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

[Alanus]

No source calls Saphrax an Alan. For both Jordanes and Ammianus Marcellinus, Alatheus and Safrac/Saphrax are no more and no less but two generals of the Goths.

Perhaps no source calls Safrax an Alan, but he and Alatheus were leaders of the "duel-people." Obviously this was a consolidation of Greutungi and Alans under the "Two Duces." If we place them as commanders of their respective group, Alatheus is heading the Greutungi and Safrax likewise the Alans. This was Wolfram's analysis, and I believe he was correct. Simple deduction places Safrax as an Alan.

That's exactly the point because that was a reply to "the rulers of those Goths that crossed the Danube (and rulers of previous generations) had Gothic names" which is obviously not true if by Gothic here you mean a Germanic language.

Nothing has changed, and noting did change. The "dynastic" rulers of the Greutungi had Gothic names-- Ermaneric, Vithimiris, and then his son-- which were consistent with their language. Safrax and Alatheus were not "rulers" in this dynasty.

According to Ammianus the name of the child was Viderichus. However Alatheus and Saphrax are mentioned together, not raising a child, but leading the Goths.

Thanks for correcting me. I had used his father's name (Vithimir/Vidimir) in Gothic. While Viderichus is the Latinate form, I would prefer "Videric," his actual nomen in his native language. Alatheus and Safrax led the Greutungi (not the "Goths") only in the capacity of "Duces," not kings within the ruling family. Their titles-- "the Two Duces"-- indicate their rank, "dukes of battle." This term does not equate with "king" or even "reiks." While neither Ammianus nor Jordanes mentioned that they were raising Videric to his majority, their titles indicate that they were "seconds" under a king. That ward was Videric, a child known as the "boy king." This is consistant with the function and recording of those titles.

So, once again, we end up with a ruling family with consistently Gothic names.

[diegis]

R?zvan,

And how do you know all these people spoke the same (Thracian) language, or even that they shared a common identity? Apparently even the populations north (Dacians, Moesians, Getae) and south (Thracians) of Haemus had different languages. Dan Dana argued in one recent study ("Les daces dans les ostraca du désert oriental de l'Égypte. Morphologie des noms daces" published in ZPE, 143/2003, 166-186):

• Georgiev avait affirmé depuis 1957 que le thrace et le dace étaient des langues différentes, établissant une distinction bien évidente sur le plan de la toponymie: -dava en Mésie et en Dacie, -para et -bria en Thrace. Ces données semblent être confirmées par la répartition des anthroponymes. Georgiev a comparé seulement les noms des rois thraces et daces, mais c'était suffisant pour observer, à juste titre, qu'il n'y a pas de correspondance entre les deux onomastiques, ce qui s'ajoute à la différenciation toponymique pour indiquer que le dace et le thrace sont deux langues indo-européennes différentes. Ce dont il n'a pas fait l'examen, c'est l'onomastique des gens ordinaires, qui confirme l'idée de deux langues distinctes.

The best overview in English I know (though somewhat obsolete as many Dacian and Thracian names were discovered recently) is Edgar Polomé's chapter "Balkan languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-Moesian)" in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3.1 (1982), 866-88.

Fair enough, but often those "davas" are intermingled with Celtic, Iranic, not to mention Greek and Latin toponyms. It's hard to get a fair diachronic perspective and to attempt to find the languages spoken in a certain moment of time, but the variety available should make us cautious about any sweeping statements claiming a dominant language over this vast area.

Salut Dragos

Yes, i agree that southern thrancians and dacians from northern areas ( dacians/getae/moesians) speak diferent languages. And, from what i manage to read in your quote (damn, my french is even worse then english :roll: ) they had diferent endings for toponyms, "dava" (however with some notable exceptions as the capitol Sarmisegetuza) for dacians and "para" and "bria" for southern thracians, and had diferent names ( king names, or even common people, if i understand correct), which lead the conclusion of that Georgiev that they speak two diferent languages. However, i read the opinion that yes, the dacian and thracian languages are indeed diferent, but they come from an imediatly common ancestor, have common roots in a kind of proto-thracian language (another part split from this being phrygian for ex.). As well, they seems to have some diferent habits, and ways of life, probably because of religion, with dacians adopting Zalmoxe as supreme god and living by his laws, in the mean time thracians still having more many gods, and with a lot of influence from greeks too. However, they share usualy some of the main gods, as godess Bendis, translated in Greece by thracians, from a northen area (Dacia), where she mix with the cult of Artemis - Diana of romans, Sabazios - Dyonisos-Bachus, there was a god of war as well, like greeks Ares or roman Mars, who was considered that was born in getian (dacian) lands, and was worshiped by both dacians and thracians, it was another godess, Hestia (Vesta to romans), which Diodor from Sicily said she gived the laws to Zalmoxis, Gebeleizis was another common god, as well Derzelas and the so called "Danubian knight". This show that they had a common ancestors, in my opinion. However, as Zalmoxis become the supreme god of dacians, and he took the attributes of other gods too (probably dacians was on the route of becoming monotheists, at least nobles/tarabostes and Zalmoxis priests probably worshiped and recognize as god just Zalmoxis), even religions of dacian and thracians become more different. But is interesting that thracians and dacians share several gods with both greeks and romans, even if had some others diferent, and have an original faith after all.

[Rumo]

Hello Alan,

Perhaps no source calls Safrax an Alan, but he and Alatheus were leaders of the "duel-people." Obviously this was a consolidation of Greutungi and Alans under the "Two Duces." If we place them as commanders of their respective group, Alatheus is heading the Greutungi and Safrax likewise the Alans. This was Wolfram's analysis, and I believe he was correct. Simple deduction places Safrax as an Alan.

Ammianus claimed they were rulers of the Greuthungi, Jordanes of the Goths. Whatever identities Saphrax had and whatever languages he spoke, in our sources he's only leading the Greuthungi / Goths, not the Alans.

Nothing has changed, and noting did change. The "dynastic" rulers of the Greutungi had Gothic names-- Ermaneric, Vithimiris, and then his son-- which were consistent with their language. Safrax and Alatheus were not "rulers" in this dynasty. [...] Their titles-- "the Two Duces"-- indicate their rank, "dukes of battle."

However you stated "the rulers of those Goths that crossed the Danube [...] had Gothic names" and Alatheus and Saphrax were those rulers (together with Farnobius, Fritigernus and other primates and duces), not the dead kings Ermenrichus (Ermanaricus in Getica) and Viderichus. Jordanes claims (134) they ruled instead of kings, while Ammianus (XXXI.3) that they ruled instead of the underaged son of the dead king. They were not mere commanders on the battlefield, at least not in these sources we have.

[Rumo]

Salut Dragos

Yes, i agree that southern thrancians and dacians from northern areas ( dacians/getae/moesians) speak diferent languages. And, from what i manage to read in your quote (damn, my french is even worse then english :roll: ) they had diferent endings for toponyms, "dava" (however with some notable exceptions as the capitol Sarmisegetuza) for dacians and "para" and "bria" for southern thracians, and had diferent names ( king names, or even common people, if i understand correct), which lead the conclusion of that Georgiev that they speak two diferent languages. However, i read the opinion that yes, the dacian and thracian languages are indeed diferent, but they come from an imediatly common ancestor, have common roots in a kind of proto-thracian language (another part split from this being phrygian for ex.).

R?zvan,

Your understanding of that quote was almost correct. The Bulgarian scholar Vladimir Georgiev observed a difference between the "Thracian" languages north and south of Haemus based on toponymy and royal names. In Romanian you can read his "Raporturile dintre limbile dac?, trac? ?i frigian?" published in Studii Clasice 2/1960, 39-58 (basically arguing for Dacian, Thracian and Phrygian to be three related but distinct Indo-European languages), and for a more elaborated and recent version on Thracian and Dacian, if you can read German, check in ANRW II 29.2/1983 "Thrakisch und Dakisch" (p. 1148-94) and "Thrakische und dakische Namenkunde" (p. 1195-1213)

Recently other scholars such as Dan Dana confirmed his theory by analyzing the increasing collection of Dacian names (coming from Roman military diplomas, ostraca, etc.), names which have little in common with those from Thrace or other regions from the Balkans.

I really don't know if Dacian was closest to Thracian and not to some Balto-Slavic or Iranic language. But that's not so important, I guess. Even today we don't consider Swedes and Austrians, Romanians and Portuguese to have the same language and identity, even though we have the concepts of Germanic and Romance languages respectively.

I'll answer later on religion.

[Rumo]

As well, they seems to have some diferent habits, and ways of life, probably because of religion, with dacians adopting Zalmoxe as supreme god and living by his laws, in the mean time thracians still having more many gods, and with a lot of influence from greeks too. However, they share usualy some of the main gods, as godess Bendis, translated in Greece by thracians, from a northen area (Dacia), where she mix with the cult of Artemis - Diana of romans, Sabazios - Dyonisos-Bachus, there was a god of war as well, like greeks Ares or roman Mars, who was considered that was born in getian (dacian) lands, and was worshiped by both dacians and thracians, it was another godess, Hestia (Vesta to romans), which Diodor from Sicily said she gived the laws to Zalmoxis, Gebeleizis was another common god, as well Derzelas and the so called "Danubian knight". This show that they had a common ancestors, in my opinion. However, as Zalmoxis become the supreme god of dacians, and he took the attributes of other gods too (probably dacians was on the route of becoming monotheists, at least nobles/tarabostes and Zalmoxis priests probably worshiped and recognize as god just Zalmoxis), even religions of dacian and thracians become more different. But is interesting that thracians and dacians share several gods with both greeks and romans, even if had some others diferent, and have an original faith after all.

In Diodorus' Library of History (I.94.1-2) we find an account of lawgivers (?????????) claiming they received the law codes from gods so that they could persuade the masses to follow these laws. In Egypt Mneves claimed the divine source of his (written) laws is Hermes, in Crete Minos invoked Zeus, while in Sparta Lycurgus pretended his laws were revealed by Apollo. In such a list at some point we find Zalmoxis, among the Getae, claiming his laws were given by the common Hestia (??? ?????? ??????).
However we should be careful about this testimony, as from several dozens we have on Zalmoxis, to my knowledge this is the only one where we have a mention of the goddess Hestia. And a careful analysis of the text suggests another interpretation.
Diodorus calls the Getae "the ones making themselves immortals" which reminds me of a passage from Herodotus where we find the same observation (IV.93). But then in the same book we find the Scythians worshipping Hestia (IV.59) and swearing oaths on royal hearths (IV.68). So I think it's much more probable Diodorus conflated Scythians and Getae like many other ancient authors before and after him.

This only one intepretation from several similar ones suggesting most (if not all) those testimonies we have on Zalmoxis are directly or indirectly influenced by Herodotus. So we face a Greek literary topos, not a genuine ethnographic information. In Romanian you should read Zoe Petre's Practica Nemuririi. O lectur? critic? a izvoarelor grece?ti referitoare la ge?i (2004) and Dan Dana's Zalmoxis de la Herodot la Mircea Eliade (2008).

Also beware of interpretatio graeco-romana. You'll find Apollos and Dianas and Zeuses all over. In epigraphy also you'll find such gods but having differentiating epithets. Sometimes they are simply called heroes, gods or lords.

[diegis]

In Diodorus' Library of History (I.94.1-2) we find an account of lawgivers (?????????) claiming they received the law codes from gods so that they could persuade the masses to follow these laws. In Egypt Mneves claimed the divine source of his (written) laws is Hermes, in Crete Minos invoked Zeus, while in Sparta Lycurgus pretended his laws were revealed by Apollo. In such a list at some point we find Zalmoxis, among the Getae, claiming his laws were given by the common Hestia (??? ?????? ??????).
However we should be careful about this testimony, as from several dozens we have on Zalmoxis, to my knowledge this is the only one where we have a mention of the goddess Hestia. And a careful analysis of the text suggests another interpretation.
Diodorus calls the Getae "the ones making themselves immortals" which reminds me of a passage from Herodotus where we find the same observation (IV.93). But then in the same book we find the Scythians worshipping Hestia (IV.59) and swearing oaths on royal hearths (IV.68). So I think it's much more probable Diodorus conflated Scythians and Getae like many other ancient authors before and after him.

This only one intepretation from several similar ones suggesting most (if not all) those testimonies we have on Zalmoxis are directly or indirectly influenced by Herodotus. So we face a Greek literary topos, not a genuine ethnographic information. In Romanian you should read Zoe Petre's Practica Nemuririi. O lectur? critic? a izvoarelor grece?ti referitoare la ge?i (2004) and Dan Dana's Zalmoxis de la Herodot la Mircea Eliade (2008).

Also beware of interpretatio graeco-romana. You'll find Apollos and Dianas and Zeuses all over. In epigraphy also you'll find such gods but having differentiating epithets. Sometimes they are simply called heroes, gods or lords.

I see you know much more detailed the Diodor writing. From what i found, Zalmoxis is compared there just with other two, Zarathustra of persians, and Moise/Moses of jews. About the relation with godess Hestia, well, agree, is hard to know exactly if wasnt a mistake, or if wasnt just an interpretation of Diodor, of a autochtonous dacian godess (something like Mother Godess or so), which he related with Hestia of greco-roman world, dont know. However, i doubt that all writings about Zalmoxes and his teachings (like beliefes in imortality of dacians, or how they maked to be imortal) are based just on Herodotus writing. Dacians (and they religion) was well known by other writers/chronicars of ancient times, and i am sure if Herodotus writings wasnt real, they will said then another stuff about dacians. And i quote from memory (dont have time now for search the exact quote and translation), so its an aproximation, the writing of roman emperor Julian the Apostate about Dacians/Getae (he in fact quote there Traian, and i dont think he inspire just from Herodotus, or even if he knew what Herodotus writed about Getae/Dacians some centuries ago) : "I was only one who dared to go against the peoples north of Danube (Getae/Dacians), who was the most warlike/powerful peoples who ever lived, and this not just because of strenght of their bodies, but because of the teachings of their praised/blessed Zalmoxis, who told them that they dont die, just change their homes. So they like much more to go to a battle then make a trip/travel" (sorry if my translation isnt quite exact). Anyway, the point is that Zalmoxis and his teachings (regarding imortality for ex., or medical knowledges of his priests) to Dacians was know in greco-roman world, and wasnt based just on what Herodotus writed at some point, but was a reality. As well a reality was they share some common gods and believes with southern thracians (and even phrygians), and for sure they have a relation on language too (see the name "Daci-Dacus" presumly related with phrygian "daos" (with an even older indo-european root) which mean "wolf", an idea shared by Mircea Eliade too, which i consider the biggest authority in history of religion).
About the books you told me, thanks, i will try to read them sometime (when i have time and if i find them, since i try to find Eliade book, "From Zalmoxis to Genghis Khan", but unfortunately i didnt find, and this was first on my list), and i read some stuff from Dan Oltean (from "Religia dacilor" and "Burebista si Sarmisegetuza"), if you know them.

[Rumo]

I see you know much more detailed the Diodor writing. From what i found, Zalmoxis is compared there just with other two, Zarathustra of persians, and Moise/Moses of jews.

Yes, R?zvan, those too are part of that excursus, however not Zalmoxis is the central figure here, but Mneves and the Egyptian lawgivers.

the relation with godess Hestia, well, agree, is hard to know exactly if wasnt a mistake, or if wasnt just an interpretation of Diodor, of a autochtonous dacian godess (something like Mother Godess or so), which he related with Hestia of greco-roman world, dont know. However, i doubt that all writings about Zalmoxes and his teachings (like beliefes in imortality of dacians, or how they maked to be imortal) are based just on Herodotus writing. Dacians (and they religion) was well known by other writers/chronicars of ancient times, and i am sure if Herodotus writings wasnt real, they will said then another stuff about dacians.

I agree, it's hard to know if one particular account is truthful (though that is somewhat relative, truthful in what we need to know - i.e. the religious beliefs of Thracians and other barbarians, or truthful in what the author wanted to say or moreover, how his writings were understood in his time) or not, but we can decide to be convinced or incredulous if we're looking at things in perspective.
Zalmoxis is mentioned exclusively by Greek and Roman authors. The rich epigraphy of northern Balkans, though it reveals many gods and lesser deities (some native but some others imported from Graeco-Roman world, even from Anatolia or Egypt) lacks any mention of a god named Zalmoxis. When I'm saying 'lacks' I'm not considering notorious fakes like Sinaia lead tablets (where in a mixed Graeco-Cyrillic script his name reads Zamolscho, Zamolxiu, Zamolxsu, etc.) or CIL III 45* (here's in a 19th century catalog). If Zalmoxis was a true god (or deified ruler) of the 6-5th century Getae, he apparently was no more in the later centuries.
Also I believe Herodotus' account is among the few (if not the only) which might have genuine information about this Zalmoxis. Herodotus had two sources for this: a Greek legend that he was a slave of Pythagoras and a testimony about the religious practices of the Getae. For most later writers Zalmoxis was an exotic character, whose role was to make a point in a discourse about something else (like in the aforementioned excursus on lawgivers).

And i quote from memory (dont have time now for search the exact quote and translation), so its an aproximation, the writing of roman emperor Julian the Apostate about Dacians/Getae (he in fact quote there Traian, and i dont think he inspire just from Herodotus, or even if he knew what Herodotus writed about Getae/Dacians some centuries ago) : "I was only one who dared to go against the peoples north of Danube (Getae/Dacians), who was the most warlike/powerful peoples who ever lived, and this not just because of strenght of their bodies, but because of the teachings of their praised/blessed Zalmoxis, who told them that they dont die, just change their homes. So they like much more to go to a battle then make a trip/travel" (sorry if my translation isnt quite exact).

I guess your translation is good enough for our discussion, and, as you can see, we find here the same Herodotean topoi, augmented by later writers: the bravery of the Getae and their contempt for death, the cult of Zalmoxis involving human sacrifice etc.

Anyway, the point is that Zalmoxis and his teachings (regarding imortality for ex., or medical knowledges of his priests) to Dacians was know in greco-roman world, and wasnt based just on what Herodotus writed at some point, but was a reality.

The tradition of medical knowlege comes from Plato's Charmides. However the Thracian physician is just a literary character (the reference to Zalmoxis betrays the Herodotean source, this physician is one of the disciples of Zalmoxis making themselves immortals) whose intervention is instrumental in defining the Socratic teachings, in this case we have the sôphrosynê, the moderation, a Socratic knowledge and control of the self.

As well a reality was they share some common gods and believes with southern thracians (and even phrygians), and for sure they have a relation on language too (see the name "Daci-Dacus" presumly related with phrygian "daos" (with an even older indo-european root) which mean "wolf", an idea shared by Mircea Eliade too, which i consider the biggest authority in history of religion).

I don't know of any certain native god shared by these populations.
Speaking of Indo-European relations, the scholar Sorin Olteanu believes the ethnonyms 'Thracians' and 'Greeks' are cognates.

[diegis]

Salut Dragos

Well, i looked a little to Sorin Olteanu site (he is a linguist), and i find some interesting stuff there. I will post a link with a page, where he assume pretty much the same opinion with me, as Getae/Dacian language being, along with the greek one spoke inside the Black Sea towns, the language used in Moesia Inferior, but all the peoples there. He even imply that a some dacian words being adopted by peoples there, both getae and greeks, and a kind of religious sincretism existed as well, with a local autochtonus god worshiped. So, daco-getians was enough cultural developed to influence even the supposedly superior greeks.

Damn, i almost forgot the link
http://soltdm.com/sources/inscr/kaga/kaga_r.htm

At the bottom of the page you can acces the english version too, but is not as complete as romanian one

About Zalmoxes, yes, it looks like most of the later views on him to be basaed on what Herodotus said (even if he had a somehow critical point of view on that greek legend, and say that he believe Zalmoxes lived in fact a long time before Pythagora). As well, the fact that later chronicars mentioned the same things about Zalmoxes (and Dacian religion) is a prouve that pretty much Herodotus was right. The fact that Zalmoxis doesnt appear in epigraphiy, doesnt mean he didnt exist, or that he wasnt worshpied anymore. Its just that he was a "new breed" in religion, he make a transformation of old stuff, and introduce a religion of "misteries", similar probably with "orphic misteries", the same a thracian (southern)one, and who influenced the pythagorism too (from this similarities probably greeks believed that Zalmoxis was a slave or student of Pythagora, more from "nationalistic reason, if we can use this word here, but this was pretty much prouved to be false, and likely the otherwise around). His cult was celebrated mostly in the mountains, and mountains peaks, and there is no iconographic representations of him either. So probably his cult doesnt need to have him in inscriptions or images, since anyway this world was a temporary one, and the eternal one was the other world, where he rule. They use to "talk" to him anyway from 4 to 4 (or 5 to 5) years, by sending him a messanger, unlike greco-romans who had big statues of gods and pray in front of them.

[Rumo]

Hi R?zvan,

Well, i looked a little to Sorin Olteanu site (he is a linguist), and i find some interesting stuff there. I will post a link with a page, where he assume pretty much the same opinion with me, as Getae/Dacian language being, along with the greek one spoke inside the Black Sea towns, the language used in Moesia Inferior, but all the peoples there.

Olteanu rather believes Greek was the dominant language in the lands of the Getae, and occasionally paints a territory covered by a variety of languages (e.g. Edonic enclave in Moesia, Crobyzic area in Scythia Minor), albeit some of them closely related. He also supports Georgiev's theory of Haemus range separating (at least) two languages.

He even imply that a some dacian words being adopted by peoples there, both getae and greeks, and a kind of religious sincretism existed as well, with a local autochtonus god worshiped. So, daco-getians was enough cultural developed to influence even the supposedly superior greeks.

Tiberius Claudius Mucasius is, according to Olteanu, "of Moesian origin", not a Greek. What you notice here is a well-known phenomenon in provincial Roman epigraphy and it's a consequence of bilingualism (or even trilingualism, these inscriptions are in Greek and Latin already). A great book is James Noel Adams' Bilingualism and the Latin language. Across the Empire you'll find Greek and Latin inscriptions with intrusive words from Etruscan, Celtic, Punic, Aramaic, Thracian, etc. evidence for people bringing elements from their native cultures and languages in their Roman life.

As well, the fact that later chronicars mentioned the same things about Zalmoxes (and Dacian religion) is a prouve that pretty much Herodotus was right.

... or that they used the same Herodotean information.

The fact that Zalmoxis doesnt appear in epigraphiy, doesnt mean he didnt exist, or that he wasnt worshpied anymore. Its just that he was a "new breed" in religion, he make a transformation of old stuff, and introduce a religion of "misteries", similar probably with "orphic misteries", the same a thracian (southern)one, and who influenced the pythagorism too (from this similarities probably greeks believed that Zalmoxis was a slave or student of Pythagora, more from "nationalistic reason, if we can use this word here, but this was pretty much prouved to be false, and likely the otherwise around). His cult was celebrated mostly in the mountains, and mountains peaks, and there is no iconographic representations of him either. So probably his cult doesnt need to have him in inscriptions or images, since anyway this world was a temporary one, and the eternal one was the other world, where he rule. They use to "talk" to him anyway from 4 to 4 (or 5 to 5) years, by sending him a messanger, unlike greco-romans who had big statues of gods and pray in front of them.

If Greeks considered Zalmoxis a slave as you suggest, weren't they more likely to construct an entire tradition to mock not only Zalmoxis, but all the Getae for their excesses, for bloodthirst and human sacrifice, for extreme religiousity and naivity, etc. and consequently to use these ethnic stereotypes for their own moralizing lessons (see also François Hartog, Le Miroir d'Hérodote. Essai sur la représentation de l'autre )?

And how do you know that cult existed if, as you say, it left no trace?

[diegis]

Salve Dragos

"Dac? aceasta era situa?ia etnic? a Tomisului – chiar dac? poate exagerat? de poetul tomitan-, atunci nu ar fi nici o mirare dac? ?i credin?ele ?i practicile religioase ale acestor oameni vor fi fost rezultatul unui vechi sincretism geto-grec. De aceea sunt de p?rere c? acest kaga era, cel pu?in pentru tomitani, greci ?i ge?i deopotriv?, termenul curent folosit pentru un concept autohton – cuprinzând poate un anume fel de jertf?, oferit? cu un anume ritual zeului autohton H?r?s. Caracterul dominant autohton al acestui concept a impus folosirea ?n inscrip?ie a termenului originar ?i adecvat, atâta vreme cât dedicantul se adresa localnicilor, greci ?i ge?i, care ?tiau ce înseamn?."

This is the text (in romanian), where is said that the faiths and religious practices of peoples of Tomis are very possible and more likely the result of an older geto-greek syncretism, and a term from dacian language was used by by getae/dacians and greeks during a kind of ritual performed for an autochtounus (getic) deity. This means that greeks from city of Tomis adopted partialy elements from local dacians culture, so it was not just a greek influence over a supposedly more "barbarian" people, but otherwise too, which is a kind of unique thing in the raports betwen greco-roman world and "barbarians" (ones more barbarians then others). And yes, is very possible that some dacians, mostly nobles or merchants, to know greek language (as it was said in the page you send about Dromichaete), but this was not spread on the entire peoples, and greek culture wasnt that strong to influence the dacian one (even in contact areas) so change it. Quite contrary, we know that the cult of godess Bendis was celebrated in Greece (where it was finaly superposed/counfounded/mixed with Artemis if i am not mistake), where was bring by thracian womens, from an northern area (Dacia). I mention previous the influence of orphism as well, so the influences was from both ways, and not necesarily a dominance of greeks (and i speak now just from cultural point of view). So, its even more obvious (at least for me), that dacian culture (and language) if it was able to influence the greeks from the contact areas, was more then able to influence less developed cultures as schytians/sarmatians (there is some mentions that Zalmoxis was the god of schytians as well, even if is possible to be a confusion, agree).

About the other chronicars who writed about Zalmoxis, and possible just repeat what Herodotus said (in your opinion), do you think that if the things wasnt like that (as Herodotus said), they wouldnt write otherwise? Dacians had a lot of relations and contacts, comercial, militar, even cultural, with both greeks and romans. Do you think that if they had different believes or religion, all those peoples didnt see, and mention, instead of repeating Herodotus?
In my opinion, greeks considered Zalmoxis a slave (even if Herodotus didnt believe that) or student of Pythagora exactly to point out the fact that getae was so impressed and have in the highest regard someone who was teached by a greek, so the greeks are in fact, the ones who influenced the dacians. They didnt want to accept that other peoples can create their own phylosophy, or a more spiritual religion, and when they saw some analogy with something they had too, automaticaly presume that they was the ones where all originated. In fact they was influenced by orphism, from southern thracians, a current who had some similarities with zamolxianism, and most of historians (from what i read) agree that Zalmoxis had a cult who hold elements from both chtonian and uranian cults, meaning that is much older than Pythagora times.

About if the cult existed or not, well, i think the fact it was mentioned by so many peoples back then is a good enough prouve. As well, elements from today folklore have resemblences with what we know about zamolxian religion. For ex. in the "burial songs" (different and older then "lamentation" ones singing in some places to burials) singing to guide the dead one to the road to the "other world", that "other world" is a heavenly like one, and the only one who exist beside "this world", the same as in zamolxian doctrine, without the existence of another underworld, hellish one like in other old european religions or in christianity ofcourse.

[Rumo]

Salve R?zvan,

About the other chronicars who writed about Zalmoxis, and possible just repeat what Herodotus said (in your opinion), do you think that if the things wasnt like that (as Herodotus said), they wouldnt write otherwise?

The thin and stereotypical accounts we have on Getae do not suggest knowledge but rather the lack of it.

It's somewhat widely acknowledged that some later Greek and Roman authors trusted, quoted and excerpted from Herodotus (they also did from Homer! See Strabo's Geographica for a good example).

Fortunately I found a limited online preview of Hartog's Le Miroir translated into English:

• Moreover, Herodotus is not the only writer to associate the Getan people with immortality or practices of immortality. Plato, Diodorus, Arian, and Lucian, among others, all make the same connection. It thus seems plausible to suppose that in the shared knowledge of the Greeks the Getae and immortality were associated, hoi athanatizontes being a somehow natural description for this northern people, which I would suggest translating as "the Getae who practice immortality" ...

If for Hartog it's just a Greek tradition, here's Lucian Boia's assessment for a Herodotean origin of it (History and myth in Romanian consciousness, English translation, 2001):

• Furthermore, Zalmoxis never appears in representations of any kind, either in the pre-Roman period (figurative representations are, in any case, no more characteristic of the "oral" civilization of the Dacians than is writing) or in Roman Dacia, rich as it is in all sorts of divinities. It was on this fragile axis that the ancients themselves developed the myth of Zalmoxis, which was subsequently taken over and amplified in Romanian culture, especially in the interwar period and in right-wing circles. Gradually, those few lines of Herodotus became a whole library.

And here's my slightly adapted translation from Petre's foreword to Dana's book (2008), the emphases are also in original:

• My own investigation confirms (even though I suggest some other writings, too, as possible sources for the literary character Zalmoxis) that Herodotus is at the same time the first and the last ancient author having genuine Thracian information about a god of the Getae named Zalmoxis and about the religious practices of his followers.

A slightly different flavor or skepticism comes from Zofia H. Archibald. Read her study "Thracian Cult - From practice to belief" published in Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Ancient Greeks West and East (1999), 427-468.

• There is no obvious way of substracting from such isolated texts, certainly from such texts alone, what might have been non-Greek, in this case Thracian, ideas of beliefs, from what look like tentative Greek philosophical speculations. [...] The criteria by which an indigenous Thracian ritual tradition can be distinguished from the imagination of a Greek poet or philosopher's armchair have yet to be elucidated.

It should be added that for Archibald Zalmoxis is rather literature than reality, as there's no Thracian practice or belief which she related to him.

Do you think that if they had different believes or religion, all those peoples didnt see, and mention, instead of repeating Herodotus?

Well, certainly they didn't see nor mention several other things which we know from archaeological evidence.
Here's an example from north-eastern Bulgaria, centuries after Herodotus, but still inhabited by natives: IGB II 796. The deceased is Dinis, son of Rêskuporis and after death he became an immortal hero. The monument was dedicated to the hero and to the nymphs. The editor of IGB (G. Mihailov) suggested the monument is at the same time funerary and votive.
So it seems that (at least) some Getae believed in deification after death, but this is not exactly what we learn about Zalmoxis from Greek literature, is it? We find a similar belief but different deities.

About if the cult existed or not, well, i think the fact it was mentioned by so many peoples back then is a good enough prouve.

And aren't popular literary characters often mentioned? Does Sherlock Holmes exist? Or Frodo Baggins?

This means that greeks from city of Tomis adopted partialy elements from local dacians culture, so it was not just a greek influence over a supposedly more "barbarian" people, but otherwise too, which is a kind of unique thing in the raports betwen greco-roman world and "barbarians" (ones more barbarians then others). And yes, is very possible that some dacians, mostly nobles or merchants, to know greek language (as it was said in the page you send about Dromichaete), but this was not spread on the entire peoples, and greek culture wasnt that strong to influence the dacian one (even in contact areas) so change it. [...] I mention previous the influence of orphism as well, so the influences was from both ways, and not necesarily a dominance of greeks (and i speak now just from cultural point of view).

Certainly in situations of contact the cultural (and linguistic) influences are mutual. However the Thracians are barbarians, not only because the Greeks called them that way, but because Greeks were superior in most respects we (still) value civilization. Archaeologically large regions of Balkans are Hellenistic (check the pictures I already attached). Kaga is a mysterious and probably native word however we have thousands of Greek inscriptions (in G. Mihailov's IGB alone there are more than 5000 entries) from the lands of the Thracians and Getae set by both colonists and Hellenized (and later Romanized) barbarian natives. Sure, not all Getae and Dacians knew Greek, but virtually all the literate ones did and probably also some of the others telling the lapicide what to write.

And as I already said, this is not the only case with a non-Greek, non-Latin word on a Roman inscription. For example at La Graufesenque (southern France), one of the discovered graffiti starts with the Gaulish word tu?os but continues in its "overwhelmingly Latin" (in the words of J. N. Adams) language.

Quite contrary, we know that the cult of godess Bendis was celebrated in Greece (where it was finaly superposed/counfounded/mixed with Artemis if i am not mistake), where was bring by thracian womens, from an northern area (Dacia).

You earlier mentioned Mircea Eliade which you "consider the biggest authority in history of religion". From the Encyclopedia of Religion which he edited, in "Bendis" article (written by Ioan Culianu and Cicerone Poghirc) I read (emphases mine):

• In Greek testimonies, this South Thracian goddess is known variously as Bendis, Béndis, or Mendis.

• Bendis was commonly identified with the Greek Artemis; [...] Notwithstanding her prominent role at Athens, Bendis is not to be considered an important divinity. The cult of Diana among the Roman soldiers in Dacia and south from the Danube does not necessarily have anything to do with Bendis.

[diegis]

Salut Dragos
And thanks for that link, is very interesting indeed. So, from what i understand, and how i see the things. Herodotus hear from greeks from Black Sea about Zalmoxis, but possible he knew more, since the author said that the ritual of sending a messenger to Zalmoxis is described very neutral, without comments, like a witness. However, this greeks doesnt understand well, and doesnt know well what exactly is about, and those getae believes was in many instances weird and bloody'barbarious to them. So, since they doesnt understand that, they pretend that getae was a barbarian and not to clever peoples, and try in the same time to relate that religion with something from their "side" (as they do "tying" gods of other peoples with their ones, as Hera with Tabitia of schytians, or something like that). The closest thing they found was with pythagoreic cult, but even there the author find diferences, and say that this zamolxian religion was something original, and is imposible to say who influenced who in Herodotus writings. Herodotus himself dismiss the greeks from Black Sea coast opinions, about Zalmoxis being a former slave of Pythagora or a charlatan, and said at the end that either was a god, a human or a "daimon", he believe Zalmoxis lived long before Pythagora. So, you are right, is hard to know when exactly he lived, and how exactly was his religionbut after all it was a religion of misteries, and apparently remain so until today. However, i think Dan Oltean say something more and much detailed about this subject, unfortunately i dont have his books.
As well, i think the writing of Julian the Apostate is based more on what Traian writed in his memoires (unfortunately lost today) from his war with Dacians, then in Herodotus writings, and his quoting of Traian is from that memoires, who basicaly said something similar with Herodotus. So, zamolxianism religion of dacians really existed, and the same Dan Oltean said that Deceneus was the one who make a reorganization, establishing a corp of priests, and even eliminating the ritual of sending the messenger to Zalmoxis, with a special cult of priests who lived on mountains, and from the top of the mountains they was able to "talk" with the god without to be necesary to send one to him.
As well, as i said, in old folklore believes, world is the same "build" as the one we know (even so little) from zamolxian cult, two worlds, one this one, and one "the other world", a heavenly one where peoples go, without the existence of a hell. Probably this one was a kind of hell, and the bad peoples either return here, even as the "undead" (strigoii, pricolicii, etc.), either will live in one of the lower "sky" acording with the same Oltean and his interpretations of remains from Sarmisegetuza, it was seven skies there, coresponding with the planets know then, and you need to pass thru all this to reach the highest one to Zalmoxis.
Anyway, i need to go now unfortunately, but wasnt Bendis brought by southern thracians from the north? I dont remember where i read that, posibly i mistake however.

[Rumo]

R?zvan,

If you read carefully, you'll find out that Hartog is having in mind mostly a literary character. For instance, if you go to page 84 where "Salmoxis: The Getan Pythagoras" (note: Salmoxis is the form in some of the Herodotean manuscripts which are regarded to be the "good ones" by some scholars) section starts, here's how the author begins his narrative:

• Who is Salmoxis or Zamolxis or Zalmoxis? (And this hesitation over the name is but the beginning of a long story of identity). Is he a man, a daimon, or a god? We do not really know. When was he born? In Book 4, chapter 94, of Herodotus's Histories. When did he die? Is he perhaps still alive in Rumania? What are the main events in his career? He starts as a Getan, is then Dacian, and becomes a great priest or king "of much erudition in philosophy" as Jordanes tells us. With the arrival of the Romans, abetted by the advent of Christianity, he disappears from his own country but lives on in the traditions of the Goths (Getan = Goth). Alphonse the Wise regards him as someone who was "marvellously learned in philosophy". He then suffers a long eclipse before reappearing, this time in his own land, when, in Rumania, a movement of Thracomania developed, centered on Parvan and his followers. According to Mircea Eliade, "Zalmoxis is revered because he embodies the religious spirit of the Daco-Getae, because in the last analysis he represents the spirituality of the autochthonous ones, those almost mythical ancestors who were conquered and assimilated by the Romans."

So the Salmoxis of Hartog lives in books, in traditions, not in the real life.

You're correct to point out the difference between the two accounts (IV.94 and IV.95) however for Hartog they both reflect Pythagorean views. Even the appellation hoi athanatizontes is considered a former nickname designating the Pythagoreans. (p. 90-91)

Please note that Herodotus knew no Dacia (or Dacians). Darius' army defeated the Getae (IV.93, IV.97) before reaching the Ister (Danube). Herodotus knew almost nothing of the inland regions north of Danube, they were mostly uninhabitable save for Sigynnae (V.9-V.10).

Unfortunately Dan Oltean is no scholar and his speculations expectedly received some criticism. Dan Dana even calls him a "dilettante" (and indeed Oltean is rather a psychologist) and his work "a massive and confused monography about Dacian religion". Oltean focuses on continuity and coincidences, arguing the Dacians had an almost Christian worldview. He also puzzles his readers with his absurd etymologies and remarks such as "the Dacians and the Romanians are religious beings par excellence".

[diegis]

Salve Dragos

I see, and i have a slightly diferent view. Hartog said that Zalmoxis was "born" in that chapter as since then is known to "the world" outside getians, or so, since Herodotus write about him. He said just before that he dont know if was a man, daimon or god. And in generaly is just his opinions, at his level of knowledge of the subject (very interesting views indeed). From what i understand he said that the views on him, coming from greeks, are "contaminated" by pythagorism, or viewed/interpretated thru pythagorism, but in the same time he point out some diferences betwen those two cults (who appear in "public eyes" about in the same period i understand). Neither from the quote from Eliade i dont understand he is a fictional character, just that he saw a "revival" in the last (from now) two centuries.
Its hard to believ he was a fictional character invented by greeks from Black Sea coast, or Herodotus, is just that agree, they didnt know too much about him, and the scarce infos they had about him was completed with stuff they took from a, somehow similar doctrine from their "world". But there are other information about Zalmoxies, from later chronicars, one being if i remember correct, that he was covered with a bear skin when was born, and that was a kind of explanation of his name, and this is an information we dont see at Herodotus from what i know. As well, the quote from Julian the Apostate, i dont think is based on Herodotus, but on Traian memoirs (lost today, unfortunately) about his war against Dacians. So, i dont think that was just a fictional character invented by Herodotus, invention who survived some half a millenium after, or more, and after countless greeks and romans had all kind of contacts with dacians, even lived in Dacia, and travel back in Greece or Rome, and they will know if that such doctrine or religion doesnt exist in fact. Yes, we dont know too much about it, but for sure it was something real. Even that inscription find from Sorin Oltean site, with that word "kaga", is put in conection with the "holly mountain" of dacians, related with zalmoxian religion, named Kogaion, so this is a material prouve as well, of his existence.

About Dan Oltean (no relation with Sorin Oltean, not sure about Ioana Oltean (damn, a lot of Oltean lately D ), but unfortunately there is a current who exagerate on the other side too, trying (for i dont know what reasons) to diminish anything interesting or original about them (the so called "demythization" current, who is more or less just a kind of "witch hunt" who "put down" for an exaggerated thing other two real and correct as well).

This is an interesting article (not exactly about Zalmoxis anyway), is just in romanian

http://studiietnoistorice.wordpress.com ... si-altfel/

[Rumo]

Hi R?zvan,

The writings of Herodotus survived until today, the cult of Zalmoxis didn't. Yet you seem to suggest it was rather the latter which is reflected by most authors, even though most of the "Thracian" information is more or less the same. If many different people believe the Scots are cheap (even by adding various anecdotes to support such a claim), is because they were in Scotland and carefully observed the life there and not because they promote an ethnic stereotype (influencing and influenced by traditions)?

The birth in a chapter signals the literary existence (real people are not born that way, right? :wink: ). You seem to sense a dichotomy between literary characters and real ones, however we should have in mind that both Frodo Baggings and Alexander the Great have a consistent literary dimension. We are rather ignorant of a real god or deified man named Zalmoxis in the lands of the Getae (though perhaps there was one), all we have are Greek and later stories, in which is hard to separate truth from fiction. Hartog tries no such thing, he merely details how Salmoxis is constructed and presented to Herodotus' readers.

Since I mentioned Alexander the Great, one rich tradition continued in medieval Europe, in Latin and Slavonic literature and from the latter in Romanian folklore. What you won't find in the petit dictionnaire is that Nagomudri is a Slavic calque after gymnosophistai, the Greek term for 'naked sages', which are mentioned in the accounts of Alexander's campaigns in India (by Plutarch and so many others). Would you appreciate a scholarly narrative about the real Alexander relying on such apocryphal testimonies?

As well, the quote from Julian the Apostate, i dont think is based on Herodotus, but on Traian memoirs (lost today, unfortunately) about his war against Dacians.

In Julian's Caesars there are two mentions of Zamolxis: see 309C and 327D. The second text has some points in common with a passage from Iamblichus' De Vita Pythagorica, an author who was appreciated by Julian. We have the same tradition of a slave of Pythagoras teaching the Getae the laws and about immortality.

But there are other information about Zalmoxies, from later chronicars, one being if i remember correct, that he was covered with a bear skin when was born, and that was a kind of explanation of his name, and this is an information we dont see at Herodotus from what i know.

Certainly there's information about Zalmoxis ("a whole library" as Boia suggested), but most of it not about an authentic Getan cult.
Many ancient writers invented etymologies because they believed that explaining a name is also part of understanding what is behind it. This etymology belongs to Porphyry of Tyre who also wrote that according to others Zalmoxis stands for "foreign man". Modern Romanian pseudo-scholars are no less inventive. Nicolae Densu?ianu believing that Romanian continues the ancient Dacian language asserted that Zalmoxis means "Zeul Mo?" (the old god). The metathetical form Zamolxis also allowed several etymological speculations such as the "chthonic links" with the Greek Semele and with the Slavic zemlja (enforced also by the episode of katabasis, which is rather a Pythagorean motif).

Even that inscription find from Sorin Oltean site, with that word "kaga", is put in conection with the "holly mountain" of dacians, related with zalmoxian religion, named Kogaion, so this is a material prouve as well, of his existence.

The only mention of that mountain is Strabo's. As you can see it's the same story of a freed slave of Pythagoras, spiced up with an esoteric journey to Egypt, and then living in his subterranean hideout (a cave). The position of Zalmoxis is re-interpreted from a late Hellenistic perspective, with obvious elements of stoicism and euhemerism. Sorin Olteanu indeed suggested the name Kôgaionon might be the Greek rendering of a native word derived from kaga, however in the more recent English version of his article, in footnote 2, he also doubted Slu?anschi's etymology.
A careful reading of our source reveals we have (at least) two distinct accounts - that of Zalmoxis (the slave of Pythagoras) and that of the current kings of the Getae having deified counsellors (of whom Strabo believed they still follow the doctrine of Pythagoras). Kôgaionon is a sacred mountain (and river) only for the latter Getae.
You already agreed the story about a slave of Pythagoras is not authentic (you called it "legend"). So I guess we have Strabo following this tradition and interpreting the underground place mentioned by Herodotus to be a cave, matching the other story he knew about a sacred mountain.

countless greeks and romans had all kind of contacts with dacians, even lived in Dacia, and travel back in Greece or Rome, and they will know if that such doctrine or religion doesnt exist in fact

Ovid lived in Tomis for many years and we find mentions of the Getae quite often in his poetry, but no Zalmoxis (or Zamolxis or any other form even remotely similar). The natives themselves whenever they testified for their religious beliefs in votive or funerary inscriptions they mentioned no Zalmoxis but other deities.

i know he is a psychologist, but i think he have lately a specialization in history too [...] And yes, i agree that in the past (or even now) some exaggerated the dacians realizations (mostly was not historians, and who make let say, silly afirmations with dacians reaching Japan and America, etc. )

The cultural movement known as Dacomania (or Thracomania, or Protochronism) is based on a chauvinist ideology holding the superiority (from almost any imaginable point of view) and the persistence of Dacians. Dacia was an important ancient civilization (usually most important, or second after Rome) of Europe or even Eurasia. The history of Dacians started millenia before Christ (many supporters link it to the cultures of the Neolithic and mythical prehistoric populations such as the Pelasgians) and continued in the Middle Ages (as Vlachs) or even today (a widely held belief is that Romanians are Dacians and Romanian language is nothing but the evolved Dacian, the argument being that Dacian was close to Latin or, in the most extreme case, that all linguists are wrong and Romanian is no Romance language). Their vital space, usually called "Carpatho-Danubiano-Pontic", covers most of South-Eastern Europe, sometimes extending in Central Europe, Eurasian steppe or even Greece. Much of the known history is reinterpreted so that Dacians are behind many important events and the Romanian (and often not only) folklore and mythology is considered mostly or even entirely of Dacian origin.
Some of the promoters are Napoleon S?vescu, Timotei Ursu, Ion Pachia Tatomirescu, Dan Romalo and also this Dan Oltean. They have their own institutions (Dacia Revival International Society), journals (Dacia Magazine) and congresses (The International Congress of Dacology). A funny thing is that they often adorn their names with "Ph.D." or "Prof." without saying what's their area of recognized expertise. For instance Napoleon S?vescu is a physician. They also insist on revealing the "true history" which is obscured by conspirative "official historians" working against the Romanian people.

I don't have the books of Dan Oltean (I wouldn't spend a dime on them anyway) but you can find samples of his "wisdom" in Dacia Magazine.
In "Pas?rea sufletului la daci ?i români" (The Dacian and Romanian Soul-bird) the author speculates on the ritual of cremation reflecting a Dacian belief of souls rising to heavens. Identifying a bird in some geometrical motives carved on a stone (though to this reader is unclear how that stone relates to such beliefs), Oltean concludes the soul travelled to skies as a bird. For him also Plato's words on rising souls (Phaedrus, 246A - obviously a distortion, as the author ignores the passage on souls soaring downwards) reflect a Thracian belief, very similar with the Dacian one. The last part of the article is about Romanian folklore, about funerals and birds carved in wood.
There's also the delirious "Traian, un 'conchistador' renegat" (Trajan, a repudiated 'conquistador'). Here Oltean draws parallels between Trajan, Attila, Hitler and Cortés, arguing Trajan was a robbing, blood-thirsty, pedophile, anti-Christian emperor who was rightly forgotten for a long time by history because of his excesses. According to Oltean "the Dacian treasure saved the finances of the corrupted Roman Empire. The empire was in moral and economic putrefaction after 2nd century p.Chr." He also claims the Romanian word 'troian' (snowbank) derives from the name of this 'conquistador' because he started a 'historical winter' with his wars (see also above for this tendency of creating etymologies out of nothing). One traditional carol telling the story of a certain Badea Troian (a clumsy but illustrative translation would be Mr. Snowbank) preparing to plough and to plant seeds is used as evidence for the ineptitude of Romanian peasants (allegedly believing they should plough in December) misguided by such a bad ruler!
There are several other articles by him on Dacian fortifications in mountains, with speculations based on old walls discovered here and there, but lacking any archaeological investigation or any other attempt of dating the finds!
I haven't read what he wrote about Dacian priests hidden in mountains and performing secret Zalmoxianic rituals. However I guess I read enough to conclude his argumentation can't improve. This belief of mine is sealed by Dan Dana's negative review.

stuff from mythology and folklore (who, as i said, have deep roots in some dacian ones)

For several years at the International Congress on Medieval Studies there are few presentations on Dacians and Romanians, many perspectives coming from mythology and folklore ("Thracian Influence and Contributions to the Greek Mythology as Reflected in the Romanian Culture and Art", "Some Relevant Aspects and Spiritual Particularities of the Thraco-Dacian Medicine", "Some Consideration about Cultural and Spiritual Life of Old Daco-Roman Transylvania", "Daco-Roman Roots of the Romanian Christmas Traditions, Colinde, and Legends" etc.). All these were denounced (the text is in English and Romanian) by a group of Romanian scholars, but "freedom of speech" prevailed. According to these scholars the materials of S?vescu & Co are "nationalist exaggerations", part of the "doctrine known as 'protochronism'" promoting a "particularly pernicious, 'nativist' discourse", "hostile to ethnic minorities and cultural exchange" and they "have nothing to do with the principles of scholarly exchange". You should also note that Sorin Olteanu added post-factum his name on that petition against this "shameful doctrine".
The above materials by Dan Oltean confirm this verdict.