Dacian Falx

[Paullus Scipio]

There is no such thing as only Bastarnae fighting there. We already discuss that, and clearly Dacians are depicted too.

I value the opinions of our Romanian colleagues, who (imho) know the material better than the rest of us.

With all due respect to 'Diegis', I think you'll find he is neither historian nor archaeologist, but rather a wargamer such as those whose views you were so uninterested in on the 'rhomphaia' thread.......Unfortunately, if you are referring to real Romanian archaeologists such as F.B. Florescu ,(Monumental de la Adamclisi 1961) or R.Vulpe( 'Studia Thracologica' 1963) these worked under the Ceaucescu regime. He was even more bombastic than Mussolini in proclaiming Romania's "Glorious Past", and all Romanian historians and archeologists ( and everyone else) had to toe that line. The work of Romanian historians and archeologists remains 'contaminated' by this politicising even now.
Florescu theorised that all three ethnic types on the crenellations and metopes were 'Dacians',that the fully armoured cavalry on the column were all Dacian etc, which has not been accepted at all, and both Florescu and Vulpe have since been heavily criticised even in Romania e.g. H Daicoviciu (1972). The view that the people depicted on the Adamklissi metopes are Dacian is largely discredited, even among "our Romanian colleagues". ( he and his father Constantin are among the foremost Romanian archaeologists, having been prominent in excavating Dacian Sarmizegethusa)

If I recall correctly, Richmond suggested Bastarnae, not on the basis of any evidence from the metopes, but because a character with a Suebic knot appears on the crenellation frieze of the Trajanic monument.

I'm afraid your recollection is not quite correct, Duncan. The crenellations go all round the 'drum' and the three ethnic types alternate all round also - not just 'a character with a suebic knot'. The "characters with the suebic knot" are the only one of the three ethnic groups to appear fighting on the metopes, or with the 'two-handed chopper', and appear frequently on them. That the sculptors of the metopes knew the difference between the different ethnic groups is proven by the fact that in the "triumph" scenes at the end of the metope sequence two un-mistakeable Dacians appear in chains.

In fact, I find the theory of Alexander Simon Stefan (Les guerres dacique de Domitien et de Trajan, 2005) quite persuasive, that Adamklissi commemorates the crushing of the Dacian counteroffensive of winter 101/102, depicted on Trajan's Column Scene 38 (Cichorius, Taf. 29: Casts 95-98).

The only very tenuous evidence for that is the appearance of four wheeled wagons/carts in the background of the the scene you posted. One of those wagons contains a 'draco standard' and so might be associated with Sarmatians ( who definitely had similar wagons, and appear in the adjacent scene) or perhaps in view of the rest of sceneXXXVIII, perhaps Dacians. No 'dracos' are associated with the 'suebic knot people.' Unfortunately too, none of the other elements shown on the Adamklissi metopes is present - the 'suebic knot' people, probably Peucini-Bastarnae, are not present on the column scene, nor the 'massacre' with dead women and children etc. Since four wheeled wagons/carts are ubiquitous in those times, that would be like concluding that the Sudan famine occurred in Yugoslavia because news item photos showed Mercedes trucks appearing in both!

Equally, while you may find Stefan's theory 'persuasive', I think the majority of historians with an interest in the Dacian Wars would disagree. How does Stefan explain the presence of wagons, women, children and flocks, all associated with the 'suebic knot people', and nary a Dacian in sight, as a "Dacian counter-offensive in the winter of 101/102 ?" The presence of flocks is alone 'persuasive' that the scene is not taking place in winter !!
Furthermore, there are no 'suebic knot people' involved in this 'counterattack' shown in scenes XXXI and XXXII on the column - only Dacians and Sarmatian Rox-Alani.
There really is nothing that the two events have in common, and we don't even 'know' that a Dacian counter-offensive took place at all in the winter of 101/102 AD. Consequently, I would regard Stefan's hypothesis as unlikely at best, untenable at worst.

A more likely possibility is that that Peucini-Bastarnae people - living just north of the Danube and in the delta area, invaded Moesia, intending to colonise land they held previously,( they had been pushed out of Moesia north of the Danube in the 1 st C BC, and in Augustus' time) and so migrated with families,wagons and flocks ( or lock,stock and barrel in the vernacular). They either did this as allies of Decebalus, or else were taking advantage of the heavy drain of Roman troops to Dacia. Whatever, the invasion/migration was stopped at the strategic site of Adamklissi by the 'massacre' of the incoming 'suebic knot people' ; though they would invade again, in company with the Sarmatians (who may have assimilated them) in 180 AD, and again in the latter half of the 3rd C AD, specifically mentioned in the 267/8 invasion, and thus took part in the precipitation of the "Third Century Crisis".They were ultimately absorbed by the Goths.....