Getae and Dacians? Are they the same? Or is this unknowable?

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

That's an opinion I share, I mean that the Goths were the rusult of several groups coalescing. But the part of the Dacian heritage I do not share.
One, the Goths seem to have become a more defined group well to the north of Dacia.

You are right about the Goths being a diverse amalgamation of smaller ethnic groups.

But if I am not mistaken, when Trajan conquered Dacia many of the so-called 'Free Dacians" fled to the north, in what is now the western part of Ukraine.



Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. I haven't arrived at The Truth yet, but with your help I'm getting closer.
Glory to RAT for being so helpful.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Razvan,

I didn't mean to get on your case, but maybe you might consider the possibility that the name 'Gaet' and 'Gatae' had different origins?

[diegis]

Hi Razvan,

I didn't mean to get on your case, but maybe you might consider the possibility that the name 'Gaet' and 'Gatae' had different origins?

Hi Robert Valerius

Well, it is possible to be a confusion betwen Getae/Gets and Goths/Gots, or have diferent origins, i dont know for sure, but, what i know is that Jordanes or Issidor mention some names, related with Goths history, who are clearly Dacian names, of Dacian personalities, known from other sources as well. This mean that even if Dacian ( Getian ) participation, as peoples, in formation of Goths, wasnt that strong as some peoples say ( for sure was a presence anyway ), at least Dacian ( Getian ) prestige was big enough for Goths, that they considered the Geto-Dacian as they ancestors. And this prestige ( maybe even heritage ) was big enough to last much more, if you read parts of Chronicle of Normands,( or see that Denmark was named Dacia in a time ) and there was referings to a region who was exactly the core of Dacian kingdom, later know as Transilvania.

[diegis]

"According to Procopius, who wrote his history in the fifth century, Romans "say that the Goths are of the Getic race" (Book V.xxiv,30)."

"The Getae are mentioned in the history of Herodotus (fifth century B.C.). In the translation by George Rawlinson, his brother Sir Henry gives this footnote: "The identity of the Getae with the Goths of later times is more than a plausible conjecture. It may be regarded as historically certain" (Vol.III, page 84, 1862 edition)."

" Jordanes, the best known Gothic historian, always speaks of the Getae and Goths as one people"

"The evidence also indicates that the Getae were the same kind of people as the Dacians. They both spoke the same language according to Strabo (7.3.13). Pliny says that the Getae were called Dacians by the Romans (Book IV, xxi, 80). Duchesne, who collected the Norman chronicles in the seventeenth century, has no doubt whatever that the Normans were Dacians and consistently calls them by that name in his preface. Dudo, who wrote the earliest history of the Normans in the tenth century, also had no doubt that they came from Scythia beyond the Danube. He also said they were Dacians."

This are quotes from this site :
http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/s ... roots.html
and the article is writed by a guy Robert C. Boraker, who try to find the ancestors of scandinavian peoples, but have some conections with our denbate here too.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Razvan,

"According to Procopius, who wrote his history in the fifth century, Romans "say that the Goths are of the Getic race" (Book V.xxiv,30)."
"Jordanes, the best known Gothic historian, always speaks of the Getae and Goths as one people"

This does not alter a thing. The arguments are just the same.
Procopius and Jordanes mention the Getic race because that is what the Goths claimed. But Procopius nor Jordanes ever compared the Getic race to the Dacians.
The argument is just the same - the identification between Goths and Dacians is a modern one, not one made by the ancient authors.

I repeat: wwithout any more corroboration of the opposite, there is no evidence to show that the Geats of the Gothic tradition (and I add again - the Goths described them as living in Scandinavia, NOT in the Dacian area) had any more to do with the Getae than a similarity of the name. I have provided other examples of such similarities between tribal names (to which you have not reacted).

"The Getae are mentioned in the history of Herodotus (fifth century B.C.). In the translation by George Rawlinson, his brother Sir Henry gives this footnote: "The identity of the Getae with the Goths of later times is more than a plausible conjecture. It may be regarded as historically certain" (Vol.III, page 84, 1862 edition)."

You should know better that to use publications like these - by the 19th century they still did not know anything about archaeology and linguistics, compared to what we know today. Most of what was written then was pure conjecture, and unusable in a discussion.
I am happy that Sir Henry, in 1862, was convinced of the 'historical certainty' of that ancestry, but I also observe that he did not put forward any evidence to substantiate that opinion. :twisted:

"The evidence also indicates that the Getae were the same kind of people as the Dacians. They both spoke the same language according to Strabo (7.3.13). Pliny says that the Getae were called Dacians by the Romans (Book IV, xxi, 80). Duchesne, who collected the Norman chronicles in the seventeenth century, has no doubt whatever that the Normans were Dacians and consistently calls them by that name in his preface. Dudo, who wrote the earliest history of the Normans in the tenth century, also had no doubt that they came from Scythia beyond the Danube. He also said they were Dacians."

I'd like to see that evidence. For I repeat that the language was different, and as can be seen in the names, NO Dacian heritage seems to have rubbed off on the Goths, apart from the name of the ancestors, which is only equated with the gatae/Dacians by personal opinion. The evidence points another way: a different geographical origin, a different language, a different tribal leadership, a different names.

About Duchesne in the 17th century, it seems idiotic to even bring forward such information as 'evidence'. Put in the light of Medieval cultural tradition, it is unsurprising to come acrosss such 'deductions'.
the English loved to think that they were descendants of the trojans. geoffrey of Monmouth was serious when he described how the Trojan refugees reached Britain.
The Merovingians seriously believed that they had connections with ancient Sparta.
The Poles, much later, revived their 'Sarmatian heritage' and made armour in Sarmatian style around the 17th century.
Of course the Normans did not come from Dacia. They came from Scandinavia as Vikings and settled in parts of France.

[diegis]

Hi Razvan,

"The evidence also indicates that the Getae were the same kind of people as the Dacians. They both spoke the same language according to Strabo (7.3.13). Pliny says that the Getae were called Dacians by the Romans (Book IV, xxi, 80). Duchesne, who collected the Norman chronicles in the seventeenth century, has no doubt whatever that the Normans were Dacians and consistently calls them by that name in his preface. Dudo, who wrote the earliest history of the Normans in the tenth century, also had no doubt that they came from Scythia beyond the Danube. He also said they were Dacians."

I'd like to see that evidence. For I repeat that the language was different, and as can be seen in the names, NO Dacian heritage seems to have rubbed off on the Goths, apart from the name of the ancestors, which is only equated with the gatae/Dacians by personal opinion. The evidence points another way: a different geographical origin, a different language, a different tribal leadership, a different names.

.

I am sorry, i dont have enough time now, and i reply later, but i want to be sure what you said, that there is no evidence that Getae and Dacians is the same peoples, and who is from different origins and geographical areas, Goths and Dacians or Getae and Dacians ?

[Robert Vermaat]

I am sorry, i dont have enough time now, and i reply later, but i want to be sure what you said, that there is no evidence that Getae and Dacians is the same peoples, and who is from different origins and geographical areas, Goths and Dacians or Getae and Dacians ?

No, I did not say about the ancient Getae/Dacians comparison. I don't have enough knowledge about that to say much about that.

I did say that the ancestors of the Goths (Gaets) are not the same tribe as the Getae.
I did say that the Goths knew that they came from Scandinavia, and that Scandinavia was the area of their ancestors (the Gaets).

[diegis]

I am sorry, i dont have enough time now, and i reply later, but i want to be sure what you said, that there is no evidence that Getae and Dacians is the same peoples, and who is from different origins and geographical areas, Goths and Dacians or Getae and Dacians ?

No, I did not say about the ancient Getae/Dacians comparison. I don't have enough knowledge about that to say much about that.

I did say that the ancestors of the Goths (Gaets) are not the same tribe as the Getae.
I did say that the Goths knew that they came from Scandinavia, and that Scandinavia was the area of their ancestors (the Gaets).

Aha, i get it now. Well, it is a kind of little double standars at you, from my point of view. You said that is correct what they said, that they came from Scandinavia ( even if there is not too much archeological prouves from what i know ), but they lie about being related with Gets ( Getae/Dacians ). I dont said either that Goths ( as classical ones we know much about ) are in fact 100 % Dacians/Getae. What i said is that Goths was not a people with a clear ancestors, and just that. They was a mix of different peoples, with Germanic, Dacian/Getian, even Sarmatian origins, we cannot say pure and simple that those classic Goths are 100 % germanic people and came from Scandinavia, maybe just a part of them, and even like that, peoples from those nordic area came froum southern parts of Europe, when the harsh living conditions there was able to permit to peoples to develop in larger comunities, and most likely they arrived there from Germanic areas and from Getians area, who already live anyway close to southern Baltic area. This tribes mixed again with some Dacian tribes, some Sarmatians too and who know if not some Celtic or other Germanic ones, and just then we can speak about Goths, as we know them in their classic times. As well, i wanted to point the influence of Dacians/Getae in this mix of people, both as prestige and as physical presence, and the fact that they was considered the ancestors of Goths, by the Goths themselves, and by previous ancient writers too.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Razvan,

Aha, i get it now. Well, it is a kind of little double standars at you, from my point of view. You said that is correct what they said, that they came from Scandinavia ( even if there is not too much archeological prouves from what i know ), but they lie about being related with Gets ( Getae/Dacians ).

No Razvan, I did not say that the Goths lied. I hope you just misunderstood me, I do not like to be accused of keeping double standards.
I never said the Goths lied. I said that the Goths meant a different tribe. The Goths claimed that the Gaets were (among) their ancestors. But I dispute that the Goths meant the Getae/Dacians. That is a modern interpretation which I do not share.

I dont said either that Goths ( as classical ones we know much about ) are in fact 100 % Dacians/Getae. What i said is that Goths was not a people with a clear ancestors, and just that. [..] As well, i wanted to point the influence of Dacians/Getae in this mix of people, both as prestige and as physical presence, and the fact that they was considered the ancestors of Goths, by the Goths themselves, and by previous ancient writers too.

I agree fully that the Goths were formed by a mix of peoples, and I have no doubt that people from the Dacian tribes also became part of the Gothic enthnogenesis.

I just dispute that the Goths were influenced by either Dacian culture or Dacian 'prestige'. There is no evidence for that whatsoever.

[Alanus]

What i said is that Goths was not a people with a clear ancestors, and just that. They was a mix of different peoples, with Germanic, Dacian/Getian, even Sarmatian origins, we cannot say pure and simple that those classic Goths are 100 % germanic people and came from Scandinavia, maybe just a part of them, and even like that, peoples from those nordic area came froum southern parts of Europe, when the harsh living conditions there was able to permit to peoples to develop in larger comunities, and most likely they arrived there from Germanic areas and from Getians area, who already live anyway close to southern Baltic area. This tribes mixed again with some Dacian tribes, some Sarmatians too and who know if not some Celtic or other Germanic ones, and just then we can speak about Goths, as we know them in their classic times. As well, i wanted to point the influence of Dacians/Getae in this mix of people, both as prestige and as physical presence, and the fact that they was considered the ancestors of Goths, by the Goths themselves, and by previous ancient writers too.

The Goths/Gaets/Gothini/Gutones WERE a people with "clear ancestors." They knew exactly who their ancestors were and where they came from. Two royal families controlled both groups, Tyrfingi and Greutungi, from a time that was earlier than Pythias of Massilia (before the time of Herodotus). We have traces of their heritage recorded by Pythias, the isle of Balcia and the Amalcian Sea. These Baltic locations were named after the two families, the Balths and the Amals. They knew they emigrated from Scandia, as Jordanes points out. The Gothic "singers of songs" recorded their ancestors in the same way the Celts recorded theirs.

Yes, as they moved south they assimilated with other tribes, but never within the other tribes (Dacians included). Their first cultural exchanges were with the Celts and Sarmatians. They probably absorbed some of the remaining Dacian culture, but it was never heavily influential beyond the traditional reuse of nomens. They even brought individuals from Asia Minor into their culture; the mother of Bishop Ulfilas was a Cappadocian.

Once again, I point at the fruitlessness of talking about "physical appearance." Physically, Dacians were no different than Celts, Goths, Greeks, Romans... and a multitude of Germanic tribes which included Scandians, the people from whom the Goths originated. The Goths had a separate and distinct language which was only remotely related to Dacian or Thracian in the sense that it was Indo-European.

For a period that exceeded 800 years, the Goths were controlled by the two familes mentioned above. Theodoric the Great was an Amal. And the Kingdom of Toulouse was founded by Theodoric, the son-in-law of Alaric and a Balth.

[diegis]

The Goths/Gaets/Gothini/Gutones WERE a people with "clear ancestors." They knew exactly who their ancestors were and where they came from. Two royal families controlled both groups, Tyrfingi and Greutungi, from a time that was earlier than Pythias of Massilia (before the time of Herodotus). We have traces of their heritage recorded by Pythias, the isle of Balcia and the Amalcian Sea. These Baltic locations were named after the two families, the Balths and the Amals. They knew they emigrated from Scandia, as Jordanes points out. The Gothic "singers of songs" recorded their ancestors in the same way the Celts recorded theirs.

Yes, as they moved south they assimilated with other tribes, but never within the other tribes (Dacians included). Their first cultural exchanges were with the Celts and Sarmatians. They probably absorbed some of the remaining Dacian culture, but it was never heavily influential beyond the traditional reuse of nomens. They even brought individuals from Asia Minor into their culture; the mother of Bishop Ulfilas was a Cappadocian.

Once again, I point at the fruitlessness of talking about "physical appearance." Physically, Dacians were no different than Celts, Goths, Greeks, Romans... and a multitude of Germanic tribes which included Scandians, the people from whom the Goths originated. The Goths had a separate and distinct language which was only remotely related to Dacian or Thracian in the sense that it was Indo-European.

For a period that exceeded 800 years, the Goths were controlled by the two familes mentioned above. Theodoric the Great was an Amal. And the Kingdom of Toulouse was founded by Theodoric, the son-in-law of Alaric and a Balth.

Oh boy, you see, thats why i said about double standards in interpretation of Jordanes "Getica". So, for you is correct just what he said that Goths are originated from Scandza, but you let asside what he said next, the fact that he included in history of this Goths ( originaly Got, the Goth word appear just in medieval times from what i know ) the Dacian ( Get/Getae ) history, consider it as the Goths history. So, if you said is true what he said, then Goths and Gets ( Dacians ) are one and the same people as a point. Tyrfingi and Greutungi can be a part of the peoples called Goths, but their are not "the Goths" for sure, the classical Goths. Their origin is not cert one, the story with Scandza is more like inspired by Eneida of VErgilius, with Romans come from Troy, is a kind of fabulous begining from some people of person, but with little conection with reality. There is no archeologic evidence to prouve for sure an origin of Goths from Scandinavia, but we have cultures as Santana de Mures/ Cerneackhov who are clearly established as being of Goths. About Dacians and Goths, i didnt say nothing about physical appearence, but about physical presence of Dacians among the Goths, dont know why you still say about appearence, of course they are looking the same probably. And i said about Dacian heritage, because Goths themselves related with this, and consider Dacian/Getian history as their own history, and in Spain for ex., as Issidor from Sevilla said, the nobles needed to prouve, or at least afirm that their ancestors was Getians ( Dacians ) and names as Dicineus, Buruista or Zalmoxis was used and know by them. What influence you want more ? As well, in ancient times, Goths was never considered as Germanic peoples, but most of the time they was named Getae too. As i said, the opinion of them being a truly Germanic peoples appear later, in medieval time and in romantic times, with appearence of nationalism too. I still wait to tell me when appear first time the so called text of Goths ( no from which period are considered to be ), germanic ones, and if you know when the german language was established ( Martin Luther for ex. use a lot of latin words, in his Bible, and german language as we know today, was a creation from XVIII century of Adelung ).
Teodoric the Great make a church too, and i will find some pics from there, where the 3 "kings" from the East, who bring gifts to Jesus when was born, are represented as Dacian Tarabostes ( Nobles ), and the same king is the one who asked Cassiodorus to write a history of his peoples, called De origine actibusque GETARUM ( and not Gothorum, as some may expected ). This show in my opinion, that Goths was a mix of different peoples, Germanic, Dacian, Sarmatian, but who have a strong Dacian ( Getian ) heritage, among the Germanic one.
As well, Goths appear quite late in hisotry, for ex. Dio Cassius in III cen. BC doesnt mention them, and even later, they are named both Getae and Goths ( Get and Got ), so what you said about them as being present even before Herodotus era is more like a presumtion, then a real fact.

[diegis]

Hi Razvan,

No Razvan, I did not say that the Goths lied. I hope you just misunderstood me, I do not like to be accused of keeping double standards.
I never said the Goths lied. I said that the Goths meant a different tribe. The Goths claimed that the Gaets were (among) their ancestors. But I dispute that the Goths meant the Getae/Dacians. That is a modern interpretation which I do not share.


I agree fully that the Goths were formed by a mix of peoples, and I have no doubt that people from the Dacian tribes also became part of the Gothic enthnogenesis.

I just dispute that the Goths were influenced by either Dacian culture or Dacian 'prestige'. There is no evidence for that whatsoever.

Hi Robert

Well, i am sorry if i offended you, probably i exaggerated, i am sure you have no intention in doing that, and you are a very correct person. And well, there is for sure different interpretations of things, since there is not a clear established history, with too many clear prouves. Anyway, i do consider that Goths was influenced by Dacian/Getian cultue or prestige, giving the fact that they considered Dacian history as their own one, the Dacian ceramic type was found in the archeological sites referable to Goths, and practicaly all ancient writers mix the term Get with Got, without relating the last with Germanic peoples

[Alanus]

Hello, Diegis

I think we're starting to go round-Robin, but let us try one more time.

Their origin is not cert one, the story with Scandza is more like inspired by Eneida of VErgilius, with Romans come from Troy, is a kind of fabulous begining from some people of person, but with little conection with reality. There is no archeologic evidence to prouve for sure an origin of Goths from Scandinavia, but we have cultures as Santana de Mures/ Cerneackhov who are clearly established as being of Goths.

There is longstanding lingual evidence that the Goths came from Scandia, as in various Gaet/Got geographical locations that go back to 400 BC. No doubt, an archaeological strata at Santana de Mures might show presence of the Goths. But they were migratory, and left traces in several areas along a long journey.

And i said about Dacian heritage, because Goths themselves related with this, and consider Dacian/Getian history as their own history, and in Spain for ex., as Issidor from Sevilla said, the nobles needed to prouve, or at least afirm that their ancestors was Getians ( Dacians ) and names as Dicineus, Buruista or Zalmoxis was used and know by them. What influence you want more ?

Personal names are often borrowed and then passed down through families. My name is Alan, but I am not an Alan. My name is Campbell, but I am more Italian than Scottish.

As well, in ancient times, Goths was never considered as Germanic peoples, but most of the time they was named Getae too. As i said, the opinion of them being a truly Germanic peoples appear later, in medieval time and in romantic times, with appearence of nationalism too. I still wait to tell me when appear first time the so called text of Goths ( no from which period are considered to be ), germanic ones, and if you know when the german language was established ( Martin Luther for ex. use a lot of latin words, in his Bible, and german language as we know today, was a creation from XVIII century of Adelung ).

A large portion of the ancient world was called "Getae," and 99.9 percent of it was not Dacian. Let us use "Massa-getae" as an example. It first shows up in Herodotus. The language of the Massagetae (found in inscriptions at Issyk Kul) was Khotani Saka (a Northeastern Iranian dialect). This is about as far from Dacian as we might get--- about 1,500 miles to the east. Much, later Procopius speaks again of the Massagetae, but he is talking about White Huns, a Turkic-speaking people who arrived in history in the same geographical location as the Saka Massagetae. In this light, we have Asiatic, Scytho-Sarmatian, Dacian, and Germanic, peoples all called some form of "getae." The term became too vague long before it reached the pen of Jordanes.

Gothic, as a Germanic language, shows up long before medieval times. It was the first Germanic language recorded in detail, sometime around AD 360 and long before any Western Germanic language was written down. It was formed into the Gothic Bible by Bishop Ulfilas ((died in 383), a Crimean Greutungus who was not influenced by Dacian culture in any fashion. This language was surprisingly modern, very close to Old English, and contained no Dacian linguistics. I suggest that you read Mallory and Wolfram, and Google the phrase "Gothic Bible" on the internet.

Teodoric the Great make a church too, and i will find some pics from there, where the 3 "kings" from the East, who bring gifts to Jesus when was born, are represented as Dacian Tarabostes ( Nobles ), and the same king is the one who asked Cassiodorus to write a history of his peoples, called De origine actibusque GETARUM ( and not Gothorum, as some may expected ). This show in my opinion, that Goths was a mix of different peoples, Germanic, Dacian, Sarmatian, but who have a strong Dacian ( Getian ) heritage, among the Germanic one.
As well, Goths appear quite late in hisotry, for ex. Dio Cassius in III cen. BC doesnt mention them, and even later, they are named both Getae and Goths ( Get and Got ), so what you said about them as being present even before Herodotus era is more like a presumtion, then a real fact.

When the Goths finally arrived back in Western Europe, they carried a heavy Alanic (Sarmatian) influence, especially in their arts, now known as the Black Sea Style. This practical art was copied by the Romans, Franks, and Alamanni... but this does not mean the Romans, Franks, and Alamanni were Goths, aka Dacians. (Do you see my point?) No doubt, the Goths were influenced by the Dacians, shown in the mosaics at Ravenna; but this artistic example was "borrowed" in the same way that the Goths borrowed from the Alans, in the same way the Romans, Franks, and Alamanni, borrowed from the Goths.

The Goths appear early in history, as mentioned in an earlier post. The were recorded by Pythias, and then Pliny, as "Gutones." Both tribes were mentioned by Tacitus as the "Gothini" and "Gotones." I ernestly hope that you understand that I wish not to offend you, but the lifestyle, art, and language, of the Goths was Germanic before they encountered the Dacians. And their major ethnos was still Germanic after they absorbed Dacian influences into their culture.

[diegis]

Hello Alanus

Well, yes, i think we go around on the same arguments ( sorry, never heard of your experesion ), without any of us go too deep in the other words. Well, yes, i agree that Goths had an important germanic part and heritage, but what i said is that they wasnt a 100 % germanic tribe, and they was in their classic times a mix of Germanic, Dacian ( Getian, if you wish, since Dacians was the first Getae, or the original Getae of ancient times ), Sarmatians and who know maybe even other peoples. What i say is that "Gutones" tribes you said was mentioned is not the same with lather Gots/Goths, even if probably was a part of this peoples, and Goths was a more complex peoples then they was reduced or considered by some, as simply some disaperead germanic tribes. About languages and inscriptions now, well, you mention the Massa-Getae tribe, and the fact they was away from original Dacian homeland, or core, and some inscriptions was found in a north iranian dialect. Well, this can be interpretated, because the name of the peoples was the one atributed by ancient greeks to Dacians, and Jordanes himself consider them Gots ( meaning Getae/Dacians ), based on probably the many other previous historians he inspire from. It is know that Dacians was not some peoples who write anything from their history ( much probably because of religion ), but was found some inscription on latin, made by them, so what, we can think now they was some latin peoples ? The same, maybe Massa Getaes was influenced by iranians to write down some things, we dont know for sure. A long period of time english, germans, polish peoples use latin for writings, as church language and as official language at court, but none of them was latin. The same about "Gothic bible", i find a little strange the fact that Goths of Teodoric for ex., or even Jordanes, didnt use gotic language, but latin. Is a little strange that that was the only ( well, one of the very few ) text write in that language, and it appear much later, in medieval times, in Germany. Not at Vatican, or else. I dont say i make a supposition is a text write in medieval times, and atributed to Gots, i just find this a little strange. However, as i said, i agree that Gots had a big germanic part, probably coming from that Gotones you said, but they was for sure a mix of several peoples, including an important Dacian component and influence, in their "classic" times.

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

About languages and inscriptions now, well, you mention the Massa-Getae tribe, and the fact they was away from original Dacian homeland, or core, and some inscriptions was found in a north iranian dialect. Well, this can be interpretated, because the name of the peoples was the one atributed by ancient greeks to Dacians, and Jordanes himself consider them Gots ( meaning Getae/Dacians ), based on probably the many other previous historians he inspire from. It is know that Dacians was not some peoples who write anything from their history ( much probably because of religion ), but was found some inscription on latin, made by them, so what, we can think now they was some latin peoples ? The same, maybe Massa Getaes was influenced by iranians to write down some things, we dont know for sure.

Or maybe you have it the other way around? Maybe the original homeland of the Massagetae was Iran? I don't know this, but it's possible.

This thread is demonstrating what I have learned; if you try to determine the origins of the ethnonym "Getae," you'll end up more confused than you were at the start. :wink:

"Dacii" is, by comparison, easy to get a handle on. We know where that term came from and what it means. But "Getae" is enigmatic and, frankly, frustrating.