Editing Getae (section)

=== Modern interpretations ===
There is a dispute among scholars about the relations between the Getae and [[Dacians]], and this dispute also covers the interpretation of ancient sources. Some historians such as [[Ronald Crossland|Ronald Arthur Crossland]] state that even Ancient Greeks used the two designations "interchangeable or with some confusion". Thus, it is generally considered that the two groups were related to a certain degree;<ref name="cah10">{{cite book|title=The Cambridge Ancient History (Volume 10)|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1996|edition=2nd}} J. J. Wilkes mentions "the Getae of the Dobrudja, who were akin to the Dacians"; (p. 562)</ref> the exact relation is a matter of controversy.

==== Same people ====
[[File:Teritoriul onomastic al elementului dava - Sorin Olteanu.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|alt=Onomastic range of the Dacian, Getae, and Moesian towns with the dava or deva ending, covering Dacia, Moesia, Thrace, and Dalmatia and showcasing linguistic continuity|[[Onomastics|Onomastic]] range of the [[Dacian towns|Dacian, Getae, and Moesian towns]] with the ''[[Dava (Dacian)|dava]]'' or ''deva'' ending, covering Dacia, Moesia, Thrace, and [[Dalmatia]], and showcasing linguistic continuity]]
Strabo, as well as other ancient sources, led some modern historians to consider that, if the Thracian ethnic group should be divided, one of this divisions should be the "''Daco-Getae''".<ref name="mocsy">{{cite book|author=András Mócsy|title=Pannonia and Upper Moesia|publisher=Routledge and Kegan Paul|year=1974|isbn=0-7100-7714-9}} See p. 364, n. 41: "If there is any justification for dividing the Thracian ethnic group, then, unlike V. Georgiev who suggests splitting it into the Thraco-Getae and the Daco-Mysi, I consider a division into the Thraco-Mysi and the Daco-Getae the more likely."</ref> The [[linguistics|linguist]] [[Ivan Duridanov]] also identified a "[[Dacian linguistic area]]"<ref>{{cite web|author=Duridanov, Ivan|url=http://www.kroraina.com/thrac_lang/thrac_8.html|title=The Thracian, Dacian and Paeonian languages|access-date=2007-02-11}}</ref> in [[Dacia]], [[Scythia Minor (Dobruja)|Scythia Minor]], [[Lower Moesia]], and [[Upper Moesia]].

[[Romanians|Romanian]] scholars generally went further with the identification, historian [[Constantin C. Giurescu]] claiming the two were identical.<ref>{{cite book|author=Giurescu, Constantin C.|title=Formarea poporului român|location=Craiova|year=1973|language=ro|page=23}} "They (Dacians and Getae) are two names for the same people [...] divided in a large number of tribes". See also the hypothesis of a [[Daco-Thracian|Daco-Moesian language / dialectal area]] supported by linguists like Vladimir Georgiev, Ivan Duridanov and Sorin Olteanu.</ref> The [[archaeologist]] [[Mircea Babeș]] spoke of a "veritable ethno-cultural unity" between the Getae and the Dacians.{{citation needed|date=January 2011}} According to [[Glanville Price]], the account of the Greek geographer [[Strabo]] shows that the Getae and the Dacians were one and the same people.<ref name="price">{{cite book|last1      = Price
|first1     = Glanville |title      = Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe |year       = 2000|publisher  = Wiley-Blackwell| isbn      = 0-631-22039-9 }}, p. 120</ref>
Others who support the identity between Getae and Dacians with ancient sources include freelance writer [[James Minahan]] and [[Catherine B Avery]], who claim the people whom the Greek called ''Getae'' were called ''Daci'' by the Romans.{{sfn| Minahan |2000 |p=549}}{{sfn| Avery |1962 |p=497}} This same belief is stated by some British historians such as [[David Sandler Berkowitz]] and [[Philip Matyszak]].{{sfn| Sandler Berkowitz| Morison |1984 |p=160}}{{sfn| Matyszak| 2009|p=215}}  The Bulgarian historian and thracologist [[Alexander Fol]] considers that the Getae became known as "Dacians" in Greek and Latin in the writings of [[Julius Caesar|Caesar]], Strabo and [[Pliny the Elder]], as Roman observers adopted the name of the [[Dacian tribe]] to refer to all the unconquered inhabitants north of the [[Danube]].{{sfn| Fol |1996 |p=223}} Also, [[Sir Edward Bunbury, 9th Baronet|Edward Bunbury]] believed the name of Getae, by which they were originally known to the Greeks on the [[Euxine]], was always retained by the latter in common usage: while that of Dacians, whatever be its origin, was that by which the more western tribes, adjoining the [[Pannonians]], first became known to the Romans.{{sfn|Bunbury|1979|p=151}} Some scholars consider the Getae and Dacians to be the same people at different stages of their history and discuss their culture as ''Geto-Dacian''.{{sfn|Waldman|Mason|2006|p=335}}

==== Same language, distinct people ====
Historian and archaeologist [[Alexandru Vulpe]] found a remarkable uniformity of the Geto-Dacian culture;<ref>{{cite book|editor1=Petrescu-Dîmbovița, Mircea |editor2=Vulpe, Alexandru |title=Istoria Românilor, vol. I| location=Bucharest|year=2001 |language=ro}}{{Page needed|date=January 2011}}</ref> however, he is one of the few Romanian archaeologists to make a clear distinction between the Getae and Dacians, arguing against the traditional position of the Romanian historiography that considered the two people the same.<ref name="AGN2">{{cite book|editor1-first=Philip|editor1-last=Kohl|editor2-first=Mara|editor2-last=Kozelsky|editor3-first=Nachman|editor3-last=Ben-Yehuda|chapter=Archaeology and Nationalism in The History of the Romanians|publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=2007|isbn=978-0-226-45059-9|first1=Gheorghe Alexandru|last1=Niculescu|title=Selective Remembrances: Archaeology in the Construction, Commemoration, and Consecration of National Pasts|pages=139–141}}</ref> Nevertheless, he chose to use the term "Geto-Dacians" as a conventional concept for the Thracian tribes inhabiting the future territory of Romania, not necessarily meaning an "absolute ethnic, linguistic or historical unity".<ref name="AGN2"/>

Crossland suggested the two designations may refer to two groups of a "linguistically homogeneous people" that had come to historical prominence at two distinct periods of time. He also compared the probable linguistic situation with the relation between modern [[Norwegian language|Norwegian]] and [[Danish language|Danish]] languages.<ref name="cah3a">{{cite book|title=The Cambridge Ancient History (Volume 3)|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1982|edition=2nd|isbn=1-108-00714-7}} In chapter "20c Linguistic problems of the Balkan area", at page 838, [[Ronald Crossland]] argues "it may be the distinction made by Greeks and Romans between the Getae and Daci, for example, reflected the importance of different sections of a linguistically homogenous people at different times". He furthermore recalls Strabo's testimony and Georgiev's hypothesis for a '[[Daco-Thracian|Thraco-Dacian]]' language.</ref> [[Paul Lachlan MacKendrick]] considered the two as "branches" of the same tribe, speaking two dialects of a common language.<ref name="mackendrick">{{cite book|title=The Dacian Stones Speak|author=Paul Lachlan MacKendrick|publisher=University of North Carolina Press|year=1975|isbn=0-8078-4939-1}} "The natives with whom we shall be concerned in this chapter are the Getae of Muntenia and Moldavia in the eastern steppes, and the Dacians of the Carpathian Mountains. Herodotus calls them 'the bravest and the justest of the Thracians,' and they were in fact two branches of the same tribe, speaking two dialects of the same Indo-European language." (p. 45)</ref>

The Romanian [[History of ideas|historian of ideas]] and [[Historiography|historiographer]] [[Lucian Boia]] stated: "At a certain point, the phrase Geto-Dacian was coined in the Romanian historiography to suggest a unity of Getae and Dacians".<ref name="boia">{{cite book|author=Boia, Lucian|title=Romania: Borderland of Europe|publisher=Reaktion Books|year=2004|isbn=1-86189-103-2|page=43}}</ref> Lucian Boia took a sceptical position, arguing the ancient writers distinguished among the two people, treating them as two distinct groups of the Thracian ethnos.<ref name="boia"/><ref name="boiamyth">{{cite book|author=Boia, Lucian|title=History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness|publisher=Central European University Press|year=2001|isbn=963-9116-97-1|page=14}}</ref> Boia contended that it would be naive to assume Strabo knew the [[Thracian]] dialects so well,<ref name="boia"/> alleging that Strabo had "no competence in the field of Thracian dialects".<ref name="boiamyth"/> The latter claim is contested, some studies attesting Strabo's reliability and sources.<ref name="homoglottoi">{{cite journal|author=Janakieva, Svetlana|title=La notion de ΟΜΟΓΛΩΤΤΟΙ chez Strabon et la situation ethno-linguistique sur les territoires thraces|language=fr|journal=Études Balkaniques|pages=75–79|issue=4|year=2002}} The author concluded Strabo's claim sums an experience following of many centuries of neighbourhood and cultural interferences between the Greeks and the Thracian tribes</ref> There is no reason to disregard Strabo's belief that the Daci and the Getae spoke the same language.<ref name="price"/> Boia also stressed that some Romanian authors cited Strabo indiscriminately.<ref name="boiamyth"/>

A similar position was adopted by Romanian historian and archaeologist [[Gheorghe Alexandru Niculescu|G. A. Niculescu]], who also criticized the Romanian historiography and the archaeological interpretation, particularly on the "Geto-Dacian" culture.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Niculescu, Gheorghe Alexandru|title=Archaeology, Nationalism and "The History of the Romanians" (2001)|journal=Dacia, Revue d'Archéologie et d'Histoire Ancienne|pages=99–124|issue=48–49|year=2004–2005}} He dedicates a large part of his assessment to the archaeology of "Geto-Dacians" and he concludes that with few exceptions "the archaeological interpretations [...] are following G. Kossinna’s concepts of culture, archaeology and ethnicity".</ref> In his opinion, Alexandru Vulpe saw ancient people as modern nations, leading the latter to interpret the common language as a sign of a common people, despite Strabo making a distinction between the two.<ref name="AGN2"/>