10-13-2010, 08:14 AM
Quote:
I am sorry to say this is not accurate at all. The kingdom of the Getae briefly extended to the Black sea in the reign of Burebista - but after his death split into several parts, and the outlying areas were all lost. We are not precisely told where the borders of Decebalus' kingdom lay, but the borders of the subsequent Roman province provide a good guide.(see attached map). The area east of Dacia and north of the Danube was occupied by the Sarmatian Roxalani (Dacian allies), and to the east of them, extending to the Danube delta was the territory of the Peucini, who occupied it down to Gothic times. To the east of Dacia proper, the pink area north of the river was at the time of the Dacian wars occupied by the Sarmatian Iazyges ( who were Roman allies).
I am sorry to say, but clearly you dont have much knowledge about the history of Dacia. Just look at this (sorry, i know, is wikipedia, but still give you some hints):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmodegicus - this was a Getae king from Dobrogea (Schytia Minor-Black Sea coast) who received tribute from Greek cities there (end of III century BC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dapyx - Getae king from central Dobrogea - I century BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rholes - Getae king from southern Dobrogea (where Adamclisi is located) -same I century BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyraxes - Getae king from northern Dobrogea, same I century BC.
Before them the area was part of larger Burebista kingdom/empire (who incorporated the area up to Crimeea at Olbia, including Bastarnae who was subdued).
As you can see, up to Roman conquest, the area was under Dacian (Getae) control, and inhabited mostly by Getae tribes.
Sarmatian Iaziges was located west of Dacia during Traian, west of Tisa river, betwen Tisa and Danube, and was brought there by Romans as a buffer betwen Dacia and Panonia. The swift attack and conquer of their teritory by Decebalus was the official reason for Traian to start the second war (it will be started anyway, since both Dacians and Romans saw the peace from 102 just as a pause for reinforcement).
Quote:Strabo describes the Bastarnae territory vaguely as "between the Ister (river Danube) and the Borysthenes (river Dnieper)". He identifies three sub-tribes of the Bastarnae: the Atmoni, Sidoni and Peucini. The latter derived their name from Peuce, a large island in the Danube delta which they had colonised.(Strabo III.17) The 2nd century geographer Ptolemy states that the Carpiani or Carpi (believed to have occupied Moldavia) separated the Peucini from the other Bastarnae "above Dacia".] The consensus among modern scholars is that the Bastarnae were, in the 2nd century, divided into two main groups. The larger group inhabited the north-eastern slopes of the Carpathians and the area between the Prut and Dnieper rivers (Moldova Republic/Western Ukraine), while a separate smaller group (the Peucini) dwelt in and North of the Danube delta region ( and south of it too, until the creation of the Roman province of Moesia.) Only the Peucini, therefore, were situated on the extreme northern border of the Roman province of Moesia Inferior, which ran along the southernmost branch of the Danube delta - not that far from Adamklissi.
Yes, it is correct what you said here (well, Adamclisi is way much close to borders of Dacian kingdom of Decebalus then the north area of Danube Delta where Peucini are located). As well Bastarnae wasnt quite on area of Dnieper river (Tyras in ancient times), those area was of Tyragetae (Getae of Tyras), another Dacian tribe. Bastarnae (and even Roxolani) was in fact sandwiched betwen Dacian tribes, and they was like that since Burebista times, when they was conquered by Dacians and was part of Burebista empire.
Quote:We have had this debate before - NO 'Phrygian'/Dacian caps are shown, only skull caps, and quite clearly these are the Bastarnae people, all bare to the waist ( no Dacian is ever thus depicted) with in some cases ( like your second example) a 'paenula' over it, most with Suebic/Germanic hair knot, some with skull caps, which might even be simple bowl helmets, though probably not. NOT ONE 'chopper wielder' is dressed in 'Dacian dress'.
Yes, we had this debate before, and yet you still wasnt able to provide some serious scholars who said the same thing as you, that no Dacian is show fighting on Tropaeum Traiani monument. You cant even make a distinction of fighters according with your first image posted (all full dressed) with the ones where they are bare to the waist. How you can distinguish betwen them based on clothes? As i said, just "germanic knot" visible on them make sure that one is a Bastarnae. And the caps are obviously the Dacian cap, that why fighters bearing them (or the ones with bare head, but without "germanic knot") are Dacians, Romans depicted them in such way that a distinction of some sort to be visible, so to be know who's who there.
Quote:The first coin is not a warrior at all - it is in fact the female personification of Dacia as a Roman province, and like other coins of it's type, it shows "Abundant Dacia" and what you see as a two handed chopper is most likely to be a sheaf of wheat, or several stems at least ( more clearly shown on other coins), not a blade with a fuller!
On the first coin i posted it is clearly saw a two handed sword, one of the symbols of Dacia (yes, depicted as a female). The curved sword have even a visible "blood channel" in the middle,
http://htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/2hese9 ... 21/000.jpg
and is similar and shape and dimenssions with this one
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tope36.jpg
Razvan A.
