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

[Alanus]

I randomly find this book on the net, and have some interesting (and realistic i may say) theory abouth Getae(Dacians) and Goths.

http://books.google.com/books?id=6louAQ ... ae&f=false

I know this was already discussed a lot on this topic, but is interesting what the author said, that all ancient authors either named the Goths Getae, either consider them as the same with Getae, and was just someone called Cluverius (never heard off, i think was someone from XVII century) who come first with idea that Goths are Germanic, but (according with the author) was an unsubstantiated theory of him

Hello Razvan

Here we go again! I might mention that "all the ancient authors" (at least the Roman ones) not only used the term "Getae" but just as frequently referred to the Goths as "Scythians." Which is about as correct as calling corn a vegetable. I had read parts of Pritchard years ago. The man was a pre-Victorian, writing in the early 19th century, when the science of archaeology had yet to be defined. Pritchard also claimed the Germans were the only people who respected women. And he then stated that other societies such as "Sarmatians" treated women poorly. We know that this type of thinking is nonsense; and that perhaps of all the ancient cultures, we now know the Sarmatians, Saka, Massagetae, and Alans, treated their women as equals. This is confirmed by archaeology, something Pritchard was unaware of. It's also corroborated by Herodotus and Ammianus Marcellinus.

Cluverius had made a good point, but even he was incorrect in claiming that the Goths were "Germans." We should also remember that Pritchard was a Germanophile: ie, Germans were superior and everyone else was not. Even the title of his book-- Investigations Into the Physical Attributes of Man-- brings us to a stop. And it's interesting that the term "women" was neglected. If anything, this book is a study in the thought-patterns of an archaic Englishman. :roll:

As we now sit in the 21st century, we know better. Modern authors such as Kulikowski and Heather have made great progress, presenting a newer and more accurate view. But even they have erred. Heather made silly judgements on the "Hunnish bow" based on poor thinking. Kulikowski attacked the verity of Jordanes, particularly the existance of a "Gruetungi Kingdom." In light of the recent archaeological discovery of a Gothic nobleman's grave on the river Samara, it certainly appears that Jordanes knew what he was talking about.

I will stick by my view: that the mere presence of nobles and kings with Germanic names, by the common Germanic language used to create the Gothic Bible, and the inordinate number of "factories" which produced Germanic-styled combs, that YES the Goths were heavily Germanisized. BUT they were not Germans. They were the direct product of Roman society, the barbarian "fringe" that the Romans either failed to understand or didn't care to understand. In the end, the Goths inherited much that was Roman. They were an amazing collection of various peoples-- East Germans, Sarmatians, Dacians, Slavs, Alans, Taifali, Greeks, Cappadocians, and disenfranchised Romans-- who were treated as "second class," as "Scythians," aka "inferior throwbacks." What they accomplished, in the final end (from 378 to the year 700), is quite commendable.

my best,
aj