Editing Dacian language (section)

====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}}