Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Getae and Dacians? Are they the same? Or is this unknowable?
#46
Quote:
diegis:aa5t297y Wrote: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.

Justin, you have hit the nail on the head. Getae was a vague term used to describe a large number of dissimilar peoples. To Diegis, it should be noted that Bishop Ulfilas wrote the Gothic Bible in the language of his own people as a GIFT to their heritage. He did not choose Latin, the most prevelent language in Europe; nor did he choose Dacian (perhaps close to a dead language).

Through archaeology and steppe art, we know that the Massagetae were Northeast Iranian in culture and language. In the bronze age they moved east across southern Russia; and by the iron age they were well established in the Altai, where they left numerous traces. They then moved southwest across the Jungar Pendi and along the north of the Tian Shan. Russian archaeologists have determined that many individuals had significant Asiatic features. They became known to the Persians as the Saka or Sacae, and then called the Massagetae by Herodotus. When we reach Dio and then Ammianus, we hear statements like "The Alans were formerly known as the Massagetae," and "The Alans are the Massagetae."

The Saka/Massagetae/Alan culture always was Iranian and always spoke Northeastern Iranian. These are not my observations but come from ancient authors (including the Chinese) and any one of a huge number of Russian archaeologists. And there is no way that they were ever remotely related to the Dacians (other than being Indo-European). I'm sorry, Diegis, but all accounts-- historical, linguisticlly, and archaeological-- place the Massagetae/Alans as Iranian-speaking peoples who were formed in the very meeting-point of Siberia, Mongolia, and China. :wink:
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#47
Quote:Through archaeology and steppe art, we know that the Massagetae were Northeast Iranian in culture and language. In the bronze age they moved east across southern Russia; and by the iron age they were well established in the Altai, where they left numerous traces.

So we can be sure of three things:
1- The Massagetae originally came from Iran.
and
2- A number of Iranian tribes moved up into the steppes sometime around of the 1st millenium BC. Some went northeast like the Massagetae, some went northwest like the Sarmatians.
3- There was a tribe Herodotus called the Thyssagetae living somewhere near the southern tip of the Ural mountains.

Maybe there were a few different "-Getae" tribes that went separate ways when leaving the Iranian heartland, and one of them ended up near the Danube?
And the Dacii may have been a different tribe? Maybe the Getae became assimilated into the (more established?) Dacii, and their ancestral name fell out of use during the five-or-so centuries that passed between the time Herodotus wrote and Trajan's conquest?

Or maybe there's nothing to this, and they are actually just two names for precisely the same people?
Or maybe this is unknowable?
I'm leaning toward the latter.

Quote:They then moved southwest across the Jungar Pendi and along the north of the Tian Shan. Russian archaeologists have determined that many individuals had significant Asiatic features. They became known to the Persians as the Saka or Sacae, and then called the Massagetae by Herodotus. When we reach Dio and then Ammianus, we hear statements like "The Alans were formerly known as the Massagetae," and "The Alans are the Massagetae."

The Saka/Massagetae/Alan culture always was Iranian and always spoke Northeastern Iranian.

And just to add further confusion, in The Vandalic War Procopius wrote "the Massagetae whom they now call Huns."
Reply
#48
Quote:
Alanus:2phkyf36 Wrote:Through archaeology and steppe art, we know that the Massagetae were Northeast Iranian in culture and language. In the bronze age they moved east across southern Russia; and by the iron age they were well established in the Altai, where they left numerous traces.

So we can be sure of three things:
1- The Massagetae originally came from Iran.
and
2- A number of Iranian tribes moved up into the steppes sometime around of the 1st millenium BC. Some went northeast like the Massagetae, some went northwest like the Sarmatians.
3- There was a tribe Herodotus called the Thyssagetae living somewhere near the southern tip of the Ural mountains.

Maybe there were a few different "-Getae" tribes that went separate ways when leaving the Iranian heartland, and one of them ended up near the Danube?
And the Dacii may have been a different tribe? Maybe the Getae became assimilated into the (more established?) Dacii, and their ancestral name fell out of use during the five-or-so centuries that passed between the time Herodotus wrote and Trajan's conquest?

Or maybe there's nothing to this, and they are actually just two names for precisely the same people?
Or maybe this is unknowable?
I'm leaning toward the latter.

Quote:They then moved southwest across the Jungar Pendi and along the north of the Tian Shan. Russian archaeologists have determined that many individuals had significant Asiatic features. They became known to the Persians as the Saka or Sacae, and then called the Massagetae by Herodotus. When we reach Dio and then Ammianus, we hear statements like "The Alans were formerly known as the Massagetae," and "The Alans are the Massagetae."

The Saka/Massagetae/Alan culture always was Iranian and always spoke Northeastern Iranian.

And just to add further confusion, in The Vandalic War Procopius wrote "the Massagetae whom they now call Huns."

Hello Justin of New Yorkii,

This appears as more or less the scenario, according to archaeology. But do remember that there was no "Iranian heartland" and the Massagetae/Alans were not related to the Iranians, aka Persians. It's better to think of the original geographical location (southern Urals to Caspia) as the "Indo-European homeland," since the peoples who migrated from it included not just Iranians, but Indus and Europeans. The closest tribes to the Massagetae and Thyssegetae were the Scythians and Sauromatae, the last of whom Herodotus explains as marrying "Amazons" (a female Massagetae war-band.) The Scyths faded, and the Sauromatae (mostly Iazyges) moved up onto the Hungarian Plain (the last steppe).

There can hardly be any correlation between the Massagetae and the Dacians. The Massagetae/Alans controlled the steppe and built a huge empire (coveted by Cyrus) which lasted for six hundred years. The Dacii were a small tribe (in the greater scheme). Perhaps a forebearer of terrors to come, the lead Alan groups-- the Roxolani and Taifali-- arrived in Dacia after the Romans trounced it. Combined with the Goths, the Taifali and Roxolani, "devistated" Dacia. I cannot see how the Dacian culture could have been influential after the second century.

Procopius was referring not to the Black Huns but the White Huns (Ephthalites) when he called them "Massagetae." They were living in the old domains of the original Saka/Massagetae near Bactria and Sogdiana.
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#49
Quote:
Justin of the New Yorkii:gn1c15er Wrote:
Alanus:gn1c15er Wrote:Or maybe there's nothing to this, and they are actually just two names for precisely the same people?
Or maybe this is unknowable?
I'm leaning toward the latter.

[
There can hardly be any correlation between the Massagetae and the Dacians. The Massagetae/Alans controlled the steppe and built a huge empire (coveted by Cyrus) which lasted for six hundred years. The Dacii were a small tribe (in the greater scheme). Perhaps a forebearer of terrors to come, the lead Alan groups-- the Roxolani and Taifali-- arrived in Dacia after the Romans trounced it. Combined with the Goths, the Taifali and Roxolani, "devistated" Dacia. I cannot see how the Dacian culture could have been influential after the second century.

Procopius was referring not to the Black Huns but the White Huns (Ephthalites) when he called them "Massagetae." They were living in the old domains of the original Saka/Massagetae near Bactria and Sogdiana.

Well, dont have too much time now, i will reply just to few questions. First, Roxolani was around Dacia before Daco-Roman wars, they was used by king Decebal as auxiliar heavy cavalry in first war with Traian, but in the second they lose the will to fight. And when Gots ( in my opinion a combination of several peoples including Dacians ) start to attack Roman borders, they do that along Dacians attacks ( the so called Free Dacians, and Dacians tribes as Costobocii and Carpii - the ones with the name related with Carpatian mountains name ), as i said in time of Constantin the Great he even take the name "Dacicus Maximus" after repeled a Dacian attack in south of Danube. As well, Dacians was not quite a small tribe ( remember what said Herodotus about the numbers of Thracians ), but they was the only one "barbarians" who make an empire in Europe ( under Burebista ), who controled a teritory from up to southern Baltic Sea teritory in north to Haemus ( Balkan ) mountains in south, and from close to Crimeea in east ( where they partialy exterminate, partialy subdue the Bastarnae, as archeology shows , and push deep in stepes the sarmatians, who was later used as auxiliars ) up to Danube springs in west where archeological finds was done in today Slovakia, and lately i saw Austria too is considered their border back then, but according with Jordanes they "burned" too the Germans teritories where in Jordanes times was Franks, so i think somewhere as today Bavaria or/and Thuringia, Caesar saying too that Germans are neighbours with Dacians in Hercinic Forrest. This empire was powerful enough to defeat Romans ( Caius Hybrida ), to ocupy all the greek cities from Black Sea, to practicly take out from area any significant Celtic presence, and plunder at will Macedonia. More then that, they interfere in Rome internal affairs, negociating with Pompeius against Caesar, in the time when Vercingetorix for ex. was executed at Tullianum prison. As well, to defeat Decebal, Traian used, at the peak of the Empire power, the biggest army ever used against a foreign enemy, during 2 wars, each of them of around 1 year, and without conquering all Dacian teritories. Dacians haved fortresses with original, special walls ( called "murus dacicus" by romans ), paved roads and aqueducts, and was one of the very few nations during ancient times who used war machines, for ex. Even the fact that Traian took the troops from Germania and Britania, leaving those borders practicly unprotected, show who was the greatest menance for the Roman Empire.
About Dacian culture beeing "destroyed", well, this is wrong too, most of all folklore and mythology of today Romanians is considered by ethnologist as coming from Dacians.
As well, the name Getians, used by ancient greeks, refer first time to Dacians, and most all the scholars consider they was one and the same peoples. However, the fact is that at a point, some other peoples was called like that, probably based on vague similarities ( archer cavalry for ex. ), but when we refer strictly as europeans area, the term Get/Getae is used for the same peoples also know as Dacians.
Razvan A.
Reply
#50
Quote: Well, dont have too much time now, i will reply just to few questions. First, Roxolani was around Dacia before Daco-Roman wars, they was used by king Decebal as auxiliar heavy cavalry in first war with Traian, but in the second they lose the will to fight. And when Gots ( in my opinion a combination of several peoples including Dacians ) start to attack Roman borders, they do that along Dacians attacks ( the so called Free Dacians, and Dacians tribes as Costobocii and Carpii - the ones with the name related with Carpatian mountains name ), as i said in time of Constantin the Great he even take the name "Dacicus Maximus" after repeled a Dacian attack in south of Danube. As well, Dacians was not quite a small tribe ( remember what said Herodotus about the numbers of Thracians ), but they was the only one "barbarians" who make an empire in Europe ( under Burebista)... This empire was powerful enough to defeat Romans ( Caius Hybrida ), to ocupy all the greek cities from Black Sea, to practicly take out from area any significant Celtic presence, and plunder at will Macedonia. More then that, they interfere in Rome internal affairs, negociating with Pompeius against Caesar, in the time when Vercingetorix for ex. was executed at Tullianum prison. As well, to defeat Decebal, Traian used, at the peak of the Empire power, the biggest army ever used against a foreign enemy, during 2 wars, each of them of around 1 year... Even the fact that Traian took the troops from Germania and Britania, leaving those borders practicly unprotected, show who was the greatest menance for the Roman Empire.

Hello, Diegis
Yes, the Roxolani (aka "light Alans") arrived at the lower Danube in the early to mid first century (possibly before). Your considerable knowledge upon Dacian deeds arrives in the same early period, from Caesar up to Trajan. But Jordanes was not a particularly great historian.

In later times, I would imagine the only reason that Constantine the Great called himself "Dacius Maximus" was his attempt to compare himself to Trajan. I applaude your studies, very thorough, but after the Dacian Wars (early 2nd century), the Dacians slip several notches-- and as I said (I think I said) they were no longer a major influence or great threat to the Roman Empire. 8)

Quote: About Dacian culture beeing "destroyed", well, this is wrong too, most of all folklore and mythology of today Romanians is considered by ethnologist as coming from Dacians.
As well, the name Getians, used by ancient greeks, refer first time to Dacians, and most all the scholars consider they was one and the same peoples. However, the fact is that at a point, some other peoples was called like that, probably based on vague similarities ( archer cavalry for ex. ), but when we refer strictly as europeans area, the term Get/Getae is used for the same peoples also know as Dacians.

I did not say their culture was destroyed. I said Dacia was destroyed. I agree with you (the BIG Point I have been making all along) that other people were called Getae in one form or another, but I disagree that the term held a different meaning in Europe than it did in Asia. Getae is Getae is Getae in its great ambiguity. Smile
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#51
Quote:
diegis:19tfls6w Wrote:Well, dont have too much time now, i will reply just to few questions. First, Roxolani was around Dacia before Daco-Roman wars, they was used by king Decebal as auxiliar heavy cavalry in first war with Traian, but in the second they lose the will to fight. And when Gots ( in my opinion a combination of several peoples including Dacians ) start to attack Roman borders, they do that along Dacians attacks ( the so called Free Dacians, and Dacians tribes as Costobocii and Carpii - the ones with the name related with Carpatian mountains name ), as i said in time of Constantin the Great he even take the name "Dacicus Maximus" after repeled a Dacian attack in south of Danube. As well, Dacians was not quite a small tribe ( remember what said Herodotus about the numbers of Thracians ), but they was the only one "barbarians" who make an empire in Europe ( under Burebista)... This empire was powerful enough to defeat Romans ( Caius Hybrida ), to ocupy all the greek cities from Black Sea, to practicly take out from area any significant Celtic presence, and plunder at will Macedonia. More then that, they interfere in Rome internal affairs, negociating with Pompeius against Caesar, in the time when Vercingetorix for ex. was executed at Tullianum prison. As well, to defeat Decebal, Traian used, at the peak of the Empire power, the biggest army ever used against a foreign enemy, during 2 wars, each of them of around 1 year... Even the fact that Traian took the troops from Germania and Britania, leaving those borders practicly unprotected, show who was the greatest menance for the Roman Empire.

Hello, Diegis
Yes, the Roxolani (aka "light Alans") arrived at the lower Danube in the early to mid first century (possibly before). Your considerable knowledge upon Dacian deeds arrives in the same early period, from Caesar up to Trajan. But Jordanes was not a particularly great historian.

In later times, I would imagine the only reason that Constantine the Great called himself "Dacius Maximus" was his attempt to compare himself to Trajan. I applaude your studies, very thorough, but after the Dacian Wars (early 2nd century), the Dacians slip several notches-- and as I said (I think I said) they were no longer a major influence or great threat to the Roman Empire. 8)

Quote: About Dacian culture beeing "destroyed", well, this is wrong too, most of all folklore and mythology of today Romanians is considered by ethnologist as coming from Dacians.
As well, the name Getians, used by ancient greeks, refer first time to Dacians, and most all the scholars consider they was one and the same peoples. However, the fact is that at a point, some other peoples was called like that, probably based on vague similarities ( archer cavalry for ex. ), but when we refer strictly as europeans area, the term Get/Getae is used for the same peoples also know as Dacians.

I did not say their culture was destroyed. I said Dacia was destroyed. I agree with you (the BIG Point I have been making all along) that other people were called Getae in one form or another, but I disagree that the term held a different meaning in Europe than it did in Asia. Getae is Getae is Getae in its great ambiguity. Smile

Well, yes, after Traian wars, Dacians wasnt at the same level as before, of course, but they didnt disapear, and still "make troubels" to the Romans, but they ceased to be a rival of Romans, agree.
About Getians and Dacians, we know when Get term was used for Dacians, making some corelations, as the names was Dacian ( ex. Burebista, Deceneu ), the god was Zalmoxes, the archeology show that, etc., so when Traian doctor, Critias, write a book about Traian wars, called "Getica", we know for sure those Getae was the same peoples with Daci, for ex., but when Jordanes mention the MasaGetae we are not that sure anymore.
Razvan A.
Reply
#52
Quote:
Alanus:25tmu5bn Wrote:
diegis:25tmu5bn Wrote:Well, yes, after Traian wars, Dacians wasnt at the same level as before, of course, but they didnt disapear, and still "make troubels" to the Romans, but they ceased to be a rival of Romans, agree.
About Getians and Dacians, we know when Get term was used for Dacians, making some corelations, as the names was Dacian ( ex. Burebista, Deceneu ), the god was Zalmoxes, the archeology show that, etc., so when Traian doctor, Critias, write a book about Traian wars, called "Getica", we know for sure those Getae was the same peoples with Daci, for ex., but when Jordanes mention the MasaGetae we are not that sure anymore.

Hailog Diegis,

I believe that "later" ancient authors (Crirtias to Jordanes) followed the principles and nomenclature set by Herodotus. When we hear that the Getae were the "most numerous of peoples" other than the Indians, we can see the reasoning. The ambiguity of the term places various Getae within a wide geographical range. The Massagetae and Thyssegetae were branches of the Saka, and the Saka were formed as a culture in the Altai, especailly around the river Yenessy near the Mongolian border. If we encompass all these various "Getic" peoples, from Mongolia to Rumania, we have the group called "most numerous." The Dacians were a part of this larger cultural group; and we see this in various customs such as their use of the dragon wind-sock.

I hope you see what I'm trying to explain. This group, through language and custom, were the Getae to Herodotus but they were simply one of the three branches of Indo-European culture. The other two branches were the Indians (Hindus) and the Europeans (Greeks, Romans, Celts, etc.). Therefore the Dacians were Getae, but not all Getae were Dacians. Big Grin
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#53
Quote:Hailog Diegis,

I believe that "later" ancient authors (Crirtias to Jordanes) followed the principles and nomenclature set by Herodotus. When we hear that the Getae were the "most numerous of peoples" other than the Indians, we can see the reasoning. The ambiguity of the term places various Getae within a wide geographical range. The Massagetae and Thyssegetae were branches of the Saka, and the Saka were formed as a culture in the Altai, especailly around the river Yenessy near the Mongolian border. If we encompass all these various "Getic" peoples, from Mongolia to Rumania, we have the group called "most numerous." The Dacians were a part of this larger cultural group; and we see this in various customs such as their use of the dragon wind-sock.

I hope you see what I'm trying to explain. This group, through language and custom, were the Getae to Herodotus but they were simply one of the three branches of Indo-European culture. The other two branches were the Indians (Hindus) and the Europeans (Greeks, Romans, Celts, etc.). Therefore the Dacians were Getae, but not all Getae were Dacians. Big Grin

Salve Alanus

I think you made some small confusions here. First, Herodotus said that "Thracians" are the most numerous peoples on Earth, after Indians, so not Getae. He just said that Getae are the most wise and brave from the Thracians. The confusion betwen Getae-Dacians and "other Getae" maight be because some similar way of fighting for ex., as archer cavalry, dont know, and Herodotus didnt explain from where the name come. Geto-Dacians was the memeber of "european" branch of so called "indo-europeans", thats sure, i didnt hear until now that indo-europeans being split in 3, Getae, Indians and Europeans. I hear about "arians" ( the "indians" ones who write the Veda ), iranians, greeks, latins, celts, germanics, and, the first ones formed as a distinct peoples among this "indo-europeans" was proto-thracians, who was split in some peoples as cimmerians, phrygians, getae-dacians and southern thracians ( called simple - thracians ).
Razvan A.
Reply
#54
Quote:Geto-Dacians was the memeber of "european" branch of so called "indo-europeans", thats sure, i didnt hear until now that indo-europeans being split in 3, Getae, Indians and Europeans. I hear about "arians" ( the "indians" ones who write the Veda ), iranians, greeks, latins, celts, germanics, and, the first ones formed as a distinct peoples among this "indo-europeans" was proto-thracians, who was split in some peoples as cimmerians, phrygians, getae-dacians and southern thracians ( called simple - thracians ).

Hello Diegis,
I stand corrected, a slip of the pen. The Dacians spoke an Indo-European language that fell into the European structure. But, the cataloging is probematical and places the Thracians and Dacians on this side. The Cimmerians and Phrygians spoke Indo-Iranian, a second language group. In this group we also find the Saka, Massagetae, Alans, and Persians-- in other words, those who spoke Iranian languages. The third and distinct group (perhaps the oldest) were the Indus, the peoples who left the "homeland" to settle below the Indu Kush. I have mixed thoughts on the term "Arians," not terribly politically-correct today. All the tribes and peoples who spoke (and still speak) an Indo-European language could be termed "Arians"... even South and Meso American Indians. Confusedhock:

The "homeland" theory for the majority of these tribes (excluding the native Americans) places it either in the Lavant or in the area between the river Don and Caspia, below and just westward of the Urals. This is not a bloodline (genetic) association, but only of language. We cannot call "proto-Thracian" the "first," if such a language existed. Those speakers who traveled the furtherest were the Celts (all the way to Ireland) and the Saka/Massagetae/Alans who went as far as Mongolia and China. Eastern speakers also included the Tokarians, Sogdians and Bactrians. The Tokarian "A" language was the closest to Celtic, and Tokarian "B" was still spoken until around AD 600. Strangely enough, the "tribal memory" of the progenitor tribe was recorded by the Celtic Britons who referred to "Alanus" as the "first man in Europe" (in other words, the first Indo-European man... the language progenitor).

So, there are three Indo-European language groups, although Indo-Iranian is often considered part of the Indo-European group. None of this explains the Greek term "getae;" but I still contend that it is too old, and too ambiguous, to be accepted as a definitive term for the Dacians. 8)
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#55
Quote:You may find by Ton Derks and Nico Roymans, Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity. The Role of Power and Tradition useful.
There's now an online review - or better, summary: here.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#56
Quote:
Jona Lendering:2dae8qkh Wrote:You may find by Ton Derks and Nico Roymans, Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity. The Role of Power and Tradition useful.
There's now an online review - or better, summary: here.

Thanks for the link! Now I have something to read on my lunch break.

In this economy, $65 is a lot of money.
Reply
#57
I hope I'm not showing my ignorance with this ( and about half way through this thread my head was spinning) but I would like to add that since several times Geats were mentioned (not to be confused with the Dacian issue) as being from Scandanavia, right? I recall that reading Beowulf
the Danes referred to themselves as Geats. Maybe I digress..............
Very interesting thread, though. I learned alot already.
Andy Booker

Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs

Andronikos of Athens
Reply
#58
Quote:I hope I'm not showing my ignorance with this ( and about half way through this thread my head was spinning) but I would like to add that since several times Geats were mentioned (not to be confused with the Dacian issue) as being from Scandanavia, right? I recall that reading Beowulf
the Danes referred to themselves as Geats. Maybe I digress..............
Very interesting thread, though. I learned alot already.

Good point, Gaivus

Chances are-- quite good actually-- that the Goths and Geats of Beowulf had common ancestors. The connection between the Goths and these "northmen" hasn't been figured out yet. But there is a connection. It shows up in the very late Icelandic songs-sagas in the mythical legends of Hervor and King Hedrick. The Hervor saga gives us the sword Tyrfing-- exactly the name that the Western Goths called themselves, the Tyrfingi. Hervor retrieves the sword from the grave of her father Arjantar or Argantor. The sword rises from the ground to her hand. And two generations later, a second Hervor commands a Gothic fort and is killed by the Huns. The symbolism and close Gothic connections in these verses allude to some ancient connection between the two tribes.

(Not to mention other strange allusions: The sword Tryfing and Excalibur are almost identical. And Argantar is incredibly close to Argante/Aryante the Lady of the Lake. This is either coincidence or a possible Gothic connection to the old British tales of a hero who must remain nameless in these RAT threads.) :wink:

This does show, once again, that the use of the term Getae/Geat/Gaet has a very old origin and is not exclusive to any one tribe, including Dacians. Big Grin
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#59
Wow, very long post.

Some remarks:

The Persians call Saka all the iranian nomads also the european scythians, for convention the scholars call scythians those European, and Saces those oriental, subdivided in Massagetae, Daheens, Saces (the tribes near the bactriana), siberians scythians tribes, the kanju zone tribes, possible the wusun/asiens, possible the kushans (no sure the language spoke from this people). The saka (and scythians and sarmatians) languages are told oriental iranian languages, the persian and the mede are western iranian language.

The Alains was probably formed from the mix of sarmatians elements (Aorses?) with new coming Saka elements

The oriental proto-iranian formation area is considerated the andronovo bronze-age culture area at east of Volga just to Ob or Jenissei (depending from the autheur) and central Asia.

For the cimmerians nothing is sure nor the language nor the the ethnic base. Many scholars link the historical cimmerians (which appears only south of Caucasus) with the european steppe iron age cultures of Kamychevakha/Tchornohorivka and Novotcherkassk (born from bronze age Timber-grave culture), but not exist sure element. A theory want the cimmerians are nomadic thracians other they are iranians or they are thracians with a iranian leadership. A interesting theory want that the western iranian (persians and medes) derived from Timber-grave culture and not from Andronovo, and arrive in Iran from steppes north of Caucasus and not from central Asia, so the cimmerians should be the last wave of the same tribe group.

The thracian is considerated a language with links with slavic and baltic languages, not clear the link with the daco-getians languages, probably they are very far dialects of same language or very likely but different languages.
"Each historical fact needs to be considered, insofar as possible, no with hindsight and following abstract universal principles, but in the context of own proper age and environment" Aldo A. Settia

a.k.a Davide Dall\'Angelo




SISMA- Società Italiana per gli Studi Militari Antichi
Reply
#60
Mitra, you are fairly-much on the money.
The Alans were the earlier Massagetae who, in turn, branched from the Saka ("tall hat Scythians"), all of whom originated in the Altai but came from the bronze age Androvono culture. I think the Aorsi were also Alanic, as were the Taifali and Roxolani ("light Alans"). All had an Asiatic admixture and carried fairly long swords.

The other group, the western Scythians, produced the earliest "Sauromatae" through an Alanic infusion (Herodotus called the Alanic women "Amazons"). We find the Iazyges in this group. They used shorter, Scythian-styled, swords.

I'm pressed for time. More later.
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply


Forum Jump: