Dacians, thracians, and their stuff.
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mediterranean and Europe
Forum Discription: Greece, Macedon, Rome and other cultures such as Celtic and Germanic tribes
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22043
Printed Date: 29-Apr-2024 at 03:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Dacians, thracians, and their stuff.
Posted By: TheARRGH
Subject: Dacians, thracians, and their stuff.
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 03:09
|
I am quite interested in the Dacians-the inhabitants of ancient Romania, who shattered several roman assaults before finally succumbing. They were probably related to the Thracians, who lives relatively nearby. I have to ask-what was their culture generally like, and what military and domestic technologies did they use? I know far too little about them...please respond to my urgent inquiries.. ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Replies:
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 09:30
|
The material culture in the Bronze age and first Iron Age in the territories of today Romania and Bulgaria is considered to belong to the ancestors of Thracians. Since the second Iron Age (Latene), the Thracians from North of Danube are differentiating culturaly from the Southern one.
The material culture was at a level of development similar to the one of Celts. In 5th centuries at Dacians appears the davae, an imitation of the Greek polises, fortified heights surounded by inhabited terrases, centers of tribal power. In 2-1st centuries BC the davae became numerous. Until now, I think that over a hundred such davae have been discovered. Some were small, some bigger, with earth waves or stone walls. The material culture in 4th BC - 1st AD centuries is impressingly unitar on the territory of today Romania and Republic of Moldavia. In 1st century BC Burebista creates a union of all Dacian tribes, from today Slovakia to Northern Bulgaria. His first capital was at Popesti, near Bucharest, but he moved it to South-West Transylvania, where it was better defended in the case of a Roman invasion. The new capital was first at Costesti, than at Sarmisegetuza Regia (to not be confounded with Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetusa, placed at some tens kms), at few distance from Costesti. Several fortresses in the area of Orastie mountains were built with fasonated stone by Roman and Greek engineers. It was an impressive system of fortresses, towers and walls over the mountains, of which only a part is discovered by archaeologists, who presumes that this system is much larger than it was believed till recent. Other fortresses at some tens of kms of Sarmisegetusa were to built in fasonated stones by the Roman engineers. In the art and spirituality, it seems that it was a major change between the period of 5-4th centuries BC and the period of Burebista and Decebal. In 5-4th century is characteristic a style of Iranian influence in the art of precious metals and the imitation of Hellenistic and Thracian tombs at the Dacians from Moldova and Muntenia. Some links with images: - http://www.geocities.com/cogaionon/pictures.htm - Here you can find images of the fortresses and buildings from Orastie mountains and some typical Dacian weapons and domestic utilities. - http://www.muzeul-carpatilor-rasariteni.ro/carheo/covasna/figuri.htm - Cetatea Zanelor , a dava from Covasna county |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 16:48
|
so...they were, in a way, Barbarians, but through greek and iranian influences and their own cultural unity, they managed to become a fairly large, well-defended, militarily significant culture. Who were their ancestors? I mean, could've been some sort of celtic people, but they might have been more descended from the Scythians, or even some steppe tribe passing through.. I wonder who actually settled romania in the first place... anyways, thanks for answering some questions. ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 17:18
|
Their culture was influenced by foreign cultures only superficial, in the sense of some artistic elements and styles of the material products. Religious and as vision about existence, they were quite original, read the first message from this topic:
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17934 - Misterious places in Carpathians By the number of settlements, I think the Dacians were very numerous in 1st century BC and AD. Their ancestors were the Paleolithic, Neolithic and Indo-European populations. In Neolithic, the territory of today Romania was the most advanced in Europe. Romanians too are geneticaly the European people with the highest percent of microasiatic contribution and some of the Neolithic cultures, like Hamangia, belongs to populations which migrated in 6-4th millenia from Minor Asia. The coming of Indo-Europeans resulted, like in most of Europe, in a cultural mutation, the Neolithic civilisations stopped their existence and a new culture appears. As I sayed, archaeologists afirm that from 2000 BC we cn speak about Thracians. In time different groups have settled in the territory: -in the Bronze Age, different groups of population have came, for example another microasiatic group at Sarata Monteoru, Buzau county -for the 5th century BC Herodotus mention the Agatyrses in East Transylvania, ehich was considered a Scythic population. A cultural enclave from that period and area was identified by archaeologists but because of its character, they believe that the Agatyrses were rather a Thracian group from today Bulgaria. -Celts also settled in areas of Transylvania and Illyrians in Oltenia, being assimilated. -------------  |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 22:48
|
What kinds of technology did they generally use? weapons, tools, etc.
------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: YusakuJon3
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 01:01
|
I believe that it's been said that the Dacians had use of a type of sword shaped like a sickle that could reach around the sheilds of an opponent to cut their arms and necks. This was the "falx" you see in the barbarian falxmen used in Creative Assembly's Rome: Total War game. Part of the reason that the Romans developed that odd extension on the backs of their helmets was to prevent the beheading that would result from such a weapon being used on them. ------------- "There you go again!" -- President Ronald W. Reagan (directed towards reporters at a White House press conference, mid-1980s) |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 01:30
|
I heard of that... one of the realtively few major changes in core equipment made during rome's history. ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 03:46
|
Have any hypos ever been made about the possible links between Dacian language and Baltic languages?
Some Dacian words, like the name of god Zamolksis, sound very Lithuanian to me. ------------- Σαυρομάτης 
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 05:34
They were a peaceful people so their weapons were agricultural tools turned in weapons: scythes. The Romans called this Dacian weapon sica, which actualy was the http://images.google.ro/images?hl=ro&q=falx&btnG=C%C4%83utare+Imagini&gbv=2 - falx . Also, they used bows. As tools, there is nothing particular to mention.
I know that is considered that Baltic language is the closest to ancient Dacian. ------------- |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 06:08
|
and with mainly bows and falxes, they beat back rome repeatedly? I read somewhere that representations of dacian warriors often show them armed with spears and shields-from what I've read, falxes weren't terribly common weapons. ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 18:35
|
About spears you are right but I'm not informed. You can find some images
http://www.cartula.net/smartsection.item.121/dacii.html - here . About shields, on the Trajan Column they appears with shields. Archaeologists discovered the umbo of some battle shields: 
Some links: http://www.zamolxis.ro/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=25 - Images of houses from Romania's Neolithic, Bronze Age and of Dacians http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/dave/piatra.htm - Images of reconstitution of Dacian fortress of Piatra Rosie http://www.liceoberchet.it/ricerche/romavf/images/LXXI.jpg - The same fortress on the Trajan's Column ------------- |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 22:03
|
I learn a little bit more on Internet:
The weapons of Dacians: The hatchet It was conceived not only as tool but more like weapon. It was called CATEIA, it's present on the Column in three variants. 
There are 4 main types of hatchets. 1. THE SCYTHIAN HATCHET FOR FIGHT, about which the Ancients were saying it has the propriety of boomerang to return to the one who throwed it. This kind of hatchet has its origin in the Getic bronze hatchet from 4th century BC. 2. THE AXE-HATCHET, with wide and curved edge, with squared whole but without the characterisc ear of Celtic axes. 3. THE POUNDED OUT FIGHT HATCHET, with wide and curved edge and with the cant prolonged in the shape of a thin hammer. This delicate hatchet was used almost exclusively in battle. 4. THE AXE-HAMMER TYPE OF HATCHET, with nodes in the place of grip on the hilt. 
The knife Like the hatchet, the knife was in the same time tool and weapon, reason for which it was extensively used. It was beared in a scabbard, at belt, and it was in many shapes: 1. Knifes with wide, right and convex blade 2. Knives with narrow blade, convex cant and right edge. Of these types of knife derives the Dacian types of knives, with edge close to the wineyard bill-hook, often represented on monuments and very often used by Dacians. 3. The knife with S - shape edge, derivated from the Bronze Age knives. 4. Knives with iron hilt put in wood or bone and finished in the shape of bulb or button. A special category are the bill-hook knives characteristic for Dacians, very efficient in bodily fight. There are very wide weapons and with the barb suddenly curved, with a 20-30 cm blade. The wood hilt grips the handle of the bill-hook using too an iron ring. Swords 
The shord swords, of ~50 cm of which the hilt was 12-15 cm, with double edge. These swords were used for choping from up to down. With the time, under the Celtic influence, the blades of the swords reached considerable lenght, up to one meter and 5-6 cm wide. 
The curved sword It was the characteristic Dacian weapon, with the barb gradualy narrowed and curved like a sickle and with only one edge on the concave side. The smaller types were manipulated with one hand while the big ones with the both hands. These quality wepons were produced in very great quantity so that almost all the valid men were unitary armed and even these weapons have been exported to Celts, Sarmatians and Bastarns. 
The lances They were produced in a heaps of forms and models, from small pale babrs to enormous lance irons of 50 cm, from simple shapes without wings to shapes copying the willow or laurel leaf and from simple prod lances to lances for throwing and to complex shapes with the iron in flame shape. at the bottom end they were endowed with a sharp iron spur for being sticked in earth against the cavalry.  
The bow It was an offensive weapon and it was used by both pedestrians and especialy by cavalry. The good symbiosis between the Geto-Dacian cavalery and the bow has gained them a good fame in the ancient European world. The bronze or iron barb, triangular, pounded and with two triangular spurs much prolonged like wide thorns were having at their bottom part the whole for wood and rarely a nail in the wood. There are three types of arrows: 
1. Barb with spurs 2Barb with wings like the lances 3. Barb with ribs, of helicoidal profile, with three cants; undoubtly the arrows were envenomed, often with viper venom or other poison. Another kind of arrow was the one used by balistes, which were heavy and massive. The Dacians were using too as balistic weapon the sling, throwing stones or sharpen leads.  
These kinds of projectiles have been found in all Dacia. The shield It was composed of a small metal part: the interior glove and exterior umbo and a wood body covered with leather. The most common shape was the elipse of big dimensions and more rare the small and round; both variants were richly decorated. 
    
The Helmets The helmets were not appreciated among the Dacians, even not at tarabostes (the plebe) but they appears on the Column as trophies. Anyway, the parade gold helmet from Cotofenesti is emblematic for the Daco-Getic skillfulness and art.   
The Chain Mail The chain mail in the Dacian army was beared especialy by tarabostes as defensive armament. The chain mail shirt, composed of iron rings linked together or of plates or scalds after Roman and Sarmatic model 
You can find information about catapultes on the page from where I took this information: http://gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/armata_daca/armamentul_01.htm - http://gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/armata_daca/armamentul_01.htm ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 22:53
Very interesting. Are there any sources in the internet for that? ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 00:12
First, this topic were in last hours have been a discussion on this subject (to the end of this page and the next page): http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22010&PN=5 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22010&PN=5 Second, I'm not informed, but look what I found with Google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_to_Dacian_sound_changes - Proto-Indo-European to Dacian sound changes http://www.lituanus.org/1992_2/92_2_02.htm - Dacian and Thracian as Southern Baltoidic http://indoeuro.bizland.com/archive/article3.html - The Problem of Ancient Minor Languages and Their Origin There are some mysterious connection between Lituanian and Romanian traditions. I remember the most signifiant, the fact that only the two people have a kind of song (prolonged, slow and sad) called http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cbapiLZVVU - Doina in Romanian and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HRDGPiJCdU - Daina in Lituanian. ------------- |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 02:12
|
I like the list of equipment. Were their armies more "standardized" than many of rome's enemies? ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 05:38
|
As it was sayed about sica/falx, almost all the men were having this weapon and this produced an uniformization. But I cannțt believe any other standardization was present, as is known that the Dacians were very disunite (this was the cause of their insucces of defeating the Romans). ------------- |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 06:26
|
Although they seem to have had more unity then other cultures that rome fought, since they managed to BEAT roman armies several times.
------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 09:56
|
The "geto-dacian cavalry" were mostly the sarmatian roxolans, who lived by The Danube in the near of the Black-sea, but the sarmatian yazighs, who lived in the hung. deepland, were the allies of the romans, that's why you can se heavy armoured mounted archers on both (dacian-and roman sides) on the Traian c.
TSZ
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 12:56
They were a hard people, feared not at all of death. When someone was born they were crying deploring him/her and when someone died they where happy for him. And it was not something demonstrative, there are mentions that they were going in battle with totaly lack of fear of death. Also, they were very numerous and the natural environment was helping them, because it was very tortuous, savagely forested and accidented and only they were knowing it. But the tribes were rivals, there were many betrayers among them and this made them lose. After the conquest of Sarmisegetusa Regia, many Dacians comited suicide, as the Column illustrates: 
Decebal also comited suicide.
Are you sure? Read this: XXIII. Disasters of the Dacian cavalry A number of horsemen are struggling in the water. These are, perhaps, Dacian cavalry attempting an attack on a distant Roman fort during winter time over ice. The ice is insufficient to bear them, and they are seen struggling on the surface of the stream. One man has lost his shield. Two others up to their knees in water have recovered it. Friends on the bank give what help they can to the swimmers. Several horsemen unable to keep their seats are calling for help, and some are drowned, others scramble to the bank as best they can. Along the bank is a line of men mounted and on foot flying in confusion. Three of these horsemen are completely covered with scale armour. Not only the riders, but the horses are so protected. The heads, ears, and legs of the horses are completely covered, as well as the bodies, limbs, and feet of the men, even the eyes of the horses have a thin grating as a protection. This armour was called feathered, plumata, from the overlapping of the small plates. The heads of the riders are protected by conical head-pieces with cheek plates, but their faces and hands are bare. Two standards, one a labarum or draco and one the Dacian dragon, are hurried along by the fugitives. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/Trajans_Column/John_Pollen/Description/23*.html - XXIII. Disasters of the Dacian cavalry Do you believe perhaps that Dacians were not knowing to ride or were having not horses? Do you know that the most characteristic local deity in the Roman province of Dacia and in Moesia were the http://www.bookrags.com/research/dacian-riders-eorl-04/ - Dacian or Thracian riders? The cavalry was the main military force of the Dacians from the Danubian basin. They were attacking Moesia before the Trajan conquest and even in the time of the Dacia province and after, they were making attacks of cavalry against the province or against the South of Danube. Constantine the Great was bearing the title Carpicus (other emperors were bearing the title Dacicus) because they were defeated Dacian invadors on horses. There was a heavy and a light Dacian cavalry. The heavy was composed of troups covered in iron plates: 
Ovid was praising the Getic horses, characterising them with rapidus and celer. These horses were renowed in Antiquity. ------------- |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 16:45
|
Hmmm...was there ANY culture that rome fought that had any great cultural unity? seems like it was pretty much just carthage and perhaps the parthians. (don't know much about them). on another note, what were the thracians like? ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 17:02
|
You can find links and images at these pages:
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=13793&KW=thracian - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=13793&KW=thracian http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=15172&KW=thracian - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=15172&KW=thracian ------------- |
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2007 at 17:25
| Cert. no, but the heavy armoured riders were sarmatians on both sides. The dacian cavalry is wearing dacian clothes on the c. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2007 at 18:30
Thank you very much ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2007 at 22:25
OK, you are right. ------------- |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2007 at 04:33
|
Were there any especially famous thracians? I heard belisarius was, but I'm not sure about the source. ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2007 at 12:35
|
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):
Decius (249-251) Regalianus (260) was a Dacian, falsely pretended to be a descendant of Decebal Aureolus (268), a Dacian, born North of Danube Claudius II (268-270) Quintillus (270) Aurelian (270-275) Probus (276-282) Maximian (250-310) Constantius Chlorus (305-306) Galerius (305-311), son of a Dacian woman. He wished put the population of Rome and Italy to taxes for revenging the humiliation of Dacians by Trajan who subdued them to tribute. He wished to change the name of the Roman empire in Dacian empire Constantine the Great (307-337) who considered himself a Dacian, as we see in the statues of Dacian warriors on his arch: 
Licinius (308-324), Dacian from Moesia Maximinus Daia (310-313) Jovian (363-364) Gratian (359-383) Constantius III (421) Marcian (450-457) Justinian (527-565) Leo I, known as Leo the Thracian (457-474) Phocas (602-610) ------------- |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 05:26
|
interesting... I just read a series by eric flint (sort of an alternate-history series) set in the byzantine empire and ethiopia, mesopotamia, and india, during the reign of Justinian (the one who sent belisarius off to retake the western empire.) I did notice a lot of the characters being thracian, but I figured I shouldn't just automatically believe a work of fiction-hence the reason i asked about "famous thracians" ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 14:11
|
Is very important that in 6th century were Thracians whose names were exactly as in the classical period, before the Roman conquest.
There is interesting information about the presence of Bessi in Sinai and Palestine in 6th century: The chronicler Eutychius of Alexandria writes in 10th century that Justinian, when founding the St. Ecaterine monastery in Sinai he has sent one hundred families of "abid-al-Rum", meaning 'servants of the Romans'. A manuscript from the monastery, considered to be a copy after a document from 530, speaks about the foundation of the monastery mentioning the bringing of Christians from Black Sea, from the land of the Wallachs: bilad-al-Aflah. In 570, at short time after the founding of the monastery, the pilgrim Antoninus Placentinus says that at St. Ecaterine were spoken the Latin, the Greek, Syriac, Egyptian and Bessian. The Bessi were the most important Thracian tribe and this is how is mentioned the Thracian population from Balkans in Justinian's time. Even today, a tribe of bedouins called Bezy, living near the Ter town, not far from Sinai mountain. In 16th century, a Chech traveller named Cristophe Harant stories about the bedouins near the monastery of St. Ecaterine that their chiefs are called capi, like in Romanian (cap or capetenie means chief, plural is capi). The German traveller Samuel Kiechel in 16th century relates that these bedouins call the louses "pedoci" (the Romanian word for louse is paduche, plural paduchi, of Latin origin). A British autor, John Levis Burckardt, in a book published in 1822, offers interesting details about the Gebalie, the bedouin tribe near the monastery: "When Justinian has built the monastery, he sent a group of slaves originar from the coasts of Black Sea (...) They unanomous declares their descendants from the Christian slaves, and this is why the others are calling them Bedouins. They mary only among themselves, making an apart community of arround one undred and twenty armed people. They are a hardworking and robust race". Marcu Beza (a Romanian diplomate and writed, died in 1949) has personaly knowed such a Bedouin, which served him as a guide. It was a young and well built man, with white bead and shirt, with leather belt, laced moccasins. He showed to Marcu in the garden of the monastery the place where was buried the last Christian woman of the tribe, in 1750. The blood analysises made in the seventies at all bedouins from Sinai mountain showed that the Gebalie (the Mountain people), the Bedouin tribe near the monastery is different from all the others. Unfortunately, there have not been comparations with the population from Romania and Bulgaria. In the work "The life of Saint Theodosius" is sayed that in the monastery founded by Theodosius East of Bethleem in 6th century there were four churches: one for mental patients, one with services in in Greek language, one in which "The Bessian nation were rising their prayer to our common Lord" and one in Armenian language. In "The life of Saint Saba the Hallowed" were are told about several Bessian monasteries in Palestine. A Bessian monastery was existing in 553 at Constantinople. From 6-7th century we have an information from John Moscu, who says that in Palestine were two monasteries called Soubiba, one of Bessian language and one of Syriac language. ------------- |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 14:19
|
Apulon Apulon was the capital of the Dacian tribe of Apuli, living on the territory of today Alba county. Apulon was the ancestor of Apulum, the today Alba Iulia city. Romans interdicted the inhabitation of all Dacian towns and villages after conquest, with the exception of Napoca, because the Napocensii tribe was allied with the Romans during the battles. At Apulon several Dacian sanctuaries, a fortified enceinte, terraces with habitations and wrokshops have been discovered: 
http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/alba_iulia/craiva.htm - http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/alba_iulia/craiva.htm ------------- |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 18:06
|
I wonder how big in terms of population their towns got...
------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 18:46
|
I found not such data.
I can say only that the population of the Dacians short time before the Roman conquest was estimated at 2 millions, the population of the Roman province Dacia was estimated at 500.000. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 18:54
|
How far did exactly Dacian infuence stretch to the East after the expedition of king Burebista against Olvia?
I saw on some maps the borders of Dacian state were as far as Dniper river. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 19:47
Yes, is correct.
 ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 20:22
|
Much of the information here on Dacians is distorted. The group "Dacia Nemuritoare" (the Immortal Dacia) and several others (responsible for parts of the materials references here) are relatively well-known in the Romanian historiography for their "Dacomanism", or more generally "Protochronism", ideological movements which attempt to make the Dacian civilization much more brilliant and developed than it really was (after the most extreme form of it - the first civilization ever, starting with Tărtăria) and to make the Romanians the proud descendents of them (and usually in a total unscientific way, by inventing realities beyond what the evidences really say). In a way similar with some recent extremist positions from the thread on the origins of Bulgarians.
To your last question Sarmat12, it is not really known what was the stretch of the Dacian influence north of Danube, for the informations are scarce and it is really inappropriate to speak of a "Dacian state". The sources for Burebista's reign (Byrebista, Boerebista) are:
- Strabo (Geographia, Book VII, section 3.5, 3.11 and 3.12 and the fights with the Celts are confirmed in section 5.2; check here for a Greek/English version: http://soltdm.com/sources/mss/strab/7.htm - http://soltdm.com/sources/mss/strab/7.htm )
- the inscription from Dionysopolis (today Balčic, Bulgaria) dedicated to Acornion which mentions Burebista as the greatest king of Thracia
- Jordanes in Getica (about 6 centuries after Burebista's life)
There is no solid information that various sackings by Dacians/Getae (and their allies) were coordinated by a supreme ruler, there's no solid informations that they were conquests. The expedition of Burebista against Olbia is AFAIK based on Dio Chrysostom's Oration XXXVI, 4, where the text says nothing about Burebista, only involved Getae in the destruction of the city with 150 years before the time he was writing (and the date fits Burebista's alleged reign). From this scarce information to infer an expedition it seems, to me, an outstretch (also if Chrysostom is wrong by some decades, Burebista could not have been a ruler). Likewise, to infer a map like Menumorut's from this scarce information.
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 21:23
|
The sites of the Dacomans are the richest in information about Dacians and not only about Dacians. Actualy, is the richest resource for the history of the territory of today Romania. Is true that there are pages with totaly fantasmagoric information, but there are too much information taken from scientifical works of Romanian scholars, and when is this case there is not any distortion. For example, http://gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranistorum/fierul.html - this page about the falx, in which is gived the bibliography. The information about the Timoc Romanians is too very good. You say that much of the information presented here, by me, is distorted. What is distorted in what I have writen? The map is not made by Dacomans, is from Historical Atlas of Romania published in the seventies and republished later. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 21:39
|
One more question. Did Julius Ceasar planned to conquer Dacia and did he say smth. that the conquest of Dacia would be even more difficult than the conquest of Gaul ? ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 22:04
|
The so called "richness in information" is actually richness in fiction, and that is not valueable. The scholarship you invoke (Romanian scholarship in the 70s-80s) is well-acknowledged as protochronistic, "dacomanic" and driven by the ideology of Ceauşescu's regime to fabricate a glorious history for the Romanians (see assessments like of Lucian Boia - historiographer, Alexandru Niculescu - archaeologist or Iancu Moţu - archaeologist) and thus heavily biased (with reknown absurd syntagms like the "centralized state of the Geto-Dacians during Burebista" or even a better one the "uncentralized state" describing the rule of Dacians after Burebista - I'll leave the readers to imagine how an "uncentralized state" be like). Of course there's correct information in it, but for that one reader should compare the scholarship you invoke with other scholarship and extract only the common points.
The map you're presenting is a very clear example of distortion. I brought the sources on Burebista, please show me how that map is supported by them and not by the fiction of its authors. I really do not want to make a criticism of all what you wrote, just to draw the attention on other forumers which look for honest answers, and not dacomanic propaganda.
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 22:30
C. Velleius Paterculus (early 1st century AD), Historia Romana, II, 59, 4:
He (Caesar) intended to take him (Octavianus) in his expeditions against Getae and the Parthians.
Appianus (1-2nd centuried AD), Historia Romanorum, De rebus Illyricis, XVII:
Near this river (Sava) there was a fortification Caesar wanted to use for supplies and the war he was preparing against the Dacians and the Bastarnae living across the Ister.
Strabo, Geographia (early 1st century AD, from the translation I've already linked), VII, 3, 5:
at the time when Byrebistas, against whom already the Deified Caesar had prepared to make an expedition, was reigning over the Getae
and VII, 5, 12:
However, certain men rose up against Boerebistas and he was deposed before the Romans sent an expedition against him; and those who succeeded him divided the empire into several parts.
Paulus Orosius (5th century AD, please note how late is this chronicle!), Adversum paganos, I, 16
Getae which today are called Goths (sic!), which Alexander the Great said he had to avoid them, Pyrrhus was terrified by them, and Caesar had to stay away from them.
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 22:55
|
Sarmat, I don't have information for your question. I know only that Julius Caesar sayed some things about Dacia in De Bello Gallico, which was lost. Chilbudios, is not hard to extract the correct information from such websites. Images anyway cann't be fake or the texts copied from mentioned books. You are making the same mistake like Dacomans or by ideologicaly driven scholars: you are driven by some prejudices, which, at you, are not in the points about the historical data but about the rightness of Romanian scholars' acuracy. What have you studied from the works of Romanian historians and archaeologists? Making assertions without giving quotes or examples is not only not scientifical but dangerous. You create a false imagine about the Romanian historiography and archaeology without knowing it. You have read Boia and Niculescu and believe that what Niculescu says is correct and all the other hundreds of Romanian scholars are wrong. Which are your criteria for making such judgements? The sources for the existente of Burebista as a ruler who realized a great union of tribes and conquered much of the surroinding territory are very well completing each other. You are believing that for a historical figure to exists it must be a complete description somewhere. It seems that you dont' know that davae were discovered in Slovakia, dating from the period of Burebista's expansion. In his time (the period described by Jordanes) it was manifested an uniformization of the characteristics of the material culture, as arhcaeologists know. How do you explain the aparition of the religious and political center from Orastie mountains in the time of Burebista? How do you explain the aparition of the sanctuaries in the time of Burebista? Isn't clear that this should be made by Decaeneus, the great priest which together with Burebista reformed the life of Dacians? This map is not Dacoman propaganda. You can find similar maps made by foreign people: 
I wait anwer at my question: what is fake in my message? You sayed that much is wrong, not that only the map is wrong. Paul Cristian Damian's thesis is propaganda too? He managed to unify all the Geto-Dacian nations, grouped in big tribal unions, delimitable partialy on numismatic criteria, and he has put the basis of the first state, destroying the power of Boii Celts so far as Slovakia, taking in possession the Greek cities on the West and North coast of Black Sea, from Apollonia to Olbia, managing in a short time, between 60 and 48 BC, to found a great kingdom, stretching to West and North-West up to Middle Danube and Morava, to North up to Forested Carpathians and to East up to North-West coast of Black Sea and to South, across Dobrudja up to Balkans, an arch exceding the ethnic borders of Dacia. After his disparition, the lack of economical unity and the weak political centralization of this by violence formed organization, had lead to the dismembering of this, first in four parts, than in five, territorialy coresponding probably to the old tribal unions. And much more at http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/damian/aspecte_text.html - http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/damian/aspecte_text.html ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 23:11
Thank you for such a detailed reply. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 23:27
Moesia inferior is todays Northern Bulgaria.Serbia was Moesia superior,check the maps...
link: http://www.1uptravel.com/worldmaps/balkans1.html - http://www.1uptravel.com/worldmaps/balkans1.html ------------- ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 23:53
|
Sorry for the mistake.
Anyway, it was a double mistake, one confusing Moesia Inferior with Moesia Superior and one by the fact that these emperors were from both Moesia. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2007 at 00:06
|
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.
Now, I have already mentioned some scholars (and please spare me of your ignorant assumptions, I have not read just Boia and Niculescu, I have read similar criticisms from Iancu Moţu, archaeologist, Andrei Oişteanu, cultural anthropologist, Mircea Babeş, archaeologist, Sorin Olteanu (http:// http://www.soltdm.com - www.soltdm.com ) linguist, Andrei Pleşu, philosopher, essayist and literary critic, Patzinakia group ( http://www.patzinakia.ro - www.patzinakia.ro ) - a group of medievists which satirize various dacomanic groups and the list can grow even more, but there's no need to, is it?), which made assessments of the protochronist or nationalist excesses in Romanian historiography and denounced various such theories with no background in evidence whatsoever. Is not me who creates this allegedly false image, it is already created by scholars and it's a quasi-unanimous view today, given in an edition of the recent Istoria Romnilor signed by a group of Romanian and international scholars we can read the following:
... prin anii '30'40, o dată cu accentuarea ideii autohtoniste şi, mai ales, n anii '70-'80, datorită maniei traco-dacismului, mbrăţişată de cţiva oficiali ai istoriografiei comunismului naţionalist romnesc. ... in the 30s-40s, with the accentuation of the autochtonist ideas, but moreover, in the 70s-80s, due to traco-dacist mania, embraced by some official of the historiography of the Romanian nationalist communism.
So, as you can see, the excesses of Romanian scholarship (mostly in past periods, but also with some residual marks even today) are not just "my assertions".
The attempts to prove me that map is not fictional are missing one important point. The examples you quote are from people who take other scholars' conclusions for granted, so they do not examine the primary sources to check that for themselves. So, the only scholarship which matters is the one which deals with the specific evidences for the claims, not the one who takes indiscriminately claims from earlier scholarship, without intending to prove them again. Even that PhD thesis has the topic "Geto-Dacians in the demographic configuration of Dacia Romana", so we can't blame the author for not studying properly all the aspects of Geto-Dacian history, except for those which are the real subject of his thesis. In the introduction to his thesis, the author even admits he had to use mostly pre-1989 scholarship.
However among the authors I've quoted, there are some concerned about the rule of Burebista and they failed to find that great expansion of Burebista in written sources, so on what grounds the borders are being drawn? The archaeology, contrary to your claims, fails to provide the evidence for the rule of Burebista over this large space.
So based on the lack of arguments I say that map is incorrect. The burden of proof is not mine as you suggest, but yours (or whoever claims that map). So it's not about "my assertions", but about "your (or whomever claims it) assertions". I've already done my job and put forward all the written sources I know of Burebista. Please consult them and paint the map of his rule according to them (or find a scholar who does that for you and quote him).
Oh, now I've noticed. Have you looked carefully at the second map? The "kingdom" of Burebista is painted only to be in southern Transylvania, Oltenia and Banat (in dark blue), the red arrows are (I believe) only expeditions. So that map does not confirm the expansion of Burebista's authority as your other maps claim it, on the contrary, his "kingdom" is considerably smaller.
|
Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2007 at 00:12
|
guys I have a question for you it is about the Martenitsa ritual in bulgaria/on 1st of march...I have a pic in my topic Bulgarian origins on the last page of the topic..any idea about its origins?I heard its practised in Romania and Moldavia too...do you agree of its protobulgar origin? ------------- ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2007 at 00:48
|
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? ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2007 at 00:58
|
Ofcourse you are not obliged, but you have assertions without proving them.
You are mixing together some criticists which had refered to different things. Sorin Olteanu didn't refered to Romanian scholars but to the amateur Dacomans. Andrei Plesu is an arrivist, son of Communist nomenclaturists and after 1989 managed to became a public figure for obtaining advantages. His work is small and poor and how can you quote a philosopher in historical subjects? Or how can you quote an ethnolog like Oisteanu? Patzinakia group criticized the same Dacoman amateurs, not the Romanian scholars. What you say about the work Istoria Romnilor shows me clearly that you are speaking about what you don't know, because this work was criticized for its bombastic language, starting with the title which, Niculescu or someone other (I'm almost sure Niculescu was) says, have to refer to the territory of Romania, not to Romanian people. As for the maps, what you say could be appliable to the Spanish-made one, but for the Hungarian-made map, I hardly believe that they would take something about Romania without checking the original sources. Anyway, reading what you have offered as primary sources, I conclude that these maps are correct, it is the most acceptable view to believe that the great union of tribes existed under the rule of a political leader.
And is this that bad? Do you believe that everything pre-1989 is wrong? Have read any Romanian archaeological monographies writen in pre-1989 period? I have in front of mine 6-7 such monographies (each one about one site) and is not any forced interpretation. In these books there are presented the facts without being made ethnic atributions and in the Conclusions chapter there are sugested some ideas. Your dilema about the literary sources on Burebista is not a problem for historians. To understand how a historian think, try to give and explanation to the aparition of those accounts from the ancient sources and also try to answer at these: -what sort of organization was in Dacian society in 1st century BC? -how appeared the state of Decebal? Then, you can try to answer at a combination between the previous questions and the ones related to archaeological discoveries: -why there are not sanctuaries before the Burebista's time and then, in his time sudenly appears similar (lines of rounded stones) sanctuaries in most the Dacian lands: on Dniestr river, in Carpathic Moldavia, in Muntenia and Oltenia, Transilvania? -why appears the fasonated stone fortresses in South-East Transylvania in 1st century BC? -why appear a political and religious center which seems to be of all Dacians, in the same area? ------------- |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2007 at 01:27
|
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 http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17934 - 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. ------------- |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2007 at 01:38
Perhaps, but then again, perhaps not. While there was not a central power, nor was there in ancient greece, much of the americas, and so on. They probably had a few "kings" of small pieces of what would later become a large unified entity. And some of those probably had a fair amount of money and influence, within their sphere. If they had that, they could have had some fairly established trade-even if it wasn't on the scale of more centralized societies. ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2007 at 01:52
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2007 at 03:28
|
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.
I am not sure what primary sources you have read on Burebista because what I have offered certainly did not mention a proper conquest of Burebista, just wars and expeditions. I say the Hungarian map reflects better Strabo's account, while the other maps are based on wishful thinking, that after the said expeditions Burebista also conquered the lands and estabilished some sort of authority over them. But this information does not exist.
Your accusations on my "mixture" of criticism are based on an apparent ignorance in the topic. Let's proceed with each:
Sorin Olteanu made some very specific accusations on "dacomania" and not only for amateurs. For once, Aurora Peţan is a classical philologist with a PhD. But also he addressed certain "dacomania" symptoms, for instance, using the name "Kogaion" (correct: "Kogaionon"), which betrays unfamiliarity with Greek sources and language and a forced Romanianization of the term and it can be surprised also in Romanian scholarship (for instance, I've seen it recently in a pre-1989 material signed by C. C. Giurescu under the form Kogheon!).
I do not think I or anyone else would care on your ad hominems thrown at Andrei Pleşu (or how would your characterization mean anything), especially that he's a popular figure of contemporary Romanian intellectuality. Likewise, ignorance should not be a reason for denial, you can read this article for more information (sorry everybody, is in Romanian: http://www.revista22.ro/html/index.php?nr=2002-10-31&art=241 - http://www.revista22.ro/html/index.php?nr=2002-10-31&art=241 ) and see that he (and not only) has a valid point of view (as a literary and art critic he can spot nationalism and denounce it).
Andrei Oişteanu wrote an article ( http://www.observatorcultural.ro/informatiiarticol.phtml?xid=4078&print=true - http://www.observatorcultural.ro/informatiiarticol.phtml?xid=4078&print=true in Romanian) and here is an excerpt, translated by me:
As for "tracomania", there was an ideological direction starting with B. P. Hasdeu (Are the Dacians extinct, 1860), continued by Grigore Tocilescu (Dacia before Romans, 1877), Nicolae Densuşianu (Prehistoric Dacia, 1913) and Vasile Prvan (Getica. A protohistory of Dacia, 1924-26), etc. - works designed to illustrate the Geto-Dacian ancestors (almost mythical) to be extraordinary, with invincible kings and magnific gods.
Needless to add that N. Densuşianu and V. Prvan are often in the footnotes and the bibliography of more recent Romanian works, especially before 1989.
Patzinakia group's criticism, is also directed at flawed Romanian scholarship, for instance, when criticising the group "Dacia Nemuritoare" they pick on Aurora Peţan and they add they regret she finished classical philology because obviously she hasn't learned anything in university.
I'm not sure how the criticism on Istoria Romnilor invalidates what I've quoted from it. That was not the source (I've listed scholars for that), that was the "official" recognition of the tendency I've already illustrated.
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."
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2007 at 09:29
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 7060 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 6050 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 - 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, Prvan 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.
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. http://www.cimec.ro/Monumente/UNESCO/UNESCOen/Album/FortDac/Cetatuia/FortOrastie.htm - UNESCO -The Dacian fortresses of the Orăştie mountains ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2007 at 14:05
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).
You haven't read the works mentioned there, so you're unable to assess them (and he has diploma, thus he is a scholar in his field). He's mentioned for taking a position against the protochronist excesses in culture during those years (about the culture in those years: The anti-protochronist points of view rarely surface to the large public, though they were predominantly held by the humanist intellectuals. A solid position of Andrei Pleşu was published in 20th century with the footnote: Andrei Pleşu, The rigors of the national idea and the legitimity of the universal, 20th century, 1-2-3/1981, pp. 189-196)
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2007 at 16:48
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 - http://eng.nitra.sk/?id_menu=5654&firmy_slovenska_flag=0 .............
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 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Tism%C4%83neanu
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.
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.
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 10:47
|
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). These are not and will never be reliable sources. These do not and cannot provide evidences. Even Wikipedia's own policies on verificability state Wikipedia is not a source! Therefore, if you do have anything to prove you'll either face the primary sources or the scholarship which deals directly with the alleged evidence (an archaeological field report/dedicated monograph for an archaeological pov, for instance). This is the essence of the "dacomanism" I and the scholars I've mentioned react against - a thesism augmenting Dacian civilization which fails to provide the evidences once it is questioned for them and many times it even ignores the evidences suggesting the contrary of its claims. 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. We talk about Pleşu the intellectual and the scholar, not about Pleşu the man. Even today he can be a liar, a hypocrite, he can cheat his wife, he can be a pedophile, a Nazi, I do not care and pointing these out is just a desperate ad hominem, a red herring, a sign that there are no other arguments against his. No one claims they are saints, so your accusation that their image is false is flawed, or maybe you refer to the image you have on them.
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). However these are not within the scope of this thread and unless you can make a solid point on why Pleşu's position against protochronism should be discarded I take it there are no really counterarguments. I also do not really understand the purpose of these underminings, do you suggest that protochronism is a valid form of writing history?
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). 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. 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 - http://soltdm.com/geo/arts/categs/dava.jpg
Ivan Duridanov: http://www.kroraina.com/thrac_lang/THR_LANG.gif - http://www.kroraina.com/thrac_lang/THR_LANG.gif
Another issue would be the wishful thinking that Argedava/Arcidava was Burebista's residence. There's no such information. All this is fiction weaved from the inscription from Dionsyopolis (IGB I 13) where both Argedava and Burebista are attested but IMO in rather two different contexts.
Genucla is attested in 1st century BC in a chronicle written in early 3rd century AD (Cassius Dio). Helis probably is a Greek name, like Dromichaetes too (see here an article in Romanian for Dromichaetes: http://soltdm.com/langtdm/thes/d/Dromichaites.htm - http://soltdm.com/langtdm/thes/d/Dromichaites.htm rich in Greek texts ).
I think you are the one who should read again (there are two different phrases, I put one in bold, the other one in italic). It does not support your claims. 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.
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 15:05
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 - 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 - 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
The field of Plesu is philosophy and the theory of plastic arts and of Tismaneanu is politology.
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 - http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comisia_Preziden%C5%A3ial%C4%83_pentru_Analiza_Dictaturii_Comuniste_din_Rom%C3%A2nia
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 - 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/Album/FortDac/Cetatuia/FortOrastie.htm - 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 - http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/906 ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 18:04
|
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 (!!!) so there are two options: a) you can't see the difference, in case the discussion with you is futile because you simply do not have the competence to defend your claims b) you see the difference, but you ignore my request, in case you're disrespecting me as a debate partener and the discussion with you is futile, again. I've already renounced debating with you in some of the threads (mostly on the Dark Age north-Danubian territories) because of your rampant nationalism and denial, but it seems there's no segment of the Romanian history which is unplagued by that, so if this behavior continues the only logical conclusion is that for me is a waste of time to discuss with you any subject touching the history being taught in Romania as "Romanian history". The choice is yours. I'll proceed with some answers, for what you do not receive an answer it means it simply does not worth one (like quoting whatever site to defend your claims).
Much to your disbelief, protochronism can be spotted from a mile by any decent intellectual. Quite recently Seko took position against londoner_Gb on the thread on Bulgarian origins. Such discourses cannot pass unnoticed. I need not to be a scholar to see that a dogmatic history of a unitary and continuous people, acting since the dawns of the mankind as one organism (for Romanians, Bulgarians, or any other nation in this world) is protochronistic and extremist-nationalist. These being said, a remarkable intellectual like Pleşu has absolutely no trouble in spotting the issue, what he has done more than that, was placing it in a proper framework and analysed it, its ideological component in the aforementioned study of his. That's why he's worth being mentioned. He should be your least worry, you have in that list linguists and archaeologists speaking against it which demolish many of its flawed claims.
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. 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. 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".
With such treatment on recent and relatively well-documented events of your own country, how do you think you can manage with the ancient history, which is much more trickier to understand? Really, I'm trying to find out in what coordinates I can have a decent discussion with you so help me here.
 Actually g and c are closely related consontants (g is a voiced plosive velar while c/k is a mute plosive velar), which evoluted one into another in various IE sound changes, which can be confused even today in day-to-day speech. Needless to say, Detschew, Duridanov and Olteanu, thracologists and linguists, dealing with the same toponym they all accept in the Dacian phonology, as recepted by various Greek and Latin sources (IGB I 13 is in Greek, Tabula P. is in Latin), the alternance arge-/arci-.
 So where's that familiarity? Does the lapicide says anywhere that the Argedava is close to his location or that he knows very well his streets because he visited often or what?
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 20:59
Do you believe that what is on the official webpage about the Slovakia history is not serious?
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.
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 - 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 - 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 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Tism%C4%83neanu
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.
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.
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?
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 http://www.cimec.ro/scripts/ARH/Cronica/CercetariARH.asp - 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.
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'?
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.
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. ------------- |
Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 21:31
I think that the links discovered between baltic languages and thracian for example is because somehow the baltic froze in time-less exposed to foreign influence due to geographical reasons and the isolationist way of life of the inhabitants/remember when they got christianized:)!!!/ thus rather the baltic languages are of the same group with all others but millenia ago...thats why its handy for historical linguistics...after all in the beginning it was only one proto languageor nearly so.../...I think therefore such groupings are pointless/with baltics/ it doesnt show paralel developpement but rather the lack of such...
Just a personal observation of mine-when I hear lithuanian from some distance,without paying attention to the meaning of words but just the rhythm of it and how it sounds it seems closer to bulgarian than russian is...russian has different rhythm... ------------- ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 21:45
| I have nothing more to add. Protochronism is undefeatable. |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 22:41
|
If you two are going to have an argument about archeology, prejudices, and so on, please refrain from doing it HERE. it kind of defeats the purpose of this thread.
------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 22:46
|
Yes, you are right. ------------- |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 23:18
Something which happens rather rarely, in fact. ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2007 at 00:17
|
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2007 at 01:30
|
No, not screwed up. but since 1) neither one of you seems likely to be capable of convincing the other, 2)arguing over which sources are proper and so on often turns into a going-off-on-a-tangent kind of thing, and since, I should say again, NEITHER SIDE APPEARS CAPABLE OF CONVINCING THE OTHER, it's a little bit of an exercise in futility. ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2007 at 01:37
|
Which sources are proper is by no means a "tangent kind of thing" is the very essence of history - what sources one picks and how does he uses them to paint some realities of the past.
However, I stopped the discussion with Menumorut because the lack of dialogue before the contributions you made today in the thread, so do not act against your own principles to prolong this conflict once it was declared closed.
|
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2007 at 06:13
|
Whatever you say. I just feel like the post has been hijacked by a discussion that could go on forever. Tell me how it turns out. ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: diegis
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 14:47
| Well, i will speake more about military organization of dacians, who was quite complex, because they was a warrior peoples, not quite the peacefull ones as Menumorut said. As we know from ones of the first mentions of them, the getian ( dacian ) army consist in a 1/3 raport between cavalry and infantry. Cavalry was armed with bows ( the recurved bow used by scythians as well )and having probably poisoned arows too, with spears and swords. Most probably, do to terrain and vegetation ( rich forests, mountains ) cavalry was used as a sort of mounted infantry as well, beeing able to fight on foot, when necesary. Infantry was armed with swords, shields, bows, slingshots, axes, spears, knives. Later, was used war machines, as balistas, catapultes, or asault ram hamers, for sieges. Swords was from various types, from right persian inspired akinakai type, to celtic type ones, or even gladius ones, in late period, but the main type was <sica>, a one handed curved sword, sharped on inside edge, used in combination with a round, oval or rectangular shield, probably painted in rich colours, and with various motifs on them. A special sword was the more famous falx, in fact a bigger and heavier sica, a two handed sword. Under the rain of arows shot by bows, slingshots and balistas, the infantry atack the enemy lines, until they make contact. This is the moment when falxmen enter in fight ( they must stay cover until then, since dont have shields ). Having that unique sword, they cut the legs of enemies, with hits under shields ( as cuting grass with a schyte ), or use higher hits, and , with the top of sword penetrate of broke the helmets, or try to cut the arms, using the curvature of blade. Most probably they atack in to a nail formation, trying to cut in two the enemy formations, or or broke the legion ranks and shield wall. Even some peoples saw that famous pics with a falx cuting a roman scutum, is little probable that such hits was done often in time of battle because warrior loose precious time trying to recover the sword from shield. The battle flag was the famous draco, a wolf head with a snake body ( some peoples said that even the name, "daci" is related with phrigian word "daoi", meaning wolves ). As well, dacians was probably the only nation ( until the aparition of mongols ) who was able to mount and do important military campaigns in time of winter. Dacians was in fact the only "barbarian" nation who have a kingdom ( even an empire in time of Burebista ), with a single military and political ruler ( the king ), backed by a single religious one ( the great priest ), with an original religion, religion who made them such a fierce warriors. They believe they are imortals, and death means just a change of places, as one who leave this world and go to other world, were supreme god Zalmoxe rule, and everybody is happy, but especially the heroes who die in battle. Dacians was diferent then celts, or germanics, using complex battle manouvres and trying to organize the campaign before the fight, no a simple lets gather togheter and go to meet the enemy to charge against him. They try, in the later times, to copy the roman military system, and never charge indiscriminately against the enemy, as celts, for ex.. They try enveloping maneuvres, ambushes against superior forces, try to lure them into a favourable terrain, use scorching earth tactics and guerrila type atacks and skirmishes, and then, in their condition, began the real battle. Dromichete use scorched earth tactics, but, as well, infiltrate a man in macedonian diadoch Lisimach camp, as a guide, who lead the macedon army in to getian trap. Decebal made a spectaculos move, in first war, trying to cut the roman army back, and logistic suplly lines, in empire himself, far away from the main battle theatre, and made Traian to turn back to resolve the situation. More, he insist to parthian king to open a second war theatre in east, but, unfortunately for both parts ( dacians but parthians too, Pacorus II refuse ). As well, Decebal send some roman desertors in Traian camp, to assasinate him, but, again, unfortunately they was finally caught. Dacians defeate several times the romans ( the only ones, in that times, except parthians, who sacked provinces of roman empire ), and even in Traian wars dacian army know how to avoid a crushing blow, and, even defeated, was not distroyed, and manage to retreat from the batlefield ( in fact, in the second battle of Tapae, dacians retreat because a storm ocur, and a thunder hit their lines, as is see on Traian Column, and from superstition, they believe god is against them, because they venerate the sun, and shot arrows in clouds, in time of storms ). They was the same the only sclavagist european society outside of greek-roman world, but not such developed as romans, slaves beeing mostly foreigners capturated in wars and used as domestic servants in nobles houses, as inferior members of familly, or as royal slaves, used a sblacksmiths, scribs, constructors.etc.. Dacians dont use too much writing, but was discovered trepanated skulls, and medical tools ( the same as one used in roman wolrd ), and their medicine was very apreciated by greeks ( medicine plantes, as well the concept of heal the soul too, not just the body). Dacians priests know as ktistai, or pleistoi make a separate cast, and Josephus Flavius, the ancient jewish historian said tha esenians resemble in a high degree the way of life of dacian priests. About domestic technology, the most interesting discovery was some nails, who dont rust, even after some 2000 years, beeing made from iron with 99.97 % purity, and some silicates alliages who preserve them from rusting. As well, the dacian fortress walls, know as "murus dacicus" was an original design special made to resist the siege war machines atacks ( romans conquer the Sarmisegetuza just after discover the aquaducts who bring water inthe fortress, and distroy them. But the most intriguing fact about dacians ( getians ) is the influence they haved over goths ( goths pretend that getians/dacians are their ancestors, and many antiq and medieval chronicars believe that, or was influenced by such view, especially in places where goths passing by, and is not just about Jordanes "Getica" ). But this post is long enough and i will speake more other time about this. |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 16:51
|
That's pretty extensive detail... where did you learn all that? ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: diegis
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 11:42
| Mostly from history books ( including military history ones ). Since i am a huge fan of ancient history, and especially of our ancient history, i read all i find about dacians. |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 12:20
|
Diegis, which the source for the 99.97% purity iron, >2,000 years old which did not rust?
As for the Dacian forms of organization compared with other tribes from the Barbaricum, I have not encountered in ancient sources terms which put such a difference. For Strabo, Buerebista is an "archon", which is a rather generic term meaning (authoritarian) "ruler", "leader". For Cassius Dio and in Suda lexicon, Decebalus is a "basileos" ("king"), while for Jordanes and Aurelius Victor, Decebalus is a "rex" ("king"), but one just has to read some ancient accounts like De Bello Gallico or Tacitus' works to realize many barbarian chieftains were regarded in the Graeco-Roman world as "kings" (in the works I've mentoned: "rex", e.g. "Ariovistus, rex Germanorum").
|
Posted By: diegis
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 14:34
| 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. |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 15:00
diegis, welcome to the forum. I would like to spend more time reading your posts without straining my eyes. Breaking up your posts into smaller paragraphs would do the trick.  ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 15:53
|
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).
As for Strabo and Buerebista we had that discussion earlier. Nowhere Strabo says Buerebista had a state. He says that he led his tribe and created a great ruleship subordinating neighbouring tribes to Getae (VII.3.11). There's no coin struck with his name, so how would you assign any monetary type to him?
Jordanes writes about 6 centuries after him and no other sources confirm him. However, Jordanes does not mention Burebista elaborating anything. He only correlates chronologically Burebista with Deceneus and Sulla's, but the rest of the text is about Deceneus (Getica, XI) teaching the Goths (sic!). Bi-lageineis (bellagines, bilagines) represent the Germanic law, which besides it is unlikely Dacians practiced them, it represents a law similar with what other Germanic tribes had. Thus it doesn not prove a state.
There's no document correlating Burebista with Sarmizegetusa, the only city which we have in a text on Burebista appears in Dionysopolis inscription and is Argedava, probably located in today Banat.
Strabo does not say Deceneus followed Burebista seizing a part of his territory, only he was a high priest, a wizard and the most imporant counsellor of Burebista (VII.3.5, VII.3.11).
There is no source calling Vezina a high priest, we only learn from Cassius Dio he was the second in command after Decebal when the battle of Tapae took place.
Therefore, with such inconsistences and lack of proper evidences, I think a Dacian civilization at a much higher level than Celtic or Germanic is untenable.
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 16:54
|
Look some info about the Dacian nails:
The Roentgenograma performed on the extra-pure Dacian iron (1-Fe of 99.97% purity). No traces of cementite are visible which means the iron was not obtained in a reduction with C. Its surface was protected against rust with three layers: magnetite, iron oxid and alumosilicates. (according to research made by ICIDAC, director A. Vartic, at the specialized institutes of The Academy of Science in The Republic of Moldavia, under the academician Sergiu Radutanu. Among the team of researchers were Dr. Constantin Posteuca, Dr. Ion Andronic, Dr. Gh. Kiosse, Dr. Galina Volodin, Dr. Daria Grabco, Dr. N. Malcoci. The ferromagnetical layers of the extra-pure Dacian iron found on the surface are perpendicular to the ones underneath (research done by Dr.Daria Grabco from the Institute of Applied Physics of The Academy of Sciences, The Republic of Moldavia) http://www.dacia.org/Dacian_Virtual_Museum/Technology/technology.html - Dacians - Technology
Is sure that Jordanes was having some info of older origin, he was not writing by fantesy.
In the time of Burebista, the fortress of Costesti was amenaged as a residence for a basileus, as the ceremonial stairs from this fortress shows:  
As for your identification between Argedavon from Dionysopolis inscription and Arcidava in Banat, there is not any reason for making such connection. In Muntenia was the most important ensamble of Dacian davae, with the oldest tradition (since 4-3rd centuries BC) and at Popesti, on Arges, was discovered by archaeologists the most important ensamble of Dacian buildings, resembling in a way the Knossos palace (but of much smaller dimensions). At Arcidava in Banat have been nothing Dacian discovered, as in Muntenia. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 16:57
| 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. |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 17:00
|
Ofcourse I was not writing only for you. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 17:03
| You're using second person pronouns (e.g. "your"). Come on, ignore me as I am trying to ignore you. |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 17:14
|
To ignore or not you, is my decision.
..... And turning back to the topic. It seems that until the 16th century the wood churches of Romanians were made in a technique similar to the Dacian one, as appears on the Column, with the walls kept joined with nails. A wood church in Hunedoara county (16th century): 
Dacians burning one of their fortresses:  ------------- |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 23:20
|
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?
------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: diegis
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 10:48
|
Posted By: diegis
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 10:52
|
Posted By: diegis
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 10:57
| About that TV show, was a history one who present interesting and little know facts from stone age to iron age thru the country ( as virtual reconstruction made by archeologists of a Cucuteni cultrue village, stuffs from neolithic, etc.), and presented real things, and opinion about the nails who was dated as that old, and having that compostion by a scientific institute. |
Posted By: diegis
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 11:16
| 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. |
Posted By: diegis
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 11:37
| Now, about that intriguing conection gots-gets, Jordanes was not the first of the last who make it. After Teodoric the Great ( ostrogoth ) defeat Odoacru he establish a kingdom in italic peninsula, and try to make a good coabitation with roman element. So, ones of him conseilors was a roman senator, Cassiodorus. Teodoric ask him to write a history of his nation, and Cassiodorus obey. The work, in 12 volumes ( unfortunately lost today ) was named " De origine actibusque Getarum" ( not Gothorum, as someone expected ). This was the main inspiration source for Jordanes "Getica", but he inspire as well from Ablabius, Cl. Pompeius, Dio Cassius, Flavius Josephus, Livius, Mela, Priscus, Strabon, etc.... Another strange fact is that after many years, and death of Teodoric, when Belisarius, one of the greatest roman generals, conquer the italian peninsula from goths, he take the overname "Geticus Maximus", not Gothicus, and i think goths have an important dacian element, a sort of mixed dacian tribes, since almost all ancients who write about goths intermix their name with gets and daci, and in all regions where goths passing by both names coexist, or elements of dacian culture was spread. They apeare in iberian peninsula in writings of Isidor from Sevilla, who dont know about Jordanes, or in "Gesta Normanorum", of Dudo St. Quentin, or at sweden Carolus Lundius in his "Zamolxis, primum Getarum legislator" ( Upssala, 1687) There is an entire list of ancient writers who make the same conection ( consider gots as the same nation with gets/dacians ) who i speake more in another post, but another strange fact is that in a painting from a Ravenna church builded by Teodoric the 3 magicians from the east, who come to bring gifths to Jesus Christ is represented as dacian tarabostes ( as they are on Traian Column, or better on Constantine the Great arch statues), and the 40 female martyrs who follow them are dress in dacian style as well, with a sort of clothes who can still exist in popular dress in Transilvania and Moldove area ( named "fota") |
Posted By: diegis
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 11:40
| http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/italy/ravenna/santapollinare/0030.jpg - http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/italy/ravenna/santapollinare/0030.jpg |
Posted By: diegis
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 11:40
| That is the painting i tell about |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 12:49
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 12:56
Here is Strabo's text in a dual Greek-English version: http://soltdm.com/sources/mss/strab/7.htm - http://soltdm.com/sources/mss/strab/7.htm . Where do you find anything about "state"?
As for empire, it actually may mean only military hegemony over other populations, as you see even in this text "empire" is actually in Greek "arche" which has a several related meanings: power, supremacy, rule, hegemony, etc., therefore the Strabonian text is compatible with a tribal union (like Celts or Germans) or with any imaginable form of hierarchical organization led by a "big boss" as you put it.
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 15:04
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. Alfldi) 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 (Dmbovita), 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. http://www.litere.uvt.ro/documente_pdf/cursuri/bejan/dacia%20felix.pdf - The History of Roman Dacia ------------- |
Posted By: diegis
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 15:42
Well, i see you have a "nail" against that nails , but i hope is not just because are considered dacians, or apeare on a dacomaniac site too, there is true things as well there, and i dont think public television or a scientic institute is dacomaniac too. I hope you dont fall in the other extreme, and, if some said that dacians are the center of the world, you believe they are nothing, you make the same mistake, but in other direction. About the gold bracelets, and that academician, he said too that koson are made by transilvanian renascentist, in medieval time !!!, so is not quite a believeble source, and, all was prouved to be more a political thing, finaly, since someone says that hear that someone sell that bracelets to a politician, and this was use by his adversaries, that he make some trafic, but, yes, someone apear and say is not trafic, because the bracelets is false, and bla,bla,bla... However, the majority opinion is that are dacians. About Sarmisegetuza, i dont agree with you ( and i dont understand why you dont believe the archeologists and historians who make that studies ), since was build in Burebista times, and was the most important fortress comlex, i dont see any logical reason to not be the capital. About Hestia giving the laws to Zalmoxis, this acount come from Diodor from Sicily, were Zalmoxis is conected with Zarathustra and moses, all 3 receiving the laws from a diety. About other peoples who conect the gets with gots, lets see :-Philostorgius (368-425)-"scythians before Istros, who elders name them Getae, and ones from our times Goths" - Cl.Claudianus"Debello gothico" ( 402 ) use word goth just in title, in rest of writing using name Getae and Dacian; - Ausonius, in an epigrame to emperor Gratian, - Prudentius (348-405), in "Divinity of Christos", name the same goths as gets, and the Alaric as Getae tyran; - Hyeronimus (345-420) : "certainly all the erudits from the past use...for Goths, the name Get, instead of Gog and Magog". About the painting, if you will look to a taraboste (dacian noble) from Traian Column, or to one of statues representing dacians ( from Vatican colection, or from Constantine the Great arch, or from Napoli ), you will see the similarities with that painting. About our popular clothing style ( who remble in many parts one you see on Traian Column or other representations ), and his similarities with ones from nearby countries is logical to think that was borowed by them from us, since in time of Decebal, Traian or even Teodoric we cannt speake about bulgarians, or hungarians, or serbs.
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 16:26
|
diegis, I do not have a "nail" but a simple principle: extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidences. If the arguments do not follow, why should we believe in them? Okay, we can launch as many hypotheses as you like, but this is what they will ever be: hypotheses. To move beyond that we need solid evidences. I hope you have noticed I have not described the Dacians as a "nothing" but at a similar level with Germans or Celts, other contemporary European and non-Roman civilizations. The claim that Dacians were some superior and brilliant civilization is extraordinary and requires a solid proof which I see lacking.
That academician you call "not quite a believable source" is Constantin Preda, scholar, archaeologist, president of the Romanian Numismatic Society, ex-director of the Romanian Archaeology Institute of Bucharest, familiar (at least) with the Koson coins for more than 30 years ( http://books.google.com/books?id=D2CCu7V4V30C&q=constantin+preda+koson&dq=constantin+preda+koson&ei=Gq8gR_qmNKjA7gK2ucXqBw&pgis=1 - http://books.google.com/books?id=D2CCu7V4V30C&q=constantin+preda+koson&dq=constantin+preda+koson&ei=Gq8gR_qmNKjA7gK2ucXqBw&pgis=1 ). I'm not sure what exactly looks unreliable about him. And Kosons are controversial artefacts, like many other "miraculous" artefacts whose appearance and context are dubious.
If you read what I've wrote earlier on the thread, you'll see my opinion is not just my extreme skepticism, there are also several other scholars (historians, archaeologists, historiographers) doubting such claims and criticising the studies advancing groundless conclusions. I've seen no verosimile reconstruction of Orăştie mountains complex in 50 BC, it's relatively well-known there areas which are not well-explored archaeologically, so the argument inferring Sarmizegetusa as a capital it does not hold water.
Diodorus Siculus does not say anything about Hestia offering belagines. Moreover, Jordanes while mentioning the latter, does not assign them to Zalmoxis but to Deceneus.
All the testimonies you're mentioning on Goths = Getae, are quasi-contemporary with Orosius, I do not which one of them is first, but certainly no one is earlier than the latter quarter of the 4th century, at a time when Getae no longer mentioned in the contemporary chronicles as a distinct tribe, which only can lead to the conclusion that during that time the identity was fabricated.
The ancient representations offer many similarities in clothing. Check Illyrians or Sarmathians, for instance. In some book on Roman times warfare (I've forgot its title now) I've encountered a syntagm on Dacian clothing: "ubiquituos tunic and cloak combination".
|
Posted By: erton
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 20:44
|
http://www.pelasgians.bigpondhosting.com - www.pelasgians.bigpondhosting.com
this can help you
------------- the time is the greatest enemy of the men |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 21:07
|
Like the materials on
dacia.org and many of the materials on enciclopedia-dacica.ro and on other Dacoman sites, the work Dacia Preistorica is pure fantesy. Is impressing the efforts of these people to edit so much things for web and is helpful in some aspects (when they take scientifical information and offer it without interpretations or when they are offering visual documentation). ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 22:05
|
To make the discussion more exciting, I decided to post a link to some great parts of one of my favorite Romanian movies called Dacians (Dacii) 1966
Enjoy !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6mF9ldKCds - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6mF9ldKCds ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 22:13
|
A magnificent movie, but is an international production. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 22:15
The Romanian contribution was crucial, nevertheless.  ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: diegis
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 11:48
| Chilbudios, i never claimed that Dacians are a sort of "uber" nation, and Celtics and Germanics some inferior races, maybe you see too much so called dacomaniacs in every word about dacians. I just said that they haved a superior organization of society and military, especial. About that nails, was presented on a public television, and dated by scientists from IFA Magurele, in Bucharest, and, as Menumorut present, by scientists from Rep. Moldova, so, if you want to consider that just hypotheses, is your opinion, i am not try to force you to believe anything. About the academician you said, he have until now a singular opinion, i think, in his, what i will call with your words, <hypothese>. Even lingvist and historian Aurora Petan, who pretend she translate the dacian write tablets have more suporters in shes theory. About Sarmisegetuza, as a capital, or began to be builded as a capital in times of Burebista, all the historians and archeologists who studied "the problem" agree with that. If you are one of them, and have another view, or know better what was in fact, please tell me your arguments ( or argues of historians.etc who you said not agree with that, i am quite courious to know ). About Diodor, and the laws he write, he make a comparation between 3 profets, Zarathustra, Moses and Zalmoxis, and how all of them receiving the laws from a deity. He dont say "belagines", just laws. But Deceneu, the high priest of Zalmoxis cult, obviously teach the Zalmoxis laws ( named by Jordanes <belagines> )who this received in the past from godess Hestia. About Gets=Gots, as you saw, is what not only the Orosius, but a lot of others in his time who believe that, and this not mean that one take it for other the idea, since they was all contemporans more or less, but this mean that this was the comon view in that times, and all think like this. Getae ( Dacians ) was still see as an individual "nation" at that time, since emperor Constantine the Great take the over name Dacicus Maximus, or another emperor, Galerius ( with thracian and Dacian origins ), as Lactantius said, even want to change the name of empire from Roman to Dacian. As well, i will like to see what you said about similarity in clothes between dacians and sarmatians, for ex. Because the comon view of historians and ethnologists who study the dacians from roman representations and modern romanian popular clothes reach to the same conclusions, that if is not remain exactly the same ( as it is probably in mountains remoted areas), for sure coming from the ancient ones. And this is obvious even for not a specialized person, as was the situation with Badea Cartan, the transilvanian peasent who walk on foot until the Rome, in XIX century, to see the Traian Column, and about who italian journalists write in titles, after saw him on Column < A dacian come down from the Column >, the similarity of his "look" with the dacians sculpted there beeing obvious. |
Posted By: diegis
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 12:04
|
[QUOTE=Sarmat12]To make the discussion more exciting, I decided to post a link to some great parts of one of my favorite Romanian movies called Dacians (Dacii) 1966
Yes, for that times, ( 1966 ) and without today Hollywood trick shots industry was a great realization, even a little naive in some parts. But, thanks to army ( who give most of the "warriors" and figurants ) was qiute impresive on some battle scenes.
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 14:20
|
Manufacturing iron nails resistent to rust, having an exquisite political or economical infrastructure (when the sources are rather brief and sometimes silent about it), being an "arch-society" for the latter Goths, these are symptoms of "uber"ness I argue against. These obviously put the Dacians on a "next level" compared to Celtic and Germanic populations because the superiority of the former is affirmed through all these.
"IFA Magurele" is now called "Horia Hulubei", the institute whose analysis (or rather interpretation) was criticized by C. Preda in the articles linked by me earlier in the thread. There (as well as in Republic of Moldavia's institute) are physicists not historians or archaeologists, thus a multidisciplinary crew must be assembled to give the correct verdict. The questions are: is the iron Dacian? is the protective layer also Dacian? Andrei Vartic (the leader of the research team, from Menumorut's dacia.org link) is a well-known protochronist and mystic nationalist signing books like "The technological highway of Dacian civilization", "The way to Kogaionon", "Rolist Eneas ner Eneat" (a weird interpretation of the Thracian Ezerovo inscription) and others alike. I do not know any scholarly review of Vartic's work and research, nor any peer-reviewed source to rely on his findings, therefore the epithet "scientific" cannot be applied.
Compared to A. Vartic, C. Preda is a trustworthy figure, author of many scholarly works and even editor of some. I am not saying you should trust him blindly, so yes, you can take his claims as a hypotheses. However, in the question who's a scholar, who's making reliable research, science, the credentials and the reviews only speak for Preda and the "mainstream" scholars, not for Vartic et al.
Aurora Peţan is a special case, for she's among the few "dacoman"s with diploma (a PhD diploma even) related to her studies, i.e. she is a classical philologist. However, there are many unfavorable reviews like this one: http://www.patzinakia.ro/Noviciola/Agrig-DaciaNemuritoare.htm - http://www.patzinakia.ro/Noviciola/Agrig-DaciaNemuritoare.htm where%20its - http://www.patzinakia.ro/Noviciola/Agrig-DaciaNemuritoare.htm where it's about a "dacomanic" Yahoo e-Group, and on Peţan, a member of the group, they say "a member of this e-group is a respected and appreciated researchers from the Institute of Linguistics 'Iorgu Iordan', mrs. Aurora Peţan, and about her we can only say we regret she graduated classical philology because the seminaries of mr. professor Poghirc certainly were useless for her! Our source within the institute confirmed for a long while this lady's tendencies to 'traco-manic' madness.". But also there are some demolishing reviews, from the classical philologist and epigraphist Sorin Olteanu: http://soltdm.com/reviews/tabliteromalo.htm - http://soltdm.com/reviews/tabliteromalo.htm , http://soltdm.com/reviews/raspuns_petan.htm - http://soltdm.com/reviews/raspuns_petan.htm and especially http://soltdm.com/langtdm/thes/d/drom_pet.htm - http://soltdm.com/langtdm/thes/d/drom_pet.htm where it is revealed the ignorance Peţan displays in regard with relatively trivial topics (one of the most obivous ones, even for an amateur like we are: she wrote "Pomponius Trogus" instead of "Pompeius Trogus" - and she has a PhD in classical philology!). The supporters of A. Peţan are not scholars, among them we can list Dan Romalo, an engineer or Dumitru Manolache, a journalist. According to her own declarations from Dacia Magazine ( http://www.dacia.org/mag-2006-38.pdf%20%29,%20where%20else?%20,%20where - www.dacia.org/mag-2006-38.pdf )where else?
http://www.dacia.org/mag-2006-38.pdf%20%29,%20where%20else?%20,%20where - , Peţan resigned from her academic position she held at "Iorgu Iordan" institute and currently works on her own. Therefore, IMO, neither A. Vartic, nor A. Peţan cannot be accounted as reliable scholars, unlike C. Preda. Not all historians and archaeologists agree that Burebista had his capital at Sarmizegetusa (or on many details postulated about his reign). Iancu Moţu, an archaeologist I mentioned also earlier in the thread, writes in a Dacia Provincia Augusti (2004), a book on Dacians (mostly as a Roman province but otherwise covering their entire recorded history) that is not known where the center of power (capital) of Burebista was located (and that is usually located with no evidence in Orăştie Mountains and that this complex is dated archaeologically later than his reign!), that it is not known where the military bases where, that it is not known what his economic power was, that we cannot speak of a Dacian state, etc. (pp. 45-56). Somehow related you can read here a criticism on Romanian archaeology and some of the stereotypes it promoted: http://www.caorc.org/fellowships/mellon/pubs/Nichulescu.pdf - http://www.caorc.org/fellowships/mellon/pubs/Nichulescu.pdf . Such stereotypes, as the author warns, made many findings to be associated automatically to Geto-Dacians, or to be claimed they illustrate a certain aspect of their society.
Diodorus Siculus' and Jordanes' accounts cannot be collapsed into one, first because there are about 6 centuries between them. Second because they obviously write about different things. Jordanes does not address any law (because he would have used the Latin word for it), but specifically about the Germanic law which he names as such. For Jordanes, the Getae and the Goths are the same (as he confesses), so the law he claims Deceneu gave Getae is the Germanic law he knows (and we also know from other instances), not any law, and certainly not the law imagined by Diodorus being offered by Hestia.
I noticed later I wrote something which could have been misunderstood and it was. I do not claim (I do not see what value would it have anyway) Orosius was the source of this information, only that this information was not born before his era, an era where the Goths were pushed by the Huns, crossed the lands once inhabited by the Getae, entered the Roman Empire, and in a folk and fictional etymology they became one with the Getae . I do not understand what Constantine or Galerius have in common with this fake etymology. Yes, there were some people called "Dacians" in the first decades of 4th century. I don't understand what are you aiming with this observation.
For clothing there are numerous testmonies. For instance, from Ovid we learn (Trist, III, 10) that Getae, Bessi and Sarmathians are barbarians which spend their winters in pants and skins.
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 15:51
Why should this gossiper be trusted and the rest of scholars be rejected? Are you sure that he is not mistaking? Are his assertions surely correct? Why Patzinakia group doesn't quote him? ------------- |