The Draco standard

[diegis]

Salve Robert

Maybe because the artist meant to identify 'Dacians' to his audience, and giving Sarmatians a draco would have been confusing? Just a hypothesis, but we know that such things play a part in the imagery of the Column, and we lack evidence either way.

That maybe an interpretation, it is said that Dacians wasnt depicted wearing their armours precisely to not be confused with Roman soldiers by a less knowleadgeable audicence at Rome. Still if the "draco" (for convenience lets use this Roman name) was a Sarmatian standard first, i dont see why was put in Dacian hands and not in Sarmatian ones?

About an exclusively Dacian origin, I must reject that. A draco is essentially a battle standard which also shows the wind conditions, and we find it with all peoples of this period who predominantly use the bow as a weapon. Which includes peoples which had no Dacian connections at all, such as the Persians (we even find it in India). The Dacians, as far as I know, used more infantry tactics that archery, for which reason I see the Dacian use of the draco standard (let's indeed forget about the real name) as derived from other peoples, and not originating with them.

For a source we have Arrian, who describes it clearly as a Scythian standard, and if he really meant Sarmatian makes little difference in this case:

Arrian, Tactica 35:
... Sèmeios de diakerimenoi epelaunousin, ou tois Rhoomaikos monon alla kai tois Skythikois, tou poikilooteran te kai hama phoberooteran gignesthai tèn elasi. Ta Skythika de sèmeia estin epi kontoon en mèkei xymmetrooi drakontes apaiooroumenoi. Poiountai de xyrraptoi ek rhakoon bebammenoon, tas te kephalas kai to sooma pan este epi tas ouras eikasmenoi ophesin, hoos phoberootata hoion te eikasthènai. Kai ta sophismata tauta atremountoon men toon hippoon ouden pleon è rhakè an idois pepoikilmena es to katoo apokremamena, elaunomenoon de empneomena exonkountai, hooste hoos malista tois thèriois epeoikenai, kai ti kai episyrizein pros tèn agan kinèsin hypo tèi pnoèi biaiai dierchomenèi.
'... They attack separated by standards, not only the Roman but the Scythian ones as well, so the charge becomes more colourful and fearsome at the same time. The Scythian standards are snakes of equal length held up on top of spearshafts. They are made of coloured pieces of cloth sewn together, the heads and their entire body up to the tail resembling serpents, so in order that they appear thus more frightening. And when the horses are not trembling from them the multicoloured bodies can be seen hanging down, however when charging they fill with air through the wind so they are most like the beasts and even hiss when a strong wind flows through much movement.'

First of all, this Arrian work appear at few good decades after Trajan Dacian wars. Then I think you may be a bit confused by images from the Column. Dacians do make use of cavalry and archery quite a lot. Even on the Column they are depicted as cavalry when they cross the Danube, but we have other mentions from Greek authors (about Getae), from Ovidius and even from Column (use of recurved bows or of poisoned arrows).
In the same time draco may be a battle standard with a religious or symbolic meaning and not necessary or just (as in headless hollow Parthian draco) a meaning to show the wind direction and speed

I see no draco here beyond any doubt, just a wolf-like motiv. I was wondering already about that one, because for some reason the (quite realistic style of the) artist did not show any draco with the dacian troops on that monumnet. I stick to that position.

Well, it is a serpentiform like body with a wolf head. Not to mention that are fewer imagery (metopes) at Adamclisi compared with the Column, and some was losted over the time. And maybe Romans considered that frize enough as symbolism of draco (especially if it was more a religious symbol then a device to help arrow shooting). And that frize may be even Dacian and older then the Roman work at Tropaeum Traiani

I'm willing to see that the 'wolf-head battle standard' was something typically Dacian, but that does not mean that the entire development of the draco standard was also original to the dacian region. That does not make sense either way (as suggested above).
Even more so that you claim that the Roman adoption of the draco was also due to the influx of Dacians into the Roman army:

You see the flaw in your logic?
(1) we see Dacians using wolfs heads (which you claim as particularly Dacian) - the Romans are not using that but a dragon.
(2) we see the Dacian infantry using it - the Romans adopt it for their cavalry, not the unfantry (not for a century at least).
(3) written sources never tie it down to Dacians.

It isnt necessary that Romans to use just the "Dacian draco" model. As well we can't know from one single example discovered or preserved, that all Roman Draco's was like that.
We seen it used by Dacian infantry, yes, but Dacian cavalry (or for that matter Sarmatian too) appear in just couple scenes on the Column. So, is not impossible to be used by them too.
About written sources, well, we have even better and older ones, like Trajan Column.
And is a fact that Romans adopted "draco" at some time after Dacian wars and after many Dacians (and Thracians, even before) entered in the Roman army, first as auxiliars and later in legions too. And that was a strong presence, as the first "soldier emperor" of "barbarian" origins was Maximinus Trax from what i know. And he was of Getae/Dacian origins too

It's a discussion that raises its (wolf) head time and again, and it comes down to one thing: the draco is Dacian and shows Dacian influence everywhere. Yet the signs are that the development of the draco is much older and much more pluriform that that, and shows no singular ethnic or even cultural background. It was adopted by the Romans, like so many, many other items.

I dont have time to search now, but there are bracelets from Bronze Age found in what was Dacia teritory that are serpentiform and end with animal heads (or snake heads) at both ends. Like a small metalic draco with a head at both ends if you wish.
Then it is known that at the end of Bronze Age/begining of Iron Age was a large movement of people originating right in same Dacian area (Carpathian basin and Danube valley). This is proved by archeology too, by spread of cremation (even that urnfield culture), Naue 2 type of swords, start of replacing bronze with iron, sea people invasions etc.

But then again, the "draco" can originate as well in Sumer with Tiamat imagery, from where it spread to Hitties and then to Thracians/Getae/Dacians and later to Iranic people arrived there in former Babylon area. Or as you said, it was a pluriform development that appear to few population, either as independent or if inspired from one to another and then adapted to each culture custom and purposes