06-16-2009, 07:04 AM
Quote: About Ceausescu and "artificial links betwen modern day Romanians and Dacians", well, i think you didnt get all correct. The links exist, and are not artificial, for ex. most of all the folklore is from Dacian origin, folklore songs, some celebration who, even covered by christian "clothes" come from the pre-christian times of Dacians, the motifs and ornamental models from ceramic or textiles are as well from that times, and are more Dacian words in Romanian that are Gallic words in French, for ex. However, some artificial thing was tried, in sense that present Dacians as some hard working and correct peoples who see just their own business( the prototype of a kind of comunist society ) who fight against those Romans greedy imperialist ( see in present days of Ceausescu as any imperialist, from USSR to USA and her allies ), but this "links" was forced at political level, not as ethnic ( or even spiritual ) one.
Thank you. I just thought it was a question worth asking, because if it turned out that the government did in fact attempt to influence academia, it wouldn't be the first time in human history that this happened. :wink:
I just wonder, if in fact the words "Daci" and "Getae" refer to the same ethnic group, why we have two words. I see no reason to differentiate between Daci and Getae, but I suppose there is no way to find out for sure because we can't travel back in time.
Quote:Bravo!
You have cleared up the whole "problem."
I hope that what I wrote earlier was clear enough. The Goths, mentioned by Jordanes (and others) as "Getae," were not Getae at all. They simply settled in Dacia at a much later date. Historians copied historians, etc., as errors were perpetuated infinitum. The problem was-- no historians ever talked turkey with a Dacian. :roll:
All is well that's researched well.
Given the difficulties they had verifying accounts and making corrections during those times, not to mention getting lucky enough to have one's work survive on paper or tablets through the centuries uncorrupted, a mediocre ancient historian is better than no ancient historian at all.
At least this way the "great and marvellous deeds - some by Greeks and some by barbarians - may not be without their due glory," as Herodotus said!
