1

I have read that the scientist Robert Marks, President of Subaquatic Archeological American Council, declared in 1982 that he have found some Dacian artifacts that are around 2,000 years old in North America.

The following information is taken from this site ”INCREDIBIL! Dacii au colonizat cele doua Americi acum 9000 de ani!”

Is there any historical evidence to support this idea?

Improve this question
5
  • 4
    1. That is not actually what the article says. 2. The story is about as true as the author's claim that 'Dacians have been in contact with aliens 3. The author even managed to mis-spell Robert Marx's name! 4. The origin of the name 'Dakota' comes from from the Native American tribe, and is nothing to do with Dacia.
    – sempaiscuba
    Sep 29, 2018 at 10:57
  • @sempaiscuba I know this. I just want to know the truth about this.
    – Alex A
    Sep 29, 2018 at 10:59
  • 1
    That site seems to contain only bullshit, and not just in that story. It looks like some kind of parody site like the Onion. In this case, the stuff being parodied is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protochronism
    – Fizz
    Sep 29, 2018 at 11:40
  • 2
    @sempaiscuba: And in fact, Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota are simply dialects/subgroups of the Siouxian ("Oceti Sakowin") language/people. It's also questionable whether there was any such thing as a Dacian people 9000 years ago.
    – jamesqf
    Sep 29, 2018 at 17:34
  • Relevant: bbc.com/earth/story/…
    – Daniel R Hicks
    Sep 30, 2018 at 12:11

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
14

None of this is true. The argument, if we can call it that, seems to be based on toponyms:

The presence of the Dacians in North America can be certified by the existence of two toponyms derived from the DAC root: North Dakota (North Dakota) and South Dakota (South Dakota). It is well known that the only people bearing this name, in all antiquity and until the late Middle Ages, are the inhabitants of the Carpatho-Danubian-Pontic space, whose country was called Dacia.

This is a coincidence. There are lots of coincidental resemblances between unrelated languages, spoken half a world apart at very different points in history, because the human voice can only make so many sounds. Claiming a connection between two languages needs a lot more than one or two toponyms that have similar sounds.

Also, the Dacian language did not exist 9,000 years ago. It was an Indo-European language, and the Proto-Indo-European language had probably not appeared by then, still less had a chance to evolve into Dacian.

This web-page is pseudo-historical click-bait, somewhat analogous to the historical nonsense known as British-Israelism. When you find web pages that promise great revelations in hidden history, claim that an ethnic group was far more significant in history than is generally accepted, have an excited tone and no references, you can be confident that they're peddling nonsense, mainly in the hope of getting you to click on their advertising links.

Commenters have pointed out that this is an example of Protochronism, a Romanian term for material that ascribes an idealised past and great significance to Romania, and before the Romanians, the Dacians. Or it may be a parody of Protochronism: it's hard to tell without being able to read the original.

Improve this answer
2
  • 2
    It is a bit disappointing that the authors failed to mention that the Dacians also populated Bengal, as attested by the city of Dakha.
    – Evargalo
    Sep 30, 2018 at 10:56
  • 2
    @Evargalo, and do not forget Dakar in West Africa! Oh, and Takutaku in Tonga--poor chaps must have devoiced the ‘d’ sound over the millennia...
    – kkm -still wary of SE promises
    Oct 8, 2018 at 2:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .