Dacians, thracians, and their stuff.

There's no attestation of an Argedava there and Argessos also is not attested as a river (Herodotus gives Ordessos). The only attested such settlement is an Argidava/Arcidava on the road from Viminacium to Tibiscum (or in Ptolemy's coordinates, a bit west of Sarmizegetusa Regia)

In the inscription from Dionysopolis is Argedavon, which is quite different to Arcidava. And yourself sayed it's not at accusative.


Burebista could not be from Banat, because there is a much to big distance to Dionysopolis and in Banat there are not signifiant Dacian settlements.





Starting with the rule of Augustus, the Roman emperors tried to strenghten the guarding of the frontiers, making along them, in the enemy's territory (there where it was possible) the policy of the "secure area" -practicised by Romans also at the Lower Danube from the order of Augustus. Sextus Aelius Catus trasfers to South of Danube 50.000 Getae. In the midle of the 1st century AD, the legat of Moesia, Tiberius Plautius Silvanus Aelianus transfers oer 100.000 Getae (the number is exagerated).

Starting from this information, some historians (A. Alf�ldi) had considered that Muntenia was emptied of population and that in the place of the Getae entered the Roxolan Sarmatians. But haven't been discovered in Muntenia and the Romanian Plain Sarmatian graves anterior to 2nd century AD and the Geto-Dacian population, living in the hill area, started after 106 to expand in the plain area, lesser inhabited after the depopulations made by Romans in the 1st century AD.

In the land can be seen sometimes the consequences of the security policy: in the time of Augustus there are abandoned davae from the Danube Plain (Zimnicea, Popesti); in the time of Plautius Aelianus it is affected the line Tinosu (Prahova)-Matasari (D�mbovita), the South of Moldavia and of Bessarabia being affected too.

The destructions of the settlements was by firing, so the transfer was made bythe opposition of the Dacians. The Geto-Dacians turned back on the lands starting probably with the time of Trajan, when the territory of Muntenia and the South of Moldavia were included to Moesia Inferior (101-107). From the Hunt papyrus (dated in 105-106) results that the soldiers of the Cohort I Hispanorum veterana, with detachments at Piroboridava (Poiana -South of Moldavia) and Buridava (Oltenia) were periodicaly obtaining the grain tribute from the land, tribute that could be obtained only from the Geto-Dacians, the sedentary agricultors in the area.

The History of Roman Dacia



Edited by Menumorut - 25-Oct-2007 at 15:54

I think the most important adaptation they try was in military ( trainning, organization, using of war machines, but trying to adapt to their traditional way of fight and to terrain ) ; they keep they original religion, culture and society ( even the slavery existed, thus little developed, it was more an oriental, patriarchal type, not exactly one see at greeks or especially at romans.

There is almost not connection between the religion and the customs from 5-4th centuries and the ones from 1st century BC and AD, as appears in archaeology and literary records.

In 5-4th century it was a culture and religion imitating the one of the Southern Thracians.

After that, the culture of the Dacians suffered an evolution, a changement, losing its original characteristics, becoming more resemblant to Celtic and other "barbar" cultures of Europe.

In the time of Burebista it was implemented a new form of religion, implying regular forms of cult.

The material culture was missing original characteristics in the period of (and between) the rules of Burebista and Decebal.

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/italy/ravenna/santapollinare/0030.jpg

About Burebista reign, most translations i read was like that ( sorry for my english ) : "coming up in top of his people, who was exhausted by numerous wars, the get Burebista brink him up so much thru exercises, moderation, and obeying the comands that in couple years he create a powerfull "state"( this is the mostlly used word, but i saw too empire or realm, however, something more then a simple tribal union ruled by the big boss ), and submit to getians almost all neighbours..."                             About Burebista Argedava is much more probable to be in south Romania ( Muntenia ), since Strabon name Burebista GET, a nmae gived by greeks to dacian peoples from that area, and this is the location the most scholars agree, beeing probably a fortress from Argessos river area. About his corelation with Sarmisegetuza, this come mostly from archeology, the Orastie mountain complex of fortress, including Sarmisegetuza, was builded, or began to be build, or reinforced, in times of Burebista.                                                                     As well, Deceneu is said in almost all ancient sources debating the dacians ( i think Jordanes as well ) that remain the king of one of that 4 parts of former Burebista kingdom, the one from Transilvania with capital at Sarmisegetuza most probably, and is even gived the name of one who follow him at throne, Comosicus, Scorrilo ( reign 40 years ), Duras, and give as well the names of some who rule the other parts.                                                                   Vezina is considered as well the great priest but historians, not just second after king, the same situation as in Deceneu case ( i dont know for sure the translation from Dion Cassius 47,10 ).                                                                                       And now, about Deceneu and <belagines> laws. Ofcourse, Deceneu teach the dacians that laws, is no doubt about. Jordanes, ( as others too ) just consider the 2 peoples, gets and gots one and the same, this is the reason he write goths instead og gets. I see no conection between dacian belagines ( who suposedly was given to Zalmoxis by godess Hestia ) and your german tribal laws, who inever heard, sincerely, until now.

Originally posted by TheARRGH Did the dacians make any particular large societal or military adaptations to their perpetual enemies, such as the romans, or did they generally stick to more traditional practices?

       I think the most important adaptation they try was in military ( trainning, organization, using of war machines, but trying to adapt to their traditional way of fight and to terrain ) ; they keep they original religion, culture and society ( even the slavery existed, thus little developed, it was more an oriental, patriarchal type, not exactly one see at greeks or especially at romans.

Did the dacians make any particular large societal or military adaptations to their perpetual enemies, such as the romans, or did they generally stick to more traditional practices?

You're using second person pronouns (e.g. "your"). Come on, ignore me as I am trying to ignore you.

Menumorut I've already estabilished I won't discuss with you history topics again, so unless your points will be addressed to me by some other forumer interested in the topic, I will not answer to them.

Edited by Chilbudios - 24-Oct-2007 at 16:58

diegis, who was behind that show? TV shows are not usually the recommended way to source an extraordinary claim (like a nail which does not rust for millenia).

Edited by Chilbudios - 24-Oct-2007 at 15:56

First, the source is a TV show i saw sometime ago, at public television. They show the nails, and how was studied at a specialized institute on Bucharest ( at Nuclear Physics Institute, if i remeber corect ), to see their composition. I saw there is something on internet as well, but dont know too much about them now, i believe thy are on ones of history museums.  As for dacians compared with other "barbarians", the same Strabon said that Burebista made a "powerfull state", beeing feared even by the romans; so he was a ruler of a "state", meaning an organized society at other level then tribal one, having one single ruler, baked by a religious single one, making coins ( famous, <koson> gold one, and a very well replicas of roman silver <denarii> ) in workshops in Sarmisegetuza area ( royal ones ), trying to impose a monetary unity over the country. As well, as Jordanes said, for the first time was elaborated and write an unitar code of laws ( one of them who probably exist into a form or other ) the < belagines >. They have too a capital, Sarmisegetuza, sourounded by an uniq system of mountain fortifications to protect her. And, a greek inscription for that time name Burebista as "the first and the greatest of all thracian kings". The same Strabon said that after Burebista death his <kindom> was split in 4, and then 5 parts, more powerfull beeing one ruled by great priest Deceneu in what is called today Transilvania. As well, Decebal rule over a kingdom ( but smaller then Burebista ones, probably not able to reunite again all parts) in the same fashion, with king as military/politic ruler, and great priest ( named Vezina ) as religious ruler. They have state workshops, and the cantity of iron objects found in Sarmisegetuza area is one of the bigest in Europe, rivalizing with ones from Roman empire. As well, the amount of treasure centralized by king was huge. Thats are the reasons to say that Dacians was at other level of organization then other so called "barbarians", having a "state", ruled by a central autority ( a dual political religious one), they have even a monetar unity ( tied finaly at roman monetar system, as it hapened today with euro, or how it was not long ago in world with dollar ). Was even found a sort of military training camps ( probably under influence of roman advisors, payed, received do some treaties, or captured in wars ), who show a direction for a unified military training as was seen on roman legions. Dacian kingdom was a young one, and dont have time to develope at a much higher level, do to roman invasions, but was, for sure, at a much higher level then celtic or germanic tribal unions.