Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 63

Thread: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

  1. #1
    mircea's Avatar Hastatus
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    586

    Default Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    The period of Late bronze Age and the subsequent Early Iron Age is remarkable for the great disturbances that prompted the fall of several major Bronze cultures (Mycenaean, Hittites) and widespread destruction in many regions. The era is also remarkable for relatively how little we know about it, and this creates a proper ground for more or less speculative theories.

    Disclaimer:

    I'm not the creator (nor proponent)of this theory and I'm just trying to clarify some points which I consider to be baseless claims.
    While discussing on another thread, I encountered a quite originally theory regarding the cause of the Late Bronze Age upheaval, which according to the poster was caused by the Daco-Thracian expansion.
    Here are the original posts and my subsequent (late) replies:

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    So, Romans was actually a small group of proto-Getae/Dacians who arrived in Italia and imposed over other people there at the begining of Iron Age.
    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    The peak of the power of Getae-Dacians was however in Neolithic (were they have the roots, as Vinca-Turdas, Cucuteni etc cultures) and especially at the end of Bronze Age/begining of Iron Age when they expanded in all directions.

    Groups of warriors established among foreign population, sometimes as their elite and was absorbed in the mass of local people and larger groups formed the base of future people, as is the case with Romans

    Other examples are Troy (i already posted what those from Cambridge said about this, or Parvan, a renowned Romanian historian and archeologist) or Sparta, which is a Thracian name (Getae-Dacian names appear all over the Aegean See).
    And more HERE

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    The origin of the invasions is what was named later Dacia and Moesia, south and west area of today Romania, northeastern Serbia, southeastern Hungary. It is correct however that more they advanced they pushed or atracted other people as well in those invasion waves
    The issue is far more complex than you present here, with the disturbances from Middle -Late Bronze Age engulfing a vast region spanning from Austria-Western Hungary (Tumulus-Urnfield 1 and Encrusted ware culture2) to Romania (Noua-Cosologeni3), Ukraine (Sabatinovka4) and Poland (Luastiz culture5). It is quite clear that pinpointing a point of origin and especially claiming a major or even dominant ethnicity for invaders 6 is not only hazardous, its is downright wrong considering the huge number of cultures involved in the upheaval and the fact that sometimes the same culture was shared by one or more ethnicities.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    1 “The bearers of Middle European tumulus culture (Hugelgraber) exerted towards southern Pannonia a pressure which played an outstanding role in formation of Dubovac-Zuto Brdo (-Garla Mare culture) group and in the connections it had with the west Pannonian Encrusted ware.” The Cambridge Ancient History III(1) p.584


    “The North Alpine Hotting Morzg people crossed the Alps, the Middle Danube people invaded the area east of Adriatic, Southern Yugoslavia, Macedonia and Greece and involved the whole chain of other tribes living in eastern and southern Balkans in war.” Marija Gimbutas, Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe, p.330



    2 “The Cruceni-Belegiš culture was formed on the base of a mixture of elements of Gumtransdorf-Drassburg type (Litzenkeramik) and Encrusted pottery of Szeremle type, grafted on the Vatina local background that remains the determining element in the formation of the Cruceni-Belegiš culture.
    The causes of these movements of populations in the period of the Middle Bronze are not
    completely known. Beside the pressure of the bearers of the tumular tombs culture from the central Europe, certain causes of climatic order are not excluded when the effects of droughts or clime cooling over the communities of farmers were known.” Alexandru Szentmiklosi, Settlements of the Cruceni-Belegis culture in Banat p.13




    3 “The ceramic type of the Noua group are similar to those of the preceding culture (Costisa, Monteoru, Sighisoara-Wietenberg and Tei). The contribution of the Monteoru culture preponderates.” Cambridge, p.62


    “Indo-Europenization was certainly complete by the beginning of the Bronze Age. Yet we cannot indetify the Thracians at that remote period, because we do not know for certain whether the Thracian and Illyrian tribes had separated by then.” Cambridge p.53



    4 “Similarly the Noua-Sabatinovka group moving westwards from the east toward the Carpathian region exerted pressure in the Lower Danubian area.” […]
    “While this process was going on, it is understandable that a considerable regrouping and assimilation of various groups took place, accompanied by geographical movement. In the end it led to the formation of large ethnic entities such as Thracians, Daco-Mysians and Illyrians (…)” The Cambridge Ancient History III(1) p.584




    “The ethnic identity of the Sabatinovka population remains uncertain: some scholars consider Timber grave population as the main component and hence regard Sabatinovkans as Iranians. Some emphasize the western contacts of this culture with Noua and Cosologeni cultures and assume a Thracian identity for Sabatinovka.” Elena E. Kuz'mina, Indo-Iranians, p.359




    5 This archeological evidence puts the Lausitz invasion of the Southern Balkans in a clear perspective. (…) This initial phase fell in the period c. 1200-1150 BC. (…) The literary tradition enables us to put an ancient name to the Lausitz invaders. In the summary of Eugammon’s Telegony (…) we learnt that Odysseus commanded the Thesprotians at first unsuccessful against Brygi, after he had returned to Ithaca, i.e. in the decade 1180-1170 BC. (…) These Briges of Europe were certainly related to Phryges of Asia (…). Cambridge, p.707-709


    “The distribution of Illyrian names in Central Europe covers the same areas as did the Middle Danube-Lusatian culture of the early Urnfield Period. Illyrian-Germanic and Illyrian-Baltic language relationship are another basis for the assumption that the Middle Danube-Knoviz-Lusatian pople spoke Illyrian or rather Proto-Illyrian dialects.” Marija Gimbutas, Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe, p.337



    6
    “The identifications were primarily based on linguistic resemblances between names of the Sea People and of regions. The Lukka for instance can be connected to Lycia (…). The Teresh could be related to Etruria because of the Greek name of its inhabitants, Tyrsennoi, the Shekelesh to Sicily, the land of Sikels and so on. On problem is that we do not know whether the sea people came from these regions or ended up there.” Marc Van De Mieroop, The Eastern Mediterranean in the Age of Ramesses II, p.243


    “It is possible that these Sea People included Iranians because Scythians predecessors were known to Homer as “Milk Consuming” nomads. According to Homer, the Sea people included Thracians and the Paleo-Balkan tribes settled in Asia Minor, such as Phrygians.” The Origin of Indo-Iranians. p.360





    Cf. Marija Gimbutas, Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe, p.334-339


    See also: http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/sea.htm







    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Archeologists and historians talk about "Dacians (or Thracians) at Troy for that period

    http://books.google.ro/books?id=vXlj...omania&f=false

    see pag 64
    The origin of the Barbarian ceramic (Coarse and Knobbed Ware) discovered in the layers Tory VII b1 and respectively b2 remains disputed, but the Proto-Thracian origin seems to be the more accepted theory7. Nonetheless, considering the continuation of the Trojan characteristics it seems that the limited presence of these Proto-Thracians at post-Homeric Troy was not quite on a position of dominance 8.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    7
    ” Barbarian and Knobbed Ware is primarily connected with the settlement in Troy of several population groups belonging to the Noua-Sabatinovka- Coslogeni culture and, later, to the Babadag culture and related groups “
    Attila La′szlό, Troy and the lower Danube region at the end of the Bronze Age, p. 55



    “These Briges of Europe were certainly related to Phryges of Asia, indeed the similarities between 12th century Lausitz pottery of Macedonia and that of Tory VIIb are very marked.” Cambridge, II (1), p.709-710


    “Both the handles and the shapes of cups and drinking-bowls at Troy are very similar to the pottery of the later Lausitz phase in Hungary. A ceramic curiosity in the Lausitz homeland is a group of such two-handled, rippled drinking bowls which stand upon two little feet, formed like human feet. Blegen and his colleagues found in Troy VII b 2 one such human foot and published it as 'from the foot of a vessel.” Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond, A History of Macedonia: Historical geography and prehistory, p.320



    However recent excavations in Troy VII b has reveled the introduction, after a destruction of the city by fire, of a new population using a coarse ware apparently of central European origins and this may reasonable be held to mark the passage of the Phrygians and Mysians. R.D. Barnett, Phrygia and the Peoples of Anatolia in the Iron Age, p.4



    8 “After the break triggered by these events, the Troy VII b period follows, characterized by the onset of a new culture, having obvious Balkan features, but which preserves some older Trojan traditions characteristic of the Late Bronze Age. (…) Recent geochemical investigations (trace element and isotope analyses) performed on some samples of Troy’s Knobbed Ware and Barbarian Ware revealed that it was not made from local clays. The preliminary results show that at least part of this pottery was imported, but it is impossible to speculate the region of origin. Chemically- similar pottery has been found in Southern Bulgaria. It is possible that, further to their initial “import”, this kind of pottery was also manufactured in Troy.” Attila La′szlό, Troy and the lower Danube region at the end of the Bronze Age, p.54-55

    “Carl Blegen, the excavator at Troy, estimates that whoever brought this coarse pottery to Troy came one or two generations after the renewal of the city following the destruction of Troy VIIa. (…) Very little Handmade Ware has been found thus far in Gordion in any case, which suggests that the users were not a very numerous people. (…) At Grodion, Kaman and Tory there is no evidence of destruction associated with the beginning of this pottery which may mean that the arrival was a peaceful one.” Manuel Robbins, Collapse of the Bronze Age: The Story of Greece, Troy, Israel, Egypt, and the Sea People, p.176








    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    As well we have names of island in Egeea Sea mentioned since Homer and who bear striking similarities with Dacian names (mentioned in Latin later) preserved in today Romanian as well. See Karpatos island - Carpathians/Carpati mountains, Samos island - Samus/Samos river from Dacia-today Somes in Romanian or SamoThrace island.
    Of course those are Greek or Latin name, which we know they adapted foreign names to their pronounciation and writing, probably in Getae/Dacian language they sound similar with today Romanian
    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    (…) Sparta, which is a Thracian name (Getae-Dacian names appear all over the Aegean See).

    I think that you are familiar with the proverb: “One flower doesn't make spring”, because is quit fitting here.

    The fact that these names bear striking resemblance one with other is not exactly surprising considering the fact that both Ancient Greek and Thracian-Dacian were part of the Indo-European family. Furthermore, influences may go both ways, so is as possible that Dacian names copied Greek words via Pontic colonies. See below explanations 8

    The conclusion is that most of these names resemblance are not just bogus but to few in number to support the theory of a major Thraco-Dacian expansion in Greece and esspecialy in the Aegean Sea archipelago.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    8
    I. Karpatos island (Κάρπαθος/Κράπαθόν) is mentioned for the first time by Homer, and just like the later mentioned Carpathians mountains could derive from several Indo-European roots: karkara (κρανα- Ancient Greek for rocky, rugged)
    Kratos (κράτος - Ancient Greek for hard) or
    karpós (καρπός- Ancient Greek for wrist) ;
    As you can see the resemblance of these Ancient Greek words is quite a definitive proof in favor of the Greek origin for the name of Karpatos Island and probably for Carpathian Mountains (Carpates).


    II. About Samos and SamosThrace Islands, Strabo says that “samoi," means "heights." without clearly saying in what language, adding that the SamosThrace island was first called Melitte.

    Later, Strabo returns to Samos and in 14.1 mentioning that “in earlier times, when it was inhabited by Carians, it was called Parthenia, then Anthemus, then Melamphyllus, and then Samos, whether after some native hero or after someone who colonized it from Ithaca and Cephallenia”, while in 10.2 mentions that “Those writers are more plausible who say that the island came upon this name from the fact that lofty places are called "samoi," " (…) But some say that the island was called Samos after the Saïi, the Thracians who inhabited it in earlier times, who also held the adjacent mainland, whether these Saïi were the same people as the Sapaeï or Sinti”




    Very interesting is the assertion regarding the Phoenician origin of Samos, which supposedly means lofty, while Melites or Malta means “Place of Refuge”. Robert Brown, The Great Dionysiak Myth, p.227

    “It is possible that Samos is a Semitic word from the root “sama” (to be high)” Walter Leaf edition of Homer, the Iliad,p.4
    “The Phoenician influence in regard to Samos is clearly attested by the extensive commercial relations between the two groups, exemplified by the large number of oriental imports. “
    William Kendrick Pritchet, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, Part III: Roads, p.126



    III. In what regards Sparta, the things are more clear, the word comes from the Indo-European root *sper- (to twist, to scatter, to destroy) which gave Ancient Greek word: Sparto, spartǟ 'twisted or braided rope' as well as ‘to sow or to scatter.’ See more here.







    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    I will go with a real or better historian who studied much deeply the subject

    http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/other...dbrozeage.html

    <<The Naue Type II sword (or Griffzungenschwert), originally made of bronze and later iron, c. 70 cm long, having nontapering sides and a sturdy flange for attaching to the hilt, and therefore optimized both for slashing as well as stabbing or thrusting. It probably originated in the area from the eastern Alps to the Carpathians in the 15C (the forerunner of the Naue Type II was called the Sprockhoff Ia) and was cast in foundries rather than forged in smithies. Its superior design led to its rapid dissemination in the eastern Mediterranean, once introduced c. 1200, though it did not appear there before. A find of these swords in Ugarit had been previously misdated to the 14C based on surrounding sherds but more likely constitutes a hoard buried during the final emergency there c. 1185.>>


    It was spread by those proto-Getae/Dacians during their expansion phase
    Well in this case I’ll bring up to a dozen real and better historians and archeologists While the origin of Naue II (Sprockhoff IIa) swords remains debatable, but it seems that most historians point toward the region of Western Hungary (Transdanubia)-Austria-Czech Republic and Northern Italy, while Dr.Naue affirmed an pure Italian origin10. Furthermore, a website from Salzburg university offers the possibility of searching for Griffzungenschwert discoveries. You can search on the database using Reinecke timeline for Bronze Age.


    Although is conclusive enough that most sources agree for a Central European (W Hungary, Austria, Bohemia, E Bavaria) origin of this type of swords, thus shattering your theory.

    Furthermore, I think that you are making a little confusion regarding the geographical extent of Central Europe in British and Western literature, where Central Europe is defined as the region with the eastern border formed by Hungary, Slovakia and Poland, without including Romania.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    10 “P.Reinecke and H.Muller-Karpe consider that Naue swords originates in Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean area, I. Nestor takes in discussion the Middle Danube region, while E. Sprockhoff consider as plausible a polycentric origin: Italy, Greece, Northern Europe (Germany ed.).” Simona Lazar, Observatii cu privire la armamentul ofensiv de la sf. Epocii bronzului in Arhivele Olteniei, No.25, p.8


    “It seems now proven that forerunners of these swords (flange-hilted swords - Naue) – which have been variously termed Saurbrunn, Keszthely and Boiu – were the weapons par excellence of the Tumulus people at the time of their migration south-Eastern and western (…) The sword from Iron Gate and from Povergliano Veronese seem to indicated the SE and SW extent of the finds.” Charles Francis, The European Community in Later Prehistory, p.59


    “The earliest straight bladed swords are known as type Ib according to classification of Sprockhoff. (…) they were assumed to belong to Reinecke’s Phase C (Bz C). Their appearance in grave context indicates a considerable earlier date. In the commentary of Trebivlice, Bohemia, this type of sword was discovered in an inhumation grave (…) . See more in Marija Gimbutas, Bronze Age culture, p.77-82


    Dr.Naue regarded Type II swords from Greece as of Italian origin. From Italy it seems to have spread to various parts of the Balkan Peninsula, to Hungary, Austria and Germany.



    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...nfield-culture

    <<The Urnfield culture first appeared in east-central Europe and northern Italy; from the 12th century bc onward, however, the use of urn cemeteries, or urnfields, gradually spread to Ukraine, Sicily, Scandinavia, and across France to the Iberian peninsula—a movement perhaps associated with folk migrations. In most areas the genuine Urnfield tradition of flat graves was continued; occasionally, however, the urns were covered by round barrows.>>
    The origin (of urnfield) is in Carpathian basin - today western Romania-estern Hungarya, same place where was found the giant settlement of Iarcuri-Cornesti
    And once again you misinterpreted sources, with your conclusions being unsupported by the real facts we may discern from the archeological evidences. Most veritable archeologists and historians place the Urnfield as a gradual evolution of the previous Central European Tumulus culture11, and while the Eastern influences are not denied, these were largely due to Tumulus culture expansion toward the East 12, and not otherwise.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    11

    “The available Late Bronze Age material from Central Europe which comes from thousands of sites indicates an unquestionable Tumulus-Urnfield continuity of culture.” Gimbutas, Bronze Age cultures… p.298


    “Early Urnfield centers occurred in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Austria and in North Alpine area.” Desmond Collins, Background to Archaeology: Britain in Its European Setting, p.50



    “Median wing axes from Mycenae and from Scoglio del Tonno show an unquestionable similarity to the median-wing axes of the earliest Urnfield phase in Central Europe. Hundreds of such axes are known from Austria, Northern Yugoslavia, Western Hungary, Western Slovakia and Moravia. Their greatest concentration in the middle Danube basin represents a region of local manufacture. (…) The homeland of median-wing axe is central Europe. It appeared in late Unetice period and lasted throughout the whole second half of the second millennium BC. ” Gimbutas, Bronze Age cultures… p.114


    “The Urnfield period did not come out of the Urnfiled period (…) Its genesis is to be located in the changes preceding it, e.g. during the late Tumulus culture.” Kristian Kristiansen, Europe before history, p.24



    12
    “The dominant cultural complex of the Danubian region in Central Europe, the Tumulus communities occupied Transdanubia and the Danube–Tisza interfluve, as shown by the bronze jewellery, swords, daggers and axes echoing general Central European forms and ornamentation from the 13th–12th century cemeteries at Keszthely, Bakonyszûcs, Farkasgyepû, Mezõcsát, Tápé, Rákóczifalva and Tiszafüred.” CHANGES IN THE 3RD MILLENNIUM B.C.: THE DAWN OF A NEW PERIOD, P.170




    “The flourishing period of the Otomani culture during its classical period came to an end around 1450 BC as is seen from the sudden culture change and from wide distribution of Tumulus bronzes and pots. Many tells in E Hungary and Western Romania were abandoned. At the same time the Encrusted Pottery and Vatya culture of the West Middle Danube in Hungary disappeared.” Gimbutas, Bronze Age cultures… p.218


    “The Vatya Culture ends with the invasion by the Tumulus Culture (of the Bronze Age) which struck the Vatya area and affected greatly its further development” S. Foltiny,
    The Hungarian Archeological Collection Of The American Museum Of Natural History, p.31

    “M. Gimbutas treats Fuzesabnony as the phase of Otomani culture. (…)The flourishing Fuzesabnony Vulture came to an end around 1450 BC or later. The Tumulus Culture gained complete dominance over large parts of the earlier Fuzesabnony area.” S. Foltiny,
    The Hungarian Archeological Collection Of The American Museum Of Natural History, p.32




    “At the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the advanced economy of the koszider period collapsed. The inhabitants quickly deserted their layered, fortified settlements, and they also stopped using the cemeteries. Researchers think that besides the increasingly wet climate, the inflow of people from around Lower-Austria and South-western Slovakia, who were named after their burial customs the Tumulus culture, caused this change. These people kept large farm animals and lived on seasonal settlements. Though not in great numbers, people of these groups also reached the Budapest area (Zugló, Rákoskeresztúr, Békásmegyer).” Budapest Museum





    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Urnfield culture and the predominance of cremation originated in what was later called Dacia. See as well the previous Otomani culture and Wittenberg culture (contemporan with Noua) or better look again what the people from Cambridge say (same page 64)
    http://books.google.ro/books?id=vXlj...omania&f=false

    <<the only funeral rite was cremation>>.
    Wrong. Cremation remained the primary funerary rite for a number of unrelated cultures during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, ranging from Britain to Hungary and Croatia or Central Poland13. Cremation survived as a funerary rite even during Tumulus culture period14, and many archeologists and historians see the change of the funerary rite as a evolution of within Tumulus culture, probably with major influences due to Tumulus culture’s expansion into the area of bi-ritual or cremation cultures15.

    Furthermore, inhumation was far more prevailing among the cultures of Early-Middle Bronze in Romania16, with Wittenberg, Cruceni-Belegis and Dubovac-Zuto Brdo-Garla Mara cultures being the only one to practice mainly cremations, with the latter two revealing strong influences from the Transdanubian (W Hungary) region17.


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    13
    “In the Early Bronze Age of Hungary it was the standard rite in the cemeteries of Nagyrev and Kisapostag groups and in the Middle Bornze age in those of the Vatya group.(…) In Britain, cremation was widely practiced in the early Bronze Age and was dominant in north. During the course of the Middle Bronze Age it became the commonest rite in Britain. (…)The largest and most important cemetery of Middle bronze age in Central Europe at Pitten in Lower Austria had 221 excavated graves of which 74 were inhumations and 147 cremations.” A. F. Harding, European Societies in the Bronze Age p.111-112

    “In the Encrusted Ware Culture scattered cremations predominate; in the Vatya Culture urn burials are used; and in Füzesabony inhumation is the most common grave form. (…)The Encrusted Ware culture is found in the hilly regions of the western part of Hungary – Transdanubia – an area divided into a northern and southern part by Lake Balaton. Its distribution, primarily defined by its elaborate pottery tradition, stretches from the Danube all the way to the Drava, around the Balaton and the Sió. The Great Hungarian Plain, a terrain ranging from flat to rolling plains, is the main setting for the Vatya Culture, which is situated on both sides of the Danube in a densely settled and therefore well-researched area. The origins of the Vatya Culture are thought to be connected to the late Kisapostag settlements in north-east Transdanubia (Bóna 1975:32), from where it quickly spread southwards and across the Danube, (…)The landscape of the northeastern part of Hungary and south-east Slovakia, the setting for the Füzesabony Culture, is again quite different.” Marie Louise Stig Sørensen and Katharina Rebay-Salisbury, Landscapes of the Body: Burials of the Middle Bronze Age in Hungary, p.50-51

    14 Although inhumation was the dominant rite, cremation burials also occur in the original homeland of the Tumulus culture, in Oberpfalz, southern Germany and Austria. It seems likely that the Tumulus population practiced both rites by the time it arrived to Hungary and that the original ratio of the two burial rites was also influenced by the funerary practices of the local population. CHANGES IN THE 3RD MILLENNIUM B.C.: THE DAWN OF A NEW PERIOD, p.162


    “Though the main feature of the burials are nearly identical everywhere, there are minor differences in the size and form of the graves, the wooden and especially stone construction, the number of burials in the Tumulus, which usually contained contracted but sometimes cremations.” Sigfried J. de Laet, From the Third Millennium to the Seventh Century B. C., p.871


    Likewise, inhumation remained a funerary rite practiced by some Urnfield cultures:
    “Although this period is called Urnfield period, inhumation was not completely abandoned. The Knoviz group in Central Bohemia and Franconia for instance left many inhumation graves. Some Lusatian cemeteries in lower Warta and Oder basin continued inhumation during the Urnfield II and later phases.” Gimbutas, p.309



    15 “Central Europe, and in particular the Carpathian Basin, has often been claimed as the origin of the Urnfield Culture with its practice of cremation (Gedl 1991; Pfannenschmidt 2000), but the diversity of burial traditions within this area brings into doubt the idea that cremation, as aCentral Europe, and in particular new practice, has a single and simple point of origin. Furthermore, the variability of burial practices also undermines the expectation that the transition from inhumation
    to cremation will be linear and follow a certain prescribed trajectory” Marie Louise Stig Sørensen and Katharina Rebay-Salisbury, Landscapes of the Body: Burials of the Middle Bronze Age in Hungary, p.49-50


    See also notes 1 and 12




    16,
    “Inhumation was the commoner mode of burial. (…) From the above it can be deduced that the transition from inhumation to cremation was a gradual process and that cremation seems to have supplanted inhumation somewhere at the end of the classical Otomani period.” Gimbutas, p.214



    “In the cemetery No.1 of Sarata Monteoru phase IIb cremated children graves in urns appeared. In all other Monteoru graves inhumation was universal. ”Gimbutas, p.228

    Recent studies of Dacian names in Romania have shown that they coincide with the distribution of the Monteoru culture. Gimbutas, p. 232


    “The predominant funerary rite within Noua culture is inhumation (…) From a statistic viewpoint, incineration is rare in case of this culture, appearing in around 10-14% in Moldova, and especially during Noua I phase and rarer in the second phase.” CULTURA NOUA PE TERITORIUL ROMÂNIEI, P.12





    17.“ The grafting of the elements of civilization typical of the communities of
    the northern-Pannonian inlayed ceramics with local ones (Gerjen, Vatina and Verbicioara) determined the appearance of a new ethnical-cultural manifestation known especially as „Szeremle group”, and recently as „Szeremle-Bjelo Brdo group”5 in the archaeological literature. (…) One of them was the Zuto Brdo -Gârla Mare culture, which developped from the Szeremle communities, that were coming down to the neighbouring of the western side of the Carpathians. The Szeremle cultural group is considered, in the same time, one of the elements that actively participated to the formation of the Cruceni-Belegiš culture. (…)The Cruceni-
    Belegiš culture was formed on the basis of a mixture of elements of Litzenkeramik type belonging to the Gumtransdorf-Drassburg group and inlayed ceramics of Szeremle type, dislocated by the pressure of the communities of the Tumular Culture (Hügelgräberkultur) from Central
    Europe. That mixture was grafted on the local background of Vatina type.(…) Beside
    the tumular influences, we have to remind those that come from the rnfield area with which the Cruceni-Belegiš culture got contemporary.”Alexandru Szentmiklosi, THE RELATIONS OF THE CRUCENI-BELEGIŠ CULTURE WTH THE Zuto-Brdo–GÂRLA MARE CULTURE, p.230-232








    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    For example it is more correct to say that Thracians (as they are understand as the people south of Balkan Mountains) are the southern branch of Getae-Dacians and during time suffered some influences from foreign cultures.

    Because Greeks have them as imediate neighbours and meet them first, they take the things backward and called Getae/Dacians as part of Thracians, but in reality it was the other way around, more correct is to say that Thracians (those from the south) was part of Getae-Dacian people.
    While not dismissible right away, your theory lacks any proper support (archeological but most importantly linguistic), so until you flesh it out, you’ll have serious problems in finding many trained historians to believe it.


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    This is backed by archeology and by writings as ones of Jordanes
    http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/.../jordgeti.html

    Not only Jordannes is notoriously unreliable as a source, he is also writing at 1,500 years following the events he supposedly presents. So excuse me if I dismiss him as mostly irrelevant and fictious. Btw, please share with us the conclusive archeological proofs.

    <<VI (47) This was the region where the Goths dwelt when Vesosis, king of the Egyptians, made war upon them. Their king at that time was Tanausis. In a battle at the river Phasis (whence come the birds called pheasants, which are found in abundance at the banquets of the great all over the world) Tanausis, king of the Goths, met Vesosis, king of the Egyptians, and there inflicted a severe defeat upon him, pursuing him even to Egypt.>>
    Nowadays we would call this a fiction with poorly included historical information.

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    This confirms the "sea people" invasions mentioned by Egyptians (and Goths here are the Getae/Dacians mentioned by those from Cambridge too, as well by other sources i posted previously)
    Please quote the exact paragraphs, because I observed a tendency to misinterpret sources

    I hope this will lead to a resultful and civil discussion, based more on academic sources and less on invectives and mockery, although I have serious doubts in regard of the former possibility.

    P.S. I’ll respond to the other parts of your posts as soon, including the part with italy I'll also present a lengthier own opinion after finishing presenting of the sources;

    Have a good read and sorry for the wall of text

  2. #2
    NikeBG's Avatar Sampsis
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Posts
    3,262

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    Sorry for intruding in your discussion (boy, the Thracians/Dacians sure seem quite... popular here!), but is this basically about the Thracian talassocracy period?

    NikeBG's YouTube profile
    "If one's arguments are weak, his position hardens." - Stanisław Jerzy Lec
    "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid." - S. Kierkegaard

  3. #3
    mircea's Avatar Hastatus
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    586

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    Quote Originally Posted by NikeBG View Post
    Sorry for intruding in your discussion (boy, the Thracians/Dacians sure seem quite... popular here!), but is this basically about the Thracian talassocracy period?
    It surely includes the Thracian talassocracy period, although as far as I could discern it postulates a Thracian massive expansion, which was the main cause for the Bronze Age collapse, with Thracian (or Dacian) groups forming the foundation brick for Urnfield culture in Central Europe and Terramare and Villanova cultures in Italy, participating at Sea peoples invasion of Middle East and Egypt and Greece (Sparta- Laconia area or Samos in South Aegean Sea), as well as being a major factor in Parthian ethnogenesis.

    For more, I think I'll have to let the adherents to this theory to better explain it

  4. #4
    Diocle's Avatar Centurio Primus Ordine
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Genoa - Italy
    Posts
    7,613

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    Yeah, in many texts about the origins of the Latin peoples, many Italian Historians and Archeologists and linguistic experts, state that the migrations of groups from the Balkan region was the origin of the iron age Italian cultures at the end of the Bronze Age. I read that these peoples firstly used Iron for swords and weapons.

    The Achaeans and the mass migration movements universally known under the name of 'Sea Peoples' probably were provoked by the invasions of peoples from the Balkan area.

    But calling them Dacians or Thracian is probably not correct, the Dacian and Thracian groups developed later, but here I must shut up, I'm not an expert of Late Bronze Age Balkan History

  5. #5
    Getwulf's Avatar Sōkō no yari
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Guthanlanda
    Posts
    1,124

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    But calling them Dacians or Thracian is probably not correct, the Dacian and Thracian groups developed later, but here I must shut up, I'm not an expert of Late Bronze Age Balkan History
    It's not "probably incorrect" as you say but VERY INCORRECT!... And by "Balkan" I don't think any of your Italian researchers mean the unique cultures north of the Danube and in the Carpathians.

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    It surely includes the Thracian talassocracy period, although as far as I could discern it postulates a Thracian massive expansion, which was the main cause for the Bronze Age collapse, with Thracian (or Dacian) groups forming the foundation brick for Urnfield culture in Central Europe and Terramare and Villanova cultures in Italy, participating at Sea peoples invasion of Middle East and Egypt and Greece (Sparta- Laconia area or Samos in South Aegean Sea), as well as being a major factor in Parthian ethnogenesis.

    Oh no...! No... No... No... No...!
    Sai rodida Guthans!

  6. #6
    Diocle's Avatar Centurio Primus Ordine
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Genoa - Italy
    Posts
    7,613

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    Quote Originally Posted by Getwulf View Post
    It's not "probably incorrect" as you say but VERY INCORRECT!... And by "Balkan" I don't think any of your Italian researchers mean the unique cultures north of the Danube and in the Carpathians.


    Oh no...! No... No... No... No...!
    Had I to add the adjective 'very'?.......OK! Sorry! I'll be more careful the next time!

    .....But was I right?...Tell me Getwulf......Was I right?...

  7. #7
    Sir Adrian's Avatar Staff
    Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Mountain Fortress of Marcodava
    Posts
    7,936

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    Asking getwulf if you are right is like asking the devil if going to heaven is worth it.
    Under the patronage of Inkie Pie

    Click the banner below, it will lead you to a wonderful place. Click it! Click iiiiiittttttttttt! You know you want to.

  8. #8
    Diocle's Avatar Centurio Primus Ordine
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Genoa - Italy
    Posts
    7,613

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    OMG! this thread is like a minefield!!!

  9. #9
    Princeps Posterior
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,597

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    @ Mircea

    I am sorry i dont have much time to answer you point by point so i will post few stuff to respond to some of yours

    First, about Urnfield cultures (just few from many sources)

    http://books.google.ro/books?id=LTbc...omania&f=false

    <<pag. 110 - Around BC 2000 the Urnfield culture began to develop in the present day are of Hungary-Romania. Two of the oldest sites were at Kisapostag, Hungary and Carna, Romania.>>

    http://books.google.ro/books?id=rCEa...omania&f=false

    <<pag.32 - The earliest Urnfielders, dating to the thriteenth century BC, were centered on the Middle Danube, occupying much of what is now Hungary and western Romania. By the twelfth century, urn cremation had spread to Iatly, and to a broad zone of what may be called Middle Europe, including eastern France, Switzerland, Germany, the Czech Republic and the southern Poland (Chadwick 1971, 24)>>

    Lets not forget that what is today Hungary (ancient Panonia) was actually a teritory inhabited as well by Dacians (later by Celts too). Dont forget either about Otomani culture, that spread as well from western Romania to HUngary and Slovakia.

    Now this urnfielders spread toward Italy and groups of warriors had a significant impact in western Europe as well. Thats not means that the proto-Celts or proto-Germans was fromed by this groups, which represented proto-Dacians, but those was influenced by them

    And now we come to the Cambridge Ancient History source

    http://books.google.ro/books?id=vXlj...omania&f=false

    <<pag. 62 - Chapter VIII. THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION FROM THE BRONZE AGE TO THE FIRST IRON AGE: THE HALLSTATT A PERIOD - (1200-1000 B.C.)
    Culturally, economically and ethnically this period is perfectly continuous with the Late Bronze Age.

    pag. 64 - More then fifty years ago Vasile Parvan wrote about "the Dacians at Troy" on the strenght of similar ceramic types found at Troy and in the Carpathian area; the only amendament we can make is to replace Dacians by Thracians, because the various groups of Thracian population had not separated out in the twelfth century.


    Pressure from the west and south west, which began in north-eastern Yugoslavia, south-eastern Hungary and the south-western most part of Romania, gave rise to great migrations.......displaced the Dorians........caused the invasion of the "Sea People">>

    Here the mistake i think is at the Cambridge guys and Parvan is obviously more correct when he talk about Dacians and not Thracians. Thracians as i said are more likely the southern branch of Getae/Dacians that from some point on developed more independently and adopted some foreign influences as well.

    I already posted other historians who said the same thing as those from Cambridge, a giant wave of migrations that extended in all directions, having as center the Carpatho-Danubian region, at the end of bronze age-beginning of the iron age. And this is the core of Dacians/Getae area, which was anyway spread on a larger teritory, not just today Romania but large parts of today Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, and more or less improtant areas of today Slovakia, Poland, Ukraine and even Macedonia)

    This is not something incredible at all, later on will be similar (maybe less influential) migration of Iranic people (see Scythians), Celts (that reached Anatolia), Greeks (reached India), we can count even Romans (as an offspring of Dacians that developed mostly independently over time), Germanic (see the Vandals in Africa for example). Is just that Getae/Dacians (Thracians if you wish) was the first doing this but they are not discussed for different reasons

    I will reply some next time to the other affirmations

  10. #10
    Getwulf's Avatar Sōkō no yari
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Guthanlanda
    Posts
    1,124

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Had I to add the adjective 'very'?.......OK! Sorry! I'll be more careful the next time!

    .....But was I right?...Tell me Getwulf......Was I right?...
    Yes you were right it is incorrect... the Italic culture is very different and quite unique from these cultures... You would basically have to go all the way to the La Tene period to see some interactions through trade between these regions. AND the pattern of trade is usually of Italic goods coming into the Carpato-Danubian region rather than a Carpato-Danubian culture spreading to Italy.

    When we speak of a Greco-Roman culture in Italy we're talking about the Greeks who migrated to southern Italy... Those people have nothing to do with Thracians and Thracians have absolutely nothing to do with the Getic culture north of the Danube. Even if it could be proven that actual Thracians and not Greeks made it to Italy, it still wouldn't prove that Italians are descended from the Getae. I say Getae and not Dacians because the Dacians only show up around 50 B.C. in our region.

    This new BS theory of Romans being descended from Dacians was created to cover up the fact that Daco-Roman is a bankrupt theory. It goes something like this... "We're not Romans, we were always more Latin than the Italians because they get their culture from us..." As such, there was no need for the Romans to Latinize the Dacian language because they always spoke Latin and THAT'S WHY WE SPEAK ROMANIAN TODAY! All of which is obviously false...!
    Last edited by Getwulf; December 09, 2012 at 11:43 AM.
    Sai rodida Guthans!

  11. #11
    NikeBG's Avatar Sampsis
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Posts
    3,262

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    participating at Sea peoples invasion of Middle East and Egypt and Greece (Sparta- Laconia area or Samos in South Aegean Sea)
    Well, I can agree with that and I think it's rather well accepted, isn't it? With an emphasis on "participating", as a part, not as everything. As for the rest - hmm, reminds me of Getwulf somehow...

    NikeBG's YouTube profile
    "If one's arguments are weak, his position hardens." - Stanisław Jerzy Lec
    "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid." - S. Kierkegaard

  12. #12
    Getwulf's Avatar Sōkō no yari
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Guthanlanda
    Posts
    1,124

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    Quote Originally Posted by NikeBG View Post
    Well, I can agree with that and I think it's rather well accepted, isn't it? With an emphasis on "participating", as a part, not as everything. As for the rest - hmm, reminds me of Getwulf somehow...
    No it doesn't... I'm specific to Goths and their interactions with other people... I respect myself and don't pretend that I'm related to everybody. For instance I'm not related to you because you're a Bulgar... Mircea thinks you are because you're both "Thracians" and therefore also Latins by extensions which also means that you're also Romanian. So you see... It's not the same at all!
    Sai rodida Guthans!

  13. #13
    mircea's Avatar Hastatus
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    586

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    @ Mircea

    I am sorry i dont have much time to answer you point by point so i will post few stuff to respond to some of yours

    First, about Urnfield cultures (just few from many sources)
    I have already provided substantial sources that a significant number of archeologists/historians consider that Urnfield culture evolved from the previous Central European Tumulus culture. (see Note 11 from the first post) Furthermore, although influences from the Eastern cremation cultures (Encrusted Ware, Vatya, Wittenberg) cannot be ruled out, these influences came following the expansion of the Tumulus culture toward them, and not otherwise. (see notes 1 and 12)


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    http://books.google.ro/books?id=LTbc...omania&f=false
    pag. 110 - Around BC 2000 the Urnfield culture began to develop in the present day are of Hungary-Romania. Two of the oldest sites were at Kisapostag, Hungary and Carna, Romania.>>
    Your own source refutes your claims saying that “Bronze Age warriors crossed the strait of Bosporus and raided Syria, Palestine and Egypt” (p.111) and in the same page shows that “after BC 1100, the Celtic Urnfield culture was a major influence in Poland, Austria (…) and Italy. The tribes that moved into the Po Valley and Etruria were called the Villanovans and formed the basis for Etruscan culture” (p.111)
    http://books.google.ro/books?id=LTbc...page&q&f=false





    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    http://books.google.ro/books?id=rCEa...omania&f=false

    <<pag.32 - The earliest Urnfielders, dating to the thriteenth century BC, were centered on the Middle Danube, occupying much of what is now Hungary and western Romania. By the twelfth century, urn cremation had spread to Iatly, and to a broad zone of what may be called Middle Europe, including eastern France, Switzerland, Germany, the Czech Republic and the southern Poland (Chadwick 1971, 24)>>
    On the previous page (p.31) the same source affirms that “Archeologists are now acknowledging that the Urnfield folk were Celtic or proto-Celtic.”

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Lets not forget that what is today Hungary (ancient Panonia) was actually a teritory inhabited as well by Dacians (later by Celts too). Dont forget either about Otomani culture, that spread as well from western Romania to HUngary and Slovakia.
    Otomani culture spread to the W Romania, NW Hungary and E Slovakia, and was reduced to W Romania following expansion of the Central European Tumulus Culture, few centuries before the emergence of Urnfield culture. (see note 12) Furthermore, ancient Pannonia was inhabited by Pannonians (of Illyrian stock) and later Celts.

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Now this urnfielders spread toward Italy and groups of warriors had a significant impact in western Europe as well. Thats not means that the proto-Celts or proto-Germans was fromed by this groups, which represented proto-Dacians, but those was influenced by them
    Your own sources say that Urnfielders were of Celtic or better Proto-Celtic stock.

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    [SIZE=2] And now we come to the Cambridge Anc[SIZE=2]ient History source
    [SIZE=2]
    http://books.google.ro/books?id=vXlj...omania&f=false

    [SIZE=2]<<pag. 62 - Chapter VIII. THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION FROM THE BRONZE AGE TO THE FIRST IRON AGE: THE HALLSTATT A PERIOD - (1200-1[SIZE=2]000 B.C.)

    Pressure from the west and south west, which began in north-eastern Yugoslavia, south-eastern Hungary and the south-western most part of Romania, gave rise to great migrations.......displaced the Dorians........caused the invasion of the "Sea People">>
    This quote is quite strange consideering that in the same book, several pages later (p.583-584) they affirm that “Thus there were migrations, for instance, from the valley of the Morava into Macedonia and from the Carpatho-Balkan area through Thrace into Asia Minor. In our belief these movements were merely part of a wider process which began earlier in the Bronze Age. For example, the bearers of the Middle European Hiigelgraber or tumulus culture exerted towards southern Pannonia a pressure which played an outstanding role in the formation of the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group and in the connexions it had with the west Pannonian incrusted ware. Similarly the Noua-Sabatinovka group moving westwards from the east towards the Carpathian region exerted pressure in the Lower Danubian area.”

    The latter conclusion fits I what I already have demonstrated, more specifically that the migrations toward Eastern Mediterranean Basin from Middle-Late Bronze Age engulfed a vast region spanning from Austria-Western Hungary (Tumulus-Urnfield and Encrusted ware culture) to Romania (Noua-Cosologeni), Ukraine (Sabatinovka) and Poland (Luastiz culture) (see Notes 1-5)
    See what we have is a multi-focal origin for migrations, and clearly not a single pinpoint origin as you try to prove.


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post

    [SIZE=2]Here the mistake i think is at the Cambridge guys and Parvan is obviousl[SIZE=2]y more correct when he talk about Dacians and not Thracians. Thracians as i said are more likely the southern branch of Getae/Dacians that from some point on developed more independently and adopted some foreign influences as well.
    While not necessary impossible, until you bring proofs, this little theory is just wishful thinking

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    [SIZE=2]I already posted other historians who said the same thing as those from Cambridge, a giant wave of migrations that extended in all directions, having as center the [SIZE=2]Carpatho[SIZE=2]-Danubian region, at the end of bronze age-beginning of the iron age. And this is the core of Dacians/Getae area, which was anyway spread on a larger teritory, not just today Romania but large parts of today Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, and more or less improtant areas of today Slovakia, Poland, Ukraine and even Macedonia)
    It is more than reckless to put a ethnic label to the myriad Bronze Age cultures, especially considering the fact the differentiation between various Indo-European groups was not even close to being complete, and the fact that the same culture was sometimes shared by several distinct ethnicities (e.g. Urnfield)
    Furthermore, your definition of the area inhabited by (proto-)Daco-Getae is overly estimated and minimizes the existence of groups such as Phrygians, Dardani, Thracians, Cimmerians, Pannonians, Eastern Illyrians etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    This is not something incredible at all, later on will be similar (maybe less influential) migration of Iranic people (see Scythians), Celts (that reached Anatolia), Greeks (reached India), we can count even Romans (as an offspring of Dacians that developed mostly independently over time), Germanic (see the Vandals in Africa for example). Is just that Getae/Dacians (Thracians if you wish) was the first doing this but they are not discussed for different reasons
    The thing is that we may demonstrate these migrations, while the supposedly Dacian migration to Western and Northern (Denmark) Europe or Italy is just wishful thinking, without solid basis for fantasies such as the Romans descending from Dacians.

    Quote Originally Posted by NikeBG View Post
    Well, I can agree with that and I think it's rather well accepted, isn't it? With an emphasis on "participating", as a part, not as everything. As for the rest - hmm, reminds me of Getwulf somehow...
    With the first part I totally agree, but I disagree with the your second opinion. Let’s face it, getwulf ‘claims’ are way more ludicrous than this, most of them to the point of total utter absurdity

  14. #14
    Princeps Posterior
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,597

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    I have already provided substantial sources that a significant number of archeologists/historians consider that Urnfield culture evolved from the previous Central European Tumulus culture. (see Note 11 from the first post) Furthermore, although influences from the Eastern cremation cultures (Encrusted Ware, Vatya, Wittenberg) cannot be ruled out, these influences came following the expansion of the Tumulus culture toward them, and not otherwise. (see notes 1 and 12)
    No, the influence is as i said, from Carpathian basin (western Romania) toward west, tumulus or urnfield

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture#Origin

    <<The origins of the cremation rite are commonly believed to be the Balkans, where it was widespread in the eastern part of the Tumulus culture. The neolithic Cucuteni-Trypillian culture of modern day northeastern Romania and Ukraine were also practicing cremation rituals as early as approximately 5,500 BC.>>

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Your own source refutes your claims saying that “Bronze Age warriors crossed the strait of Bosporus and raided Syria, Palestine and Egypt” (p.111) and in the same page shows that “after BC 1100, the Celtic Urnfield culture was a major influence in Poland, Austria (…) and Italy. The tribes that moved into the Po Valley and Etruria were called the Villanovans and formed the basis for Etruscan culture” (p.111)
    http://books.google.ro/books?id=LTbc...page&q&f=false

    On the previous page (p.31) the same source affirms that “Archeologists are now acknowledging that the Urnfield folk were Celtic or proto-Celtic.”
    I did use that source just for archeological dating, not for their obviously wrong interpretations belonging to so called pan-celticism. In fact, they are not totally wrong, the proto-Celts did adopted that culture, but the origin is from proto-Dacians, of course. It was a cultural contamination

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Otomani culture spread to the W Romania, NW Hungary and E Slovakia, and was reduced to W Romania following expansion of the Central European Tumulus Culture, few centuries before the emergence of Urnfield culture. (see note 12) Furthermore, ancient Pannonia was inhabited by Pannonians (of Illyrian stock) and later Celts.
    I think you need to improve your knowledge about Panonia, or at least eastern Panonia including Tisa river area, that was Dacian teritory. Of course Dacians/Getae spread even more in west, at least until today Slovakia, but reaching even Germania. I dont have time now to post some stuff from Parvan and Schutte, regarding especially Ptolemey map and writings. I did posted somewhere here an article of some Polish scholars too, that talk about Dacians in Poland and even up to Germany

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Your own sources say that Urnfielders were of Celtic or better Proto-Celtic stock.
    Later urnfielders, possible, the origin of culture, obviously not

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    This quote is quite strange consideering that in the same book, several pages later (p.583-584) they affirm that “Thus there were migrations, for instance, from the valley of the Morava into Macedonia and from the Carpatho-Balkan area through Thrace into Asia Minor. In our belief these movements were merely part of a wider process which began earlier in the Bronze Age. For example, the bearers of the Middle European Hiigelgraber or tumulus culture exerted towards southern Pannonia a pressure which played an outstanding role in the formation of the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo group and in the connexions it had with the west Pannonian incrusted ware. Similarly the Noua-Sabatinovka group moving westwards from the east towards the Carpathian region exerted pressure in the Lower Danubian area.”
    So we have the quote from Cambridge Ancient History book that i posted, then we have this historians:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_peo...der_hypothesis
    Michael Grant: "There was a gigantic series of migratory waves, extending all the way from the Danube valley to the plains of China."[61]

    according to Finley:[62] A large-scale movement of people is indicated ... the original centre of disturbance was in the Carpatho-Danubian region of Europe. It appears to have been pushing in different directions at different times.


    And of course Parvan etc. etc. This clealry said that was a movement of people called Dacians by Parvan and (kinda wrongly) Thracians by Cambridge guys. This movement of (proto) Dacians/Thracians spread in different directions. Your own quote say that Noua culture (Transylvania) spread toward west, and of course south.

    Then we have this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins_...ibe%29#Origins


    <<The most common hypothesis is that the Italic peoples migrated into the Italian peninsula some time during the Italian Bronze Age (1800-900 BC).[1] The most likely migration route was from the Balkan peninsula along the Adriatic coast.[2][1]>>



    This seem pretty clear for anyone with an open enough mind and able to tie few knots, that the center of this movements was in what was called later Dacia. I do agree that this provoked the movement of other people too, and those proto-Dacian groups sometime mixed with locals in the regions they reached and lost their individuality over time.

    Except Romans who preserved their in a way (not forget that they evolved independently for quite a long time after they splited from proto-Getae/Dacians), even heavily influenced by Greeks for example


    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    While not necessary impossible, until you bring proofs, this little theory is just wishful thinking
    I posted lots of proofs, it is not my fault if someone is too affected by old dogmas and can't assimilate them

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    It is more than reckless to put a ethnic label to the myriad Bronze Age cultures,
    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Your own sources say that Urnfielders were of Celtic or better Proto-Celtic stock.
    Yet you just use yourself such label

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Furthermore, your definition of the area inhabited by (proto-)Daco-Getae is overly estimated and minimizes the existence of groups such as Phrygians, Dardani, Thracians, Cimmerians, Pannonians, Eastern Illyrians etc.
    Well, as Daco-Getae was the dominant part of those related groups (Thracians, Phrygians and Cimmerians are considered as related people) is not that of an overestimation

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    The thing is that we may demonstrate these migrations, while the supposedly Dacian migration to Western and Northern (Denmark) Europe or Italy is just wishful thinking, without solid basis for fantasies such as the Romans descending from Dacians.
    This migrations of Dacians are demonstrated as i already show, is just needed an open mind to accept them and to pass over the old, outdated and rigid dogmas. Because this Daco-Getae/Thracian invasions or migrations waves are ignored by pan-Celticism (and even pan-Germanism) like historians from western Europe, the most vocal. And by dogmatic Latinist (or later multi-culturalist) historians in Romania.

    Fortunately there are enough exceptions who dont let themselves affected by such dogmatism and talk about these things. Examples are those that write the Cambridge Ancient History, those two scholars qouted from wikipedia (British historians seem the most relaxed, open minded and correct), Parvan and few others i dont have time to search for now (and i am sure there are more that i dont know).
    Is just that their voices are not very heard under the heavy wall of dogmas imposed by others in time.
    Last edited by diegis; December 17, 2012 at 06:36 AM.

  15. #15
    Akrotatos's Avatar Pili Prior
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,191

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    This seem pretty clear for anyone with an open enough mind and able to tie few knots, that the center of this movements was in what was called later Dacia. I do agree that this provoked the movement of other people too, and those proto-Dacian groups sometime mixed with locals in the regions they reached and lost their individuality over time.

    Except Romans who preserved their in a way (not forget that they evolved independently for quite a long time after they splited from proto-Getae/Dacians), even heavily influenced by Greeks for example
    And here I thought we were the best in ridiculous race theories in Greece.....
    A voice of reason in TWC:

    Quote Originally Posted by krisslanza View Post
    That's just the way the factions work. I'd argue, fundamentally, the only faction required in Rome 2 is the obvious one - Rome. They could've sold you a game where you can only play Rome 2, and while it might kind of suck, it would in no way be inappropriate - the game is, after all Rome 2

  16. #16
    Future Filmmaker's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Texastan
    Posts
    11,432

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    Yet genetically I thought that Latin peoples had more in common with Hallstatt Celts.



    Europa Barbarorum II| The Great Conflicts | Anatolian Principalities | Tsardoms
    Son of Noble Savage, Son of Ozymandias, Son of imb39, Son of Garbarsardar, Son of Profler, Son of Wilpuri

  17. #17
    Getwulf's Avatar Sōkō no yari
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Guthanlanda
    Posts
    1,124

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    Quote Originally Posted by Future Filmmaker View Post
    Yet genetically I thought that Latin peoples had more in common with Hallstatt Celts.
    Seems about right...!

    Quote Originally Posted by Akrotatos View Post
    And here I thought we were the best in ridiculous race theories in Greece.....
    ...LOL...

    Rather than admiting that some serious errors were made both in our horribly biased historiography and linguistics... The new school of thought seems to have gone on full retard trying to prove that we're more Latin than the Latins because we we're in fact the first Latins and they get their language from us!
    Sai rodida Guthans!

  18. #18
    Princeps Posterior
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,597

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    Quote Originally Posted by Future Filmmaker View Post
    Yet genetically I thought that Latin peoples had more in common with Hallstatt Celts.
    Well, the originar Latins/Romans arrived in Italia was just a small group that mixed with locals (see just the legend with Sabines etc) over time, more and more until they become less visible genetically.

    However, archaelogy is clear in pointing their origin in Balkan-Danube area

  19. #19
    Getwulf's Avatar Sōkō no yari
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Guthanlanda
    Posts
    1,124

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Well, the originar Latins/Romans arrived in Italia was just a small group that mixed with locals (see just the legend with Sabines etc) over time, more and more until they become less visible genetically.

    However, archaelogy is clear in pointing their origin in Balkan-Danube area


    I told this cat the Latins were from the Balkans and look what happened!
    Last edited by Getwulf; December 18, 2012 at 06:53 AM.
    Sai rodida Guthans!

  20. #20
    Manuel I Komnenos's Avatar Rex Regum
    Civitate Content Staff

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Athenian Empire
    Posts
    11,551

    Default Re: Thraco-Dacian expansion during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age

    If that's the case, we all come from an original group of some 100 people, who were the first humans. The ethnogenesis of the Romans occurred in Rome, of the Dacians in Dacia. There's no point in linking such populations.
    Under the patronage of Emperor Maximinus Thrax

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •