The Dacian Myth

[Cavaros]

The 'Dacians'. Fact and Fiction:

 

 

http://balkancelts.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/the-dacian-myth/

[diegis]

The 'Dacians'. Fact and Fiction:

 

 

http://balkancelts.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/the-dacian-myth/

 

First of all, interesting blog

 

But the article you posted (didnt have time to read others) is kinda biased and with quite few mistakes.

 

First of all the sources you chosed, like Boia, arent quite the best to discuss in detail the history of Dacians or ancient Romania. He isnt a specialist in that field, he is a "historian of ideas" and (as few others too) write inspired by the "new" ideas of so called "demythization" of history. Even that inspiration may come from the fact he received some courses abroad and was invited to classes and symposiums by Soros foundation which have a clear policy all over eastern Europe.

Meaning it try to "rewrite" the history of the region, to promote "multiculturalism" (not necessary a bad thing, except when is enforced and have hidden purposes) and abandoning or desconsidering things that relate with nation, nationalism and such.

The book of Boia from where you quote there was published in Budapest/Hungary by Soros foundation publishing house

 

This "rewriting" of history is as bad as the one done by communists before.

 

About the communists and their interpretation of history, as appear in your aticle too, the Dacian significance in Romanian history started to be presented in works from XIX century, before communists appeareance in history, let alone in Romania.

I dont know (and i kinda doubt actually) about Bulgarians moving away from the Soviet protectorate, but during communist times in Romania (who moved away quite agressively from Soviet views, indeed) the official history maintained the view that Romanians have a Daco-Roman origin (similar with French Galo-Roman) and speak a Latin based language, Dacians wasnt that blown up of importance as some may imply.

 

In fact new discoveries (archeological or in other sources interpretation) may show an even greater importance for them in Romanian history.

 

Now coming to your article, the source you used

 

http://www.academia.edu/1516327/Imitations_of_Republican_denarii_from_Moesia_and_Thrace

 

disprouve what is write in that blog article

 

Just few quotes:

 

" The imitation of the denarii of the Roman Republic in Central and South-eastern Europe, primarily by the Dacians, has received long overdue attention in recent years.

1

Most of this has focused on discoveries in Romania, the heartland of the Dacian polity, where these coins are most often found. The fact that these imitations are also encountered further south in Moesia and Thrace, within the borders of modern Bulgaria, is almost unknown.

2

This article is primarily an attempt to compile a corpus of all known examples of these Moesian and Thracian imitations."

 

"What can be said however is that these coins were used by people(s) within the Dacian social and economic sphere, or by outlying groups of the Dacians themselves. These imitations are not an independent development. In the Dacian heartland, the production and circulation of denarius imitations continued at least into early Imperial times and perhaps later.

55

Little can be said about the production of imitations in the outlying areas discussed here, as no actual dies have been unearthed, but their circulation seemingly ended somewhat earlier in these regions. With the exception of the Gradeshnitsa III hoard, which closed with denarii of Trajan and contained a single plated imitation, the hoards included here all close with coins struck during the reign of Augustus or earlier. This is consistent with the known contraction and fragmentation of the

Edited October 21, 2012 by diegis

[Cavaros]

Hi there,

 

Firstly, I'm not going to get into the whole Dacians or no Dacians argument.

 

The source that is quoted discusses the Roman Republican dinar imitations from Thrace. The Balkancelts article, and the article which you quote, points out that these imitations were made not only by Dacians, but also by the Celtic tribes. It also points out that the coinage from Thrace, in particular that from today's sub-Balkan central Bulgaria, could not have been made by 'Dacians' as there were never any 'Dacians' in that area. Unless you propose that today's Bulgaria was also part of 'Dacia'?

[diegis]

Hi there,

 

Firstly, I'm not going to get into the whole Dacians or no Dacians argument.

 

The source that is quoted discusses the Roman Republican dinar imitations from Thrace. The Balkancelts article, and the article which you quote, points out that these imitations were made not only by Dacians, but also by the Celtic tribes. It also points out that the coinage from Thrace, in particular that from today's sub-Balkan central Bulgaria, could not have been made by 'Dacians' as there were never any 'Dacians' in that area. Unless you propose that today's Bulgaria was also part of 'Dacia'?

 

Isn't a contradiction betwen "I'm not going to get into the whole Dacians or no Dacians argument" you start with and the ending of your post, "Unless you propose that today's Bulgaria was also part of 'Dacia'?"

 

The article clearly say:

 

"What can be said however is that these coins were used by people(s) within the Dacian social and economic sphere, or by outlying groups of the Dacians themselves. These imitations are not an independent development. In the Dacian heartland, the production and circulation of denarius imitations continued at least into early Imperial times and perhaps later.

55

Little can be said about the production of imitations in the outlying areas discussed here, as no actual dies have been unearthed, but their circulation seemingly ended somewhat earlier in these regions. With the exception of the Gradeshnitsa III hoard, which closed with denarii of Trajan and contained a single plated imitation, the hoards included here all close with coins struck during the reign of Augustus or earlier. This is consistent with the known contraction and fragmentation of the

Edited October 22, 2012 by diegis

[Cavaros]

I refer you to my original reply.

[Kosmo]

It also points out that the coinage from Thrace, in particular that from today's sub-Balkan central Bulgaria, could not have been made by 'Dacians' as there were never any 'Dacians' in that area.

It is absurd to believe that Dacians had a monopoly over the simple idea of imitating coins, but I've also seen no evidence in the article that the imitations found outside the areas of Dacian influence, e.g. south of the Balkan mountains, are minted there and not imports from silver-rich Dacia.

Also, local Thracian/Celts could follow a Dacian model without the presence of a Dacian population (if a Dacian identity would even make sense in a Thracian context)

Thracians imitating Dacian imitations of Roman coins.

[Cavaros]

The Celtic tribes in Thrace had been producing their own coinage from the end of the 4th c. BC, centuries before the 'Dacians' are even mentioned in history. Why would they need to follow any 'Dacian' model?

[diegis]

Cavaros, i think you miss few elementary things

 

Thracians was probably the first individualized people among so called "indo-europeans" and civilization was present well before the arrival of Celts in Balkans.

Dacians was part of Getae (as Gauls for ex. was part of Celts from western Europe, and in both cases the names was used intermingled, like Getae=Dacians and Gauls=Celts). Getae themselves are considered the northern branch of Thracians, and both branches was well developed before any Celtic people comes around or be mentioned.

 

See for example the Thracian influence over Greeks, like Peltasts and even some religious or spiritual influence. Getae (mentioned in writings since Herodotus and Darius I invasion in Europe) stoped actualy the spread of Hellenistic world north of Balkans, with their king Dromichaites defeting Lisimachus, one of the Diadochi (but another clashes occured before).

 

Look what Paulus Orosius write:

https://sites.google.com/site/demontortoise2000/orosius_book1

 

"On the contrary, recently these Getae, who are at present also called Goths (Alexander publicly said that they must be shunned, Pyrrhus dreaded them, and even Caesar avoided them), after stripping their homes bare and abandoning them, united their forces in one body and invaded the Roman provinces. By proving themselves to be a menace over a long period of time, these barbarians hoped upon their request to obtain an alliance with Rome

Edited October 24, 2012 by diegis

[Cavaros]

You are also missing an important point. No one is denying the importance of the Thracians in the region, nor of the Getae tribe, who were part of the Thracian culture.

 

The fact is that 'Dacian' was a purely geographic term.'Dacians' were the peoples who lived in Dacia, whether they were Getae, Celts or Bastarnae, etc. A seperate 'Dacian' race never existed.

[Kosmo]

The fact is that 'Dacian' was a purely geographic term.'Dacians' were the peoples who lived in Dacia, whether they were Getae, Celts or Bastarnae, etc. A seperate 'Dacian' race never existed.

 

This is a bold statement. Dacian was used in Antiquity and still is used as the name of a distinct people with a distinct culture. The relations between various North Thracian tribes: Dacians, Getae and Moesians are unclear and it is posibile that Dacians and Getae were two names for the same tribe or two different, but closely related tribes.

Also, I have to point that romantic notions about Dacians, either as works of art, or under the guise of the pseudo-science of thracology, were embraced by other Romanians before and after Ceausescu and his national-communist protochronism and they are a part of romanian nationalism.

For example: Eminescu and the other romantics wrote many poems about them in the 19th century, Lucian Blaga wrote a play Zamolxis, A Pagan Mystery in 1921.

Mircea Eliade published in exile his studies De Zalmoxis