Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Getae and Dacians? Are they the same? Or is this unknowable?
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.
Razvan A.
Reply
Hi R?zvan,
Quote: 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.
I really don't know if Zalmoxis was Frodo-like or Alexander-like in the age of Herodotus. I am almost certain however that if he existed, man or god, he lived and was influential in his native society in 5th century BCE and earlier, not in the later times when Dacians were an enemy of Rome.
Some of the same ancients believing Zalmoxis was a slave of Pythagoras, a deity of the Getae or both, also believed Scythia (the neighbouring land) was inhabited by gold-guarding gryphons and one-eyed people!
And not everyone bought this story. As you well know, from Jordanes to Jacob Grimm, century after century, "the real thing" was that Zalmoxis was a Goth, a high priest, a philosopher, sometimes even a magician or an alchemist. So this rhetoric works against itself, as humans are gullible, they have this tendency to create and then believe in myths, legends, rumors, stereotypes, stories.

Quote:btw, never heard of those "nagomudri", but maybe i didnt read the right, or all, legends about him
Actually in that dictionary the article is about "blajini" (bienheureux). The Nagomudri are characters from the Slavonic Alexandria (see also p. 26-7).

Quote: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".
You may be right, only that we have no evidence Trajan wrote or knew such a thing. Cassius Dio, giving the most coherent account of the Dacian Wars, found nothing to report about Zalmoxis or anyone (man or god) having a remotely similar name.

Quote: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.
I already replied to that. Porphyry of Tyre provided not one, but two etymologies. One that his name derives from "zalmos" (or "zalmon") meaning "skin, hide" in Thracian (and adding as argument the legend of his birth) and the other one that the name is to be read "zalmoxin" standing for "foreign man".

Quote: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) [...] 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).
There's no reason to believe Strabo was particularly well-informed about lower Danube basin (nor Poseidonius, his main source) and I already detailed how and why his narrative on Zalmoxis can be explained without referring to an indigenous reality.

The name of the mountain is Kôgaionon (four syllables, not three) and that should be important, especially if you endorse Olteanu-Slu?anschi's etymological hypothesis assuming a participle *kôgayonom. Sorin Olteanu has also this short notice in Romanian about the misuse of Kogaion.

Quote: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)
Evidence?

Quote: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.
I am not sure how much you do, since you advocate their ideas, and even when warned you apparently still defend their aggressive ignorance. Dan Oltean and Ion Ghinoiu published in S?vescu's (btw, physician is not physicist) publications and they sometimes they even quote each other. Dan Dana mentions them both in a section under the title "Thracomania, from Densu?ianu to dacology".

Quote: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"
Sure, anyone may exaggerate, but I'd appreciate if you can point out some specific errors.
Many myth debunkers were once believers (public education, right?) - what's rigid in changing your ideas once the evidence makes you to? Also the debunkers are usually experts in their field, while the protochronists often rant outside their area of expertise, proclaim their truths, sometimes also compose hymns, prayers, or even invent rituals to assert their beliefs (in Dacian, Pelasgian or whatever archaic origins).

Quote: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.
That is an insane article (published also here) coming from a notoriously protochronist author. Ghinoiu has only a hobby for ancient history, because he graduated geography and he's working in an institute of Romanian ethnography and folklore, none related to ancient history, let alone prehistory (his narrative starts from Neolithic). When reading about Romanian women carrying weights on their heads, just like the Neolithic ones (this being, according to Ghinoiu, evidence for continuity) I am not sure whether should I laugh or cry. Or when reading about the (inorganic) universe being geomorphic(!) from subquantic level (I guess this reference comes from a bad SF movie) to galaxy clusters? Or about the three religious ages of mankind, of the Mother (10,000-4,500 BP), of the Father (4,500-2,000 BP) and of the Son (2,000 BP-today), about the indo-European god Christmas, the ludicrous etymologies and the connections between Romanian folklore and Vedic gods, about the Romanian "Pantheon" and "Book of the Dead"? And, of course, there's this perpetual lack of evidence, because the "Carpatho-Danubians" were too smart to write such things down and too secretive to leave behind a substantial trace of their beliefs.
His work received a good deal of criticism (but not enough). Here's a conclusion (slightly adapted by me) from a review by Otilia Hede?an: "I realized not only how a new project of Romanian mythology was not successful, but also how it failed eroded by the perverse effects of lack of professionalism."

As such, the discussion about Dacians and Getae should avoid this perspective of "spiritual unity" which is nothing but a myth.
Drago?
Reply
Hi Dragos

Well, lets see:

1- i agree that many things writed back then was "enriched" by imagination of authors, but that doesnt mean that Zalmoxis wasnt a real character, and, to use your own word, we dont have any evidence to show that he was a pure invention. It was writed that at Termopile was 1 million of persians or something, for sure an unreal number, but this doesnt mean that at Termopile wasnt a battle where some greeks fight with a persian army, bigger then greek one. Examples can go in each direction.

2- about Traian wars. Unfortunately his work, "De bello Dacico" - "Dacica" was lost today, and Dio Cassius accounts arent too detailed, is just some fragments and short translations who survived, far away from a complete work of him and we dont know for sure what exactly he writed in his complet accounts about this wars and about dacians. As well, we had Julian the Apostate quoting Traian, so is, at least in my opinion, much logical to quote from what Traian really said and was recorded maybe even by him, in his writings, then to inspire from someone who inspired from someone else to put that words in Traian mouth. I am sure accounts about Traian life and wars was still present durring Julian reign, and he read it them.

3- About Strabo and Kogaionon (yes, sorry, this is the right form you are right ofcourse). You said there is no reason to believe Strabo was better informed about Dacians, yet he mention Kogaionon, the holly mountain of dacians, a thing about Herodotus didnt know. And was found those material evidences about word "kaga" with the meaning as "holly" (as it appear on Sorin Oltean site), so is clear he know what is talking about, even better then what Herodotus know. Even if you assume that he just re write the Herodotus story, he obviously know more about Dacians. I dont have time now to search and post all evidences about daco-celtic wars, but i read that not just Strabo, but Pliny the Elder too mentioned that celts was "vanished" (it was used the expressions "boian desert" or "terra deserta" to describe the land where they lived previously), and in Slovakia was descovered archeologicaly that the big celtic "oppida" around Bratislava (probably the capitol of Boian alliance kingdom), today Slovakia, was burned down by dacians.

3- Now, about protochronists vs "myth busters". First, about Ghinoiu. Yes, probably he published in the magazine of Savescu, but this isnt a reason to combat him, you need to combat him just on basis of evidences, and what he said, not where he said that. Yes, maybe he make some forced relations. but, what exactly is wrong with the periodization he made? It was a period when the main deities was the so called Mother Godesses (Mother Godess-Earth, etc.), a period when a much more patriarchal pantheon appear, with male Gods takeing the top position (see just Jupiter/Zeus, or even Odin, the head of gods, and even their father), then the Christianity, with Son of the God in the center of religion. Do you have a different view about this? And if so, please be more detailed.
It seems we have slightly interpretations of what he writed. About the so called "book of dead" now, in my view he just said that are some similarities betwen rituals performed to egyptians (who was preserved in writings too) with ones performed in romanian folklore, but who was preserved oraly, from generation to generation. He didnt said that "Carpatho-Danubians" was too smart or secretive, just point out the diferences betwen greco-roman mythologies and what he find on those villages, coming from ancient dacian one (see the runing waters here vs ocean to greco-romans for ex.). Otilia Hedesan was just upset she wasnt asked to join the team, and her region (Banat if i am not mistake) wasnt researched as she wanted, or she believed is right. I come across her randomly, a while ago, when i saw a small article she writed related with Strigoii or something in her area, which was interesting but it doesnt look to me the biggest authority in domain either. As well, the "burial songs" Ghinoiu mentioned are real, is not any invention, and the fact there is presented a world similar (and this is my interpretation) with what we know about zalmoxian doctrine is real as well. Did you disagree with this, and if so, on which basis? Ghinoiu was not alone, it was a team, and even an interdisciplinary team, who worked for different parts of old traditions, from art, technology, spirituality, culture,etc. And they did this for 30 years, in ever corner of the country, with questionaires of more then 1000 questions. I think they are the most competent in domain of ethnology, and historians as Dan Dana you mentioned are not at the level of knowledge to make a complete critique. The folklore and mythology they get from the field, from what peoples have in their villages is real as well, it can be deined. I remarked as well that the "demytization" supporters (thus not all of them), even professional ones are usual peoples who try to make a name in the field (of historyography for ex.), but since they cant get at the level of the big names, and most of was writed belong to those "big names", they try to either "distroy" those ones views, either come with something new view (sometimes this is a political backed trend, since as allways the politic interfere too). And i dont speak here about obvious silly stuff promoted by some non professionals as Savescu, who ofcourse deserve to be put down. The first encounter with this "new wave" i had when i hear about new "alternative history" books, where they try to present history in a "demythization way". I skip the including of a news presenter (from a national TV station) as some influencial thing in modern history in their opinion (something to do with involvment of politic and sponsorization maybe?) to presentation of some personage as Stephen the Great. All the peoples know he not just inflict the biggest defeat of ottoman armies (until Viena anyaway) but he defeat as well tatars, hungarians and poles, and build a lot of monastiers and churches. Yet from some of those peoples he didnt deserve to be mentioned like that, because, he need to be demythized, since he like to drink and had a lot of women in his bed (which i dont think is something that wrong for a man, at least in my opinion). This was some secondary thing, really unimportant for country history, more like a paparazzi like history, but yet they was serious in promoting this. So please excuse me if i dont trust them all as well.

Here i show you a an article (unfortunately is just in romanian). You need to see the full article, and look for parts with Dacian religion and Zalmoxis, since is more stuff betwen them, related with magic, ritual sex, secret ancient societies ( which i found verry interesting as well). Is a serious and very well documented article, of I.P.Culianu, with references to Mircea Eliade and Cicerone Poghirc mostly (all professors on western european and american univesrsities and authorities in their domain), as well references to bibliography and several others authors. Mircea Eliade is one of the most biggest worldwide historian of religions anyway, and Culianu follow his steps (Poghirc too was anyway an important researcher in domain too), and others authors as Russu and Daicoviciu (among others) are mentioned there. As you will see to them, Zalmoxis was indeed venerated and his religion spread not just to geto-dacians, but in some degree to southern thracians as well, and there are some big diferences too betwen this northern thracians (daco-getae) and southern thracians.

http://www.wattpad.com/114831-cult-magi ... -a-d-c?p=1

This is the article, and another ex. i might mention is the fact that wolf (who gived the name of Dacians) was preserved in romanian folklore and beliefs as the most present character. The biggest saints, St Peter and St Andrew (the last one is considered as well the protector of Romania by the Church) is the patrons of the wolves, and wolf had about 30-35 days who is related with him in popular calendar, from far the biggest numbers, being both a benevolent character (unlike in other europeans countries), being one of the 3 guides for deads to the other world too, and malevolent sometimes (probably under christian influence).
Razvan A.
Reply
R?zvan,
Quote:i agree that many things writed back then was "enriched" by imagination of authors, but that doesnt mean that Zalmoxis wasnt a real character, and, to use your own word, we dont have any evidence to show that he was a pure invention. It was writed that at Termopile was 1 million of persians or something, for sure an unreal number, but this doesnt mean that at Termopile wasnt a battle where some greeks fight with a persian army, bigger then greek one. Examples can go in each direction.
I already replied to that. Perhaps I should have added there's no essential difference between Zalmoxis the Getae and Zalmoxis the Goth (for both we have a tradition), therefore a more consistent approach is recommended.

Quote:Here i show you a an article (unfortunately is just in romanian). You need to see the full article, and look for parts with Dacian religion and Zalmoxis, since is more stuff betwen them, related with magic, ritual sex, secret ancient societies ( which i found verry interesting as well). Is a serious and very well documented article, of I.P.Culianu, with references to Mircea Eliade and Cicerone Poghirc mostly (all professors on western european and american univesrsities and authorities in their domain), as well references to bibliography and several others authors. Mircea Eliade is one of the most biggest worldwide historian of religions anyway, and Culianu follow his steps (Poghirc too was anyway an important researcher in domain too), and others authors as Russu and Daicoviciu (among others) are mentioned there. As you will see to them, Zalmoxis was indeed venerated and his religion spread not just to geto-dacians, but in some degree to southern thracians as well, and there are some big diferences too betwen this northern thracians (daco-getae) and southern thracians.
I'm quite familiar with the writings of I. P. Culianu and M. Eliade. Those articles are translated from English, for they were included in Eliade's Encylclopedia of Religion (1987). In volume 16 Culianu and Poghirc argued that "Zalmoxis was the founder, possibly legendary, of a priestly line of succession closely linked with kingship of the Getae and the Dacians, the northernmost Thracian peoples of the ancient world. Whether he is a figure of legend or of history is moot, as are questions of his religious functions." (p. 551, all emphases mine) I know there are substantial differences between their view and Z. Petre's and D. Dana's (or even that of Z. Archibald), however please note the aura of uncertainty and that there's no links to Romanian folklore or protochronist authors such as D. Oltean and I. Ghinoiu. I'd highly appreciate if you can refrain from quoting the latter and you'd use Eliade, Culianu and other scholars for reference.

Quote: about Traian wars. Unfortunately his work, "De bello Dacico" - "Dacica" was lost today, and Dio Cassius accounts arent too detailed, is just some fragments and short translations who survived, far away from a complete work of him and we dont know for sure what exactly he writed in his complet accounts about this wars and about dacians. As well, we had Julian the Apostate quoting Traian, so is, at least in my opinion, much logical to quote from what Traian really said and was recorded maybe even by him, in his writings, then to inspire from someone who inspired from someone else to put that words in Traian mouth. I am sure accounts about Traian life and wars was still present durring Julian reign, and he read it them.
So you don't know what Trajan wrote but you're sure Julian quoted Trajan Smile
Here's Trajan's speech (327C-328B):
  • O Zeus and ye other gods, when I took over the empire it was in a sort of lethargy and much disordered by the tyranny that had long prevailed at home and by the insolent conduct of the Getae. I alone ventured to attack the tribes beyond the Danube, and I subdued the Getae, the most warlike race that ever existed, which is due partly their phsyical courage, partyl to the doctrines that they have adotpted from their admired Zalmoxis. For they believe that they do not die but only change their place of abode, and they meet death more readily than other men undertake a journey. Yet I accomplished that task in a matter of five years or so. That of all the Emperors who came before me I was regarded as the mildest in the treatment of my subjects, is, I imagine, obvbious and neither Caesar here nor any other will dispute it with me. Against the Parthians I thought I ought not to employ force until they had put themselves in the wrong, but when they did so I marched against them, undeterred by my age, though the laws would have allowed me to quit the service. Since then the facts are as I have said, do I not deserve to be honoured before all the rest, first because I was so mild to my subjects, secondly because more than others I inspired terror in my country's foes, thirdly because I revered your daughter divine Philosophy?

Quote: You said there is no reason to believe Strabo was better informed about Dacians, yet he mention Kogaionon, the holly mountain of dacians, a thing about Herodotus didnt know. And was found those material evidences about word "kaga" with the meaning as "holly" (as it appear on Sorin Oltean site), so is clear he know what is talking about, even better then what Herodotus know.
We don't know if Strabo's testimony is accurate, as he is the only one mentioning such a mountain. Kaga only suggests (if there's indeed a etymological relation between the two words) that K?gaionon is somewhat related to sacrality, to religion, so the authentic reality behind this name could be anything, a title, a name of a ritual or a temple. We don't know how Strabo came to write his text, but I find unlikely he (or his informers) learned from Dacians about their (allegedly unique or most important) god being a slave of Pythagoras. And here's what I find problematic about this interpretation of yours, you find the single most common thing reported about Zalmoxis (the Pythagorean topos) legendary and at the same time you find truthful the singular, unverifiable testimonies (that his followers practiced this cult in mountains, or that at his birth he was wrapped in a bear skin).

Quote:I dont have time now to search and post all evidences about daco-celtic wars, but i read that not just Strabo, but Pliny the Elder too mentioned that celts was "vanished" (it was used the expressions "boian desert" or "terra deserta" to describe the land where they lived previously), and in Slovakia was descovered archeologicaly that the big celtic "oppida" around Bratislava (probably the capitol of Boian alliance kingdom), today Slovakia, was burned down by dacians.

So you're saying the evidence for extermination is one destroyed fortification and a vague reference in Pliny's NH?

From András Mócsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia (1974):
  • According to Strabo, Burebista's claim to certain areas led to war which eneded c. 45 BC in the defeat of the Boii and their allies the Taurisci. [...] The Boii were no more wiped out than were the Scordisci by Scipio. But the extensive and apparently well-established Boian area of control disintegrated, while the Dacians, even if they did not found any large settlements, nevertheless established outposts in many parts of the Carpathian region. (p. 19)
  • The villa at Parndorf has the biggest yard, house, bath-house and granary. It is in the territory of the civitas Boiorum and was built towards the end of the first century. It is probably correct to assume that it was the seat of a very rich member of the Boian aristocracy. (p. 171)

This last paragraph also reveals the evidence we have for the survival of this tribe. A community is clearly attested in CIL IX 5363 where we find a prefect of ripae Danuvi(i) et civitatium duar(um) Boior(um) et Azalior(um)

I'll reply later on your longer excursus defending protochronism.
Drago?
Reply
Salut Dragos

Well, what i said about Strabo vs Herodotus is that Strabo mention the name of the dacian "holly mountain", which Herodotus didnt know about it. So, i assume Strabo know something more, possibly even from greeks who worked for dacians, and traveled more in Dacia, not just around Black Sea coast. Strabo probably heared that dacians worshiped the god/daimon Zalmoxis, somewhere on the mountain Kogaionon, but he didnt know from dacians (his sources didnt know, to be more precisely) when they start worship him, or too many details, so Strabo took a part of Herodotus story to complete his onw writing.
And i know about Julian quoting of Traian, and still believe is more probable Julian inspired himself more from Traian, and not from Iamblichus, and, ofcourse, i trust much more Eliade, Culianu and Poghirc, with all the respect for Zoe Petre or Dan Dana.

And Mocsy you mentioned here, write that the dacian offensive against celts maked a deep impression at Rome, and the teritory formerly inhabitaed by celts was called "boian desert". I think you just mis that paragraf when quote him. And i didnt said all celts (Boi, Tauriscii, or Scordiscii) was exterminated, just that they was vanished from some areas. Some of them was indeed killed, but some of them flee to western teritories (Caesar mention some of them in Helvetia if i am not mistake), or some minority who remain in dacian teritories was "dacized".

But since in other posts was discussed alot about getian/dacian and goth conection, i wonder if the spanish (and i think portuguese too) name Diego isnt in fact coming from the dacian name Diegis, and was spread there in Iberian peninsula by goths (well, some dacian part of them)? I read somewhere that in writings of Issidor from Sevilla are mentioned as well other dacian names (Buruista, Dicineo, etc.)
Razvan A.
Reply
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
Razvan A.
Reply
Quote: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. Smile

my best,
aj
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
Salve Alan

I must say i pretty much agree with your view, with some additions. I think Goths had a kind of fluid ethnicity made up (from all the peoples you mentioned), and during their formation and stay in Dacia the Dacian component was quite significant.
I found a quote from Isidor of Seville (visigoth) who said in his "Etymology", chapter IX:

<<[90] Daci autem Gothorum soboles fuerunt, et dictos putant Dacos, quasi Dagos, quia de Gothorum stirpe creati sunt. >>

Which with my poor latin i understand he said that Goths are created from the Dacian stock/race.
I dont think either that Goths=Getae(Dacians) 100%, and i assume that after Goths leaved the region many of their Dacian component remain in Dacia, and Germanic component become dominant. Gothic Bible is dated in VI century AD, so long after they leaved Dacia.
Razvan A.
Reply
Back to you, Razvan

Your idea of a "fluid ethnicity" is very well put. That's exactly what "Gothicism" appears to be, an ever-changing human mass bound into a single culture for self-protection.
However, the Gothic Bible was written by Ulfilus prior to 383 (the year he died), so it would be the 4th century and at a time when the Goths were still dominent in Dacia. (Walachia to Transylvania?) I do not know where Isidor got his sources, probably Jordanes; and although the Dacians had to be a large portion of the Gothic entity, the Goths must have been "created" from far more than Dacian stock. I think a good portion were also Sarmato-Alanic. You are probably familiar with the reoccuring achaeological mentions of "Gothic shoe buckles," common in the graves found in Dacia and the Balkans. However, the same buckles are also found in Sarmatian phase III and phase IV graves in the Crimea and Kuban. The last location was never Gothic as far as I know, which indicates that maybe "Gothic buckles" could just as well be Sarmatian, OR that Sarmatians were a significant element within the Goths.

The same goes for Cappadocians. Ulfilas was a Cappadocian Goth whose grandparents (along with other Cappadocians taken in raids) were the foundation for Gothic Christianity. This evolved earlier on than most modern historians have assumed. It has been said (most recently on the History Channel :roll: ) that Fritigern's Tyrfingi Goths were introduced to Christianity AFTER crossing the Danube and at the insistance of Valens. If we look closely at the sources, we discover that Fritigern was an Ulfilian Christian years before the 376 crossing. His name "Frithigairns" meant "he who has gained faith" ie "born again as a Christian." He was most likely a former federate Roman officer, obviously familiar to the highest officers in that region. Directly after the end of the Athanaric-Valens war in 369, Fritigern led Roman troops against Athanaric who had just started his second persecution of Christians. This was probably in conjuntion with Junius Soranus, a Cappadocian by birth and the Dux Primor of Scythia Minor. This is when the bones of Saint Saba and others were retrieved and taken back to Roman territory, a date that had to be around 370. The first (340s) and second Christian persecutions (369-70) are testimony to a significant Arian element within Gothic society prior to the Goths being accepted into the Eastern Empire.

Everyone (aka recent historians) seems to have missed this tidbit, and it changes our modern view of exactly the kind of people that Fritigern's Goths were. They were a most amazing people, the first major "barbarian" culture outside the Roman Empire to convert to Christianity. That they would be Dacian, Germanic, Alanic, Cappadocian, Slavic, Mordwine, should come as no surprise when we consider where they lived prior to 376. What I think is quite amazing-- the Goths were a coalition of disparate peoples, and this is unique (or almost unique if there are other examples) in ancient times.

I might add that the Gothic Church celebrated a "feast day" in rememberance of Fritigern and the Christian martyrs.
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply


Forum Jump: