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

[Alanus]

Hailog, Diegis and Justin

Good to have you back on the tread. You guys have a good handle on history and the various authors.

The only confusion come with Masagetae tribe, who had the Getae name in it, but have iranic elements too (some rulers name, etc.). Most probably this was a mix betwen a Getae/Dacian tribe and a Scythian one. Similar views are for ex. about Cimbri and Teutoni, as being a Germano-Celtic mix, or Bastarnae (the same).

Massagetae were indeed an Iranian tribe, but they extended from a population far east of the Dacians (the Altai) and spoke a northeastern Iranian language, Kotani Saka. My main research is ferreting out the origins of these tribes from their migration patterns and the many names they were known as. The tribes were in a constant state of flux, and the names change with whomever recorded them (Persians and Greeks). Basically the names reflect the hierarcy, ie "ruling families," or the progenitors of their gens.

Let's not forget the Thyssagetae, who are really hard to pin down, but probably lived somewhere near the southern Ural Mountains.

The Thyssagetae were closely related to the Massagetae; and you are correct in pinpointing the area below the Urals; also around the Arial Sea. The Massagetae were to the south, closer to the Tian Shan. A good source for these tribes is Strabo, who was born in Asia and knew the locations. He called these peoples the "Sacae," aka Saka, a Persian term. The Massagetae/Thyssagetae evolved through changes in hierarchy into the Alans (and probably kindreds such as the Aorsi and Roxolani). They always spoke, from beginning to end, an Iranian language, finally written down in the form of Osette, still spoken in the Caucaucus. The wonderful plus to studying these societies is discovering their relationship to the Goths and then to Britain through the Roman cavalry; and they appear to be the originators of the "holy grail" and the sword Exchalybur/Tryfing.

You both know that I strongly disagree with Diegis and Rumo on the origin of the Goths. It's not history or archaeology that confirms their Scandian origin-- it's the old songs (the Old Edda and Gotisaga). By no means did Jordanes "try" to equate Gothic roots in the same manner the Romans did with the Trojans. Jordanes copied the work of Cassiodorus, and Cassiodorus interviewed the old Amalic Singers of Songs, the keepers of their oral record of heritage. In this fashion, the family saga in the Origo Gothica matches-- exactly-- the old Scandian material. This is not theory, nor is it some kind of attempt to rewrite history for a doctorial thesis, aka as we see in the stumbling work of Peter Heather.