Editing Dacian language (section)

==Geographical extent==
[[File:Dacia around 60-44 BC during Burebista, including campaigns - French.png|thumb|Map of [[Dacia]] 1st century BC]]
[[File:Ptolemy Cosmographia Dacia+Danube.jpg|thumb|right|text-top|Dacia's map from a medieval book made after [[Ptolemy]]'s ''[[Geographia]]'' (c. 140 AD)]]

===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.{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}} 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]], [[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.{{sfn|Bolovan|Constantiniu|Michelson|Pop|1997|p=10}} 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 and north-west, as far as Moravia and the middle Danube, to 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)|Bug]] River, the northern limit including the Trans-Carpathian westernmost [[Ukraine]] and southern [[Poland]].{{sfn|Bolovan|Constantiniu|Michelson|Pop|1997|pp=10–11}}

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.{{sfn|Bolovan|Constantiniu|Michelson|Pop|1997|p=11}} 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).{{sfn|Georgiev|1981|p=148}}

[[File:A_mai_that_Shows_Where_the_Dacians_lived.png|thumb|right|alt=this map shows where dacians mostly lived and where their language was spoken|The approximate map showing where the Dacian language was spoken]]

===Chronology===
====1st century BC====
In 53&nbsp;BC, [[Julius Caesar]] stated that the lands of the Dacians started on the eastern edge of the Hercynian Forest.{{sfn|Mountain|1998|p=59}} This corresponds to the period between 82 and 44&nbsp;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 middle Danube River valley in present-day Hungary, in 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.{{sfn|Magocsi|Pop|2002|p=71}} At that time, some scholars believe, the Dacians built a series of hill-forts at [[Zemplín (region)|Zemplin]] (Slovakia), [[Mala Kopania]] (Ukraine), [[Oncești, Maramureș]] (Romania) and [[Solotvyno]] (Ukraine).{{sfn|Magocsi|Pop|2002|p=71}} The [[Zemplín (region)|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).{{sfn|Shchukin|1989|p=347}} According to Parducz (1956) Foltiny (1966), Dacian archaeological finds extend to the west of Dacia, and occur along both banks of the Tisza.{{sfn|Ehrich|1970|p=228}} 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).{{sfn|Mielczarek|1989|p=121}} The Polish linguist [[Milewski|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.{{sfn|Milewski|1969|p=304}}{{sfn|Antoniewicz|1966|p=12}} 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.{{sfn|Milewski|1969|p=306}}{{sfn|Antoniewicz|1966|p=12}}

Also, a formal statement by Pliny indicated the river [[Vistula river|Vistula]] as the western boundary of Dacia, according to Nicolet (1991).{{sfn|Nicolet|1991|p=109}} 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.{{sfn|Mielczarek|1989|p=13}}

According to [[Karl Müllenhoff|Müllenhoff]] (1856), Schütte (1917), Urbańczyk (2001) and Matei-Popescu (2007), [[Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa|Agrippa]]'s commentaries mention the river Vistula as the western boundary of Dacia.{{sfn|Urbańczyk|2001|p=510}}{{sfn|Müllenhoff|1856|p=19}}{{efn|{{harvnb|Schütte|1917|p=87}}: "The Romans knew the dimensions of Dacia, as it is stated by Agrippa (c. 63 BC&nbsp;– 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'"}} Urbańczyk (1997) speculates that according to Agrippa's commentaries, and the map of Agrippa (before 12&nbsp;BC), the Vistula river separated Germania and Dacia.{{sfn|Urbańczyk|1997|p=13}} This map is lost and its contents are unknown{{efn|See one possible reconstruction: {{harv|livius: Image}}}} However, later Roman geographers, including [[Ptolemy]] (AD 90&nbsp;– c. AD 168) (II.10, III.7) and Tacitus (AD 56&nbsp;– AD 117){{sfn|Tacitus|p=46}} considered the Vistula as the boundary between Germania and Sarmatia Europaea, or Germania and Scythia.{{sfn|Urbańczyk|2001|p=510}}

====1st century AD====
Around 20 [[Anno Domini|AD]], [[Strabo]] wrote the ''Geographica'' that provides information regarding the extent of regions inhabited by the Dacians.{{sfn|Strabo|Jones|Sterrett|1917–1961|p=28}} 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.{{sfn|Taylor|2001|p=215}}{{efn|{{harvnb|Strabo|loc=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."}}{{sfn|Strabo|loc=V.1.6; VII.1.3; VII.5.2}}{{efn|{{harvnb|Lengyel|Radan|Barkóczi|Bónis|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&nbsp;— 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."}} The hold of the Dacians between the Danube and the Tisza appears to have been tenuous.{{sfn|Lengyel|Radan|Barkóczi|Bónis|1980|p=87}} However, the Hungarian archaeologist Parducz (1856) argued for a Dacian presence west of the Tisza dating from the time of Burebista.{{sfn|Ehrich|1970|p=228}} According to [[Tacitus]] (AD 56&nbsp;– AD 117) Dacians were bordering Germany in the south-east while Sarmatians bordered it in the east.{{efn|{{harvnb|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.}}

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 the Elder|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".{{sfn|Hrushevskyi|1997|p=93}}{{sfn|Bosworth|1980|p=60}}{{sfn|Pliny the Elder|p=179}}{{sfn|Carnap-Bornheim|2003|p=228}}{{sfn|Shelley|1997|p=10}}

Archaeological sources indicate that the local Celto-Dacian population retained its specificity as late as the 3rd century AD.{{sfn|Mielczarek|1989|p=13}} 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.{{sfn|Mocsy|1974|p=95}} 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.{{sfn|Toma|2007|p=65}} 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.{{citation needed|date=June 2011}} The ''Barrington Atlas'' shows the Iazyges occupying both sides of Tisza (map 20).

====2nd century AD====
[[File:Central Europemap Pannonia Dacia and others.jpg|thumb|right|Map of South-Eastern Europe including Dacia]]

Written a few decades after the Roman conquest of Dacia 105–106 AD,{{sfn|Mattern|2002|p=61}} 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]].{{efn|{{harvnb|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&nbsp;— namely, the Greek colonies of Tyras, Olbia, and others&nbsp;— were included in Lower Moesia.}}{{sfn|Bunbury|1979|p=517}}{{sfn|Mocsy|1974|p=21}}{{sfn|Pop|Nägler|2005|p=71}} The mainstream of historians accepted this interpretation: Avery (1972) [[Jean Bérenger|Berenger]] (1994) Fol (1996) Mountain (1998), Waldman Mason (2006).{{sfn|Berenger|1994|p=25}}{{sfn|Mountain|1998|p=59}}{{sfn|Waldman|Mason|2006|p=205}}{{sfn|Avery|1972|p=113}}{{sfn|Fol|1996|p=223}} Ptolemy also provided Dacian toponyms in the Upper [[Vistula]] (Polish: Wisła) river basin in Poland: Susudava and Setidava (with a manuscript variant Getidava.{{sfn|Dobiáš|1964|p=70}}{{sfn|Berindei|Candea|2001|p=429}}{{sfn|Schütte|1952|p=270}}{{sfn|Giurescu|Giurescu|1974|p=31}} This may be an echo of Burebista's expansion.{{sfn|Berindei|Candea|2001|p=429}} 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).{{sfn|Childe|1930|p=245}}{{sfn|Schütte|1917|pp=143, 109}} This Dacian group is associated by Schütte (1952) with towns having the specific Dacian language ending 'dava' i.e. Setidava.{{sfn|Schütte|1952|p=270}} A previous Dacian presence that ended with the Hasdings' arrival is considered also by {{harvp|Heather|2010}} who says that the Hasdings Vandals "attempted to take control of lands which had previously belonged to a free Dacian group called the Costoboci"{{sfn|Heather|2010|p=131}} Several tribes on the northern slopes of the Carpathians were mentioned that are generally considered Thraco-Dacian, i.e. Arsietae (Upper Vistula),{{sfn|Schütte|1952|p=270}}{{sfn|Popescu-Spineni|1987|p=53}}{{sfn|Rădulescu|1987|p=249}}{{sfn|Russu|1969|p=27}}{{sfn|Wald|Sluşanschi|Băltăceanu|1987|p=117}} Biessi / Biessoi{{sfn|Russu|1969|p=27}}{{sfn|Popescu-Spineni|1987|p=53}}{{sfn|Schütte|1917|p=99}}{{sfn|Georgiev|1972|p=63}} and Piengitai.{{sfn|Popescu-Spineni|1987|p=53}}{{sfn|Wald|Sluşanschi|Băltăceanu|1987|p=117}} Schütte (1952) associated the Dacian tribe of Arsietae with the Arsonion town.{{sfn|Schütte|1952|p=270}} 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.{{sfn|Poghirc|1983|p=92}} 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.{{sfn|Hrushevskyi|1997|p=98}} The Biessi (Biessoi) probably left their name to the mountain chain of Bieskides that continues the Carpathian Mountains towards the north (Schütte 1952).{{sfn|Schütte|1952|p=270}} Ptolemy (140&nbsp;AD) lists only Germanic or Balto-Slavic tribes, and no Dacians,{{full citation needed|date=June 2011}}on both sides of the Vistula (ref: II.10; III.7), as does the ''[[Barrington Atlas]]'' (map 19).{{sfn|Barrington Atlas|2000|loc=Map 19}}

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.{{sfn|Opreanu|1997|p=249}}

===Dacian linguistic zone in the early Roman imperial era (30&nbsp;BC&nbsp;– 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&nbsp;BC and south of the river, in Moesia, before 500&nbsp;BC.

Starting around 400&nbsp;BC, Celtic groups, moving out of their [[La Tène culture|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&nbsp;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.{{sfn|Twist|2001|p=59}} 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.{{sfn|Twist|2001|p=69}} Central Transylvania appears to have become a Celtic enclave or unitary kingdom, according to Batty.{{sfn|Batty|2007|p=279}} 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.{{sfn|Twist|2001|p=59}} 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&nbsp;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.{{sfn|Twist|2001|p=91}} This process may have been partly due to the career of the Getan king [[Burebista]] (ruled ca 80&nbsp;– 44&nbsp;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 [[Roman legion|legions]] and many [[Roman auxiliaries|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&nbsp;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&nbsp;AD.{{sfn|Tacitus, Histories|loc=I.79}} By around 200&nbsp;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.{{sfn|Heather|1999|p=155}} 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''====
[[File:Teritoriul onomastic al elementului dava - Sorin Olteanu.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.5|Map of the geographical distribution of attested placenames with the ''-dava'' suffix, covering Dacia, Moesia, Thrace and Dalmatia, according to Olteanu (2010). The dava distribution confirms Dacia and Moesia as the zone of Dacian speech. The dava zone is, with few exceptions, consistent with Ptolemy's definition of Dacia's borders. There is no conclusive evidence that Dacian was a predominant language outside the dava zone in the 1st century AD. According to Strabo, the Thracians spoke the same language as the Dacians, in which case Dacian was spoken as far as the Aegean Sea and the [[Bosporus]]. But Strabo's view is controversial among modern linguists: dava placenames are absent south of the [[Balkan Mountains]], with one exception (see [[Dacian language#Relationship with ancient languages|Thracian]], below)]]

At the start of the Roman imperial era (30&nbsp;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 River|Danube]]) to the south, the river ''Thibiscum'' ([[Timiș River|Timiș]]) to the west, the upper river ''Tyras'' ([[Dniester river|Dniester]]) to the north and the river ''Hierasus'' ([[Siret River|Siret]]) to the east.{{sfn|Ptolemy|loc=III.8.1–3}} To the west, it appears that the ''-dava'' placenames in Olteanu's map lie within the line of the Timiş, extended northwards. However, four davas are located beyond the Siret, Ptolemy's eastern border. But three of these, ''Piroboridava'', ''Tamasidava'' and ''Zargidava'', are described by Ptolemy as ''pará'' (Gr."very close") to the Siret: ''Piroboridava'', the only one securely located, was 3&nbsp;km from the Siret.{{sfn|Barrington Atlas|2000|loc=Map 22}} The location of ''Clepidava'' is uncertain: Olteanu locates it in north-east [[Bessarabia]], but Georgiev places it further west, in south-west Ukraine, between the upper reaches of the Siret and Dniester rivers.{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=191 (map)}}

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.{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=191 map}} 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.{{sfn|Batty|2007|p=378}}

====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 Sea|Black]] and [[Aegean Sea|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 (people)|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.{{sfn|Barrington Atlas|2000|loc=Map 22}} 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 [[Dacian language#Thracian|Relationship with Thracian]], below, for a detailed discussion of this issue).

=====Anatolia=====
[[File:Asia minor-Shepherd 1923.JPG|thumb|right|upright=2|Map showing the regions of ancient Anatolia, including [[Bithynia]], [[Phrygia]] and [[Mysia]]]]

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 languages and Phrygian.

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 [[Struma (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 language|Greek]].{{sfn|Brixhe|1994}}{{sfn|Brixhe|2008|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=J-f_jwCgmeUC&pg=PA72 72]}} Georgiev argued in one article that Phrygian originally belonged to the same IE branch as Greek and [[Ancient Macedonian language|Ancient Macedonian]] (which did not include Thracian or Dacian),{{sfn|Georgiev|1960|pp=285–297}} but later adopted the view that Phrygian constituted a separate branch of Indo-European, (also unrelated to Thracian or Dacian).{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=282}} This position is currently favoured by mainstream scholarship.{{sfn|Polomé|1982|p=888}}

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.{{citation needed|date=August 2011}} 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&nbsp;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.{{citation needed|date=April 2012}}

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 River|Tisza]], and possibly as far as the Danube. Statements by ancient authors such as [[Julius Caesar|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.{{full citation needed|date=August 2011}} There is little hard evidence to support the thesis of a large ethnic-Dacian population on the Plain:
# 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)&nbsp;– have been identified as Celtic placenames by scholars.{{sfn|Muller|1883|p={{Page needed|date=October 2021}}}}
# 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&nbsp;BC&nbsp;– 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.{{sfn|Almássy|2006|p=263}} 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.{{sfn|Almássy|2006|pp=253 (fig. 2), 254 (fig 3)}} 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."{{sfn|Almássy|2006|p=263}} 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.{{sfn|Visy|1995|p=280}}
# Epigraphy: Inscription AE (1905) 14 records a campaign on the Hungarian Plain by the Augustan-era general [[Marcus Vinicius (consul 19 BC)|Marcus Vinucius]], dated to 10&nbsp;BC{{sfn|Almássy|2006|p=253}} or 8&nbsp;BC{{sfn|CAH: 10|1996}} 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 (Roman province)|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."{{sfn|Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss / Slaby EDCS}} 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 [[Zemplín (region)|Zemplin]] in Slovakia in the era of Dacian king Burebista&nbsp;– whose campaigns outside Dacia have been dated c. 60 – 44&nbsp;BC&nbsp;– and Ptolemy's location of two ''-dava'' placenames on the lower Vistula River in Poland.{{citation needed|date=April 2012}}

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&nbsp;BC;{{sfn|Bazovski|2008}} 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 [[oppidum|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.{{sfn|Bazovski|2008}} Some scholars argue that Zemplin was occupied by Burebista's warriors from about 60&nbsp;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&nbsp;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&nbsp;– the Boii or [[Cotini]] are the leading candidates&nbsp;– and those who favour a Germanic group, e.g., the [[Buri (Germanic tribe)|Buri]]. Despite wide acknowledgement of Dacian influence, there is little support for the view that the people of this region were ethnic Dacians.{{sfn|Pieta|1982|pp=204–209}}

=====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).{{sfn|Heather|2009|p=620 (map)}}{{sfn|Barrington Atlas|2000|loc=Map 19}}{{sfn|Tacitus|p=43}}{{sfn|Ptolemy|loc=II.10; III.7}}

=== The fate of Dacian ===
From the earliest times that they are attested, Dacians lived on both sides of Danube{{sfn|Strabo Geography}}<ref>Dio Cassius LI, 22, 6</ref> 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.{{Citation needed|date=September 2011}} According to one hypothesis, a branch of Dacian continued as the Albanian language ([[Bogdan Hasdeu|Hasdeu]], 1901). Another hypothesis (Marius A.) considers Albanian to be a Daco-Moesian dialect that split off from Dacian before 300&nbsp;BC and that Dacian itself became extinct.{{Citation needed|date=April 2012}} However, mainstream scholarship considers Albanian to be a descendant of the [[Illyrian language]]{{Citation needed|date=September 2019}} and not a dialect of Dacian.{{sfn|Polomé|1982|p=888}} In this scenario, Albanian/Romanian cognates are either Daco-Moesian loanwords acquired by Albanian, or, more likely, Illyrian loanwords/[[Substrate in Romanian|substrate words]] acquired by Romanian.{{Citation needed|date=April 2012}}

The argument for a split before 300&nbsp;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.{{citation needed|date=September 2011}} 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.{{citation needed|date=September 2011}}

==== 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.{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=287}}{{Clarify|reason=So it did not become extinct? Does that mean it became the ancestor of Albanian?|date=October 2012}} The language may have survived in remote areas until the 6th century.{{sfn|Du Nay|1977|p=262}}{{Clarify|reason=So did it become extinct or not?|date=October 2012}} Thracian, also supplanted by Latin, and by Greek in its southern zone, is documented as a living language in approximately 500&nbsp;AD.{{sfn|Jones|1964|p=998}}