Talk:Dacianism/Archive 1

Other countries

There were also other nationalist myths of links to ancient civilizations, but these AFAIK none did reached the status of state policy.

• in Croatia, the Illyrian Movement, a 19th century national movement, who linked South Slavs to Ancient Illyrians
• in Hungary, the alleged Hungarian-Sumerian links

bogdan 13:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sinaia lead tables

Even though it's quite clear they are fake, but still get some attention:

http://www.gardianul.ro/index.php?a=mediacultura2005080106.xml

bogdan 13:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh

I think we should completly rewrite this article, removing all that is related to dacians... Actually real Protochronism wanted to demonstrate the diferences between romanians and other minorities in the country, and to do so, the dacian element was avoided, the greater importance was given to the roman origin. Because if romanians are "more dacians than roman", it means they have more in common with other people like slavians, hungarians, etc than we think.

This article is pure speculation. I think it is the fantasy of someone! Since when did Ceausescu wanted to glorify the Dacians?? Excepting it is written with a point of view against the dacians as a civilisation, insulting the dacians more than anything, it has almost nothing to do with real Protochronism and the raise of Romanian nationalism.

Moa3333 22:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The term is defined as such. I gave reference. Read at least part of it. The term might be applied to something else, because of its ETYMOLOGY, but this is its use in academia. Dahn 22:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also: the connection between Ceausescu and Dacians is as obvious as staple as could ever be within the framework of Romanian nationalism. Dahn 22:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And:I FAIL to see how it is an insult to say that Dacians couldn't write. They couldn't! Dahn 23:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Moa, then what were the "2050 de ani de la crearea Statului Dac centralizat şi independent" celebrations about ? :-) bogdan 23:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan, I think they were celebrating sic: "Aproximativ 2050 de ani". :) Dahn 23:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A relevant quotation

Moa3333, you asked for citations and source. Well, here's an interesting quote from Katherine Verdery, see the book in the references section.

bogdan 23:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

When Ceausescu appealed to the "historians' front" in the mid-1970s to produce a new ten-volume synthesis of Romanian history, he was appealing to a profession recently fortified by the rehabilitation of persons sidelined during the Stalinist era. The discipline was peopled then by a variety of practitioners, more and less malleable, more and less ambitious. But just as with the Writers' Union in the same period, the leaders of the profession tended to be "reformers" and nonapparatchik professionals installed in strong positions during the late 1960s and early 1970s. These people, entrusted with producing the new Treatise of Romanian History, busily set about doing so according to their idea of proper professional norms.

I understand he could write a modified verssion of the history even if people who wrote it were not 100% for it...

By the time the first volume—the one that treated Romanian origins—was ready, however, dacomania had become the rage in Bucharest. Directors of institutes were instructed to change their subordinates' contributions to the Treatise, reflecting more Dacian and less Roman influence. Those responsible for the first volume refused to do so. In consequence, the typeset fonts for that volume were melted down and neither it nor any of the others—long since completed in the drawers of their compilers—appeared.

Communism was pushing this dacian theories only when they used them againt the russians, and to isolate the country. Katherine Verdery knows more about communist romania than about Dacia. Then also, there was this obsession with "democracy". THere were lections, with only one candidate. I think this was much more important than the "dacomania". We should then speak about "democratico-mania" also?

As conclusion, i think "dacomania" was how nothing to do with real dacians. "Its advocates prefer Dacology"? What about "its advocates prefer democracy?" (instead of totalitarism). Should we distroy the Casa Poporului, that was build by Ceausescu? Speaking about Napoleon Săvescu is also far from the subject.

If i look better, this article should speak more about how this theory was based on "who rules" and on "the power of the dacian nation". I think dacomania has nothing to do with real study of etno-genesis of ordinary people. I think Ceausescu never cared about continuity. He only wanted to know about who was the king, what was the nation, etc... this is completly out of the point, since romanians untill 14th century had no country, and before 106 they had only a country from time to time, when there was a danger, but most of the people were living most of the time in their own community.

I think dacomania NEVER evern tryed to know about what this people were doying, what language they were speaking, the only point was who was rulling them? what was the nation? Then of course, you have two strong nations (Burebista and Decebal) that were important. But this was all of it. There was no Protochronism involving the real dacians, the women and normal people. As a result there was no Protochronism about the ocntinuity of the culture of the real dacian people. On the contrary, ceausescu tryed to create a fake culture, based on industrialisation, and he even distroyed popular traditions in the villages! If popular traditions in the villages were dacian traditions, then why distroy them? I think this dacomania is not about the continuity of the dacian people in reality, it was mearly a way to introduce the celebration of a state is more than 2050 years old into rhe history of Romania, whitch has a short history as state. Nothing more.

I also do not think that all the interest in dacian civilisation is related to this. Even if Dacian were speaking a language close to latin, lingvists say that there are ONLY 4 original languages on the planet, and the language of dacians and latin are both original from a single language. But even if dacians were speaking a language close to latin, it has changed so much in time. I think it has nothing to do with romanian. No more than french has to do with latin, maybe even less because of the influences of other people around. If dacians were speaking a language close to dacians, i think it was becuase they originated from the same language (the mother of all languages), but BECAUSE of roman influences, it evolved in the same direction as latin. It does not mean that latin evolved from dacian, or that dacian evolved from latin. It may mean that dacian language was influenced by latin all the history, not only in the 165 years... It does mean that the both languages evolved from the same language, the original european language. And if you look now how little french is different from romanian after 2000 years, you can understand that if in year 2000 or 3000BC there was a common language, all the people that spoke that language and that were close to the roman empire were able to "import" all the variations of latin in order to make a language "compatible" with latin. I do not think that Ceausescu ment this when he speaked about Protochronism...

I sugest we say that Protochronism is only about the elements of power and of strong nation in Dacia that dacomania was about, not about the cultural elements or the language.

Moa3333 02:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And now, there is a joke on the internet, intresting enaught (of course it is not true), explaining why the romanian language is the oldest in the world:

• One day, a friend of Herodot came and was a people walking and asked him in latin, where will he go? The people answered "trec'acia" (="i walk here" in romanian). He understood that he is going to Thracia.
• The same day, on the nord of the danube, the same people asked someone, where are you from? The answer was: "d'acia" (witch in romanian means "from here" and this is a typical answer still used in most villages even today, instead of the more gramatically correct "de aicia")
• Then he asked, this language is not romanian, isn't it? And the peasant answered "It is similar to the one from la tine" ("la tine" in romanian means "from you"). This is how the friend of Herodot understood that romans were not speaking romanian, but latin...

Well, of course, this is only a bad joke... Don't take it seriously, as i do...

Moa3333 02:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Moştenirea strămoşilor nu trebuie să ne creeze trăiri de mândrie deşartă, ci de bucurie molcomă, de datorie şi respect pentru ei, necesare în viitorul dorit de noi. Căci, cu cât avem mai mult suntem datori mai mult faţă de ceilalţi. Să dovedim aceasta cu înţelepciune şi dragoste de semeni." from here

If someoe who knows well english can translate this, i think it is far from the so caled "neo-nationalists" ideas...

Moa3333 05:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

lingvists say that there are ONLY 4 original languages on the plane What nonsense. No, no reputable linguist would ever say such a thing. Yes, there are several recent proto-languages that gave rise to major language families (such as Indo-European), but they existed so long after the development of human speech (hundreds of thousands of years after) that they were in no way "original languages". The fact that you would say something so bizarre hints that you have little real training in the study of the ancient world, leading me to ask why you are here. CRCulver 06:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to make personal attacks on anyone, but I could not make much coherent sense out of Moa's postings. Can Moa rewind, please? I'm afraid I have been spending too much time with Mr.Spock (no offense, I'm not referring to Bogdangiusca). Alexander 007 06:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, since Wikipedia now has a Moa, I got dibs on being the Haast's Eagle :-) Alexander 007 06:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What is your position? Have you anything else to say? Moa3333 07:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to your position because I'm not 100% sure what your position is. My position is consensus science and consensus history; where there is no consensus, one must tread carefully in Wikipedia and appeal to the references. My position is that the Romanian language---regardless if it developed north or south of the Danube, or both north and south in a Romanized patch---developed from Vulgar Latin, along with an adstratal/substratal Paleo-Balkan influence (Dacian, Thracian, Illyrian, or even a mix). Notions of "no Romanization" are ridiculous, point blank. But more importantly, there are no current linguists or authorities AFAIK who support such a notion. Alexander 007 07:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The position of people like Napoleon Săvescu is that the Romanization never occured; a cute idea that sells books, and attracts some people for a few months, fun as it can be. But if Napoleon and others are serious about their position, they should be careful lest history leaves them in a more serious position:Doggie style. They are fucking themselves from behind in the long run. Even if Dacian was somewhat close to Latin (it cannot have been extremely close), Romanization must have occured to account for the Romanian language. Alexander 007 08:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon Săvescu is not a historian. He just say things to spread the ideas, in order for real historians to take them into account. He does not want to scientificaly prove anythink, and i've read he said this somewere. He hopes that some people who know how ro do resaerc better than him will try to take into consideration also the arguments that does not folow the main "dogma". In this reagrd, his writings are not scientific, and this is on purpose i think. On the other hand, any other "discoveries", especialy those from more independent people must be taken into consideration, even if they are used by Savescu to argue in his books. Moa3333 08:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean by no authorities supporting "no latinisation". But there nevere were such authoritis in the Ceausescu times. In the ceausescu times in schools the main theme was the romanisation. And romanians were supposed to be "sons of Decebal and Trajan". There was much credit to Decabal, but even more to Trajan. Trajan was considered the most important "king" or "emperor" in romanian history, and the Protochronism theory that only speaks about the dacian part is parital. It should explain also the roman part with the romano-mania only we do not call it like this. Most of all it must be stated clear that it is about who ruled (Decebal and Trajan), and was not dacian-centered. The true Protochronism is about Decebal, Trajan and the 14th century kings... not only about dacians. People reading this should not think that Ceausescu wanted to introduce dacian history and forget all that was roman history... Don't forget Ceausescu was completly mad, and nothing he ever sad was neither locical or part of a grater (conspiracy-)theory. He was speaking LIKE A CHILD. He did not realy wanted to reveal the dacian past and forget the roman past. He wanted BOTH. In the meantime, i will let you do some research on this for now, but this is how i feel it right now. Moa3333 08:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the joke eat the end: Dont forget the current president of romania is Trajan, and he replaced in his party Roman... Moa3333 08:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

About the details of Protochronism under Ceaucescu, I'm not very concerned aside from the concern that this article is to be accurate. I was more concerned with some of your other statements, but now you've clarified them. Alexander 007 08:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

To Moa

As conclusion, i think "dacomania" was how nothing to do with real dacians.

I don't understand your logic. Dacomania claims that the Dacians were the precursors of civilization in Europe. Of course, it had nothing to do with reality, but it was about Dacians! bogdan 10:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If i look better, this article should speak more about how this theory was based on "who rules" and on "the power of the dacian nation".

No. This theory was not only about the power of Dacians, but also about their "very advanced culture". bogdan 10:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As a result there was no Protochronism about the ocntinuity of the culture of the real dacian people.

Sorry, but that's false. Protochronism claimed that the Romanian culture is essentially Dacian and that the Romans were: (quote from Verdery) "foreigners who had come from abroad to subjugate the indigenes". And since they were "mostly Dacians", the Romanians had no reason to leave Dacia during the Roman withdrawal and therefore the continuity was "explained". bogdan 10:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if Dacian were speaking a language close to latin, lingvists say that there are ONLY 4 original languages on the planet.

I'm sorry, but that's also false. There are hundreds of unrelated language families and many other language isolates. (see the article for a list). bogdan 10:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Ceausescu was completly mad, and nothing he ever sad was neither locical or part of a grater (conspiracy-)theory. He was speaking LIKE A CHILD.

But this theory was not developed by him. No, there were historians that started the pseudo-historical theories, in order to climb faster the hierarchy. Ceausescu approved them because they were ways to glorify Romanian people and him. bogdan 10:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Moa, beside the excellent points made by Bogdan, I want to point out that you misunderstood major sentences in the article:

1. It says nowhere that the attitude was limited to Ceausism - the closest thing is that "the term was coined to describe Ceausescu's", but that it has been applied to anything before and after that displays this "logic".
2. the preference for Dacology means just that: the preference for the term Dacology.Dahn 12:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I still don't belive Ceausescu and Protochronism was about continuity with dacians only.

Then may I ask you, what was it about? The idea behind all this was that the Romanian people and of course, their leaders, were unique. Latin heritage was "shared" with the evil Capitalist Westerners, so that's why it was not convenient to promote them. While it is true that Ceausescu was sometimes compared to Trajan (both great leaders, etc), there were no new theories about the Roman Empire... bogdan 23:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if there were this tendecy when it was usefull, it was not in my opinion somthing that people were obliged to think, so it was not the real official position even if it might seem to be. In a communist country, more than one teory can be sustained simultaneously, and the rulers can choose either one depending on the situation.

"foreigners who had come from abroad to subjugate the indigenes" - this is more or less true historically speaking, even if dacians were atacking the romans from time to time. And therefore the continuity was "explained"? I think in the communist time there was nead to invent a story to explain the continuity... this was closed subject long before. By the way, the continuity was explained long before communism, since the creation of the Romanian state, even before... Those who explained this theory were the "Scoala Ardeleana" and others.

Moa3333 21:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with the way you dismiss the origins of the Romanians as being something settled. The truth is that historians make only speculations on the place where the ethnogenesis happened, but they have no definite proof for either side. bogdan 23:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And befor speaking about daco-mania, what about post-communism RO-mania? Moa3333 21:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Moa, keep to those beliefs and we will keep to proof. And that linear "was explained" does not work as an argument - since we are having this debate now. If you have no proof to back your claims (!about the modern ideology, that is), then kindly remove the template at the top of the page. Dahn 23:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Modifications

I made a few modifications that alow me to erase the template from the top of the article. I have however kept this only for a little part of the article, witch i would like to see the sources... (like "dacians having no writing systems" versus "dacians not using offten their writing system because they used voice and did not found any economical interest in writing a lot - witch was very EXPENSIVE at that time") Moa3333 21:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

1. What say you learn to write in English first?
2. Again, what say you read reference provided before questiong it?
3. What say you do not consider "not having a writing system" an insult, and stop providing superfluous "information"? Dahn 21:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why expensive? You can write on big rocks, like the Old Norse people did, you can write on wax tablets like the Romans did, you can write on pots like the Greeks did, on bark like the Chinese, on linen, on hides, etc. The Dacians have not produced any writings in their language, with the exception of an one-liner: "DECEBALUSPERSCORILO". bogdan 22:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider an insult the fact that i do not know english perfectly. I try my best to learn english, and Wikipedia is a good way to do so.

It is one of the reasons i contribute to Wikipedia. I will read reference, if there is a prove that dacians were not writing... Pardon, but "not having a writing system" is an insult to dacian people... oups, i mean to science. You cannot say this without a proove, but i will read the reference first.

You can't have a proof for the non-existence of something. The same argument could go on about the Dacians driving flying saucers: it is not possible to prove the non-existence of the Dacian spaceships. bogdan 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If there are errors, gramatical, you can correct them (or i will have a look later on the article). Or would you like a diferent article? I would like to know what you think about the rest of the article, before editing the last chapter.

Please be polite: wikipedia is just a place to have fun, and to make jokes! Moa3333 22:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I would prefer reverting you edits. It is not an insult to anything that they did not have a writing system: I don't respect a civ. any less for not having one, but I cannot respect people who say it did, when there is no proof of that. Your logic is faulty: you are asking me to provide proof that something did not happen while there is no proof of it happening (Occam's blade should deal with that). Sure it could've happened otherwise, but this is no place for fantasy. Furthermore, Bogdan provided details of Dacian's relation to writing, from what is known (not from what can be speculated). I don't want to discourage you in any way, and I didn't mean to insult you when mentioning your English skills. But you see, I get tired of endlessly correcting rows of letters just because someone thought of "improving" info. Frankly, you're not at all constructive. Dahn 22:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What about dacian coins, from about 80 before JC. It seems there is something writen on them. Moa3333 18:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you've heard of this, but the Dacians were quite good at counterfeiting Greek and Roman coins. :-) Many of their coins are imitations of the Roman denarii. See this article. However, some Dacian coins (especially from areas that had commercial links with the Greek colonies) are manufacture using the Greek technology and write the name of local kings with Greek alphabet. bogdan 18:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I realy think the way all this is explained is not very NPOV. I t gives the impression that everythink was "invented" by nationalists in order to explain a false théory. It is very bad to do that. Let's only take the phrase "Dacians easily adopted and subsequently influenced the religion which would have been preached to them by Saint Andrew (considered, doubtfuly, as the clear origin of modern-day Romanian Orthodoxy).". This phrase will induce people in error:

• In romania there was NOONE who imposed the religion, as we have no information about anyone introducing the christianity, like we have in most other countries. It is exactly like the writing system, you cannot prove dacians were not writing, and you cannot prove ortidixy was brought in Roamnia/Dacia by some kind of king or religious empreror since there is no info on that.
• Saint andrew did preached in the territory of Romania, and we have good evidence of that. (very old scriptures, etc). Since you have this information, you can on the contrary suppose that christianity came very early.
• "considered, doubtfuly, as the clear origin of modern-day Romanian Orthodoxy" - another phras that is completly NPOV. Who consider that? who is doubtfull about that? It gives again the impression everythink was invented by the daco-manians, and that there is no real background. In fact, it is not the protochronism who invented anything about Saint Andrew. It is the founding mith of the Romanian Ortodox Church, a church that has diferent traditions than ANY other Ortodox churches in the world. For example it is the only Ortodox church that teaches aposolism, living like the apostols. It is an autonom church, and that has this founding mith, like the catolic church has the myth that he was founded by Perer Simon, who came to Rome. We can say the same about "Peter, considered, doubtfuly, as the clear origin of modern-day Catolicism", while the catolic church consider him the first pope...

This is only one of the many thinks i don't like about false suppositions in this article. Moa3333 18:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, the opposite of preaching from an apostle is not "imposing" (though, for the love of God, I don't see what's wrong with that on principle - it happened in so many places, but, of course, Romania has to be the exception). That pedigree is doubtful, nay, idiotic.

Let me see if I get your point: "I don't want it to be assumed that religion was imposed on me, so it would have to be preached by a guy who spoke to Jesus. Anything else would be imposing." Let's say it wasn't imposed. But what if I tell you that, adopted or imposed, it is very unlikely:

1 That Andrew ever came here - not only is hagiography late and biased, it does not mention the place with enough clarity. The mention of "Schythia" is vague enough to mean nothing - which is why he's the patron saint of Russia.

2 That a preaching would've had large effect (especially since you have no proof that it wasn't confined to Dobruja - not really connected politically to the rest, from then on until 1878 AD)

3 That any "preaching" sits at the source of the modern-day church (surely, Teoctist and the rest like to think so, but you'll understand why their assesment is biased). Dahn 19:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are no archeological proofs of Andrew's voyage. AFAIK, in Dobruja there are no proofs of the existence of Christianity before the 3rd/4th century, when it was brought from Rome by Christians wanting to escape persecutions.

Also, the place where the Romanian people formed was not even close to Dobruja. It was either in Transylvania, Banat, Oltenia or the south toward the Balkan Mountains.

Then, finally, Romanian has all their early Christian words (Dumnezeu, cruce, înger, păcat, paşte, etc) of Latin origin and no Ancient Greek/Aramaic words, which shows that the Romanian Christianity came directly from Rome. bogdan 20:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i think i came to my last thing. Lets say we do not chage anything. But why put all together? The early nationalism, with the communist influecnes, and the current supposed continuation with Savescu etc...? What is this? Some conspiration-theory? Are they conspiring from the early 17 century to make Romania be 4000 old??

Where do you see anything about early 17th century in the article ? bogdan 20:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think at the begining there was only a few marginal writers, this ides were not ment to do any harm, they were no mania, people were less scientific than today.

Less scientific? I'm sorry, but that's not true. The scientific method was already developed by then. bogdan 20:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Usualy it was the romnian poets and writers who said that, not the historians (Hasdeu was a simple writer i think, not a real historian; Mihai Eminescu also, and the others); this ides were more light.

Hasdeu was a writer and a historian. And what has Eminescu to do with all this ? bogdan 20:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Communist times were more politicaly-related. And post-communist, they are either by ignorance, either by the will to make a business, either i think most of the people are just intrested to know more, and since noone is studying the dacians in the hole Roùmania, the only solution are the ones that have more strong belifs. I strongly do not think that this web sites that have more than 30000 unique visitors every month, all the 30000 are dacomaniacs, and this is because in the comentaries to the aticle, thare are many critics, some of them very severe. I think this is led by the people who want to know more about the dacians, and since the only one who do research on this and who have installed web sites with forums are Savescu and the other, people are comming there.

I think maybe the 18 century phenomen should be explaned as "natinalism of poets" or so. communism should be called protochronosm, and current web sites should be explained as a diferent aproach, where a few people who run the business (the web site, the researches, etc...) are influenced by old protochronism mmore or less.

Again, what has 18th century to do with this? The earliest ideas that can be included in Protochronism were toward the end of the 19th century / beginning of the 20th century. bogdan 20:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Pure protochronism sould be limitated to communism time. ost people from to day explain this as abstract "let's suppose it is like this, and see what we can find, even if we found the hipothes is wrong". It is diferent than "his is the truth, let's see how we can prove it...". The first aproach is mmore schienitifc, as it is close to abstract thinking. This is the current trend, and we should not call it protochronism, as we should not call like this early natinoalism. Moa3333 20:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't talk about a phenomenon without putting it into context. Just because it earned its name and fame during Ceauşescu, it doesn't mean we should restrict it to that era. bogdan 20:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're reading into your suspicions, and not the article itself. There is no mention of "conspiracy", and no indicator that people are collaborating. It's a "tendancy of cultural nationalism", which is to say "an attractive idea for differnt people in successive generations". And, again:

1. the definition of the term does not refer to your idea of what it "should" mean. So, your critique is pointless. I have made it clear that ITS ETHYMOLOGY leads to ambiguities. The article also makes it clear what it should mean in this case.
2. the connection with Ceausescu is described in other terms than the ones you think are used. Because: the mention in the first line is that the term was coined to refer to its aspects under Ceausescu (ie: the behaviour is not limited to Ceausescu, nor defined by him); I think it is made clear by the article as I wrote it that the tendancy did not originate with him, nor was it ended by him. Dahn 20:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"the tendancy did not originate with him, nor was it ended by him"; i think this is wrong; you cannot say it is the same tendency now. I think tendency had two parts, first was the demistification, meaning that between 1990 and 2002 people wanted to forget about this and rejected any ideas.

The seccond period is begining just now. After people have rejected any ides related to dacians, now we want to find what is good and what is not good. We start with what we have in order to undestand what is good and what is not good.

On the other side, people involved here are using a lot of mistery, not because thay want to introduce confusion. They understand well that people are not dump, and will not take this as real scienitfic arguments. they d this because the same reason a holiwood movie will speak about dracula who eats blood! Not because it is true, but because it will make people come and see what could be true of.

Today resrches, even archeological, are melt with mistery, business, and at the end there are scientific aguments. But you nead also people, and people will not camo to your web ite if you do not tell them about how great the pharaons were, or how big Atlantida was, or how much dracula eated blood. Well, to people from USA, you can teel them that there are vamires to make them intrested with Romania, but to romanian people, this will not work!

I think Savscu is making a great job in making people intrested in the subject, even if it uses old misterious theoris. Every mean is good to obtain something, especialy when this something is to make people intrested again in history, especialy in pre-history and history of dacians. If not, people will never study the past, and we will not know more than what we know now.

Only very enthusiast people will come to this web sited, and noone will take him seriously 100%. Projects like the new wikidacia are ment to colaborative research. Moa3333 20:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, man. "Dacia Nemuritoare"?! Is that what you oppose to proof? Yeah, man, that is science... This is why I don't edit Romanian Wiki. I think Jimbo Wales needs to withdraw their license, if you ask me. The wiki porn portal has better quality info than that one! Dahn 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

+I find it especially ironic that you were prepared to believe this artcle was fantasy! Dahn 20:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was just launched this week i think (if i am not wrong) :) but, i would not contribute if the licence will not be GFDL. There is no reason to do so if i cannot import part of the articles in the wikipedia in romanian. What about we discuss about some other article now. Let's say Origins of romanian people. Because actually this was the article that i wanted to contribute to first. Moa3333 21:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What say if I tell you that Origin of Romanians, as it is, it is one of the best articles written by Romanians on English wiki? (No, I'm not saying it because I had something to do with it, since I did not). The English version too was popping with questionable material for Romania, written by the likes of Bonaparte (who is now banned on a related issue). What you didn't notice about the new wikidacia is that it is created by the same guys who run the site given in reference as staple protochronism. Please, this is getting tiresome. Dahn 21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that if Savescu do not soften their sayings in the future, they will loose support. But there are many people who agree on studying the dacians as they were: "the only country in the world that was able to fight the romans untill the seccond century, causing important damage to them".

What about the Germans? Remember Teutoburg Forest ? The Romans never defeated the Germans decisively, that's why Germany was never made a Roman province. bogdan 23:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to forget the Parthians-Sassanids. (No, wait. I'm wrong: It was only the Dacians and Asterix.)Dahn 01:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Then, of course, they were not speaking latin, but barbarian who knows what. Don't forget lain was a barbarian language at the begining for the greecks. And romans were hating so much the dacians and loved them at the same time, as you can see in the name of the province: "Happy Dacia", name given by roman authorities.

And your point is? Dahn 01:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

When speaking about Bonaparte, he was banned because of insults most of the time, and vandalism. One thing i do not do. There are other intresting articles on wikipedia writen by romanians at least partially, for example this page about IDE is one of my favorite.

I didn't say you'd get banned. I just say that I think Romanians on English wiki have managed to keep this place quite objective. No such measure was taken on RoWiki, wher Bonaparte's kind roams free. Dahn 01:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But now i undersand how it works all this. You are the most hard romanians. Many will go to Savescu's site. Other will go to various forums, with free speech. Some go to the wikipedia in romanian, and i can see the NPOV is much less enforced there, as the main goal seem to be to increese the number of articles first. There was a time when english articles were translated to romanian wikipedia, but now, as wikipedia.en is close to one million real articles, administrators here have hardened the NPOV, and now new articles are first written on wikipedia in romanian, and then translated to wikipedia in english, with a few modifications like erasing all less serious arguments. I can see now that the most "orthodox" editors have migrated from the wikipedia in romanian here, where they can restrict any doutfull opinion, that has a few NPOV... I do not say this is a bad thing, it only demonstrated the change of migration, now pages migrate from wikipedia.ro to wikipedia.en... Moa3333 23:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't care about what goes on there. True, I have translated and hygenised articles for Romanian voivodes. But, mostly, I restrict my investigations to factual info, not the usually inept commentary. RoWiki had Codreanu as a "hero and martyr" up to a few weeks ago; some idiot seeped that "info" on the English version, and it was erased in hours (the non-Fascists promised to replace it, but then got lazy - that's how come I wrote the new article myself, and am proud to say that it is NPOV). RoWiki does not even consistently feature proper grammar (by which I mean that perhaps 70% of biased people in there are also illiterate). Also, I myself consider English wiki to be the stem anyway. I do not care much for other national languages as of yet. Others are not like that, and that's their business. Thanks for your outlook, I guess. Dahn 01:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Modern-day equivalents - Hungary

Re: the recently added Hungarian examples. It should be noted that vast majority of the Hu population is not interested in these theories, any Hungarian, if asked, would say that Hungarians are a Finno-Ugric people, having been arrived at the Carpathian Basin in 896. I, as a Hungarian, have never heard of most of the "other strange theories" added by Greier. He did not include, however, an unconfirmed myth that really exists among many Székelys - I wonder if he can find it. :-) If not, I will include it later on.
One more thing: these theories have never been supported by any significant political party, or significant political movement in the last 60 years. --KIDB 10:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dacomania

A newer, pejorative term that was given to the Romanian phenomenon is Dacomania

Verdery's book, written around 1989, published 1991, uses the word "Dacomania" twice, so it's not very new. bogdan 22:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Protochronism and the Hungarians

I took this part out: Protochronism was an official ideology in Romania, while in Hungary, these are only the theories of some individual crack-pots, therefore irelevant to this article.

=== Hungary ===

Hungarian alternative history present the Magyar tribes as the descendants of various ancient peoples, ranging from the :Etruscans, Sumerians and Celts to Scythians and Huns, or claim direct linking with different ancient peoples like the Sarmatians [1], Iazyges, Avars and even Dacians, commonly called "Magyar brethren", which colonised the Carpathian Basin in successive waves.

Other strange theories, like the supposed Magyar origin of Jesus Christ, the descendancy of the Magyar tribe from on of the Lost Tribes of Israel, the racial purity of the Hungarians, Hungarian as the most ancient language, the Hungarian origins of Easter, the ancient Hungarian origins of the wheel or the Hungarian origin of the panties are also common.

See external links:

• An anthropological discussion of the significance of theories of cultural and :historical primacy illustrated with examples from Hungary and Serbia - Eric Beckett Weaver
• [http://www.hunmagyar.org/ HunMagyar.com]; A site which presents several theories regarding the Magyar tribes.

bogdan 21:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I support Bogdan's changes. An essential thing has been dropped en passant by KIDB, and I think it should be stressed again: One more thing: these theories have never been supported by any significant political party, or significant political movement in the last 60 years.Dahn 22:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention could be made about Szálasi's fantasies, as they might qualify under "official policy". I am, however, not sure about their purpose and exent. Dahn 23:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Szálasi or his idiot friends had any sophisticated theory. What I heard of is that in the 19th century it was believed by many that Huns were the predecessors of Hungarians. And that is still quite common amongst Székelys to believe that after the death of Attila, many Huns fled to Transylvania under the leadership of his son, Prince Csaba - and this is where the Székelys are from. Note that names like Attila, or Csaba are often used in Hungary --KIDB 06:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

?????????

Dahn, Bogdan, I think that in your desire to be... I don`t know how to put it... to appear "modern", "open-minded", "european" or something like that, you are merely looking silly... I don`t know why. Maybe you just have a minority complex, not regarding what happened two thousand years ago, but about what is happening now. You have a minority complex in regard to how Romania is perceived outside it`s borders, and you have an honest intention to change that, to show that Romania is as "european" and "modern" as it can be. However, you are crossing the border, know what I mean? You go from one extreme, to the other... For God`s sake, who and more important why does someone makes an article about "Romanian protochronsim"... I really don`t get it... You know, there is an universal saying: Dirty laundry are washed in family...

Anyway, as the article is now, the meaning of "Protochronism" is rather obscure. You can`t make even a description based on comparative characterisation using the rest of what I am being told is an equivalent.

• Albanian communist dictator Enver Hoxha supported the theory of Zacharie Mayani that Albanians and Albanian language are related to ancient Etruscan civilization, as well as that of the Pelasgians.

You just cant compare an exageration with an invention. While the "dacomania" is based on something firm, being merely an exageration, or as you say, a trend (noticed in several versions of Romanian nationalism) to ascribe a unique quality to the Dacians and their civilization. Usually glossing over the fact that Dacian society lacked such basic instruments as a writing system, protochronists attempt to prove either that Dacians had a major part.... etc, Hoxha`s theories were just that: theories. For God`s sake, what the hell does the etruscan-albanian connection have to do with the dacian-romanian connection. I don`t know, maybe I`m just plain stupid, but I think that you`re wasted... Now we get to the part which I personally think it`s just grose: Protochronism was an official ideology. WTF???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? What do you mean by official? Was it in the constitution that dacians used writing? Was it ever is a history book? Did in atheist Communist Romanian ever such claims about the connection between the supposed monotheism of the mysterious Zalmoxis cult and Christianity, in the belief that Dacians easily adopted and subsequently influenced the religion which would have been preached to them by Saint Andrew (considered, doubtfuly, as the clear origin of modern-day Romanian Orthodoxy)? And as we contine through the article, it get`s even more pathetic. While first it says that it the official ideology (you still haven`t realised what you are stating here, do you?), it than explains how this "official ideology" is continuated... by....by a dude from America. What sources are you using? Verdery and a link to a page which has the same validity as the link I gaved. About that, I still see no reason for deleting the Hungarian equivalent. You use the same lame, almost idiotic reason of official ideology... While I still see no prove for this claim of official ideology, I see Internet sites like this, or this, or [http://www.hunmagyar.org/ this]. The same kind of link are used by you to show prominent characteristics of Romanian Protochronism.

• Bulgarian communist dictator Todor Zhivkov supported the theory that there are clear links between the Bulgarians and the ancient Thracians. His daughter Lyudmila Zhivkova created the Institute of Thracology as part of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
• Iranian Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi tried to forge a secular national identity by appealing to various stages of the Persian Empire (and especially to the Achaemenid dynasty).

With this I agree. In fact, Zhivkov was close to the thruth, but is simply was not exactly how he puted it. While there is no need to polemic that some/many/few/a lot of bulgarians are ultimatelly drawn from thracians, and bulgarian traditional culture is of ultimatelly of thracian origin, there are much more to be said about what Bulgarians mean (at least more than can be sayd about Romanians). The same about Persians.

• Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has frequently appealed to imagery and rhetoric that assumed a direct link between the modern-day country and Sumer or Babylon.

Again, how can you compare someting that you call imagery, with something which altough exageratered, or POVist to use Wikipedia parlance, is still a fact: the dacian origin of Romanians, Romanian traditions, Romanian customs, Romanian wearing, etc. More than that, even you call it Dacomania, Daco-mania, that is an obsession, not a complete phantasmagoria, as the direct link between Sumerians and Saddam. If there were claims of direct descendancy of Romanians from the Cucutenians or from Hamangians, than I would agree that you are completely right to make this article.

Man, and even if you were entirelly right, beacuse partially you are, as indeed there is an abashment from people like Savescu, this was not the way to do it. You don`t realise it do you. Wikipedia is perhaps one of the most important and powerfool tools to inform in these times, so powerfull that it can be safely said that it could also be used as a manipulating tool. So, while others "inform", you thought you shoud too, right? No, you didn`t inform nothing, didn`t accomplished nothing with this article. Those "dacomaniacs" will still be there, just that they will be regarded with pathetism. So much, that anything related to them, would be regarded as such: that is, YOUR HISTORY! With this article you`ve just proved that you (you, not other romanians) do have an inferiority complex... you shoud of remembered: rufele murdare se spala in familie... greier 08:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen, Greier. It is not my responsability to go on articles about "Hungarian prehistory" and proofread them. It is also not my responsability to answer to your demands, while ignoring the fact that this article references a plethora of essays and articles (and that the term is well-established in historiography, both Romanian and foreign). The references to official ideology do not exclude its pre-official history or its post-1989 heritage (especially since it partly involves the same people).

Your contemptible display of ethnonationalism and localism, as well as your appeal to "wash dirty laundry in our own family", remind me of the mafiosi logic of the "neam" that this article partly deals with. In fact, I will go as far as to say that, even if I were to accept the fact that having Romanian citizenship makes me "family" with other holders of the same honour, I still would not want to be family with Greier. Dahn 10:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

ok. greier 11:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"The present popularity gains of prothocronism"

I am not very sure, if "popularity gains" are factual accurate. Mr. Napoleon Savescu and his collegues provide a loud and grotesque presence, though I wouldn't equate this to a gain in popularity. Actually, both instances which could decide upon popularity in this case - the audience at large and the scientific community - ignore royally the dacomaniac agitation. To make the passage from Ceausescu to present days, a more moderate formulation than "popularity gains" would probably not be such a misplaced ideea.--Vintila Barbu 17:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it is safe to say that the phenomenon has democratized itself, and that it is not enforced by any rigid state structure. Apparently, the myths attract more people freely expressing their options (and more and more vandals to this page); of course, it is not the case of academia - but, hopefully, academia is not about popularity. What do you suggest instead? Dahn 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

actually, you already formulate it...let's say something like: "After the downfall of the Ceausescu's regime, prothocronism ceased to be enforced by any state structure. Though it receives no recognition (maybe better: is largely ignored by) from the national or international scientific comunity, prothocronism still gathers a number of enthusiasts and nostalgics."--Vintila Barbu 11:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I took up your format and reworded it somehow. Would you say it is ok? Dahn 12:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

it's ok (I would have added that these "circles" are marginal, to say the least, but it's too POV); good point of having referenced the association between autarky and protocronism ! wenn I find time, I'd like to go a little into a conceptual distinction of "protocronism", since there are however worlds between the cutural attitude suggested by Papu and the semi-educated élucubrations of a Napoleon Savulescu --Vintila Barbu 17:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. Note that the 22 source alludes to the difference, so we may use it as well. Dahn 18:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Daco-Romanian continuity

I believe that another term used for this is "Daco-Romanian continuity", but I don't see that in the article. If you Google '"Daco-Romanian continuity" -wikipedia' you'll see that while there are not a ton of hits, they are mostly from pretty solid sources. - Jmabel | Talk 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a major difference. Most Romanians and Romanian historians will probably agree that there is a connection between the Dacians and the first Romanians, and most will in any case oppose all notions that Romanization occurred [solely] south of the Danube. Most of them will never present Dacians as superior or even reasonably advanced, and they will not argue that the Romans played a negative/insignificant role in ethnogenesis. Dahn 01:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

...or, to put it in other words, Joe: while "Daco-Roman continuity" is a sound historical model (the best we have by now), the "Dacian connection" (i.e. glorification of an alleged pure Dacian ancestry and of a no less superior Dacian civilization) is but a delirious phantasmagoria where semi-educated guesses meet ignorance and pretences meet obscure agendas. Except one or two genuine scientists having constructed fallacious models some 100 years ago (it happens), the rest of the present "Dacomaniacs" belongs to that part of the audience enclined to seek solutions in esoterics, mysteries and with no scientific background.

In contrast, the "Daco-Roman continuity" is an historical model. As you very well know, history deals with the reconstruction of the past. The remoter that past, the frailer and riskier the model. For the Romanian ethnogenesis, we don't have anything better than "continuity". A good model uses a minimum of axioms to generate a maximum of theorems and the continuity model does it better as other models. It has an increased explanatory force with a minimum of premises.

Besides, the term "Daco-Roman continuity" is a kind of straw-man argument, since no serious historian has ever stated a theory called "Daco-Roman continuity". Actually, historians (not only Romanian) have constructed various and complex models having in common the ideea of a lasting presence of Romanized population north of the lower Danube. Adversaries have focused exclusively on this ideea, reducing complex historical models to simplist allegations, in order to better refute them all. Visiting some models of "continuity" would show how plausible and interpretive they are and how far from reductionist exaggeration.

BTW, the whole thing's name is "Daco-Roman" and not "Daco-Romanian" continuity as it absurdly stays in the WP "in-depth" article, which, BTW again, is very weak an article, which reduces 150 years of historical research to a kind of quarrel between "continuitionists" and "immigrationists" - embarrassing ! To subsume the various and complex historical models produced by historians under the terms "continuity/migration theory" is oversimplification - a strategy probably efficient in a propaganda war, yet not very helpful in an encyclopedic project.--Vintila Barbu 16:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

More of what you just said needs to make it into the article, to clarify what portions of this intersect what historians otherwise accept, and what do not. - Jmabel | Talk 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources needed

Do we have any sources for this section? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protochronism#Modern-day_equivalents Or is it the author who is speculating? Is that stuff mentioned in any of the books listed in the reference section? --Thus Spake Anittas 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, that section does not add to this article, and there has been a lot of back and forth about what should be included in there. Ever since the article was created, it appears that the section has been supplanted by Nationalism and ancient history, and that is where the info can be included if it is decided it should be kept. For now: I have pointed out elsewhere that a parallel has been drawn between Romania and Mexico, and I think that should be added in the text. Dahn 16:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ro wiki

It seems that while writing about protochronism here may lead to debate, touching the subject on ro.wiki leads to reactions beyond the borders of wikipedia. Check this out [2] and this [3]. Plinul cel tanar 11:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, probably some people disagree with the (rather few) Romanian history articles from ro.wiki which are not written from a nationalist/fascist/neo-nazi POV. bogdan 11:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, Plinul, those imbeciles are getting more and more organized. The rant about the Tismăneanu Report in one of those links you provide lets me know that I've dealt with their exact kind before. There is an absolute need for someone to, quite literally, sanitize ro wiki, and I'm glad to see you still have the patience of trying, Plinul (especially after exposing yourself to criticism from what I can only suspect is the usual Legionary-Securitate association - of which Agero is a prime example). In case more trouble of this type surfaces, and in case nothing is done about the still-massive presence of nationalist, xenophobic and anti-scientific material on ro wiki, I suggest we bring this to Jimbo's attention. Dahn 12:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the "implacable 4GW War" (whatever the hell that means) is to continue as before :). Dahn 12:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm no hero, I stayed away from the contemporary history articles on ro.wiki, it makes me sick to even read some of them. I merely removed some quite obvious junk about the genealogy of a 14th century warlord. Feel free to explore ro.wiki and see the reactions. Plinul cel tanar 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried a bit of cleanup a while ago, but it's not easy and there are too many things which still remain, like:

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comunismul_în_lume_şi_evreii (it uses reliable references, such as Stormfront (website))

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimele_şi_ororile_comise_de_comuniştii_evrei_împotriva_românilor_în_timpul_evacuării_din_Basarabia_şi_Bucovina_în_1940

bogdan 13:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I must say that the unanimous voices against at least one of the articles convince me that things are going the right way, and that editors have become more energetic in dealing with the legacy of one Irismeister and Dacodava. I remember being disheartened by the lassitude and nationalist bias of some admins I met there in the past, but a "grassroots resistance" seems to have been generated. In my opinion, such problems will only be solved once a zero tolerance policy is put into motion, and once some users who have made a mockery of that project receive at least a temporary block. I'm know I sound radical, but I've also been dragged through mud by those people, and I've seen other reliable users being chased away (I can only hope they decide to return). Dahn 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern-day equivalents - Iran

The context is wrong. Iran is a direct cultural and more importanly lingustic successor of the ancient Persian states starting from the Achaemenids. Nothing questionable about that. If the Reza Pahlavi claimed descent from the Elamites it would make sense.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this page

I find some of the language on this page problematic.

1. there are usages such as "enigmatic Dacian language" and "mysterious Zalmoxis cult". Daican language is not enigmatic, it's simply not known, since it was never written. The Dacian's (polytheistic generally but at least in part monolatrist, according to mainstream historians) religion is again, a suject that's not really 100% known, but to call it mysterious it's kind of unusual. Such words are not really NPOV, though I'm not really sure exaclty what they are intended to suggest.

I second that, this article is the best example for how to avoid writing an article. The WP:NPOV policy is absolutely tarnished. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

2. the official stance of the Church is that St. Andrew preached in Dobrudja (which is quite probable), and therefore he is the patron Saint of the Church of Romania. Nothing about him magically converting ALL the population of Moesia and Dacia, about how Vlachs were eventually converted or about him going anywhere else inland into Moesia (or further into Dacia) -- only that he preached in the heavily Hellenophonic Dobrudja, a region that for a long time was part of the late Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. Now why they thought this to be reason for considering the Apostle the Patron Saint of Romania is not really a historical or political debate is it (more like a religious one)? So I don't really see why mention of this is important to the article, because it's not really related to Dacomania, is it, since it was most probably Romans and Hellenophones/Greeks that St. Andrew preached to if he ever went to Dobrudja (which accorning to tradition he did). Now, Dacomania was about the Dacians and was created in the not exaclty Christian-friendly environment of late Romanian communism.

I will admit that after Dacomania and protochronism went out of fashion some intellectuals found refuge one way or another around the Church. I will also admit that Dacomania and protochronism sometime have a religious (Christian or not) eloement to them. But to advance the idea that the entire Church is protochronist and to call that its official stance is kind of EXTREME. In my humble view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 13:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This term

Does this term exist in English? Is it being used? --Thus Spake Anittas 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a few of the authors whose works in English (or translated into English) use the term: Gabriel Liiceanu, Alexandru Zub, Norman Manea, Dennis Deletant, András Bozóki, David Turncock, Alex Drace-Francis, Andrew H. Dawson & Rick Fawn, Marcel Cornis-Pope & John Neubauer, Andrew Hammond, Tom Gallagher, Ted Anton, Vladimir Tismăneanu, Lidia Vianu. This is, of course, without the references already provided in the text. Dahn 05:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Do they use it in reference to Romania? Does any author use the term in reference to anything else but Romania? And lastly, does this word exist in the English dictionary (like Websters)? I tried to look it up, but found nothing. A quick google search results in a modest 521 searches. --Thus Spake Anittas 06:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the article refer to anything but Romania? See why this whole thread is pointless? Dahn 06:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking about the article, but about the word. It seems to me that the term doesn't exist in the English language and the authors just did some kind of transliteration of the Romanian word. --Thus Spake Anittas 06:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So? Dahn 06:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So the article doesn't make that clear. One may believe that that the term also exists in the English language, especially when it says that the word "is a modern tendency in cultural nationalism." It may be so, but only in Romanian. The article does say that the term was coined in Romania, but that doesn't have to mean that one must believe the term is only used there. --Thus Spake Anittas 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should make it clear that the term is used only in reference to Romania and not in reference to other countries. --Thus Spake Anittas 09:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, as a Brit, that the term is a coinage in English. This doesn't mean it isn't valid, in the context of Romanian historiography, as long as its meaning is explained. There are many precedents I can think of, for example the term "lustration" as applied to a political issue, which recently came from Polish. It might be worth looking at alternative formulations, such as "re-writing history" or "myths of national origins" - but protochronism sounds cleverer, (in that slightly tiresome US way beloved of IT specialists and similar creatures!)It can still stand though. It was actually almost more interesting to read the talk page, and the discussions/rants it provoked. All that stuff about "not washing your dirty laundry in public" - which presupposes that foreigners would be gullible or not sufficiently interested to question what they are told about Romanian history by Romanians. Toroboro 11:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that I should start a consesus, unless the article makes it clear that the term is used only to Ro-related topics and that the term does not exist in English. The article should, perhaps, be deleted or merged with another article. The term doesn't have enough notability. --Thus Spake Anittas 12:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to fix it? --Thus Spake Anittas 11:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, a bit late to this conversation, I've edited the lead to indicated the term's purely Romanian origin and to what it refers. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and applicability

The article for Protochronism is written from an obvious non-neuntral point of view, full of hate rhetoric. The protochronism concept by itself is outdated and linked to Socialism and Communism. Many of the new authors deemed protochronists are living and have careers outside Romania, in democratic and open-minded societies which encourage thinking outside the box. While some of their accusers are still even today in the same structures of Romanian academia that promoted Protochronism during Nicolae Ceauşescu and which barely changed their views or created any quality research in the last 20 years. The hypocrisy is huge. Terms like Dacoman, although ridiculous and pejorative, may make more sense if at all. The article is also a platform for absorbing other articles like Dacian script, based on very subjective claims that all the researchers behind those distinct theories described there are unqualified and protochronists. Above all, this has become a place for people to dump their hate and venom against whomever they hate or disagree with in the Dacian history topic, based on personal, subjective reasons. I don't find it worthy of Wikipedia, it is limited to Romanian space and doesn't bring any good to anyone. Keep an open mind. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to clarify some basic concepts, these people [4] are researchers. People upholding dacomania are not. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but I think there is too much negativity in this war among Romanians, about their own history. The foreigners are looking at this and are laughing their ass out, some are very happy to see how masochistic and fatalistic we can be about ourselves. We can simply be left alone by anyone who doesn't want our success as a nation since we will surely destroy ourselves. And you saw the response of James Murray to this letter. He was very objective and not very partisan. American Academia welcomes opinions from anyone.The difference between the American and European (definitely the Romanian) mentality is that they give the chance to people to speak at least ONCE. They believe in the freedom of speech. It doesn't mean they cannot discern between qualified and not so qualified people. Be sure that anyone who talks about Dacians, Atlantis and Maya in one sentence will be dismissed and not invited next time! But it means they encourage, thinking outside the box, new theories. The answer has a nice statement in the end: "specially from underrepresented regions of the world.", proving my points. He was eluding to the fact that these Romanian academicians who took the time to write the petition, maybe the Romanian government who pays them in universities and governmental offices, should DO more, should be PRESENT there themselves and not let Dacomans fill the void. They should PARTICIPATE, they should DO more SCIENCE. They should remove the Dacomans, by showing EXAMPLES about how they DO rigorous science, not by putting their fists in their mouths. Why Bulgarians can have respected Thracologists who have done many amazing discoveries recently (look at the discoveries, ignore the fact that the site may be maintained by a Dacoman - Sic!), and we can't restore honor to the term Dacologist? Bulgarians had their own protochronism, linking Slavs and Bulgars to Thracians, which is more far-fetched than linking Dacians to Romanians, but is barely mentioned in this article. But Bulgarians managed to clean up the Thracologist term and make it respectable again. Why our academicians don't take these titles back and go to work, pushing the Dacomans into obscurity? Why can't we have a qualified Romanian "Zahi Hawass" who does significant discoveries like the modern Bulgarian thracologists and is not afraid to call himself a "dacologist" if he is researching Dacians? Or Getologist, Phrygologist or whatever you want to call them. Why egyptologist is a great title, Thracologist is fine now, but the term Dacologist is doomed? If Dacians and Thracians are not as strongly connected as originally thought, why someone who is researching Dacia should continue to call himself Thracologist? Out of fear of this masochistic and fatalistic Anti-Neo-Protochronism Police? The news about Eastern Europe ancient archaeology and history that hit the international press have very commonly two types articles: Amazing discoveries in Bulgaria and Theft and devastation at Romanian archaeological sites. Why is that? I tell you why, because some Romanian academicians are so busy burning Dacoman witches that they forgot to do their jobs. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Codrinb, your message above is an absolute fallacy, from top to bottom; it discredits whatever point you're trying to make, and shows that you're only seeing this matter in terms of cultural relativism (bordering on moral relativism?) - in other words, that we should open wikipedia articles to praise for esoteric, anti-scientific and fringe theories because we are Romanian, and like all Romanians, one is led to conclude, we are all naturally attracted to, and represented by, such canards. Argumentum ad populum, tu quoque, and so on. Do you have any objection that would actually be supported by wikipedia policies, as opposed to your fringe POV? I suppose not. Dahn (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Other thank attacking me personally, you didn't answer any of my valid questions.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly I've never seen more polemics about "who are we? really?" than here. Lecturing each other (Dahn, my perception) really is not helpful (and as I recall you and I have had some interesting exchanges on Romanians versus Moldavians). As for Codrin's rhetorical but with non-rhetorical implications questions, the point is valid as to why exploration of certain aspects of ancient roots are ridiculed outright (that is, dismissed, case seemingly proven and closed) in one case [ROMANIA] but pursued as an area of inquiry in another [BULGARIA]. When it comes to our (collective) origins, we still don't know what we don't know. I do have to wonder, with regard to Romanians, if areas of inquiry aren't being dismissed out of hand because the zenith of their pursuit is associated with a defunct totalitarian regime. (Yes, I've read the four theories, do I hear five?) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Really, if you've got four divergent plausible theories, isn't that just a scholarly euphemism for "no idea, really"? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Note to self, my timeline here needs to go back further. And we can see how the conversation went there. (!). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Peters, thanks, really good points. Appreciate your neutral position. Much needed here.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Peters, why are we even discussing this? The Protochronist theory is dismissed "outright" for a very sound reason: it is unscientific and counterfactual, it is pursued by amateurs, it is politically tainted from the start. That there are other theories around is irrelevant, since those theories are all from within the scientific community. In short, Protochronism is ridiculed because it is ridiculous. Whatever you personally want to infer from your past debates with me (and why?), please refrain from poisoning the well with "I have to wonder" speculations. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dahn, stop going in circles with your patronizing, know-it-all attitude and answers these very clear questions. What is wrong with the terms "Dacology" and "Dacologist" in contrast with "Thracology" and "Thracologist" and why it cannot be cleaned up like the Bulgarians did? Why this entire article is so Romania-centric and no Bulgarians, Albanians rush here to thrash their own people and write at least as much content as Romanians do? Why spend the time writing an article full of hatred, and spend the time deleting content, if your knowledge is vastly superior and the List of Dacian towns points to a LOT of non-existing articles? Why favor destruction to creation? How many Germans do you think spend their time on writing the Nazi Germany and Hitler articles? How many Israelis spend their time on writing Palestine Liberation Organization article? Why all this Romanian self-hatred, negative behavior, finger pointing, masochism and fatalism, and above HUGE hypocrisy? --Codrin.B (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to leave my thanks for all the work that went into this article (and my opinion). Although I don't think the article is terrible good at the moment, it really is useful. It's just good to have something in English at all. I wish I could improve it, but I don't have any good sources either. MauriceM3 (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)