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

[Alanus]

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: