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

[Rumo]

Hi R?zvan,

Let me see if i get it right. You imply that what Herodotus writed about Zalmoxis is in fact a similar thing with what, sorry, dont remember the name now, write about Frodo and his ring, a fantastic story? And everyone else "eat" that, century after century, as being a real thing?
I agree that we dont know too much about him, and probably greeks presented their knowledge about him(a limited one), enriched by what they added from something they believe is similar in their culture, all this presented for greeks "readers", let say.

I really don't know if Zalmoxis was Frodo-like or Alexander-like in the age of Herodotus. I am almost certain however that if he existed, man or god, he lived and was influential in his native society in 5th century BCE and earlier, not in the later times when Dacians were an enemy of Rome.
Some of the same ancients believing Zalmoxis was a slave of Pythagoras, a deity of the Getae or both, also believed Scythia (the neighbouring land) was inhabited by gold-guarding gryphons and one-eyed people!
And not everyone bought this story. As you well know, from Jordanes to Jacob Grimm, century after century, "the real thing" was that Zalmoxis was a Goth, a high priest, a philosopher, sometimes even a magician or an alchemist. So this rhetoric works against itself, as humans are gullible, they have this tendency to create and then believe in myths, legends, rumors, stereotypes, stories.

btw, never heard of those "nagomudri", but maybe i didnt read the right, or all, legends about him

Actually in that dictionary the article is about "blajini" (bienheureux). The Nagomudri are characters from the Slavonic Alexandria (see also p. 26-7).

Now about Julian the Apostate writing. I suppose you know better, and Iamblichus was one of the writers he liked (sorry, my latin is not verry good, i rely more on the similarities with romanian), but the information that Zalmoxe teached the Getae how to be, or that they are, immortal, appear to all authors who mentioned them, so i still he took that quote from Traian own writings, Traian who knew as well the reallity "from the field".

You may be right, only that we have no evidence Trajan wrote or knew such a thing. Cassius Dio, giving the most coherent account of the Dacian Wars, found nothing to report about Zalmoxis or anyone (man or god) having a remotely similar name.

About Zalmoxis, i still believe the most probable (thus we cant be 100% sure) is the one that he was covered at birth by a bear skin (sorry, i cant find the quote now), bear skin who, according with that greek author resemble the name of Zalmoxis. I know there was several attempts to rely his name with other words, but i think we can be sure of any of that.

I already replied to that. Porphyry of Tyre provided not one, but two etymologies. One that his name derives from "zalmos" (or "zalmon") meaning "skin, hide" in Thracian (and adding as argument the legend of his birth) and the other one that the name is to be read "zalmoxin" standing for "foreign man".

About the Kogaion and kaga, well, is possible your explanation too, to be a mix of older Zalmoxis story with a "new" stuff Strabo hear about Getae, but is still a material evidence of a place related with zamolxian religion, since we can be sure on any hypothesis. As well Strabo clearly knew some more detailed stuff about Dacians (and was greeks who worked for Burebista, especialy after dacian conquest of Black Sea greeks cities, and was in greco-roman world with missions and so, as well possible greeks engeeners was used in early stages of construction of some dacian fortreses, so he have some first hand sources for informations), he mention even a number of their army, some internal laws (see the problem with wine) [...] So, i believe that Strabo knew from sources contemporary with his period that dacians worship Zalmoxis, on the top of a holly mountain called Kogaion (which Herodotus didnt know), but since he obviously didnt know when and how dacians start to worship Zalmoxis, he rely on Herodotus story (and from "nationalistic" reasons he mention just the variant with Zalmoxis as slave of Pythagora).

There's no reason to believe Strabo was particularly well-informed about lower Danube basin (nor Poseidonius, his main source) and I already detailed how and why his narrative on Zalmoxis can be explained without referring to an indigenous reality.

The name of the mountain is Kôgaionon (four syllables, not three) and that should be important, especially if you endorse Olteanu-Slu?anschi's etymological hypothesis assuming a participle *kôgayonom. Sorin Olteanu has also this short notice in Romanian about the misuse of Kogaion.

and the campangnes against celts for ex. (he is the one who said, among few others, that celts from some areas was whipped out, etc.and archeology show he was right)

Evidence?

Now, about "dacomania/thracomania". I said that i know their exaggerations, some are quite laughable, but i never based my assumptions or informations on peoples like dr. (in physiscs or so) Savescu. I didnt know too much stuff about Dan Oltean, but seem that he obviously make too some mistakes or exaggerations, or jusy harder to prouve afirmations.

I am not sure how much you do, since you advocate their ideas, and even when warned you apparently still defend their aggressive ignorance. Dan Oltean and Ion Ghinoiu published in S?vescu's (btw, physician is not physicist) publications and they sometimes they even quote each other. Dan Dana mentions them both in a section under the title "Thracomania, from Densu?ianu to dacology".

But in the same time i try to avoid either the rigidity of some others stuck in their views, or the so called "demythization" category, who obviously exaggerate the things in the other side, and are no better then "protochronists"

Sure, anyone may exaggerate, but I'd appreciate if you can point out some specific errors.
Many myth debunkers were once believers (public education, right?) - what's rigid in changing your ideas once the evidence makes you to? Also the debunkers are usually experts in their field, while the protochronists often rant outside their area of expertise, proclaim their truths, sometimes also compose hymns, prayers, or even invent rituals to assert their beliefs (in Dacian, Pelasgian or whatever archaic origins).

As you see, my link show an article of the head of ethnologists team who worked for Romanian Ethnographic Atlas, for more then 30 years, and in almost 600 villages all over the country, in a period when for sure peoples still keep and know the old traditions. And this is the most qualified person to talk about the subject (as mythology and folklore having deep dacian roots). He is a very respected scholar who base his work (his team wok) on field researches, and cant be at all compared with some physician who developed a hobby for ancient history. Ofcourse, he didnt mention Zalmoxis for ex (and is probably impossible to make any detailed description of his cult, ofcourse), but from what he write there, some believes similar with what we know about them, survived up to the XX century in folklore and mythology.

That is an insane article (published also here) coming from a notoriously protochronist author. Ghinoiu has only a hobby for ancient history, because he graduated geography and he's working in an institute of Romanian ethnography and folklore, none related to ancient history, let alone prehistory (his narrative starts from Neolithic). When reading about Romanian women carrying weights on their heads, just like the Neolithic ones (this being, according to Ghinoiu, evidence for continuity) I am not sure whether should I laugh or cry. Or when reading about the (inorganic) universe being geomorphic(!) from subquantic level (I guess this reference comes from a bad SF movie) to galaxy clusters? Or about the three religious ages of mankind, of the Mother (10,000-4,500 BP), of the Father (4,500-2,000 BP) and of the Son (2,000 BP-today), about the indo-European god Christmas, the ludicrous etymologies and the connections between Romanian folklore and Vedic gods, about the Romanian "Pantheon" and "Book of the Dead"? And, of course, there's this perpetual lack of evidence, because the "Carpatho-Danubians" were too smart to write such things down and too secretive to leave behind a substantial trace of their beliefs.
His work received a good deal of criticism (but not enough). Here's a conclusion (slightly adapted by me) from a review by Otilia Hede?an: "I realized not only how a new project of Romanian mythology was not successful, but also how it failed eroded by the perverse effects of lack of professionalism."

As such, the discussion about Dacians and Getae should avoid this perspective of "spiritual unity" which is nothing but a myth.