Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 63

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

  1. #41
    mircea's Avatar Hastatus
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    586
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    Diegis, in order to reply as best as possible, I would like for you to clarify a few points you made.
    Thank you with anticipation

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Firstly it was forceful, seeing the spread of Naue 2 type of swords, from Carpathians to Alps. Then a spiritual/religious one probably, seen the spread of cremation. My opinion is that a kind of internal struggle occured within that proto-Dacian civilization, probably based of an increase of population and apparition of a new religion or spiritual belief.
    In the same time a change in warfare occured as well (see Robert Drews and others i dont have time to search to post now), which allowed the people here to prevail over armies of that era.
    Due to these combination of factors smaller or bigger groups migrated in all directions, pushing others as well in their way.
    Where it was located and which was the (proto)-Dacian culture (s) you claim it expanded, and which were the main expansion directions?
    Furthermore, what was the relations of these cultures with the central European Tumulus Culture, where and when these cultures came in contact with the aforementioned culture?

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Dacians clearly spread in Panonia as you draw it. Not just being mentioned by ancient authors (like Pliny the Elder or Strabo) but even archeology shows that (see the Dacians in Slovakia after Burebista expansion)
    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    The fields along Tisa river was a Dacian area however, same along lower Danube right and left to the river (Tisa-Danube areas, up to Danube Delta)
    More exactly what were the westernmost Dacian cultures in Middle and Late Bronze Ages?






    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Cambridge:
    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">>[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
    The pressure was exerted by what culture(s) upon which cultures??

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Urnfielders had their origins right near the area were they "returned", and it seem you conveniently missed the expansion of Noua culture westward.
    Who far to the west the Noua culture expanded, and what is its role in emergence of Urnfield culture?
    Furthermore, what were the common features between Dacian cultures and Urnfield culture?





    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Marja Gimbutas views of history in the area is kinda rejected or corrected lately, especially the ones about the colapse of "Old Europe" (Vinca-Turdas and Cucuteni cultures etc), which more likely was caused by climate changes and not by Patriarchal warrior culture invasions over the peaceful Matriarchal societies she envisioned.
    Cucuteni and Yamna culture for example coexisted and mixed for mileniums, without any problem, and just the climate changes and fall of agriculture lead to the change of lifestyle (and probably internal struggles for resources), wasnt any big invasions she imagined
    Nonetheless, she remains one of the best archaeologists and prehistory experts, and as such her views should not be discounted to easily.

  2. #42
    Princeps Posterior
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,605
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Diegis, in order to reply as best as possible, I would like for you to clarify a few points you made.
    Thank you with anticipation
    Hi Mircea
    I really dont have much time now, so i will give you just few short answers

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Where it was located and which was the (proto)-Dacian culture (s) you claim it expanded, and which were the main expansion directions?
    Furthermore, what was the relations of these cultures with the central European Tumulus Culture, where and when these cultures came in contact with the aforementioned culture?


    More exactly what were the westernmost Dacian cultures in Middle and Late Bronze Ages?
    Here is about Tumulus culture

    http://books.google.ro/books?id=Ioc9...0sword&f=false

    http://books.google.ro/books?id=Ioc9...ulture&f=false

    I have few other sources, need to search them again. Anyway, look there what they say (pages 13 and 59) about so called "Boiu sword", how this was the weapon of Tumulus people and how this sword developed in that Sprockhoff ones, and how the Carpathian basin was under a process of great changes at that moment.

    Which of course started those migrations or in some cases invasions or movements of groups of warriors.
    Anyway, Boiu swords have this name after the village Boiu from Hunedoara county, south-western Transylvania, Romania, the place were the oldest model was found. Its actually in the same county were Dacian capital Sarmizegetusa was located later

    And now about Urnfield culture

    http://books.google.ro/books?id=9s2u...origin&f=false

    There is said (page 45) that its appear to have its origin in Carpathian basin and some scholars identify the urnfielders with Thracians (meanind Getae/Dacians in our case)

    So the idea is that because of the great turmoil and internal fights within Carpathian Basin area (central, western, southwestern and northern Romania and eastern and northern Hungary), groups of warriors migrated around and imposed themselves as rulers over neighbouring people, in different waves at diferent moments. Some of these groups was formed by a large number of people, including probably women and kids, and reached as far as Italy (i posted the sources about such migration from Danube area).

    As you can see, tumulus warrior elite was equiped with swords originating in the heartland of Dacia (from were they probably comes too), swords that evolved quickly in Naue 2 type and tumulus evolved too in urnfield culture, all having apparently same origin, Carpathian basin.

    Same turbulent times here produced a movement of people toward south as well, and i already posted what Cambridge Ancient History or Parvan said about this
    Last edited by diegis; January 04, 2013 at 04:40 PM.

  3. #43
    mircea's Avatar Hastatus
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    586
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    Before replying to the more significant parts of your theory, I would like to clarify certain non-core aspects of your claims

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Yes, them. You should read all the article, because they say at some point:

    <<The not too
    great but nevertheless evident percentage of wares characteristic for the latter in the ceramic inventory of the Tyniec Group confirms, not so much the existence of an unspecified form of "contacts" but the physical presence of Dacians in the area of Krakow....>>

    This show that those bracelets and armlets are indeed imports, meaning they come from Dacia, and was worn by Dacian nobles who arrived in today Poland. However, the more common ceramic with little value was made locally (meaning in Poland) by Dacians who lived there
    I don’t know how you reached that conclusion but I guess you did not read your own source.
    http://www.academia.edu/1455259/New_...Central_Poland

    The conclusion that the lack of production tradition for this kind of specimens and the different chemical composition of the alloys prove beyond doubt that these are imports (trade)
    “The hypothesis mentioned earlier that Simleul Silvanei bracelets are a local product –whether of Wielbark or Przeworsk culture – does not find confirmation in the source material. (…) No less relevant in this case is the lack of a tradition of manufacture of this type of ornament in either culture. (…) But even at this stage we can say with conviction that this type of alloy has no analogy among Przeworsk culture bronzes recorded so far. This fact has the force of an unambiguous confirmation that we have here imports manufactured outside the Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures. ” (p.132-133)
    Further more, it proves that the Dacian presence was minimal, unable to have a significant upon the native Germanic-Celtic element.


    On the other hand, even more significant is the presence of a Celtic elite in the Polish region:
    "Thus we need to link minting activity in the region of Kalisz with the physical presence of Celts in the area. (…) This small community of Celts – probably aristocracy – functioned in the midst of the Przeworsk population and probably had strong links with its elite." (p.137)
    And the fact that:
    “At the same time, we have to note that most finds of type Simleul Silvaniei bracelets discovered on the territory of Przeworsk Culture were accompanied by objects which had a Celtic provenance.” (p.138)
    So rather being worn by Dacian nobles, the archaeologists show us that the bracelets were imported for the use of the Celtic and Germanic elites

    The article shows the affirms the presence of Dacian elements in South Poland area, on the trading route connecting Dacia to Baltic sea, in a ethnically mixed region:
    "Looking at the distribution map of type Simleul Silvaniei bracelets one clearly sees that next to the route which linked Caput Adriae with the Baltic, there was another route of distant exchange. It began in Dacia and led northward to the area of Wielbark Culture all the way to Mecklenburg and Brandenburg. (…) The role of an important transit point on this route would have been played by the people of Tyniec Group residing in western Lesser Poland. (…) The culture inventory of this unit is a reflection of its culturally and ethnically mixed nature. Next to the much more numerous East Germanic elements of Przeworsk culture we find in it traces of the presence of Celts and also physical presence of other cultures, including Dacian in Krakow area.” (p.137)

    As you can see, the Dacian presence is rather limited to the south Poland area, which is very far from Baltic Sea shores. Furthermore, the numerically limited Dacian presence is connected to the trade routes crossing this region and so we cannot even speak of a massive or even dominance of Dacian elites in the area of South Poland, let alone farther to the Baltic shores.



    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Yet same unreliable Jordanes was used (and some still use him) as only source to prove the Gothis migration from Scandza.
    However, regarding the Parthi, he said he took that from Trogus Pompeius, and as you can saw there is modern historians and archeological discoveries who mention Dacians (under the name of Goths in Jordanes book) at least as south as Troy. I see no reason to not believe they goes further in south and some warrior group reached later Persia.
    Again, this have at least as much, but i think more basis then Goths moving from Scandza and wandering 2 mileniums until Jordanes

    L.E. - i will reply you another time about Ovid and his Getic period
    In fact the fictional story of Tanausis was "borrowed" from Justin (also based on Trogus Pompeius), but in Justin account the opponents are described as Sesosis of Egypt and Tanaus, king of Scythia. later, Jordanes in his relentless drive to magnify the Goths ancestry has no problem in equating Goths with Scythians, as well as with other more glorious past people.
    Furthermore, is account remains laughable taking in account the failure to even mention what was probably the most significant major power of the era: Middle Assyrian Empire.
    At the same time, his assertion that Parthian means "deserters" is erroneous as the Parthian language own designation for Parthians is Pahlav which is traced to Avestan pərəthu- "broad [as the earth]", also evident in Sanskrit pŗthvi- "earth" and parthivi "[lord] of the earth".

  4. #44
    Princeps Posterior
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,605
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    I am sorry but i really dont have much time to reply too much, anyway, few short answers

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Before replying to the more significant parts of your theory, I would like to clarify certain non-core aspects of your claims


    I don’t know how you reached that conclusion but I guess you did not read your own source.
    http://www.academia.edu/1455259/New_...Central_Poland

    The conclusion that the lack of production tradition for this kind of specimens and the different chemical composition of the alloys prove beyond doubt that these are imports (trade)
    “The hypothesis mentioned earlier that Simleul Silvanei bracelets are a local product –whether of Wielbark or Przeworsk culture – does not find confirmation in the source material. (…) No less relevant in this case is the lack of a tradition of manufacture of this type of ornament in either culture. (…) But even at this stage we can say with conviction that this type of alloy has no analogy among Przeworsk culture bronzes recorded so far. This fact has the force of an unambiguous confirmation that we have here imports manufactured outside the Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures. ” (p.132-133)
    Further more, it proves that the Dacian presence was minimal, unable to have a significant upon the native Germanic-Celtic element.
    That wasnt my conclusion, it was the conclusion of those Polish scholars, is taken word by word from that article (apparently you didnt read it up to the end or didnt read the parts that contradict your views)

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    On the other hand, even more significant is the presence of a Celtic elite in the Polish region:
    "Thus we need to link minting activity in the region of Kalisz with the physical presence of Celts in the area. (…) This small community of Celts – probably aristocracy – functioned in the midst of the Przeworsk population and probably had strong links with its elite." (p.137)
    And the fact that:
    “At the same time, we have to note that most finds of type Simleul Silvaniei bracelets discovered on the territory of Przeworsk Culture were accompanied by objects which had a Celtic provenance.” (p.138)
    So rather being worn by Dacian nobles, the archaeologists show us that the bracelets were imported for the use of the Celtic and Germanic elites

    The article shows the affirms the presence of Dacian elements in South Poland area, on the trading route connecting Dacia to Baltic sea, in a ethnically mixed region:
    "Looking at the distribution map of type Simleul Silvaniei bracelets one clearly sees that next to the route which linked Caput Adriae with the Baltic, there was another route of distant exchange. It began in Dacia and led northward to the area of Wielbark Culture all the way to Mecklenburg and Brandenburg. (…) The role of an important transit point on this route would have been played by the people of Tyniec Group residing in western Lesser Poland. (…) The culture inventory of this unit is a reflection of its culturally and ethnically mixed nature. Next to the much more numerous East Germanic elements of Przeworsk culture we find in it traces of the presence of Celts and also physical presence of other cultures, including Dacian in Krakow area.” (p.137)

    As you can see, the Dacian presence is rather limited to the south Poland area, which is very far from Baltic Sea shores. Furthermore, the numerically limited Dacian presence is connected to the trade routes crossing this region and so we cannot even speak of a massive or even dominance of Dacian elites in the area of South Poland, let alone farther to the Baltic shores.
    Those bracelets was worn by Dacian nobility of course. Dacian nobility that arrived there from Dacia, bringing with them the objects that show their ranks.
    Frankly, with similar archaelogical prouves, or even less (you forgot to mention the sanctuaries of Thraco-Dacian origin found up to Jutlanda), some historians consider they prouve the presence of Celts in some parts of Transylvania.
    In fact that proofs are even weaker then ones from that article, which are backed by writings of some as Arippa and Ptolemy.
    There is not any mention in any chronicle of Celts in some parts of Transylvania for example, yet some, based on few artefacts (that can be as well imports) consider that Celts passed by in some areas here.

    I dont even want to get now in "Gothic" Santana-Cerneahov culture, were foreign (meaning not local, non-Dacian elements) are even less, yet some still consider a site as Germanic based on a single poterry artefact with couple runes scrached on it, found in a wave of local pottery

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    In fact the fictional story of Tanausis was "borrowed" from Justin (also based on Trogus Pompeius), but in Justin account the opponents are described as Sesosis of Egypt and Tanaus, king of Scythia. later, Jordanes in his relentless drive to magnify the Goths ancestry has no problem in equating Goths with Scythians, as well as with other more glorious past people.
    Furthermore, is account remains laughable taking in account the failure to even mention what was probably the most significant major power of the era: Middle Assyrian Empire.
    At the same time, his assertion that Parthian means "deserters" is erroneous as the Parthian language own designation for Parthians is Pahlav which is traced to Avestan pərəthu- "broad [as the earth]", also evident in Sanskrit pŗthvi- "earth" and parthivi "[lord] of the earth".
    The story is borrowed from Trogus Pompeius, not from Justin. I doubt as well that Justin story was more correct then Jordanes one, I see no reason for that.

    I will give you another example. Lactantius wrote about the death of emperor Decius, and say he was killed in a battle with Carpi, a Dacian tribe (or tribal union). Lactantius was a contemproan of Decius as well (i think he was a teenager when Decius was killed).
    However, some 2-3 centuries later we have Zosiums writing that Decius was killed by Scythians (probably on the base that Carpi comes from Scythia direction), then in the same time we have Jordanes saying that Decius was killed by Goths (probably because to him Getae/Dacians/Carpi was same with Goths of his times, which isnt that far from reality however).

    I think something similar happened with Tanausis story too. He was a Getae in Trogus Pompeius story (or even a Dacian, as he mention that Dacians are a scion of Getae) but because wandered around in so called Scythia they became Scythians to Justin and obviously Goths to Jordanes. Similar with Decius and Carpi writings.

    Parthians was a part of Dahae, also called Daoi by ancient Greeks. Same ancient Greeks called Dacians with the same name, Daoi, using the Phrygian (a Thracian related people) language, and meaning "wolves".
    As you can see, things tie themsleves very well. Sure, by the time of Persian empire much of the Dahae, Parthians and such was at least partially Iranized, yet they still kept some of old customs, see for example the "draco" battle flag (a bit modified at Parthians, but understandable after they split from Getae/Dacians for such long time)

  5. #45
    mircea's Avatar Hastatus
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    586
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    It eludes me on what you base your opinions considering that we both use the same source, and my quotes were "copied" from your own source

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    That wasnt my conclusion, it was the conclusion of those Polish scholars, is taken word by word from that article (apparently you didnt read it up to the end or didnt read the parts that contradict your views)]
    It helps when you quote and base assertions on a larger part of a text, and not solely on the part you like
    p.137-138
    "The culture inventory of this unit is a reflection of its culturally and ethnically mixed nature. Next to the much more numerous East Germanic elements of Przeworsk culture we find in it traces of the presence of Celts. and also physical presence of other cultures, including Dacian in Krakow area. The not too great but nevertheless evident percentage of wares characteristic for the latter in the ceramic inventory of the Tyniec Group confirms, not so much the existence of an unspecified form of "contacts" but the physical presence of Dacians in the area of Krakow during phases LT D1/D2 — B1a of the Roman Period. After all we find it hard to credit that the crudely made hand built vessels, for instance, the Dacian cup were traded over long distances (!) [...] In this case, similarly as with the population residing on the Middle Prosna, we may speak about the existence of an important social structure which included a group, admittedly small but
    very influential, of representatives of the Celtic elite."
    Now, I let you (or other persons interested) make an analysis on this text, and draw a conclusion.
    I only have several questions, which are easily to answer:
    1. Which were the main ethnic groups in Lesser Poland area?
    2. The type of Dacian pottery ("crudely made hand built vessels") and the ("not too great") quantity of Dacian pottery says what about the number and social status of Dacians in the area?
    3. What was the social status of Celtic groups in the region?



    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Those bracelets was worn by Dacian nobility of course. Dacian nobility that arrived there from Dacia, bringing with them the objects that show their ranks.
    By all means please quote the respective part where the Polish scholars say that bracelets were worn by Dacian nobility, or they even mention a significant or dominant Dacian nobility

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Frankly, with similar archaelogical prouves, or even less (you forgot to mention the sanctuaries of Thraco-Dacian origin found up to Jutlanda)
    I already answer to that in the other thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    In regard to the assertion concerning the presence of Dacians as far as Jutland:
    "T. Makiewicz published a series of publications devoted to enigmatic features –floors of fired clay datable to the close of the Pre-Roman and the early Roman period. Commonly interpreted as the remains of sanctuaries, recorded in settlements of Przeworsk Culture, mostly in Kujawy, but also at Jaroslaw, as well as in a number of other sited in Poland, these features have been identified also in the Jutland Peninsula. Their origin were traced to the La Tene culture or alternatively more convincingly to the Thraco-Dacian cultures." (p.118)

    The wording is a little confusing, but it seems to talk about a Dacian influence upon the architecture in the region. As you can see it does only speak of features which could originate from Dacian culture, not necessarily the actual presence of Dacians there.

    A very interesting opinion on a somewhat related topic show that “several of the Jutland settlements show signs of Roman influence, for example paved roads, entrances and also ornamented clay tiles on fireplaces (…)." Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives, p.208


    At the same time, specialists from Poznan Museum state that: “The origins of these temples (in Sławsko Wielkie) are rooted in the Hellenistic world. They appeared in the Kuiavia region during the second century BC - in a much diminished form - via the Celtic cultural realm.”
    As such, in order to make your theory you should accept the presence of not only Dacians, but Romans as well in Jutland. Unless future (archaeological) proofs are brought in, I'm afraid that the theory of traveling Dacians based on few finds or even features doesn't hold water.


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    The story is borrowed from Trogus Pompeius, not from Justin. I doubt as well that Justin story was more correct then Jordanes one, I see no reason for that.
    Justin, who lived several centuries before Jordanes wrote an epitome (summary) of Trogus Pompeius' Historiae Philippicae, and considering the gap of more than 5 centuries between Trogus and Jordanes is more likely that the former's work was lost by latter's time.
    As such, unless proved otherwise, Justin's writings can be considered as authoritative on the long lost Historiae Philippicae

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    I will give you another example. Lactantius wrote about the death of emperor Decius, and say he was killed in a battle with Carpi, a Dacian tribe (or tribal union). Lactantius was a contemproan of Decius as well (i think he was a teenager when Decius was killed).
    However, some 2-3 centuries later we have Zosiums writing that Decius was killed by Scythians (probably on the base that Carpi comes from Scythia direction), then in the same time we have Jordanes saying that Decius was killed by Goths (probably because to him Getae/Dacians/Carpi was same with Goths of his times, which isnt that far from reality however).
    If your are trying to prove that pretty much all ancient (medieval too) writers are prone to huge errors than you are right, and on that we may agree. To bad that your own theory is based mainly upon such an ancient writer

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    I think something similar happened with Tanausis story too. He was a Getae in Trogus Pompeius story (or even a Dacian, as he mention that Dacians are a scion of Getae) but because wandered around in so called Scythia they became Scythians to Justin and obviously Goths to Jordanes. Similar with Decius and Carpi writings.
    Even Jordanes says that "Scythian tongue they are called Parthi, that is, Deserters", so not in Getae-Dacian, but in Scythian they mean "Deserters".
    Furthermore, Justin (using the text of Trogus Pompeius) mentions that: "Their (Parthians) language is something between those of the Scythians and Medes, being a compound of both"



    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    As you can see, things tie themsleves very well. Sure, by the time of Persian empire much of the Dahae, Parthians and such was at least partially Iranized, yet they still kept some of old customs, see for example the "draco" battle flag (a bit modified at Parthians, but understandable after they split from Getae/Dacians for such long time)
    The Draco type standard was used by a wide variety of steppe and near the steppe populations, from Thraco-Dacians to Scythian, Sarmatian or Parthian. The origin remains disputed, but V. Parvan notes that "Dacian draco stems from the art of Asia Minor where the religious-military symbology of dragon extended both eastward to the Indo-Iranians and westward to the Thraco-Cimmeriano-Getians/Dacians.", adding that "The religious association of the dragon with the wolf or the lion is first found around the year 1120 BC, on a stela of Nebuchadnezzar I, where an exact representation of the symbol of the Dacian dragon is found in the fourth quarter."

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Parthians was a part of Dahae, also called Daoi by ancient Greeks. Same ancient Greeks called Dacians with the same name, Daoi, using the Phrygian (a Thracian related people) language, and meaning "wolves".
    Just like Dacians and most other people, the Dahae had many names, such as Dāha (Old Persian), Dahae (Latin), Δάοι (Daoi), Δάαι, Δᾶαι (Daai), Δάσαι (Dasai) in Greek, and incidently some names sounded the same, but to quote François de Blois, an expert on ancient Middle East: An etymology "is not proof that the two names refer to the same ethnic group." Furthermore, the Dacian etymology remains widely disputed, with the noted Romanian historian Alexandru Vulpe dismissing daos (wolf) etymology saying that the transformation daos into dakos is phonetically improbable.

    Unless you bring some hard proofs (archaeological, epigraphic, linguistic stuidies) and not just anecdotal evidences I see no reason to treat this theory as nothing else than wishful thinking

  6. #46
    Princeps Posterior
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,605
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    It eludes me on what you base your opinions considering that we both use the same source, and my quotes were "copied" from your own source
    Probably i make connections in my mind much quicker ? Just kidding, no offence intended, we probably interpret the things in different ways

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    It helps when you quote and base assertions on a larger part of a text, and not solely on the part you like
    p.137-138
    "The culture inventory of this unit is a reflection of its culturally and ethnically mixed nature. Next to the much more numerous East Germanic elements of Przeworsk culture we find in it traces of the presence of Celts. and also physical presence of other cultures, including Dacian in Krakow area. The not too great but nevertheless evident percentage of wares characteristic for the latter in the ceramic inventory of the Tyniec Group confirms, not so much the existence of an unspecified form of "contacts" but the physical presence of Dacians in the area of Krakow during phases LT D1/D2 — B1a of the Roman Period. After all we find it hard to credit that the crudely made hand built vessels, for instance, the Dacian cup were traded over long distances (!) [...] In this case, similarly as with the population residing on the Middle Prosna, we may speak about the existence of an important social structure which included a group, admittedly small but
    very influential, of representatives of the Celtic elite."
    Now, I let you (or other persons interested) make an analysis on this text, and draw a conclusion.
    I only have several questions, which are easily to answer:
    1. Which were the main ethnic groups in Lesser Poland area?
    2. The type of Dacian pottery ("crudely made hand built vessels") and the ("not too great") quantity of Dacian pottery says what about the number and social status of Dacians in the area?
    3. What was the social status of Celtic groups in the region?

    By all means please quote the respective part where the Polish scholars say that bracelets were worn by Dacian nobility, or they even mention a significant or dominant Dacian nobility
    http://www.academia.edu/528657/A_Dac...laj_Dep._Alba_

    Is about Geto-Dacians bracelets of same type found in Poland. In the article you will see they are found in other places as today Hungary, Cehia, Slovakia and even Germany. These are exactly the places were Burebista army moved in, confirming so the writings of Pliny the Elder, Strabo and Jordanes

    <<Discovering these products especially in fortresses or important centres from pre-Roman Dacia, together with their large number and their Eastern influences, suggests they were prestige elements for the local aristocracy>>

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    I already answer to that in the other thread:

    As such, in order to make your theory you should accept the presence of not only Dacians, but Romans as well in Jutland. Unless future (archaeological) proofs are brought in, I'm afraid that the theory of traveling Dacians based on few finds or even features doesn't hold water.
    Well, consider just this, that in Dacian origin case is about sanctuaries, meaning a place with a religious semnification and not simple paved roads, entrances or ornamented clay tiles on fireplaces which can be build by some former Roman auxiliares returned at their home after the service in Roman army and after they saw the Roman construction style.
    Quite contrary, a sanctuary show for sure the presence of religion, and either you think Germans started to believe in Zalmoxis, Thracians godess Bendis or Dacian god of war etc. etc or Dacians reached there. Which, if we look at Agrippa writings about the border of Dacia, isnt that impossible.

    Again, all this evidences are more numerous then those used by some to prove the Celtic presence in some areas of Transylvania (and for which we dont have any mention in ancient writings)

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Justin, who lived several centuries before Jordanes wrote an epitome (summary) of Trogus Pompeius' Historiae Philippicae, and considering the gap of more than 5 centuries between Trogus and Jordanes is more likely that the former's work was lost by latter's time.
    As such, unless proved otherwise, Justin's writings can be considered as authoritative on the long lost Historiae Philippicae
    Well, this is a hypothesis that you wish to think is true, but you dont have any evidence for it. Same thing as you accuse me, but you did too without realize

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    If your are trying to prove that pretty much all ancient (medieval too) writers are prone to huge errors than you are right, and on that we may agree. To bad that your own theory is based mainly upon such an ancient writer
    At least i have some archaelogical evidences too, even if just partial - see again either Parvan either Cambridge Ancient History that talk about Dacians at Troy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Even Jordanes says that "Scythian tongue they are called Parthi, that is, Deserters", so not in Getae-Dacian, but in Scythian they mean "Deserters".
    Furthermore, Justin (using the text of Trogus Pompeius) mentions that: "Their (Parthians) language is something between those of the Scythians and Medes, being a compound of both"
    Funny, the meaning is the same in Latin too. And by the time of Trogus Pompeius Parthians was obviously Iranized in large part if not totally so is no wonder they spoke a language sounding like an Iranic one

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    The Draco type standard was used by a wide variety of steppe and near the steppe populations, from Thraco-Dacians to Scythian, Sarmatian or Parthian. The origin remains disputed, but V. Parvan notes that "Dacian draco stems from the art of Asia Minor where the religious-military symbology of dragon extended both eastward to the Indo-Iranians and westward to the Thraco-Cimmeriano-Getians/Dacians.", adding that "The religious association of the dragon with the wolf or the lion is first found around the year 1120 BC, on a stela of Nebuchadnezzar I, where an exact representation of the symbol of the Dacian dragon is found in the fourth quarter."
    I will give you this, that is a disputed origin. But in the light of what i said above, the hypothesis that was taken from Getae-Dacians is very plausible

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Just like Dacians and most other people, the Dahae had many names, such as Dāha (Old Persian), Dahae (Latin), Δάοι (Daoi), Δάαι, Δᾶαι (Daai), Δάσαι (Dasai) in Greek, and incidently some names sounded the same, but to quote François de Blois, an expert on ancient Middle East: An etymology "is not proof that the two names refer to the same ethnic group." Furthermore, the Dacian etymology remains widely disputed, with the noted Romanian historian Alexandru Vulpe dismissing daos (wolf) etymology saying that the transformation daos into dakos is phonetically improbable.
    Gosh, Vulpe is an old archaelogist not a linguist. And after 1990 changed quite in large part his previous opinions and jumped in large part in "multiculturalism" bandwagon formed by few others with the intent to rewrite the history acording with some political interests. I wouldnt give much on his opinions, even if he is not as worse as Boia for example

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Unless you bring some hard proofs (archaeological, epigraphic, linguistic stuidies) and not just anecdotal evidences I see no reason to treat this theory as nothing else than wishful thinking
    Ah, the final "touche"

    I must say I appreciate your tactic, trying to attack what you thought is the weaker spots and carefully avoiding some unconvenient ones. Like for example the Tumulus warriors armed with swords made in Dacia (well, what was a little later known by others as Dacia)

  7. #47
    Erebus Pasha's Avatar vezir-i âzam
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Leicestershire, UK
    Posts
    9,434
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Well, consider just this, that in Dacian origin case is about sanctuaries, meaning a place with a religious semnification and not simple paved roads, entrances or ornamented clay tiles on fireplaces which can be build by some former Roman auxiliares returned at their home after the service in Roman army and after they saw the Roman construction style.
    Quite contrary, a sanctuary show for sure the presence of religion, and either you think Germans started to believe in Zalmoxis, Thracians godess Bendis or Dacian god of war etc. etc or Dacians reached there. Which, if we look at Agrippa writings about the border of Dacia, isnt that impossible.
    Diegis, do you take into account cultural and trading contacts when reaching your conclusions? Because that could be a more plausible case for 'Dacian' artifacts being found in places like Northern Germany and Jutland. We could also look at the possibility of mercenaries serving a notable chieftain in the region. We know for example of warriors from outside the borders of the 'civilised world' (Northern, Western and Central Europe) serving in Italy, North Africa and Asia Minor, and of notable leaders such as Burebista and Ariovistus attracting large numbers of men to their fold, so could it be conceivable that groups of warriors from Dacia served, say, in Jutland and eventually settled there?
    Last edited by Erebus Pasha; January 10, 2013 at 07:23 AM.

    www.ottomanhistorypodcast.com/
    Under the patronage of the Noble Savage.

  8. #48
    Dromikaites's Avatar Equites Alares
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,660
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    As Erebus Pasha suggests, it is quite possible that a Dacian warband or rather large mercenary body of troops ended up in Jutland. Or anywhere in nowadays Poland, or even in the Baltic countries, especially along the so-called "Amber Road".

    It is also possible that in some instances those mercenaries took over the local polities. That has happened in history too many times to be considered an exceptional circumstance.

    There were many reasons why a rather large group of Dacians might want to go that far up North, ranging from personal profit to political trouble at home (for instance Burebista might have stepped on some chieftains toes and some of those might have decided to leave). In such circumstances they would have taken with them not only artifacts but also people capable of making new artifacts (pottery, worship places). Then of course the archaeologists would find traces which indicate more than trade, like the presence of those Dacian craftsmen and builders, manufacturing pottery and building temples the Dacian way, far up North.

    However it would be extremely hard to prove several things:

    1) That those Dacians had a major political impact on the area where they settled;

    2) That they had a major cultural or technological impact there.

    All the existing evidence until now shows that even when there seems to be a settled Dacian community far away from Dacia, the impact on the larger groups inhabiting the area was negligible.

    The most famous Dacian presence in Setidava (modern day Konin, right in the center of Poland) could illustrate what might have been the best possible scenario:

    - A Dacian warband comes, takes over a village or small city on the Amber Road and gives it a Dacian name. Or they simply found a suitable place and founded the city themselves;

    - For a while the leaders of the place and a part of the population speaks Dacian and the local craftsmen probably manufacture Dacian artifacts;

    - However soon the economic opportunities and possibly the better protection offered by the Dacians attracts a lot of natives. In this case the natives are the people of the Przeworsk culture, who quickly assimilate the Dacians. The name of the city remains Dacian, the city continues to thrive as a trade hub but the overwhelming number of artifacts are Przeworsk culture, not Dacian anymore. Actually the precious few Dacian artifacts which are found in the area look more likely the result of trade than of local manufacturing;

    Do people continue to speak Dacian in Setidava area and at some point return in large numbers back to Dacia, as Costoboci, without being actually ethnical Dacians but Prezeworsk culture Dacian speakers?

    Your guess is as good as mine. The archaeological evidence regarding the Costoboci can be interpreted in too many ways and their relation to Setidava is open to debate.

    Even if the people in Setidava and around it adopted the Dacian language, what we know for sure is their "technologies" had quickly ceased to be Dacian.

    A nice story could of course be constructed that the rulers of Setidava at some point, using their wealth and somewhat large population of the area, have decided to expand their influence southwards.

    Speaking Dacian might have helped them gaining control over the Lipita culture (which is generally accepted as representing the Costoboci). But they could have just as well taken over the Costoboci without speaking a single Dacian word. All it was required was enough warriors and generous bribing.

    Do keep in mind there is no definite proof the Setidava leaders took over the Costoboci nor that the Costoboci leaders extended their influence northwards to Setidava. All that can be proven is the Costoboci went South and raided deep into the Roman empire. If they would have raided also the North covering the same distance while pillaging along the Amber Route then they might have ended up in Setidava. Likewise, if the rulers of Setidava would have wanted to extend their influence south, they might have had the money and manpower to do so. But we have no definite proof either of the two happened.

    So based on what we have so far it is very hard to prove the Dacians had a really decisive influence in the areas far away from their homeland where traces of their presence can be found.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  9. #49
    Dromikaites's Avatar Equites Alares
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,660
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    Note to the moderators: for the sake of the clarity, I've deliberately chosen to make this a distinct post.

    There is another aspect which might be worth to be taken into account: the dynamics of any phenomenon in a small population is usually different than the dynamics of the same phenomenon in a larger population.

    That creates serious problems when it comes to predicting outcomes in all the social sciences. Or to trace back an effect to its true causes.

    I will give several examples relevant to history:

    1) When a population is conquered by another one speaking a different language and having a different culture as expressed by the artifacts, it is impossible to predict which language and material culture would become dominant. In some instances the language of the conquerors wins. In other instances the language of the conquered. The same unpredictability happens with the way the people would dress, manufacture pottery, jewels or weapons;

    2) It is difficult to predict how a basic technology would be put to use, especially when it has thousands of possible applications (like, say, the wheel). It is also impossible to predict if it would thrive where it had initially been developed or if it would be far more successful thousands of kilometers away. Or centuries later (e.g. steam power, gears).

    With strict application to the discussion about how influential the Dacians really were far beyond their homeland, that is an answer which could be given only by the time travel machine.

    For instance, as long as the populations were relatively small (a few thousands of people), a technology could be quickly adopted as soon as the artifacts which normally got somewhere by trade were also accompanied by a craftsman who could manufacture them. The craftsman could have traveled there by his own accord (looking for a place with less competition), might have been taken there as a slave or prisoner of war or might have been lured there by a leader.

    Just as well it would have been possible that the local craftsmen reverse-engineerd a product brought there by the merchants, without any transfer of population, not even of a single foreign craftsman. If the foreign product was deemed superior and if most of the local craftsmen could have reverse-engineered it, production could have literally changed overnight.

    None of those dynamics excludes yet another model, one where technology follows the migration of a sizable (for the times) population.

    Given too many paths lead to the same results (= ancient documents mentioning a Dacian-named city in the middle of Poland, a Dacian temple is found in Jutland, "Dacian" swords are found in Tumulus graves, etc) it is extremely difficult to decide what really happened. The more evidence we have, the easier is to exclude some paths and consider others more likely. But based on what we currently have, there is still more than one possible path for every archaeological or documentary evidence. Or even for the documentary and archaeological evidence combined.

    I tried to illustrate the "multiple paths" issue when discussing the possible connection between Setidava and the Costoboci:

    - There can be a causal connection from Setidava to the Costoboci (the Costoboci became prominent after falling under the control of the Setidava rulers, who augmented the Costoboci power by bringing money and Germanic allies);

    - There can be a causal connection from the Costoboci to Setidava (=it was founded by a Costoboci party);

    - There can be a two-ways connection (it was initially founded by a Costoboci party then it gained control over the Costoboci);

    - It is possible yet another causal connection from the Costoboci to Setidava (the Costoboci became important after first conquering Setidava - founded by another Dacian party, centuries before the Costoboci conquest. By that they gained a strong economic base and Germanic allies, which helped them raid the Roman Empire).

    Or it just as well be no connection whatsoever between Setidava and the Costoboci.
    Last edited by Dromikaites; January 10, 2013 at 05:24 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  10. #50
    Dyēus's Avatar Cornicularius
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Oppidum Ubiorum
    Posts
    297
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    The most wise thing would be to look at the Archaeological siitution at Konin. There is no sign of a major Dacian Influx.
    It is much more likely that there was ongoing, small scale contact with the Daian world, mostly via trade.
    Setidava is how the place was called by Ptolemy, how can we be sure that it was the name predominantly used by locals?
    I think the easiest explanation is that Setidava was an exonym given by Dacians to this partiular place, as it was right on a major trading route.
    There is also more on Konin I cannot yet disclose(Beause its bad to speak on unpublished stuff and also because it is not verifiable by other posters yet).

  11. #51
    Dromikaites's Avatar Equites Alares
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,660
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dyēus View Post
    The most wise thing would be to look at the Archaeological siitution at Konin. There is no sign of a major Dacian Influx.
    It is much more likely that there was ongoing, small scale contact with the Daian world, mostly via trade.
    Setidava is how the place was called by Ptolemy, how can we be sure that it was the name predominantly used by locals?
    I think the easiest explanation is that Setidava was an exonym given by Dacians to this partiular place, as it was right on a major trading route.
    There is also more on Konin I cannot yet disclose(Beause its bad to speak on unpublished stuff and also because it is not verifiable by other posters yet).
    As I was saying, Setidava being founded by Dacians is one thing, Setidava remaining Dacian for anything more than 20-40 years is a completely different thing.

    A highly unlikely one considering what archaeological evidence shows.

    Setidava and the Costoboci is already in the realm of highly speculative hypothesis. Good for novelists, but just that.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  12. #52
    Dyēus's Avatar Cornicularius
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Oppidum Ubiorum
    Posts
    297
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    As I was saying, Setidava being founded by Dacians is one thing, Setidava remaining Dacian for anything more than 20-40 years is a completely different thing.

    A highly unlikely one considering what archaeological evidence shows.

    Setidava and the Costoboci is already in the realm of highly speculative hypothesis. Good for novelists, but just that.
    Yeah, it is possible that it has been founded as a Dacian trade/outpost, though this propably never could be proven.

    In Poland they are currently investigating several places around the amber route, so we might soon see new information.

  13. #53
    mircea's Avatar Hastatus
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    586
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Probably i make connections in my mind much quicker ? Just kidding, no offence intended, we probably interpret the things in different ways
    Or maybe because I have more experience in history and I know better when a connection is plausible and when is just crackpot

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    http://www.academia.edu/528657/A_Dac...laj_Dep._Alba_

    Is about Geto-Dacians bracelets of same type found in Poland. In the article you will see they are found in other places as today Hungary, Cehia, Slovakia and even Germany. These are exactly the places were Burebista army moved in, confirming so the writings of Pliny the Elder, Strabo and Jordanes
    This type of bracelets were found as far as Baltic shore and it is doubtful that Burebista's army even touched the south-easternmost tip of Germany. Unless numerically significant palpable evidences of an Dacian penetration far north are brought (e.g. weaponry, pottery, structures) I see no reason to catalogue these finds as nothing else than trade items.

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    <<Discovering these products especially in fortresses or important centres from pre-Roman Dacia, together with their large number and their Eastern influences, suggests they were prestige elements for the local aristocracy>>
    He clearly speaks of the bracelets found on Dacian territory, while finds in Germany, Czech Republic and Poland were found in Celtic and/or Germanic areas, without any proof of even the slightest Dacian presence (excepting SE Poland and Krakow area).

    At the same time, we have to note that most finds of type Simleul Silvaniei bracelets discovered on the territory of Przeworsk Culture were accompanied by objects which had a Celtic provenance.” (New evidence on contacts between Pre-Roman Dacia and territory of Central Poland, p.138)
    If fact the Dacian presence in SE Poland and Krakow areas is traceable within the more prominent Celtic enclaves.
    Tomasz Bochnak, Les Celtes et leurs voisins septentrionaux mentions that:
    "It is supposed that in the Polish lands the Celts participated actively in the organization of the “Amber Route”, which was leading from the coasts of the Baltic Sea to Caput Adriae.
    It can be proved, among others, by the amber-treasures from Wrocław-Partynice in Poland and Stare Hradisko in Moravia(Czech Republic).(...) Traces of Celtic settlement were identified in Lower Silesia, the Głubczyce Upland, in the Upper San’s river basin and in western Little Poland (Małopolska). (...)In the end of La Tene C1 phase fast “celtization” took place in the Polish lands. As the result new cultures, in which Celtic elements played significant role, appeared.
    Latenization was a cause of the far reaching culture unification in Central and partly North Europe." (p.159-160 )
    adding that "In the final phase of the "Group of Tyniec", we may see elements of Puchov culture and Dacian influences, both visible in imported ceramics in the Dacian ornamental style. Dacian influences were able to reach "group Tyniec" through the intermediary of culture Puchov, or, what seems more likely, through the center of (Dacian-)Celtic culture located around Zemplin of Eastern Slovakia." (p.172)


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Well, consider just this, that in Dacian origin case is about sanctuaries, meaning a place with a religious semnification
    Speaking of sanctuaries, how could you miss the opinion of Poznan Museum statement: “The origins of these temples (in Sławsko Wielkie) are rooted in the Hellenistic world. They appeared in the Kuiavia region during the second century BC - in a much diminished form - via the Celtic cultural realm.”

    So tell me, how are these (Hellenistic) temples more different from the sanctuaries with enigmatic features, which can be traced to structures in Daco-Thrachian world?

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    and not simple paved roads, entrances or ornamented clay tiles on fireplaces which can be build by some former Roman auxiliares returned at their home after the service in Roman army and after they saw the Roman construction style.
    Just like some former Germanic or Celtic mercenaries could have erected thus type of structures after seeing the Dacian construction style.
    And btw, the Roman influences seem to had impact on Jutland's natives religion too "Several of the Jutland settlements show signs of Roman influence, for example paved roads, entrances and also ornamented clay tiles on fireplaces, it may well be that the models for the cult with small cups placed under the hearth came through contact with Roman areas"
    (…)." Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives, p.208


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Quite contrary, a sanctuary show for sure the presence of religion, and either you think Germans started to believe in Zalmoxis, Thracians godess Bendis or Dacian god of war etc. etc or Dacians reached there. Which, if we look at Agrippa writings about the border of Dacia, isnt that impossible.
    Both assertions (Dacian presence in Jutland and Jutland Germanics belief in Dacian deities) should be substantiated with presentation of palpable and numerically significant evidences. Until (if ever) you manage to do that, these claims are nothing else than wishful thinking

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Again, all this evidences are more numerous then those used by some to prove the Celtic presence in some areas of Transylvania (and for which we dont have any mention in ancient writings)
    Here we are not talking of Celtic presence in Transylvania, and history does not work on the errors' compensation principle, so is not an excuse to present erroneous conclusions just because other supposedly did so.


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Well, this is a hypothesis that you wish to think is true, but you dont have any evidence for it. Same thing as you accuse me, but you did too without realize
    If Trogus Pompeius was lost or not by Jordanes time is disputable, all we know for sure is that Justin summary was written several centuries before Jordanes. Nonetheless, if Jordanes took the information from Trogus directly or indirectly from Justin is quite irrelevant considering that Jordanes himself solves the issue:
    Jordanes V.44
    "Then, as the story goes, Vesosis waged a war disastrous to himself against the Scythians, whom ancient tradition asserts to have been the husbands of the Amazons.(Tunc, ut fertur, Vesosis Scythis lacrimabile sibi potius intulit bellum, eis videlicet)
    Thus we can clearly prove that Vesosis then fought with the Goths, since we know surely that he waged war with the husbands of the Amazons."
    I think that is beyond doubt that Jordanes refers to the mythical Vesosis war with Scythians, but in his obsession to invent a more extensive Gothic history he made Goths the husbands of the Amazons, and thus supposedly same with Scythians, which in turn the same with Parthians.


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    At least i have some archaelogical evidences too, even if just partial - see again either Parvan either Cambridge Ancient History that talk about Dacians at Troy.
    In fact Cambridge Ancient History talk about Thracians at post Homeric Troy. And btw, Troy location is something like over 2,000 km away from Dahae location, to the SE of Caspian Sea. Now - I eagerly - await for the archaeological proofs linking Dacians (Thracians) to Dahae

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Funny, the meaning is the same in Latin too.
    The meaning of what is the same in Latin too???

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    And by the time of Trogus Pompeius Parthians was obviously Iranized in large part if not totally so is no wonder they spoke a language sounding like an Iranic one
    And the proof that they spoke Dacian before is ??????

    And to continue the discussion about Dahae, Herodotus (who also knew the Getae) says that:
    "The other Persian tribes are the Panthialaei, the Derusiaei, and the Germanii, all tillers of the soil, and the Daoi (Δάοι), the Mardi, the Dropici, the Sagartii, all wandering herdsmen." Herodotus 1.125

    More about this topic can be found here: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/dahae

    As you can see, the connection Dacian to Dahae is unsustainable, because you cannot base such an theory on an simple etymological resemblance (maybe possible in pseudo-history)

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    I will give you this, that is a disputed origin. But in the light of what i said above, the hypothesis that was taken from Getae-Dacians is very plausible
    So the Parthians borrowed the Draco from Dacians (which were away in excess of 2-3,000 km) and not from Scythians or via Persians , their relatives and immediate neighbors???


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Gosh, Vulpe is an old archaelogist not a linguist. And after 1990 changed quite in large part his previous opinions and jumped in large part in "multiculturalism" bandwagon formed by few others with the intent to rewrite the history acording with some political interests. I wouldnt give much on his opinions, even if he is not as worse as Boia for example
    Considering that Communist era was not exactly a golden age of reason in history that move is not exactly surprising.
    On the other hand, in whom should we trust? In dental physician Napoleon Savescu, his disciple, the poet Daniel Roxin, and other glorious pseudo-historians?

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Like for example the Tumulus warriors armed with swords made in Dacia (well, what was a little later known by others as Dacia)
    Patience my friend, patience

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    I must say I appreciate your tactic, trying to attack what you thought is the weaker spots and carefully avoiding some unconvenient ones.

    As I’ve said, I intend to reply to the more significant parts of your theory later, but I first wanted to clarify some lesser issues, and hopefully, if you at least try to reply to the points I make, we will succeed clarifying these issues
    Ahh, and don’t worry, I’m not cherry picking your theory’s weak points, simply because it’s all quite frail.
    Nonetheless, you’re right regarding the change of tactic, cause as I’ve seen that you conspicuously tend ‘to ignore’ large body evidences. Thus I’ve decided for a more methodical approach, a step by step dismantling of the theory.

    Dromi, Erebus and Deyus, overall I agree with your perspectives, although I incline more toward trade and/or Dacian influences (probably via Celts) for Dacian finds in Germany, N Poland and Denmark, and while a direct very small scale Dacian presence is not impossible, in not the less improbable in view of the absence of other archaeological proofs in these areas.

    On the other hand, a limited Dacian presence (probably some nobles too) can be traced within the notable Celtic enclaves in SE Poland and Krakow area.

    On the other hand, the idea of a massive or dominant Dacian presence in Poland, or even up to the Baltic is not only simply utterly unsupported but even refuted by archaeological evidences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    Given too many paths lead to the same results (= ancient documents mentioning a Dacian-named city in the middle of Poland, a Dacian temple is found in Jutland, "Dacian" swords are found in Tumulus graves, etc) it is extremely difficult to decide what really happened.
    The story of Dacian swords in Tumulus graves is in fact a misconception, contradicted by most modern historians, but which is nonetheless popularized as a fact by Diegis. Quite soon I plan to dismantle this "theory" too

  14. #54
    Princeps Posterior
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,605
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    As usual I dont have time and even mood but I will post few stuffs about Boiu swords

    For example, this is a Boiu sword
    http://picasaweb.google.com/10740880...ey=68Hz_h6hNek







    The spiral decoration is clearly visible

    Now, let see what some other historians (beside those I already posted a while ago) say about this Boiu swords

    http://books.google.ro/books?id=l8w7...20type&f=false

    Boiu swords from Transylvania (a place very rich in metals) are decorated with spirals and historians lay great stress that the symbol of spiral is surviving from Neolithic (pag 8)

    http://books.google.ro/books?id=FPwN...rbrunn&f=false

    Here see pag 179 for were Boiu swords appear and connections between areas here and Italy

    http://books.google.ro/books?id=vXlj...20type&f=false

    Pag 57 - Boiu swords found on Sighisoara -Wittenberg culture (thats in Transylvania as well)

    Now, let see same symbol in Neolithic cultures from the place that will be later known as Dacia (here are few artefacts from Cucuteni culture)




    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01arch.html

    And now some Dacian stuff



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Da...iaz_type_3.JPG





    I can post same symbol used even today in popular art, but thats beside the point of this discussion

    I think is clear now that Tumulus warrior class originated in Transylvania and even if Cambridge historians preffer to call them Thracians, I go with Parvan and call them Getae/Dacians
    Last edited by diegis; January 13, 2013 at 02:22 PM.

  15. #55
    Princeps Posterior
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,605
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    Just few short answers

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Or maybe because I have more experience in history and I know better when a connection is plausible and when is just crackpot
    I am barrely (or not even) impressed by such chest-bumping

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    This type of bracelets were found as far as Baltic shore and it is doubtful that Burebista's army even touched the south-easternmost tip of Germany. Unless numerically significant palpable evidences of an Dacian penetration far north are brought (e.g. weaponry, pottery, structures) I see no reason to catalogue these finds as nothing else than trade items.
    If you read Agrippa, Caesar, Ptolemy and Jordanes (not in the mood to search links now, you can trust me on this) you will see that Dacians was indeed more or less "that far". Actually on the more side. And sancturies and bracelets worn by nobles are quite good evidences. I think those Polish scholars talk about Dacian coins too.

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    He clearly speaks of the bracelets found on Dacian territory, while finds in Germany, Czech Republic and Poland were found in Celtic and/or Germanic areas, without any proof of even the slightest Dacian presence (excepting SE Poland and Krakow area).
    See the answer above

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Speaking of sanctuaries, how could you miss the opinion of Poznan Museum statement: “The origins of these temples (in Sławsko Wielkie) are rooted in the Hellenistic world. They appeared in the Kuiavia region during the second century BC - in a much diminished form - via the Celtic cultural realm.”

    So tell me, how are these (Hellenistic) temples more different from the sanctuaries with enigmatic features, which can be traced to structures in Daco-Thrachian world?
    Again you avoid the unconvenient evidences. The Polish scholars from that article clearly said that those sanctuaries (not sure if same as those you mention now) are more convincingly atributed to Thraco-Dacians

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Both assertions (Dacian presence in Jutland and Jutland Germanics belief in Dacian deities) should be substantiated with presentation of palpable and numerically significant evidences. Until (if ever) you manage to do that, these claims are nothing else than wishful thinking
    See Agrippa
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians#cite_note-64

    << “Dacia, Getico finiuntur ab oriente desertis Sarmatiae, ab occidente flumine Vistula, a septentrione Oceano, a meridie flumine Histro. Quae patent in longitudine milia passuum CCLXXX, in latitudine qua cogitum est milia passuum CCCLXXXVI”>>

    Keep in mind that Agrippa write this right after Burebista and Caesar era (and Caeasar who planned a huge campaign against Dacia of Burebista surely gathered lots of info before), when Suetonius said that Octavianus Augustus sought to secure the goodwilll of Cotiso, king of the Dacians by giving him his daughter, and he himself marrying a daughter of Cotiso.
    And in the era when Drusus Germanicus began the conquest of Germania, becoming the first Roman general to reach the Weser and Elbe rivers and supposedly even passing over Elbe toward Vistula.

    So he probably knew quite a lot about Dacia and were is its borders at that time

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    The meaning of what is the same in Latin too???
    Parthi. If you take the word of Jordanes that in Scythian this word means "deserters" and in Latin it means some who "de-parted" is kinda similar

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    So the Parthians borrowed the Draco from Dacians (which were away in excess of 2-3,000 km) and not from Scythians or via Persians , their relatives and immediate neighbors???
    No, Parthians was a "part" of Dacians, I see you have some problems to get the idea. A "part" of Getae/Dacian army that "de-parted" from the main army and stayied there when that was returning home. Remember this is more then probably the period of Sea People invasion

    <<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.>>

    Now you have some more sources that may back up indirectly Jordanes (or well, Trogus Pompeius)

    This is similar in many ways with the movement of Celts for example, that reached too Asia Minor (Anatolia) or Germans that reached Africa (Vandals) or Greeks that reached India (Macedonian army i mean) and so on. Just that Thraco-Dacians was first on the move

    Quote Originally Posted by mircea View Post
    Considering that Communist era was not exactly a golden age of reason in history that move is not exactly surprising.
    On the other hand, in whom should we trust? In dental physician Napoleon Savescu, his disciple, the poet Daniel Roxin, and other glorious pseudo-historians?
    I dont remember to mention any of them here among the sources I posted

    In the same time I dont give much on dogmas and political ideologies or "political corectness" stuff and i dare to make connections on my own too
    Last edited by diegis; January 13, 2013 at 02:58 PM.

  16. #56
    Diocle's Avatar Centurio Primus Pilus
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Genoa - Italy
    Posts
    8,214
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    A question for you brave Dacian warriors:

    I'm reading a Novel by the Italian archeologist and writer Valerio Massimo Manfredi called 'Le Paludi di Esperia' (the marshes of Hesperia), set in the Age after the Fall of Troy, at some point he describes the Dorians in their move toward Greece and the Micenean kingdoms, descending the Balkans. A character in the Novel explains to Dyomedes (yes the hero!) that many said that the Dor were coming from a great river called Istro (Danube), they had iron sword which could break even the strongest bronze armor, shield or sword.......

    Now what can we say about the Dorians? Proto-Dacians? Proto Graeci? or proto what...?
    Last edited by Diocle; January 13, 2013 at 05:37 PM.

  17. #57
    Dyēus's Avatar Cornicularius
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Oppidum Ubiorum
    Posts
    297
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    The Dorian Invasion was probably more like the Dorian internal migration.
    I can post more in another thread if wanted.

  18. #58
    mircea's Avatar Hastatus
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    586
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    As usual I dont have time and even mood but I will post few stuffs about Boiu swords
    We are not yet discussing the about the Boiu swords, but since we are here, I have some questions related to this:
    What significance the Boiu type sword has in your narrative? Was used by "Dacian" warriors in their expansion west, and if yes, how massive this expansion was?
    So you claim that both Boiu and the later Naue were developed in Transylvania and/or E Hungary (so Sighisoara -Wittenberg and Otomani culture)?


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    I think is clear now that Tumulus warrior class originated in Transylvania and even if Cambridge historians preffer to call them Thracians, I go with Parvan and call them Getae/Dacians
    Cambridge historians say nothing of this kind, that Tumulus warriors were Dacians, nor Thrachians
    If I'm wrong, please present the exact quote from Cambridge History.


    No, the second part of your reply is really amazing, and not in a good way You pretty much manage to ignore all sources proving your mistakes and repeated the same errors like nothing happened

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    If you read Agrippa, Caesar, Ptolemy and Jordanes (not in the mood to search links now, you can trust me on this) you will see that Dacians was indeed more or less "that far". Actually on the more side.
    Well, now I'll have to await for the archaeological proofs showing Dacian occupation or at least provable physical presence in Germany, N Poland or even Denmark. Up until now we have small Dacian infiltration in conjunction with the more prominent and dominant Celtic enclaves in SE and Central Poland.

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    And sancturies and bracelets worn by nobles are quite good evidences.
    You probably refer bracelets found in Poland:
    “At the same time, we have to note that most finds of type Simleul Silvaniei bracelets discovered on the territory of Przeworsk Culture were accompanied by objects which had a Celtic provenance.
    Well, it seem that they were mainly worn by Celtic elite, probably Prezworsk (Germanic) aristocracy too. Nonetheless, small number of Dacian nobles possibly could have found their way among the more numerous and influental Celtic-Germanic elite.

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    I think those Polish scholars talk about Dacian coins too.
    you know, traders use coins, so finding isolated Dacian, Celtic, Hellenistic or Roman coins on Amber road is not exactly a proof of presence.
    On the other hand, those Polish scholars talk about the minting of coins by Celts in Central Poland
    "Thus we need to link minting activity in the region of Kalisz with the physical presence of Celts in the area. (…) This small community of Celts – probably aristocracy – functioned in the midst of the Przeworsk population and probably had strong links with its elite." (p.137)


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Again you avoid the unconvenient evidences. The Polish scholars from that article clearly said that those sanctuaries (not sure if same as those you mention now) are more convincingly atributed to Thraco-Dacians
    "T. Makiewicz published a series of publications devoted to enigmatic features –floors of fired clay datable to the close of the Pre-Roman and the early Roman period. Commonly interpreted as the remains of sanctuaries, recorded in settlements of Przeworsk Culture, mostly in Kujawy, but also at Jaroslaw, as well as in a number of other sited in Poland, these features have been identified also in the Jutland Peninsula. Their origin were traced to the La Tene culture or alternatively more convincingly to the Thraco-Dacian cultures." (p.118)

    At the same time, specialists from Poznan Museum state that: “The origins of these temples (in Sławsko Wielkie) are rooted in the Hellenistic world. They appeared in the Kuiavia region during the second century BC - in a much diminished form - via the Celtic cultural realm.”

    So, please offer the exact quote were they (or others) claim that sanctuaries with Thraco-Dacian features in Jutland or N Poland were built by Thraco-Dacians. Sanctuaries of this kind in SE Poland or Central Poland could have been built by Daco-Thracians, but the small number of finds prove just a small Dacian presence in the area.


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    See Agrippa
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians#cite_note-64

    << “Dacia, Getico finiuntur ab oriente desertis Sarmatiae, ab occidente flumine Vistula, a septentrione Oceano, a meridie flumine Histro. Quae patent in longitudine milia passuum CCLXXX, in latitudine qua cogitum est milia passuum CCCLXXXVI”>>

    Keep in mind that Agrippa write this right after Burebista and Caesar era (and Caeasar who planned a huge campaign against Dacia of Burebista surely gathered lots of info before)
    And yet archaeological proofs show only small Dacian infiltrations within Celtic enclaves in Poland - nothing even close to a dominant or at least a significant presence - in SE Poland and Krakow area, and absolutely nothing of a Dacian presence in N Poland or Baltic shores.

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    when Suetonius said that Octavianus Augustus sought to secure the goodwilll of Cotiso, king of the Dacians by giving him his daughter, and he himself marrying a daughter of Cotiso.
    Apocryphal. It seems that the rumor was launched by Octavian's rival, Marc Anthony

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    And in the era when Drusus Germanicus began the conquest of Germania, becoming the first Roman general to reach the Weser and Elbe rivers and supposedly even passing over Elbe toward Vistula.

    So he probably knew quite a lot about Dacia and were is its borders at that time
    And yet somehow Tacitus, in his work dedicated to that area, fails to mention anything of Dacians in Poland or Germany, just Celts, Germanics and Sarmati


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Parthi. If you take the word of Jordanes that in Scythian this word means "deserters" and in Latin it means some who "de-parted" is kinda similar
    It is incredible how you manage to return to the same errors even after the error was proven.
    Parthi and latin "part" are NOT cognate word.
    Parthian language own designation for Parthians is Pahlav which is traced to Avestan pərəthu- "broad [as the earth]", also evident in Sanskrit pŗthvi- "earth" and parthivi "[lord] of the earth".

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    No, Parthians was a "part" of Dacians, I see you have some problems to get the idea. A "part" of Getae/Dacian army that "de-parted" from the main army and stayied there when that was returning home. Remember this is more then probably the period of Sea People invasion
    Now you have some more sources that may back up indirectly Jordanes (or well, Trogus Pompeius)

    Jorandes himself claims that Vesosis waged a war with Scythians, is beyond one's understanding where you saw Getae

    Jordanes V.44
    "Then, as the story goes, Vesosis waged a war disastrous to himself against the Scythians, whom ancient tradition asserts to have been the husbands of the Amazons.(Tunc, ut fertur, Vesosis Scythis lacrimabile sibi potius intulit bellum, eis videlicet)
    Thus we can clearly prove that Vesosis then fought with the Goths, since we know surely that he waged war with the husbands of the Amazons."


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    This is similar in many ways with the movement of Celts for example, that reached too Asia Minor (Anatolia) or Germans that reached Africa (Vandals) or Greeks that reached India (Macedonian army i mean) and so on. Just that Thraco-Dacians was first on the move
    Just because others did is NOT a proof that it happened, it just means that such an endeavor is theoretically possibility, but in absence of palpable proofs is improbable.


    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    I dont remember to mention any of them here among the sources I posted
    But your theories uncannily resemble part of Savescu's blabbers.

  19. #59
    Diocle's Avatar Centurio Primus Pilus
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Genoa - Italy
    Posts
    8,214
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dyēus View Post
    The Dorian Invasion was probably more like the Dorian internal migration.
    I can post more in another thread if wanted.
    If you'll find the time, I'll be one of your readers! ...Thanks!

  20. #60
    Akrotatos's Avatar Pili Prior
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,233
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    If you'll find the time, I'll be one of your readers! ...Thanks!
    Seconded.
    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

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 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
  •