Getae and Dacians? Are they the same? Or is this unknowable?

[diegis]

Hi Robert



Lets take Jordanes again :



"(39) To return, then, to my subject. The aforesaid race of which I speak is known to have had Filimer as king while they remained in their first home in Scythia near Maeotis. In their second home, that is in the countries of Dacia, Thrace and Moesia, Zalmoxes reigned, whom many writers of annals mention as a man of remarkable learning in philosophy. Yet even before this they had a learned man Zeuta, and after him Dicineus; and the third was Zalmoxes of whom I have made mention above. Nor did they lack teachers of wisdom. (40) Wherefore the Goths have ever been wiser than other barbarians and were nearly like the Greeks, as Dio relates, who wrote their history and annals with a Greek pen. He says that those of noble birth among them, from whom their kings and priests were appointed, were called first Tarabostesei and then Pilleati. Moreover so highly were the Getae praised that Mars, whom the fables of poets call the god of war, was reputed to have been born among them. Hence Virgil says"



As you can see, Dacians and their history is considered by Jordanes as part of Goths history, and kings of them are both Filimer and Zalmoxis. The fact that Goths writed in a germanic language, doesnt mean too much. Probably they adopted the for writing the language of the germanic part of that mix, since Dacians didnt use their language in writing (or is not known) And we dont know for sure if there is or not Dacian words in Gothic language, since there are many common indo-european related words at ancient peoples.

About archeology, i think i was clear, foreign scholars, based on modern archeology (there is on wikipedia an article where they opinions are presented at Chernyakhov culture) said that is little to no evidences that Wielbark culture have anything to do with Cherneakhov/Santana de Mures culture, and yes, the local Daco-Getians had the leading role. Dacians doesnt dissapear after Roman conquest, what you saying there. Yes, they didnt have anymore a powerful kingdom, but they didnt dissaper, and yes, according with both ancient writers (Strabo, Dio Cassius, Trogus Pompeius, Criton-the doctor of Traian, Julian the Apostate) or modern historians and archeology, Dacians and Getae was the same, as you can't say that Spartans and Athenians arent greeks.

Unfortunately i dont have too much time now, i will come with more later

[Alanus]

Hailog, Diegis

Through courtesy, I'll let Vortigern Studies respond to your above post. But I must note that Jordanes is describing the Dacians as Gothic clients, and Zalmoxis was a client king, not a king of the Goths. (Somewhere, Jordanes gives a list of the actual Amal kings.)

This post continues my last post, which listed the Gothic connection as Germanic and to the Baltic islands. Now let's turn to sociological and trade links. The Goths, even while living in Dacia and Moesia, had trade connections back to the north, to their own homeland and Germanic culture, by way of the route established by King Ermaneric. It included a center near modern Kiev, and one of the valued commodities was amber. Essentially, this was the "Amber Road." In this fashion, bits of Gothic culture were returned to their origin. Among these were the folk tales of Hervor and King Hedrick. These stories deal with the traditional Gothic sword of the Tryfingi (Western Goths prior to being called the Visigoths). The sword was known as Tyrfing. The tales were recorded in the Old Edda, the poetic Edda of Icelandic culture.

So, I ask you this. If the Goths were Dacians and not from "Scandia," then why were their legends (or myths) recorded by a Scandinavian people who-- according to your view-- had no connection to them? Hervor is a legendary figure in Scandic culture, and she uses Tryfing in battling the Huns. In the real world, and to update this cultural-trade link, these same Scandic peoples followed that route right up until the advent of the Rus and the formation of the Kieven State. What the Rus accomplished at this later date-- bringing the local Slavs and Finns into their "kunja"-- is exactly what the Goths did when they incorporated the Dacians at an earlier date.

You said, "The fact that Goths writed in a germanic language, doesnt mean too much ..." On the contrary, it means EVERYTHING! Socialogists have proven that (for purposes of trade and social structure) lesser cultures adopt the language of the dominent culture. Therefore, the dominent Gothic culture and ethos was Germanic.

[diegis]

Salve Alanus

Well, i will try to syntezise my views. First, if you read modern scholars as i mentioned before (Kulikowski, Hallsal, etc.), and look at archeology, you will see that this disprouve any strong connections with the supposed migration of the Goths from Scandinavia/Scandza, and that was just the interpretation made by german and other western historians, from the romantic times up to modern ones. And is based just on Jordanes "Getica", who is interpretated as correct just on some parts, from political and nationalist reasons, as well as some connections betwen classic Goths and some later legends from Scandinavia area. Because if you believe them, why you think is wrong to believe that Normans had Dacian kings, as in legend of Dudo. For ex., one of those scholars even debate that so called "germani" tribes have any feelings that they are linguistically connected, and "germani"(roman name give to tribes from Rhine and upper Danube) considered themselves as part of the same peoples. As it is the case with Celts too, who is debatable if was different peoples under the same "umbrella" or was really the same peoples.
About Goths, we know for sure that they become visible, as classic Goths, in the area of Cerneakhov/Santana de Mures culture. That culture it was a mix of local cultures, with Dacian one having a major role. It was like a cockteil, formed from diferent peoples, ones already there (Dacians, sarmatians), and ones arrived later (germanic peoples). This culture was as well under a heavy roman influence, from Daco-Romans peoples from dacian teritory transformed in roman province of Dacia. Just after settle of that mixed culture, we can talk about Goths, more like a product of romans frontiers, a product made by several diferent peoples, but still having a dominant local culture (poterry, architecture, burial habits who are predominant dacian) but with heavy roman influences. Yes, germanic part (the ones you mentioned if you wish) became at some moment the "political" dominant part (but not at first, when so called "free Dacians" was the leaders of an alliance who attacked the Roman empire). But they was so mixed at a point that many ancient chronicars stoped to make a difference betwen Dacians/Getians (Carpi, Costobocii, Free Dacians) and Goths (both contemporary to them), and use for later Goths the name Get/Getae. Later, a part of this Goths migrated from the area, but the culture remain, as well as other local "pure" dacian cultures, and "daco-roman" ones, meaning that an alliance of those mixed tribes, lead probably by germanic leaders, moved further inside roman borders. They still had a dacian heritage anyway, if you look at the paintings of St. Apollinare church of Teodoric the Great, where are painted Dacian "tarabostes" as the 3 'kings" from the east who bring gifts to Jesus.
Beside the some old writings who said that Dacians/Getians had a role in Scandinavian area history we have an interesting view from genetics, who said that Romania and Balkans area (former Dacia and Thracia) have the biggest portion of "I" haplogroup, and from there this haplogroup migrate to north in Scandinavia area, where have as well an important maximum, and i read too some things about a possible previous migration of a thraco-dacian population there, since thracians was acording with Herodotus, the most numerous peoples on Earth, after indians, and was not a surprise if they move there too, as some less numerous peoples, Celts, migrated from Ireland to Panonia (if we can speak about the same peoples, and not diferent peoples under the one generic name).
And about writings now, i think you are wrong, peoples like germans, poles, hungarians or english for ex. use the latin as the court and church language, but none of this peoples are latins.

[Robert Vermaat]

As you can see, Dacians and their history is considered by Jordanes as part of Goths history, and kings of them are both Filimer and Zalmoxis.

Who gave you that idea? Jordanes mentions only a few bits of the no doubt very long Dacian history. If he really had incorporated Dacian history into Gothic history, which he would have done if the Dacians were really the most dominant influence on the proto-Goths as you claim, he would have mentioned more than this tiny bit.
Where are the dozens of Dacian kings that ruled Dacia before and after the Dacian Wars? Nowhere to be seen, contrary to the relatively great attention to Gothic kings and legend.

The fact that Goths writed in a germanic language, doesnt mean too much. Probably they adopted the for writing the language of the germanic part of that mix, since Dacians didnt use their language in writing (or is not known) And we dont know for sure if there is or not Dacian words in Gothic language, since there are many common indo-european related words at ancient peoples.

I really think this discussion is becoming too silly for words.
Should I really seriously consider that the Goths were for a large part Dacians but for some dark reason decided to write in German?
Of course it has meaning - it's proof that Dacian had no major influence on the Germanic group. And since Dacian was related to Thracian, we would have surely recognised such words if they had been present. But they are not, which makes a strong case about the Dacian influence.

Come on Razvan! Do you want to continue this discussion at some scientific level or do you want to continue with this useless speculation that warrants no proof at all?
The Goths were a Germanic group, had kings with Germanic names, and wrote in a Germanic language. No Dacian influence in known from the Goths – to speculate that there was a hidden Dacian influence just because you want the Dacians to be some superior group is nonsense.
Like this, you could say that the Dacians were really the main group behind the Huns, or the Vandals, or even the Sassanid Persians.

Read your books! There is no claim (that I know of) that the Goths did write Germanic but did not speak it. Halsall, Kulikowski, every linguist, all are convinced that the Goths clearly spoke an east Germanic language. Their personal names are Germanic and their runes are known from the Chernyakhov area.

About archeology, i think i was clear, foreign scholars, based on modern archeology (there is on wikipedia an article where they opinions are presented at Chernyakhov culture) said that is little to no evidences that Wielbark culture have anything to do with Cherneakhov/Santana de Mures culture,

You did not read the Wiki article, did you? Or maybe the Rumanian article differs from the English article?
It says: “Wielbark elements are prominent in the Chernakhov zone”.
Indeed, the Wielbark is no longer seen as the direct predecessor to the Chernyakhov culture. I find that Halsall (2007, 132-4) puts it very well when he argues that although the Wielbark culture as a direct predecessor needs not be rejected but modified. The Wielbark period overlaps the Chernyakhov period, and the claim that Wielbark metalwork precedes Chernyakhov metalwork is no longer entirely the case. But Halsall is also clear that the germanic core of the Goths migrated into the area, and has no other alternative for the origins of that group other than 'probably from the Wielbark territory'.

and yes, the local Daco-Getians had the leading role. Dacians doesnt dissapear after Roman conquest, what you saying there. Yes, they didnt have anymore a powerful kingdom, but they didnt dissaper,

They did of course not disappear, but as a leading culture they did lose their influence.
There was no major Daco-Getian influence on the Goths. Period. What archaeologist claims that and how is that case proven?
Daco-Getian was just one of many influences - such as the Scytho-Sarmatian influence from the Zarubinec culture, or the proto-Slav influence from the Przeworsk culture. How these cultures influenced the Goths can in part be deduced from the loanwords – Slavic and Iranian languages may have received loanwords from each other in the Chernyakhov culture, and Slavic may have received Germanic loanwords there. But Gothic received few Slavic loanwords and no Dacian loanwords at all.

To suppose that despite that, Daco-Getians were still the major group and heavily influenced Gothic culture is to defy all proof. I understand that it is John Matthews who argues for that – but as I said earlier, John Matthews is no historian and no linguist, and his work is the Arthurian legend. I consider him no expert of any weight in this matter.

and yes, according with both ancient writers (Strabo, Dio Cassius, Trogus Pompeius, Criton-the doctor of Traian, Julian the Apostate) or modern historians and archeology, Dacians and Getae was the same, as you can't say that Spartans and Athenians arent greeks.

Dacians and Getae may be the same or not, I have no opinion on that because I do not know enough about that period. I have said nothing about Spartans and Greeks.

But To identify Goths with Dacians JUST BECAUSE the names of Goths and Getae looked so similar was a mistake that some ancient authors made, and some copied later. But they could not know better, without the wealth of studies that we have accumulated today, and the historical methodology that we have developed since. I do not blame them.

Alas, you choose to ignore 2000 years of historical science, and to repeat the mistakes of the ancients, but insisting that when one name resembles another, the two must be identical, no matter the mountain of differences between them.

[Robert Vermaat]

First, if you read modern scholars as i mentioned before (Kulikowski, Hallsal, etc.), and look at archeology, you will see that this disprouve any strong connections with the supposed migration of the Goths from Scandinavia/Scandza, and that was just the interpretation made by german and other western historians, from the romantic times up to modern ones.

Not at all! This is not what Kulikowski says at all. Nor does Halsall, who is convinced like most experts that the Goths originated in the Baltic area, and most probably arrived in the Chernyakhov area from the Wielbark area.

And is based just on Jordanes "Getica", who is interpretated as correct just on some parts, from political and nationalist reasons, as well as some connections betwen classic Goths and some later legends from Scandinavia area. Because if you believe them, why you think is wrong to believe that Normans had Dacian kings, as in legend of Dudo.

It is correct that Jordanes is the source who first mentions the migration of the Goths.
Is he just correct on the parts where you say he identifies Goths with Daco-Getians? And you reject the migration part? Well, on what grounds? Because it first your theories? You may claim as you did above that scholars reject the migration theory, but it is a fact that they do not reject it, for lack of a better alternative. Maybe they do not believe every word, that the whole group came in one piece from Scandinavia, but a Baltic origin of the main group is never in doubt.

I think that this Dudo legend is more comparable to your belief that the Dacians were the major group in the formation of the Goths.

About Goths, we know for sure that they become visible, as classic Goths, in the area of Cerneakhov/Santana de Mures culture. That culture it was a mix of local cultures, with Dacian one having a major role.

No, we do NOT think that the Dacians had the major role. Only you do so, maybe following John Matthews the storywriter.

It was like a cockteil, formed from diferent peoples, ones already there (Dacians, sarmatians), and ones arrived later (germanic peoples). This culture was as well under a heavy roman influence, from Daco-Romans peoples from dacian teritory transformed in roman province of Dacia. Just after settle of that mixed culture, we can talk about Goths, more like a product of romans frontiers, a product made by several diferent peoples, but still having a dominant local culture (poterry, architecture, burial habits who are predominant dacian) but with heavy roman influences.

There maybe have been Roman political pressure of some sort (Kulikowski argues so), but hardly Roman cultural influence that formed the culture. Christianity surely entered the area, but Gothic has hardly any Latin loanwords, meaning that Latin hardly had any influence.
No Dacians loanwords seem present. Other groups in the cocktail included Sarmatians, Taifali, Carpi and others. But experts are convinced that the Germanic elements started as and remained the most powerful element.

Yes, germanic part (the ones you mentioned if you wish) became at some moment the "political" dominant part (but not at first, when so called "free Dacians" was the leaders of an alliance who attacked the Roman empire).

This is pure speculation on your part. There is no information about ‘Free Dacians’ or whatever being the leaders of the Chernjakov culture.

But they was so mixed at a point that many ancient chronicars stoped to make a difference betwen Dacians/Getians (Carpi, Costobocii, Free Dacians) and Goths (both contemporary to them), and use for later Goths the name Get/Getae.

The Goths did not use the name Gets. They Goths referred to their area as Gutthiunda, not Dacia or Getia or whatever.
Ancient authors never made a distinction between ‘earlier Goths’ and ‘later Goths’. They misidentified the Getae and sometimes ascribed the deeds and kings of these Getae as those of the Goths, leading to silly descriptions of how the ‘Goths’ (not the Gets or the Geats or the Getae) fought the Persians under Cyrus or Darius.

Later, a part of this Goths migrated from the area, but the culture remain, as well as other local "pure" dacian cultures, and "daco-roman" ones, meaning that an alliance of those mixed tribes, lead probably by germanic leaders, moved further inside roman borders. They still had a dacian heritage anyway, if you look at the paintings of St. Apollinare church of Teodoric the Great, where are painted Dacian "tarabostes" as the 3 'kings" from the east who bring gifts to Jesus.

No, the culture did not ‘remain’ after the Goths migrated. It ended in the 5th c. AD, when the Huns overran the area, when part of the Goths were still very much present in the area.
AND THEY NEVER HAD A DACIAN HERITAGE ANYWAY
I’m getting very tired of hearing this, without ANY proof presented, and in the face of every evidence presented to the contrary.

[Ron Andrea]

Robert,

Last year you and I reviewed Michael Kulikowski's Rome's Gothic Wars. At that time, I expressed concern over his use or mis-use of Jordanes as a source, as follows:

A key chapter is “The Search for Gothic Origins” in which Kulikowski deconstructs ancient and modern theories that the Goths or their prehistoric antecedents came from the region of modern Scandinavia and/or Poland. Then he examines archeological evidence in the region from which the Goths first came to the attention of classical cultures. While he acknowledges that the Alans and Sarmatians lived as a horse culture on top of an agricultural substrata, he avows that the remains uncovered in the Sântana-de-Mure?/?ernjachov cultural zone support his assertion “that there was no Gothic history before the third century. The Goths are a product of the Roman frontier, just like the Franks and the Alamanni who appear at the same time.” (p. 67)

Does this relate to the current discussion? I'm having trouble following the thread of the conversation. :?

[Robert Vermaat]

I think it does. Kulikowski seems to have had the right idea about the Goths being largely formed in the area of the Sântana-de-Mure?/?ernjachov culture. That area included other groups, such as Taifali, Sarmatians, Dacians, early Slavs and other Germanic groups, and the (simplified) two main Gothic groups as they burst into history seem to have reached that form only there.
The problem is, what went before?

Jordanes wrote down the Gothic self-image, being that they came from Scandinavia.
Trouble is, Jordanes also misidentified the earlier Getae and their history as similar to the Goths on account of their name alone, and wrote that down as well - this is where our fellow-member Diegis gets his ammunition from, largely. he's following Jordanes when it comes to the Getae as Goths (and fills in the blanks that the Dacians are related to both and really the main group, without proper evidence).

Back to Jordanes, who is our prime evidence for the Goths coming from Scandinavia, a story that has been relegated to legend in the face of archaeological evidence that 'the Goths' evidently did not exist before the Sântana-de-Mure?/?ernjachov culture.

Well then if that's true, is Jordanes a fibber?
Kulikowski, Halsall and other think so, BUT with a consideration. You see, the Goths clearly are an east Germanic group on the firm basis of linguistic evidence, and were probably the dominant group in the Sântana-de-Mure?/?ernjachov culture. That means, as is acknowledged, that they arrived in the Sântana-de-Mure?/?ernjachov area probably as some sort of a group, and although we can no longer say that these proto-Goths (for want of a better term) WERE the Wielbark culture, they most probably arrived from the Baltic area by routes covered by that Wielbark culture.

So Jordanes, although incorrect about the exact details, nonetheless has penned down a shadow of history about where the leading elements of the Goths came from originally - or at least those who remembered their origins.
Jordanes was a product of his age. he had no scientific models to follow and could never have separated legend from history. We may thank his for writing his work.

[diegis]

Hi Robert

Well, this is an almost entire different view, from the previous ones. I never said, as well, that Goths=Get/Getae 100 %. My opinion is that some germanic tribes arrived in the area of Cernehov/Santana de Mures culture, where already coexisted Dacians and Sarmatians in a sort of mix. They establish themselves there too, not in one big migration, but in time, and formed a kind of "cockteil" with the locals under a roman influence coming from roman province Dacia too, and just then we can talk about let say the classic Goths. This influence was easy to come because of the relations betwen so called "free Dacians" (most known of them being Costobocii and Carpii) and the Dacians from the province, who started to become romanized, and mixed with Roman colonists. Because of the presence of a part of the Dacians in this mix, as well because of the name Getae/Get gived by greeks to them, and who is close to Got/Goth name, Jordanes (and others i said before) include a part of their history in the Goths history, or even use the name Getae for Goths in some instances. But i agree that Goths kings had germanic names, and they use for writing a germanic related language, even if in ancient times nobody related them with Germanic peoples (not even Iordanes, who, if i remember correct, use that term, "german", to name the Franks, but never for Goths). We dont know if there was dacian words however, since we know little about dacian language, and there is many words common in indo-european languages. So the Goths was a mix of several peoples, the Cerneakhov Santana culture show that the Dacian type buildings was present a lot there, as well potery and burial types of sites, the Sarmatian influence is clear too (it is debatable if early slavs can be traced there), and the name of leaders are mostly germanic (if we dont consider the "Dacian/Getian" period of Goths history, where dacian names appear, names who, interesting, appear at Issidor from Sevilla as well, independent from Iordanes), as well we can find archeological some germanic features too. As archeology, the culture still survive, and in today romanian teritory is continuated by a "pure" dacian culture, called Brateiu, meaning that a large part of germanic part of the Goths, as well some dacian and sarmatian one migrated in Roman empire, but a part of the locals from the culture, joined the other "free Dacians" and the ones from former roman province Dacia and stay there. Interesting is as well the chronicle of Dudo about Normans and their leader Rollo. Dudo ( a name remembering the dacian name Dudas and more modern romanian one Duda) write about Rollo (remembering dacian names of some kings as Orolles and Roles), a Dacian duke who flee from Dacia (he give a quite correct description of what we known today as Transilvania, and who is the core of Dacian kingdom since Burebista time), but, this time, contrary to what is think about Iordanes with his Scandza migration and from an unknown reason some consider that Dacia is in fact Denmark, even if both the description of the country and even the names are Dacian. This just to see how history can be interpretated with two measures.

[diegis]

Robert,

Last year you and I reviewed Michael Kulikowski's Rome's Gothic Wars. At that time, I expressed concern over his use or mis-use of Jordanes as a source, as follows:

A key chapter is “The Search for Gothic Origins” in which Kulikowski deconstructs ancient and modern theories that the Goths or their prehistoric antecedents came from the region of modern Scandinavia and/or Poland. Then he examines archeological evidence in the region from which the Goths first came to the attention of classical cultures. While he acknowledges that the Alans and Sarmatians lived as a horse culture on top of an agricultural substrata, he avows that the remains uncovered in the Sântana-de-Mure?/?ernjachov cultural zone support his assertion “that there was no Gothic history before the third century. The Goths are a product of the Roman frontier, just like the Franks and the Alamanni who appear at the same time.” (p. 67)

Does this relate to the current discussion? I'm having trouble following the thread of the conversation. :?

Hi Ron, yes, that was an article i want to quote from, thank you

[Alanus]

This tread appears to almost reach a consensus, perhaps with a few minor details hanging within individual interpretation.

My point is simple. Are Getae and Dacians the same? No, because "Getae" is a "larger" term used by ancient writers is such a fashion that even Jordanes had trouble fathoming it. As for the Goths? The core group, the "power group," was Germanic, perhaps "proto-Gothic" but hailing from geography well above Dacia.

That is why their language was Eastern Germanic. Many Gothic words are incredibly close to Old English or what must have been "Anglo-Saxon." Today in certain sections of Friesia there are speakers of a dialect that still carries Old English words; and Friesia is directly across the short sail to Scandinavia. The proto western Goths-- the Tyrfingi-- named themselves after the "sword of Tyr." It can be no coincedence that Tyr is a very old Scandinavian god, one of the first. Why would a group from a culture far south of Scandia name themselves after a Scandian god if they were not Scandians themselves?

How old was this ruling culture that impinged their language upon client tribes (Dacians, Sarmatians, etc.)? The recurring phrases in their own tongue-- Got, Gut, Guth-- reflect their heritage, as do the ruling classes of Amal and Balth. These endemic phrases can be traced back beyond Tacitus and Pliny to the much earlier Greek writers, back to the 4th century BC and Pytheus. And the same phrases and root words show up in the AD 4th century Bible of Ulfilas. That language did not change appreciably in 800 years. Diegis could be right in stating that some Dacian loan words may have crept into Gothic. They are not discernable, yet we do see the influence of Celtic.

It would be extremely difficult, if properly thought through, for any modern socialologist, historian, or archaeologist to dismiss the long connective heritage of a ruling class that began as Germanic. And they ended as a Germanic elite over what may have been up to a dozen different ethnic groups (including Greeks and Romans) under their charge.

[Rumo]

Hi everyone,

I ran into this thread while searching for Sarmatians, so I registered to drop few comments.

And that is precisely what bothers me. We have an idea where the term 'Daci' came from, but not Getae, and there also happens to be two other ancient peoples with similar ethnonyms, the Thyssagetae and Massagetae.
But it appears that no historians, modern or ancient, know where the term 'Getae' originated, as far as I know.

I'm not sure if related, there's an Edonian king named ????(?) having his name inscribed on some early 5th century BCE coins. Perhaps he was one of those rulers of Thrace allied with the Persians, however his coins testify also for some local cultural traditions: the Edoni were a Thracian/Macedonian tribe, the royal title is Greek (basileus) and the coin inscription is in Greek also.
Getae, Thyssagetae and Massagetae may look similar in form, but we should keep in mind that "ae" is merely a Graeco-Latin morphological ending, so we are left only with *get-. We are not sure how these names, if genuine, sounded in their original languages, we only know how they were adapted in Greek and Latin (e.g. the Persian name ?išpiš is ??????? in the text of Herodotus). Considering the shortness of both *da(k)- and *get- I think a healthy skepticism should be maintained about any etymology or connection.

Or maybe there's nothing to this, and they are actually just two names for precisely the same people?
Or maybe this is unknowable?
I'm leaning toward the latter.

Perhaps you're right in doing so. But we should note that some ancient authors claimed the Getae and the Dacians spoke the same language (Strabo) or regarded them as the same people (Cassius Dio, Justin). We may witness here only a literary topos, not a genuine ethnographic information, however we should consider all the evidence.

The Massagetae/Alans controlled the steppe and built a huge empire (coveted by Cyrus) which lasted for six hundred years. The Dacii were a small tribe (in the greater scheme).

If I reckon correctly there's no solid evidence on such a long-lasting and vast Massagetic empire in the steppes. And near the Danube the Dacians/Getae had powerful kings such as Burebistas/Boirebistas (subduing many West-Pontic Greek colonies and campaigning against Celts on Middle Danube) or Decebalus (an arch-enemy of Rome) whereas Sarmatian and most other Iranic speaking nomads had some lesser rulers with arguably little authority. Even in late Antiquity I know of no Sarmatian "empire" or "kingdom", but of Huns and Avars.

I guess that at some point "Sarmatian" became (as "Getae") an anachronic exonym hiding many tribes fighting or looking the "Sarmatian style" (on horseback, probably armored, etc.) and living in "Sarmatia".

I hope you see what I'm trying to explain. This group, through language and custom, were the Getae to Herodotus but they were simply one of the three branches of Indo-European culture. The other two branches were the Indians (Hindus) and the Europeans (Greeks, Romans, Celts, etc.)

There's no "meta-Getic" union in Herodotus, this confusion belongs to later authors such as Jordanes. For Herodotus Getae were a branch of the Thracians (Histories, 4.93 and 5.3), while the Massagetae were mostly regarded as a "Scythian race" (1.201). Thracians were as European as the Celts, they were Greeks' northern neighbours.

The Cimmerians were Indo-Iranian and existed before the Dacians arrived within the continuum.

Several scholars argued that Cimmerians never really existed north of Black Sea, their presence there being just a Greek legendary account and a geographical confusion. Robert Drews forwarded some nice arguments in Early Riders, chapter 5. Also Sergei Tokhtas’ev gives an overview of the problem here: http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles ... 6a004.html

[Rumo]

For Jordanes and his Getica some nice and relatively recent materials are:

• Arne Søby Christensen, Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths: Studies in a Migration Myth (2002)

• Andrew H. Merrils, "Jordanes", chapter 2 in History and Geography in Late Antiquity (2005)

• Walter Goffart, "Jordanes's Getica and the Disputed Authenticity of Gothic Origins from Scandinavia", chapter 4 in Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire (2006) - the entire volume is quite interesting for a different view of migrations and of ancient "Germans"

• Walter Goffart, "Jordanes and His Three Histories", chapter 2 in The Narrators of Barbarian History (1988)

• Online: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/ ... danes.html and http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/jordanes.pdf

Who cares about the scenarios these opinionated "scholars" have postulated? Germans were Germans.

Germans were Germans is not a postulate? :wink:
However Guy Halsall, Michael Kulikowski and John Matthews are actually scholars and many other scholars and students care about their arguments, whether you agree with them or not.

AD 100: The Roxolani begin moving through Iron Gate Pass and up onto the Hungarian Steppe. The Taifali follow behind the Roxolani and take Walachia as their pasturage.
AD 150: The Goths move down into S. Ukraine and Moldova, cleaving the Taifali from the major Alannic host in the Crimea and eastward.
AD 200: For trade and mutual peace, the Taifali enter an informal foedus with the Tyrfingi Goths.

I know of no contemporary source attesting Taifali or Goths on the lower Danube before 200 CE.

"To the north is the ocean [Baltic Sea]; beyond the river Parapanisus where it washes the coast of Scythia. Hecataeus calls it the Amalchian Sea... Xenophon of Lampsacus reports that three day's sail from the Scythian coast there is an island of enormous size called Balcia; Pytheas gives its name as Basilia." Pliny, Book IV. xiii, 94

Here Pliny records info taken from Pytheus and Xenophon at a time when the Goths had yet to begin their migration. "Amalchian" and "Balcia" record the two leading families or gens of the Goths, the Amals and the Balths.

Florin Curta (see link above) argues convincingly that Getica replicates (directly or indirectly) information from Pliny's account. Pliny's description of the Baltic area seems to bring additional evidence for such a conclusion.
Here Pliny records geographical features, not people, and nothing about Goths, on Amalchian shores or in Baltia. Cassiodorus, Jordanes and possibly some other "Gothic scholars" (Ablabius) invented a tradition relying on the earlier Roman authors (Pliny, Tacitus, Cassius Dio). What happened is that the barbarian names of the literary far north were assigned to Gothic history and fictive histories and characters were created. We can dismiss Jordanes easily when he equates Goths with Getae (because we have some knowledge on the Getae) and we shouldn't trust him so naively when the focus moves in the far north for which we have only vague and cursory accounts, probably the same ones which sourced his narrative.

In paragraph 100, Pliny says, "There are five German races," the fist being, "the Vandals, who include the Burgodones, Varinnae, Charini and Gutones." So in Pliny's time, the Goths (Gutones) were probably subjects of the Vandals. In Book XXXVII, we find them further north in Pytheas's time (300 BC) and their name misspelled, "Pytheas speaks of an estuary of the Ocean (Baltic)... extending for 750 miles, the shores of which are inhabited by a German tribe, the Guiones [a scribal error, mistaking a "t" for an "i"]."

But we don't know if these "Germans" were speaking a Germanic language. And although many assume that, I guess there's no actual evidence Pliny's Gutones were the ancestors of the Goths showing centuries later at the lower Danube. We don't even know how Pytheas actually recorded their name, maybe it was already corrupted in Pliny's text.
What I find certain is that for Jordanes both the Getae and the Gutones were the ancestors of the Goths, and I guess the main argument of the late Antiquity authors was a formal resemblance: "get"-"got"-"gut".

The Gothini and Osi prove themselves not to be Germans; the first, by their use of the Gallic." Here we see a Celtic cultural infusion, and the Gothini are less "Germanic" than they were earlier

Or Gothini were always Celtic speaking. Or Tacitus was confused. Or ...

[Alanus]

Germans were Germans is not a postulate? :wink:
However Guy Halsall, Michael Kulikowski and John Matthews are actually scholars and many other scholars and students care about their arguments, whether you agree with them or not.

Yes, I was over-trying to hammer a point. :wink:
But John Matthews is more of a "pop" author than he is a scholar, and Michael Kulikowski has overdone guest appearances on the History Channel, a medium that has turned "history" into a silly word. If other scholars and students swallow their arguments, it's fine with me. I used to be gullible before I became an old fart. :lol:

AD 100: The Roxolani begin moving through Iron Gate Pass and up onto the Hungarian Steppe. The Taifali follow behind the Roxolani and take Walachia as their pasturage.
AD 150: The Goths move down into S. Ukraine and Moldova, cleaving the Taifali from the major Alannic host in the Crimea and eastward.
AD 200: For trade and mutual peace, the Taifali enter an informal foedus with the Tyrfingi Goths.

I know of no contemporary source attesting Taifali or Goths on the lower Danube before 200 CE.

These migrations took some time. The Goths and Taifals just didn't come screaming into Moldova and Walachia at a hundred miles per hour. I described the movements over a realistic period of two centuries. Even though the Gothic-Taifali bond does not show up in the sources until 248, the migrations are based on the observations of Janos Harmatta, not from ancient authors. The Roxolani were already mixing into the Iazyage ethnos before AD 100. The Roxolani's subsequent "neighbors" had to be the Goths and Taifali. From Harmatta-- "It is equally important that in the archaeological remains there appeared a large number of traces bearing Germanic influence, but in all probability the influence not of the Vandals... but of Goths or Taifals."

"Contemporary" sources also brought us the Huns coming from NOWHERE. It's the archaeology that informed us where they really came from.

Whatever nit-picking you and I are doing isn't going to change the fact that the Goths extended from a Germanic ethos, and that they kept that Germanic ethnos in their hierarcy until trounced by the Moors in 710. 8)

[Robert Vermaat]

Guy Halsall, Michael Kulikowski and John Matthews are actually scholars and many other scholars and students care about their arguments, whether you agree with them or not.

Halsall and Kulikowski are indeed scholars, but Matthews is the 'odd one out'. I'm surprised tht you don't know that - Matthews writes books about the Arthurian legend, but he is no historian or archaeologist, but rather better described as a mythologist and a writer of popular books.

He's a very nice guy, I have interviewed him. :wink:

[Rumo]

If other scholars and students swallow their arguments, it's fine with me. I used to be gullible before I became an old fart.

Let's check the arguments then and see if only the gullible swallow them.
Diegis' quotations come from a Wiki article. Avoiding the potentially biased Wiki editors, checking the "Matthews" reference we find a well-known book co-authored by John Matthews and Peter Heather, The Goths in the Fourth Century (1991)
In Chapter 3, "The Sîntana de Mure?-?ernjachov Culture", we find that most these arguments come actually from archaeologists doing fieldwork in the area, the authors making "an attempt to bring the Sîntana de Mure?/?ernjachov culture before a wider audience".
While admitting for this archaeological culture "Germanic connections" (parallels with Central and Northern Europe: combs, few hand-made pottery types, some fibulae, pendants, runic inscriptions, etc.) there are also significant parallels with early indigenous cultures: sunken huts, wheel-made pottery (which is the single most common artefact in sites and cemeteries), some hand-made pottery types (the so-called "Dacian mug"), several cases of cranial deformation (specific to earlier steppe cultures), etc. It also should be noted that most ?ernjachov cemeteries are bi-ritual suggesting a mixture of people with - at least - different beliefs in afterlife.

"Contemporary" sources also brought us the Huns coming from NOWHERE. It's the archaeology that informed us where they really came from.

The origin of Huns is controversial.

Whatever nit-picking you and I are doing isn't going to change the fact that the Goths extended from a Germanic ethos, and that they kept that Germanic ethnos in their hierarcy until trounced by the Moors in 710.

But there was no "Germanic ethnos". There were Germanic languages and archaeology cannot detect languages. Ethnicity and linguistic idenitity are not the same thing (Attila the Hun had an apparent Germanic name).

These migrations took some time. The Goths and Taifals just didn't come screaming into Moldova and Walachia at a hundred miles per hour. I described the movements over a realistic period of two centuries. Even though the Gothic-Taifali bond does not show up in the sources until 248, the migrations are based on the observations of Janos Harmatta, not from ancient authors. The Roxolani were already mixing into the Iazyage ethnos before AD 100. The Roxolani's subsequent "neighbors" had to be the Goths and Taifali. From Harmatta-- "It is equally important that in the archaeological remains there appeared a large number of traces bearing Germanic influence, but in all probability the influence not of the Vandals... but of Goths or Taifals."

Can Harmatta or any other scholar list the unequivocal differences between "Vandalic", "Taifalic" and "Gothic" material cultures around 100 CE? Can they even unequivocally differentiate "Germanic" from "Celtic" or other cultures of Central Europe? I have strong doubts they can.

Also why should we assume a large-scale migration coming from far away? Because Jordanes said so?

But John Matthews is more of a "pop" author than he is a scholar, and Michael Kulikowski has overdone guest appearances on the History Channel, a medium that has turned "history" into a silly word.

Halsall and Kulikowski are indeed scholars, but Matthews is the 'odd one out'. I'm surprised tht you don't know that - Matthews writes books about the Arthurian legend, but he is no historian or archaeologist, but rather better described as a mythologist and a writer of popular books.

He's a very nice guy, I have interviewed him.

Do we talk about the same guy? http://www.yale.edu/classics/faculty/matthews_j.html