Horaţiu Crișan wrote "Burebista and His Age"
(1975).[100] Nevertheless, the theory didn't rise to official status under Ceaușescu's rule.

Opinions about a hypothetical latinity of Dacian can be found in earlier authors: Sextus Rufus
(Breviarum C.VIII, cf. Bocking Not, Dign. II, 6), Ovid (Trist. II, 188–189) and Horace (Odes, I,
20).

Iosif Constantin Drăgan and the New York City-based physician Napoleon Săvescu continued to
support this theory and published a book entitled We Are Not Rome's Descendants.[101] They
also published a magazine called Noi, Dacii ("Us Dacians") and organised a yearly
"International Congress of Dacology".[102]
Less radical theories have suggested that Dacian was either Italic or Celtic, like the speakers of
those Indo-European languages in Western Europe who became Latinized and now speak
Romance languages.

Sources
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 some of names in the Latin or Greek
alphabet. What is known about the language derives from:
A fragment of a vase collected by
Placenames, river-names and personal names, including
Mihail Dimitriu at the site of Poiana,
the names of kings. The coin inscription KOΣON (Koson)
Galați (Piroboridava), Romania
may also be a personal name, of the king who issued
illustrating the use of Greek and Latin
the coin.
letters by a Dacian potter (source:
The Dacian names of about fifty plants written in Greek Dacia journal, 1933)
and Roman sources (see List of Dacian plant names).
Etymologies have been established for only a few of
them.[103]
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. Romanian words for which a Dacian
origin has been proposed include: balaur ("dragon"),
brânză ("cheese"), mal ("bank, shore"), and strugure Gold stater coin found in Dacia.
("grape").[104] However, the value of the substratum Obverse: Roman magistrate with
words as a source for the Dacian language is limited lictors. Legend ΚΟΣΩΝ (Coson) and
because there is no certainty that these are of Dacian (left centre) monogram BR or OΛB.
origin. This can be seen in the Dicționar Explicativ al Reverse: Eagle clutching laurel-
Limbii Române (DEX), which shows multiple possible wreath. Probably minted in a Greek
etymologies for most of the words: Black sea city (Olbia?),
commissioned by a Thracian or
1. Many of the words may not be "substratum" at all, as Getan king (Cotiso? Koson?) or by a
Latin etymologies have been proposed for them. These high Roman official (Brutus?), in
are inherently more likely than a Dacian origin, as the honour of the other. Late 1st century
Romanian language is descended from Latin, not BC
Dacian, e.g., melc ("snail") may derive from Latin
limax/proto-Romance *limace (cf. It. lumaca), by
metathesis of "m" with "l".[105]
2. Some may derive from other little-known ancient languages at some time spoken in Dacia
or Moesia: for example, the Iranian Sarmatian, or the Turkic Pannonian Avar, Bulgar or
Cuman languages, or, conceivably, some unknown pre-Indo-European language(s) of the
Carpathians or Balkans. An illustration of the latter possibility are pre-Indo-European
substratum (i.e., Iberian/Basque) in Spanish, e.g., "fox" = zorro, from Basque azeri, instead
of proto-Romance *vulpe. A pre-Indo-European origin has been proposed for several
Romanian substratum words, e.g., balaur,[106] brad ("fir-tree").[107]
3. About 160 of the Romanian substratum words have cognates in Albanian.[108] A possible
 example is Romanian brad ("fir-tree"), Alb. cognate bradh (same meaning).[107] Duridanov
has reconstructed *skuia as a Dacian word for fir-tree.[109]
4. The numerous Romanian substratum words that have cognates in Bulgarian may derive
from Thracian, which may have been a different language from Dacian (see below,
Thracian).
Balaur ("dragon"), ascribed a Dacian origin by some scholars, exemplifies the etymological
uncertainties. According to DEX, balaur has also been identified as: a pre-Indo-European relic;
or derived from Latin belua or beluaria ("beast" cf. It. belva), or ancient Greek pelorion
("monster"); or as a cognate of Alb. buljar ("water-snake").[106] DEX argues that these
etymologies, save the Albanian one, are dubious, but they are no more so than the unverifiable
assertion that balaur is derived from an unknown Dacian word.

The substratum words have been used, in some cases, to corroborate Dacian words
reconstructed from place- and personal names, e.g., Dacian *balas = "white" (from personal
name Balius), Romanian bălan = "white-haired" However, 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.

Geographical extent

Linguistic area
Dacian was probably one of the major languages of south-
eastern Europe, spoken in the area between the Danube,
Northern Carpathians, the Dnister River and the Balkans,
and the Black Sea shore. According to historians, as a result
of the linguistic unity of the Getae and Dacians that are
found in the records of ancient writers Strabo, Cassius Dio, Map of Dacia 1st century BC

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, the Black
Sea, Dnister River, Northern Carpathians, and middle
Danube. Strabo gave more specific information, recording
that "the Dacians speak the same language as the Getae" a
dialect of the Thracian language.[33] The information
provided by the Greek geographer is complemented by other
literary, linguistic, and archaeological evidence. Accordingly,
the Geto-Dacians may have occupied territory in the west Dacia's map from a medieval book
and north-west, as far as Moravia and the middle Danube, to made after Ptolemy's Geographia (c.
140 AD)
the area of present-day Serbia in the south-west, and as far
as the Haemus Mountains (Balkans) 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 (Dnister), possibly at times reaching as far as the Bug River, the
northern limit including the Trans-Carpathian westernmost Ukraine and southern Poland.[110]

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 south-west, the Greeks and
Scythians in the east and the Bastarnae in the north-east. Nevertheless, between the Danube
River (West), the Haemus Mountains (S), the Black Sea (E), the Dniester River (NE) and the
northern Carpathians, a continuous Geto-Dacian presence as majority was permanently
maintained, according to some scholars.[111] According to the Bulgarian linguist Georgiev, the
Daco-Mysian region included Dacia (approximately contemporary Romania and Hungary east
of the Tisza River, Mysia (Moesia) and Scythia Minor (contemporary Dobrogea).[112]

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.[113] This
corresponds to the period between 82 and 44 BC, 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 approximate map showing
where the Dacian language was
the middle Danube River valley in present-day Hungary, in
spoken
the east and north to the Carpathians in present-day
Slovakia and in the south to the lower Dniester valley in
present-day south-western Ukraine and the western coast of the Black Sea as far as
Appollonia.[114] At that time, some scholars believe, the Dacians built a series of hill-forts at
Zemplin (Slovakia), Mala Kopania (Ukraine), Oncești, Maramureș (Romania) and Solotvyno
(Ukraine).[114] The Zemplin settlement appears to belong to a Celto-Dacian horizon, as well as
the river Patissus (Tisa)'s region, including its upper stretch, according to Shchukin (1989).[115]
According to Parducz (1956) Foltiny (1966), Dacian archaeological finds extend to the west of
Dacia, and occur along both banks of the Tisza.[116] 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).[117] The Polish linguist Milewski Tadeusz (1966
and 1969) suggests that in the southern regions of Poland appear names that are unusual in
northern Poland, possibly related to Dacian or Illyrian names.[118][119] 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.[120][119]

Also, a formal statement by Pliny indicated the river Vistula as the western boundary of Dacia,
according to Nicolet (1991).[121] 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.[122]
According to Müllenhoff (1856), Schütte (1917), Urbańczyk (2001) and Matei-Popescu (2007),
Agrippa's commentaries mention the river Vistula as the western boundary of Dacia.[123][124][h]
Urbańczyk (1997) speculates that according to Agrippa's commentaries, and the map of Agrippa
(before 12 BC), the Vistula river separated Germania and Dacia.[125] This map is lost and its
contents are unknown[i] However, later Roman geographers, including Ptolemy (AD 90 – c. AD
168) (II.10, III.7) and Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117)[126] considered the Vistula as the boundary
between Germania and Sarmatia Europaea, or Germania and Scythia.[123]

1st century AD
Around 20 AD, Strabo wrote the Geographica that provides information regarding the extent of
regions inhabited by the Dacians.[127] On its basis, Lengyel and Radan (1980), Hoddinott (1981)
and Mountain (1998) consider that the Geto-Dacians inhabited both sides of the Tisza river
before the rise of the Celtic Boii and again after the latter were defeated by the
Dacians.[128][j][129][k] The hold of the Dacians between the Danube and the Tisza appears to
have been tenuous.[130] However, the Hungarian archaeologist Parducz (1856) argued for a
Dacian presence west of the Tisza dating from the time of Burebista.[116] According to Tacitus
(AD 56 – AD 117) Dacians were bordering Germany in the south-east while Sarmatians
bordered it in the east.[l]

In the 1st century AD, the Iazyges settled in the 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".[131][132][133][134][135]

Archaeological sources indicate that the local Celto-Dacian population retained its specificity as
late as the 3rd century AD.[122] Archaeological finds dated to the 2nd century AD, after the
Roman conquest, indicate that during that period, vessels found in some of the Iazygian
cemeteries reveal fairly strong Dacian influence, according to Mocsy.[136] 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 near 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.[137] 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 in south-eastern Hungary and
Nyiregyhaza in north-eastern Hungary. The Barrington Atlas shows the Iazyges occupying both
sides of Tisza (map 20).

2nd century AD
Written a few decades after the Roman conquest of Dacia 105–106 AD,[138] Ptolemy's
Geographia defined the boundaries of Dacia. There is a consensus among scholars that
Ptolemy's Dacia was the region between the rivers Tisza, Danube, upper Dniester, and
Siret.[m][139][140][141] The mainstream of historians accepted this interpretation: Avery (1972)
Berenger (1994) Fol (1996) Mountain (1998), Waldman
Mason (2006).[142][113][143][144][145] Ptolemy also provided
Dacian toponyms in the Upper Vistula (Polish: Wisła) river
basin in Poland: Susudava and Setidava (with a manuscript
variant Getidava.[146][147][148][149] This may be an echo of
Burebista's expansion.[147] It appears that this northern
expansion of the Dacian language as far as the Vistula river
lasted until 170–180 AD when the Hasdings, a Germanic
tribe, expelled a Dacian group from this region, according to
Schütte (1917) and Childe (1930).[150][151] This Dacian group
is associated by Schütte (1952) with towns having the
specific Dacian language ending 'dava' i.e. Setidava.[148] A
previous Dacian presence that ended with the Hasdings'
arrival is considered also by Heather (2010) who says that Map of South-Eastern Europe
the Hasdings Vandals "attempted to take control of lands including Dacia
which had previously belonged to a free Dacian group called
the Costoboci"[152] Several tribes on the northern slopes of
the Carpathians were mentioned that are generally considered Thraco-Dacian, i.e. Arsietae
(Upper Vistula),[148][153][154][155][156] Biessi / Biessoi[155][153][157][158] and Piengitai.[153][156]
Schütte (1952) associated the Dacian tribe of Arsietae with the Arsonion town.[148] 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.[159] 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, the right-bank Carpathian tributary of the Vistula river.[160] The
Biessi (Biessoi) probably left their name to the mountain chain of Bieskides that continues the
Carpathian Mountains towards the north (Schütte 1952).[148] 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).[161]

After the Marcomannic Wars (166–180 AD), Dacian groups from outside Roman Dacia had
been set in motion, and thus 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 other places cannot be excluded.[162]

Dacian linguistic zone in the early Roman imperial era (30 BC – AD 100)

Historical linguistic overview

Mainstream scholarship believes the Dacian language had become established as the
predominant language north of the Danube in Dacia well before 1000 BC and south of the river,
in Moesia, before 500 BC.

Starting around 400 BC, Celtic groups, moving out of their La Tène cultural heartland in
southern Germany/eastern Gaul, penetrated and settled south-eastern Europe as far as the
Black Sea and into Anatolia. By c. 250 BC, much of the modern states of Austria, Slovakia,
Hungary and Romania, and Bessarabia and Moesia, were under Celtic cultural influence and
probably political domination in many regions.[163] This migratory process brought Celtic
material culture, especially advanced in metallurgy, to the Illyrian and Dacian tribes. Especially
intensive Celtic settlement, as evidenced by concentrations of La Tène-type cemeteries, took
place in Austria, Slovakia, the Hungarian Plain, Transylvania, Bessarabia and eastern
Thrace.[60] Central Transylvania appears to have become a Celtic enclave or unitary kingdom,
according to Batty.[164] It is likely that during the period of Celtic pre-eminence, the Dacian
language was eclipsed by Celtic dialects in Transylvania. In Moesia, South of the Danube, there
was also extensive Celticisation.[163] An example is the Scordisci tribe of Moesia Superior,
reported by the ancient historian Livy to be Celtic-speaking and whose culture displays Celtic
features.

By 60 BC, Celtic political hegemony in the region appears to have collapsed, and the indigenous
Dacian tribes throughout the region appear to have reasserted their identity and political
independence.[165] This process may have been partly due to the career of the Getan king
Burebista (ruled ca 80 – 44 BC), who appears to have coalesced several Getic and Dacian tribes
under his leadership. It is likely that in this period, the Dacian language regained its former
predominance in Transylvania.

In 29–26 BC, Moesia was conquered and annexed by the Romans. There followed an intensive
process of Romanisation. The Danube, as the new frontier of the empire and main fluvial supply
route for the Roman military, was soon dotted with forts and supply depots, which were
garrisoned by several legions and many auxiliary units. Numerous colonies of Roman army
veterans were established. The presence of the Roman military resulted in a huge influx of non-
Dacian immigrants, such as soldiers, their dependents, ancillary workers and merchants, from
every part of the Roman Empire, especially from the rest of the Balkans, into Moesia. It is likely
that by the time the emperor Trajan invaded Dacia (101–6), the Dacian language had been
largely replaced by Latin in Moesia.

The conquest of Dacia saw a similar process of Romanisation north of the Danube, so that by
200 AD, Latin was probably predominant in the zone permanently occupied by the Romans. In
addition, it appears that some unoccupied parts of the dava zone were overrun, either before or
during the Dacian Wars, by Sarmatian tribes; for example, eastern Wallachia, which had fallen
under the Roxolani by 68 AD.[166] By around 200 AD, it is likely that the Dacian language was
confined to those parts of the dava zone occupied by the Free Dacian groups, which may have
amounted to little more than the eastern Carpathians.

Under the emperor Aurelian (r. 270–275), the Romans withdrew their administration and
armed forces, and possibly a significant proportion of the provincial population, from the part of
Dacia they ruled. The subsequent linguistic status of this region is disputed. Traditional
Romanian historiography maintains that a Latin-speaking population persisted into medieval
times, to form the basis of today's Romanian-speaking inhabitants. But this hypothesis lacks
evidential basis (e.g., the absence of any post-275 Latin inscriptions in the region, other than on
imported Roman coins/artefacts). What is certain is that by AD 300, the entire North Danubian
region had fallen under the political domination of Germanic-speaking groups, a hegemony that
continued until c. AD 500: the Goths held overall hegemony, and under them, lesser Germanic
tribes such as the Taifali and Gepids. Some historians consider that the region became
Germanic-speaking during this period.[167] At least one part, Wallachia, may have become
Slavic-speaking by AD 600, as it is routinely referred to Sklavinía (Greek for "Land of the
Slavs") by contemporary Byzantine chroniclers. The survival of the Dacian language in this
period is impossible to determine, due to a complete lack of documentation. However, it is
generally believed that the language was extinct by AD 600.

Dacia and Moesia: zone of toponyms ending in -dava

At the start of the Roman imperial era
(30 BC), the Dacian language was probably
predominant in the ancient regions of Dacia
and Moesia (although these regions probably
contained several enclaves of Celtic and
Germanic speakers). Strabo's statement that
the Moesian people spoke the same language
as the Dacians and Getae is consistent with
the distribution of placenames, attested in
Ptolemy's Geographia, which carry the
Dacian suffix -dava ("town" or "fort").

North of the Danube, the dava-zone is

largely consistent with Ptolemy's definition
of Dacia's borders (III.8.1–3) i.e. the area
contained by the river Ister (Danube) to the
south, the river Thibiscum (Timiș) to the
west, the upper river Tyras (Dniester) to the Map of the geographical distribution of attested
north and the river Hierasus (Siret) to the placenames with the -dava suffix, covering Dacia,
Moesia, Thrace and Dalmatia, according to Olteanu
east.[168] To the west, it appears that the -
(2010). The dava distribution confirms Dacia and Moesia
dava placenames in Olteanu's map lie within as the zone of Dacian speech. The dava zone is, with
the line of the Timiş, extended northwards. few exceptions, consistent with Ptolemy's definition of
However, four davas are located beyond the Dacia's borders. There is no conclusive evidence that
Siret, Ptolemy's eastern border. But three of Dacian was a predominant language outside the dava
these, Piroboridava, Tamasidava and zone in the 1st century AD. According to Strabo, the
Thracians spoke the same language as the Dacians, in
Zargidava, are described by Ptolemy as
which case Dacian was spoken as far as the Aegean
pará (Gr."very close") to the Siret: Sea and the Bosporus. But Strabo's view is
Piroboridava, the only one securely located, controversial among modern linguists: dava placenames
was 3 km from the Siret.[169] The location of are absent south of the Balkan Mountains, with one
Clepidava is uncertain: Olteanu locates it in exception (see Thracian, below)
north-east Bessarabia, but Georgiev places it
further west, in south-west Ukraine, between
the upper reaches of the Siret and Dniester rivers.[170]

South of the Danube, a dialect of Dacian called Daco-Moesian was probably predominant in the
region known to the Romans as Moesia, which was divided by them into the Roman provinces
of Moesia Superior (roughly modern Serbia) and Moesia Inferior (modern northern Bulgaria as
far as the Balkan range plus Roman Dobruja region). This is evidenced by the distribution of -
dava placenames, which occur in the eastern half of Moesia Superior and all over Inferior.[171]
These regions were inhabited predominantly by tribes believed to have been Dacian-speaking,
such as the Triballi, Moesi and Getae.

However, the dava-zone was not exclusively or uniformly Dacian-speaking during historical
times. Significant Celtic elements survived there into the 2nd century AD: Ptolemy (III.8.3) lists
two Celtic peoples, the Taurisci and Anartes, as resident in the northernmost part of Dacia, in
the northern Carpathians. The partly Celtic Bastarnae are also attested in this region in
literature and the archaeological record during the 1st century BC; they probably remained in
the 1st century AD, according to Batty.[172]

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 scholars, is that Dacian
was the main language spoken between the Baltic Sea and the Black and Aegean seas. But the
evidence for Dacian as a prevalent language outside Dacia and Moesia appears inconclusive:

Republic of Moldova
To the east, beyond the Siret River, it has been argued by numerous scholars that Dacian was
also the main language of the modern regions of Moldavia and Bessarabia, at least as far east as
the river Dniester. The main evidence used to support this hypothesis consists of three -dava
placenames which Ptolemy located just east of the Siret; and the mainstream identification as
ethnic-Dacian of two peoples resident in Moldavia: the Carpi and Costoboci. However, 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 proto-Slavic. Numerous non-Dacian
peoples, both sedentary and nomadic, the Scytho-Sarmatian Roxolani and Agathyrsi,
Germanic/Celtic Bastarnae and Celtic Anartes, are attested to in the ancient sources and in the
archaeological record as inhabiting this region.[169] The linguistic status of this region during
the Roman era must therefore be considered uncertain. It is likely that a great variety of
languages were spoken. If there was a lingua franca spoken by all inhabitants of the region, it
was not necessarily Dacian: it could as likely have been Celtic or Germanic or Sarmatian.

Balkans
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, occupying modern-day Bulgaria south of the Balkan Mountains, northern Greece and
European Turkey, as far as the Aegean Sea. But this theory, based on the testimony of the
Augustan-era geographer Strabo's work Geographica VII.3.2 and 3.13, is disputed; opponents
argue that Thracian was a distinct language from Dacian, either related or unrelated. (see
Relationship with Thracian, below, for a detailed discussion of this issue).

Anatolia
According to some ancient
sources, notably Strabo, the
northwestern section of the
Anatolian peninsula, namely
the ancient regions of
Bithynia, Phrygia and Mysia,
were occupied by tribes of
Thracian or Dacian origin
and thus spoke dialects of the
Thracian or Dacian
languages (which, Strabo
claimed, were in turn closely
related). However, the link
between Dacian and
Thracian has been disputed
by some scholars, as has the
link between these two
Map showing the regions of ancient Anatolia, including Bithynia, Phrygia
languages and Phrygian.
and Mysia

According to Strabo (VII.3.2)

and Herodotus, the people of Bithynia in northwest Anatolia originated from two Thracian
tribes, the Bithyni and Thyni, which migrated from their original home around the river
Strymon in Thrace. Therefore, they spoke the Thracian language. In addition, Strabo (VII.3.2)
claims that the neighbouring Phrygians were also descended from a Thracian tribe, the Briges,
and spoke a language similar to Thracian. In fact, it has been established that both Bithynians
and Phrygians spoke the Phrygian language. Phrygian is better documented than Thracian and
Dacian, as some 200 inscriptions in the language survive. Study of these has led mainstream
opinion to accept the observation of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato (Cratylus 410a) that
Phrygian showed strong affinities to Greek.[173][174] Georgiev argued in one article that Phrygian
originally belonged to the same IE branch as Greek and Ancient Macedonian (which did not
include Thracian or Dacian),[175] but later adopted the view that Phrygian constituted a separate
branch of Indo-European, (also unrelated to Thracian or Dacian).[34] This position is currently
favoured by mainstream scholarship.[29]

In addition, Strabo (VII.3.2) equates the Moesi people of the Danubian basin with the Mysi
(Mysians), neighbours of the Phrygians in 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 also spoke the Dacian language. Georgiev accepts Strabo's statement, dubbing the
language of the Moesi "Daco-Mysian". However, there is insufficient evidence about either
Dacian or the Mysian language, both of which are virtually undocumented, to verify Strabo's
claim. It is possible that Strabo made a false identification based solely on the similarity
between the two tribal names, which may have been coincidental.

Hungarian Plain
The hypothesis that Dacian was widely spoken to the north-west of Dacia is primarily based on
the career of Dacian king Burebista, who ruled approximately between 80 and 44 BC. According
to Strabo, Burebista coalesced the Geto-Dacian tribes under his leadership and conducted
military operations as far as Pannonia and Thracia. Although Strabo appears to portray these
campaigns as short-term raids for plunder and to punish his enemies, several Romanian
scholars have argued, on the basis of controversial interpretation of archaeological data, that
they resulted in longer-term Dacian occupation and settlement of large territories beyond the
dava zone.

Some scholars have asserted that Dacian was the main language of the sedentary population of
the Hungarian Plain, at least as far as the river Tisza, and possibly 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 or ambiguous to be
of much geographical value. There is little hard evidence to support the thesis of a large ethnic-
Dacian population on the Plain:

1. Toponyms: Ptolemy (III.7.1) provides 8 placenames for the territory of the Iazyges
Metanastae (i.e. the Hungarian Plain). None of these carry the Dacian -dava suffix. At least
three -Uscenum, Bormanum and the only one which can be located with confidence,
Partiscum (Szeged, Hungary) – have been identified as Celtic placenames by scholars.[176]
2. Archaeology: Concentrations of La Tène-type cemeteries suggest that the Hungarian Plain
was the scene of heavy Celtic immigration and settlement in the period 400–260 BC (see
above). During the period 100 BC – AD 100, the archaeology of the sedentary population of
the Plain has been interpreted by some dated scholars as showing Dacian (Mocsy 1974) or
Celto-Dacian (Parducz 1956) features. However, surveys of the results of excavations using
modern scientific methods, e.g., Szabó (2005) and Almássy (2006), favour the view that the
sedentary population of the Hungarian Plain in this period was predominantly Celtic and that
any Dacian-style features were probably the results of trade.[177] Of 94 contemporaneous
sites excavated between 1986 and 2006, the vast majority have been identified as probably
Celtic, while only two as possibly Dacian, according to Almássy, who personally excavated
some of the sites.[178] Almássy concludes: "In the Great Hungarian Plain, we have to count
on a sporadic Celtic village network in which the Celtic inhabitants lived mixed with the
people of the Scythian Age [referring to traces of an influx of Scythians during the 1st
century BC], that could have continued into the Late Celtic Period without significant
changes. This system consisted of small, farm-like settlements interspersed with a few
relatively large villages... In the 1st century AD nothing refers to a significant immigration of
Dacian people."[177] Visy (1995) concurs that there is little archaeological evidence of a
Dacian population on the Plain before its occupation by the Sarmatians in the late 1st
century AD.[179]
3. Epigraphy: Inscription AE (1905) 14 records a campaign on the Hungarian Plain by the
Augustan-era general Marcus Vinucius, dated to 10 BC[180] or 8 BC[181] i.e. during or just
after the Roman conquest of Pannonia (bellum Pannonicum 14–9 BC), in which Vinucius
played a leading role as governor of the neighbouring Roman province of Illyricum. The
inscription states: "Marcus Vinucius...[patronymic], Consul [in 19 BC] ...[various official
titles], governor of Illyricum, the first [Roman general] to advance across the river Danube,
defeated in battle and routed an army of Dacians and Basternae, and subjugated the Cotini,
Osi,...[missing tribal name] and Anartii to the power of the emperor Augustus and of the
people of Rome."[182] The inscription suggests that the population of the Hungarian Plain
retained their Celtic character in the time of Augustus: the scholarly consensus is that the
Cotini and Anartes were Celtic tribes and the Osi either Celts or Celticised Illyrians.
Slovakia
To the north-west, the argument has been advanced that Dacian was also prevalent in modern-
day Slovakia and parts of Poland. The basis for this is the presumed Dacian occupation of the
fortress of Zemplin in Slovakia in the era of Dacian king Burebista – whose campaigns outside
Dacia have been dated c. 60 – 44 BC – and Ptolemy's location of two -dava placenames on the
lower Vistula River in Poland.

The hypothesis of a Dacian occupation of Slovakia during the 1st century BC is contradicted by
the archaeological evidence that this region featured a predominantly Celtic culture from c.
400 BC;[183] and a sophisticated kingdom of the Boii Celtic tribe. Based in modern-day
Bratislava during the 1st century BC, this polity issued its own gold and silver coinage (the so-
called "Biatec-type" coins), which bear the names of several kings with recognised Celtic names.
This kingdom is also evidenced by numerous Celtic-type fortified hill-top settlements (oppida),
of which Zemplin is the foremost example in south-east Slovakia. Furthermore, the
archaeological Puchov culture, present in Slovakia in this period, is considered Celtic by
mainstream scholars.[183] Some scholars argue that Zemplin was occupied by Burebista's
warriors from about 60 BC onwards, but this is based on the presence of Dacian-style artefacts
alongside the Celtic ones, which may simply have been cultural imports. But even if occupation
by Dacian troops under Burebista actually occurred, it would probably have been brief, as in
44 BC Burebista died and his kingdom collapsed and split into 4 fragments. In any case, it does
not follow that the indigenous population became Dacian-speakers during the period of Dacian
control. Karol Pieta's discussion of the ethnicity of the Puchov people shows that opinion is
divided between those who attribute the culture to a Celtic group – the Boii or Cotini are the
leading candidates – and those who favour a Germanic group, e.g., the Buri. Despite wide
acknowledgement of Dacian influence, there is little support for the view that the people of this
region were ethnic Dacians.[184]

Poland
The hypothesis of a substantial Dacian population in the river Vistula basin is not widely
supported among modern scholars, as this region is generally regarded as inhabited
predominantly by Germanic tribes during the Roman imperial era, e.g., Heather
(2009).[185][161][186][187]

The fate of Dacian

From the earliest times that they are attested, Dacians lived on both sides of Danube[188][189]
and on both sides of the Carpathians, evidenced by the northern Dacian town Setidava. It is
unclear exactly when the Dacian language became extinct, or whether it has a living descendant.
The first Roman conquest of part of Dacia did not extinguish the language, as Free Dacian tribes
may have continued to speak Dacian in the area north-east of the Carpathians as late as the 6th
or 7th century AD. 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.
However, mainstream scholarship considers Albanian to be a descendant of the Illyrian
language and not a dialect of Dacian.[29] In this scenario, Albanian/Romanian cognates are
either Daco-Moesian loanwords acquired by Albanian, or, more likely, Illyrian
loanwords/substrate words acquired by Romanian.

The argument for a split before 300 BC is that inherited Albanian words (e.g. Alb motër 'sister'
< Late IE *ma:ter 'mother') show the transformation Late IE /aː/ > Alb /o/, but all the Latin
loans in Albanian having an /aː/ show Latin /aː/ > Alb a. This indicates that the transformation
PAlb /aː/ > PAlb /o/ happened and ended before the Roman arrival in the Balkans. However,
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 /aː/ (mazăre / modhull
< *maːdzula 'pea', rață / rosë < *raːtjaː 'duck'), indicating that when these words had the same
common form in Pre-Romanian and Proto-Albanian, the transformation PAlb /aː/ > PAlb /o/
had not yet begun. The correlation between these two theories indicates that the hypothetical
split between the pre-Roman Dacians, who were later Romanised, and Proto-Albanian
happened before the Romans arrived in the Balkans.

Extinction
According to Georgiev, Daco-Moesian was replaced by Latin as the everyday language in some
parts of the two Moesiae during the Roman imperial era, but in others, for instance Dardania in
modern-day southern Serbia and northern North Macedonia, Daco-Moesian remained
dominant, although heavily influenced by eastern Balkan Latin.[13] The language may have
survived in remote areas until the 6th century.[190] Thracian, also supplanted by Latin, and by
Greek in its southern zone, is documented as a living language in approximately 500 AD.[191]

Sound changes from Proto-Indo-European

Phonologically Dacian is a conservative Indo-European (IE) language. From the remaining
fragments, the sound changes from Proto-Indo-European (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 appear 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, Dacian 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 became ts
5. PIE *ǵ became dz
6. PIE *kʷ when followed by e, i became tʃ.
̠ Otherwise became k. Same fate for PIE cluster
*kw.
7. PIE *gʷ and *gʷh when followed by e or i became d̠ʒ. Otherwise became g. Same fate for
PIE cluster *gw
8. PIE *m, *n, *p, *t, *r, *l were preserved.
Note: In the course of the diachronic development of Dacian, a palatalisation of k and g appears
to have occurred before front vowels according to the following process[192]

k > [kj] > [tj] > [tʃ] ~ [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)[192]
g > [ɡj] > [dj] > [dz] ~ [z] ⟨z⟩, e.g.: Germisara appears as Γερμιζερα, with the variants
Ζερμιζίργα, Ζερμίζιργα[192]

Vocabulary

Place names
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 suffix 'dava', meaning settlement or village. But, other
Dacian names from his list lack the suffix, for example Zarmisegethusa regia = Zermizirga, and
nine other names of Dacian origin seem to have been Latinised.[193]
The Dacian linguistic area is characterised mainly with composite names ending in -dava, or
variations such as -deva, -daua, -daba, etc. The settlement names ending in these suffixes are
geographically grouped as follows:

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.
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.
In Upper Moesia (the present districts of Nish, Sofia, and partly Kjustendil): Aiadaba,
Bregedaba, Danedebai, Desudaba, Itadeba, Kuimedaba, Zisnudeba – 7 names in total.
Besides these regions, similar village names are found in three other places:

Thermi-daua (Ptolemy), a town in Dalmatia, a Grecised form of *Germidava. This settlement

was probably founded by immigrants from Dacia.
Gil-doba – a village in Thrace, of unknown location.
Pulpu-deva in Thrace – today Plovdiv in Bulgaria.
A number of Dacian settlements do not have the -dava ending or variant suffix. Some of these
are: 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
In the case of Ptolemy's Dacia, most of the tribal names are similar to those on the list of
civitates, with few exceptions.[194] Georgiev counts the Triballi, the Moesians and the
Dardanians as Daco-Moesians.[195][196]

Plant names
In ancient literary sources, the Dacian names for a number
of medicinal plants and herbs survive in ancient texts,[4][5]
including about 60 plant names in Dioscorides.[6] The Greek
physician Pedanius Dioscorides, of Anazarbus in Asia
Minor, wrote the medical textbook De Materia Medica
(Ancient Greek: Περὶ ὕλης ἰατρικῆς) in the mid-1st century
AD. In Wellmann's opinion (1913), accepted by Russu
(1967), the Dacian plant names were added in the 3rd
century AD from a glossary published by the Greek Dioscorides, De Materia Medica,
grammarian Pamphilus of Alexandria (1st century AD). [197] Byzantium, 15th century.
The Dacian glosses were probably added to the Pseudo-
Apuleius texts by the 4th century. The mixture of indigenous
Dacian, Latin and Greek words in the lists of Dacian plant names may be explained by a
linguistic crossing process occurring in that period.[198]
Although many Dacian toponyms have uncertain meanings, they are more reliable as sources of
Dacian words than the names of medicinal plants provided by Dioscorides, which have led to
speculative identifications: out of 57 plants, 25 identifications may be erroneous, according to
Asher & Simpson.[199] According to the Bulgarian linguist Decev, of the 42 supposedly Dacian
plant names in Dioscorides only 25 are truly Dacian, while 10 are Latin and 7 Greek. Also, of the
31 "Dacian" plant names recorded by Pseudo-Apuleius, 16 are really Dacian, 9 are Latin and 8
are Greek.[198]

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

Dacian blis and Latin blitum (from Greek bliton for purple amaranth[200]
Dacian amolusta and Campanian amolocia for chamomile[200][201]
Dacian dracontos and Italic dracontes for rosemary[200]

Reconstruction of Dacian words

Both Georgiev and Duridanov use the comparative linguistic method to decipher ancient
Thracian and Dacian names, respectively. Georgiev (1977) argues that the meaning of an ancient
placename in an unknown language can be deciphered by comparing it to its successor-names
and to cognate placenames and words in other Indo-European languages, both ancient and
modern. Georgiev considers decipherment by analysis of root-words alone to be devoid of
scientific value.[202] He gives several examples of his methodology, one of which refers to a
town and river (a tributary of the Danube) in eastern Romania called Cernavodă, which in Slavic
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 that Axiopa meant
"black water" in Dacian, on the basis that Cernavodă is probably a calque of the ancient Dacian
name.[203] According to Georgiev, the likely IE root-word for Axios is *n-̥ ks(e)y-no ("dark,
black" cf. Avestan axsaena).[204] 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. There was another Balkan river also known in antiquity as
Axios, whose source was in the Dacian-speaking region of Moesia: its modern Macedonian
name is Crna reka (Slavic for "black river"): although it was in Dardania (Rep. of North
Macedonia), a mainly Illyrian-speaking region. Georgiev considers this river-name to be of
Daco-Moesian origin. The axi element is also validated by the older Greek name for the Black
Sea, Ἄξεινος πόντος – Axeinos pontos, later altered to the euphemism Εὔξεινος πόντος
Euxeinos pontos meaning "Hospitable sea". The opa/upa element is validated by the Lithuanian
cognate upė, meaning "water").[205] The second component of the town's name *-upolis may be
a diminutive of *upa cf. Lithuanian diminutive upelis.[203]

[N.B. This etymology was questioned by Russu: Axiopa, a name attested to only in Procopius'
De Aedificiis, may be a corrupted form of Axiopolis.[206] However, even if correct, Russu's
objection is irrelevant: it does not affect the interpretation of the axi- element as meaning
"black", or the upa as meaning "water" cf. placename Scenopa. Fraser (1959) noted 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 to be of Thracian
origin, meaning "great".[207] However, there is no certainty that the axi element in Greece was
of Thracian (as opposed to Greek or other language), or that it meant "great" rather than
"black". In any case, this objection may not be relevant, if Thracian was a separate language to
Dacian].

Some linguists are skeptical of this reconstruction methodology of Dacian. The phonetic systems
of Dacian and Thracian and their evolution are not reconstructed directly from indigenous
elements but from their approximative Greek or Latin transcripts.[46][47] Greek and Latin had
no dedicated graphic signs for phonemes such as č, ġ, ž, š and others. Thus, if a Thracian or
Dacian word contained such a phoneme, a Greek or Latin transcript would not represent it
accurately.[48] The etymologies that are adduced to back up the proposed Dacian and Thracian
vowel and consonant changes, used for word reconstruction with the comparative method, are
open to divergent interpretations because the material is related to place names, with the
exception of Dacian plant names and the limited number of glosses.[208] Because of this, there
are divergent and even contradictory assumptions for the phonological structure and
development of the Dacian and Thracian languages.[208] It is doubtful that the Dacian
phonological system has been accurately reproduced by Greek or Latin transcripts of indigenous
lexica.[209]

In the case of personal names, the choice of the etymology is often a matter of compliance with
assumed phonological rules.[210] Since the geographical aspect of the occurrence of sound
changes (i.e. o > a) within Thracian territory, based on the work of V. Georgiev, began to be
emphasised by some researchers, the chronological aspect has been somewhat neglected.[211]
There are numerous cases where lack of information has obscured the vocalism of these idioms,
generating the most contradictory theories.[212] Today, some 3,000 Thraco-Dacian lexical units
are known. In the case of the oscillation *o / *a, the total number of words containing it is about
30, many more than the ones cited by both Georgiev and Russu, and the same explanation is not
valid for all of them.[213]

In 2024, Robert Eggers' remake of Nosferatu utilized Dacian in several instances of Count
Orlok's dialogue (played by Bill Skarsgård).[214][215] This was done with the consultation of
Romanian screenwriter Florin Lăzărescu.[216]

See also

List articles

List of ancient cities in Thrace and Dacia

List of Dacian kings
List of Dacian names
List of Dacian plant names
List of Dacian towns
List of reconstructed Dacian words
Substrate in Romanian
Other articles

Albanian language
Daco-Thracian
Davae
Megleno-Romanian language
Thracian language
Thraco-Roman
Paleo-Balkan languages
Phrygian language
Scythian languages
Sinaia lead plates

Notes

Footnotes
a. Rădulescu 1984, p. 85: "Russu's conviction about the existence of a 'Thraco-Dacian
Language', shared by Crossland and by Vraciu (1980) and the reservations expressed by
Polomé and Katicic (see above) are thus fully justified"
b. Crossland 1982, p. 838: "V. I. Georgiev (1977) has claimed in addition that names from the
Dacian and Mysian areas approximately Roman Dacia and Moesia) show different and
generally less extensive changes in Indo-European consonants and vowels than do those
found in Thrace itself. The evidence seems to indicate divergence of a 'Thraco-Dacian'
language into northern and southern groups of dialects, not so different as to rank as
separate languages, with the development of special tendencies in word formation and of
certain secondary phonetic features in each group"
c. Rădulescu 1984, p. 85: "Georgiev had the merit to state that Daco-Moesian possesses a
certain degree of dialectal individuality, but the data presented here clearly label as wrong
any theory which claims a more profound separation between Daco-Moesian and Thracian
proper, even if Daco-Moesian proves to be more closely related to Illyrian than to Thracian
or, as it seems more likely to be the case, if we will eventually have to conclude that we deal
with three different dialects of the same language"
d. Rădulescu 1987, p. 243: "Russu defended two important theses: 1) the close relationship
between Daco-Moesian and Thracian (the title of his book is The language of the Thraco-
Dacians), and 2) the nonexistence of a "consonantal shift" in Thracian, contrasting it with
Daco-Mysian, firmly supporting the position that, in both dialects, the IE *MA and M merged
into M and the *T remained unmodified"
e. Trask 2000, p. 343: "...Thracian An extinct and poorly known Indo-European language of
ancient Bulgaria and Romania. Its slightly distinct northern variety is sometimes
distinguished as Dacian, in which case the label Daco-Thracian is applied to the whole
complex ..."
f. Papazoglu 1978, p. 79: "... To explain the appearance of Desudaba and Pulpudeva on
Thracian territory we must suppose that word dava was understandable to the Thracians
although they used it infrequently. It is quite common thing in the same linguistic area to find
that one type of place-name appears more frequently, or even exclusively in one district,
another in another..."
g. Rosetti 1982, p. 5: "Solta montre qu'il n'y a pas de difference entre le thrace et le dace"
h. Schütte 1917, p. 87: "The Romans knew the dimensions of Dacia, as it is stated by Agrippa
h. Schütte 1917, p. 87: "The Romans knew the dimensions of Dacia, as it is stated by Agrippa
(c. 63 BC – 12 BC) in his Commentaries: 'Dacia, Getica finiuntur ab oriente desertis
Sarmatiae, ab occidente flumine Vistula, a septentrione Oceano, a meridie flumine Histro.
quae patent in longitudine milia passuum CCLXXX, in latitudine qua cognitum est milia
passuura CCCLXXXVI'"
i. See one possible reconstruction: (livius: Image)
j. Strabo, VII.3.1: "As for the southern part of Germany beyond the Albis, the portion which is
just contiguous to that river is occupied by the Suevi; then immediately adjoining this is the
land of the Getae, which, though narrow at first, stretching as it does along the Ister on its
southern side and on the opposite side along the mountain-side of the Hercynian Forest (for
the land of the Getae also embraces a part of the mountains), afterwards broadens out
towards the north as far as the Tyregetae; but I cannot tell the precise boundaries."
k. Lengyel et al. 1980, p. 87 "No matter where the Boii first settled after they left Italia,
however, when they arrived at the Danube they had to fight the Dacians who held the entire
territory — or at least part of it. Strabo tells us that later animosity between the Dacians and
the Boii stemmed from the fact that the Dacians demanded the land from the latter which
the Dacians pretended to have possessed earlier."
l. Gruen 2011, p. 204 Germany as a whole is separated from the Gauls and from the Raetians
and Pannonians by the rivers Rhine and Danube, from the Sarmatians and Dacians by
mutual fear or mountains; the ocean surrounds the rest of it.
m. Hrushevskyi 1997, p. 97: Dacia, as described by Ptolemy, occupied the region between the
Tisza, Danube, upper Dnister, and Seret, while the Black Sea coast — namely, the Greek
colonies of Tyras, Olbia, and others — were included in Lower Moesia.

Citations
1. "Dacian" (https://archive.today/20141230224410/http://multitree.org/codes/xdc). Archived
from the original (http://multitree.org/codes/xdc) on 30 December 2014. Retrieved
29 January 2024.
2. Asenova 1999, p. 212.
3. Nandris 1976, p. 730.
4. Dioscorides.
5. Pseudo-Apuleius.
6. Price 1998, p. 120.
7. Petrescu-Dîmbovița 1978, p. 130.
8. Polomé 1982, p. 872.
9. Renfrew 1987, p. 149 (map).
10. Mallory 1989, pp. 107, 109.
11. Dumitrescu, Bolomey & Mogosanu 1982, p. 53.
12. Hoddinott 1989, p. 52.
13. Georgiev 1977, p. 287.
14. Strabo, VII.3.2.
15. Vraciu 1974, p. 283.
16. Edwards, Gadd & Hammond 1971, p. 840 (https://archive.org/details/cambridgeancient1971
edwa/page/840).
17. Schall H., Sudbalten und Daker. Vater der Lettoslawen. In:Primus congressus studiorum
thracicorum. Thracia II. Serdicae, 1974, S. 304, 308, 310
18. The Language of the Thracians, Ivan Duridanov, 2.9 Thracian and Illyrian (http://www.krorai
na.com/thrac_lang/thrac_9.html)
19. Rădulescu 1987.
19. Rădulescu 1987.
20. Mayer 1996.
21. Georgiev 1977, pp. 132, 183, 192, 204, 282.
22. Lloshi 1999, p. 283.
23. Friedman 2020, p. 388; Friedman 2022.
24. Polomé 1982, p. 878.
25. Rădulescu 1987, p. 243.
26. Katičić & Križman 1976, p. 150.
27. Crossland 1982, p. 848.
28. Renfrew 1990, p. 190.
29. Polomé 1982, p. 888.
30. Rosetti 1982, p. 5.
31. Strabo, VII.3.2, 3.13.
32. Mihailov 2008, p. 598.
33. Bolovan et al. 1997, p. 10.
34. Georgiev 1977, p. 282.
35. Georgiev 1977, p. 298.
36. Poultney 1968, p. 338.
37. Georgiev 1977, p. 283.
38. Trask 2000, p. 343.
39. McHenry 1993, p. 645.
40. Shashi 1992, p. 107.
41. Academic American encyclopedia 1994, p. 198.
42. Duridanov 1969, p. 100.
43. Georgiev 1977, pp. 63, 128, 282.
44. Duridanov 1985, ch. VIII.
45. Duridanov 1985, p. .
46. Fisher 2003, p. 570.
47. Polomé 1982, p. 885.
48. Paliga 1986, p. 120.
49. Polomé 1982, pp. 878, 879.
50. Rădulescu 1984, p. 78.
51. Georgiev 1977, pp. 280, 285, 298.
52. Tomaschek 1883, p. 402.
53. Rosetti 1978, p. 220.
54. Polomé 1982, p. 876.
55. Georgiev 1977, p. 191, (map).
56. Georgiev 1977, p. 279.
57. Bynon 1974, pp. 271–273.
58. Papazoglu 1978, p. 79.
59. Tacheva 1997, p. 200.
60. Twist 2001, p. 69.
61. Georgiev 1977, p. 191.
62. Crossland 1982, p. 838.
63. Rădulescu 1984, p. 85.
 63. Rădulescu 1984, p. 85.
64. Renfrew 1990, p. 71.
65. Polomé 1982, pp. 887–888.
66. Theodossiev 2000, p. 88.
67. Poultney 1968, p. 339.
68. Momigliano 1984, p. 216.
69. Hehn 1976, p. 428.
70. cf Georgiev 1977, p. .
71. Georgiev 1981, p. 142.
72. Appel & Muysken 2006, p. .
73. Walters 1988, p. 18.
74. Campbell 1998, p. .
75. Bulei 2005, p. 26.
76. Polomé 1983, p. 539.
77. Polomé 1983, p. 540.
78. Rusakov 2017, p. 555.
79. Demiraj 2006, p. 78.
80. Friedman 2020, p. 388.
81. Friedman 2022.
82. Hyllested & Joseph 2022, p. 235.
83. Duridanov 1969.
84. Dėl žynio Žalmokšio vardo kilmės.
85. Duridanov 1976.
86. Duridanov 1969, pp. 95–96.
87. Polomé 1982.
88. Vyčinienė, p. 122.
89. Toporov 1973, pp. 51–52.
90. Duridanov 1969, pp. 9–11.
91. Mayer 1992.
92. Mayer 1997.
93. Mayer 1999.
94. Turnvvald 1968, p. .
95. de Rosales 2015.
96. de Rosales 2020.
97. Gimbutas 1963, pp. 30–31 (fig. 2).
98. Heather 2009, map 16.
99. Anale de Istorie 1976.
100. Boia 2001, pp. 103–105.
101. Noi nu suntem urmașii Romei.
102. Congrese Dacologie: Dacia Revival.
103. Daicoviciu 1972, p. 27.
104. Price 1998, p. 21.
105. DEX, melc (https://dexonline.ro/definitie/melc).
106. DEX, balaur (https://dexonline.ro/definitie/balaur).
107. DEX, brad (https://dexonline.ro/definitie/brad).
108. Polomé 1982, p. 998.
108. Polomé 1982, p. 998.
109. Duridanov 1969, p. 94.
110. Bolovan et al. 1997, pp. 10–11.
111. Bolovan et al. 1997, p. 11.
112. Georgiev 1981, p. 148.
113. Mountain 1998, p. 59.
114. Magocsi & Pop 2002, p. 71.
115. Shchukin 1989, p. 347.
116. Ehrich 1970, p. 228.
117. Mielczarek 1989, p. 121.
118. Milewski 1969, p. 304.
119. Antoniewicz 1966, p. 12.
120. Milewski 1969, p. 306.
121. Nicolet 1991, p. 109.
122. Mielczarek 1989, p. 13.
123. Urbańczyk 2001, p. 510.
124. Müllenhoff 1856, p. 19.
125. Urbańczyk 1997, p. 13.
126. Tacitus, p. 46.
127. Strabo, Jones & Sterrett 1917–1961, p. 28.
128. Taylor 2001, p. 215.
129. Strabo, V.1.6; VII.1.3; VII.5.2.
130. Lengyel et al. 1980, p. 87.
131. Hrushevskyi 1997, p. 93.
132. Bosworth 1980, p. 60.
133. Pliny the Elder, p. 179.
134. Carnap-Bornheim 2003, p. 228.
135. Shelley 1997, p. 10.
136. Mocsy 1974, p. 95.
137. Toma 2007, p. 65.
138. Mattern 2002, p. 61.
139. Bunbury 1979, p. 517.
140. Mocsy 1974, p. 21.
141. Pop & Nägler 2005, p. 71.
142. Berenger 1994, p. 25.
143. Waldman & Mason 2006, p. 205.
144. Avery 1972, p. 113.
145. Fol 1996, p. 223.
146. Dobiáš 1964, p. 70.
147. Berindei & Candea 2001, p. 429.
148. Schütte 1952, p. 270.
149. Giurescu & Giurescu 1974, p. 31.
150. Childe 1930, p. 245.
151. Schütte 1917, pp. 143, 109.
152. Heather 2010, p. 131.
152. Heather 2010, p. 131.
153. Popescu-Spineni 1987, p. 53.
154. Rădulescu 1987, p. 249.
155. Russu 1969, p. 27.
156. Wald, Sluşanschi & Băltăceanu 1987, p. 117.
157. Schütte 1917, p. 99.
158. Georgiev 1972, p. 63.
159. Poghirc 1983, p. 92.
160. Hrushevskyi 1997, p. 98.
161. Barrington Atlas 2000, Map 19.
162. Opreanu 1997, p. 249.
163. Twist 2001, p. 59.
164. Batty 2007, p. 279.
165. Twist 2001, p. 91.
166. Tacitus, Histories, I.79.
167. Heather 1999, p. 155.
168. Ptolemy, III.8.1–3.
169. Barrington Atlas 2000, Map 22.
170. Georgiev 1977, p. 191 (map).
171. Georgiev 1977, p. 191 map.
172. Batty 2007, p. 378.
173. Brixhe 1994.
174. Brixhe 2008, p. 72 (https://books.google.com/books?id=J-f_jwCgmeUC&pg=PA72).
175. Georgiev 1960, pp. 285–297.
176. Muller 1883, p. .
177. Almássy 2006, p. 263.
178. Almássy 2006, pp. 253 (fig. 2), 254 (fig 3).
179. Visy 1995, p. 280.
180. Almássy 2006, p. 253.
181. CAH: 10 1996.
182. Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss / Slaby EDCS.
183. Bazovski 2008.
184. Pieta 1982, pp. 204–209.
185. Heather 2009, p. 620 (map).
186. Tacitus, p. 43.
187. Ptolemy, II.10; III.7.
188. Strabo Geography.
189. Dio Cassius LI, 22, 6
190. Du Nay 1977, p. 262.
191. Jones 1964, p. 998.
192. Polomé 1982, p. .
193. Oltean 2007, p. 114.
194. Oltean 2007, p. 46.
195. Papazoglu 1978, p. 78.
196. Georgiev 1981, p. 150.
197. Russu 1967, p. 45.
197. Russu 1967, p. 45.
198. Rosetti & Graur 1969, p. 315.
199. Asher & Simpson 1994, p. 1665.
200. Poghirc 1986, p. 348.
201. Pelletier 1985, p. 81, Campani amolocia Tusci abiana Daci amolusta (Pseudo-Apuleius, 23).
202. Georgiev (1976) 276
203. Polomé 1982, p. 879.
204. Georgiev 1981, p. 109.
205. Georgiev 1977, p. 277.
206. See Russu 1963, p. 131 and Russu 1969, p. 76. Ἀξιόπλ is an abbreviation for Axiopolis in
the manuscripts of De Aedificiis.
207. Fraser 1959, p. 28.
208. Polomé 1982, pp. 878–879.
209. Panayotou 2007, p. 742.
210. Polomé 1982, p. 881.
211. Poghirc 1989, p. 297.
212. Poghirc 1989, p. 306.
213. Poghirc 1989, p. 298.
214. Truitt, Brian. " 'Nosferatu' star Bill Skarsgård embraced opera to get his vampire voice right"
(https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2024/12/30/bill-skarsgard-nosferatu-
vampire/77158565007/). USA TODAY. Retrieved 5 January 2025.
215. "Robert Eggers' Nosferatu resurrected a real, dead language for Bill Skarsgård's undead
Count Orlok to speak" (https://www.thepopverse.com/movies-nosferatu-count-orlok-bill-skar
sgard-voice-robert-eggers). Popverse. 3 January 2025. Retrieved 5 January 2025.
216. Connellan, Shannon (25 December 2024). " 'Nosferatu' review: Is Robert Eggers' remake a
blessing or a curse?" (https://mashable.com/article/nosferatu-review). Mashable. Retrieved
5 January 2025.

Works cited

Ancient
Dioscorides, Pedanius (ed.). De materia medica.
Pliny, the elder (2000) [77–79 AD]. Natural history Volume 2, Issues 3–7. Harvard University
Press.
Pseudo-Apuleius (ed.). De Herbarum Virtutibus.
Ptolemy (ed.). Geographia.
Strabo. Geographica.
Tacitus (ed.). Germania.
Tacitus. Histories.

Modern
Academic American encyclopedia. Vol. 10. Grolier Incorporated. 1994. p. 198. ISBN 978-0-
7172-2053-3.
Almássy, Katalin (2006). "Celts and Dacians(?) In the Great Hungarian Plain 1st c. BC to 1st
Almássy, Katalin (2006). "Celts and Dacians(?) In the Great Hungarian Plain 1st c. BC to 1st
c. AD" (http://www.archaeology.ru/Download/Almassy/Almassy_2009_Celts.pdf) (PDF). In
Salac, V.; Bemman, J. (eds.). Mitteleuropa in Zeit Marbods.
Antoniewicz, Jerzy (1966). "Tribal Territories of the Baltic People in the Hallstatt – La Tène
and Roman Periods in the Light of Archaeology and Toponymy". Acta Baltico-Slavica. 4–5.
Appel, René; Muysken, Pieter (2006). Language Contact and Bilangualism. Amsterdam
University Press. ISBN 978-90-5356-857-6.
Asenova, Petja (1999). Bulgarian in Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik. Wiesbaden,
Harrassowitz. ISBN 978-3-447-03939-0.
Asher, R. E.; Simpson, J. M. Y. (1994). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (https
://books.google.com/books?id=oT9iAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP1). Vol. 3. Pergamon Press.
ISBN 978-0-08-035943-4.
Avery, Catherine (1972). The New Century handbook of classical geography. Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Baldi, Philip (1983). An Introduction to the Indo-European Languages. Southern Illinois
University Press. ISBN 978-0-8093-1091-3.
Batty, Roger (2007). Rome and the Nomads. The Pontic-Danubian Realm in Antiquity.
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-019814936-1.
Bazovski, Igor (2008), Celts, the Iron Age Warriors (summary of review), SNM (Slovak
National Museum)
"The Beginnings of the History of the Romanian People" (https://books.google.com/books?i
d=0LZVAAAAYAAJ). Anale de Istorie (4). 1976. ISSN 1010-5506 (https://search.worldcat.or
g/issn/1010-5506).
Berenger, Jean (1994). A History of the Habsburg Empire 1273–1700. Longman Group
United Kingdom. ISBN 978-0-582-09009-5.
Berindei, Dan; Candea, Virgil (2001). Mostenirea timpurilor indepartate (in Romanian).
Editura Enciclopedica. ISBN 978-973450381-0.
Best, Jan G. P.; de Vries, Nanny M. W., eds. (1989). Thracians and Mycenaeans:
Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Thracology Rotterdam, 24–26
September 1984. Brill Academic. ISBN 978-90-04-08864-1.
Boia, Lucian (2001). History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. Central European
University Press. pp. 103–105. ISBN 963-9116-97-1.
Bolovan, Ioan; Constantiniu, Florin; Michelson, Paul E.; et al. (1997). Treptow, Kurt (ed.). A
History of Romania (https://books.google.com/books?id=oSNpAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP1). East
European Monographs. ISBN 978-0-88033-345-0.
Bosworth, A.B. (1980). A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander Volume 1:
Commentary on Books I-III. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-019814828-9.
Bowman, Alan K.; Champlin, Edward; Lintott, Andrew, eds. (1996). The Cambridge Ancient
History. Vol. 10. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-052126430-3.
Brixhe, Claude (1994). "Le Phrygien". In Bader, Fr (ed.). Langues indo-européennes (in
French). Paris: CNRS Éditions. pp. 165–178. ISBN 978-227105043-4.
Brixhe, Claude (2008). "Phrygian". In Woodard, Roger D. (ed.). The Ancient Languages of
Asia Minor (https://books.google.com/books?id=J-f_jwCgmeUC). Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 978-0-521-68496-5.
Bulei, Ion (2005). A short history of Romania. Bucharest; Meronia Publishers. ISBN 978-
973-9884-41-9.
Bunbury, Sir Edward Herbert (1979) [First published 1883]. A history of ancient geography
among the Greeks and Romans: from the earliest ages till the fall of the Roman Empire.
Vol. 2. J. C. Gieben.
Bynon, Thelma (1974). Historical Linguistics.
Bynon, Thelma (1974). Historical Linguistics.
Campbell, George L. (1998). Concise Compendium of the World's Languages. London:
Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-16049-0.
Carnap-Bornheim, Claus (2003). Kontakt, Kooperation, Konflikt: Germanen und Sarmaten
zwischen dem 1. und dem 4. Jahrhundert nach Christus (in German). Wachholtz. ISBN 978-
352901871-8.
Childe, V. Gordon (1930). The Bronze Age (https://books.google.com/books?id=T8oIysjq0T
QC&pg=PP1). Biblo & Tannen Publishers. ISBN 978-0-8196-0123-0.
"Congrese Dacologie: Dacia Revival" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120715122955/http://d
acia.org/daciarevival/congresedacologie). Archived from the original (http://www.dacia.org/d
aciarevival/congresedacologie) on 15 July 2012. Retrieved 24 July 2012.
Crossland, R.A. (1982). "Linguistic problems of the Balkan area in the late prehistoric and
early Classical period". In Boardman, John (ed.). The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 3,
Part 1. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-22496-3.
Daicoviciu, Hadrian (1972). Dacii (in Romanian). Editura Enciclopedică Română.
"Dėl žynio Žalmokšio vardo kilmės" (http://www.yogi.lt/proteviu-sauksmas/del-zynio-zalmoksi
o-vardo-kilmes/). Vydos Vartai Yogi.lt (in Lithuanian). 3 April 2012.
DEX (https://dexonline.ro) (in Romanian). Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy.
2016. ISBN 978-606-704-161-3.
Demiraj, Shaban (2006). The origin of the Albanians (linguistically investigated) (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=aXIbAQAAIAAJ). Tirana: Academy of Sciences of Albania.
ISBN 978-99943-817-1-5.
Dobiáš, Josef (1964). Dějiny československého území před vystoupením Slovanů. Nakl.
Československé akademie věd.
Du Nay, André (1977). The early history of the Rumanian language (https://archive.org/detail
s/earlyhistoryofru0000duna). ISBN 978-093310403-7 – via Internet Archive.
Dumitrescu, V.L.; Bolomey, A.; Mogosanu, F. (1982). "The Prehistory of Romania: from the
earliest times to 1000 B.C". In Boardman, John; Edwards, I. E. S.; Hammond, N.G.L.;
Sollberger, E. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 3. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 978-0-521-22496-3.
Duridanov, Ivan (1969). Die Thrakisch- und Dakisch-Baltischen Sprachbeziehungen (in
German).
Duridanov, Ivan (1976). Езикът на Траките [The language of the Thracians] (in Bulgarian).
Duridanov, Ivan (1985). Die Sprache der Thraker [The language of the Thracians].
Bulgarische Sammlung (in German). Vol. 5. Hieronymus Verlag. ISBN 3-88893-031-6.
Edwards, I. E. S.; Gadd, C. J.; Hammond, N. G. L. (1971). The Cambridge Ancient History (
https://archive.org/details/cambridgeancient1971edwa). Volume 1, Part 2: Early History of
the Middle East. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-07791-0 – via Internet
Archive.
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.
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 (in French). Mouton De Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-014694-3.
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 978-92-3-102812-0.
Fraser, P.M (1959). Samothrace: no. 1. The inscriptions on stone edited by Karl Lehmann,
Phyllis Williams Lehmann. Pantheon Books.
Friedman, Victor A. (2020). "The Balkans". In Evangelia Adamou, Yaron Matras (ed.). The
Routledge Handbook of Language Contact (https://books.google.com/books?id=x4rvDwAA
Routledge Handbook of Language Contact (https://books.google.com/books?id=x4rvDwAA
QBAJ). Routledge Handbooks in Linguistics. Routledge. pp. 385–403.
ISBN 9781351109147.
Friedman, Victor (2022). "The Balkans". In Salikoko Mufwene, Anna Maria Escobar (ed.).
The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact: Volume 1: Population Movement and
Language Change (https://books.google.com/books?id=jWB2EAAAQBAJ). Cambridge
Handbooks in Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 9781009115773.
Georgiev, Vladimir (1960). "Raporturile dintre limbile dacă, tracă şi frigiană". Studii Clasice
(in Romanian). II: 39–58.
Georgiev, Vladimir (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.
Georgiev, Vladimir (1977). Trakite i technijat ezik/Les Thraces et leur langue (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=zO0tAAAAMAAJ) [The Thracians and their language] (in Bulgarian
and French). Sofia, Bulgaria: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademija na naukite.
Georgiev, Vladimir (1981). Introduction to the history of the Indo-European languages.
Bulgarian Academy. ISBN 978-953517261-1.
Gimbutas, Marija (1963). "Linguistic and Historic Background" (https://web.archive.org/web/
20120204202555/http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/gimbutas-01.html). the Balts.
London: Thames & Hudson. Archived from the original on 4 February 2012.
Giurescu, Constantin C.; Giurescu, Dinu C. (1974). Istoria Românilor: Din cele mai vechi
timpuri pînă la întemeierea statelor românești (https://books.google.com/books?id=mvu2AA
AAIAAJ&q=Setidava+Susudava) (in Romanian). Editura Stiintifica.
Gruen, Erich S. (2011). Rethinking the Other in Antiquity. Princeton University Press.
ISBN 978-069114852-6.
Heather, Peter, ed. (1999). The Visigoths from the Migration Period to the Seventh Century:
An Ethnographic Perspective (https://books.google.com/books?id=0QLwfButJokC). The
Boydell Press / Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Social Stress. ISBN 978-
085115762-7.
Heather, Peter (2009). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe (
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ho8sAQAAIAAJ). Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-989226-6.
Heather, Peter (2010). Empires and Barbarians: Migration, Development, and the Birth of
Europe. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-973560-0.
Hehn, Victor (1976) [First published 1885]. Cultivated plants and domesticated animals in
their migration from Asia to Europe: historico-linguistic studies. Amsterdam Classics in
Linguistics, 1800–1925. Vol. 7. John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/acil.7 (https://doi.org/10.1075%
2Facil.7). ISBN 978-90-272-0871-2.; originally Culturpflanzen und Haustiere in ihrem
Übergang aus Asien nach Griechenland und Italien sowie das übrige Europa: Historisch-
linguistische Skizzen. Berlin: Gebr. Borntraeger, 1885
Hoddinott, R.F. (1989). "Thracians, Mycenaeans and 'The Trojan Question' ". In Best, Jan G.
P.; de Vries, Nanny M. W. (eds.). Thracians and Mycenaeans: Proceedings of the Fourth
International Congress of Thracology Rotterdam, 24–26 September 1984. Brill Academic.
ISBN 978-90-04-08864-1.
Hrushevskyi, Mykhailo (1997). History of Ukraine-Rus'. Canadian Institute of Ukrainian
Studies Press. ISBN 978-1-895571-19-6.
Hyllested, Adam; Joseph, Brian D. (2022). "Albanian" (https://books.google.com/books?id=x
zKAEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA223). In Olander, Thomas (ed.). The Indo-European Language
Family : A Phylogenetic Perspective. Cambridge University Press. pp. 223–245.
doi:10.1017/9781108758666 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2F9781108758666).
ISBN 9781108758666. S2CID 161016819 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:161016
ISBN 9781108758666. S2CID 161016819 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:161016
819).
"Image" (https://web.archive.org/web/20070930214116/https://www.livius.org/a/1/maps/agrip
pa_map.gif). Archived from the original (https://www.livius.org/a/1/maps/agrippa_map.gif) on
30 September 2007.
Jones, A. H. M. (1964). The Later Roman Empire, 284–602. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Katičić, Radoslav; Križman, Mate (1976). Ancient languages of the Balkans (https://archive.
org/details/AncientLanguagesOfTheBalkans). The Hague; Paris: Mouton – via Internet
Archive.
Lengyel, Alfonz; Radan, George T.; Barkóczi, László; Bónis, Eva B. (1980). Lengyel, Alfonz;
Radan, George (eds.). The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia. University Press of Kentucky.
ISBN 978-081311370-8.
Lloshi, Xhevat (1999). "Albanian". In Hinrichs, Uwe (ed.). Handbuch der Südosteuropa
Linguistik (in German). Vol. 10. Harrassowitz. ISBN 978-344703939-0. (online?)
Madgearu, Alexandu; Gordon, Martin (2007). The Wars of the Balkan Peninsula: Their
Medieval Origins (https://archive.org/details/warsofbalkanpeni0000madg). Scarecrow Press.
ISBN 978-0-8108-5846-6 – via Internet Archive.
Magocsi, Paul R.; Pop, Ivan (2002). Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture. University
of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-080203566-0.
Mallory, J. P. (1989). In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth (h
ttps://archive.org/details/insearchofindoeu00jpma). Thames and Hudson. ISBN 978-
050005052-1 – via Internet Archive.
Mattern, Susan P. (2002). Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate (https://
books.google.com/books?id=tVHqEadNUFYC). Berkeley, California: University of California
Press. ISBN 0-520-23683-1.
Mayer, H.E. (1992). "Dacian and Thracian as southern Baltoidic" (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20171216135638/http://www.lituanus.org/1992_2/92_2_02.htm). Lituanus. 38 (2).
ISSN 0024-5089 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0024-5089). Archived from the original (htt
p://www.lituanus.org/1992_2/92_2_02.htm) on 16 December 2017. Retrieved 2 January
2017.
Mayer, H.E. (1996). "South Baltic" (https://web.archive.org/web/20210513224814/http://www
.lituanus.org/1996/96_2_06.htm). Lituanus. 42 (2). Archived from the original (http://www.litu
anus.org/1996/96_2_06.htm) on 13 May 2021. Retrieved 3 June 2017.
Mayer, H.E. (1997). "Balts and Carpathians" (https://web.archive.org/web/20210513220005/
http://www.lituanus.org/1997/97_2_03.htm). Lituanus. 43 (2). Archived from the original (http
://www.lituanus.org/1997/97_2_03.htm) on 13 May 2021. Retrieved 3 June 2017.
Mayer, H.E. (1999). "Dr. Harvey E. Mayer, February 1999" (http://www.kroraina.com/thrac_la
ng/h_mayer.html).
McHenry, Robert, ed. (1993). The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Macropaedia (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=crYuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP1). Encyclopædia Britannica. ISBN 978-0-
85229-571-7.
Mielczarek, Mariusz (1989). Ancient Greek coins found in Central, Eastern, and Northern
Europe. Zakład Narodowy Imienia Ossolińskich. ISBN 83-04-03042-X.
Mihailov, G (2008). "Thrace before the Persian entry into Europe". The Cambridge Ancient
History. Vol. 3 Part 2. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-052122717-9.
Milewski, Tadeusz (1969). Teils. Panstwowe Wydawn Naukowe, Poland.
Mocsy, Andras (1974). Pannonia and Upper Moesia: History of the Middle Danube
Provinces of the Roman Empire. Routledge & Kegan Paul Books. ISBN 978-0-7100-7714-1.
Momigliano, Arnaldo (1984) [First published 1960]. Secondo contributo alla storia degli studi
classici (in English and Italian). Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. ISBN 978-
888498846-1.
888498846-1.
Mountain, Harry (1998). The Celtic Encyclopedia. Universal Publishers. ISBN 978-1-58112-
890-1.
Müllenhoff, Karl (1856). Ueber die Weltkarte und Chorographie des Kaiser Augustus: Feier
des Geburtstatges seiner Majestät des Konigs Frederik's VII (in German). Kiel Druck von
C.F. Mohr.
Muller, Karl, ed. (1883). Claudi Ptolomaei Geographia.
Nandris, John (1976). "The Dacian Iron Age A Comment in a European Context". Festschrift
für Richard Pittioni zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Wien, Deuticke, Horn, Berger. ISBN 978-3-
7005-4420-3.
Nicolet, Claude (1991). Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire (https://a
rchive.org/details/spacegeographypo00nico). Univ of Michigan. ISBN 978-0-472-10096-5 –
via Internet Archive.
Oltean, Ioana Adina (2007). Dacia: landscape, colonisation and romanisation (https://books.
google.com/books?id=wgvH2j7dWuEC). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-41252-0.
Opreanu, C. (1997). "Roman Dacia and its barbarian neighbours. Economic and diplomatic
relations". Roman frontier studies 1995: proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of
Roman Frontier Studies. Oxbow. pp. 247–252. ISBN 978-190018847-0.
Paliga, Sorin (1986). The social structure of the South-East European Societies in the
Middle Ages. A Linguistic View. Vol. s 26–29. Linguistica.
Panayotou, A. (2007). "Greek and Thracian". A History of Ancient Greek: From the
Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83307-3.
Papazoglu, Fanula (1978). The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times: Triballi,
Autariatae, Dardanians, Scordisci, & Moesians. Translated by Stansfield-Popovic, Mary.
John Benjamins North America. ISBN 978-90-256-0793-7.
Pelletier, André (1985). La Médecine en Gaule: villes d'eaux, sanctuaires des eaux (in
French). Paris: Picard. ISBN 978-270840115-0.
Petrescu-Dîmbovița, Mircea (1978). Scurta istorie a Daciei Preromane. Junimea.
Pieta, Karol (1982). Die Puchov Kultur. Archäologisches Institut der Slowakischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Nitra. pp. 204–209.
Poghirc, Cicerone (1983). Frisch, Helmut (ed.). Philologica et linguistica: ausgewählte
Aufsätze (1953–1983). N. Brockmeyer. ISBN 388339356-8.
Poghirc, Cicerone (1986). "Dioscoride et Pseudo-Apulee Temoins des debuts de la
differenciation dans la Romania". 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 (in French). Wechselnde Verleger.
Poghirc, Cicerone (1989). "Considerations chrono-geographiques sur l'oscillation a/o en
Thrace et en Daco-Mesien". In Best, Jan G. P.; de Vries, Nanny M. W. (eds.). Thracians and
Mycenaeans: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Thracology Rotterdam,
24–26 September 1984. Brill Academic. ISBN 978-90-04-08864-1.
Polomé, Edgar C. (1982). "Balkan Languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-Moesian)". In
Boardman, John (ed.). Cambridge Ancient History. Volume 3, Part 1, The Prehistory of the
Balkans, the Middle East and the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries BC (2nd ed.).
pp. 866–888. ISBN 978-0-521-22496-3.
Polomé, Edgar C. (1983). "The Linguistic Situation in the Western Provinces of the Roman
Empire". In Haase, Wolfgang (ed.). Sprache Und Literatur (Sprachen Und Schriften). Walter
de Gruyter. pp. 509–553. ISBN 978-3-11-009525-8.
Pop, Ioan Aurel; Nägler, Thomas, eds. (2005). The History of Transylvania: Until 1541 (https
://books.google.com/books?id=96IsAQAAIAAJ&pg=PP1). Romanian Cultural Institute.
ISBN 978-973-7784-00-1.
Popescu-Spineni, Marin (1987). Rumänien in seinen geographischen und kartographischen
Popescu-Spineni, Marin (1987). Rumänien in seinen geographischen und kartographischen
Quellen: vom Altertum bis an die Schwelle unseres Jahrhunderts (https://books.google.com/
books?id=0JomAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP1) [Romania in geographical and cartographic sources
from ancient times to the turn of our century] (in German). O. Harassowitz. ISBN 978-3-447-
02582-9.
Poultney, James W. (1968). "Introduzione alia storia delle Iingue indeuropee by Vladimir I.
Georgiev, 1966. Reviewed by James W. Poultney". Language. 44: 334–342.
doi:10.2307/411629 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F411629). JSTOR 411629 (https://www.jstor.
org/stable/411629).
Price, Glanville, ed. (1998). An Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe. Wiley–Blackwell.
ISBN 978-063119286-2.
Rădulescu, Mircea-Mihai (1984). "Illyrian, Thracian, Daco-Mysian, the substratum of
Romanian and Albanian". Journal of Indo-European Studies. ISSN 0092-2323 (https://searc
h.worldcat.org/issn/0092-2323).
Rădulescu, Mircea-Mihai (1987). "The Indo-European position of Illyrian, Daco-Mysian and
Thracian: A historica-methodological approach". Journal of Indo-European Studies.
ISSN 0092-2323 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0092-2323).
Renfrew, A.C. (1987). Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins
(First ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-052135432-5.
Renfrew, Colin (1990). Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins
(reprint ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-052138675-3.
de Rosales, Jurate, ed. (2015). Europos šaknys (https://on.lt/europos-saknys) [European
Roots] (in Lithuanian). Versmė. ISBN 978-609814816-9.
de Rosales, Jurate, ed. (2020). Las raíces de Europa [European Roots] (in Spanish).
Kálathos ediciones. ISBN 978-841218614-7.
Rosetti, A. (1982). La linguistique Balkanique in Revue roumaine de linguistique (in French).
Vol. 27. Editions de l'Academie de la RSR.
Rosetti, Alexandru (1978). Istoria limbii române: De la origini pina in sec XVII (in Romanian).
Editura Stiintifica si Enciclopedica.
Rosetti, Alexandru; Graur, Alexandru (1969). Istoria limbii române. Vol. 2. Editura Academiei
Romania.
Russu, I. I. (1967). Limba traco-dacilor. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică.
Russu, Ion Iosif (1963). "Die Ortsnamen der Balkanhalbinsel in De Aedificiis". Revue de
Linguistique. VIII: 123–132.
Russu, Ion Iosif (1969). Die Sprache der Thrako-Daker (in German).
Săvescu, Napoleon. "Noi nu suntem urmașii Romei" (http://www.dacia.org/carte) (in
Romanian).
Schütte, Gudmund (1917). Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe: a reconstruction of the
prototypes (https://archive.org/details/ptolemysmapsofno00schrich). H. Hagerup – via
Internet Archive.
Schütte, Gudmund (1952). "A Ptolemaic Riddle Solved". Classica et Mediaevalia. Vol. 13
(1st ed.). Gyldendal.
"Search: 'AE+1905%2C+00014' " (https://web.archive.org/web/20120429223709/http://oracl
e-vm.ku-eichstaett.de:8888/epigr/epieinzel_en?p_belegstelle=AE+1905,+00014&r_sortierun
g=Belegstelle). Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss / Slaby EDCS. Archived from the original (http
://oracle-vm.ku-eichstaett.de:8888/epigr/epieinzel_en?p_belegstelle=AE+1905%2C+00014&
r_sortierung=Belegstelle) on 29 April 2012. Retrieved 26 April 2012.
Shashi, Shyam Singh (1992). Encyclopaedia of humanities and social sciences (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=2DUoAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP1). Vol. 25. Anmol Publications.
Shchukin, Mark B. (1989). Rome and the Barbarians in Central and Eastern Europe: 1st
Century B.C. – 1st Century A.D. B.A.R. International Series. Oxford: BAR Publishing.
Century B.C. – 1st Century A.D. B.A.R. International Series. Oxford: BAR Publishing.
ISBN 978-086054690-0.
Shelley, William Scott (1997). The Origins of the Europeans: Classical Observations in
Culture and Personality. International Scholars Publications. ISBN 978-157309221-0.
Strabo (1917–1961) [c. AD 20]. Jones, Horace Leonard (ed.). The geography of Strabo (http
s://archive.org/details/geographyofstrab01strauoft/page/n9/mode/2up). Loeb Classical
Library 49, 50, 182, 196, 211, 223, 241, 267. Vol. 1. Translated by Jones, Horace Leonard;
Sterrett, John Robert Sitlington. William Heinemann and Harvard University Press – via
Internet Archive.
"Strabo Geography, Book VII, Chapter 3" (https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/T
exts/Strabo/7C*.html). Retrieved 29 January 2011.
Tacheva, Margarita (1997). "The Thracian Bessi domo et militiae". Živa Antika – Antiquité
Vivante. Skopje: Živa antika. ISSN 0514-7727 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0514-7727).
Talbert, Richard J.A., ed. (2000). Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton
University Press. ISBN 978-069103169-9.
Taylor, Timothy (2001). "Northeastern European Iron Age, Dacian". Encyclopedia of
prehistory (1st ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-030646258-0.
Theodossiev, Nikola (2000). North-Western Thrace from the Fifth to First Centuries BC.
British Archaeological Reports International Series. BAR Publishing. ISBN 978-184171060-
0.
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]. Crisia (in
Romanian and English). Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor: 65–77. ISSN 1016-2798 (https://search.worl
dcat.org/issn/1016-2798).
Tomaschek, Wilhelm (1883). "Les Restes de la langue dace". Le Muséon (in French). 2.
Louvain, Belgium: Société des lettres et des sciences.
Toporov, Vladimir Nikolayevich (1973). К фракийско-балтийским языковым
параллелям. [Towards Thracian-Baltic language parallels] (in Russian). Balkan linguistics
[Балканское языкознание]. pp. 51–52.
Trask, Robert Lawrence (2000). Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics.
Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-1001-3.
Turnvvald, K. (1968). Die Balten des vorgeschichtlichen Mitteleuropas (in German). Riga.
Twist, Clint (2001). Raftery, Barry (ed.). Philip's Atlas of the Celts. London: George Philip.
ISBN 978-0-5400-7880-6.
Urbańczyk, Przemyslaw (1997). Origins of Central Europe. Warsaw. ISBN 83-85463-56-9.
Urbańczyk, Przemysław, ed. (2001). Europe Around the Year 1000. Institute of Archeology
and Ethnology; Polish Academy of Sciences. ISBN 978-837181211-8.
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 978-0-472-08149-3.
Visy, Z. (1995). "Luftbildarchäologie am römischen Limes in Ungarn". In Kunow, J. (ed.).
Luftbildarchäologie in Ost- und Mitteleuropa. Forschungen zur Archäologie im Land
Brandenburg (in German). Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege. pp. 213–218.
ISBN 978-391001108-3.
Vyčinienė, Daiva. "Relationships Between Lithuanian And Balkan Schwebungs-Diaphonie:
Interdisciplinary Search Key" (https://www.academia.edu/9177602). p. 122.
Wald, Lucia; Sluşanschi, Dan; Băltăceanu, Francisca (1987). Introducere în studiul limbii şi
culturii indo-europene (in Romanian). Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică.
Waldman, Carl; Mason, Catherine (2006). Encyclopedia of European Peoples. Facts on
File. ISBN 978-0-8160-4964-6.
Walters, E. Garrison (1988). The other Europe: Eastern Europe to 1945. Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-2440-0.
 Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-2440-0.
Witczak, Krzysztof Tomasz (1994). "Proto-Albanian and the problem of the Albanian nation".
Bulletin de la Société polonaise de linguistique. 50–52.

Further reading

Ancient
Ammianus Marcellinus Res Gestae (c. 395)
Jordanes Getica (c. 550)
Sextus Aurelius Victor De Caesaribus (361)
Zosimus Historia Nova (c. 500)

Modern
Abramea, Anna P (1994). Thrace. Idea Advertising-Marketing. ISBN 978-960-85609-1-8.
CIL: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
Dimiter, Detschew (1957). Die thrakischen Sprachreste (in German). Wien.
Georgiev, Vladimir I.. "Thrakische und dakische Namenkunde". Band 29/2. Teilband
Sprache und Literatur (Sprachen und Schriften [Forts.]). Edited by Wolfgang Haase, Berlin,
Boston: De Gruyter, 1983. pp. 1220-1214. doi:10.1515/9783110847031-016 (https://doi.org/
10.1515%2F9783110847031-016)
Hamp, Eric P. (1966). Ancient Indo-European Dialects: The position of Albanian (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=5pCBRsfJMv8C). University of California Press and Cambridge
University Press.
MacKenzie, Andrew (1986). Archaeology in Romania: the mystery of the Roman occupation
(https://archive.org/details/archaeologyinrom0000mack). London: Hale. ISBN 978-
070902724-9 – via Internet Archive.
Maenchen-Helfen, Otto (1973). World of the Huns studies in their history and culture (https://
archive.org/details/bub_gb_CrUdgzSICxcC). University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-
520-01596-8 – via Internet Archive.
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): 960–963.
doi:10.2307/412001 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F412001). JSTOR 412001 (https://www.jstor.
org/stable/412001).
Oledzki, Marek (2001). "The Przeworsk culture in the Upper Tisza Basin. An outline of
problems". Ethnographisch-archäologische Zeitschrift. 42.
Olteanu, Sorin (1989). "Kaga şi Kōgaionon. Datele problemei". Thraco-Dacica (in
Romanian). X: 215–217.
Olteanu, Sorin (2007). "Toponime procopiene". SCIVA (in Romanian). 58 (1–2): 67–116.
Parvan, Vasile (1928). Dacia. Cambridge University Press.
Rankin, David; Rankin, H. D. (1996). Celts and the Classical World, 2nd Edition. Routledge.
ISBN 978-0-415-15090-3.
Rusakov, Alexander (2017). "Albanian" (https://books.google.com/books?id=8i0lDwAAQBAJ
). In Kapović, Mate; Giacalone Ramat, Anna; Ramat, Paolo (eds.). The Indo-European
Languages. Routledge. pp. 552–602. ISBN 9781317391531.
 Sluşanschi, Dan (1989). "Kaga şi Kōgaionon. Analiză filologică şi lingvistică". Thraco-
Dacica. X: 219–224.
Solta, Georg Renatus (1980). Berücksichtigung des Substrats und des Balkanlateinischen.
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Tomas, Agnieszka (2016). "The Languages in Use, Ethnic And Social Structures". Inter
Moesos Et Thraces: The Rural Hinterland of Novae in Lower Moesia (1st – 6th Centuries
AD). Archaeopress Roman Archaeology. Oxford: Archaeopress. pp. 119–124.
doi:10.2307/j.ctvxrq0qq.9 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2Fj.ctvxrq0qq.9). ISBN 978-178491370-
0.
Vraciu, Ariton (1974). "Reflections on linguistic and cultural relations between Anatolia and
Dacia in the Bronze Age". In Crossland, R. A. (ed.). Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean:
Archaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greek Prehistory. pp. 281–291.
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.
Walde, Alois (1973) [First published 1930]. Pokorny, Julius (ed.). Vergleichendes
Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen [Comparative dictionary of Indo-German
languages] (in German). Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-004556-7.

External links
Evidence for an Italic substratum of Romanian, by Keith Andrew Massey (http://web.fu-berli
n.de/phin/phin43/p43t2.htm)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dacian_language&oldid=1271155303"