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

[Rumo]

R?zvan,

i agree that many things writed back then was "enriched" by imagination of authors, but that doesnt mean that Zalmoxis wasnt a real character, and, to use your own word, we dont have any evidence to show that he was a pure invention. It was writed that at Termopile was 1 million of persians or something, for sure an unreal number, but this doesnt mean that at Termopile wasnt a battle where some greeks fight with a persian army, bigger then greek one. Examples can go in each direction.

I already replied to that. Perhaps I should have added there's no essential difference between Zalmoxis the Getae and Zalmoxis the Goth (for both we have a tradition), therefore a more consistent approach is recommended.

Here i show you a an article (unfortunately is just in romanian). You need to see the full article, and look for parts with Dacian religion and Zalmoxis, since is more stuff betwen them, related with magic, ritual sex, secret ancient societies ( which i found verry interesting as well). Is a serious and very well documented article, of I.P.Culianu, with references to Mircea Eliade and Cicerone Poghirc mostly (all professors on western european and american univesrsities and authorities in their domain), as well references to bibliography and several others authors. Mircea Eliade is one of the most biggest worldwide historian of religions anyway, and Culianu follow his steps (Poghirc too was anyway an important researcher in domain too), and others authors as Russu and Daicoviciu (among others) are mentioned there. As you will see to them, Zalmoxis was indeed venerated and his religion spread not just to geto-dacians, but in some degree to southern thracians as well, and there are some big diferences too betwen this northern thracians (daco-getae) and southern thracians.

I'm quite familiar with the writings of I. P. Culianu and M. Eliade. Those articles are translated from English, for they were included in Eliade's Encylclopedia of Religion (1987). In volume 16 Culianu and Poghirc argued that "Zalmoxis was the founder, possibly legendary, of a priestly line of succession closely linked with kingship of the Getae and the Dacians, the northernmost Thracian peoples of the ancient world. Whether he is a figure of legend or of history is moot, as are questions of his religious functions." (p. 551, all emphases mine) I know there are substantial differences between their view and Z. Petre's and D. Dana's (or even that of Z. Archibald), however please note the aura of uncertainty and that there's no links to Romanian folklore or protochronist authors such as D. Oltean and I. Ghinoiu. I'd highly appreciate if you can refrain from quoting the latter and you'd use Eliade, Culianu and other scholars for reference.

about Traian wars. Unfortunately his work, "De bello Dacico" - "Dacica" was lost today, and Dio Cassius accounts arent too detailed, is just some fragments and short translations who survived, far away from a complete work of him and we dont know for sure what exactly he writed in his complet accounts about this wars and about dacians. As well, we had Julian the Apostate quoting Traian, so is, at least in my opinion, much logical to quote from what Traian really said and was recorded maybe even by him, in his writings, then to inspire from someone who inspired from someone else to put that words in Traian mouth. I am sure accounts about Traian life and wars was still present durring Julian reign, and he read it them.

So you don't know what Trajan wrote but you're sure Julian quoted Trajan
Here's Trajan's speech (327C-328B):

• O Zeus and ye other gods, when I took over the empire it was in a sort of lethargy and much disordered by the tyranny that had long prevailed at home and by the insolent conduct of the Getae. I alone ventured to attack the tribes beyond the Danube, and I subdued the Getae, the most warlike race that ever existed, which is due partly their phsyical courage, partyl to the doctrines that they have adotpted from their admired Zalmoxis. For they believe that they do not die but only change their place of abode, and they meet death more readily than other men undertake a journey. Yet I accomplished that task in a matter of five years or so. That of all the Emperors who came before me I was regarded as the mildest in the treatment of my subjects, is, I imagine, obvbious and neither Caesar here nor any other will dispute it with me. Against the Parthians I thought I ought not to employ force until they had put themselves in the wrong, but when they did so I marched against them, undeterred by my age, though the laws would have allowed me to quit the service. Since then the facts are as I have said, do I not deserve to be honoured before all the rest, first because I was so mild to my subjects, secondly because more than others I inspired terror in my country's foes, thirdly because I revered your daughter divine Philosophy?

You said there is no reason to believe Strabo was better informed about Dacians, yet he mention Kogaionon, the holly mountain of dacians, a thing about Herodotus didnt know. And was found those material evidences about word "kaga" with the meaning as "holly" (as it appear on Sorin Oltean site), so is clear he know what is talking about, even better then what Herodotus know.

We don't know if Strabo's testimony is accurate, as he is the only one mentioning such a mountain. Kaga only suggests (if there's indeed a etymological relation between the two words) that K?gaionon is somewhat related to sacrality, to religion, so the authentic reality behind this name could be anything, a title, a name of a ritual or a temple. We don't know how Strabo came to write his text, but I find unlikely he (or his informers) learned from Dacians about their (allegedly unique or most important) god being a slave of Pythagoras. And here's what I find problematic about this interpretation of yours, you find the single most common thing reported about Zalmoxis (the Pythagorean topos) legendary and at the same time you find truthful the singular, unverifiable testimonies (that his followers practiced this cult in mountains, or that at his birth he was wrapped in a bear skin).

I dont have time now to search and post all evidences about daco-celtic wars, but i read that not just Strabo, but Pliny the Elder too mentioned that celts was "vanished" (it was used the expressions "boian desert" or "terra deserta" to describe the land where they lived previously), and in Slovakia was descovered archeologicaly that the big celtic "oppida" around Bratislava (probably the capitol of Boian alliance kingdom), today Slovakia, was burned down by dacians.

So you're saying the evidence for extermination is one destroyed fortification and a vague reference in Pliny's NH?

From András Mócsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia (1974):

• According to Strabo, Burebista's claim to certain areas led to war which eneded c. 45 BC in the defeat of the Boii and their allies the Taurisci. [...] The Boii were no more wiped out than were the Scordisci by Scipio. But the extensive and apparently well-established Boian area of control disintegrated, while the Dacians, even if they did not found any large settlements, nevertheless established outposts in many parts of the Carpathian region. (p. 19)

• The villa at Parndorf has the biggest yard, house, bath-house and granary. It is in the territory of the civitas Boiorum and was built towards the end of the first century. It is probably correct to assume that it was the seat of a very rich member of the Boian aristocracy. (p. 171)

This last paragraph also reveals the evidence we have for the survival of this tribe. A community is clearly attested in CIL IX 5363 where we find a prefect of ripae Danuvi(i) et civitatium duar(um) Boior(um) et Azalior(um)

I'll reply later on your longer excursus defending protochronism.