Dacians, thracians, and their stuff.

Originally posted by Menumorut Most of the emperors of the Late Roman empire and of the Romano-Byzantine empire up to Phocas (610, the last Latin speaking emperor) were from Moesia Inferior (today North of Serbia), where the population was mainly Thracian and Dacian (the population refugiated from Dacia arround 270 was settled here):

Edited by londoner_gb - 13-Oct-2007 at 23:39

Menumorut you can't speak of my prejudice given you have absolutely no idea what I'm drawing my conclusions from. I am not in your interogation room, so I am not obliged to tell you what I have studied. I also am not obliged to criticise this entire thread. I couldn't care less if you or anyone else does not believe what I say, I'm showing only as much as I want to show.

Edited by Chilbudios - 14-Oct-2007 at 00:21

Questions again...

Did the dacians, as a society, have any definite trade connections with other cultures? Since they lived near the black sea (I think that's the one), they could have traded with the various societies living around the edges--and that's just one direction established, heavy trade could go, if it was there.

It's pretty safe to assume that they traded at least some-but a large, established trade route or such a thing is very different than "want some arts and crafts?"

So..were there any of those that we know of?

Londoner, about Martisor, look what I found:

-archaeological discoveries proves that the first day of the spring was celebrated since 8000 years ago
-from the time of Dacians have been discovered red and white pebbles on a thread, also coins on a wool thread in black and white. The beared coins were different by social status, it was of gold, silver or bronze
-there is a legend (in the region of Moldavia is linked with a stone from Ceahlau mountains, see Mysterious places in Carpathians topic) about an old lady called Dochia (the name came from Evdokia/Eudoxia, of Greek origin) which was bad and in a winter day she asked her step daugther to whiten at river a very dirty coat which the girl started to wash but it was much and much getting darker. Than a man called Martisor appeared to the girl and gived her a red and white flower. Turning home with that flower, Dochia has seen the flower and believed the spring has come, she went with the sheeps out on the mountain, left down her 9 coats and in the top of the mountain started the cold and she frozen and got petrified together with her sheeps.

I don't believe is a proto-Bulgar origin tradition, it is a pre-Christian tradition which could survived at a people Christianized by "osmoses", not at one like proto-Bulgars christianized at an oficial date.




Thearrgh, I didn't heard until now about such things and I ratherly disbelieve such things existed, because the society of Dacians was too less organized. A centralized power existed for a too small period. Different to migratory populations or long life states, unions like those of Dacians, Gauls, Germans I believe could not create a real court and general administration.

Edited by Menumorut - 14-Oct-2007 at 01:33

In Greece there were centers of power in each of the city.

Yes, there were a lot of small kings, like in Thracia too, but I think they were tribal leaders gaining the power by battle, without long time court or complex organization. Ovid don't say anything about the Getic rulers but we know from other sources that existed many such rulers in Dobrudja. So, they were unsignifiant chiefs.


In the sites of the davae haven't been discovered buildings showing an hierarchy, with the exception of Popesti in 1st century BC and of the fortresses of Orastie mountains, both from Burebista's time. Popesti is near Bucharest, in Romanian Plain, were the specialists are placing the center of the power of Burebista in the first part of his rule, while in Orastie mountains have been moved the center of power in the second part of his rule.

Edited by Menumorut - 14-Oct-2007 at 01:55

Menumorut, you do not understand a very basic thing. Those who make the affirmative claims, they have the burden of proof. You (and your sources) claim Dacians were that and Dacians did that. Therefore there are your assertions. I only can doubt them given there is no evidence.

Not me but all the Romanian and international historiography.

I will answer you by copying a fragment from a Hungarian webpage. I bolded some phrases to make you see that they are not the victim of take overs; I bolded too a passage refering to the archaeological proves for the presence of Dacians in Slovakia.

Also, I consider they are wrong but this fragment shows you how was reconstituted the history of Burebista's kingdom.

Around 50 B.C., these tribes of the Carpathian basin and Balkan peninsula were confronted by the Dacian ruler Burebista, {1-46.} who began suddenly to expand his domain. As noted, the sources do not indicate clearly whether Burebista was the original unifier of the Dacian tribes, or whether his efforts at unification built upon the work of his predecessors, such as the mysterious Rubobostes.
.........
837. The same inscription mentions that Dionysiopolis sent a delegation to the father of a Getae ruler, and that the latter met the envoys at Argedava. Due to the fragmented state of the text, it cannot be ascertained whether this ruler in Argedava was Burebista's father.
..........

On the other hand, there is no indication that Burebista exerted any influence over Greek cities on the Black Sea during the first half of his reign. The Dacians do not feature in the bold plans of King Mithridates in 70�60 B.C., either as enemies or as allies, which suggests that their sphere of influence did not yet extend to the lower Danube or the Black Sea coast. In all likelihood, then, Burebista completed his conquests in a brief space of time between 60�50 B.C. In the earlier, and longer phase of his rule, he must have concentrated on unifying the Dacian tribes, and on establishing and consolidating a centralized realm. In this task, which no doubt involved bloodshed, he had the aid and {1-47.} counsel of the high priest Decaineus, who was said to enjoy 'virtually regal' powers.
.....
With the considerable accomplishment of unifying the Dacian tribes behind him, Burebista proceeded to conquer in short order vast territories. The sequence of his conquests is not clear, for sources provide only a few bare facts. Burebista expanded the Dacian domains in three major directions. To the southeast, he reached as far as the Black Sea and seized Greek cities from Olbia, at the mouth of the Dnieper, to Apollonia (Sozopol, Bulgaria). It is likely that before he launched this campaign, Burebista subjugated the Getian tribes along the lower reaches of the Danube, and also the Bastarnae, who lived to the north of the Getae, on the eastern side of the Carpathians. A people of Germanic or Celtic origin, the Bastarnae had already supplied troops to the kings of Macedonia in the 2nd century B.C., and they would continue to serve as mercenaries of foreign powers; after Burebista's death, they fought against the Romans as allies or mercenaries of the Dacians.

Much to Rome's alarm, Burebista's second target was Macedonia. His armies crossed the Danube and, plundering their way across the Balkan peninsula, headed for the Roman province of Macedonia and the Dalmatian coast, which was also under Roman control. In the last years of Julius Caesar's rule, fending off the Dacian menace was a prime concern of Roman foreign policy. In the event, the only tangible evidence of this conquest is that the Scordisci, defeated by Burebista, became his allies in subsequent campaigns, and that the Dacians established a lasting presence south of the Danube, in the northern part of today's Serbia.

The third, westward direction of Dacian expansion touched the neighbouring Celtic tribes. In the first half of the 1st century B.C., the Boian alliance encompassed Celtic tribes that had settled in northern Transylvania. Burebista first objective was probably to subjugate these tribes, the Taurisci and the Anartes; in the process, he confronted the Celtic tribal (Boian) alliance that dominated the {1-48.} entire northern half of the Carpathian Basin. The clash occurred when Burebista crossed the Tisza and headed towards the Boian tribe's heartland in northwestern Transdanubia and western Slovakia. His victory over the Celts led not only to the breakup of the Boian alliance, but also to the establishment of Dacian settlements in the southern parts of today's Slovakia. Evidence of this settlement includes characteristic hand-formed Dacian pottery, as well as the 'Dacianization' of Celtic names in the region during the 2nd century A.D.

http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/10.html




..................


What you say about Sorin Olteanu and Patzinakia's criticism creates the impression that they were specificately refering to Romanian scholarship. You introduce the name of Aurora Petan, which is an exception (but which has some real valuable contributions), sugesting that by her the two are criticising the Romanian scholarship. But is a radical difference between the kind of criticism of Olteanu and Patzinakia (who are refering to amateurs Dacomans) and the criticism of Niculescu, who specificately refers to Romanian scholarship.




As for Andrei Plesu, his popularity is not grounded on the knowledge of his writings but on the phenomenon of confussion among the population of Romania with more than college level studies.

There is a number of figures, including Plesu, which today in Romania are credited as "the elite of intelectuals" but actualy they don't have a scientifical work. Their image was created by confussion, they were presented as refined intelectuals in a tv broadcast from the first years after 1990, a broadcast lead by a musicologist, Iosif Sava, who promoted the figures from a group of pretended elite intelectuals, including Plesu. This group was formed during the Communist period, all being the proteged of Gogu Radulescu, a most sinistrous figure (during the WW2 he was in Romanian army, betrayed passing to Russians with some military maps and this resulted in a catastrophy of the Romanian army, with thousands of soldiers killed). This group of Gogu Radulescu were and still are helping one to each other for obtaining advantages by influencing the political autorities or creating the image that they are elite intelectuals, by refering one to another in public speeches or in writen works. Is a sort of 'intelectual' mafia, an original Romanian phenomenon.




By much media presence, these 'elite intelectuals' have becomed a sort of brand and people of Romania (which is very low informed and easy to confuse by apparencies and clichees) is now identifying them as intelectuals, without knowing their real scientifical or artistic activity.


Anyway, in the article indicated by you, Plesu is not comenting the acuracy of Romanian history scholars but is making a comment on the protochronist manifestations among other kind of intelectuals. Such kind of articles, like all the present publicistic activity of Plesu, is not a scientifical analysis but a sort of policital-social comment with the purpose of mantaining his images as "opinion leader".





Andrei Oisteanu's commentary is not refering to scholarship but to the new and wrong valences that some elements from popular tradition or from historical past had gained in the present Romanian society.


Hasdeu, P�rvan and Daicoviciu have been quoted in works before 1989, but not as autoritative names but because they were offering some ready formulated ideas. They were not usualy quoted in their wrong assertions, as you sugest.

All this mafia of "social comentators" is a phenomenon which realy deserve a scientifical analysis and should be eradicated. This 'intelectual' mafia is in strong connection with the political and in many cases with economical mafia in today Romania.

To your surprise, is not my dilemma. Let me quote a scholar, an archaeologist, Iancu Moţu, Dacia Provincia Augusti, 2004. After he browses about the same sources on Burebista as I have, he adds: "Obviously, everyone appeals, sometimes even abusive, to archaeological evidence. Only that the latter, even if they can reveal a lot of information, some of high historical value, they can't tell anything about the existence of not of a Dacian state" and "It is known that the alleged center of power, placed with no tangible evidence in Orăştie mountains, dates from a later age than the time of his activity." and after dealing with several arguments, archaeological, but also more general, historical, he concludes "the idea of Dacian statality is a historical absurdity. It was launched at a certain time as propaganda [...] Burebista cannot be denied as historical figure. Undoubtely was an important historical figure of the 1st century BC. But from here to the point to weave from nothing, or almost nothing, to speculate more or less scholarly, assigning to Burebista things he never dreamt of, is a very long way."

Motu says nothing here. What exactly he denies in the reconstitution of the Burebista's story?


The archaeology match very well with the literary sources. There is an uniformization of material culture (this idea come right now to me: the uniformization of Dacian cities name, with the -dava termination, is also the effect of a centralized power during 1st century BC), the davae appears as a sort of equaly uniform organization of the territory and there are not signs of destructions, so they were not in conflict with each other, the same kind of sanctuaries appears everywhere, the centralization of the Dacian religion become apparent with the religious center at Sarmisegetusa and the difference between the technical level of the constructions in Orastie mountains and in the other parts can not be interpreted else like the apparition of a political center of all Dacians.


When Mota says that the center from Orastie mountains is from a later age than the time of Burebista he is wrong.

Read this autoritative information:

In the time of Burebista and of Decebalus, the Dacians began to build fortresses (citadels or strongholds). While the fortified acropoles can be found in many settlements, fortified or not (davae), the Orastie Mountains stand out as true landmarks of a defensive system unique in its complexity.


UNESCO -The Dacian fortresses of the Orăştie mountains

Edited by Menumorut - 14-Oct-2007 at 11:23

Menumorut, I do not care what you find on various sites, I already have told you how scholarship is working, so all I care is for evidence and specific scholarship for the claim being made. Thus if you have an archaeological monograph (you have claimed you have several and also that Burebista expanded in Slovakia) proving Dacian domination on the area, bring it on, otherwise there's no evidence, just unsupported claims. Bringing even more unsupported claims it won't make it true, will it? (for instance, that site claims the Dacianization of some Celtic names - evidence, please).

I don't have a monograph with any classical Dacian culture but with Carpian and Daco-Roman sites.


But look what I've found on net about the Slovakia Dacians:



Nitra
In the fourth century B.C. the territory of Slovakia was inhabited by the Celts who remained here for a long period of time. They were skillful smelters and smiths whose huts and workshops were found at the foot od Martinsky vrch (Martin hull). Even the Dacians left some traces behind here.
http://eng.nitra.sk/?id_menu=5654&firmy_slovenska_flag=0

.............

Persecution mania, no other comments.

Or not. All these 'public', television intelectuals are not grounding their prestige on their work (which as I sayed it doesn't exists) but on their image which is false. They are renowed as anti-communist ideologists but they were profiteers of both Communist and today regims. Plesu still lives in the luxuous residence received by his nomenclaturist parents from the Communist party, he studied in Western countries during that period. Gogu Radulescu was illegalist Communist, at some time he was the third man in state but in the second half of the eighties he turned as anti-communist and created a group of so called intelectuals (including many of the today 'elite intelectuals' about I sayed) and this group was the one which acaparated the image of representants of Romanian intelectuality (few of them being actualy Romanian), occupied advantageous positions as ministers, directors of important institutions etc.

Their lst important bluff was the so called Tismaneanu report against Communism, which was managed to mantain them as 'leaders of civilian society', but most of them were formerly privilegiated Communist representants.

Tismaneanu himself was the son of a terrible Stalinist and he was an apologet of Communism, his PhD Thesis called "the New Left and the School of Frnkfurt" writen in the seventies was a stupefiant apology of Stalinist era Communism in a middle of a period of liberal Communism and the same thesis was a vitriolic critic of the Western society.

During his years of study at the Lyceum No. 24, which was then largely attended by students belonging to the nomenklatura, Vladimir Tismăneanu was in the same class as Nicu Ceauşescu, son of communist leader Nicolae Ceauşescu, as well as the children of Leonte Răutu, Nicolae Doicaru and Silviu Brucan.

Read more about Tismaneanu:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Tism%C4%83neanu

I've quoted him to say there is no archaeological proof of a Dacian state, no center of power of Burebista, and that many tend to build a Burebista story from nothing.

There are archaeological proofs of a Dacian centralised political power in 1st century BC.

At Popesti was discovered a megaron from 1st century BC which is chronologicaly the first building showing a hierarchical organization in the archaeological discoveries in Romania. Popesti is identified with Argedava, the first residence of Burebista, as indicates the coordinates of Ptolemeee's map.

And at Costesti, the buildings from 1st century BC shows a social differentiation. In any other dava from 1st century BC haven't been discovered similar buildings.

Moţu disagrees with that, and on the contrary he says for many claims in the literary sources the archaeology gives no support, that the Dacian tribes often fought each-other like the Celtic tribes and other tribes from the Barbaricum. Even suggests that we should view Dacian society in a similar way the Celtic society is viewed (based on archaeological evidence, of course).

What he says is correct for the period before 1st century BC.

How you explain the uniformity of -dava (North and South of Danube) and -para (South of Danube) toponimy?

Why doesn't existed this before 1st century, because we have the names of some Dacian cites from 4-2nd centuries BC: Helis in Muntenia, Genucla in Dobrudja?

The state of Burebista was actualy a union of tribes under the command of an unique king. It was not a complex organization and aristocracy was having influence only at the level of each tribe's life, there was not a common aristocracy of all Dacians. This state was a weak structure and was much helped by the fact it was doubled by the apparition of a religious system which uniformized the religion and instituted some specific rituals.

That "authoritative" information does not say the davae from Orăştie mountains were built during Burebista's reign, only that they stand out as true landmarks of a unique defensive system.

Read again:


In the time of Burebista and of Decebalus, the Dacians began to build fortresses (citadels or strongholds). While the fortified acropoles can be found in many settlements, fortified or not (davae), the Orastie Mountains stand out as true landmarks of a defensive system unique in its complexity.

As I told you, I do not care for the claims you pick from various and often dubious sites. In your reply you provide me two links, one is from a advertising site for Nitra, the other is from Wikipedia (and not any Wikipedia article - do you know it is written by people like you and me? - an article which is flagged for not being neutral and containing unverified claims).

Look a passage from the official website of Slovakia's history:

Their reign then disappeared with the Germanic incursions, the victory of Dacia near the Nezider Lake and the expansion of the Roman Empire.
http://www.slovakia.org/history-parts



Now, look the in short presentation of a work of a Romanian scholar:


Chapter VI, "The Realm" (pp. 138-149), considers the area of the Daco-Getic kingdom. Page 139 locates it on a map of Europe. There is discussion of early Thracian settlements in Slovakia (750-550).

Archaeological finds clearly indicate, therefore, that in the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C. the Slovak territory was inhabited by a Daco-Getic population representing the basic ethnic element upon which the Celts were uperposed.


From BUREBISTA AND HIS TIME, Ion Horatiu Crisan, transl. Sanda Mihailescu, Bibliotheca Historica Romaniae, Bucharest, 1978

http://www.geocities.com/solarguard/celtic/burebista.html




The article about the Lipita (Lipicka) culture, the culture of Costobocs (the Northern Dacian tribe):

Lipita culture
By the coordinates of longitude and latitude gived by Ptolemee (II, 11, 13), the dava from Malaja Kopanja (Ukraine) can be identified with Setidava (long. 44 -lat. 53), and Susudava, situated more to the West, in the data of the mentioned geographer (38-53) can be localized at Zemplin (Slovakia). In this way, the older opinion that these davae should be localized in the N-E of Dacia can no more be sustained. The necropolises, placed near the localities, are plane (Verhnija Lipica, Ukraine) or tumular (Zemplin - 15 tumuls have been studied; Iza II - 7 tumuls have been studied of 14 identified). It was exclusively practiced the incineration...

From: The Encyclopedia of Archaeology and Ancient History of Romania, 2000

I'm not sure what's your point on Pleşu and Tismăneanu. Who cares what their parents were, what school they studied in, what villa they lived in, what they believed when they were young, all we care is about their activity in the field they have diploma and they are recognized as scholars.

The field of Plesu is philosophy and the theory of plastic arts and of Tismaneanu is politology.

As for Tismăneanu, I doubt his thesis would be an apology for Stalinism giving the fact the Frankfurt School is a movement of a more relaxed Marxism (maybe you got it vice-versa, in the late 70s when Tismăneanu published his PhD thesis, Ceauşescu began his neo-Stalinist policies) and Tismăneanu's report is vouched for by a majority of intellectuals and officials from Romania (though some admit it serves also a political purpose or contest various aspects of the report).

No. Ceausescu was still a liberal Communist in 1977 and Tismaneanu was an extremist Communist. This is a passage from his PhD thesis (the one with the Frankfurt School):


"The Capitalism can not be anihilated by vague reveria, by dogmatic revolts, by sudden transitions and by metaphisical studies. The only way for overcoming this Statu-quo is the socialist revolution, in which the working class, leaded by the revolutionary political party will have the main role"


http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comisia_Preziden%C5%A3ial%C4%83_pentru_Analiza_Dictaturii_Comuniste_din_Rom%C3%A2nia

I also do not really understand the purpose of these underminings, do you suggest that protochronism is a valid form of writing history?

Protochronism is a deviation but you should not make reference at sociologic studies like the ones of Plesu or Oisteanu. The protochronism should (and is) be conteracted by scholars from the fields of history, linguistic.

The anti-protochronism of Gogu Radulescu, Plesu, Oisteanu etc is not the manifestation of a scholar atitude but a selfish activism for reducing the effects of the nationalism of the Romanians (of which they felt agressed, none of them being Romanian).

Gogu Radulescu was the founder of the anti-protochronist movement among some not-history-field (or linguistic) intelectuals. Gogu Radulescu was not even a scholar but an odious Communist with most important functions in state from the beggining period (the fifties if not the forties) until 1989. He was a great manipulator, blackmailing important figures, including Elena Ceausescu.

Also, the anti-protochronist activism was used by them as a trambuline for making them appears as 'leaders of public opinion', together with the simulation of anti-communism and others.

These are not evidences for a state (you admit that yourself in another paragraph of your reply), any tribal leader or tribal union leader could inhabit such a settlement. However, Popeşti is in Muntenia, few kilometers from Bucharest on Argeş (thus not in Orăştie mountains where the so-called "center of power" is placed).

In any other dava was not discovered a building showing a social stratification. In fact, not in any site from any period before it, I mean not in the Iron, Bronze Age or Neolithic.

As for the definition of Burebista's organization, I answer further.

Argedava/Popesti was the town were Burebista was from. In the first part of his rule, he used this town as residence. Later, he created a political and religious center in Orastie mountains, were some elder fortresses existed from 2nd century BC.

It was chosen for Argedava because it is a Dacian era site on Argeş and some believe the name originates from Dacian era, where the river was named *Argesya (Herodotus: Ordessos, a river flowing into the Ister). It cannot be the city identified by Ptolemy (Geographia, 3.8.4), because those coordinates actually place the city (Argidaua) at west of Sarmizegetusa Regia (Zarmizegethusa basileion). And indeed Tabula Peutingeriana (section 6) places the city on the route Viminacium-Lederata-Argedava (Arcidava here)-Berzobis-Aizis-Tibiscum, thus the city would have been in today Banat.

Herodotus have refered to an important river, so the identification of Ordessos with Arges is convenable.


The dava from Popesti was existing since 2nd century BC, being an important center:




As for Arcidava in Banat (today Varadia), only the name is Dacian, it have not been discovered any Dacian settlement or vestiges. The identification with the Arcidava from Ptolemee map was made by the fact that Romans had built here a castrum which was archaeologicaly identified.


So, the identification of Popesti with Argedava stands well, considering together the name of Arges river, the important dava and the unique megaron from Popesti.


The closeness between the names Arcidava and Argedava doesn't mean is the same place. There were davae having close name, for example there is a Sucidava in Olt county and one in Dobrudja.

And if you're not convinced by my reasoning, let's look how the thracologists draw the map of the Dacian davae (based on the reading of the ancient sources), look in the following maps for Arcidava - and you won't find any Argedava: Sorin Olteanu: http://soltdm.com/geo/arts/categs/dava.jpg Ivan Duridanov: http://www.kroraina.com/thrac_lang/THR_LANG.gif

The inscription from Dionysopolis has a deteriorated part from which can be distinguished the word Argedavon (a toponym in accusative) and the Greek word for parent.


From the readable part of the inscription we learn that:

In that locality arrived at some time Acornion and managed to obtain a tax forgiveness.

About Burebista is sayed in the same inscription that is the first and biggest from the kings of Thracia, ruling on this and on the other side of Danube. Acornion gained great friendship with Burebista, obtained advantages for his city (Dionysopolis) and advised the king, who became benevolent to him. Acornion was too ambassador of Burebista at Pompeius with whom he had met at Heracleea Lyncestis (Bitolia), managing to obtain the benevolence of the Romans.




From here we see two things:

-Argedava from Dionysopolis inscription can not be Arcidava from Ptolemee map, because the g from Argedavon could not have evoluted in the c from Arcidava. And we can not supose that at Dionysopolis was transcribed wrong the name of the Dacian town because is in the form of accusative, showing a good accomodation of the inscription's author with the name of the Dacian town.


-The placement of Argedava could not be in Banat but should be closer to Dionysopolis, because the inscription shows a familiarity with that locality.






Another strong argument against the identification of Argedava with Arcidava is that in Banat there are not signifiant Dacian discoveries, as in the plain of Baragan area arround Popesti, were there are several important dava, inhabited from 4-3nd centuries BC until the first half of 1st century AD:

-Zimnicea (Teleorman county), founded in 4th century BC, Piscu Crasani (Ialomita county) founded in 3rd century BC, Tinosu (Prahova county) founded in 3rd century BC.

All these are not small, but big davae.


Like Popesti dava too, all these have been abandoned in the first half of the 1st century AD, when the Romans moved 50.000 Dacians from Muntenia to South of Danube.


This explain why the name of these davae doesn't appear in the map of Ptolemee and this is why they are not on the map of Sorin Olteanu and Ivan Duridanov, who pursued to place only the davae mentioned by Ptolemee.

I agree with what you have said only that a union of tribes is not a state. I agree with Burebista the warlord ("king") over a bunch of tribes, I do not agree with Burebista the statesman.

Do not forget that the political union was doubled by a strong religious centralized system. The existence of a political and religious center in Orastie mountains, the sudden apparition of the sanctuaries, all proves that the union of Burebista was more than a for-war alliance.

A most generous assessment is in Cambrige Ancient History series, where in a chapter having as bibliography C. Daicoviciu and I. H. Crişan, J. J. Wilkes writes that the Dacian fortresses were built at the end of the 1st century BC and perhaps from Burebista's time. As long as there are no certain attestations from the first half of the 1st century BC, as long as there is no cluster of fortifications attested as such (in Orăştie mountains, if you claim that is the place!), talking of a center of power is just wishful thinking.

And what is the authority of these authors? Daicoviciu lived in 1898-1973, the others probably are of the same time. Much of the considerations from '60 and '70 are out of date now. When was published that Cambridge encyclopedia?


Anyway, look what Daicoviciu actualy says:


The date of this gigantic buildings which were coordinated by a unitary plan can not be other than that indicated by the archaeological proofs: the two centuries before the Roman conquest which passed all of them by fire and sword. In another words, the epoch of the two hegemons, Burebista and Decebal.

http://www.itcnet.ro/history/archive/mi1998/current4/mi53.htm




In all the scientifical work I found that the fortresses from Costesti and Tilisca are dated from 2nd century BC.

At Tilisca it was discovered an important workshop for coin production. The 14 stencils discovered were for reproduction of copies of republican dinaries emited in 145 � 138 si 72 BC.



Please read an extract from the official UNESCO brosure about the Dacian fortresses from Orastie and surrounding area:

In the time of Burebista and of Decebalus, the Dacians began to build fortresses (citadels or strongholds). While the fortified acropoles can be found in many settlements, fortified or not (davae), the Orastie Mountains stand out as true landmarks of a defensive system unique in its complexity.

http://www.cimec.ro/Monumente/UNESCO/UNESCOen/indexC62.htm


This webpage is directly linked from the UNESCO website: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/906



Edited by Menumorut - 15-Oct-2007 at 17:28

Menumorut, I told you two times in row (and these are not the only times I've told you that but the most recent) that I am not interested in various links which do not provide the proper evidence. You still provide plenty of them telling me to check some passages from them

Do you believe that what is on the official webpage about the Slovakia history is not serious?

Though is a great deal of difference between one dava which is some kilometers off in a Celtic territory and a consistent Dacian presence after an alleged conquest, I would like to believe that claim only that I couldn't find any Susudava in Ptolemy's Geographia but Susudavta/Susudata.

As Crisan sayed, it was a territory inhabited by a Dacian population ruled by Celts. The fortress dates from a later period, in which evolved the Lipita culture, 1st century BC - 3rd century AD.

This is Lipita type pottery:



Susudavta or Susudata is a deformation of Susudava, the authors of the article considered necesary to put the correct form.

Same denial I've already remarked. Pleşu is also an essayist an literary critic, too (I've already said that) with interests in cultural anthropology, social issues and so on.

Having not studies in the field of literature, how could he be a literary critic?

I'm quoting from a 1982 letter of him addressed to Nicolae Ceausescu, letter in which he specify that he is Art historian and criticist:


"Estimable comrade general Chancellor,
my name is Andrei Gabriel Plesu and I'm professing as Art historian and criticist...."

http://www.cronicaromana.ro/andrei-plesu-despre-ingerii-cazuti.html


Ofcourse, he manifested as a writer too, but he hasn't a diploma in this field.

However, Tismăneanu's report (if you are insinuating it by your reference to Tismăneanu) is signed by a comission of scholars, Tismăneanu being just the president of the comission, so he's only morally responsible for that, not scholarly responsible.

He is the initiator.


Anyway, your theory that the scholarship could manifest correct even at the most horrific characters (you mentioned Nazi) is a little strange for me.

Also you probably are not aware that most of the works in that time had some words (in the foreword or their conclusion or some insertions in the text) about the future of socialism, about the misery of capitalism and so on, especially a thesis on political or economical issues like Tismăneanu's.

No. Ceausescu was not condamning Capitalism in a hard way in the seventies and the way Tismaneanu was speaking about Capitalism was an exception in that time.
His thesis was in the manner of agitatory materials from the Stalinist period. This was not common in the seventies.

If you or that misinformed Wikipedian would actually try to browse the thesis insteading of finding a scandalous incriminatory paragraphs you could see that below the necessary "ornaments" to pass over the Communist censorship is just an assessment of the Frankfurt school and the New Left, thus the thesis is not, in its essence, an extremist Communist one.

So, after you his thesis was just a study on a phenomenon.

You missed the complete title of his thesis:

"The Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School and Contemporary Left-Wing Radicalism".

So, he is criticizing the Frankfurt School because in his assertion "the Capitalism can not be anihilated by vague reveria, by dogmatic revolts, by sudden transitions and by metaphisical studies. The only way for overcoming this Statu-quo is the socialist revolution, in which the working class, leaded by the revolutionary political party will have the main role".

He promotes a radical change in the Western society, asserting that Frankfurt School is much too theoretical.

In another words, he opposes the Fight of Classes to a soft Marxism.

What bias can make you ignore that the same "source" (i.e. the Wiki article) you have a link to an article by Daniel Barbu (a political scientist) which qualified Tismăneanu based on this thesis a "liberal student of euro-marxism"? Not only that you have no idea what Tismăneanu's thesis is about, you also you are not reading correctly your own "sources".

Why should I believe Barbu? He is an excentric figure who in 1998 was asserting that the Communism has protected the population of difficulties, that the Communism has brought only good things on earth, understanding and love."

http://www.clipa.com/pagpolitica782.htm




The assertions of Barbu about Tismaneanu is gived as an example of alternate opinion in that Wikipedia article:


The same work was nonetheless cited as evidence that Tismăneanu was "a liberal student of Euro-Marxism" by University of Bucharest professor Daniel Barbu (who contrasted Tismăneanu with the official ideological background, as one in a group of "outstanding authors",


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Tism%C4%83neanu

I've said earlier it is a persecution mania, but is much more, is an entire conspiracy theory. Well, I really wouldn't expect less from daco-mania. Sorin Olteanu surprised quite nicely a symptom of "dacomaniacs" (and other pseudo-scientists) that when all their attempts to promote their version of history are rejected by scholarship they accuse the scholars by conspiracy.

No, is a phenomenon known by many people in Romania, but not by the most.

From the same article on Wikipedia is sayed, in this case about Tismaneanu:


Gallagher expressed further criticism on Tismăneanu, writing that "he wishes to build up a vast patron-client network in contemporary history and political science not dissimilar to what the PSD did in those areas where it desired control".

This is the kind of 'intelectual' mafia I have spoken.


Don't mix the things. I agree that the assertions of Plesu about protochronism or of Tismaneanu about Communism (I mean what he says now about Communism, not what he sayed in the seventies) are correct, but they use this kind of activity for their own interests.

Most serious archaeologists would reply that there are plenty of social interactions which you cannot find in archaeology, so this argument really doesn't say anything (and I haven't even questioned which are the evidences for the so-called "social stratification" - do you believe, together with Marxist historians, that the Dacian society, before that dava or whatever, was virtually flat?).

One post before you stating that haven't been discovered the archaeological proofs of a state in Burebista's time.

Anyway, the complex of buildings from Popesti was not of religious or communitar purpose. It is something radicaly different than anything was found in Dacian davae, see the description below.

It is not, if there's no Argedava on Argeş there's no connection between Ordessos and Argeş otherwise but a vague resemblance in names (and Argeş has a decent Turkic etymology). If Ordessos would truly be the same river as Argeş, it would be obviously just a coincidence (and the question would be - why Argeş and not D�mboviţa, or where is the other river, because they are two rivers similar in size and joining each other before running into Danube?).

What you say about Arges ethimology is not correct. It was just a suposition of some scholars. But they and you miss an important thing: where is the Ordessos of Herodotus?

In Pecheneg, Argis means "higher ground". Please tell me how such a name could be atributed to a river?

Considering there's absolutely no attestation in written sources of a dava on Argeş, nothing of what you said above makes sense.

Why should exist written sources for a dava on river Arges?

Popesti is one of the most important archaeological sites in Romania. Is the most important dava from Southern Romania.


Popesti (village, comune Mihailesti, Ilfov county)
Argedava? Digging researches D. V. Rosetti - 1932-1947; R. Vulpe, E. Vulpe, D. V. Rosetti, C. Preda - 1954-1960. In the limit of the village, at Nucet point, un a promontory of Arges river, vestiges overposed of some settlements, with a more rare division in two great areas: the "acropolis" and the "civil settlement", from the Bronze Age (Glina and Tei cultures), first Iron Age (Basarabi culture) and Geto-Dacian epoch (2nd century BC -1st BC), when is constated the mentioned division. From the first Iron Age were identified the vestiges of a monumental fortification: wave made of burned earth "cakies", on whose edge was built a palisade, doubled by an exterior moat and a stoned way inside. From the Dacian period there are dwellings, provision pits and a "palace" of wood and wattle and daub. The so-called palace was a construction of big dimensions, from which only the rests of two rooms have been preserved, one with the North wall arched like an abside.In this room is placed, relatively central, a big squared hearth. In the second room, to the East side, another similar earth and to the oposite side, closer to the center, a third earth, also squared, but smaller and with an incised decoration, having as motif a great double circle surounded by spiralic volutes. Arround the palace there are other constructions, in the same technique, of rectangular plan. One, which is easier to be reconstituted, is an oblong building with two rooms separated by an obong hall. In one of the rooms have been observed the rests of a big squared earth, place relatively central. Another construction seems to have had a more complex plan: a nucleus composed of a great rectangular room, having on the East side a platform on which was a stove, probable for bread, with a strongly burned earth in the shape of a horseshoe, vault of wattle and daub, oval hole and an oblong hall. In a connex room have been discovered five big pots.

Under the palace it was observed an important ensamble, composed of two big rooms, - one squared with a big earth in the center, another one rectangular - and a great oblong hall, fully paved with pebbles.

.....
A special problem is raised by a teracota three arms chandelier, an almost exact replica of a bronze chandelier from Piscu Crasani.
...
The earth fortification of the settlement are dated from the first Iron Age but have been used and completed in the Dacic epoch.
The settlement suffered during the expedition of Sextus Aelius Catus (11-12 d.Hr.), most of the population being evacuated...



From Dictionary of Ancient Art of Romania,Scientific and Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest 198o.

The archaeological researches at Popesti were continuated in the nineties, until 2001, see the Cimec site (search for Popesti name).



There is a work called "Getic fortresses in Muntenia" from where I learnt about the davae at Tinosu, Piscu Crasani, Zimnicea.

Given most of your dubious claims, I am not sure about the correct interpretation of the archaeology of those sites, but it's not really an issue. The important issue is to show that a) Burebista had Argedava as capital b) That capital was on Argeş and the evidences are lacking for both claims.

We have these elements:

-a town called Argedava and the parent of someone is mentioned in a contemporary text in a context where Burebista is mentioned too

-on a river called Arges is discovered the most signifiant dava from all South of Romania and the most complex construction from all Dacian period.

-Burebista is mentioned as the most illustrous of the kings of Thracia


Aren't too much 'coincidences'?

I do not think Argedavon is in accusative, Argedava should be in accusative Argedavan (I suppose it works on decl. I).

Maybe that is not in Accusative but is the original name of the town, whose termination was something between dava and on, as wee see in the name of Apulon.

Or maybe it was in Accusative but the author was not abble to decline a foreign name.

So how they know they are Dacians anyway? How they know they discovered Argedava? Like I've said until now - wishful thinking.

Because in the written sources are mentioned the troubles that Dacians from today Muntenia were making to Romans and this lead to the deportation of 50.000 Dacians from Muntenia to South of Danube. This is very well illustrated by the abandonment of the davae from Muntenia at the beginning of 1st century AD.




Edited by Menumorut - 15-Oct-2007 at 22:07

I have nothing more to add. Protochronism is undefeatable.