|
An argument for Romanians'
and Moldovans' links to the ancient Dacians
by Dr. N. Savescu
(Presented
at the 44th International Congress on Medieval Studies Western
Michigan University, Kalamazoo - 8 May, 2009)
 Print
this Article • About
the Author • Bibliography/Sources
Traduceţi
în limba română! (Translate
into Romanian)
DISCLAIMER:
This study explores the debate concerning the reevaluation
of the ancient Dacian heritage of the modern Vlach people
who populate Romania, Transylvania, and Moldova. It is written
from a highly pro-Romanian romantic perspective that is quickly
rejected by non-Romanians (especially Hungarians) and objective
historians as unauthentic and non-historical. Nonetheless,
the article saliently reveals the inter-ethnic and academic
debates on the historical and national evolution of European
identities and the varieties of interpretations on early European
cultural origins. See Dacia.org
for more information in Romanian and English. See this
article from our site for more background into the debate
over Dacian-Romanian identity.
-----------------------------
In 1687 Carolus Lundius,
President of the Swedish Academic of Science published "Zamolxis
Primus Getarum Legislator" (Zamolxis the First Legislator
of the Getae) [1] in which he affirms that the first written
laws in mankind history were Zalmoxis's laws (see www.dacia.org).
Romanian historian,
Nicolae Densusianu, proved that Dacians spoke Latin before
the Romans even existed (see www.dacia.org Articles - English
or http://www.pelasgians.bigpondhosting.com/index.htm).
His book "The Preistoric Dacia"
was first published in Romania in 1913, but its contents remain
as revolutionary, visionary, and controversial as they were
almost 100 years ago.[2]
Romanian poet and philosopher,
Lucian Blaga (1895-1961) was intrigued and influenced by Dacian
history as witnessed by his essay on the "Revolt of the
non-Latin element", or the play Zamolxe, both published
in 1921. The writer challenged current views which privileged
the Latin element in the typology of Romanians.
Five years later the monograph,
Getica, by historian Vasile Pârvan became a fascinating source
for Dacians in Romanian culture before WWII. Numerous writings
which included both scientific and amateur studies flooded
the cultural market and a new current, the thracomania, became
popular.
A champion of Dacianism
was theologist, Ioan Coman, who viewed Dacian religion as
the beginning of Christianity in its orthodox form. Once again,
Blaga entered the dispute, attempting to tone down nationalist
and intolerant Dacianism; he offered the model of a lucid
intellectual engaged in an animated cultural debate.
The fact that Romanians
are not Rome's descendants and that Romans are their later
"grandsons" (see Augustin Deac "The History
of the Historical Truth" 2002), still awaits to be acknowleged
by some Romanian historians today. [3]
There is difficulty in explaining
that ancient Greeks may have "borrowed" their mythology
or letters from the Dacians. Yet, the identities Dacian =
Thracian = Macedonian = Pelasgian [4] should change some old
beliefs regarding the above group of people. More astonishing
is when Dionisu of Miletus, referred to by Diod. Sic. (3.67.12)
says that the Pelasgians were the first to use the Cadmeian
letters (from whom the Greeks borrowed them).[5]
Even more astonishing is learning that
the first written message in the history of humanity was found
at Alba District, Tartaria, Rumania (Old Dacia) where little
clay tablets were found to carry a pre-Sumerian writing, as
part of Vincea civilization. Tartaria's were found to be 7,540
years old, puzzling the scientific community.
Turning over the pages of
the world's publications, we find American sumerolog, John
A. Halloran asking himself "How can it be explained that
inside a western Rumanian region, surrounded by towns with
Sumerian names: Urastie, Simeria, Kugir, there were minature
tablets found which were made from local clay with Sumerian
pictograms on them, but older by 1,000 then the ones from
Mesopotamia."
In the "Scientific American
Journal" from 1968, the Tartaria tablets are presented
as being similar to the ones from Mesopotamia, but pre-dated
by 1000 years. How
could the pre-Dacians write before anyone else? How were they
to write if they couldn't read?
One of the most intriguing
theories of Indo-European Origins proposes that the homeland
of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European language is to be found
in Southeast Europe. This theory was strongly proposed by
eminent Russian linguist and historian Igor M. D'iakonov in
his seminal paper (1985). "On the Original Home of the
Speakers of Indo-European." [6]
A very much respected archaeologist
of our time, Colin Renfrew believes that Proto-Indo-European
unity is to be found in the Balkans, in agreement with the
opinion of D'iakonov. Proto-Indo-European was however an offshoot
of Pre-Proto-Indo-European which was the language of early
farmers who crossed the Aegean sea from Anatolia to settle
in Thessaly. There, and in their subsequent northern expansion,
the Proto-Indo-European community was formed which subsequently
gave birth to all the historical Indo-European languages.[7]
From Carpato-Danubian-Balkans center,
as Diakonoff realized, (around 5000 BC ), a division with
the bulk of the early Proto-Indo-European languages of central
and Western Europe (the languages of "Old Europe"
in some terminologies) appears on one hand, and those of the
steppe lands to the north of the Black Sea on the other (4th
millennium BCE).
More recently, Finnish scholar
Kalevi Wiik has also proposed Indo-European origins in Southeast
Europe. He has expanded his theory on the origins of European
peoples in several journal articles including in his recent
book "Eurooppalaisten juuret". There is also an
article written by him on the Web [Europe's Oldest Language].
Recently, the theory
of Indo-European origins in Southeast Europe has received
additional confirmation by Gray and Atkinson. They used a
methodology similar to that used in evolutionary biology,
["Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian
theory of Indo-European origin," Nature 426, 435-439].
The results of all analysis, irrespective of the initial assumptions,
were robust and accurate.
They were also in agreement
with another independent linguistic analysis of Indo-European
languages [Rexova, K., Frynta, D. & Zrzavy, J. "Cladistic
analysis of languages: Indo-European classification based
on lexicostatistical data." Cladistics 19, 120-127 (2003)].
There are some who state
that the Dacian language has disappeared, as have the Dacians
themselves [8]. And as the Dacians, their brothers, the Thracians
have lost their language, and they never had books! [9]. To
say that Alexander Macedon or Constantine's language was Dacian
would be like replacing an unknown quantity by another. Thus
it would be easy to state an unproven theory that Dacians/Thracians
and their language have disappeared. Yet, upon examination,
this disappearance turns out to be worse than a hollow statement:
it clashes head on with a number of testimonies.
Understanding these testimonies presuppose
a little reflection on an observation made by Herodotus. The
Thracians, says Herodotus "have many names, depending
on their respective regions" [10].Thrace proper is to
this day the name of the region encompassed by Mount Haemus
(Stara Planina) and the Thracian Sea (Aegean Sea). But the
people living north of Mount Haemus, in Mysia, were also considered
to be Thracian because they spoke the same language. For the
same reason, the term Thracian has been used as a common designation
for people living in Bithynia, i.e. on the Asiatic side of
the Straits, as well as for the people north of the Danube,
those in the original Dacia (also called Gothia).
Among the Thracian peoples
often mentioned by ancient historians, most conspicuous
were the Dacians (Gaete or Goths), the Macedonians, the Paeonians,
the Phrygians, the Mysians, the Odrysians and the Bessi. Tremendous
efforts have been made by some recent academics to blur the
ethnicity of the Dacian nation. This compels us to take a
closer look at the subject, starting perhaps with the Paeonians.
The Paeonians were familiar
to Herodotus, who speaks at some length about their customs.
Five hundred years later, Strabo observed that the Paeonians
lived on both sides of the Vardar (the Axius) river [11].
Many Paeonians, however, lived further north. Dio Cassius,
a man well-placed to know, since he was at one time governor
of that province, wrote that the Paeonians "dwell near
Dalmatia along the very banks of the Ister, from Noricum to
Moesia ..." [12].This was two hundred years after Strabo's
time.
350 years later, John the
Lydian explained that the real name of the Province was Pannonia,
"Which the Greeks have termed Paeonia, inventing the
name for purposes of euphony and to avoid a barbarian word
form." [13]. Ioannes
Tzetzes, writing almost 600 years after the Lydian, did not
notice that these people had disappeared. For him they were
still there. [14].
Another famous group of Dacian/Thracian
people were the Phrygians. According
to Strabo, "the Brygi and Bryges and Phryges are the
same people". And elsewhere:" And the Phrygians
themselves are Brigians, a Thracian nation ..." [15].If
you look at a map done by Ion Pachia Tatomirescu (see www.dacia.org
Old maps of Europe) you will understand the size of the Dacian
Empire at the beginning of European history.
In a fragment (No. 25) of
his Seventh Book - badly mutilated Strabo quotes Herodotus,
whose words were: "According to the Macedonian account,
the Phrygians, during
the time they had their abode in Europe and dwelt with them
in Macedonia, bore the name of Brigians; but on their removal
to Asia they changed their name at the same time as their
dwelling place." [16]. The
Moesians (Mysians) were yet another Dacian/Thracian group
of people whose settlements filled the area between the Danube
and Mount Haemus, as well as Bithynia, on the east side of
the Bosphorus, and the Thracian/Aegean fringe of Minor Asia.
On the ethnicity of the Mysians
Strabo is quite explicit. The Mysians in Minor Asia, he says,
are Thracians "who now live between the Lydians and the
Phrygians and the Trojans." [17] And
elsewhere: "The country north of Pergamum is held for
the most part by the Mysians". And
again: "Now the Greeks considered the Getae (the Dacian)
as Thracians, the Getae lived on either side of the Ister,
as did the Mysians, these also being Thracians [18]"
The identification of Macedonians
as the southest Dacian/Thracians is also unquestionable, although
the wording differs from author to author. Polybius
calls the Thracians and the Macedonians homogenous i.e. people
of the same nation, stock or race [19].
Pliny speaks of Mysomacedonians in
Asia Minor, who "get together (convenient) at Ephesus"
[20].
Appian calls the Sinti a Macedonian
tribe; Strabo calls them Thracian [21]. Both are right, of
course.
Dio Chrysostom observed, at the beginning
of the second century A.D., that the population of Nicomedia
consisted of "leaders among both Greeks and Macedonians"
[22] making a clear distinction between the two races.
Nicomedia at that time was the greatest
city of Bithynia. It was founded, says Pausanias, by Zipoetes
"a Thracian by birth to judge from his name" [23].
Strabo explains that "the Bithynians
... received this name from the Thracians ... who settled
the country in question" and he refers to Nicomedes III
as "the Bithynian" [24].
Four centuries later Zosimos
quoted an oracle in which Nicomedes II is considered to be
the "Thracian King" [25], while Ioannes Malalas
says that Nicomedes
I was "of Macedonian" origin" [26].
Of interest in this connection
are a couple of facts: Euripides (Rhesus, 404) making Hector
call the Thracian king Thesus, he considered the Trojans to
be of the same stock or race as the Thracians from Macedonia.
Another similar instance is provided by Conon. In his 46th
Narration Conon speaking
of Orpheus who "reigned over the Macedonians and the
country of the Odrysians", he then refers to the "people
of Thrace and Macedonia" and to "a crowd of Thracians
getting together at Leibethra", where Orpheus is believed
to have died at the hands of "the women of Thrace and
Macedonia" [27].
Euripides and Conon may have written
for entertainment only, but Pausanias, a contemporary of Conon,
gives an accurate description of Greece and its knowledge.
To him, Orpheus was a Thracian from north aria of Danubiu
[28], in fact Dacian, while five centuries later Ioannes Malalas
calls Orpheus "the most famous lyric poet, an Odrysian
from Thrace" [29].
Eight centuries later, the
identity of the Dacians and Macedonians is attested by
Nicephorus Gregoras in a letter which he wrote in the year
1325 or 1326, describing his trip through Macedonia; we learn
that the majority of the local people were "from the
very beginning Moesians (Mysian) who lived and intermingled
with our own people" [30].
Gregoras rejects any nonsense about
a subsequent arrival of Thracians (Mysians) in Macedonia.
He does not tell us when the first Greek settlers arrived
in Macedonia, but Pompeius Trogus says that they came under
the leadership of Caranus, an event occurring around 810 B.C.
Prior to that time, the whole of Macedonia was settled by
Dacian/Thracians people [31].
The origin of the name Macedonia
also has some relevence to our topic. According
to a legend - the Egyptian king Osiris, later promoted by
the religious caste
to the rank of god, had two sons, Anubis and Macedon. The
second one was left by his father as a ruler of Macedonia,
earlier named Emathia, and from him the country got its name
[32].
From figures supplied by
Manetho, it is believed that Macedon was ruling in the year
2326 B.C. [33]. Hesoid,
like a good Greek poet, endowed Macedon with a Greek ancestry:
he make him the son of Zeus and Thyia, Deucalion's daughter
[34]. Hellanicus believed
Macedon to have been the son of Aeolus when Macedonians "inhabited
the land together with the Mysians" [35].
Regardless of the margin
of error, the Macedonian name must have been familiar throughout
the East at the time of the Trojan War. Why,
then is there no mention of it in Homer?
Nobody so far has suggested a plausible
explanation. Yet, faced with the fanatic zeal with which Greek
writers strove to blot out some "barbaric" names
we are glad to be able to make a correction. Homer may not
have cared to admit that without the help of some Macedonians,
the Greeks would have been destroyed before the walls of Troy.
Thus, either he, or someone like him, may have thought of
replacing the Macedonians with Myrmidones.
And it just so happens that
for Ioannes Malalas, the Homeric Myrmidons were identical
with those whose home was once in Thessaly - a Macedonian
district [36]. From
the first century of our era a very important part in the
history of Central
and South-Eastern Europe is played by the Dacians/Getae people.
Some writers have called the Dacians, Getae.
Others have preferred to call them
Goths. Most of these people lived between the Danube and the
Carpathian Mountains although there were Dacian settlements
south of the Danube as well as many others in the area north-east
of the Carpathians mountains like, Susudava, Selidava,Maramabista,
Tiragetia, Costobacia, or East like Moldadava or Massagetia.
Going back in time we see that even
the puzzle of Dacians versus Gets was solved almost 2000 years
ago by Dio Casius in Epitome of Book LXVII: "I call the
people Dacians, the names used by the natives themselves as
well as by the Romans, though I am not ignorant that some
Greek writers refer to them as Getae".
A vigorous campaign has been under
way for a long time to retroactively make of the Goths a Germanic
nation. This thesis should be rejected. In fact, every single
bit of information tends to prove that the Goths were none
others than the Hutzuli, a branch of the Getae, a Thracian
nation par excellence [39].
The Dacians nation has never ceased
to exist. They have never lost their vigor.
Dio Cassius tells of a stinging
defeat they inflicted on Mark Antony in Mysia[40].
They were obviously very strong, since Octavian is said by
Suetonius to have sought the hand of a Thracian princess [41].
Pliny the Elder, who died during the
eruption of the Mount Vesuvius (79 A.D.), called the Dacians
/Thracians one of the most powerful nations in Europe[42].
In the third century, they were the first people in Europe
able to kick the Romans out of Dacia[43].
At the dawn of the 4th century,
their leader Constantine (dacian by his routs) marched
on Rome, defeated Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, disbanded
the praetorian cohorts
and, by moving the capital of the empire to the Bosporus,
reduced Rome to the
status of a provincial city.
We learn from Theophanous
that in the year 497 A.D. Anastasius, in support of one of
his generals in the East, sent out an army of Goths, Bessians
"and other Thracian nations" [44]. Procopius
called them "the Romans from Thrace" [45]. He also
makes a reference to the city of Anchialo, on the Black Sea,
which, he says, was "inhabited by Thracians" [46].
Since the Bessians and the
Goths had not disappeared, we are not surprised to read that
their dialects were spoken in the middle of the 6th century.
Thus, Jordanes, in
his Getica, noted that Hister was the name of the Danube in
the language of the
Bessi[47]. The language of the Bessi was definitely spoken
about the year 570 A.D., as we may learn from the Itinerary
of Antoninus Placentinus [48].
As to Gothic, it was heard
in Constantinople and in many parts of Italy, where some Gothic
clerics seem to have been able to write it, although they
were apparently unable to write Latin [49]. Not
only were the Dacian/Thracian dialects widely spoken in the
Byzantine Empire but also Dacian has been a written language
ever since the second millennium B.C.and Euripides is able
to refer to Thracian tablets inscribed in the language of
Orpheus [50]. The fact that this literature is mentioned in
a drama and not in a history paper should not mislead us.
Euripides certainly used in poetry, and in dialogue forms,
something which was common knowledge in his time. Even today
we found more then 300 tablets ( Sinaia-Rumania/Dacia) done
in gold or lead and people paying almost no attention to them
(see www.dacia.org "Cronica Dacica pe placi de plumb).
Herodotus, mentions the existence
of Thracian oracular tablets [51] and
Ovidiu was able to compose a poem in the language of the Getae
[52]. Photius tells
us of a writer of 7th century A.D.who used Thracian books
[53].
In his book entitled De Magistratibus,
Ioannes Lydus reports that Constantine the Great wrote, in
his native (oikeia) tongue, some Discourses which he left
to posterity [37]. While carefully avoiding to specify what
exactly the native tongue of Constantine was, the Lydian,
deliberately or not, gives us a clue.
Evidently, Constantine's
"domestic" language could not have been Greek; otherwise
the adjective (oikeios) would have been out of place, even
confusing [38]. Could Constantine's native tongue have been
a "primitive" Latin? To designate the Latin tongue
other than by its name, Byzantine writers generally used the
words patris jonh in their own home?
The Lydian wrote his book sometime
between years 551 and 564 A.D., when Latin in Constantinople
was in full retreat. Justinian himself is said to have spoken
broken (vulgar) Latin, and Greek like a barbarian. One can
only wonder what was Justinian mother's language if it was
not Greek or Roman/ Latin. Only one choice remains and it
is Dacien/ Thracien.
There is an abundance of
circumstantial evidence that Constantine the Great was a Dacian,
as Justinian also was. Two
centuries after the death of Constantine there were people
in Constantinople who
could read Latin and/or Greek, and also people who could read
Constantine's Discourses, written in his "domestic"
language. The Lydian darkly hints that in his time, Latin
language was being pushed out as official business language
by what other language than dacian/thracian?
The old Dacian/Thracian books have
been successfully wiped out by religious fanatics and other
savages who have tried many times to destroy the Dacian people's
history. But the Daco-Thracian language has survived throughout
the ages as has the Dacian/Thracian script itself [54]. All
doubts regarding these matters can be dispelled by reading
the testimony of Theophylactus Simocata.
Written in 7th century A.D.,
Simocata states several times that the Slavonic peoples
of his day and age are those who in earlier times were called
Getae/Dacians. These
were the people whose wealth were admired by Herodotus, whose
medical science were praised by Plato, and whose army defeated
at one time Philip II and later on the forces of Lysimachus
[55].
Pausanias (IV.27.9-11) recorded
a telling case. "The wanderings of the Messenians
outside the Peloponnesus lasted for 300 years", he wrote,
"during which it is clear that they did not depart in
any way from their local customs and did not lose their Doric
dialect but even to our day have retained the purest of Doric
in Peloponnesus." Rapid changes occur when two or more
peoples speaking different languages are suddenly thrown together,
thus being forced to develop a makeshift system of communication.
That is why hybrid languages like Bulgarian, French and English
have strange vocabulary and a simpler grammatical structure
when compared with parent languages. Rumanian language which
has escaped most of
this kind of distortion may still borrow some words and some
grammatical forms, but on a much smaller scale.
Rumanians - which are also
called the Dacian people nowadays - have borrowed some words
from the Greeks, Romans, and Slavic people which no will contest.
But how much have Greeks
and others nations borrowed from the" barbarian"
Dacians which nobody claims to speak.
Dior Chrysostom tells us
that Homer himself "used many barbarian words ... sparing
none that he believed to have in it anything of character
vividness" [56]. Plato,
too, was aware of such "borrowings". "I imagine",
he wrote, "that Greeks, especially in countries which
are under the influence of "barbarians", have borrowed
many words (onomata) from them [57]. The Daco-Macedonians
being the nearest "barbarian" people to the Greeks
and, in fact, living intermingled with them, is only normal
to come across Daco-Macedonian words in the Greek Lexicon.
Athenaeus drew the attention
of his readers to this fact. "Many Antic writers",
"use Macedonian idioms, as a result of intercourse with
them" [58]. A.
Bailly spells the last word "krabbatos" and says
that this was a loan word of obscure origin. Liddell and Ascott,
however, think that it is a Macedonian word, which is actually
the case. We find a derivative of this word (krabbataria)
in the 7th and 6th centuries, respectively [61].
Porphyroghenitus in his Book of Ceremonies
has several words such as bele, bikh, ide, ogun and toul,
for the word "Dans", meaning , dancing [62]. In
the Daco-Getic language, Rumanian language, we still pronounce
it even today as "Dans" with the same meaning, Dancing.
From Diodorus Siculus we
may learn that "Estia" was a Thracian Daco-Getic
goddess [65]. She was also worshipped in Rome under the name
of Vesta and was believed by her devotees to have discovered
how to build and equip homes [66].
As a matter of fact, for
Dacian people, she represented the protector of fire for
their homes. In other words she was a knowing woman, in Dacian
(today Rumanias ) language,
meaning "nevasta", Ne-VASTA / wife, a bride, i.e.
a young woman who must yet be initiated in the art of family
life; by the same token, in Macedonian language ( Arumania,
Vlahos,Vlacika, as they call us today) the word is still Nivesta,
Ni-VESTA. A loan-word to which scant attention has been paid.
An elaborate attempt to disguise
the Dacian origin of a Greek word - the name of a pagan goddess
- can be found in Ioannes Lydus. There
is a place mentioned which is called Nestan. It appears to
have mysteriously escaped
the eye of both ancient and modern philologists. Pausanias
reports that, in Arcadia, he came upon the ruins of a village
called Nestan, near which Philip II of Macedon had once pitched
his camp [70]. One look at this word is sufficient to convince
us that we have before us a casual transcription of the Old-Dacian
words NEA STAN, meaning Stan's village. Nestan is meaningless
in Greek. Pausanias must have written it down as he heard
it from some local person.
The words discussed so far have been
described by lexicographers as Phrygian, as possibly Macedonian,
as Barbarian, as ancient, or simply of unknown origin. They
do have one thing in common: they are very much alive in modern
Rumanian language. Particularly striking are the names Vesta
(Hestia) - "nevasta" and Nestane - to which many
others may be added.
Several other categories
deserve to be looked into when studying the lexical osmosis
between Greeks and Rumanians. Words are usually borrowed along
with the objects or actions they designate for. The Greeks
were a maritime people : fishermen, tradesmen and pirates.
The Dacians, however, were predominantly an agricultural people,.
It was natural for the Greeks to adopt some Dacians words
regarding agriculture. The Rumanian word Colac , which means
a round loaf of bread with a hole in the middle (a wheel),
reappears in Greek as "colic" or "kollix"
a loaf of barley-bread; Telina (celery) becomes selinon etc.
This list is far from being
exhaustive. Several
grammatical forms also suggest the impact of Dacian on ancient
Greek language. Position of the definite article for example:
in ancient Greek, the article is of the prefix type, whereas
in Dacian the article follows the noun (or the adjective).
There is a large number of
facts from history, linguistics, archaeology, numismatics,
and folklore, over and above the ones mentioned in this paper,
which underscore the
conclusion that the language of Constantine the Great was
an elderly form of Dacian dialect which, in turn, has become
known as Rumanian ( Valahian). Collecting and classifying
these facts could become an interesting research project.
However, "necessaria non sunt multiplicanda". The
following examples should, therefore, be considered mainly
as adding color to what has been said before.
Laonicus Chalcondyles says
that he discovered the Triballians to be the most ancient
and greatest of all nations [71]. For
specialists in these subjects, "Dacii Tribali" Triballians
Dacians, were nothing
more than a group of Dacians living at the south of the Danubian
river.
For Strabo the Triballians
were Thracians. Dio
Cassius counted the Triballi, as well as the Dardani, as Moesians
(Mysians) [72].
According to Cesare Baronius, Constantine
the Great claimed to be a descendant of Vespasian [73]. Annales
Ecclesiastici (1624 edition), t.3, col.4. Regardless of whether
Constantine did or did not put forward such a claim, the statement
in Annales Ecclesiastici raises another interesting question.
Baronius says that his authority was Pollio. Yet in Pollio's
text there is no mention of Constantine's so-called claim
to be a descendant of Vespasian. The missing portion, then,
must have disappeared after Baronius saw it. How could it
have disappeared from the Vatican Library?
Those who do not believe
that the language of Constantine the Great was Dacian, i.e.
a Dacian dialect known today as Rumanian, would do a service
to historiography if they could show just what other language
it may have been. I
share the opinion of those scholars who have observed that
the most ancient sources are, as a rule, the most reliable
ones. Greater care is required when using more recent sources,
while the opinions voiced by contemporary writers must always
be looked up with suspicion. To make matters worse, eager
but prejudiced translators have often warped the meaning of
original sources.
________________________________________
ABOUT
THE AUTHOR:
Dr. N. Savescu, a prominent
researcher and advocate of Romanians' Dacian roots, presented
this text at the 44th International Congress on Medieval Studies
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, on 8 May, 2009. His
works are widely published across the internet by supporters
of the Daco-Romanian root theory. See Dacia.org
for more information.
BIBLIOGRAPHY/SOURCES
USED:
[1] Carolus Lundius [Zamolxis
Primus Getarum Legislator-1687]
[2] Nicolae Densusianu [
Dacia preistorica-1913]
[3] Augustin Deac [The History
of the Historical Truth- 2002]
[4] Pompeius Trogus [Book
VII.I.2 - Garnier (1936) - Justin's Epitome], t.1, p. 155)
[5] G. Sotiroff, Koinh and
Idiai [ The Classical World, Philadelphia, Dec., 1968, pp.
131-132.]
[6] Igor M. D'iakonov [The
Original Home of the Speakers of Indo-European." Journal
of Indo-European Studies. Volume 13, p. 92 1985]
[7] Colin Renfrew [The Tarim
Basin, Tocharian, and Indo-European origins: a view from the
west," in V.Mair (ed.), The Bronze Age & Early Iron
Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia -Journal of Indo-European
Studies Monograph #26, vol.1]
[8]. . Napoleon Savescu,
author of „Noi nu suntem urmasii Romei" (Editura Intact,
Bucuresti, Rumania, 1999 ), tells us that "ther is no
evidence neither archeological
nor philological about the disappearance of the Dacian tongue.
"Who the ancient Dacians
were has much been disputed and their language has perished
utterly." No recent authority has rejected these gratuitous
statements.
The current trend seems to
suggest that the Dacians have been "Latinized",
by repeating ad nauseum the claim that Roman people had "arrived"
in, "invading", Dacia in the 2nd century A.D. The
fundamental questions; if the Romans conquered 14% of Dacian's
territory and the entire population learned in 165 years to
speak Latin language, what happened in 86% of Dacian's unoccupied
territory - who were their "teachers", is never
discussed. The matter has been further obscured by the majority
of the Romanian philologists, which is based on the assumption
that, indeed, the Dacian language has virtually disappeared.
There was a time when I, too, believed this. Not any more.
[9] Wilhelm Tomaschek, Die
alten Thraker, Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen
Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie ser Wissenschaften, Vienna,
1893, pp. 123-127).
[10]V.3.
[11] Hdt., V.6 and Strabo,
Fragm.11 of book VII. (Loeb, t.3, pp.329-331.) In the same
fragment, Strabo explains what was called, in his time, Macedonia,
was in earlier times called Emathia, and that most of its
inhabitants were Thracians.
[12] Book XLIX.36.2(loeb,t.5p.415)
[13] De mag.,III.32.5.
[14] Chiliades, X.185. (reprint
of the 1826 edition by Georg Ols, Hildesheim, 1963.)
[15] 12.3.20. and 5.3.2
[16] Hdt. VII.73.
[17] 7.3.2
[18] 13.4.4. and 5.3.2. Noteworthy
is also a remark by Athenaeus (Deipn., IX.398 - Loeb) indicating
that the Paeonians and the Mysians spoke the same language.
[19] Book XXIX.6.2
[20] N.H.,V.31;N.H.,V.120.
[21] Appian, Mithr., 55.
224 (tebner, 1962, t. 1, p.567); Strabo, 12.3.20 and
Frag. 45 (46) - Loeb., t.3,
p.367.
[22] 39th Discourse, 1. (Loeb,
t.4, p. 97.)
[23] 12.3.3 and 12.3.40.
(Loeb, t.5, pp.375 and 449.)
[24] 39th Discourse, 1. (Loeb,
t.4, p. 97.)
[25] Historia Nova, II.37.
(Engl. Transl. By J.J. Buchanan and H.T.Davis,
TrinityUniversity Press,
San Antonio, Texas, 1967, p. 77.)
[26] Cronographia, IX (0
285). (CSHB, p.221.)
[27] In Photiusw, The Library,cod.186.(BL.,Paris,1962,t.3,p.33-34.)
[28] Book VI (Elis II), XX.18.
(Loeb, t.3, p. 129.)
[29] Op. Cit., IV. (CSHB,
p. 72)
[30] Correspondance, BL,
Paris, 1927, p.38
[31] It is common knowledge
that Eumolpus was a leader of the Thracians thatin Attica.
Ancient Greek literature is replete with references to Thracians
throughout the country, including the islands. The presence
of Thracians in Phocis is evidenced by the "legend"
about Tereus and Philomela. Prominent men, such as philosophers
Antisthenes, Pittacis, Themistocles and Iphicrates, were half-Thracian.
Menander was proud of his Thracian origin. Pompeius Trogus
testifies that the oldest name of the Macedonians was Pelasgians.
(Book VII.1, ed. Garnier, Paris, 1936, t.1, p. 155 of
Justin's Epitome.) These Pelasgians occupied the whole of
the Peloponnesus.
It was not without some perfidy
that, around 1528 B.C. (computed from Orosius, Book I.11),
Danaus, fleeing from Egypt, came to the Peloponnesus and occupied
the main city there (Argos), after which he ordered that the
name of the country and the people be changed to his own name.
Computations based on the chronologies of Manetho, Eusebius
and Orosius, as well as on the Parian Marble, all converge
to 16th century B.C. as the probable time of arrival of the
first Greek colony from Egypt.
[32] Diod. Sic., Book I.18.1-3
[33] See the Loeb edition
(1956), p.16
[34] See the Loeb edition
(1959), pp. 156-157.
[35] Quoted by Constantinus
Porphyrogenitus, De thematibus, 2.38.B. Another interesting
detail: Livy (XXXI.XXX.15) says that Macedonians, Acarnanians
and Aetolians used the same speech. On the other hand, the
Acarnanians are identified with the Thracians in a roundabout
but nonetheless very persuasive way. The mother of Themistocles,
according to Cornelius Nepos, was an Acarnanian. When, later
on, Plutarch wrote his biography of Themistocles, he called
her a Thracian. This is not the only evidence.
[36] Op.cit. (CSHB, p. 97).)
[37] Book 2.30.2. I am most
grateful to Professor T.F.Carvey, of the University of Windsor
(Ontario), for drawing my attention to this portion of the
Lydian's book. (See Professor Carney's brilliant translation
of Lydus' De magistratibus.The Wentworth Press, Sydney, Australia,
1965.)
[38] Several derogatory remarks
about Graeculi, made by orators in the presence of Constantine,
a priori, rule out any possibility for the emperor to have
had Greek family connections. (See especially Inceri panegyricus
Constantino Augusto dictus, IX, 1 and Panegyricus Constantino
dictus, VII.XIX-BL, t.2, pp.128 and 70.)
[39]. For an explanation
of this onomastic puzzle (Getae = Goths) see
G.Sotiroff, The Assassination
of Justinian's Personality, pp.135-140. Here we shall note
only that, according to Julius Capitolinus, the father of
Maximinus was a Goth. Maximinus never learned to speak Greek
and, in his youth, hardly knew any Latin but spoke to the
emperor (Alexander Severus) in "almost pure Thracian).
(SHA, Maximini Duo, 1.7 and 2.5)
[40]. Book XXXVIII.10.1-3.
(Loeb, t.3, p.217.)
[41]. Divus Augustus, LXIII.
Suetonius also says that Octavian had promised his daughter
Julia to Cotys "king of the Getae", whom Ovid calls
king of the Thracians.
[42]. N.H. IV.40. (Loeb,
t.3, p.147).
[43]. The version currently
peddled is that Aurelian "withdrew" from Dacia the
Roman garrisons and all Roman citizens. Nobody has explained
just why he withdrew them. The fact that, before Aurelian,
Hadrian removed planks from the top of the bridge across the
Danube which he had inherited from Trajan, is explained by
Dio Cassius (LXVIII.13.6) by the fear Hadrian had that the
"barbarians", i.e. the Dacians, might use the bridge
to cross over into Roman territory. This goes to show who
was strong and who was weak in those days. Aurelian
"withdrew" the Roman citizens from Dacia because
they had been expelled.
[44]. P.G. t.108, col.347.
[45]. De bello gothico, VI.XII.26-27
and II.19.32 (Loeb). One should note the way Memnon speaks
of the army "of the Romans and the Thracians", almost
as if these two were the same people. (Photius, The Library,
cod.224, BL, t.4, p.95.)
[46]. De Aedif., III.VII.18
(Loeb).
[47]. Getica, XII.35.
[48]. In Corpus Scriptorum
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, (Paul Geyer ed., Vienna, 1898,
pp. 183-184.)
[49]. The Museo Nazionale
at Naples has a papyrus concerning the sale of a Gothic church
(? In Ravenna)). While the document itself is drawn up in
Latin, some Gothic clerics have signed it in their own Gothic
script.
[50]. Alcestis, 966-970.
Here, as elsewhere, the imprecision of the Greek language
has lead to some fancy translations. Instead of "I have
found no drug in the Thracian tablets written in Orpheus's
language", Arthur S. Way thought he understood: "There
is naught in the tablets of Thrace, neither drugs whereof
Orpheus taught". (In the Loeb ed.)
[51]. Book VII.111.
[52]. Ex Ponto, IV, ep. XIII.17-22.
(Garnier, 1957, p. 401)
[53]. Op.cit., cod. 177a.
(BL. T.2, p.163.)
[54]. For Dionisu of Miletus,
referred to by Diod. Sic. (3.67.12) says that the Pelasgians
were the first to use the Cadmeian letters (from whom the
Greeks borrowed them).
(See G.Sotiroff, KOINH and IDIAI, The Classical World, Philadelphia,
Dec., 1968, pp. 131-132.)
[55]. See Simocatta's Histories,
III.4.4. and VII.2.5. (Ed. De Boor, Leipzig (tebner), 1887.
Reprinted 1972. (A Russian translation has been published
(1957) in Moscow.) On the troubles of Philip II. In the Triballian
country see Pompeius Trogus, Book IX. Chap. III (garnier,
Paris, 1936 [Justin's Epitome], t.1, p.187.) According to
Herodotus (V.17), the Macedonian king Alexander I. Got a talent
a day from the silver mines in his country. Plato makes Socrates
say (Charnides, 156D) that the Getic/Dacien medics were so
skilled that they had the reputation of being able to give
immortality. The treatment of Lysimachus, after his capture
by the Thracian king Dromichaetes, may be learned from Diodorus
(XXXI.12.4-5). Curiously enough, Orosius (III.23) calls this
same king Dorus.
[56]. 12th Discourse, 57.
(Loeb, t.2, p.71.)
[57]. Cratylus, 409 e.
[58]. Deipnosophists, III.122.
(Loeb)
[59]. Ibid.
[60]. Ibid.
[61]. See (in the CSHB edition)
Malalas, p. 436 and Chronicon Paschale, I, p.696.
[62]. BL. Paris, 1939, t.2.,
p.186. zakanon is used, as may be guessed, in the sense of
lex or mos recepta. (Ibid., cap.8; para.3)
[63]. Annalium, lib. XVI.II.
(CSBH, 1887, p.15)
[64]. Ibid.
[65]. Book I.94.2.
[66]. Zalmoxis is said to
have claimed that Hestia (i.e. Vestia) gave to the
Getae/Dacian their laws.
(Ibidem.)
[67]. Ibid.
[68]. Ibid.
[69]. Ibid.
[70].Arcadia, VIII.VII.4.
(Loeb, t.3, p.377.)
[71]. Laonicus Chalcondyles,
P.G., t.159, col. 41-42. Not to be forgotten is the fact that
Chalcondyles somehow avoided being burned at the stake, but
his book was put on the Index librorum prohibitorum. N.B.
- He equates the Triballians with the Daciens (Op.cit., col.26.)
[72]. Strabo, 7.3.13 (Loeb,
t.3, p.215) and Dio Cassius, LI.23.3. (Loeb, t.6, p.67.)
[73]. Annales Ecclesiastici
(1624 edition), t.3, col.4. Regardless of whether
Constantine did or did not
put forward such a claim, the statement in Annales Ecclesiastici
raises another intersting question. Baronius says that his
authority was Pollio. Yet in Pollio's text, such as we have
it, there is no mention
of Constantine's so-called claim to be a descendant of Vespasian.
The missing portion, then, must have disappeared after Baronius
saw it. How could it have disappeared from the Vatican Library?
Another small mystery: Julius Capitolinus reports (Gordiani
III, 24.5, in Loeb t.2, p. 447) that Licinus claimed to be
a descendant of Philippus Major. How come, Barronius had nothing
to say about this claim?
|
• 
