Quote:Thucydides is obviously reffering to Getae (Dacians) as something distinct from Scythians.
Yes, the Dacian inhabitants lived in Dacia, and the Scythian inhabitants lived in Scythia... but these terms did not refer to an ethnic culture.
Michael Grant: "There was a gigantic series of migratory waves.."
Michael Grant was supporting the old-and-disproved "Migration Theory," in which every cataclysm was blamed on barbaric raiders killing and looting the sedentary populations. This silly view was also used by Riane Eisler in The Chalice and the Blade, an incredibly flawed yet popular book which blames steppe cultures for the ruination of "Old Europe" through a new and terrible male dominence... when in actuality early steppe tribes were matriarchal.
Stepes people already used horses since quite a long time at that point, but a wave or some warrior groups of Getae/Dacians (maybe later known as Masagetae or Tysagetae) may influenced them to adopt some of their customs or symbolism, as a "battle standard", or maybe adapting that to their own customs and views.
I resent your use of "Massagetae" in relation to hypothetical "Dacians." The Massagetae are considered as a part of the Saka culture, all of them steppe tribes and living on the other side of the Caspian Sea. This is beginning to sound like a broken record, scratching its way at us again... after a long and enjoyed two of three year vacation from it.
Over time those Getae tribes was probably absorbed in the mass of locals (Iranic people, maybe some Mongol/Turkic ones too).
There were no "Getae" tribes. Carpi, Celts, Greeks, yes... all living in Dacia. But the "Getae" were adopted in the 1970's as a vehicle of Rumanian nationalism from a sadly mistaken Jordanes, et al.
Here is something about the domestication of horses
<<Wild horses were domesticated in the Ponto-Caspian steppe region (today Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Romania) in the 3rd millennium B.C. >>
If the Carpi and other groups living in Dacia were "steppe tribes," they have never been classified as such by anthropologists.
It's my great hope that someday the cloud of Rumanian and Turkic nationalism shall fall by the wayside, and then we can again have open-minded historical discussions on the internet. :whistle:
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Quote:
Yes, the Dacian inhabitants lived in Dacia, and the Scythian inhabitants lived in Scythia... but these terms did not refer to an ethnic culture.
:grin: and are you kind enough to post some sources to support your beliefs?
Quote: Michael Grant: "There was a gigantic series of migratory waves.."
Michael Grant was supporting the old-and-disproved "Migration Theory," in which every cataclysm was blamed on barbaric raiders killing and looting the sedentary populations. This silly view was also used by Riane Eisler in The Chalice and the Blade, an incredibly flawed yet popular book which blames steppe cultures for the ruination of "Old Europe" through a new and terrible male dominence... when in actuality early steppe tribes were matriarchal.
Gosh, Michael Grant and others I mentioned didnt talk about supposed steppes indo-european migrations of Marja Gimbutas. That, if happened, happend long before. He and others talk about the period at the end of bronze age and begining of iron age, somewhere around 1200 BC.
There is another historian, Axel Kristinsson if I remember correct (I dont have time and mood to search for him now, and I posted a while ago something from a Cambridge historian but the post was deleted and I will not bother anymore to repost it) who talk about this.
It wasnt a migration of barbaric raiders vs sedentary people. It was mostly sedentary people, dealing with agriculture and living in Carpathian basin who for some reason (probably over population, Kristenssen talk about a possible religious fervor reason too) started a series of migrations and invasions (that lead to apparition of "sea people" too) pushing others in front of them as well in a cascade effect.
This was the Thraco-Dacians moving and spreading, as the Celts, Greeks, Iranic, Romans, Germanic will do later. All indo-european tribes did that, this is again no surprise, is just that few talk about it as the camps are already formed and have their "filiations" (Celtophiles, Germanophiles, Iranophiles etc). As Thraco-Dacians are supossedly not anymore around and they can change the views about who's who in ancient times they are many times bypassed, overlooked, ignored, denied etc
Quote:I resent your use of "Massagetae" in relation to hypothetical "Dacians." The Massagetae are considered as a part of the Saka culture, all of them steppe tribes and living on the other side of the Caspian Sea. This is beginning to sound like a broken record, scratching its way at us again... after a long and enjoyed two of three year vacation from it.
Well, they are mentioned as distinct people from Scythians. They have a name that have Getae in it (similar with Tyragetae of which we know for sure they was Getae/Dacians from Tyras river) and they probably end up there after those migration waves we talk above.
The fact that after few centuries living among Iranic people and other steppes people they adopted some of their customs or even person names and mingled with them it shouldnt be a surprise.
After all we have Geta, the brother of Roman emperor Caracalla, who's name is the singular of Getae and means "the Getian" and we have Attila the Hun who's name is actually Gothic
However nobody say that Geta was actually a Getae/Dacian or Attila was a Goth and not a Hun
Quote:There were no "Getae" tribes. Carpi, Celts, Greeks, yes... all living in Dacia. But the "Getae" were adopted in the 1970's as a vehicle of Rumanian nationalism from a sadly mistaken Jordanes, et al.
Hahaha, gosh, this is too hilarious to even bother to answer you. Is like trying to explain someone that 2+2=4 just that now is basic history. So Getae are a non existing people now haha?
Celts pretty much became insignficant after Burebista, Greeks was few inhabiting few coastal towns alongside Getae/Dacians, Sarmatians or Romans etc and Carpi was a Dacian tribal union formed outisde Roman province Dacia after the wars with Romans
Getae was an umbrella name for north Thracians tribes, and Dacians was the most powerful tribes among them, so later sometime their name was imposed and replaced the name of Getae or they was used interchangeable
Quote:If the Carpi and other groups living in Dacia were "steppe tribes," they have never been classified as such by anthropologists.
I am not sure what exactly you wanted to say here
Quote:It's my great hope that someday the cloud of Rumanian and Turkic nationalism shall fall by the wayside, and then we can again have open-minded historical discussions on the internet. :whistle:
I hope that every nationalism AND fanboyism to fall so we really have open-minded historical discussions everywhere. Unfortunately this is not the case and sorry to say to you sir, but you didnt look either untouched by the last one
Quote: :grin: and are you kind enough to post some sources to support your beliefs?
The terms used by the Greeks and Romans referred to people who lived in those respective areas, not to the actual ethnicity of the inhabitants. This premise is accepted by modern historians: for example, Peter Heather and Michael Kulikowski, and I'm sure the Russian historians as well. We have countless examples in the LATE writings of Zosimus, Sozoman, Scolasticus, and Themistius. Here is Themistius writing in the 4th century AD, long after the Scytians had disappeared as an entity and in a speech glorifying Emperor Theodosius, "... then shall I see the spoils of the Scythians, when no one takes what is mine to spoil." (Themistius, Orations, 8.173)
Quote: Gosh, Michael Grant and others I mentioned didnt talk about supposed steppes indo-european migrations of Marja Gimbutas. That, if happened, happend long before. He and others talk about the period at the end of bronze age and begining of iron age, somewhere around 1200 BC... This was the Thraco-Dacians moving and spreading, as the Celts, Greeks, Iranic, Romans, Germanic will do later.
You added to the "migration theory" within your last sentence. However, in "around 1200 BC," these cultures could not have been "Thraco-Dacians," a term and culture that would not show up for nearly another millennium. Perhaps the "sea peoples" came from a region later inhabited by Dacians, but the term doesn't fit the era.
Quote:I resent your use of "Massagetae" in relation to hypothetical "Dacians." The Massagetae are considered as a part of the Saka culture, all of them steppe tribes and living on the other side of the Caspian Sea. This is beginning to sound like a broken record, scratching its way at us again... after a long and enjoyed two of three year vacation from it.
Quote: Well, they are mentioned as distinct people from Scythians. They have a name that have Getae in it (similar with Tyragetae of which we know for sure they was Getae/Dacians from Tyras river) and they probably end up there after those migration waves we talk above.
Just because the Greeks used the term "getae," it certainly doesn't mean the Massagetae were related in ANY WAY to the Dacians. The Massagetae can be traced back to Sintashta and the Andronovo culture. They enter history in Herodotus, "Now the Massagetae are said to be a great and warlike nation, dwelling eastward... beyond the river Araxes, and opposite the Issedonians." (The History, Book 1.201) He then places them east of the Araxes river that flowed into the Aral Sea. Strabo confirms Herodotus by mentioning Eratosthenes, "Erastosthenes says that the Arachoti and Massagetae are situated alongside the Bactrians..." (Geography, Book 11.8.8)
How could the Massagetae-- living 1,000 miles east of Dacia-- be related to the Dacians? We even know what happened to them and WHO they becaame. "The evidence of both the ancient authors and the arachaeological remains point to massive migration of Sacian-Massagetan tribes from the Syr-Daria delta (the Araxes) by the middle of the second century BC." (Sulimirski, The Sarmatians, p. 113) To archaeologists such as Sulimirski, the Massagetae become the "Sarmatians," a culture with a recognisable Asiatic admixture that shows up along the Ural steppes at exactly this time, pushed west by the Xiong-nu (Huns).
Where is the connection to the Dacians? Or the "Getae," if you prefer.
We certainly know who the Massagetae became, or at least who they were known as when they finally reached Roman turf. "The Alans were formally called the Massagetae," (Ammianus Marcellinus, Histories, 31.2.12) Or maybe this is more exact, "The Alans are the Massagetae." (Cassius Dio, Romiaka, 69.15)
How come not one author-- modern or ancient-- mentions that the Massagetae were related to the Getae, even in some small and inconsciquential manner?
Quote:Getae was an umbrella name for north Thracians tribes, and Dacians was the most powerful tribes among them, so later sometime their name was imposed and replaced the name of Getae or they was used interchangeable
Exactly! That's what I was getting at. "Getae" was an umbrella name, also used to describe Goths, just like the term "Scythian." If this term is So Inaccurate, as you have noted, then why would you or any other intelligent history buff even use it?
Quote:It's my great hope that someday the cloud of Rumanian and Turkic nationalism shall fall by the wayside, and then we can again have open-minded historical discussions on the internet. :whistle:
Quote:I hope that every nationalism AND fanboyism to fall so we really have open-minded historical discussions everywhere. Unfortunately this is not the case and sorry to say to you sir, but you didnt look either untouched by the last one
I apologize for using the phrase "nationalism." Evidently it is by extreme coincidence that you bring up the term "Getae" like Dacian de'ja vu all over again. I thought the dog died three or four years ago... but the Getae has raised it blanket-term head again. If I slipped into cataclysmic spasms as my nerves fell apart, I was totally astonished that the Massagetae were again tossed into the Dacian pie.
The Dacians were great adversaries against the Romans, but they had never heard of a Massagetae... except when studying "Massagetae 101" at Dacian University. :woot:
We have had an influx of new members, several of them interested in the Sarmatians, and I simply didn't want them to think the Massagetae lived around Tomis, or in fact Tomis was named after our good general Tomyris, as Jordanes mentioned... while sticking his foot in his mouth. :dizzy:
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Where are you? This discussion has had 1247 views, and I'm still waiting... along with some friends of mine: Herodotus, Strabo, Sulimirski, Ammianus Marcellinus, Cassius Dio, a whole bunch of us. :woot:
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Hi Alanus
Unfortunately I dont have time to post here very often or imediatly when a message or reply shows up. And yes, I know my posts are many times controversed and bring new approaches hehe, so yes, they make some audience. :twisted:
Quote:Hello, Diegis
The terms used by the Greeks and Romans referred to people who lived in those respective areas, not to the actual ethnicity of the inhabitants. This premise is accepted by modern historians: for example, Peter Heather and Michael Kulikowski, and I'm sure the Russian historians as well. We have countless examples in the LATE writings of Zosimus, Sozoman, Scolasticus, and Themistius. Here is Themistius writing in the 4th century AD, long after the Scytians had disappeared as an entity and in a speech glorifying Emperor Theodosius, "... then shall I see the spoils of the Scythians, when no one takes what is mine to spoil." (Themistius, Orations, 8.173)
Thats correct, some ancient authors did that, but I remember I was asking about what sources you have about Getae not being related or the same with Dacians and about many other people that formed the Getae. Have you some?
Quote:You added to the "migration theory" within your last sentence. However, in "around 1200 BC," these cultures could not have been "Thraco-Dacians," a term and culture that would not show up for nearly another millennium. Perhaps the "sea peoples" came from a region later inhabited by Dacians, but the term doesn't fit the era.
The migration theory I was speaking isnt the one you tought of, the so called "indo-european migration" from the steppes in Europe. That is actually rejected or corrected by some modern historians.
I already posted few historians that talk about the one spreading from Carpatho-Danubian area, and here is a source (very reliable) that talk about Thracians (or Dacians) in that period
Thats is called "The Cambridge Ancient History", hope is good enough. Look at the page 64 were is said that Parvan (this is a famous Romanian archeologist and historian) talk about "Dacians at Troy" on the strenght on similar ceramics found there and in the Carpathians. The scholars from Cambridge said that the only amendament they can make is to replace Dacians by Thracians because they consider that in 12 century BC the various population groups of Thracian had not separated yet.
As you can see, we can surely use the term "Thraco-Dacians" for that era and place
And here is about the "indo-european" migration, just that it was actually in other way then Marja Gimbutas thought (see the points 7 and 8 from the map on pag 52)
Quote:Just because the Greeks used the term "getae," it certainly doesn't mean the Massagetae were related in ANY WAY to the Dacians. The Massagetae can be traced back to Sintashta and the Andronovo culture. They enter history in Herodotus, "Now the Massagetae are said to be a great and warlike nation, dwelling eastward... beyond the river Araxes, and opposite the Issedonians." (The History, Book 1.201) He then places them east of the Araxes river that flowed into the Aral Sea. Strabo confirms Herodotus by mentioning Eratosthenes, "Erastosthenes says that the Arachoti and Massagetae are situated alongside the Bactrians..." (Geography, Book 11.8.8)
How is certainly not related? How do you know that for sure? As you can see the ancient authors didnt relate them with Scythians either.
We have 3 tribes, Massagetae, Thysagetae and Tyragetae. We know for sure how is translated the name of one of them, Tyra-Getae, the Getae of Tyras. They are located around Tyras river, and on Ptolemy map we have there a Dacian town too, called Clepi-dava. Keep this ending "dava" in mind, we'll talk about it later too.
About the others, we have the river Tisa, Tisia, Pathissos in Dacia (mentioned by same Ptolemy if I remember correct).
Massa-Getae can mean "the great Getae" or "the Getae from Moesia", who knows. Their Iranic origin is given by the name of queen Tomyris son if I am not mistake, as their language is unknown. But as I said, thats not a sure indicator, we have Attila the Hun, who had a Gothic name actually, but he was a Hun nevertheless, we have the brother of Caracalla, Geta, who wasnt a Getae/Dacian even if his name means "the Getian" in Latin, the king of supposedly Germanic tribes of Cimbri and Teutoni was called Boiorix, a Celtic name, and so on.
Quote:How could the Massagetae-- living 1,000 miles east of Dacia-- be related to the Dacians? We even know what happened to them and WHO they becaame. "The evidence of both the ancient authors and the arachaeological remains point to massive migration of Sacian-Massagetan tribes from the Syr-Daria delta (the Araxes) by the middle of the second century BC." (Sulimirski, The Sarmatians, p. 113) To archaeologists such as Sulimirski, the Massagetae become the "Sarmatians," a culture with a recognisable Asiatic admixture that shows up along the Ural steppes at exactly this time, pushed west by the Xiong-nu (Huns).
Where is the connection to the Dacians? Or the "Getae," if you prefer.
We certainly know who the Massagetae became, or at least who they were known as when they finally reached Roman turf. "The Alans were formally called the Massagetae," (Ammianus Marcellinus, Histories, 31.2.12) Or maybe this is more exact, "The Alans are the Massagetae." (Cassius Dio, Romiaka, 69.15)
How come not one author-- modern or ancient-- mentions that the Massagetae were related to the Getae, even in some small and inconsciquential manner?
So, first of all you agree that you can't put much basis on what ancient authors said, and then you quote them to prove your point hehe?
Just look what time gap is between Herodotus (V century BC) and Ammianus Marcelinus (IV century AD), and seeing that none of them traveled back in Asia to see what happened with Massagetae during all this period, how can you put any basis on what Marcelinus said? At least Herodotus talk about Massagetae that was contemporan with him. Marcelinus talk about a people coming from a direction that he knew from previous authors that is were some people Massagetae lived, so he tought that Alans must be them.
And what I said is that Massagetae migrated from Getia/Dacia around the same time as "sea people" did, and during the centuries they lived among people there they adopted some things from that, but in Herodotus time they was still distinguishable from Scythians
Quote:Exactly! That's what I was getting at. "Getae" was an umbrella name, also used to describe Goths, just like the term "Scythian." If this term is So Inaccurate, as you have noted, then why would you or any other intelligent history buff even use it?
It is not an inaccurate term, I am sorry if this is what you understand. The term Getae is applying to north Thracian tribes, and only to them. Is like saying Germanic is an inaccurate term for Suebi and Franks, or Greek is an inaccurate term for Spartans and Thebans or Athenians.
Dacians was the most powerful tribes among the Getae and such in time their name overlaped or was used interchangeable with Getae as their dominance over all the Getae tribes was more visible in those periods.
Quote:I apologize for using the phrase "nationalism." Evidently it is by extreme coincidence that you bring up the term "Getae" like Dacian de'ja vu all over again. I thought the dog died three or four years ago... but the Getae has raised it blanket-term head again. If I slipped into cataclysmic spasms as my nerves fell apart, I was totally astonished that the Massagetae were again tossed into the Dacian pie.
The Dacians were great adversaries against the Romans, but they had never heard of a Massagetae... except when studying "Massagetae 101" at Dacian University. :woot:
We have had an influx of new members, several of them interested in the Sarmatians, and I simply didn't want them to think the Massagetae lived around Tomis, or in fact Tomis was named after our good general Tomyris, as Jordanes mentioned... while sticking his foot in his mouth. :dizzy:
I agree Iordanes is not the most reliable source but I wouldnt throw to say that wasnt any connection between Getae and Massa-Getae.
As I said, because the camps are already formed (celtophiles, iranophiles, germanophiles, romanophiles, slavophiles) and Getae/Dacians/Thracians are kinda "on their own", very few look more closely to their history.
You can really argue that Iordanes is both Reliable and unreliable, it just depends on the passage. We know his account of the Battle of Chalons is reliable because he praises the Visigoths, but we also know that some of his other accounts of the goths are un reliable, especially sections where they were defeated or fighting against each other, because he had intentional bias of his abridgement for his audience.
Actually, I'm not an "anybody-phile." The Massagetae are considered part of the Saka, very Eastern, and their most distinguishing physical feature is an Asiatic admixture. This alone, distinguishes them from the Scythians and the Dacians, who were totally European (Caucasian). :whistle: We know from exactly corresponding ancient texts from Chinese, Persian, and Roman sources, that the Massagetae confederation evolved into the Alans... not just what we gather from Ammmianus and Cassius Dio.
I checked out the "origins" map, and my preference would not be yours-- 7 and 8-- but rather 2 and 3; in other words an area above the Caspian and Aral seas-- the Sintashta culture, the origin of the chariot and therefore the most probable origin of a chariot nomenclature that spreads to the Mitani and then to India. (Once again, quite recently, the "Renfrewists" and the "Turkey origin turkey" has been discredited.) I sit comfortably on the side of Gimbutas, Mallory, and Anthony; and I am certainly not Alone, but side with a group that might be considered a Majority. :cheer: Maybe someday someone will take a poll.
I have no problem in your noting that artifacts from the Danube Delta also show up at Troy. I myself noted that the daggers were similar if not identical. BUT how can anyone claim they were "Dacian" or "Getaen"? We're talking about PREHISTORY! We don't have any correlation to written names. For all we know, the culture residing along the Danube shore might have called themselves "Startrekians." :dizzy:
I'm sorry, but I cannot condone your (or anyone else's) attempts at linking Getae and Massagetae as the same cultures. One was Western-Europoid. And the other was Eastern-Europoid-Asiatic. That is a huge difference in culture, in physicality, and in geography. Somehow, I get the feeling you are talking about Getae "ethnicity." The Saka/Massagetae/Alans can't be classified as an ethnic group. They were a "culture." We even have a Saka chieftain with Asiatic features buried with a false beard... because the beard was a status symbol of the culture. The Massagetae accepted anyone, whatever his origin, IF he or she had the prowess and valor of a leader of warriors.
This is my last post on this subject. If it continues, it simply becomes a dead-end argument. I was hoping that someone besides yourself, might have added to the discussion.
In finality, we have a person who lives in Rumania, which just happens to be a historical Dacian area, claiming that the Getae and Massagetae were related. :cheer:
And we have another person who lives in the US-- about 4,000 miles from Rumania or Asia-- who claims that the Getae and Massagetae were NOT related. :cheer:
Actually, I'm not an "anybody-phile." The Massagetae are considered part of the Saka, very Eastern, and their most distinguishing physical feature is an Asiatic admixture. This alone, distinguishes them from the Scythians and the Dacians, who were totally European (Caucasian). :whistle:
So, how this change the possibility that a European tribe arrived in Asia mixed over time of many centuries with local people?
Quote:We know from exactly corresponding ancient texts from Chinese, Persian, and Roman sources, that the Massagetae confederation evolved into the Alans... not just what we gather from Ammmianus and Cassius Dio.
Are you kind enough to show me some Persian or Chinese texts about Massagetae?
Quote:I checked out the "origins" map, and my preference would not be yours-- 7 and 8-- but rather 2 and 3; in other words an area above the Caspian and Aral seas--
Of course, everyone is free to have his preferences, I just wanted to point out that a Europe to Asia movement have its suporters in scientific community
Quote:the Sintashta culture, the origin of the chariot and therefore the most probable origin of a chariot nomenclature that spreads to the Mitani and then to India.
How do you came to the conclusion that the origin of the chariot is in Sintashta culture?
This is probably a kid toy from Cucuteni-Tripolie culture (at least couple milleniums older then Sintashta
Quote:(Once again, quite recently, the "Renfrewists" and the "Turkey origin turkey" has been discredited.) I sit comfortably on the side of Gimbutas, Mallory, and Anthony; and I am certainly not Alone, but side with a group that might be considered a Majority. :cheer: Maybe someday someone will take a poll.
I think Mallory talk about a mixture of Cucuteni and Yamnia cultures, and not an invasion from the steppes. Anyway, this theories are debatable, as you can see there are few quite different ones. I do think that most plausibile is the one from point 7 from that map
Quote:I have no problem in your noting that artifacts from the Danube Delta also show up at Troy. I myself noted that the daggers were similar if not identical. BUT how can anyone claim they were "Dacian" or "Getaen"? We're talking about PREHISTORY! We don't have any correlation to written names. For all we know, the culture residing along the Danube shore might have called themselves "Startrekians." :dizzy:
Lol, Danube Delta is not in Carpathian Mountains. Anyway, beside your own belief, do you have some realistic sources against what some serious scholars as Parvan or the historians who wrote The Cambridge Ancient History said?
Quote: The Massagetae accepted anyone, whatever his origin, IF he or she had the prowess and valor of a leader of warriors.
So, if they accepted anyone, why such scare or horror to accept that their name is not a random mistaken one, and they came from Europe and mixed with others along the way and during time?
Quote:In finality, we have a person who lives in Rumania, which just happens to be a historical Dacian area, claiming that the Getae and Massagetae were related. :cheer:
And we have another person who lives in the US-- about 4,000 miles from Rumania or Asia-- who claims that the Getae and Massagetae were NOT related. :cheer:
You forgot to add that the person who lives in the US is a fan of Sarmatians and Alans, of who he have a strong idea who they was and whats their history, so may be a little biased too in not accepting other views
This are suppositions, presumptions that people excavated there are Massagetae. Not to mention the "phrygian helmet" that those Scythians wear(I know, is just art drawning), close style with Dacian, Thracian and Phrygian ones
![[Image: Giorgio-Tsoukalos-not-saying-its-aliens.jpg]](http://happyfamousartists.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Giorgio-Tsoukalos-not-saying-its-aliens.jpg)
