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

[Vincula]

Similar views are for ex. about Cimbri and Teutoni, as being a Germano-Celtic mix

This is interesting: http://antoninuspius.blogspot.com/

[Alanus]

Lucy,

This has been noted by several historians. Several names of Cimbri leaders appear to be Celtic, which may indicate that the Cimbri may have been a mix and migrating with the Toutones. A migrating people, like the Goths, assimilated a wide range of cultures into the "gens," the overall fighting force. It was noted by Wolfram (who has been getting a lot of stabs these days :lol: ) that there are more Celtisizims in Gothic than in any other Germanic language.

Best,

[Rumo]

Alan,

We already discussed about names and Christianity. While you repeat the claims, I'll try not to repeat the arguments.

I already quoted from Otto Mänchen-Helfen's World of the Huns , you can check also his study published in Oriens (1957), "Germanic and Hunnic Names of Iranian Origin". One of the groups of Goths crossing the Danube was led by Alatheus and Saphrax. You already admitted Saphrax is of Iranian origin. Alatheus is somewhat controversial, as some scholars find it Germanic, some find it Iranian (for instance John Matthews in The Roman empire of Ammianus, 1989, p. 326). Other Gothic leaders from the same period with apparently non Germanic names are Farnobius (Pharn(a)- is an onomastic root of Iranian origin, widespread in the Greek epigraphy of the north-Pontic coast in names like Pharnakês, Pharnabazos, Pharnagos or Pharnoxarthos) and Colias (see Mänchen-Helfen's study).

Ulfilas preached to some communities on the Danube. How can their language be relevant for the entire Gothia?

• That the Goths as a nation were still heathen up to the time of their entry to the Roman empire in 376 is widely accepted, nor does Ammianus imply otherwise. It is evident that they contained some Christians, the missionary work of Ulfila, especially among prisoners of war and other Roman expatriates among them, having produced a considerable number of converts and Christian communities; but one would not imagine that these formed more than a minority of the population at large, nor that they penetrated to any great extent the higher echelons of Gothic society. (Matthews, 1989, 331)

By mentioning how Latinized/Romanized the Goths were by 460, you have given credence to the Three Generation Principle that you refuted earlier. Thanks. It only took three generations, and even the clothing changed.

It may look like a semantic nit-pick to you, but a refuted axiom cannot be reused. Axioms by definition must hold true in all cases and this one doesn't. It doesn't even hold true for Goths, as one small group of Crimean Goths preserved their language until the modern era.

I'm glad you agree that Dacian influence on the Cernjachov Culture was minimal. Therefore Dacians had a very minor influence on the Gothic culture as a whole, which is understandable. In this period-- late 3rd century to mid 4th century-- the Dacians weren't influencing anybody and were themselves being Latinized to the extent that the present language of Rumania still remains a strong and lyric "romance" tongue.

I didn't say "minimal", I said "limited". Many Dacians lived outside the Roman province of Dacia, so these people weren't speaking Latin (excepting some bilingual traders, mercenaries, etc.). In Brigetio (Pannonia) we have an early 3rd century inscription of one interprex Dacorum from legio I Adiutrix, evidence the language was still actively spoken so that the empire still needed translators.

• It would not be surprising if the Gothic federations, like their settlements, were more varied in composition than first impresions might suggest. According to Ammianus, the Huns killed and despoiled many of their Alan rivals and took the rest into alliance (31.3.1) - a pattern of warfare and accomodation among the barbarian peoples that must have been very frequent in the turmoil of this unsettled period. (Matthews, 1989, 326)

• Even when a culture group can be linked with a historically defined confederacy, as it can in the case of the Sîntana de Mure?-?ernjachov culture and the Goths, it would not tell us whether a user of this material culture was a Tervingian or Greuthungian Goth or whether s/he was not also a Sarmatian, a Dacian or a Taifal (or which of these s/he was). (Halsall, 2007, 61)

The last paragraph has a footnote referring to Linda Ellis, "Dacians, Sarmatians and Goths on the Roman-Carpathian frontier, 2nd-4th centuries" in Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity (eds. R. Mathisen and H. Sivan, 1996), 105-25. This study is mostly from archaeological perspective, and the conclusion is:

• Regrettably, very little is known about most of the peoples of post-Roman Eastern Europe. It is clear that several cultures were present east of the Carpathians from pre-Roman to post-Roman times. The archaeological evidence suggests that this region, and many of its settlements, were polyethnic and incorporated an effective presence and continuation of the native population. Answers to questions regarding the extent to which settlements and burial grounds were polyethnic, the nature and degree of co-existence, the processes of acculturation, or even the existence of social institutions to incorporate individuals through sanguine relationships, must await further archaeological excavations.

[Rumo]

We were discussing about Cniva and I'd like to point out a strange coincidence. The conflict between Decius and Cniva is accounted by a single source, Jordanes' Getica (101). Not only that, Decius' enemies are called Goths by two sources, Jordanes and a Cassiodorean Chronica (see under XXV Decius). The other sources call them Scythians (Zosimus, Zonaras) or barbarians (Eutropius, Aurelius Victor). That is not to suggest the entire episode is fictional, only that it may be "reworked". Other Roman enemies such as Burebistas were transformed into Goths, too.

If I missed any important ancient testimony on Decius and Cniva let me know.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Drago?,

Thank you for your input but I'm arguing for Gothic (focusing on their early centuries, when Goths ruled the territories north of lower Danube) armies having no Heeressprache (my actual claim being that there was no common language covering the entire ?ernjachov culture - see map above), so I find Xenophon's account quite relevant.

I know you do, and that's where I disagree - when the Goths emerge into Roman history, they do not seem to have been anything other than predominantly germanic, at least the dominant part of the group that we notice. The ?ernjachov-Sîntana de Mure? culture ranged from the late 3rd to the early 5th century - that's almost the entire period on the Goths attacking the emoire from the outside. If the Goths have anything to do with that culture, the germanic part must have been dominant as well in that culture, not just one of many languages on an equal footing. Which is why I think that all soldiers fighting in their armies knew the Gothic army language.

They may not have understood every word, just what the commands meant. Like in the later Roman armies:

An important question would be if in this case the soldiers actually understand a language or just use some codes with limited functionality. I have my doubts that all Roman soldiers around 600 were fluent in Latin, as the language was already fading from public usage in the east. Forgive my analogy (it's not meant to offend, just to illustrate the difference), telling a dog to roll over, it doesn't mean the dog actually understands or speaks English, even if it performs the action it was ordered to. I find no reason to assume such "meta-linguistic" commands weren't used in multilingual armies, regardless if they were words in some language, shouts, whistles, or virtually any signal which could be unequivocally perceived by soldiers as a specific order. But this is not a common language being spoken and understood.

Ah, but then I never argued that Latin was a common language that was understood by everyone in the, say, 6th c. Roman army. I don't think they did - they just understood the meaning of each command, regardless if the command itself was in proper Latin (which Latinists ad nauseam tell me it wasn't).

I believe the common language of the Late Empire barbarians was in most cases Latin.

I don't think that the common language of the barabrians was Latin. Why would it? Only those barbarians within the Roman sphere of influence would have had any use for it for economic or military purposes. But that would hardly be of neccesity for the common man. Germanic barbarians, I have little doubt, spoke germanic languages amongst each other. Maybe if enrolled in the Roman army they learned to speak Latin.

I mean, even among the citizens of the Empire, Latin was not the common language! Sure, to treat with the government it was, but then most people might not have to, and then I speak of the West only. The Roman government in the East spoke Greek first, and only then Latin.

The traces of written Germanic dialects are scarce. It's weird that even few runic inscriptions are known from ?ernjachov space, there are none (to my knowledge) in Ostrogothic Italy. The mentions of spoken Gothic in Italy are also few, and in most cases it's about bilinguals anyway. Italy was mostly Latin speaking and most probably the Ostrogothic armies had also local recruits. I find rather the Goths using Latin than everybody else learning Gothic.

I don't find it strange . Runes were for the literate, and only a few would have used them. Plus, how many Goths actually settled in Italy? It's not like the peninsula was flooded with them, and by then the group, heterogeneous to begin with, would already have been receiving other newcomers for generations.

I agree that the Gothic armies in Italy would most likely have been Latin speaking rather than impose a germanic language.

[diegis]

I know you do, and that's where I disagree - when the Goths emerge into Roman history, they do not seem to have been anything other than predominantly germanic, at least the dominant part of the group that we notice. The ?ernjachov-Sîntana de Mure? culture ranged from the late 3rd to the early 5th century - that's almost the entire period on the Goths attacking the emoire from the outside. If the Goths have anything to do with that culture, the germanic part must have been dominant as well in that culture, not just one of many languages on an equal footing. Which is why I think that all soldiers fighting in their armies knew the Gothic army language.

They may not have understood every word, just what the commands meant. Like in the later Roman armies:

The traces of written Germanic dialects are scarce. It's weird that even few runic inscriptions are known from ?ernjachov space, there are none (to my knowledge) in Ostrogothic Italy. The mentions of spoken Gothic in Italy are also few, and in most cases it's about bilinguals anyway. Italy was mostly Latin speaking and most probably the Ostrogothic armies had also local recruits. I find rather the Goths using Latin than everybody else learning Gothic.

I don't find it strange . Runes were for the literate, and only a few would have used them. Plus, how many Goths actually settled in Italy? It's not like the peninsula was flooded with them, and by then the group, heterogeneous to begin with, would already have been receiving other newcomers for generations.

I agree that the Gothic armies in Italy would most likely have been Latin speaking rather than impose a germanic language.

Hello Robert

I might disagree (again) with you. I agree on the fact that Goths had a germanic part, and when they entered in Roman Empire this even become a dominant one and played an important role (even if there they adopted too more and more latin language). But during the Santana/Cernyakhov phase, is hardly to consider that germanic part of the culture was the dominant one since the material dominant culture wasnt for sure the germanic one, as archeology show, but the autochtonous ones comes first (Dacian, Sarmatian, etc., and a visible Roman influence too, beside some germanic elements). As well, as Ovidius said, if he wanted to talk and understand with peoples in Schytia Minor, either Getae/Dacians or Sarmatians, he needed to learn getic language, meaning that the lingua franca was the dacian one in a areas where dacians meet other cultures around (except romans). So, is much more likely that a was used more languages in gothic army.
As well, none of the chronicars back then related the goths with germanic people. As far as i know (and if you know more you can correct me, of course, since i am just an amateur), there is nowhere in ancient time a writing who said that goths was germanic, and all the roman emperors or generals who fight against them always took the title "Goticus Maximus" or even "Geticus", unlike the times when they fight with tribes as Alemani, Cherusci, Chati, Marcomani, etc. when they always used "Germanicus Maximus".
So, in my opinion, goths was so mixed, that they was considered a "new" peoples, not directly linked with any other bigger "group", like Thraco-Dacians, Germans, Irano-Sarmatians.

[diegis]

The only confusion come with Masagetae tribe, who had the Getae name in it, but have iranic elements too (some rulers name, etc.). Most probably this was a mix betwen a Getae/Dacian tribe and a Scythian one. Similar views are for ex. about Cimbri and Teutoni, as being a Germano-Celtic mix, or Bastarnae (the same).

Let's not forget the Thyssagetae, who are really hard to pin down, but probably lived somewhere near the southern Ural Mountains.

Hi Justin
Yes, you are right, i maked a confusion, it was the TyraGetae located around Dniepr river (northwest of Black Sea), not TyssaGetae.

[Rumo]

I know you do, and that's where I disagree - when the Goths emerge into Roman history, they do not seem to have been anything other than predominantly germanic, at least the dominant part of the group that we notice. The ?ernjachov-Sîntana de Mure? culture ranged from the late 3rd to the early 5th century - that's almost the entire period on the Goths attacking the emoire from the outside. If the Goths have anything to do with that culture, the germanic part must have been dominant as well in that culture, not just one of many languages on an equal footing. Which is why I think that all soldiers fighting in their armies knew the Gothic army language.

Hello Robert,

As it was pointed out already, the ?ernjachov culture is an area inhabited by people having several identities (and possibly also languages). I already argued for the existence of non-Germanic Gothic names and for the isolation (the case of few runic inscriptions) or the limited spread (some communities on the lower Danube receiving a Bible written in a Germanic idiom) of the attested Germanic languages in this space, so on what grounds can be postulated a dominant Germanic idiom? We don't even know the Gothic institutions (not even the army!) which functioned over that entire region (if there was any), how can one be so sure of their language then?

The Germanic barbarians inside the empire were not only Germanic speakers from the Scythian Gothia. The Goths kept receiving new recruits, Romans and barbarians alike. As for the Germanic component, Wolfram found Heruli, Rugi, Sciri or Suevi among these Goths, and for Patrick Amory in Balkans "groups speaking various Germanic dialects had settled since the late 300s" (People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554, 2003, 103). Some of them came from Scythia, but others came from Middle Danube basin and Central Europe.

As I started to outline in my previous post, it's not only that, but also the Goths as entity (either "Germanic" or multi-cultural) are usually pictured in stronger colors than what the sources allow us to see.

"The first securely attested Gothic raid" (as Michael Kulikowsi called it in his Rome's Gothic Wars) is the one from 238. One of the most "pro-Gothic" modern accounts comes from Wolfram's History of the Goths (translated by the same Thomas Dunlap), in the 1990 edition at page 44:

• A new stage is reached in 238 when the rumblings along the border erupt into a massive Gothic onslaught. The attackers plundered and pillaged Histros-Histria south of the mouth of the Danube and then withdrew again. A year of historic significance marks the beginning of this "Scythian war". Whereas until this time the Romans could only suspect the formation of a new greater-Scythian gens behind the attacking groups, that gens now emerged into the open, assuming leadership in the hostilities against the empire.

Judging by this wording one would expect some incontrovertible evidence for this emerging ("Germanic") "Scythian gens" and its devastating attacks upon the Roman empire (though that pillaging one city is far from impressive, the history of the Roman borders is replete with such events). However, as far as I know, this "Gothic" raid is attested by a single source, the notoriously unreliable Historia Augusta. In the book about Maximus and Balbinus, XVI.3:
Sub his pugnatum est a Carpis contra Moesos. Fuit et Scythici belli principium, fuit et Histriae excidium eo tempore, ut autem Dexippus dicit, Histricae civitatis.

This chapter of HA is one of the two sources forming the so-called fragment 14 of Dexippus' lost work (see Historici Graeci Minores, vol. I, 1870 Dindorf's edition, p. 176-7). The other source is a short excerpt from Evagrius' Historia ecclesiastica (see the end of book V), where Dexippus is mentioned as author of a history of the Scythian wars lasting until the reign of Claudius, including the military conflicts in Balkans against Carpi and other barbarians.

One major problem is that we don't actually know what Dexippus wrote. Apparently it was about Scythians (for an overview see Fergus Millar's "P. Herennius Dexippus: The Greek World and the Third-Century Invasions" in JRS, 59/1969, 12-29) and some of these Scythians perhaps were Goths (and even Germanic speakers). Yet most modern scholars seem to assume that whenever we find Scythians correlated with Dexippus we should read Goths. We know most Greek historians called Scythians the populations living north of lower Danube and Black Sea, regardless of their language, hairstyle or weapons, this label being used even in the Middle Ages. Perhaps a more sensible approach would be: if two or more different populations attacked the Roman Empire from the same Scythia (quite a vast space), would we expect a Greek author (like Dexippus) to make a difference, to call them somehow else but Scythians or barbarians, by their real tribal names? I believe not, so the equation Scythians=Goths catalyzed by the mere mention of Dexippus' name should be regarded with suspicion.

And here is the circular (or spiral) argument about Goths. The sources we have on them are interpreted in order to maximize "Gothicness" and sometimes "Germanicity" and that is further used to postulate it as a fact and to strengthen the conviction that the current conclusions are correct and even to interpret more sources in this fashion.

On my previous argument on the campaigns of Decius in Balkans, I found one more mention in Syncellus' (a late 8th/early 9th century Greek historian) Chronographia. Under the year 5746/AD 246(sic!) we find an attack of Scythians called also Goths (?? ????????? ??????) over Danube confirming some elements from Jordanes' account (Nicopolis, Philippopolis, Abrittus), but not Cniva. In this case I am still doubting the equation Scythians=Goths, because neither the "Gothic histories" nor this account prove this identification existed in the 3rd century sources (like Dexippus).

I don't think that the common language of the barabrians was Latin. Why would it? Only those barbarians within the Roman sphere of influence would have had any use for it for economic or military purposes. But that would hardly be of neccesity for the common man. Germanic barbarians, I have little doubt, spoke germanic languages amongst each other. Maybe if enrolled in the Roman army they learned to speak Latin.

I mean, even among the citizens of the Empire, Latin was not the common language! Sure, to treat with the government it was, but then most people might not have to, and then I speak of the West only. The Roman government in the East spoke Greek first, and only then Latin.

My wording was perhaps unfortunate, but by "Late Empire barbarians" I meant "barbarians within the Empire" (the sentence is the first one from a paragraph about Gothic Italy). And that eventually happened, because, as I already said, we have Romance languages not Germanic languages in most of the ex-territory of the Western Empire. But you're correct to point out this situation didn't happen everywhere (for instance those Dacian soldiers guarding in Egypt wrote on ostraca in Greek) - it is my mistake as I focused on Late Empire's Goths settled in the latinophone provinces.

I don't find it strange . Runes were for the literate, and only a few would have used them.

But there were arguably more Goths who were literate in Italy than in Scythia. And I wonder why a strong tradition and a prestigious language allegedly responsible for the "Germanization" of hundreds of thousands of natives in Eastern Europe disappeared so quickly. The barbarian languages of the Slavs expanded greatly (even under non-Slavic speaking elites, like the Bulgars and the Rus) and Slavic literacy (Slavonic) flourished, why it wasn't the case for Gothic? Isn't actually the case that Gothic, much like Hunnic, Avaric, old Bulgarian, etc. was the language of the few, and not really a common language (not necessarily native, even as a second language) of the many? Should we believe that the inhabitants of Eastern Europe learned a new language every time new conquerors dominated the region or that most those languages weren't that influential?

[Rumo]

As well, as Ovidius said, if he wanted to talk and understand with peoples in Schytia Minor, either Getae/Dacians or Sarmatians, he needed to learn getic language, meaning that the lingua franca was the dacian one in a areas where dacians meet other cultures around (except romans). So, is much more likely that a was used more languages in gothic army.

Hi R?zvan,

Ovid's exile experience was in Tomis and its hinterland, so whatever interpretation one chooses for his verses, it's no evidence for a lingua franca, Getic or of some other sort. If I'm advocating for a multilingual Gothia, be sure I do the same for pre-Roman Dacia or Scythia Minor 8)

However we shouldn't take his words for granted. He complained his poetry might contain barbarian words, but as far as I know the classicists found none :wink:

[Alanus]

Hailog, Rumo

One of the groups of Goths crossing the Danube was led by Alatheus and Saphrax. You already admitted Saphrax is of Iranian origin. Alatheus is somewhat controversial, as some scholars find it Germanic, some find it Iranian (for instance John Matthews in The Roman empire of Ammianus, 1989, p. 326). Other Gothic leaders from the same period with apparently non Germanic names are Farnobius (Pharn(a)- is an onomastic root of Iranian origin....

First off, I "stated" that Safrax was an Alan. I did not "admit" he was one, because there was no argument for him being otherwise. Perhaps the nomen Alatheus is also Iranian, but it doesn't matter. That's not the point; and shifting gears to Matthews doesn't help you much. There is one fact that is entirely Not Controversial-- He was a high-ranking Greutungus within the Gothic social framework.

These two men are linked to the Eastern Goths who lived in the same geographical location of the east part of the Cernjachov Culture. Ermaneric appears to be the last king involved in the great consolidation of all these eastern tribes; and after his death, the new king was Vithimiris. Upon the death of Vithimiris, his young son Vidimir was placed in charge of Alatheus and Safrax, "the Two Duces," his guardians and regents. Alatheus was obviously a Greutungus, simply because the tribe would not have handed Vidimir over to the Alans. It was the specific role of Two Duces to raise Videric until he reached majority and would assume leadership of the Greutungi.

Ulfilas preached to some communities on the Danube. How can their language be relevant for the entire Gothia?

Their language wasn't relative to the entire extent of Gothia, but it was relative to the leadership of the Tyrfingi. We find a civil war rising after Ulfilas and his future "Gothi minores" were admitted into the Eastern Empire-- aka Fritigern vs Athanaric. A closer look at the wheelings and dealings between Fritigern and Valens shows that Fritigern was in all probability an Arian Christian several years prior to his crossing into the Empire in 376. In either 370 or 371, he asked Valens for aid against Athanaric; and he was given riparian troops (or maybe cavalry) in this fight.

This set a precedent. Prior to this, no barbarian leader was ever given aid by a Roman emperor to settle a dispute outside the empire (that I know of). Fritigern "used" Arianism, the staunch faith of Valens, to battle Athanaric who was conducting a persecution of Christians at exactly this time. Of course, there is also the probability that Fritigern was a former federate officer. But what is important, Fritigern spoke (and probably read) Ulfilas' Gothic language, as did his cousin Alaviv. (So did his nephew Alaric, who had Bishop Sigesar in his camp.) Obviously, Fritigern remained on good terms with Valens, and we see cooperation again a few years later. The current view of historians-- that all of Fritigern's Goths knelt before a presbyter of Valens-- is somewhat simplistic.

Quite frankly, your insistance that the Gothic hierarchy spoke a language other than Gothic has no substrantive foundation. You haven't shown any real proof, only suggesting that the entire Gothic culture did not speak the command language. These are entirely different associations-- (a) hierarchial command language and (b) varying tongues of a broader populace within the Guthilda. You are using the opinions of Heather, or Matthews, or whomever, but their writings are opinions not gospel. An inquiring mind has the perfect right to disagree with any opinion until it can be proven unequivically sound. And that hasn't happened yet.

[diegis]

As well, as Ovidius said, if he wanted to talk and understand with peoples in Schytia Minor, either Getae/Dacians or Sarmatians, he needed to learn getic language, meaning that the lingua franca was the dacian one in a areas where dacians meet other cultures around (except romans). So, is much more likely that a was used more languages in gothic army.

Hi R?zvan,

Ovid's exile experience was in Tomis and its hinterland, so whatever interpretation one chooses for his verses, it's no evidence for a lingua franca, Getic or of some other sort. If I'm advocating for a multilingual Gothia, be sure I do the same for pre-Roman Dacia or Scythia Minor 8)

However we shouldn't take his words for granted. He complained his poetry might contain barbarian words, but as far as I know the classicists found none :wink:

Salut Dragos

Well, maybe i didnt express myself very precise (i know, my english isnt very good). I didnt mean that all the peoples on the Black Sea coast of province Schytia Minor (later included in Moesia) speak only dacian, even if they was sarmatians, greeks or romans. Ofcourse they speak their languages as the primary language, but since Ovid learn dacian (even suposedly write some poetry in this language, and i read about at least 3 theories about why "classicists doesnt find those words, but is not the place to discuss them i think), my conclusion is that this was the lingua franca in the area, meaning that when peoples of diferent ethnicity want to understand eachother, used the dacian language, dacians (getians) being the dominant peoples, especialy as number. Ofcourse, this was at few years after romans included the province in the empire, later the latin becomed prevalent, no doubt. But i see this situation to be similar later, in dacian part of Santana/Cherneakhov culture (based too on the fact that material culture was predominantly dacian as well). But since we dont have too many info from that period, is more supossitions, agree.

[Rumo]

Alan,

Quite frankly, your insistance that the Gothic hierarchy spoke a language other than Gothic has no substrantive foundation. You haven't shown any real proof, only suggesting that the entire Gothic culture did not speak the command language. These are entirely different associations-- (a) hierarchial command language and (b) varying tongues of a broader populace within the Guthilda. You are using the opinions of Heather, or Matthews, or whomever, but their writings are opinions not gospel. An inquiring mind has the perfect right to disagree with any opinion until it can be proven unequivically sound. And that hasn't happened yet.

The burden of proof lies on the affirmative. If one believes the entire pre-Hunnic Gothic hierarchy spoke a Germanic dialect, that their soldiers of Sarmatian extraction received orders in a Germanic dialect (the same or another one) or that in three generations the Sarmatians, Dacians and other non-Germanic populations learned to speak Gothic (like Ulfilas or people purchasing groceries, because they had to serve in the army or to understand the Bible or whatever other reason was assumed), then some evidence is needed to support such theories. I argued all along there's no evidence for such things, so what should I do more? To bring evidence there's no evidence? I can't prove a seven-legged three-eyed green dwarf doesn't exist, those who advocate its existence should present a proof first.

You write about free inquiry and the right to disagree. But then who is the author of claims such as "whatever nit-picking you and I are doing isn't going to change the fact that the Goths extended from a Germanic ethos" or "the Tyrfing-Tryfingi-Hervar-Saga link is irrefutable in the standard world of common sense and logic"?

First off, I "stated" that Safrax was an Alan. I did not "admit" he was one, because there was no argument for him being otherwise.

I know and I already corrected you on that. No source calls Saphrax an Alan. For both Jordanes and Ammianus Marcellinus, Alatheus and Safrac/Saphrax are no more and no less but two generals of the Goths.

Perhaps the nomen Alatheus is also Iranian, but it doesn't matter. That's not the point;

That's exactly the point because that was a reply to "the rulers of those Goths that crossed the Danube (and rulers of previous generations) had Gothic names" which is obviously not true if by Gothic here you mean a Germanic language.

and shifting gears to Matthews doesn't help you much.

As in the previous case you probably missed the point. If the Christian communities were only "a minority of the population at large" and they did not penetrate "to any great extent the higher echelons of Gothic society", then their language (and also that of the Gothic Bible) cannot be proven to be the common language of the Goths (at some point you supported a "full scale evangelism") or of their rulers.

There is one fact that is entirely Not Controversial-- He was a high-ranking Greutungus within the Gothic social framework.

These two men are linked to the Eastern Goths who lived in the same geographical location of the east part of the Cernjachov Culture. Ermaneric appears to be the last king involved in the great consolidation of all these eastern tribes; and after his death, the new king was Vithimiris. Upon the death of Vithimiris, his young son Vidimir was placed in charge of Alatheus and Safrax, "the Two Duces," his guardians and regents. Alatheus was obviously a Greutungus, simply because the tribe would not have handed Vidimir over to the Alans. It was the specific role of Two Duces to raise Videric until he reached majority and would assume leadership of the Greutungi.

According to Ammianus the name of the child was Viderichus. However Alatheus and Saphrax are mentioned together, not raising a child, but leading the Goths.

[Rumo]

Salut Dragos

Well, maybe i didnt express myself very precise (i know, my english isnt very good). I didnt mean that all the peoples on the Black Sea coast of province Schytia Minor (later included in Moesia) speak only dacian, even if they was sarmatians, greeks or romans. Ofcourse they speak their languages as the primary language, but since Ovid learn dacian (even suposedly write some poetry in this language, and i read about at least 3 theories about why "classicists doesnt find those words, but is not the place to discuss them i think), my conclusion is that this was the lingua franca in the area, meaning that when peoples of diferent ethnicity want to understand eachother, used the dacian language, dacians (getians) being the dominant peoples, especialy as number. Ofcourse, this was at few years after romans included the province in the empire, later the latin becomed prevalent, no doubt. But i see this situation to be similar later, in dacian part of Santana/Cherneakhov culture (based too on the fact that material culture was predominantly dacian as well). But since we dont have too many info from that period, is more supossitions, agree.

Salut R?zvan,

I think you made your point quite clear, because this is what I also said I don't agree with. The evidence of Dacian (and other native dialects north of Haemus) is scarce. We don't even know for sure the area in which Dacian was spoken, let alone that it was a lingua franca. Do you know any instance of Bastarne speaking to Sarmatians using Dacian? I don't.

Also I'm not sure the Dacians (or the Getae) were that numerous. I know what Herodotus wrote of Thracians, but that's no accurate census :wink:

[diegis]

Salut R?zvan,

I think you made your point quite clear, because this is what I also said I don't agree with. The evidence of Dacian (and other native dialects north of Haemus) is scarce. We don't even know for sure the area in which Dacian was spoken, let alone that it was a lingua franca. Do you know any instance of Bastarne speaking to Sarmatians using Dacian? I don't.

Also I'm not sure the Dacians (or the Getae) were that numerous. I know what Herodotus wrote of Thracians, but that's no accurate census :wink:

Yes, unfortunately we have few sources "to work with", and dont know how exact they are. Sometimes greek historians (and others like romans too sometimes) exaggerate the numbers, like the persian army at Thermopile for ex. However, if we put togheter thracians from sout of Haemus, phrygians, even cimmerians, and ofcourse getians (dacians), including here those "getae" tribes mentioned before, tyragetae, tysagetae and masagetae (even if later ones was probably in a similar situation with goths, a mix of dacian and scythian/iranic elements), we can reach the same conclusion as Herodotus, with thracians the most numerous peoples on Earth, after indians. Anyway, we can make a general idea, from other sources, regarding just Dacians now, if we look at regions where "dava" (dacian towns/fortreses) apear, and this is quite a widespread areas, from south of Danube to today Slovakia. As well, Dacian army of Burebista was considered able to reach a number of 200,000 soldiers (acording to Strabo). This was calculated by some historians that come from a number of at least 2,000,000 peoples, if not more (the ratio of 1soldier to 10 peoples was in fact more an ideal, and not allways easy to achieve). And i dont think in time of Decebal the population number changed too much, or droped too much, even if Decebalus, agree, doesnt rule over the same amount of teritories and peoples as Burebista, but dacians didnt drop their number after all. Comparing this with just 100,000 goths of Teodoric the Great, a multiethnic conglomerat, where probably even some dacians was part, even they passed in south of Danube. Bastarnae wasnt any big tribe, especialy after Burebista campaignes agaisnt them, and i dont know either about sarmatians in the area to be a huge number, or being too influent, since not just numerical, but from cultural (and even social) point of view (military too for a long time) Dacians was the dominant power no doubt.

[Rumo]

R?zvan,

However, if we put togheter thracians from sout of Haemus, phrygians, even cimmerians, and ofcourse getians (dacians), including here those "getae" tribes mentioned before, tyragetae, tysagetae and masagetae (even if later ones was probably in a similar situation with goths, a mix of dacian and scythian/iranic elements), we can reach the same conclusion as Herodotus, with thracians the most numerous peoples on Earth, after indians.

And how do you know all these people spoke the same (Thracian) language, or even that they shared a common identity? Apparently even the populations north (Dacians, Moesians, Getae) and south (Thracians) of Haemus had different languages. Dan Dana argued in one recent study ("Les daces dans les ostraca du désert oriental de l'Égypte. Morphologie des noms daces" published in ZPE, 143/2003, 166-186):

• Georgiev avait affirmé depuis 1957 que le thrace et le dace étaient des langues différentes, établissant une distinction bien évidente sur le plan de la toponymie: -dava en Mésie et en Dacie, -para et -bria en Thrace. Ces données semblent être confirmées par la répartition des anthroponymes. Georgiev a comparé seulement les noms des rois thraces et daces, mais c'était suffisant pour observer, à juste titre, qu'il n'y a pas de correspondance entre les deux onomastiques, ce qui s'ajoute à la différenciation toponymique pour indiquer que le dace et le thrace sont deux langues indo-européennes différentes. Ce dont il n'a pas fait l'examen, c'est l'onomastique des gens ordinaires, qui confirme l'idée de deux langues distinctes.

The best overview in English I know (though somewhat obsolete as many Dacian and Thracian names were discovered recently) is Edgar Polomé's chapter "Balkan languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-Moesian)" in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3.1 (1982), 866-88.

Anyway, we can make a general idea, from other sources, regarding just Dacians now, if we look at regions where "dava" (dacian towns/fortreses) apear, and this is quite a widespread areas, from south of Danube to today Slovakia.

Fair enough, but often those "davas" are intermingled with Celtic, Iranic, not to mention Greek and Latin toponyms. It's hard to get a fair diachronic perspective and to attempt to find the languages spoken in a certain moment of time, but the variety available should make us cautious about any sweeping statements claiming a dominant language over this vast area.