12-06-2009, 12:29 PM
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).
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.
