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

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

I am trying to write something about the Dacians, but I don't know if I should distinguish between them and the Getae, or if it's possible to know whether or not I should. I have tried to read everything I can from the ancient historians, and now I'm more confused than I was at the start. This is what I have so far:

Herodotus said they were a Thracian tribe, but I don't know if he meant "Thracian" as in "Thracian ethnicity," or if he means "from the geographical region we call Thrace."
Strabo wrote in the first century A.D.: "... there is another division of the country which has endured since early times, for some of the people are called Daci, whereas others are called Getae (Geography, 7.3.12)."
But Strabo also indicated that the Dacians and Getae were for the most part a single, united nation, sharing the same god (Zalmoxis), language and foreign policy.
Cassius Dio insisted that the Dacians called themselves Dacians, and that the Greeks mistakenly referred to them as Getae, "whether that is the right form or not (Roman History, 67.6.2)."
To add further confusion, the Roman historian Justin wrote that the Dacians were the successors of the Getae (Epitome of Pompeius Trogus, 32.3.16).

It is perhaps worth noting that in the fifth century B.C., Thucydides compared the Getae fighting style to that of the Scythians, "being all mounted archers (History of the Peloponnesian War, 8.26.1)." But the Dacians who fought against Trajan a few centuries later fought primarily as infantry, and called upon their Sarmatian allies for cavalry to supplement their own, if I am not mistaken.

Perhaps the Dacians were the Getae described by Thucydides, and their traditional fighting methods changed over the centuries, as leaving the steppes to settle in the rugged lands around the Carpathian Mountains made hunting from horseback unnecessary?

Or perhaps Thucydides' Getae were not Dacians, but a separate people who were assimilated into the Dacian culture over time?

Another concern I have is with recent Romanian scholarship; from what I understand, the communist regime of Nicolae Ceau?escu tried to influence scholars into draw artificial links between modern-day Romanians and the Dacians. I don't know if, or how, this has affected the scholarship, and if so, I don't know which Romanian historians can or cannot be trusted.

I should probably mention that I am not a history student (just a woefully confused but curious amateur), so this is not an assignment and I have no deadline. I am doing this for a web site, and RAT seems to have a pretty good collection of posters who might be able to shed light on this subject for me.

Thank you.

[Jona Lendering]

The real issue is "who is giving a name to whom". Authors living in the centuries AD, often used ancient names to describe comparatively new nations. So, Herodotus' name "Getae" could get a second life to describe any nation living in Bulgaria/Rumania.

There is a related problem, which, although it is now irrelevant, may be useful to mention: that people Antiquity use various labels for themselves. A Roman could call himself a Roman, but on festive occasions, he called himself a Quirite. A Hellene was a Hellene, but if he wanted to stress his martial prowess, he could call himself a Dorian; if he wanted to stress his cosmopolitan lookout, a Ionian. A Jew would be called, and called himself, a Judaean when he was talking to a foreigner, but would call himself, and was called, an Israelite in a discussion with a compatriot.

Just like today, ethnic labels were never fixed. You may find by Ton Derks and Nico Roymans, Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity. The Role of Power and Tradition useful.

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

Interesting. I had never heard of "Quirites" before, so I learned something new today. And thanks for the link; I see they discussed that situation with the Frisians you posted on your web site recently.

Do you know anything about the suffix -getae in ethnonyms, as in "Massagetae" and "Thyssagetae"? I'm just wondering if the similarity could imply that the Getae were originally an Iranian people. But it seems nobody really knows anything about the Massagetae or Thyssagetae aside from Herodotus' work, so it's really hard to follow this up.

I know that the Dacians spoke a language that was an obscure branch of the Indo-European language tree, and Strabo says the Dacians and Getae spoke the same language, but Strabo was writing around the time of Caesar.

It would seem to me a reasonable hypothesis that if the Getae were among the Iranian peoples (like the Scythians) who expanded into the steppes before the time of Homer, they might have been pushed down toward the Wallachian Plain by the hostile northern tribes (Herodotus does mention such tribes, I don't have the book on hand at the moment) and that during the several centuries that passed before Strabo wrote, they adopted the language and religion of their more powerful Dacian neighbors who lived inside the Carpathian mountain range.
This would account for the two different ethnonyms for peoples who lived in the same area.

The Getae became vassals to the Odrysian kingdom in Thrace (so says Thucydides if memory serves correctly), but the Odrysian kingdom only went as far as the Danube and not into the Carpathian Mountains, which would harmonize with the notion of the Getae and Dacians being separate peoples.
IF the Getae were, in fact, a separate people. I don't know anything about the archaeological evidence that might support or debunk this theory.

I did, however, download a really long piece of work by a linguist named Oswald Szemerényi that seems to have a lot of information on ethnonyms of the ancient steppe peoples. Have you by any chance ever heard of his work? He had some of his research published by John Benjamins over there in Amsterdam.

[Robert Vermaat]

The real issue is "who is giving a name to whom". Authors living in the centuries AD, often used ancient names to describe comparatively new nations.

Exactly. The Goths are for instance more than once referred to as 'Scythians', and Byzantine sources often refer to the Western kingdoms as 'Celts'.

[Alanus]

Herodotus was the first to mention the Massagetae. Two later historians, Dio and Ammianus, qualified the tribe as "the Alans, once called the Massagetae." Interestingly, Herodotus gave their location by naming the river where they dwelt (the actual name escapes me), BUT he gave the wrong river. This error, only mentioned once, transformed the Massagetae/Alans far to the west... where Jordanes repeated the error, placed them at the mouth of the Danube, called them "Getae," and claimed that the seaport of Tomis was named after their ancient queen, Tomyris. When we consider the compounding of error, an entire tribe was moved about a thousand kilometers away from their actual location. The Alans did move west, but long after Herodotus had tippered round the bend. Jordanes made the Goths into "Getae," which they never were, and elder historians previous to our own era repeated all these mistakes. As the old geologist claimed, "You should 8) never take everything for granite."

[Alanus]

Oh, just an aside.
By the time we get to Procopius, he again speaks of the "Massagetae." But they are not Alans. He wrote of "Huns" but not Black Huns. My guess he was referring to White Huns... and I think he interchanged "Massagetae" for the same people. The reason? I dunno. But maybe the White Huns were living in the former territories of the ancient Massagetae, which was around Sogdiana and down toward the Indu Kush. I don't know why they were called "White Huns" either, but it might have been due to their language, Turkic instead of Indo-Iranian. :roll:

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

From what I've found, it appears this is a puzzle that can't be solved. I haven't found any modern historians who will go so far as to say they are definitely two different peoples, and most aren't even comfortable saying firmly that they are one and the same.

A Jew would be called, and called himself, a Judaean when he was talking to a foreigner, but would call himself, and was called, an Israelite in a discussion with a compatriot.
Just like today, ethnic labels were never fixed.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but it's a good point. These guys like Herodotus were getting their information from individuals, often with some language barrier, and the term that particular person decided to use in that particular conversation could lead to a lot of confusion.
And personal history might figure into the description as well... for example, if an American asks his fellow American where he's from, he might respond "Oh, well I'm Italian," or "I'm Irish," because they take the question to mean "where are your ancestors from?"
But if an American is in a foreign city or speaking to someone from another country, he will probably just say "I'm American" for brevity's sake.

I used to live next to a guy who came from Bosnia, but he was actually an Albanian. But if you asked where he was from, he would say "I'm from Bosnia." It wasn't until several months after I met him that I learned he didn't actually consider himself Bosnian at all, and obviously his story became much more complex.

So if, say, the Getae were in fact a distinct tribe that assimilated into a greater Dacian people, and a Getae man happened to have a conversation with Cassius Dio, he might simply say something like "I'm Dacian" just to avoid confusion.

Herodotus was the first to mention the Massagetae. Two later historians, Dio and Ammianus, qualified the tribe as "the Alans, once called the Massagetae." Interestingly, Herodotus gave their location by naming the river where they dwelt (the actual name escapes me), BUT he gave the wrong river. This error, only mentioned once, transformed the Massagetae/Alans far to the west... where Jordanes repeated the error, placed them at the mouth of the Danube, called them "Getae," and claimed that the seaport of Tomis was named after their ancient queen, Tomyris.

Herodotus, book 1 202, "After the conquest of Assyria, Cyrus' next desire was to subdue the Massagetae, whose country lies far to the eastward beyond the Araxes, opposite the Issedones; they are reputed to be a numerous and warlike people and some suppose them to be of Scythian nationality."

On a lighter note, this brings me to one of the more humorous passages in Herodotus a few lines later:
"[The Massagetae] have discovered another tree whose fruit has a very odd property; for when they have parties and sit round a fire, they throw some of it onto the flames, and as it smokes it burns like incense, and the smell of it makes them drunk just like wine does the Greeks; and they get more and more intoxicated as more fruit is thrown on until the jump up and start dancing and singing. Such are the reports on how these people live."

Herodotus gets back on track and seems to get it right: "On the west, then, the Caspian is bounded by the Caucasus; eastward lies an immense tract of flat country over which the eye wanders till it is lost in the distance. The greater part of this region is occupied by the Massagetae, whom Cyrus wished to attack."
He got that terrain right; I don't know if you've ever checked that out on Google Maps, but photographs of that place almost look like another planet. It's like an ocean of soil.

But then, as you say, he puts the Araxes in the wrong place: "Cyrus, therefore, having failed to achieve his object by cunning, turned to open force, and advancing to the Araxes made his assault upon the Massagetae by bridging the river for his men to cross and constructing upper-works on the ferry boats."

The Araxes is now called the Araz, and it runs through Armenia, Azerbaijan and the northwestern tip of Iran. It's not on the eastern side of the Caspian, so there would be no reason for Cyrus to cross it if he wanted to conquer that "immense tract of flat country" in question.
The one Cyrus crossed was the Syr Darya.

[Alanus]

Good for you!

Herodotus knew where the Massagetae lived, but this one error of the Araxes (instead of the Araxates on the other side of the Oxus) is what threw Jordanes off track, and thus he linked the Goths (who lived in Rumania to the Don) to the "Getae." Perhaps we should not blame Jordanes. He boiled down the history of Cassiodorus, a work no longer extant.

Yuh. That area just north west of where the Massagetae lived is either the Black Desert or the White Desert, but just south east we find Lake Balkash and then Issuk Kul just below the Tien Shan. This was good grazing land, cherry trees, edging Ferghana, and it stretched all the way to the Takla Makan.

Don't check out that "fruit" that wasn't cherries. It's still illegal. 8)

[diegis]

I am trying to write something about the Dacians, but I don't know if I should distinguish between them and the Getae, or if it's possible to know whether or not I should. I have tried to read everything I can from the ancient historians, and now I'm more confused than I was at the start. This is what I have so far:

Herodotus said they were a Thracian tribe, but I don't know if he meant "Thracian" as in "Thracian ethnicity," or if he means "from the geographical region we call Thrace."
Strabo wrote in the first century A.D.: "... there is another division of the country which has endured since early times, for some of the people are called Daci, whereas others are called Getae (Geography, 7.3.12)."
But Strabo also indicated that the Dacians and Getae were for the most part a single, united nation, sharing the same god (Zalmoxis), language and foreign policy.
Cassius Dio insisted that the Dacians called themselves Dacians, and that the Greeks mistakenly referred to them as Getae, "whether that is the right form or not (Roman History, 67.6.2)."
To add further confusion, the Roman historian Justin wrote that the Dacians were the successors of the Getae (Epitome of Pompeius Trogus, 32.3.16).

It is perhaps worth noting that in the fifth century B.C., Thucydides compared the Getae fighting style to that of the Scythians, "being all mounted archers (History of the Peloponnesian War, 8.26.1)." But the Dacians who fought against Trajan a few centuries later fought primarily as infantry, and called upon their Sarmatian allies for cavalry to supplement their own, if I am not mistaken.

Perhaps the Dacians were the Getae described by Thucydides, and their traditional fighting methods changed over the centuries, as leaving the steppes to settle in the rugged lands around the Carpathian Mountains made hunting from horseback unnecessary?

Or perhaps Thucydides' Getae were not Dacians, but a separate people who were assimilated into the Dacian culture over time?

Another concern I have is with recent Romanian scholarship; from what I understand, the communist regime of Nicolae Ceau?escu tried to influence scholars into draw artificial links between modern-day Romanians and the Dacians. I don't know if, or how, this has affected the scholarship, and if so, I don't know which Romanian historians can or cannot be trusted.

I should probably mention that I am not a history student (just a woefully confused but curious amateur), so this is not an assignment and I have no deadline. I am doing this for a web site, and RAT seems to have a pretty good collection of posters who might be able to shed light on this subject for me.

Thank you.

Well, since i am Romanian, i will try to present what i learned here. First, yes, Dacians and Getians are one and the same peoples, for instance Strabo said that "The language of the Daci is the same as that of the Getae" , Dio Cassius that " the Dacians to live on both sides of the Lower Danube, the ones south of the river in Moesia, and are called Moesians, while the ones north of the river are called Dacians" and that the name "Daci" is used by "by the natives themselves and also by the Romans" and that he is "not ignorant that some Greek writers refer to them as Getae". As well, the archeology show an unitar culture, as well the names of towns in Geto-Dacian teritory have as ending the word "Dava" as usual ( most notable exception being the name of capitol, Sarmisegetuza ). The religion as you pointed out, is the same one, as well, but, in last years some scholars ( a minority however ) come with the hypothesis that Daci ( Dacians ) to be a regional group of the Geti ( Getae ), something like Spartans and Athenians being both Greeks, but have an another name as well, a regional group who took control over the entire nation at some point. Anyway, Thracians was one of the most numerous peoples of ancient times, and i saw as well the opinion that proto-thracians split at a moment in different groups, as Cimmerians, Phrygians, Getae ( Daci ) and southern Thracians ( mostly know as simple Thracians ), and thats why are some differences as well betwen them, even if they are all related in some parts. About fightning styles, well, from Appian ( if i remmber correct ) who write about 1 day campagne of Alexander the Great in north of Danube to Traian Column, show a aprox. proportion of 1 to 3 of cavalry to infantry, with prevalation of cavalry to ones from field areas where was more suitable the archers cavalry and infantry for one in mountains area where the mountains and thick forrest was more suitable for infantry.
About Ceausescu and "artificial links betwen modern day Romanians and Dacians", well, i think you didnt get all correct. The links exist, and are not artificial, for ex. most of all the folklore is from Dacian origin, folklore songs, some celebration who, even covered by christian "clothes" come from the pre-christian times of Dacians, the motifs and ornamental models from ceramic or textiles are as well from that times, and are more Dacian words in Romanian that are Gallic words in French, for ex. However, some artificial thing was tried, in sense that present Dacians as some hard working and correct peoples who see just their own business( the prototype of a kind of comunist society ) who fight against those Romans greedy imperialist ( see in present days of Ceausescu as any imperialist, from USSR to USA and her allies ), but this "links" was forced at political level, not as ethnic ( or even spiritual ) one.

[Alanus]

Bravo!
You have cleared up the whole "problem."
I hope that what I wrote earlier was clear enough. The Goths, mentioned by Jordanes (and others) as "Getae," were not Getae at all. They simply settled in Dacia at a much later date. Historians copied historians, etc., as errors were perpetuated infinitum. The problem was-- no historians ever talked turkey with a Dacian. :roll:

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

About Ceausescu and "artificial links betwen modern day Romanians and Dacians", well, i think you didnt get all correct. The links exist, and are not artificial, for ex. most of all the folklore is from Dacian origin, folklore songs, some celebration who, even covered by christian "clothes" come from the pre-christian times of Dacians, the motifs and ornamental models from ceramic or textiles are as well from that times, and are more Dacian words in Romanian that are Gallic words in French, for ex. However, some artificial thing was tried, in sense that present Dacians as some hard working and correct peoples who see just their own business( the prototype of a kind of comunist society ) who fight against those Romans greedy imperialist ( see in present days of Ceausescu as any imperialist, from USSR to USA and her allies ), but this "links" was forced at political level, not as ethnic ( or even spiritual ) one.

Thank you. I just thought it was a question worth asking, because if it turned out that the government did in fact attempt to influence academia, it wouldn't be the first time in human history that this happened. :wink:
I just wonder, if in fact the words "Daci" and "Getae" refer to the same ethnic group, why we have two words. I see no reason to differentiate between Daci and Getae, but I suppose there is no way to find out for sure because we can't travel back in time.

Bravo!
You have cleared up the whole "problem."
I hope that what I wrote earlier was clear enough. The Goths, mentioned by Jordanes (and others) as "Getae," were not Getae at all. They simply settled in Dacia at a much later date. Historians copied historians, etc., as errors were perpetuated infinitum. The problem was-- no historians ever talked turkey with a Dacian. :roll:

All is well that's researched well.
Given the difficulties they had verifying accounts and making corrections during those times, not to mention getting lucky enough to have one's work survive on paper or tablets through the centuries uncorrupted, a mediocre ancient historian is better than no ancient historian at all.
At least this way the "great and marvellous deeds - some by Greeks and some by barbarians - may not be without their due glory," as Herodotus said!

[Alanus]

Probably the difference resulted from a tribal name (Getae?) and a geographical association (Dacii).

Thanks for quoting Herodotus. He was the first and one of best, considering what he had to work with in his own time. So many of his "wild tales" have been proved by archaeology; and by any account, he gave us some great stories.

[diegis]

[

Thank you. I just thought it was a question worth asking, because if it turned out that the government did in fact attempt to influence academia, it wouldn't be the first time in human history that this happened. :wink:
I just wonder, if in fact the words "Daci" and "Getae" refer to the same ethnic group, why we have two words. I see no reason to differentiate between Daci and Getae, but I suppose there is no way to find out for sure because we can't travel back in time.

Well, about that names, just see another comparation. Germans are called by most of the peoples "Germans", but they call themselves "Deutsch". Another comparation, "Latin" with "Roman", again two words, so i think something like that hapend with Dacians too, mostly greeks and sometimes even roman writers call them Getae, for ex. the personal doctor of Traian, Criton, wrote a book called "Getica", about Daco-Romans wars, but most Romans ( and Dacians themselvs, as Dio Cassius said ) use the name "Daci"( supposedly related with a phryigian word "daos", meaning "Wolf" ).Unfortunately most of writings about Dacians, especialy ones about Traian wars, including his "De bello Dacico" was lost or disapear ( i read an interesting theory why's that, but is just a theory and dont know how realistic is ).

[martijn.wijnhoven]

This paper can be found online; it might be interesting:

[size=150:13c8npyx]The Geto-Dacians Terminology Framework and Archaeological Obviousness - Drago? M?ndescu[/size]

Go here:
[url:13c8npyx]http://www.geocities.com/marin_serban/mandescu3.html[/url]

Cheers,

Martijn

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, about that names, just see another comparation. Germans are called by most of the peoples "Germans", but they call themselves "Deutsch".

I see where you are heading, but your example is wrong. 'German' is the English word, but the Dutch use 'Duits' and Italians use 'tedesco'.
On the other hand, the French use 'Allemand', Spanish use 'alemán', Portugese use 'alemão', and so on.