09-09-2009, 04:14 PM
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.
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.
Razvan A.
