Dacian History as reflected in the European and Romanian Medieval Heritage
- Category: Blog articles
- Published on Thursday, February 16 2017 04:24
- Written by Administrator
- Hits: 1749
Dacian History as reflected in the European and Romanian Medieval Heritage
Dr.N.Savescu/ Kalamazoo – 2011
This study explores the debate concerning the revaluation of the Dacian heritage, in the context of the quest for a cultural milieu.
Carolus Lundius, the President of the Swedish Academic of Science, in the year 1687, published “Zamolxis Primus Getarum Legislator” (Zamolxis the First Legislator of the Getae)  in which he affirms that the first written laws in the mankind history were Zalmoxis’s laws (see www.dacia.org ).
The greatest Rumanian historian Nicolae Densusianu proves: the Dacians spoke the Latin language, before the Romans existed (see www.dacia.org Articles - English or http://www.pelasgians.bigpondhosting.com/index.htm).
His book” The Preistoric Dacia” has been first published in Rumania in 1913, but its contents remain as revolutionary, visionary, and controversial as they were almost 100 years ago.
The Rumanian poet and the philosopher Lucian Blaga (1895-1961) was very interested by the Dacian ancestors, as witnessed by his essay on the ”Revolt of the non-Latin element”, or the play Zamolxe, both published in 1921. The writer challenged the current view which privileged the Latin element in the typology of the Rumania ns.
Five years later, the monograph Getica of the historian Vasile Pârvan became the very source of the fascination for the Dacians in the Rumanian culture before WWII. Numerous titles invaded the cultural market, both scientific and amateurish, and a new current, the thracomania, became fashionable.
On champions of Dacianism was the theologian Ioan Coman, who saw the Dacian religion as announcing Christianity in its orthodox form. Once again, Blaga entered the dispute, attempting to tone down nationalist and intolerant Dacianism; he offered the model of a lucid intellectual engaged in an animated cultural debate.
The fact that the Rumanians are not Rome’s descendants and that the Romans are their later “grandsons” (see Augustin Deac”The History of the Historical Truth” 2002), stil waits to be discovered by some of the Rumanian historians today. 
It is dificult to explaine today that the ancient Greeks may have “borrowed” their mythology or letters from the Dacians. Yet, the identities Dacian = Thracian = Macedonian = Pelasgian  should change some old believe regarding the above group of people. More astonished is when Dionisu of Miletus, referred to by Diod. Sic. (3.67.12) says that the Pelasgians were the first to use the Cadmeian letters (from whom the Greeks borrowed them).
More astonished is to find out that the first written message in the history of humanity was found at Alba District, Tartaria, Rumania (Old Dacia) where little clay tablets were found to carry a pre-Sumerian writing, as part of Vincea civilization. Tartaria’s tablets are as old as 7,540 years, and they were puzzling the imagination of scientific community.
Turning over the pages of the world’s publications, we find the American sumerolog, John A. Halloran asking himself “How can it be explained the fact that inside a western Rumanian region, surrounded by towns with Sumerian names: Urastie, Simeria, Kugir, there were found little tablets made from local clay with Sumerian pictograms on them, but older by 1,000 then the ones from Mesopotamia.”
In the “Scientific American Journal” from 1968, the Tartaria tablets are presented as being similar to the ones from Mesopotamia, but earlier by 1000 years.
How could they, the pre-Dacians, write before anyone else? How were they to write, if they couldn’t read?
One of the most serious theories of Indo-European Origins proposes that the homeland of the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language is to be found in the Southeast Europe. This theory was most comprehensively proposed by the eminent Russian linguist and historian Igor M. D’iakonov in his seminal paper (1985). “On the Original Home of the Speakers of Indo-European.” 
A very much respected archaeologist of our time, Colin Renfrew thinks that Proto-Indo-European unity is to be found in the Balkans, in agreement with the opinion of D’iakonov. Proto-Indo-European was however an offshoot of Pre-Proto-Indo-European which was the language of the early farmers who crossed the Aegean sea from Anatolia to settle in Thessaly. There, and in their subsequent northern expansion was formed the Proto-Indo-European community which subsequently gave birth to all the historical Indo-European languages.
From Carpato-Danubian-Balkans center, as Diakonoff realized, (around 5000 BC ), a division with the bulk of the early Proto-Indo-European languages of central and Western Europe (the languages of “Old Europe” in some terminologies) appears and on the one hand, and those of the steppe lands to the north of the Black Sea on the other (4th millennium BCE).
More recently, Finnish scholar Kalevi Wiik has also proposed Indo-European origins in Southeast Europe. He has expounded his theory on the origins of European peoples in several journal articles and, more recently in his book “Eurooppalaisten juuret” There is also an article written by him on the Web [Europe's Oldest Language]
The theory of Indo-European origins in Southeast Europe has received additional confirmation recently from Gray and Atkinson. They were using a methodology similar to that used in evolutionary biology, [“Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin,” Nature 426, 435-439]. The results of all analyses, irrespective of the initial assumptions were very robust and accurate.
They were also in agreement with an other independent linguistic analysis of Indo-European languages [Rexova, K., Frynta, D. & Zrzavy, J. “Cladistic analysis of languages: Indo-European classification based on lexicostatistical data.” Cladistics 19, 120–127 (2003)].
We are told, today by some people, the Dacian language has disappeared, as have the Dacians themselves . And as the Dacians, their brothers, the Thracians lost their language, and they never had books! . To say that Alexander Macedon or Constantine’s language was Dacian would be like replacing one unknown quantity by another. And so it would be, indeed, if it could be proven that the Dacians/Thracians and their language have disappeared. Yet, upon examination, this disappearance turns out to be worse than a hollow statement: it clashes head on with a number of testimonies.
Understanding these testimonies presuppose a little reflection on an observation made by Herodotus. The Thracians, says Herodotus “have many names, depending on their respective regions” . Thrace proper is, of course, to this day, the name of the region encompassed by Mount Haemus (Stara Planina) and the Thracian Sea (Aegean Sea). But the people living north of Mount Haemus, in Mysia, were also considered as Thracian, because they spoke the same language. For the same reason, the term Thracian has been used as a common designation for the people living in Bithynia, i.e. on the Asiatic side of the Straits, as well as for the people north of the Danube, those in the original Dacia (also called Gothia). Among the Thracian peoples often mentioned by ancient historians, most conspicuous were the Dacians (Gaete or Goths), the Macedonians, the Paeonians, the Phrygians, the Mysians, the Odrysians and the Bessi.
Tremendous efforts have been made by some recent academics to blur the ethnicity of the Dacian nation. This compels us to take a close look at the subject, starting perhaps with the Paeonians.
These people were familiar to Herodotus, who speaks at some length about their customs. Five hundred years later, Strabo observed that the Paeonians lived on both sides of the Vardar (the Axius) river . Many Paeonians, however, lived further north. Dio Cassius, a man well-placed to know, since he was at one time governor of that province, wrote that the Paeonians “dwell near Dalmatia along the very banks of the Ister, from Noricum to Moesia …” .This was two hundred years after Strabo’s time.
Another, 350 years later, John the Lydian explained that the real name of the Province was Pannonia, “Which the Greeks have termed Paeonia, inventing the name for purposes of euphony and to avoid a barbarian word form.” .
Ioannes Tzetzes, writing almost 600 years after the Lydian, did not notice that these people had disappeared. For him they were still there. .
Another famous group of Dacian/Thracian people were the Phrygians.
According to Strabo, “the Brygi and Bryges and Phryges are the same people”. And elsewhere:” And the Phrygians themselves are Brigians, a Thracian nation …” .If you look at a map done by Ion Pachia Tatomirescu (see www.dacia.org Old maps of Europe) you will understand the length of Dacian Empire at the beginning of European history.
In a fragment (No. 25) of his Seventh Book – badly mutilated Strabo quotes Herodotus, whose words are: “According to the Macedonian account, the Phrygians, during the time they had their abode in Europe and dwelt with them in Macedonia, bore the name of Brigians; but on their removal to Asia they changed their name at the same time as their dwelling place.” .
The Moesians (Mysians) were yet another Dacian/Thracian group of people whose settlements filled the area between the Danube and Mount Haemus, as well as Bithynia, on the east side of the Bosphorus, and the Thracian/Aegean fringe of Minor Asia.
On the ethnicity of the Mysians Strabo is quite explicit.
The Mysians in Minor Asia, he says, are Thracians “who now live between the Lydians and the Phrygians and the Trojans” 
And elsewhere: “The country north of Pergamum is held for the most part by the Mysians”.
And again: “Now the Greeks considered the Getae (the Dacian) as Thracians, the Getae lived on either side of the Ister, as did the Mysians, these also being Thracians ”
The identification of Macedonians as the southest Dacian/Thracians is also unquestionable, although the wording differs from author to author.
Polybius calls the Thracians and the Macedonians homogenous i.e. people of the same nation, stock or race .
Pliny speaks of Mysomacedonians in Asia Minor, who “get together (convenient) at Ephesus” .
Appian calls the Sinti a Macedonian tribe; Strabo calls them Thracian . Both are right, of course.
Dio Chrysostom observed, at the beginning of the second century A.D., that the population of Nicomedia consisted of “the leaders among both Greeks and Macedonians”  making a clear difference between the two races.
Nicomedia at that time was the greatest city of Bithynia. It was founded, says Pausanias, by Zipoetes “a Thracian by birth to judge from his name” .
Strabo explains that “the Bithynians … received this name from the Thracians … who settled the country in question” and he refers to Nicomedes III as “the Bithynian” .
Four centuries later Zosimos quoted an oracle in which Nicomedes II is considered “Thracian King” , while Ioannes Malalas says that Nicomedes I was “of Macedonian” origin” .
Of interest in this connection are a couple of facts:
Euripides (Rhesus, 404) making Hector call the Thracian king Thesus, he considered the Trojans to be of the same stock or race as the Thracians from Macedonia.
The other similar instance is provided by Conon. In his 46th Narration Conon speaking of Orpheus who “reigned over the Macedonians and the country of the Odrysians”, then refers to the “people of Thrace and Macedonia” and to “a crowd of Thracians getting together at Leibethra”, where Orpheus is believed to have died at the hands of “the women of Thrace and Macedonia” .
Euripides and Conon may have written for entertainment only, but Pausanias, a contemporary of Conon, gives an accurate description of Greece and its knowledge. To him, Orpheus was a Thracian from north aria of Danubiu , in fact Dacian, while five centuries later Ioannes Malalas calls Orpheus “the most famous lyric poet, an Odrysian from Thrace” .
Eight centuries later, the identity of the Dacians and Macedonians is attested by Nicephorus Gregoras in a letter which he wrote in the year 1325 or 1326, describing his trip through Macedonia; we learn that the majority of the local people were “from the very beginning Moesians (Mysian) who lived intermingled with our own people” .
Gregoras is rejecting any nonsens about a subsequent arrival of Thracians (Mysians) in Macedonia. He does not tell us when the first Greek settlers arrived in Macedonia, but Pompeius Trogus says that they came under the leadership of Caranus, an event occurring in the year 810 B.C., or around then. Prior to that time, the whole of Macedonia was settled by Dacian/Thracians people .
The origin of the name Macedonia has also some relevance to our topic.
According to a legend – the Egyptian king Osiris, later promoted by the religious caste to the rank of god, had two sons, Anubis and Macedon. The second one was left by his father as a ruler of Macedonia, earlier named Emathia, and from him the country got its name .
From figures supplied by Manetho, it is belived that Macedon was ruling about the year 2326 B.C. .
Hesoid, like a good Greek poet, endowed Macedon with a Greek ancestry: he makes him the son of Zeus and Thyia, Deucalion’s daughter .
On the other hand, Hellanicus believed Macedon to have been the son of Aeolus, when the Macedonians “inhabited the land together with the Mysians” .
Regardless of the margin of error, the Macedonian name must have been familiar throughout the East at the time of the Trojan War.
Why, then is there no mention of it in Homer?
Nobody so far has suggested a plausible explanation. Yet, faced with the fanatic zeal with which Greek writers strove to blot out some “barbarian” names while favoring we are glad to be able to make a correction. Homer may not have cared to admit that, without the help of some Macedonians, the Greeks would have been destroyed before the walls of Troy. Thus, either he, or someone like him, may have thought of replacing the Macedonians by Myrmidones.
And it just so happens that for Ioannes Malalas, the Homeric Myrmidons were identical with those fore whose home was once in Thessaly – a Macedonian district .
From the first century of our era a very important part in the history of Central and South-Eastern Europe is played by the Dacians/Getae people. Some writers have called the Dacians Getae, other have preferred to call them Goths. Most of these people lived between the Danube and the Carpathian Mountains, although there were Dacians settlements south of the Danube, and many others in the area north-east of the Carpathians mountens like, Susudava, Selidava,Maramabista, Tiragetia, Costobacia, or East like Moldadava or Massagetia.
To go back in time we see that even the puzzle of Dacians versus Gets was solved almost 2000 years ago by Dio Casius in Epitome of Book LXVII: “I call the people Dacians, the names used by the natives themselves as well as by the Romans, though I am not ignorant that some Greek writers refer to them as Getae“.
A vigorous campaign has been under way for a long time to retroactively make of the Goths a Germanic nation. This thesis should be rejected. In fact, every single bit of information tends to prove that the Goths were none others than the Hutzuli, a branch of the Getae, a Thracian nation par excellence .
The Dacians nation has never ceased to exist. They have never lost their vigor. Dio Cassius tells of a stinging defeat they inflicted on Mark Antony in Mysia . They were obviously very strong, since Octavian is said by Suetonius to have sought the hand of a Thracian princess .
Pliny the Elder, who died during the eruption of the Mount Vesuvius (79 A.D.), calls the Dacians /Thracians one of the most powerful nations in Europe . In the third century, they were the first people in Europae able to kick the Romans out of Dacia .
At the dawn of the 4th century, their leader Constantine (dacian by his routs) marched on Rome, defeated Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, disbanded the praetorian cohorts and, by moving the capital of the empire to the Bosporus, reduced Rome to the status of provincial city.
We learn from Theophanous that in the year 497 A.D. Anastasius, in support of one of his generals in the East, sent out an army of Goths, Bessians “and other Thracian nations” .
Procopius calls them “the Romans from Thrace” . He also makes reference to the city of Anchialo, on the Black Sea, which, he says, was “inhabited by Thracians” .
Since the Bessians and the Goths had not disappeared, we are not surprised to read that their dialects were spoken in the middle of the 6th century. Thus, Jordanes, in his Getica, noted that Hister was the name of the Danube in the language of the Bessi . The language of the Bessi was definitely spoken about the year 570 A.D., as we may learn from the Itinerary of Antoninus Placentinus .
As to Gothic, it was heard in Constantinople and in many parts of Italy, where some Gothic clerics seem to have been able to write it, although they were apparently unable to write Latin .
Not only were the Dacian/Thracian dialects widely spoken in the Byzantine Empire but also Dacian has been a written language ever since the second millennium B.C.and Euripides is able to refer to Thracian tablets inscribed in the language of Orpheus . The fact that this literature is mentioned in a drama and not in a history paper should not mislead us. Euripides certainly used in poetry, and in dialogue forms, something which was common knowledge in his time. Even today we found more then 300 tablets ( Sinaia-Rumania/Dacia) done in gold or lead and people paying almost no attention to them (see www.dacia.org “Cronica Dacica pe placi de plumb).
Herodotus, mentions the existence of Thracian oracular tablets 
and Ovidiu was able to compose a poem in the language of the Getae .
Photius tells us about a writer of the 7th century A.D.who used Thracian books .
In his book entitled De Magistratibus, Ioannes Lydus reports that Constantine the Great wrote, in his native (oikeia) tongue, some Discourses which he left to posterity . While avoiding carefully to specify what exactly the native tongue of Constantine was, the Lydian, deliberately or not, gives us a clue. Evidently, Constantine’s “domestic” language could not have been Greek; otherwise the adjective (oikeios) would have been out of place, even confusing . Could Constantine’s native tongue have been a “primitive” Latin? To designate the Latin tongue otherwise than by its name, Byzantine writers generally used the words patris jonh in his own home?
The Lydian wrote his book sometime between years 551 and 564 A.D., when latin language in Constantinople was in full retreat. Justinian himself is said to have spoken broken (vulgar) Latin, and Greek like a barbarian. Surely, someone can wanders what was Justinian mother language if was not greek or roman/ latin? Remaines only one choice, Dacien/ Thracien.
As there is abundant circumstantial evidence that Constantine the Great was a Dacian, as is also for Justinian.
Two centuries after the death of Constantine, clearly, throughout this period, there was in Constantinople people who could read Latin and/or Greek, and also people who could read Constantine’s Discourses, written in his “domestic” language. The Lydian darkly hints that in his time, Latin language beeing pushed out as official business language, by what other language then dacian/thracian?
The old Dacian/Thracian books have been successfully wiped out by religious fanatics and other savages, who have tried many times to destroy the Dacian people’s history. But the Daco-Thracian language has survived throughout the ages, as has the Dacian/Thracian script itself . All doubts regarding these matters are dispelled for anyone who cares to stop for a moment on the testimony of Theophylactus Simocata.
Writing in the 7th century A.D., Simocata states twice over that the Slavonic peoples of his day and age about those who in earlier times were called Getae/Dacians.
These were the people whose wealth was admired by Herodotus, whose medical science was praised by Plato, and whose army defeated at one time Philip II and later on the forces of Lysimachus .
Pausanias (IV.27.9-11) has recorded a telling case. “The wanderings of the Messenians outside the Peloponnesus lated for 300 years”, wrote he, “during which it is clear that they did not depart in any way from their local customs and did not lose their Doric dialect bet even to our day have retained the purest of Doric in Peloponnesus.” Quick changes occur only when two or more peoples speaking different languages are suddenly thrown together, thus being forced to develop a makeshift system of communication. That is why hybrid languages like Bulgarian, French and English have strange vocabulary and a simpler grammatical structure, when compared with the parent languages. Rumanian language who escaped to this kind of distortion may also borrow some words and some grammatical forms, but in a very small scale.
That Rumanians – as are called today the Dacian people– had borrowed some words from the Greek, Romans, and Slavic people and nobody will contest these, as today the “american” languge is a great inspiration for them also.
But how much has Greek and others nations borrowed from the” barbarian” Dacians nobody speaks.
Dior Chrysostom tells us that Homer himself “used many barbarian words … sparing none that he believed to have in it anything of character vividness” .
Plato, too, was aware of such “borrowings”. “I imagine”, he wrote, “that Greeks, especially in countries which are under the influence of “barbarians”, have borrowed many words (onomata) from them . The Daco-Macedonians being the nearest “barbarian” people to the Greeks and, in fact, living intermingled with them, is only normal to come across Daco-Macedonian words in the Greek Lexicon.
Athenaeus drew the attention of his readers to this fact. “Many Antic writers”, “use Macedonian idioms, as a result of intercourse with them” .
A. Bailly spells the last word “krabbatos” and seys that this was a loan word of obscure origin. Liddell and Ascott, however, think that it is a Macedonian word, which is actually the case. We find a derivative of this word (krabbataria) in the 7th and 6th centuries, respectively .
Porphyroghenitus in his Book of Ceremonies has several words such as bele, bikh, ide, ogun and toul, for the word “Dans”, meaning he says, dancing . In the Daco-Getic language, rumanian language, we pronous it even today “Dans” with the same meaning, Dancing.
From Diodorus Siculus we may learn that “Estia” was a Thracian Daco-Getic goddess . She was worshipped also in Rome, under the name of Vesta, and was believed by her devotees to have discovered how to build and equip homes . As a mater of fact for Dacian people She was representing the protector of fire for their homes. In other words she was a knowing woman, in Dacian (today Rumania ) language, meaning “nevasta”, Ne-VASTA / wife, a bride, i.e. a young woman who must yet be initiated in the art of family life; on the same token, in Macedonian language ( Arumania, Vlahos,Vlacika, as they call us today) the word is still Nivesta,Ni-VESTA. A loan-word to which scant attention has been paid.
An elaborate attempt to disguise the Dacian origin of a Greek word – the name of a pagan goddess – may be watched in Ioannes Lydus.
The place-name Nestan, which has mysteriously escaped the eye of both ancient and modern philologists. Pausanias reports that, in Arcadia, were he came upon the ruins of a village called Nestan, near which Philip II of Macedon had once pitched his camp . One look at this word is sufficient to convince us that we have before us a casual transcription of the Old-Dacian words NEA STAN, meaning Stan’s village. Nestan is meaningless in Greek. Pausanias must have written it down as he heard it from some local person.
The words discussed so far are described by lexicographers as Phrygian, as possibly Macedonian, as Barbarian, as ancient, or simple of unknown origin. They have one thing in common: they are very much alive in modern Rumania language. Particularly striking are the names Vesta (Hestia) - “nevasta” and Nestane – to which many others may be added.
Several other categories deserve to be looked into when studying the lexical osmosis between Greeks and Rumanians. Words are usually borrowed along with the objects or actions they designate for. The Greeks were a maritime people : fishermen, tradesmen and pirates. On the other hand, the Dacians being predominantly an agricultural people, it was natural for the Greeks to adopt some Dacians words regarding agriculture. The Rumanian word Colac , which means a round loaf of bread with a hole in the middle (a wheel), reappears in Greek as “colic” or “kollix” a loaf of barley-bread; Telina (celery) becomes selinon etc
This list is far from being exhaustive.
Several grammatical forms also suggest the impact of Dacian on ancient Greek language. Position of the definite article for example: in ancient Greek, the article is of the prefix type, whereas in Dacian the article follows the noun (or the adjective).
There is a large number of facts from history, linguistics, archaeology, numismatics, and folklore, over and above the ones mentioned in this paper, which underscore the conclusion that the language of Constantine the Great was an elderly form of Dacian dialect which has come to be known as Rumanian ( Valahian). Collecting and classifying these facts could become an interesting research project. However, “necessaria non sunt multiplicanda”. The following examples should, therefore, be considered mainly as adding color to what has been said before.
Laonicus Chalcondyles says that he discovered the Triballians to be the most ancient and greatest of all nations .
For specialists in these subject, “Dacii Tribali” Triballians Dacians, were noting else then a group of Dacian living at the south of Danubian river.
For Strabo the Triballians were Thracians.
Dio Cassius counted the Triballi , as well the Dardani, as Moesians (Mysians) .
According to Cesare Baronius, Constantine the Great claimed to be a descendant of Vespasian .
Annales Ecclesiastici (1624 edition), t.3, col.4. Regardless of whether Constantine did or did not put forward such a claim, the statement in Annales Ecclesiastici raises another intersting question. Baronius says that his authority was Pollio. Yet in Pollio’s text there is no mention of Constantine’s so-called claim to be a descendant of Vespasian. The missing portion, then, must have disappeared after Baronius saw it. How could it have disappeared from the Vatican Library?
Those who do not believe that the language of Constantine the Great was Dacian, i.e. a Dacian dialect known today as Rumanian, would do a service to historiography, if they could show just what other language it may have been
I share the opinion of those scholars who have observed that the most ancient sources are, as a rule, the most reliable ones. Greater care is required when using more recent sources, while the opinions voiced by contemporary writers must always be looked up with suspicion.
To make things worse, eager but prejudiced translators have often warped the meaning of original sources.
 Carolus Lundius [Zamolxis Primus Getarum Legislator-1687]
 Nicolae Densusianu [ Dacia preistorica-1913]
 Augustin Deac [The History of the Historical Truth- 2002]
 Pompeius Trogus [Book VII.I.2 – Garnier (1936) – Justin’s Epitome], t.1, p. 155)
 G. Sotiroff, Koinh and Idiai [ The Classical World, Philadelphia, Dec., 1968, pp. 131-132.]
 Igor M. D’iakonov [The Original Home of the Speakers of Indo-European.” Journal of Indo-European Studies. Volume 13, p. 92 1985]
 Colin Renfrew [The Tarim Basin, Tocharian, and Indo-European origins: a view from the west,” in V.Mair (ed.), The Bronze Age & Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia -Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph #26, vol.1]
. . Napoleon Savescu, author of Noi nu suntem urmasii Romei (Editura Intact, Bucuresti, Rumania, 1999 ), tells us that “ther is no evidence eather archeological or philological about the disappearance of the Dacian tongue. “Who the ancient Dacians were has been much disputed, their language has perished utterly.” No recent authority has rejected these gratuitous statements. The current tendency is to suggest that the Dacians have been “Latinized”, by repeating ad nauseum the claim that Roman peoples had “arrived” in, “invading”, Dacia in the 2nd century A.D. The fundamental questions; if the Romans conquered 14% of Dacian’s territory and all population learned in 165 years to speak Latin language, what happened in 86% of Dacian’s unoccupied territory – who were their “teachers”, is never discussed. The matter has been further obscured, by the majority of the Rumanian philologists, which is based on the assumption that, indeed, the Dacian language has virtually disappeared. There was a time when I, too, believed this. No any more.
 Wilhelm Tomaschek, Die alten Thraker, Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie ser Wissenschaften, Vienna, 1893, pp. 123-127).
 Hdt., V.6 and Strabo, Fragm.11 of book VII. (Loeb, t.3, pp.329-331.) In the same fragment, Strabo explains that what was called, in his time, Macedonia, was in earlier times called Emathia, and that most of its inhabitants were Thracians.
 Book XLIX.36.2(loeb,t.5p.415)
 De mag.,III.32.5.
 Chiliades, X.185. (reprint of the 1826 edition by Georg Ols, Hildesheim, 1963.)
 12.3.20. and 5.3.2
 Hdt. VII.73.
 13.4.4. and 5.3.2. Noteworthy is also a remark by Athenaeus (Deipn., IX.398 – Loeb) indicating that the Paeonians and the Mysians spoke the same language.
 Book XXIX.6.2
 Appian, Mithr., 55. 224 (tebner, 1962, t. 1, p.567); Strabo, 12.3.20 and Frag. 45 (46) – Loeb., t.3, p.367.
 39th Discourse, 1. (Loeb, t.4, p. 97.)
 12.3.3 and 12.3.40. (Loeb, t.5, pp.375 and 449.)
 39th Discourse, 1. (Loeb, t.4, p. 97.)
 Historia Nova, II.37. (Engl. Transl. By J.J. Buchanan and H.T.Davis, Trinity University Press, San Antonio, Texas, 1967, p. 77.)
 Cronographia, IX (0 285). (CSHB, p.221.)
 In Photiusw, The Library,cod.186.(BL.,Paris,1962,t.3,p.33-34.)
 Book VI (Elis II), XX.18. (Loeb, t.3, p. 129.)
 Op. Cit., IV. (CSHB, p. 72)
 Correspondance, BL, Paris, 1927, p.38
 It is common knowledge
Eumolpus was a leader of the Thracians that in Attica. Ancient Greek literature is replete with references to Thracians throughout the country, including the islands. The presence of Thracians in Phocis is evidenced by the “legend” about Tereus and Philomela. Prominent men, like the philosopher Antisthenes, Pittacis, Themistocles and Iphicrates, were half-Thracian. Menander was proud of his Thracian origin. Pompeius Trogus testifies that the oldest name of the Macedonians was Pelasgians. (Book VII.1, ed. Garnier, Paris, 1936, t.1, p. 155 of Justin’s Epitome.) These Pelasgians occupied the whole of the Peloponnesus. It was not without some perfidy that, around the year 1528 B.C. (computed from Orosius, Book I.11), Danaus, fleeing from Egypt, came to the Peloponnesus and occupied the main city there (Argos), after which he ordered that the name of the country and the people be changed after his own name. Computatons based on the chronologies of Manetho, Eusebius and Orosius, as well as on the Parian Marble, all converge to the 16th century B.C. as the probable time of arrival of the first Greek colony from Egypt.
 Diod. Sic., Book I.18.1-3
 See the Loeb edition (1956), p.16
 See the Loeb edition (1959), pp. 156-157.
 Quoted by Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De thematibus, 2.38.B. Another interesting detail: Livy (XXXI.XXX.15) says that Macedonians, Acarnanians and Aetolians used the same speech. On the other hand, the Acarnanians are identified with the Thracians in a roundabout but nonetheless very persuasive way. The mother of Themistocles, according to Cornelius Nepos was an Acarnanian. When, later on, Plutarch wrote his biography of Themistocles, he called her a Thracian. This is not the only evidence.
 Op.cit. (CSHB, p. 97).)
 Book 2.30.2. I am most grateful to Professor T.F.Carvey, of the University of Windsor (Ontario), for drawing my attention to this portion of the Lydian’s book. (See Professor Carney’s brilliant translation of Lydus’ De magistratibus. The Wentworth Press, Sydney, Australia, 1965.)
 Several derogatory remarks about Graeculi, made by orators in the presence of Constantine, a priori, rule out any possibility for the emperor to have had Greek family connections. (See especially Inceri panegyricus Constantino Augusto dictus, IX, 1 and Panegyricus Constantino dictus, VII.XIX-BL, t.2, pp.128 and 70.)
. For an explanation of this onomastic puzzle (Getae = Goths) see G.Sotiroff, The Assassination of Justinian’s Personality, pp.135-140. Here we shall note only that, according to Julius Capitolinus, the father of Maximinus was a Goth. Maximinus never learned to speak Greek and, in his youth, hardly knew any Latin but spoke to the emperor (Alexander Severus) in “almost pure Thracian). (SHA, Maximini Duo, 1.7 and 2.5)
. Book XXXVIII.10.1-3. (Loeb, t.3, p.217.)
. Divus Augustus, LXIII. Suetonius also says that Octavian had promised his daughter Julia to Cotys “king of the Getae”, whom Ovid calls king of the Thracians.
. N.H. IV.40. (Loeb, t.3, p.147).
. The version currently peddled is that Aurelian “withdrew” from Dacia the Roman garrisons and all Roman citizens. Nobody has explained just why he withdrew them. The fact that, before Aurelian, Hadrian removed the planks from the top of the bridge across the Danube which he had inherited from Trajan, is explained by Dio Cassius (LXVIII.13.6) by the fear Hadrian had that the “barbarians”, i.e. the Dacians, might use the bridge to cross over into Roman territory, which goes to show who was strong and who weak in those days. Aurelian “withdrew” the Roman citizens from Dacia, because they had been expelled.
. P.G. t.108, col.347.
. De bello gothico, VI.XII.26-27 and II.19.32 (Loeb). One should note also the way Memnon speaks of the army “of the Romans and the Thracians”, almost as if these two were the same people. (Photius, The Library, cod.224, BL, t.4, p.95.)
. De Aedif., III.VII.18 (Loeb).
. Getica, XII.35.
. In Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, (Paul Geyer ed., Vienna, 1898, pp. 183-184.)
. The Museo Nazionale at Naples has a papyrus concerning the sale of a Gothic church (? In Ravenna)). While the document itself is drawn up in Latin, some Gothic clerics have signed it in their own, Gothic, script.
. Alcestis, 966-970. Here, as elsewhere, the imprecision of the Greek language has lead to some fancy translations. Instead of “I have found no drug in the Thracian tablets written in Orpheus’s language”, Arthur S. Way thought he understood: “There is naught in the tablets of Thrace, neither drugs whereof Orpheus taught”. (In the Loeb ed.)
. Book VII.111.
. Ex Ponto, IV, ep. XIII.17-22. (Garnier, 1957, p. 401)
. Op.cit., cod. 177a. (BL. T.2, p.163.)
. For Dionisu of Miletus, referred to by Diod. Sic. (3.67.12) says that the Pelasgians were the first to use the Cadmeian letters (from whom the Greeks borrowed them). (See G.Sotiroff, KOINH and IDIAI, The Classical World, Philadelphia, Dec., 1968, pp. 131-132.)
. See Simocatta’s Histories, III.4.4. and VII.2.5. (Ed. De Boor, Leipzig (tebner), 1887. Reprinted 1972. (A Russian translation has been published (1957) in Moscow.) On the troubles of Philip II. In the Triballian country see Pompeius Trogus, Book IX. Chap. III (garnier, Paris, 1936 [Justin’s Epitome], t.1, p.187.) According to Herodotus (V.17), the Macedonian king Alexander I. Got a talent a day from the silver mines in his country. Plato makes Socrates say (Charnides, 156D) that the Getic/Dacien medics were so skilled that they had the reputation of being able to give immortality. The treatment of Lysimachus, after his capture by the Thracian king Dromichaetes, may be learned from Diodorus (XXXI.12.4-5). Curiously enough, Orosius (III.23) calls this same king Dorus.
. 12th Discourse, 57. (Loeb, t.2, p.71.)
. Cratylus, 409 e.
. Deipnosophists, III.122. (Loeb)
. See (in the CSHB edition) Malalas, p. 436 and Chronicon Paschale, I, p.696.
. BL. Paris, 1939, t.2., p.186. zakanon is used, as may be guessed, in the sense of lex or mos recepta. (Ibid., cap.8; para.3)
. Annalium, lib. XVI.II. (CSBH, 1887, p.15)
. Book I.94.2.
. Zalmoxis is said to have claimed that Hestia (i.e. Vestia) gave to the Getae/Dacian their laws. (Ibidem.)
. Arcadia, VIII.VII.4. (Loeb, t.3, p.377.)
. Laonicus Chalcondyles, P.G., t.159, col. 41-42. Not to be forgitten is the fact that Chalcondyles somehow avoided being burned at the stake, but his book was put on the Index librorum prohibitorum. N.B. – He equates the Triballians with the Daciens (Op.cit., col.26.)
. Strabo, 7.3.13 (Loeb, t.3, p.215) and Dio Cassius, LI.23.3. (Loeb, t.6, p.67.)
. Annales Ecclesiastici (1624 edition), t.3, col.4. Regardless of whether Constantine did or did not put forward such a claim, the statement in Annales Ecclesiastici raises another intersting question. Baronius says that his authority was Pollio. Yet in Pollio’s text, such as we have it, there is no mention of Constantine’s so-called claim to be a descendant of Vespasian. The missing portion, then, must have disappeared after Baronius saw it. How could it have disappeared from the Vatican Library? Another minor mystery: Julius Capitolinus reports (Gordiani III, 24.5, in Loeb t.2, p. 447) that Licinus claimed to be a descendant of Philippus Major. How come, Barronius had nothing to say about this claim?