11-28-2009, 04:42 PM
Salut Dragos
Let me see if i get it right. You imply that what Herodotus writed about Zalmoxis is in fact a similar thing with what, sorry, dont remember the name now, write about Frodo and his ring, a fantastic story? And everyone else "eat" that, century after century, as being a real thing?
I agree that we dont know too much about him, and probably greeks presented their knowledge about him(a limited one), enriched by what they added from something they believe is similar in their culture, all this presented for greeks "readers", let say. And yes, there are many fantastic stories about Alex the Great, (btw, never heard of those "nagomudri", but maybe i didnt read the right, or all, legends about him), but that doesnt mean that Alexander is a fictional character who wasnt in India at all. Is normal (especialy for that times) to "enflourish" the life or actions on some personages, agree, but we can make a idea, at least, about its existence.
Now about Julian the Apostate writing. I suppose you know better, and Iamblichus was one of the writers he liked (sorry, my latin is not verry good, i rely more on the similarities with romanian), but the information that Zalmoxe teached the Getae how to be, or that they are, immortal, appear to all authors who mentioned them, so i still he took that quote from Traian own writings, Traian who knew as well the reallity "from the field".
About Zalmoxis, i still believe the most probable (thus we cant be 100% sure) is the one that he was covered at birth by a bear skin (sorry, i cant find the quote now), bear skin who, according with that greek author resemble the name of Zalmoxis. I know there was several attempts to rely his name with other words, but i think we can be sure of any of that.
About the Kogaion and kaga, well, is possible your explanation too, to be a mix of older Zalmoxis story with a "new" stuff Strabo hear about Getae, but is still a material evidence of a place related with zamolxian religion, since we can be sure on any hypothesis. As well Strabo clearly knew some more detailed stuff about Dacians (and was greeks who worked for Burebista, especialy after dacian conquest of Black Sea greeks cities, and was in greco-roman world with missions and so, as well possible greeks engeeners was used in early stages of construction of some dacian fortreses, so he have some first hand sources for informations), he mention even a number of their army, some internal laws (see the problem with wine), and the campangnes against celts for ex. (he is the one who said, among few others, that celts from some areas was whipped out, etc.and archeology show he was right). So, i believe that Strabo knew from sources contemporary with his period that dacians worship Zalmoxis, on the top of a holly mountain called Kogaion (which Herodotus didnt know), but since he obviously didnt know when and how dacians start to worship Zalmoxis, he rely on Herodotus story (and from "nationalistic" reasons he mention just the variant with Zalmoxis as slave of Pythagora).
Now, about "dacomania/thracomania". I said that i know their exaggerations, some are quite laughable, but i never based my assumptions or informations on peoples like dr. (in physiscs or so) Savescu. I didnt know too much stuff about Dan Oltean, but seem that he obviously make too some mistakes or exaggerations, or jusy harder to prouve afirmations. But in the same time i try to avoid either the rigidity of some others stuck in their views, or the so called "demythization" category, who obviously exaggerate the things in the other side, and are no better then "protochronists" (who, btw, i think started with Nicolae Densusianu or even B.P. Hasdeu, way before even "invention" of comunism, or aparition in our country).
As you see, my link show an article of the head of ethnologists team who worked for Romanian Ethnographic Atlas, for more then 30 years, and in almost 600 villages all over the country, in a period when for sure peoples still keep and know the old traditions. And this is the most qualified person to talk about the subject (as mythology and folklore having deep dacian roots). He is a very respected scholar who base his work (his team wok) on field researches, and cant be at all compared with some physician who developed a hobby for ancient history. Ofcourse, he didnt mention Zalmoxis for ex (and is probably impossible to make any detailed description of his cult, ofcourse), but from what he write there, some believes similar with what we know about them, survived up to the XX century in folklore and mythology.
Let me see if i get it right. You imply that what Herodotus writed about Zalmoxis is in fact a similar thing with what, sorry, dont remember the name now, write about Frodo and his ring, a fantastic story? And everyone else "eat" that, century after century, as being a real thing?
I agree that we dont know too much about him, and probably greeks presented their knowledge about him(a limited one), enriched by what they added from something they believe is similar in their culture, all this presented for greeks "readers", let say. And yes, there are many fantastic stories about Alex the Great, (btw, never heard of those "nagomudri", but maybe i didnt read the right, or all, legends about him), but that doesnt mean that Alexander is a fictional character who wasnt in India at all. Is normal (especialy for that times) to "enflourish" the life or actions on some personages, agree, but we can make a idea, at least, about its existence.
Now about Julian the Apostate writing. I suppose you know better, and Iamblichus was one of the writers he liked (sorry, my latin is not verry good, i rely more on the similarities with romanian), but the information that Zalmoxe teached the Getae how to be, or that they are, immortal, appear to all authors who mentioned them, so i still he took that quote from Traian own writings, Traian who knew as well the reallity "from the field".
About Zalmoxis, i still believe the most probable (thus we cant be 100% sure) is the one that he was covered at birth by a bear skin (sorry, i cant find the quote now), bear skin who, according with that greek author resemble the name of Zalmoxis. I know there was several attempts to rely his name with other words, but i think we can be sure of any of that.
About the Kogaion and kaga, well, is possible your explanation too, to be a mix of older Zalmoxis story with a "new" stuff Strabo hear about Getae, but is still a material evidence of a place related with zamolxian religion, since we can be sure on any hypothesis. As well Strabo clearly knew some more detailed stuff about Dacians (and was greeks who worked for Burebista, especialy after dacian conquest of Black Sea greeks cities, and was in greco-roman world with missions and so, as well possible greeks engeeners was used in early stages of construction of some dacian fortreses, so he have some first hand sources for informations), he mention even a number of their army, some internal laws (see the problem with wine), and the campangnes against celts for ex. (he is the one who said, among few others, that celts from some areas was whipped out, etc.and archeology show he was right). So, i believe that Strabo knew from sources contemporary with his period that dacians worship Zalmoxis, on the top of a holly mountain called Kogaion (which Herodotus didnt know), but since he obviously didnt know when and how dacians start to worship Zalmoxis, he rely on Herodotus story (and from "nationalistic" reasons he mention just the variant with Zalmoxis as slave of Pythagora).
Now, about "dacomania/thracomania". I said that i know their exaggerations, some are quite laughable, but i never based my assumptions or informations on peoples like dr. (in physiscs or so) Savescu. I didnt know too much stuff about Dan Oltean, but seem that he obviously make too some mistakes or exaggerations, or jusy harder to prouve afirmations. But in the same time i try to avoid either the rigidity of some others stuck in their views, or the so called "demythization" category, who obviously exaggerate the things in the other side, and are no better then "protochronists" (who, btw, i think started with Nicolae Densusianu or even B.P. Hasdeu, way before even "invention" of comunism, or aparition in our country).
As you see, my link show an article of the head of ethnologists team who worked for Romanian Ethnographic Atlas, for more then 30 years, and in almost 600 villages all over the country, in a period when for sure peoples still keep and know the old traditions. And this is the most qualified person to talk about the subject (as mythology and folklore having deep dacian roots). He is a very respected scholar who base his work (his team wok) on field researches, and cant be at all compared with some physician who developed a hobby for ancient history. Ofcourse, he didnt mention Zalmoxis for ex (and is probably impossible to make any detailed description of his cult, ofcourse), but from what he write there, some believes similar with what we know about them, survived up to the XX century in folklore and mythology.
Razvan A.
