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

[Alanus]

Getae and Dacians are the same, or possibly more probably, at some point a Getae tribe, know by Romans as Dacians (this was the name they called themselves too, and posible the name used by all Getae), become more proeminent and took control over all Getae at that point. As first peoples individualised among so called "indo-europeans"(iranians, aryans, celts, germanic, greek, latin etc.) and the most numerous of them, proto-thracians was spread in Cimerians (probably mixed or influenced at some point by iranians), Phrygians (they migrated from the thracians european teritory and their language was related with both thracian and greek one), Geto-Dacians (north thracians) and Thracians (or south thracians). From an unknown reason, greeks named the northern thracians "Getae". They are the "original Getae" if you wish, and probably a mixed Geto-Dacian-Iranic tribe (as celto-germanic ones are supposed to exist, see Cimbri, Teutonii or Bastarnae for ex.) was named as Masagetae for ex. Anyway, about Get/Got part, here is some quotes from "wikipedia" and some authors mentioned there, regarding the Cherneakov/Santana de Mures culture, atributed to "Goths":

Hello, Diegis. There is no way that the Cimbri,Teutonii, and Bastarnae, were related to Dacians or Massagetae. They were Germanic with a Capital "G." That's what "Teuton" means.

Halsall (2007, p. 132)The Cernjachov culture is a mixture of all sorts of influences, but most come from existing cultures in the region

Matthews (, p. 90) argue that it shows that the local Daco-Getans played the leading role in the creation of the Culture

<< However, Guy Halsall challenges some of Heather's conclusions. He sees no chronological development from the Wielbark to Chernyakhov culture, given that the latter stage of the Wielbark culture is synchronous with Chernyakhov, and the two regions have minimal territorial overlap. "Although it is often claimed that Cernjachov metalwork derives from Wielbark types, close examination reveals no more than a few types with general similarities to Wielbark types"[13]. Michael Kulikowski also challenges the Wielbark connection, highlighting that the greatest reason for Wielbark-Cehrnyakhov connection derives from a "negative characteristic" (ie the absence of weapons in burials), which is less convincing proof than a positive one. He argues that the Chernyakhov culture could just as likely have been an indegenous development of local Pontic, Carpic or Dacian cultures, or a blended culture resulting from Przeworsk and steppe interactions. Furthermore, he altogether denies the existence of Goths prior to the third century. Kulikowsky states that no Gothic people, nor even a noble kernal, migrated from Scandinavia or the Baltic. >>

And if you look at the many ancient chronicars (not just Jordanes, since he inspired a lot from previous chronicars) who name them "Gets/Getae" (name gived usualy by Greeks and some Romans to Dacians) you will see that the majority of so called Goths was in fact Gets/Dacians (a part of so called "Free Dacians"), mixed at some point however, with some germanic relatd peoples and probably Sarmatians too.

Who cares about the scenarios these opinionated "scholars" have postulated? Germans were Germans. And Dacians were Dacians. And we cannot turn them into what we wish they were. The Goths were Germanic, and most modern ethnologists (whom you did not quote) have correctly placed them at the far western end of the Indo-European branch. The Cimmerians were Indo-Iranian and existed before the Dacians arrived within the continuum. Their nearest relations, culturally, appear to be the northeastern Scythians, known to the Persians as Saka. This can be seen in their identical weapons and extremely tall hats. 8)

Sorry, but your view of ethnology is outdated.