Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

[athanaric]

as well as being a major factor in Parthian ethnogenesis.

What does Thracian activity have to do with a Central Asian Iranian people? I hope you're not subscribing to that retarded theory. After all, your OP looks sensible, judging by a quick scan.

Well, I can agree with that and I think it's rather well accepted, isn't it? With an emphasis on "participating", as a part, not as everything. As for the rest - hmm, reminds me of Getwulf somehow...

Thracian elements in the Aegaean are certainly feasible, I remember something about Samothrake etc.. Regarding Sparta OTOH, it's very far-fetched.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Thracian elements in the Aegaean are certainly feasible, I remember something about Samothrake etc.. Regarding Sparta OTOH, it's very far-fetched.

Indeed, various Thracian tribes lived as South as the coasts of Pieria, near Mount Olympus. They were expelled by the Macedonians and moved to areas in what is today central Macedonia. Those areas were named after the tribes, for example Mygdonia and Pieris.

[Getwulf]

Indeed, various Thracian tribes lived as South as the coasts of Pieria, near Mount Olympus. They were expelled by the Macedonians and moved to areas in what is today central Macedonia. Those areas were named after the tribes, for example Mygdonia and Pieris.

I doubt it... Do you have a source for this...?

Sure they lived in a lot of places except north of the Danube and in Romania... there is no such thing as a Thraco-Dacian expansion.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

I doubt it... Do you have a source for this...?

Sure they lived in a lot of places except north of the Danube and in Romania... there is no such thing as a Thraco-Dacian expansion.

The source I've read it from is The Macedonian State: Origins, Institutions, and History by N.G.L. Hammond. He mentions that Pieria was once inhabited by Thracians who were expelled at the first stage of Macedonian expansion to the East and Northeast. Why do you consider it unlikely? The Macedonian expansion and the Greek colonies in the coasts of Macedonia and Thrace were a later addition. Until then, the local inhabitants were Thracians.

[mircea]

No, the influence is as i said, from Carpathian basin (western Romania) toward west, tumulus or urnfield

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture#Origin

So tell me, what kind of influence (trade, forceful, peaceful), and how strong it was, and in what fields manifested???

I did use that source just for archeological dating, not for their obviously wrong interpretations belonging to so called pan-celticism. In fact, they are not totally wrong, the proto-Celts did adopted that culture, but the origin is from proto-Dacians, of course. It was a cultural contamination

Leaving aside your unbroken conviction in something so uncertain, you should really explain what you mean by cultural contamination and more importantly how this ‘cultural contamination’ took place (forceful or not)

I think you need to improve your knowledge about Panonia, or at least eastern Panonia including Tisa river area, that was Dacian teritory. Of course Dacians/Getae spread even more in west, at least until today Slovakia, but reaching even Germania. I dont have time now to post some stuff from Parvan and Schutte, regarding especially Ptolemey map and writings. I did posted somewhere here an article of some Polish scholars too, that talk about Dacians in Poland and even up to Germany

Pannonia usually is identified with the Roman province of the same name (Central-Western Hungary or Transdanubia), and this part was home for Bronze Age culture such as Kisapostag, Encrusted Ware, Vatya and later a very vibrant Urnfield center (cf. Gimbutas). The area was settled later by Pannonians afterwards by Celts.

On the other hand the Alfold area (Eastern Hungary) was mostly dominated by a large variety of tribes during Early Antiquity, many of them of Iranian stock (Mezocsat culture, Iazyges), as well as Thraco-Dacians or Celts.

Btw, when you refer to the Polish scholars article you are not referring to this:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...2#post12319892

So we have the quote from Cambridge Ancient History book that i posted, then we have this historians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_peo...der_hypothesis
Michael Grant: "There was a gigantic series of migratory waves, extending all the way from the Danube valley to the plains of China."[61]



according to Finley:[62] A large-scale movement of people is indicated ... the original centre of disturbance was in the Carpatho-Danubian region of Europe. It appears to have been pushing in different directions at different times.

So your own sources, corroborated with other sources say exactly what I’m saying: the invasions have a polycentric origin centered around Danubian valley (Austria-Slovakia-Hungary-Romania).
Hopefully you not try to claim that Dacians inhabitant all these areas or that they caused the Tumulus-Urnfield expansion toward the South and East!!??

And of course Parvan etc. etc. This clealry said that was a movement of people called Dacians by Parvan and (kinda wrongly) Thracians by Cambridge guys. This movement of (proto) Dacians/Thracians spread in different directions. Your own quote say that Noua culture (Transylvania) spread toward west, and of course south.

It is curious how conveniently you missed quoting the part with Tumulus Culture expansion toward South and east.
The quote reads as follows: “For example, the bearers of the Middle
European Hiigelgraber or tumulus culture exerted towards southern
Pannonia a pressure which played an outstanding role in the formation
of the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group and in the connexions it had with
the west Pannonian incrusted ware. Similarly the Noa-Sabatinovka
group moving westwards from the east towards the Carpathian region
exerted pressure in the Lower Danubian area.
The Cambridge Ancient History III(1) p.584

You also ‘missed’ quoting this part:
“While this process was going on, it is understandable that a considerable regrouping and assimilation of various groups took place, accompanied by geographical movement. In the end it led to the formation of large ethnic entities such as Thracians, Daco-Mysians and Illyrians (…)” The Cambridge Ancient History III(1) p.584

Then we have this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins_...ibe%29#Origins

<<The most common hypothesis is that the Italic peoples migrated into the Italian peninsula some time during the Italian Bronze Age (1800-900 BC).[1] The most likely migration route was from the Balkan peninsula along the Adriatic coast.[2][1]>>

If everything is so clear than shows us from which culture the Roman ancestors migrated from, and which are the Italian culture representing them (Appenine, Terramare, Villanova).

Nonetheless, from what I get you are basically saying the entire Balkans peninsula was populated by Dacians or that they were the only ones able to migrate???. And that is even more curious seeing that your own source says that these tribes migrated along the Adriatic coast, which kind of speaks against an origin from Dacia, because an trailing around Adriatic coast would be unnecessary.

This seem pretty clear for anyone with an open enough mind and able to tie few knots, that the center of this movements was in what was called later Dacia. I do agree that this provoked the movement of other people too, and those proto-Dacian groups sometime mixed with locals in the regions they reached and lost their individuality over time.

So tell me, if the origin point was Dacia, than why Central European Tumulus and later Urnfield and Lausatian cultures migrated to south and East, toward Dacia, and not away from this????

I posted lots of proofs, it is not my fault if someone is too affected by old dogmas and can't assimilate them

And by proofs I mean academic grade sources – with clear quotes - and not selective quoting from Wikipedia or unsupported claims based on supposed similarities (see my replies to Sparta or Naue II origin)

Yet you just use yourself such label

I was very clearly referring to the dangers of improperly putting a sole and definitive ethnic labels on Bronze Age cultures, considering that these were shared by more than one proto-ethnicities (see criticism to Kossinna's Law).
The danger is even more in case of armatures lacking even the most basic knowledge and which contradict reputable historians (Gibmutas, authors of Cambridge History) on basis of nothing but their ‘guts’.
Furthermore, better researchers on this subject conclude that the nuclei of the Celtic-Italic, Illyrian, Venetic, Phrygian and Armenian linguistic groups are to be looked for within the limits of the central European Bronze Age (cf. Gimbutas, p.339, well as in Cambridge III (1), p.849)

Well, as Daco-Getae was the dominant part of those related groups (Thracians, Phrygians and Cimmerians are considered as related people) is not that of an overestimation

You are right, it is just an absurdity and your mystification of the history is quite perplexing, wrongly minimizing the role of these tribes, despite the fact that pretty much all sources do not say or point to anything of this kind. So please just show as the academic sources on which this wild claim is based, detailing the Dacian dominance over not only Thracia or even Illyria.

This migrations of Dacians are demonstrated as i already show, is just needed an open mind to accept them and to pass over the old, outdated and rigid dogmas. Because this Daco-Getae/Thracian invasions or migrations waves are ignored by pan-Celticism (and even pan-Germanism) like historians from western Europe, the most vocal. And by dogmatic Latinist (or later multi-culturalist) historians in Romania.

While is true that Thracian (which includes Daco-Moesians) area is more or less unknown for Western historians, it is not an excuse to present outlandish claims to makeup for the lack of attention. In fact, these outlandish claims, unsupported and fantasy theories scare away genuine (Western) researchers and increase historians distrust toward perfectly valid theories.
Any trained (and good intentioned) historian knows that very well that half-thought, outlandish and hair-pulled theories are dangerous, and that is way caution is one of historian’s best pals.

Yet genetically I thought that Latin peoples had more in common with Hallstatt Celts.

I tend to avoid genetics due to the inherit ambiguity of this field, and especially considering the fact that genetic halpogroup is rarely the same with language or culture.

Rather than admiting that some serious errors were made both in our horribly biased historiography and linguistics... The new school of thought seems to have gone on full retard trying to prove that we're more Latin than the Latins because we we're in fact the first Latins and they get their language from us!

I don’t know from what country you came, although the imaginary Gothia is the most probably, but in Romania Dacians are considered as part of Thracians, while Latins is Italic language, linguistic branch distinct from Thracian branch, but both are Indo-European languages

Well, the originar Latins/Romans arrived in Italia was just a small group that mixed with locals (see just the legend with Sabines etc) over time, more and more until they become less visible genetically.

While I agree with the overall Latin ethnogenesis process you present, I think it should be mentioned that it is quite hard to distinguish which was the key invading group (Massimo Pallottino speaks of 3 waves), although the contact of Villanova bearers with Appenine culture seem to be the factor leading to this ethnogenesis process, which manifested through the Latial culture.

However, archaelogy is clear in pointing their origin in Balkan-Danube area

Balkan-Danube is a quite large area, stretching from Austria to Macedonia, and from Black Sea to Alps and Adriatic Sea.

What does Thracian activity have to do with a Central Asian Iranian people? I hope you're not subscribing to that retarded theory. After all, your OP looks sensible, judging by a quick scan.

The source for this ‘theory’ is the notoriously unreliable Jordanes:
“At that time some of his victorious army, seeing that the subdued provinces were rich and fruitful, deserted their companies and of their own accord remained in various parts of Asia. (48) From their name or race Pompeius Trogus says the stock of the Parthians had its origin. Hence even to-day in the Scythian tongue they are called Parthi, that is, Deserters.”

I doubt it... Do you have a source for this...?

Sure they lived in a lot of places except north of the Danube and in Romania... there is no such thing as a Thraco-Dacian expansion.

Getwulf, adults are talking here, so I'm not sure, but probbaly you'll get bored

[athanaric]

The source for this ‘theory’ is the notoriously unreliable Jordanes:
“At that time some of his victorious army, seeing that the subdued provinces were rich and fruitful, deserted their companies and of their own accord remained in various parts of Asia. (48) From their name or race Pompeius Trogus says the stock of the Parthians had its origin. Hence even to-day in the Scythian tongue they are called Parthi, that is, Deserters.”

Ah, that's what you meant. Meanwhile, in the real world, Parthian is believed by some to be of the same origin as Persian, in different Iranian languages of course. Ah, but then ancient historiographers were never shy to come up with funny etymologies. And who's to blame them, they didn't have access to modern science. Nowadays, people don't have that excuse though.

[Getwulf]

While is true that Thracian (which includes Daco-Moesians) area is more or less unknown for Western historians, it is not an excuse to present outlandish claims to makeup for the lack of attention. In fact, these outlandish claims, unsupported and fantasy theories scare away genuine (Western) researchers and increase historians distrust toward perfectly valid theories.
Any trained (and good intentioned) historian knows that very well that half-thought, outlandish and hair-pulled theories are dangerous, and that is way caution is one of historian’s best pals.

There's no such thing as Daco-Moesians... and the insignificant Thracians do not include Thraco-Moesians. There's the resetlement of the Dacians in Moesia and in northern Greece (with Galerius and so on) but that's after the Roman conquest...

Mixing the Getae and the Dacians with Thracians comes from protochronism and the attempt to make the unrelated southerners more important to the cultures north of the Danube than what they really were.

I tend to avoid genetics due to the inherit ambiguity of this field, and especially considering the fact that genetic halpogroup is rarely the same with language or culture.

Language can be learned that's true but that's not why genetics is used in history. Genetics is usually used when there's nothing else that we can use to identify a population.

For instance... Could the people around the Latin region have a genetic conection with Thrace...?

Semitic J2a

The answer to that is yes... South and central Italy do have the same J2a as the Thracians... We have no way of knowing how J2a got there with DNA alone but it is there. But could you connect this to Romanians or to the Getae and the Dacians...!? No... those populations were more like "Scytho-Northern" with a Germanic element dominated by Haplogroup I. (sure go ahead and laugh... but then I'll point to Trajan's Column and Adamclissi which do display "Germanics"...) Like I said... Getae = Goths

I don’t know from what country you came, although the imaginary Gothia is the most probably, but in Romania Dacians are considered as part of Thracians, while Latins is Italic language, linguistic branch distinct from Thracian branch, but both are Indo-European languages

I'm from Romania but I don't suffer from Turco-Slavic retardation... There isn't a trace of Down Syndrome to my features. Also, I never felt the need to pretend that I'm better than what I really am so I never bothered with being a super Latin!

The source for this ‘theory’ is the notoriously unreliable Jordanes:
“At that time some of his victorious army, seeing that the subdued provinces were rich and fruitful, deserted their companies and of their own accord remained in various parts of Asia. (48) From their name or race Pompeius Trogus says the stock of the Parthians had its origin. Hence even to-day in the Scythian tongue they are called Parthi, that is, Deserters.”

He's not notoriously unreliable... The people studying him are morons.

Getwulf, adults are talking here, so I'm not sure, but probbaly you'll get bored

I'm an adult but it's true... This protochronism debate is boring...

You can't fix stupid with more stupid... Romania in antiquity was not considered to be Latin and there's no such thing as a Thraco-Dacian expansion. In fact, there's no such thing as Thraco-Dacian... It's a made up concept.

We can trace the retardation of this concept to Herodotus... Either he was making stuff up or he had a political motive to link the Getae to Hellenism through Thracian...

[mircea]

getwulf

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There's no such thing as Daco-Moesians... and the insignificant Thracians do not include Thraco-Moesians.

Although it is wikipedia, nonetheless is much more preferable to utter ignorance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_...classification

Semitic J2a

The answer to that is yes... South and central Italy do have the same J2a as the Thracians... We have no way of knowing how J2a got there with DNA alone but it is there. But could you connect this to Romanians or to the Getae and the Dacians...!? No... those populations were more like "Scytho-Northern" with a Germanic element dominated by Haplogroup I. (sure go ahead and laugh... but then I'll point to Trajan's Column and Adamclissi which do display "Germanics"...) Like I said... Getae = Goths [/QUOTE]
I understand the you are clueless on this subject, but at least get you facts right:
Southern and Northern population with Haplogroup I, the subclades are different, with the subclade divergence of I1 (I1a in Scandinavia) and I2 (Balkans) to be around 24±7.1 ky - 28.4±5.1 Ky ago. At that time, the humans with Haplogroup I were probably in Middle East. Further more, according to your own map, half of Thracian tribes (among them Bessi or Tribali) were located in areas designated with I2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HaplogroupI2.png

[Getwulf]

getwulf

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Although it is wikipedia, nonetheless is much more preferable to utter ignorance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_...classification





The answer to that is yes... South and central Italy do have the same J2a as the Thracians... We have no way of knowing how J2a got there with DNA alone but it is there. But could you connect this to Romanians or to the Getae and the Dacians...!? No... those populations were more like "Scytho-Northern" with a Germanic element dominated by Haplogroup I. (sure go ahead and laugh... but then I'll point to Trajan's Column and Adamclissi which do display "Germanics"...) Like I said... Getae = Goths

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I understand the you are clueless on this subject, but at least get you facts right:
Southern and Northern population with Haplogroup I, the subclades are different, with the subclade divergence of I1 (I1a in Scandinavia) and I2 (Balkans) to be around 24±7.1 ky - 28.4±5.1 Ky ago. At that time, the humans with Haplogroup I were probably in Middle East. Further more, according to your own map, half of Thracian tribes (among them Bessi or Tribali) were located in areas designated with I2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HaplogroupI2.png

[/QUOTE]


Ria, Ria Khazaria and Bolga Pizdaria!!!!

Now, you should take time to study and leave grown ups to discuss serious stuff.

Nice...!!!

As for Romania... Romania is a failure..., dumbest, poorest most corrupt EU member there is... Do you wonder why that is...? It's because of the Huns and the Byzantines... An unholy alliance of errr.... "Thracians" who pretend to be Latin...! Having to tell people that I'm Romanian really does make me feel ashamed. It's embarassing...

Nothing really but arrow shooters from the steppes without a culture of their own and greedy corrupt Byzantine Greeks... Most of these fake "Greeks" were orientals with semitic DNA but ironically also very racist and anti-semitic... You know... all this brown on brown hatred!

Enjoy your poverty Mircea!

Thracians suck and they were the most loser people out there...! More importantly they never won a war or lived in Romania!

AND to finally put an end to this crap...

All of these notions come from this video...



Unfortunately it's in Romanian so you won't be able to laugh at it but at least you can look at some fake maps...

At the beginning of the video it is announced that we're all genetically related to Bulgarians and Greeks and therefore Thracians...! This is false... Neither Greeks nor Romanians are Thracians...

Then they go on to tell how Italics from 5000-3000 B.C. are in fact Thracians although the northern Italians are not genetically related and how the Romans are descended from Aeneas of Troy... who founded Rome...

Myth debunked...

Moving on...!

[mircea]

Ah, that's what you meant. Meanwhile, in the real world, Parthian is believed by some to be of the same origin as Persian, in different Iranian languages of course. Ah, but then ancient historiographers were never shy to come up with funny etymologies. And who's to blame them, they didn't have access to modern science. Nowadays, people don't have that excuse though.

Unfortunately there are many that fail to observe the rules of critical reading of historical sources, and end up taking ancients word at face value, leading to this kind of funny things. As a rule, the farther the author goes back in time with the narrative the more unreliable he is. For example in this case Jordannes speaks of event that took place over a millenium before his birth

I think I will... But who are the grown ups here...? Surely you don't mean you...? There's nothing worse than someone who thinks of themselves as more intelligent than they really are!

Getwulf,
You're woefully wrong, I'm not discussing/alluding to your intelligence level, simply because is not my business, nor I have the necessary expertise to give an accurate opinion on this matter.

On the other hand I have the right to express an opinion on your knowledge and comprehension of history, and unfortunately for you, I also have sufficient expertise to obliterate your awfully eccentric fairytale (politely speaking)

Diegis,
I think you'll be interested that I have found another "nail" for the "coffin" of the Dacian-Latin closeness:
Ovid, Tristia, Book V.XII:1-68 Poetry In Exile
"I myself have already un-learned Latin, I think, now I’ve learnt to speak Getic and Sarmatian."

Book Tristia, V.II:45-79 His Prayer to Augustus
"these barbarian tongues ignorant of the Latin language, this Greek speech submerged in the sounds of Getic"
http://www.poetryintranslation.com/P...stiaBkFive.htm

[Tiberios]

The personal references, insinuations and general mudslinging ends now. Stay on topic everybody.

[diegis]

So tell me, what kind of influence (trade, forceful, peaceful), and how strong it was, and in what fields manifested??? Leaving aside your unbroken conviction in something so uncertain, you should really explain what you mean by cultural contamination and more importantly how this ‘cultural contamination’ took place (forceful or not)

Firstly it was forceful, seeing the spread of Naue 2 type of swords, from Carpathians to Alps. Then a spiritual/religious one probably, seen the spread of cremation. My opinion is that a kind of internal struggle occured within that proto-Dacian civilization, probably based of an increase of population and apparition of a new religion or spiritual belief.
In the same time a change in warfare occured as well (see Robert Drews and others i dont have time to search to post now), which allowed the people here to prevail over armies of that era.
Due to these combination of factors smaller or bigger groups migrated in all directions, pushing others as well in their way.
Probably large campaigns coordinated by a central power took place too, see Tanausis king expedition.
This is another prove of the presence of a strong kingdom in the area
http://www.scribd.com/doc/63715625/A...19%E2%80%93838

Another center of power was discovered east of that, in Carpathians
http://www.municipiulsacele.ro/afisare.php?id=176
This one is of a smaller dimenssion but betetr protected by the geography of the place

Such settlements (especially the first one) can't be build without a significant population around, and without a powerful and organized kingdom. In fact it was the biggest settlement in the world at that time, i believe (sure, if you know others i will be glad to see)

Pannonia usually is identified with the Roman province of the same name (Central-Western Hungary or Transdanubia), and this part was home for Bronze Age culture such as Kisapostag, Encrusted Ware, Vatya and later a very vibrant Urnfield center (cf. Gimbutas). The area was settled later by Pannonians afterwards by Celts.

On the other hand the Alfold area (Eastern Hungary) was mostly dominated by a large variety of tribes during Early Antiquity, many of them of Iranian stock (Mezocsat culture, Iazyges), as well as Thraco-Dacians or Celts.

Dacians clearly spread in Panonia as you draw it. Not just being mentioned by ancient authors (like Pliny the Elder or Strabo) but even archeology shows that (see the Dacians in Slovakia after Burebista expansion)

Btw, when you refer to the Polish scholars article you are not referring to this:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...2#post12319892

Yes, them. You should read all the article, because they say at some point:

<<The not too great but nevertheless evident percentage of wares characteristic for the latter in the ceramic inventory of the Tyniec Group confirms, not so much the existence of an unspecified form of "contacts" but the physical presence of Dacians in the area of Krakow....>>

This show that those bracelets and armlets are indeed imports, meaning they come from Dacia, and was worn by Dacian nobles who arrived in today Poland. However, the more common ceramic with little value was made locally (meaning in Poland) by Dacians who lived there

So your own sources, corroborated with other sources say exactly what I’m saying: the invasions have a polycentric origin centered around Danubian valley (Austria-Slovakia-Hungary-Romania).
Hopefully you not try to claim that Dacians inhabitant all these areas or that they caused the Tumulus-Urnfield expansion toward the South and East!!?? It is curious how conveniently you missed quoting the part with Tumulus Culture expansion toward South and east.
The quote reads as follows: “For example, the bearers of the Middle
European Hiigelgraber or tumulus culture exerted towards southern
Pannonia a pressure which played an outstanding role in the formation
of the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group and in the connexions it had with
the west Pannonian incrusted ware. Similarly the Noa-Sabatinovka
group moving westwards from the east towards the Carpathian region
exerted pressure in the Lower Danubian area.

I will post again what Cambridge Ancient History say:

<<pag. 62 - Chapter VIII. THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION FROM THE BRONZE AGE TO THE FIRST IRON AGE: THE HALLSTATT A PERIOD - (1200-1000 B.C.)
Culturally, economically and ethnically this period is perfectly continuous with the Late Bronze Age.

pag. 64 - More then fifty years ago Vasile Parvan wrote about "the Dacians at Troy" on the strenght of similar ceramic types found at Troy and in the Carpathian area; the only amendament we can make is to replace Dacians by Thracians, because the various groups of Thracian population had not separated out in the twelfth century.

Pressure from the west and south west, which began in north-eastern Yugoslavia, south-eastern Hungary and the south-western most part of Romania, gave rise to great migrations.......displaced the Dorians........caused the invasion of the "Sea People">>

Urnfielders had their origins right near the area were they "returned", and it seem you conveniently missed the expansion of Noua culture westward.

And no, i obviously dont say that Dacians solely inhabited the area you describe (Austria-Slovakia-Hungary-Romania). What i am saying is that groups of Dacians moved from their "core" area (what we know later as Dacia) and dominated or influenced local population in the places they reached.
The fields along Tisa river was a Dacian area however, same along lower Danube right and left to the river (Tisa-Danube areas, up to Danube Delta)

The Cambridge Ancient History III(1) p.584

You also ‘missed’ quoting this part:
“While this process was going on, it is understandable that a considerable regrouping and assimilation of various groups took place, accompanied by geographical movement. In the end it led to the formation of large ethnic entities such as Thracians, Daco-Mysians and Illyrians (…)” The Cambridge Ancient History III(1) p.584

As same authors said above, those groups was "culturally, economically and ethnically perfectly continuous with the Late Bronze Age." They just individualized themselves at the end of the period, meaning that from the proto-Dacians emerged these 3 groups, at least 2 of them being more closely related. If you like a more modern comparation, is like saying that the end of western Roman empire led to the formation of large ethnic entities as French and Spanish

Then we have this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins_...ibe%29#Origins

If everything is so clear than shows us from which culture the Roman ancestors migrated from, and which are the Italian culture representing them (Appenine, Terramare, Villanova).

Nonetheless, from what I get you are basically saying the entire Balkans peninsula was populated by Dacians or that they were the only ones able to migrate???. And that is even more curious seeing that your own source says that these tribes migrated along the Adriatic coast, which kind of speaks against an origin from Dacia, because an trailing around Adriatic coast would be unnecessary.

I agree is hard to know for sure which group, but we know for sure that was one (if not more the one) of them. The migration pattern is not standardized, it wasnt a clear road for them, they may search along the area until they find a suitable place, in Italy.

So tell me, if the origin point was Dacia, than why Central European Tumulus and later Urnfield and Lausatian cultures migrated to south and East, toward Dacia, and not away from this????

Urnfield culture, as i demonstrated, started in Dacia.

And by proofs I mean academic grade sources – with clear quotes - and not selective quoting from Wikipedia or unsupported claims based on supposed similarities (see my replies to Sparta or Naue II origin)

What i said about Naue 2 sword was backed by very good and academic sources. I suppose because didnt fit in your view you forgot that. Even when i use wikipedia i quote the parts were a good source is given.
Like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_...se#Ironworking

<<The Bronze Age collapse may be seen in the context of a technological history that saw the slow, comparatively continuous spread of iron-working technology in the region, beginning with precocious iron-working in what is now Bulgaria and Romania in the 13th and 12th centuries BC.[10] Leonard R. Palmer suggested that iron, while inferior to bronze weapons, was in more plentiful supply and so allowed larger armies of iron users to overwhelm the smaller armies of bronze-using maryannu chariotry.[11]>>

Sources mentioned are:

-See A. Stoia and the other essays in M.L. Stig Sørensen and R. Thomas, eds., The Bronze Age—Iron Age Transition in Europe (Oxford) 1989, and T.H. Wertime and J.D. Muhly, The Coming of the Age of Iron (New Haven) 1980.
-Palmer, Leonard R (1962) Mycenaeans and Minoans: Aegean Prehistory in the Light of the Linear B Tablets. (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1962)

I was very clearly referring to the dangers of improperly putting a sole and definitive ethnic labels on Bronze Age cultures, considering that these were shared by more than one proto-ethnicities (see criticism to Kossinna's Law).
The danger is even more in case of armatures lacking even the most basic knowledge and which contradict reputable historians (Gibmutas, authors of Cambridge History) on basis of nothing but their ‘guts’.
Furthermore, better researchers on this subject conclude that the nuclei of the Celtic-Italic, Illyrian, Venetic, Phrygian and Armenian linguistic groups are to be looked for within the limits of the central European Bronze Age (cf. Gimbutas, p.339, well as in Cambridge III (1), p.849)

Marja Gimbutas views of history in the area is kinda rejected or corrected lately, especially the ones about the colapse of "Old Europe" (Vinca-Turdas and Cucuteni cultures etc), which more likely was caused by climate changes and not by Patriarchal warrior culture invasions over the peaceful Matriarchal societies she envisioned.
Cucuteni and Yamna culture for example coexisted and mixed for mileniums, without any problem, and just the climate changes and fall of agriculture lead to the change of lifestyle (and probably internal struggles for resources), wasnt any big invasions she imagined

You are right, it is just an absurdity and your mystification of the history is quite perplexing, wrongly minimizing the role of these tribes, despite the fact that pretty much all sources do not say or point to anything of this kind. So please just show as the academic sources on which this wild claim is based, detailing the Dacian dominance over not only Thracia or even Illyria.

I already posted the sources that talk about migrations there, coming from here. And we saw even later that the stronger entity was Dacians/Getae, with another expansion during Burebista era, when again the south of Danube entered under direct Dacian/Getae rule, except the Greek and Illyrian areas already integrated in Roman empire. Even so Dacians raided Macedonia and Ilyria

While is true that Thracian (which includes Daco-Moesians) area is more or less unknown for Western historians, it is not an excuse to present outlandish claims to makeup for the lack of attention. In fact, these outlandish claims, unsupported and fantasy theories scare away genuine (Western) researchers and increase historians distrust toward perfectly valid theories.
Any trained (and good intentioned) historian knows that very well that half-thought, outlandish and hair-pulled theories are dangerous, and that is way caution is one of historian’s best pals.

I dont know how much are they outlandish, unsupported and fantastic. They look to me more realistic (and supported) then Gothic migration from Scandza for example. I dont know either how many westerner historians really look at this area and its ancient history. And how many are really interested and objectively about it.
I didnt found many, unfortunately (but i agree there are some). In the same time i am very sure that findings in western Europe of a town (with a center spread on 100 ha, with towers, trenches, walls, ceramic etc etc) older then pyramids or of a Bronze Age era settlement spread on 1772 ha and almost 6 km across from side to side would make huge news and discussions there. Yet because they are here they are barely know and little discussed.
Same the so called "danubian writing" or "old european writing". Gimbutas have a great merit she talk about this, but i didnt seen much interest, because that would shatter the old dogmatic views and of course will dethrone the "mighty Celts" and so on

While I agree with the overall Latin ethnogenesis process you present, I think it should be mentioned that it is quite hard to distinguish which was the key invading group (Massimo Pallottino speaks of 3 waves), although the contact of Villanova bearers with Appenine culture seem to be the factor leading to this ethnogenesis process, which manifested through the Latial culture.

Well, I am glad we agree on another thing

The source for this ‘theory’ is the notoriously unreliable Jordanes:
“At that time some of his victorious army, seeing that the subdued provinces were rich and fruitful, deserted their companies and of their own accord remained in various parts of Asia. (48) From their name or race Pompeius Trogus says the stock of the Parthians had its origin. Hence even to-day in the Scythian tongue they are called Parthi, that is, Deserters.”

Yet same unreliable Jordanes was used (and some still use him) as only source to prove the Gothis migration from Scandza.
However, regarding the Parthi, he said he took that from Trogus Pompeius, and as you can saw there is modern historians and archeological discoveries who mention Dacians (under the name of Goths in Jordanes book) at least as south as Troy. I see no reason to not believe they goes further in south and some warrior group reached later Persia.
Again, this have at least as much, but i think more basis then Goths moving from Scandza and wandering 2 mileniums until Jordanes

L.E. - i will reply you another time about Ovid and his Getic period

[athanaric]

However, regarding the Parthi, he said he took that from Trogus Pompeius, and as you can saw there is modern historians and archeological discoveries who mention Dacians (under the name of Goths in Jordanes book) at least as south as Troy. I see no reason to not believe they goes further in south and some warrior group reached later Persia.

Because firstly they didn't spell themselves "Parthi", that's the Roman name for them, derived from the Greek name. Secondly a non-Iranian elite in that region would have left linguistic traces in the local languages as well as archaeological remains and social institutions, like the Greeks, Tocharians, Turks, Arabs, and Mongols did. Seeing as there are none, or else historians or linguists would be happy to tell us about it, this entire theory is worthless and implausible. It's a waste of everyone's time to argue for a theory that isn't supported by any facts.

[Getwulf]

Diegis,
I think you'll be interested that I have found another "nail" for the "coffin" of the Dacian-Latin closeness:
Ovid, Tristia, Book V.XII:1-68 Poetry In Exile
"I myself have already un-learned Latin, I think, now I’ve learnt to speak Getic and Sarmatian."

Book Tristia, V.II:45-79 His Prayer to Augustus
"these barbarian tongues ignorant of the Latin language, this Greek speech submerged in the sounds of Getic"
http://www.poetryintranslation.com/P...stiaBkFive.htm

It helps if you give the entire quotes properly...

Book TV.II:45-79 His Prayer to Augustus


A distant suppliant, I address a distant god,
if it’s allowed for mortals to address Jupiter.
Imperial judge, through whom the security
of all the gods of the Roman people is assured,
O glory, O symbol of the country that prospers
through you, O hero equal to that world you rule –
so may you live on earth, and heaven long for you,
so may you pass at length, as promised, to the stars –
spare me, I beg of you, and reduce the lightning-bolt’s
effect a little! The punishment that’s left will be enough.
Indeed your anger is moderated, you grant me life,
I’m not deprived of a citizen’s name or rights,
my possessions have not been given to others,
I’m not called an ‘exul’ by the terms of your decree.
And I feared these things because I knew I’d earned them:
yet your anger is lighter than my offence.
You ordered me to view Pontus’ fields as a ‘relegatus’,
cutting the Scythian waves in a fleeing vessel.
As commanded, I’ve reached the featureless shores
of the Euxine Sea – this land beneath the frozen pole –
yet I’m not so much tormented by this weather, never
free of cold, this soil always hardened by white frost,
these barbarian tongues ignorant of the Latin language,
this Greek speech submerged in the sounds of Getic,
as by the fact that I’m encircled, and shut in on all sides
by nearby conflict: a thin wall scarcely keeps the enemy out.
While there’s peace at times, there’s no reliance on peace:
so the place now endures attack, and now fears it.
If only I could transfer from here, let Zanclean Charybdis
swallow me, and send me down to Styx in her waves,
or let me suffer the flames, in the fires of greedy Etna,
or be thrown in the ocean deep, offered to the Leucadian god.
What I ask is punishment: truly, I don’t evade suffering,
but I beg that I might suffer somewhere safer.

Ovid, Tristia, Book V II, :45-79

http://www.poetryintranslation.com/P...m#_Toc34217359

Obviously there's also another more important one "Among The Getae"...

Book TV.VII:1-68 Among The Getae


The letter you’re reading comes to you from that land
where the wide Danube adds its waters to the sea.
If you are still alive and have sweet health,
one part of my fate retains its brightness.
Dearest friend, you’re doubtless asking yourself
how I am, though you know, even if I’m silent.
I’m miserable: that’s a brief summary of my ills,
and whoever lives on having offended Caesar, will be so.
Are you interested to know what the people round Tomis
are like, and the customs of those I live among?
Though there’s a mix of Greeks and Getae on this coast,
it’s characterised more by the barely civilised Getae.
Great hordes of Sarmatians and Getae pass
to and fro, along the trails, on horseback.
There’s not one among them who doesn’t carry
bow, quiver, and arrows pale yellow with viper’s gall:
Harsh voices, grim faces, the true image of Mars,
neither beard or hair trimmed, hands not slow
to deal wounds with the ever-present knife
that every barbarian carries, strapped to his side.
Alas, dear friend, your poet is living among them,
seeing them, hearing them, forgetting those he loves:
and would he were not alive, and died among them,
so that his shade might yet leave this hateful place.
You write that my songs are being danced now
to a crowded theatre, my verses applauded, dear friend,
though for my part I’ve composed nothing for the theatre,
as you know yourself, my Muse isn’t eager for applause.
Still I’m not ungrateful for anything that prevents
my being forgotten, and brings the exile’s name to the lips.
Though I sometimes curse the poetry
that has harmed me, and my Muses,
when I’ve cursed them at length, I still can’t be without them,
I seek the weapons blood-stained from my wounds,
and the Greek ship battered by the waves of Euboea
dares to run the waters of Cape Caphereus.
Yet I don’t labour all night for the praise, or work
for the sake of a future name that were better hidden.
I occupy my mind with studies: beguile my sorrow,
trying to deceive my cares with words.
What else can I do, alone on this desert strand,
what other help for these ills should I try to find?
If I look at the place, the place is hateful,
and nothing could be sadder on this earth,
if at the people, they barely deserve the name,
they’ve more cruel savagery in them than wolves.
They fear no law: justice yields to force,
and right is overturned by the sword’s aggression.
They keep off the evils of cold with pelts
and loose trousers, shaggy faces hidden in long hair.
A few still retain vestiges of the Greek language,
though even this the Getic pronunciation barbarises.
There’s not a single one of the population who might
chance to utter a few words of Latin while speaking.
I, the Roman poet – forgive me, Muses! –
am forced to speak Sarmatian for the most part.
See, I’m ashamed to admit it, from long disuse,
now, the Latin words scarcely even occur to me.
I don’t doubt there are more than a few barbarisms
in this book: it’s not the man’s fault but this place.
Yet, lest I lose the use of the Italian language,
and my own voice be muted in its native tongue,
I speak to myself, using forgotten phrases,
and retrace the ill-fated symbols of my studies.
So I drag out my life, and time, so I retreat from
and banish the contemplation of my troubles.
I seek forgetfulness of my misery in song:
if I win that prize by my studies, it’s enough.

Ovid, Tristia, Book VII, :45-79

http://www.poetryintranslation.com/P...m#_Toc34217365

So what we have are the Scythian Getae and the Sarmatians speaking some bad Greek probably learned from the Greek colonies or through trade and spoken with bad pronounciation. BUT Greek was not the language of the Getae.

I think that it is safe to speculate that the Getae spoke Gothic/Guthans on account of the connection that Jordanes makes. It would explain a lot... If that isn't the case then they were Sarmatian speakers.

[Dromikaites]

I think that it is safe to speculate that the Getae spoke Gothic/Guthans on account of the connection that Jordanes makes. It would explain a lot... If that isn't the case then they were Sarmatian speakers.

It would be even safer to accept they were speaking Dacian.

Jordanes, writing in mod 6th century, some 400 years after the Dacians have ceased to exist as a people, simply imagined the Dacians/Getae and the Goths had always been the same ethnic group.

At best the mid-6th century Goths were the product of the intermarriage of the Free Dacians and the original Goths.

[mircea]

@Diegis, I'll have to postpone my answer for after the Christmas, so I wish you and other posters an awesome and merry new (Mayan) cycle and Christmas too

[diegis]

@Diegis, I'll have to postpone my answer for after the Christmas, so I wish you and other posters an awesome and merry new (Mayan) cycle and Christmas too

Thank you Mircea and wish you all the same.
And yes, hope everyone had a nice celebration of the end of the world, just wait to see when will be the next one

[Getwulf]

It would be even safer to accept they were speaking Dacian.

Jordanes, writing in mod 6th century, some 400 years after the Dacians have ceased to exist as a people, simply imagined the Dacians/Getae and the Goths had always been the same ethnic group.

At best the mid-6th century Goths were the product of the intermarriage of the Free Dacians and the original Goths.

This is false... The Getae did not speak Dacian because the Dacians were just making their way into Romania at that time. A Roman like Ovid would have used the term Dacian had the Dacians been the Getae or if the Dacians had lived there.

[Dromikaites]

This is false...

Pray, say more.

The Getae did not speak Dacian because the Dacians were just making their way into Romania at that time. A Roman like Ovid would have used the term Dacian had the Dacians been the Getae or if the Dacians had lived there.

Fountain of unsurpassed knowledge, do impart your wisdom with us. By all means show us where from did you get the information about the Dacians migrating into Romania at the time of Ovid's exile. Do not let us perish in the darkest ignorance!

[Getwulf]

Pray, say more

Fountain of unsurpassed knowledge, do impart your wisdom with us. By all means show us where from did you get the information about the Dacians migrating into Romania at the time of Ovid's exile. Do not let us perish in the darkest ignorance!

V. Parvan's Getica... I have a hard copy of it... But it is a little more complicated than that.