Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [tied] Thrace

Expand Messages
  • Rex H. McTyeire
    You are ducking the focus, George: *****GK evidence of any Scythian presence prior to the actual O-: arrival of the historical Scythians (mid-7th c. BC). O-:
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 28, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      You are ducking the focus, George:

      *****GK evidence of any Scythian presence prior to the actual
      O-: arrival of the historical Scythians (mid-7th c. BC).
      O-: But "Cimmeria" itself was a short-lived phenomenon
      O-: (ca. 800-650 BC). There is no record of what the
      O-: previous "dominant presence" called itself.

      But Tyragetae were there, and you at least concede they were Getae, who
      are called Thracian, and speaking Thracian, definitely in (your)
      Thrace..and on the Tyra? ...sounds like Thrace to me. The record,
      however, < does > exist for Thrace applied to areas west of that point,
      and N. the Danube.

      *****GK We COULD
      O-: refer to them by names given to archaeological
      O-: cultures (the "Bilozerans", the "Chornolissians"
      O-: etc.).

      Why would we want to do that? If we have people there called Thracians,
      speaking Thracian..doesn't seem to be a really large challenge to logic
      to suggest an eastern extension of a known Thrace..which was named but
      never a State.

      *****GK Herodotus didn't know these peoples' names
      O-: either, and so he chose to call them "Ancient" (or
      O-: "Old"-- no diff) "Scythians", since their descendants
      O-: had consolidated with the Paralata-Skolota into a
      O-: single "nation". It's as if, in the absence of any
      O-: information about Gaul someone were to call Gaul "Old
      O-: France".******

      I 'm obviously missing the relevance you are reading into H.'s use of
      "old/ancient/any variant" here as relevant to Thrace N. the Danube? It
      is a sliver of Black Sea coast, as he defines it. He names all kinds of
      groups and then separates (at the N. Pontic point) Europe and Asia with
      Scythia and Thrace. Not a N to S function..but an E to W one.

      O-: *****GK: My point is that nothing NORTH of
      O-: the Danube was CALLED "Thrace", even if it can be
      O-: shown that many of the populations north of the Danube
      O-: actually spoke a language and had customs very close
      O-: to those of the "Thracian" populations south of the
      O-: Danube.

      Hmmm. The map I am looking at..does not exist? I'm sorry.. Calling a
      people < and > their language Thracian, and placing them geographically
      across a number of times and chroniclers.. seems a fair equation to
      Thrace to me. Map labels reading: {insert Place name of choice},
      usually mean either: 1) error..2) a combining of known with unknown..or
      3) the place under the label is known per the label. Now which is it?
      The only other possibility is I made it up. (My heart made me do it? )

      O-: just as Dacia/Getia is not Thrace.*******

      Of course they were: both (two) were born in it to self name/politically
      organize as emerging distinct from it. Restating your objection does not
      support it, when we (occasionally) agree on what the question is.

      O-: ******GK [NEW]***: All other evidence? Certainly not
      O-: that of any classical historians and geographers known
      O-: to me... ******

      There are numerous references to < all > of Europe North and west of
      the Aegean called Thrace. Then a breakdown into three elements including
      Thracia; then much more detail incrementally in named groups areas in a
      rather reasonable chronological sequence. H. calls Geto-Daci Thracian,
      whether you choose to read it so or no. Strabo says Daci and Getae both
      speak the same dialect of Thracian; .but it can't be Thrace? Why?
      Because you choose to apply a later set of political definitions while
      accusing me of mixing disciplines? My cat is a better linguist than I:
      My interest < is > ethnic and historical. None which has kah kah pooh
      to do with the name Thrace applied to regions North the Danube, and west
      of Scythia on the Dniester.

      O-: *****GK [NEW]: No that is not my point. As a matter of
      O-: fact I would even agree that in Herodotus' time most
      O-: of the Western part of "Scythia" spoke a language very
      O-: close to that of Thrace (though not as close as the
      O-: Getans'). Despite the political dominance of the
      O-: Iranic Paralata,

      You mean the Thracians that were there before the Scyths?

      and despite the fact that they
      O-: constituted a majority of the top aristocracy, I do
      O-: not believe that what Herodotus called "Scythian" was
      O-: an Iranic language, though it might have incorporated
      O-: lexical elements thereof. After the Paralata suffered
      O-: their disastrous defeat at the hands of Philip of
      O-: Macedon, their power waned somewhat, and dominance in
      O-: the complex was challenged by the older "Aukhata"
      O-: "brother". I think that the demise of classical
      O-: Scythia was as much due to the struggle for power
      O-: between Aukhata and Paralata as an effect of the
      O-: Sarmatian invasions (who could actually have been
      O-: brought in as allies by the Paralata: some were
      O-: undoubtedly there in the time of Ateas). The Aukhata
      O-: lost this struggle, and withdrew south of the Danube
      O-: into a culturally and linguistically more friendly
      O-: environment.*******

      Aye: down south with all the other Thracians. The demise of classical
      Scythia was directly due to Phillip and Son, scattered finally by
      Sarmats.


      O-: ****GK [NEW] Well it certainly doesn't fit your
      O-: conception but Herodotus can hardly be blamed for this
      O-: (:=)))*****

      A twist. His comments do not fit your geography and time, at no fault
      to him or me.

      O-: *****GK [NEW]: I think you should read Strabo on this,
      O-: His view of the extent of Thrace was similar to
      O-: Herodotus, and he (Strabo) specifically mentioned that
      O-: Thracian power had drastically declined in his
      O-: time.******

      I have read Strabo on this, and to focus the point..I have added a few
      clips at bottom..save you some time: Herodotus and your interpretation
      of Herodotus..do not seem to agree, nor your Strabo. Perhaps you could
      add a little Cassius Dio as well.

      O-: *****GK [NEW]: Why should I dismiss the Tyragetae?
      O-: They were Getae of the Tyras area.

      Well lets see: they speak Thracian, are in your Thrace, < and > in my
      Thrace, are called Thracian, are in a place called Thrace..shown on a
      map as Thrace, shown on more maps as eclipsing the eastern half of
      <both> views of Thrace; called Thrace by many..ummm..maybe they just may
      be Thracian.

      O-: Piotr has
      O-: conclusively demonstrated that the Massagetae have
      O-: nothing to do with Getae (they are rather the "Big
      O-: Saka") and I suspect that the Thyssagetae are in the
      O-: same category, but will withhold judgement.******

      He has presented argument, and I have not (and did not) contest. I
      still consider it a point of eastern interest, and called it so
      [("admittedly questionable"), as I think I clearly stated]. Herodotus
      does isolate them.

      O-: >(RMcT) Pre-Roman Dacia, and Roman Dacia are just
      O-: > inconvenient name confusions
      O-: > into Scythia?

      O-: *****GK:Not at all. But they are not Thrace,
      O-: which is what your heart desires I guess.(:=))*****

      Well here I think you are (half) right: They were Thracians, speaking
      Thracian; in Thrace, mapped as Thrace; then establishing a new
      state/name. Changes the map..mysterious how that works. A part of what
      had been Thrace became, roughly (but vacillating) on the line of the
      Danube: Dacia. This truncating the region to be (eventually- residually)
      called Thrace to it's south. But leaving many Thracians and Thracian
      speakers outside named political spheres..arguably still In Thrace. It
      was in effect a union of existing and like tribes with some intrusives.
      This is c. 200 BCE. My reference was carefully to c. 2,500 to 600 BCE.
      As far as I am concerned; by Roman Dacia: Thracia was gone but for a
      political region of Rome. Amazing: that is what the map shows too!
      This does not change the point that we are contesting: N. of the Danube
      was called Thrace. My heart has nothing to do with it, nor does that
      comment: if it does..you are still going to have to defeat it by
      focusing on the points with your brain and you eyes, while ignoring my
      anatomical fixations; and avoid repeating circular objections and ducks
      between disciplines.
      :-P

      O-: *****GK [NEW] Which river name would that be>******

      Athrys ?

      O-: *****GK [NEW] No I have no Trogan notions of Scythia
      O-: imperans******

      OK, that is good. BUT; I'm sorry, as that was the only reasonable and
      common but erroneous objection to reality. Now we have to deal with
      "empty place with no name" curiously full of people called Thracians
      speaking Thracian..often called Thrace, and mapped as Thrace. I think
      my worst professor would challenge my refusal to call it Thrace. And my
      best might began deducting points from your counters.

      O-: *****GK: [NEW] Those south of the Danube. North of the
      O-: Danube he knows only the Agathyrsi, though I would
      O-: accept that this includes Getan elements too. Again
      O-: your problem is that you want to move from a
      O-: linguistic comparison to a political and ethnic
      O-: label.*****

      No. My problems do, however, include that I am hardheaded, persistent
      and I insist on the truth while ferreting out the point mercilessly. I
      am sticking to the point of contention and not hiding it with
      disciplinary shell games. There are valid: ethnic, historical and
      linguistic issues involved BUT: The question is " was (any) area N. of
      the Danube called Thrace" Which I brought up, defined in response to
      your question and you challenged. Use any discipline you like to defend
      your position. Duck 6.

      O-: ******GK:[NEW] That doesn't make North Getans or
      O-: Dacians "Thracians". Perhaps Piotr might remind us
      O-: again of the main elements of difference between Getan
      O-: and Thracian.****

      Duck 7. I am not interested, and have stated my historical objections
      to the linguistic groupings, which directly addressed comparisons of
      Thracian and Getic. Follow the bouncing ball, George: was a large area
      N. of The Danube, ever: Thrace?

      O-: ******GK:[NEW] I don't understand your point. There is
      O-: no problem in taking a land route from Thrace to
      O-: Colchis.******

      Nor a problem in a land route Thrace to Sweden either. Bit of a problem
      to leave Thrace for Egypt and pass through Sweden incidentally: "on the
      way". The point was the travel defined due west from North of the
      Pontic from Asia to Thrace, in counter to your claim that Herodotus
      limited Thrace to S. the Danube. The rest also clear to my 15 year old
      Moldoveni house guest in her third language reading my response AND (to
      her) "Herodot". If you are lost: You said H. did not consider North of
      the Danube as Thrace. He seems to in this set of passages, and several
      others, while I acknowledged he will not definitively answer the
      question. He's dead. I can't make him focus on the point, I will
      continue to try with you.


      *****GK Thracian Kings met at the Ister (Danube). Which is
      O-: logical since that was the boundary between Scythia
      O-: and Thrace in his time.******

      Only at the Delta mouth..why is that difficult for you to grasp? That is
      south..there is also a west with the SAME people. It is not logical
      that he of what ever spelling was both in Thrace and not in Thrace at
      the same time. He was in Thrace. (one) He was pursued (two) and found
      N. of the Danube with an entire Thracian army. (three). Thrace is N.
      of the Danube AND south the Danube.

      Cu Stima;
      Rex H. McTyeire
      Bucharest, Romania

      Strabo:
      Strabo, Geography: book 7, chapter 3, section 1
      As for the southern part of Germany beyond the Albis, the portion which
      is just contiguous to that river is occupied by the Suevi; then
      immediately adjoining this is the land of the Getae, which, though
      narrow at first, stretching as it does along the Ister on its southern
      side and on the opposite side along the mountain side of the Hercynian
      Forest for the land of the Getae also embraces a part of the mountains,
      afterwards broadens out towards the north as far as the Tyregetae; but I
      cannot tell the precise boundaries.

      Strabo, Geography: book 7, chapter 3, section 2
      Now the Greeks used to suppose that the Getae were Thracians; and the
      Getae lived on either side the Ister, as did also the Mysi, these also
      being Thracians and identical with the people who are now called Moesi;
      from these Mysi sprang also the Mysi who now live between the Lydians
      and the Phrygians and Trojans.

      Strabo, Geography: book 7, chapter 3, section 4
      But as for the statement that they live bereft of women, the poet
      suggests nothing of the sort, and particularly in the country of the
      Thracians and of those of their number who are Getae.

      Strabo, Geography: book 7, chapter 3, section 4
      And see the statement of Menander about them, which, as one may
      reasonably suppose, was not invented by him but taken from history: All
      the Thracians, and most of all we Getae for I too boast that I am of
      this stock are not very continent; Menander Fr. 547 Kock and a little
      below he sets down the proofs of their incontinence in their relations
      with women: For every man of us marries ten or eleven women, and some,
      twelve or more; but if anyone meets death before he has married more
      than four or five, he is lamented among the people there as a wretch
      without bride and nuptial song.

      Strabo, Geography: book 7, chapter 3, section 10
      Now if he takes the poet to mean those in Asia, he will misinterpret
      him, as I have said before, but if he calls them an invention, meaning
      that there were no Mysians in Thrace, he will contradict the facts; for
      at any rate, even in our own times, Aelius Catus transplanted from the
      country on the far side of the Ister into Thrace fifty thousand persons
      from among the Getae, a tribe with the same tongue as the Thracians.

      Strabo, Geography: book 7, chapter 3, section 11
      As for the Getae, then, their early history must be left untold, but
      that which pertains to our own times is about as follows: Boerebistas a
      Getan, on setting himself in authority over the tribe, restored the
      people, who had been reduced to an evil plight by numerous wars, and
      raised them to such a height through training, sobriety, and obedience
      to his commands that within only a few years he had established a great
      empire and subordinated to the Getae most of the neighboring peoples.

      Strabo, Geography: book 7, chapter 3, section 12
      But there is also another division of the country which has endured from
      early times, for some of the people are called Daci, whereas others are
      called Getae, those who incline towards the Pontus and the east, and
      Daci, those who incline in the opposite direction towards Germany and
      the sources of the Ister.

      Strabo, Geography: book 7, chapter 3, section 13
      The language of the Daci is the same as that of the Getae.

      Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War: book 2, chapter 96, section 1
      Beginning with the Odrysians, he first called out the Thracian tribes
      subject to him between Mounts Haemus and Rhodope and the Euxine and
      Hellespont; next the Getae beyond Haemus, and the other hordes settled
      south of the Danube in the neighborhood of the Euxine, who, like the
      Getae, border on the Scythians and are armed in the same manner, being
      all mounted archers.

      W. W. How, J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus: book 4, chapter 22,
      section 1 [BOOK IV] Some connect the names of Thyssagetae and
      Massagetae, and connect both with the Getae...

      W. W. How, J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus: book 5, chapter 4 [BOOK
      V]
      This Trausic custom, like Suttee ch. 5, evidently rests on the faith in
      a better life beyond the grave, held also by the Getae iv. 95, and
      embodied in the Thracian cult of Dionysus Rohde, Psyche, ii. 1.
    • Piotr Gasiorowski
      Now 18th-century European scholars supposed that the Hungarians were a Slavic or Turkic people. On _linguistic_ grounds (especially as regards the occurrence
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Now 18th-century European scholars supposed that the Hungarians were a Slavic or Turkic people. On _linguistic_ grounds (especially as regards the occurrence of characteristic onomastic elements), the Balkan Moesians were Getic, which means that the Danube was _not_ a natural boundary between the Thracians proper and the Getae. The Getae indeed lived on either side of it. If you want to argue for a "Thracian" cultural circle including the Getae and thus extending way north of the river, I don't mind. Calling the Finns Scandinavians, or Estonians a Baltic nation is OK in cultural and geographic terms, though not linguistically. As a linguist, I find the arguments in favour of separating Thracian and Getic compelling.
         
        Both Thracian and Getic (+ Albanian) are Satem languages. There may have been a prehistoric continuum of related dialects west and north of the Black Sea, with Proto-Balto-Slavic at the one end (in the northern forest zone), Proto-Thracian at the other and Proto-Getic including what George would call "Thracoid" in the middle.
         
        Piotr
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 8:51 AM
        Subject: RE: [tied] Thrace


        [Strabo:] Now the Greeks used to suppose that the Getae were Thracians; and the Getae lived on either side the Ister, as did also the Mysi, these also being Thracians and identical with the people who are now called Moesi; from these Mysi sprang also the Mysi who now live between the Lydians and the Phrygians and Trojans.
      • george knysh
        ... *****GK: There is no record of Tyragetae in the period prior to 800 BC and none in Herodotus. He only knows of Tyritae who were Greeks. You can postulate
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- "Rex H. McTyeire" <rexbo@...> wrote:
          >
          > But Tyragetae were there,

          *****GK: There is no record of Tyragetae in the period
          prior to 800 BC and none in Herodotus. He only knows
          of Tyritae who were Greeks. You can postulate all you
          like about Getae, but you will not find a single
          classical source which holds that they lived in
          Thrace, except those south of the Danube.*****

          and you at least concede
          > they were Getae, who
          > are called Thracian, and speaking Thracian,
          > definitely in (your)
          > Thrace..and on the Tyra? ...sounds like Thrace to
          > me.

          *****GK: Even if we asssumed an absolute identity of
          language between Getae and Thracians (and we
          cannot)that still does not entitle us to call the
          country of the Getae "Thrace". Not all Englishmen live
          in England.*****

          The record,
          > however, < does > exist for Thrace applied to areas
          > west of that point,
          > and N. the Danube.

          *****GK: I know of no such record. One doubtful map
          won't do the trick. And dialectical somersaults which
          ignore the clear evidence and unanimity of classical
          sources won't either. Sorry.******
          >
          > *****GK We COULD
          > O-: refer to them by names given to archaeological
          > O-: cultures (the "Bilozerans", the "Chornolissians"
          > O-: etc.).
          >
          > Why would we want to do that? If we have people
          > there called Thracians,

          ****GK: That's just it. We have no record of a people
          north of the Danube called "Thracians"*****

          > speaking Thracian..doesn't seem to be a really large
          > challenge to logic
          > to suggest an eastern extension of a known
          > Thrace..which was named but
          > never a State.

          *****GK: Seems as though this "logic" escaped all our
          sources.******
          >
          > *****GK Herodotus didn't know these peoples' names
          > O-: either, and so he chose to call them "Ancient"
          > (or
          > O-: "Old"-- no diff) "Scythians", since their
          > descendants
          > O-: had consolidated with the Paralata-Skolota into
          > a
          > O-: single "nation". It's as if, in the absence of
          > any
          > O-: information about Gaul someone were to call Gaul
          > "Old
          > O-: France".******
          >
          > I 'm obviously missing the relevance you are reading
          > into H.'s use of
          > "old/ancient/any variant" here as relevant to Thrace
          > N. the Danube?

          ****GK: Yes you are, Pay attention. ready?*****

          It
          > is a sliver of Black Sea coast, as he defines it.

          *****GK: Nope. Pay attention. He says that "Ancient
          Scythia" begins north of the Danube and runs eastward,
          with the Black Sea as its southern boundary. It
          doesn't take much logic to figure out that it also has
          a northern boundary does it? And a western one too.
          The eastern one is defined: Carcinitis. The northern
          and western ones are not. But since in the West
          "Ancient Scythia" begins where the Scythia of ca. 450
          BC does (Herodotus says so himself a few lines
          earlier)he doesn't have to repeat himself.*****

          > O-: *****GK: My point is that nothing NORTH of
          > O-: the Danube was CALLED "Thrace", even if it can
          > be
          > O-: shown that many of the populations north of the
          > Danube
          > O-: actually spoke a language and had customs very
          > close
          > O-: to those of the "Thracian" populations south of
          > the
          > O-: Danube.
          >
          > Hmmm. The map I am looking at..does not exist?

          *****GK: Your map is of little use compared to the
          written sources, none of which confirm it.*****

          I'm
          > sorry.. Calling a
          > people < and > their language Thracian, and placing
          > them geographically
          > across a number of times and chroniclers.. seems a
          > fair equation to
          > Thrace to me.

          *****GK: Bad logic. This is usually called a
          non-sequitur. Even if the North Getae were
          Thracian,(and the admission need not be made as
          closely as you would wish) it does not follow that
          they lived in Thrace.****


          Map labels reading: {insert Place
          > name of choice},
          > usually mean either: 1) error..2) a combining of
          > known with unknown..or
          > 3) the place under the label is known per the label.
          > Now which is it?
          > The only other possibility is I made it up. (My
          > heart made me do it? )

          *****GK: I have no idea what made and makes you do
          it.*****
          >
          > O-: just as Dacia/Getia is not Thrace.*******
          >
          > Of course they were:

          *****GK: Sorry. I prefer to follow the unanimity of
          classical authors on this rather than your
          concoctions.*****

          >
          > O-: ******GK [NEW]***: All other evidence? Certainly
          > not
          > O-: that of any classical historians and geographers
          > known
          > O-: to me... ******
          >
          > There are numerous references to < all > of Europe
          > North and west of
          > the Aegean called Thrace. Then a breakdown into
          > three elements including
          > Thracia; then much more detail incrementally in
          > named groups areas in a
          > rather reasonable chronological sequence. H. calls
          > Geto-Daci Thracian,
          > whether you choose to read it so or no.

          ****GK: No. He calls the Getae south of the Danube
          Thracian. There is no choice involved here. It's clear
          as rainwater.*****


          Strabo says
          > Daci and Getae both
          > speak the same dialect of Thracian; .but it can't be
          > Thrace? Why?

          *****GK: Because all written sources known to us deny
          it. That's why.*******

          > Because you choose to apply a later set of political
          > definitions while
          > accusing me of mixing disciplines?

          *****GK The difference between us is that I choose to
          follow the sources, while you follow your "idee
          fixe".*****

          My cat is a
          > better linguist than I:
          > My interest < is > ethnic and historical. None
          > which has kah kah pooh
          > to do with the name Thrace applied to regions North
          > the Danube, and west
          > of Scythia on the Dniester.

          ******GK: Cats, kah kah and pooh. Now there's a solid
          argument for you.******

          (RMcT) The
          > demise of classical
          > Scythia was directly due to Phillip and Son,

          *****GK: Philip checked their attempt at a southward
          expansion, but it didn't do him much good since he
          lost much of his booty to the Triballians. As for his
          son Alexander he was smart enough not to try to
          confront them, and chose easier pickings. But his
          Viceroy in Thracia Zopirion wasn't quite as smart. He
          tried it in 331 BC with a huge army. 30,000. They were
          annihilated. So think again about "direct" causes of
          Scythian decline.*****
          >
          >
          >
          > O-: *****GK [NEW]: I think you should read Strabo on
          > this,
          > O-: His view of the extent of Thrace was similar to
          > O-: Herodotus, and he (Strabo) specifically
          > mentioned that
          > O-: Thracian power had drastically declined in his
          > O-: time.******
          >
          > I have read Strabo on this, and to focus the
          > point..I have added a few
          > clips at bottom..save you some time: Herodotus and
          > your interpretation
          > of Herodotus..do not seem to agree, nor your Strabo.
          > Perhaps you could
          > add a little Cassius Dio as well.


          ****GK: No need to discuss your "flatus vocis". You
          obviously don't have a clue, I'm sad to say.******
          >
          > O-: *****GK [NEW]: Why should I dismiss the
          > Tyragetae?
          > O-: They were Getae of the Tyras area.
          >
          >
          === message truncated ===

          ******GK: I'll deal with the rest of your points
          separately since yahoo seems tired of long
          messages.*****


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
          http://greetings.yahoo.com
        • george knysh
          Rex wrote earlier: Thracian tribal groups..both banks of the Danube. They also incorporate a river name..North of the Danube..listed as Thracian by H.
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Rex wrote earlier:
            "Thracian tribal groups..both banks of the Danube.
            They also incorporate a river name..North of the
            Danube..listed as Thracian by H."

            *****GK [NEW] Which river name would that be>******

            Rex: Athrys ?

            ***GK: Dear Rex. Pay attention. The Athrys flows "from
            Thrace and the country of the tribe of Thracians
            called Crobyzi" (Herodotus). News flash: The Crobyzi
            lived SOUTH of the Danube. Cf. Strabo, 7.5.12: "After
            the country of the Scordisci, along the Ister, comes
            that of the Triballi and the Mysi (whom I have
            mentioned before), and also the marshes of that part
            of what is called Little Scythia which is this side
            the Ister (these too I have mentioned). These people,
            as also the Crobyzi and what are called the
            Troglodytae, live above the region round about
            Callatis, Tomis, and Ister. Then come the peoples who
            live in the neighborhood of the Haemus Mountain and
            those who live at its base and extend as far as the
            Pontus--I mean the Coralli, the Bessi, and some of the
            Medi and Dantheletae."

            *****GK Thracian Kings met at the Ister (Danube).
            Which is
            O-: logical since that was the boundary between
            Scythia
            O-: and Thrace in his time.******

            REX: Only at the Delta mouth..why is that difficult
            for you to grasp?

            *****GK: Probably for two reasons: (1) Because the
            Prut is a Scythian river, and runs into the Danube
            much to the west of the delta; and (2) Because Scythia
            was bounded on the landward side north of the Danube
            not by Thrace but by the land of the Agathyrsi.****

            That is
            south..there is also a west with the SAME people.

            *****GK: Clearly if Thrace is Scythia's neighbour to
            the "west and south", but Scythia is bounded on the
            landward side after the Danube not by Thrace but by
            the Agathyrsi, then "to the west and south" means
            "southwest". Elementary and in line with everything
            else Herodotus has to say.***

            It is not logical
            that he of what ever spelling

            *****GK: Poor Scylas...And he the son of a Greek from
            Thrace too...*****

            was both in Thrace and not in Thrace at
            the same time. He was in Thrace. (one) He was
            pursued (two) and found
            N. of the Danube with an entire Thracian army.
            (three). Thrace is N.
            of the Danube AND south the Danube.

            *****GK: Scylas fled to Thrace. Which means he fled
            across the Danube (one) Octamasades pursued and "made
            contact with the Thracian forces on the Ister". Which
            to any reasonable person means "at the border", the
            Thracians being south and the Scythians north of the
            Danube.******









            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
            http://greetings.yahoo.com
          • tgpedersen
            ... were a Slavic or Turkic people. On _linguistic_ grounds (especially as regards the occurrence of characteristic onomastic elements), the Balkan Moesians
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
              > Now 18th-century European scholars supposed that the Hungarians
              were a Slavic or Turkic people. On _linguistic_ grounds (especially
              as regards the occurrence of characteristic onomastic elements), the
              Balkan Moesians were Getic, which means that the Danube was _not_ a
              natural boundary between the Thracians proper and the Getae. The
              Getae indeed lived on either side of it. If you want to argue for
              a "Thracian" cultural circle including the Getae and thus extending
              way north of the river, I don't mind. Calling the Finns
              Scandinavians, or Estonians a Baltic nation is OK in cultural and
              geographic terms, though not linguistically. As a linguist, I find
              the arguments in favour of separating Thracian and Getic compelling.
              >
              > Both Thracian and Getic (+ Albanian) are Satem languages. There may
              have been a prehistoric continuum of related dialects west and north
              of the Black Sea, with Proto-Balto-Slavic at the one end (in the
              northern forest zone), Proto-Thracian at the other and Proto-Getic
              including what George would call "Thracoid" in the middle.
              >
              > Piotr
              >
              >


              Where would you fit the Bastarnians into this continuum? Time frame?

              Torsten
            • Rex H. McTyeire
              Combining your last two George: why don t we accept my proposition that H. does not answer the question and look elsewhere, and avoid frustration? The Scylas
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 3, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Combining your last two George: why don't we accept my proposition that
                H. does not answer the question and look elsewhere, and avoid
                frustration? The Scylas thing is inconclusive, and dissecting it further
                is pointless; as is H. alone on the issue.

                Basic H. George: He saw Europe (west the Dniester and north the Aegean)
                as three "nations": in his sense three groups of related tribes..and
                far from complete or accurate. This has been interpreted and
                reinterpreted a dozen ways and shows up in many maps as reconstructions
                of his view for a couple of millennia..with as many possible variations
                on the theme as the placement of "Scythia" on ancient maps. Europe,
                according to H. was Thracia, Celtia, and Cynetia. Define the world with
                input from, but not limited to: H. (Thought for the day :-)

                O-: *****GK: I know of no such record. One doubtful map
                O-: won't do the trick.

                I have many doubtful maps supporting my position, you have none;
                doubtful or otherwise. The < one > I referenced is the best I have
                found (lately..last few days) with a sense of attribution and a claim to
                a pre Roman picture of the Eastern Danube region. All I have found
                attempting to depict a pre-Roman situation place a clear label on (at
                least) all the eastern half of the Balkans: Thracia, standing alone
                until Dacia is depicted to its North, and then accruing Macedonian and
                Illyrian detail. Maps only begin to truncate Thracia to below the
                Danube <after> the emergence of Dacia as a state..which was probably 400
                BCE.(and I limited my Thracian definition at 600 BCE). Historical
                written records of a Dacia begin only around 200 BCE after they begin to
                get noticed and become a problem to: Romans.

                O-: *****GK: There is no record of Tyragetae in the period
                O-: prior to 800 BC and none in Herodotus.

                There is no (classical) record of much of anything prior to 800 BC,
                George: just a few allusions. Herodotus doesn't mention the Tyragetae,
                primarily because they were absorbed into the Scythia he does describe.
                You may pretend they never existed if you wish, you have H.'s
                permission. Exclude them and the impact on my defined BC Thrace outline
                is insignificant.

                O-:*****GK : You can postulate all you
                O-: like about Getae, but you will not find a single
                O-: classical source which holds that they lived in
                O-: Thrace, except those south of the Danube

                I am not postulating. All references call them Thracian, whether you
                like it or no. They are also placed North and South the Danube.

                O-: *****GK: Even if we asssumed an absolute identity of
                O-: language between Getae and Thracians (and we
                O-: cannot)that still does not entitle us to call the
                O-: country of the Getae "Thrace". Not all Englishmen live
                O-: in England.*****

                Actually too many of them live in Scotland for my preferences. As for
                the languages, the classical sources you are dependent on (when
                convenient) relate them.

                O-:And dialectical somersaults which
                O-: ignore the clear evidence and unanimity of classical
                O-: sources won't either. Sorry.

                I find no "unanimity" in support of your position..but in fact the
                opposite.

                O-: ****GK: That's just it. We have no record of a people
                O-: north of the Danube called "Thracians"*****

                George, we have many references to Getae as Thracian, and Getae center
                is North of the Danube.

                O-: *****GK: Nope. Pay attention. He says that "Ancient
                O-: Scythia" begins north of the Danube and runs eastward,
                O-: with the Black Sea as its southern boundary. It
                O-: doesn't take much logic to figure out that it also has
                O-: a northern boundary does it? And a western one too.
                O-: The eastern one is defined: Carcinitis. The northern
                O-: and western ones are not. But since in the West
                O-: "Ancient Scythia" begins where the Scythia of ca. 450
                O-: BC does (Herodotus says so himself a few lines
                O-: earlier)he doesn't have to repeat himself.*****

                He clearly defines Scythia as a squared box, and if there is no
                difference in his references to < your > Scythia A) and Scythia
                B)..then there is no significant difference is there? The four sides
                are then defined by listed neighbors. On the West: Agathyrsi, who are
                1) a small tribal kingdom 2) of Getae 3) in Thrace. (H. clearly states
                their customs ARE "most nearly" Thracian.) Now how far do you want to
                stretch this H. "Square" till it becomes a rectangle of convenience to
                your argument?

                O-: *****GK: Your map is of little use compared to the
                O-: written sources, none of which confirm it.*****

                They seem to, if I can get you to accept the time and political
                differences between c. 600 BCE and post 100AD.

                O-: *****GK: Bad logic. This is usually called a
                O-: non-sequitur. Even if the North Getae were
                O-: Thracian,(and the admission need not be made as
                O-: closely as you would wish) it does not follow that
                O-: they lived in Thrace.****

                Standing alone you are right. It does not stand alone.
                All Getae were Thracian by < your > sources.

                O-: *****GK: Because all written sources known to us deny
                O-: it. That's why.*******

                Interesting claim, and a valuable one. Find one tiny source, (not your
                interpretation of same) just one "denial" : of Thrace north of the
                Danube at the 400 BC point. (OK..easier 1K to 200 BCE) Easier yet: one
                clear definition of Thrace suggesting that it stopped Northward at the
                Danube < before > Dacia emerged. Just one.

                O-: *****GK The difference between us is that I choose to
                O-: follow the sources, while you follow your "idee
                O-: fixe".*****

                I have no idée fixe..beyond the observation that you are wrong on this
                issue. My position (call it as you will) came from the same sources, and
                much study.

                O-: So think again about "direct" causes of
                O-: Scythian decline.*****

                I have. I retain the position, but it is outside our primary interest.


                O-: ***GK: Dear Rex. Pay attention. The Athrys flows "from
                O-: Thrace and the country of the tribe of Thracians
                O-: called Crobyzi" (Herodotus). News flash: The Crobyzi
                O-: lived SOUTH of the Danube. Cf. Strabo, 7.5.12: "After
                O-: the country of the Scordisci, along the Ister, comes
                O-: that of the Triballi and the Mysi (whom I have
                O-: mentioned before), and also the marshes of that part
                O-: of what is called Little Scythia which is this side
                O-: the Ister (these too I have mentioned). These people,
                O-: as also the Crobyzi and what are called the
                O-: Troglodytae, live above the region round about
                O-: Callatis, Tomis, and Ister. Then come the peoples who
                O-: live in the neighborhood of the Haemus Mountain and
                O-: those who live at its base and extend as far as the
                O-: Pontus--I mean the Coralli, the Bessi, and some of the
                O-: Medi and Dantheletae."

                Dear George: pay attention. The H. river data is confused and
                incomplete, some of it contradictory to his physical descriptions and
                the real geography on the ground. In any case I do not know which
                current river was the "Athrys" but I do know H. lists all North flowing
                rivers as Haemus sourced and/or Illyrian..and specifically mentions
                these are North flowing. Then he lists three Thracian rivers. If you
                look at a map either he misses < some > of the major rivers North of
                the Danube, in favor of misplaced streams, or these northerly ones are
                included in his intent, otherwise he limits Thrace to a SE quarter of
                Dobrogea (which we know is not his intent). Yes, there is a region
                named Crobyzi south of the Danube at one very late point, and south of
                the elevation feeding the Danube; probably named after a tribal group
                (It is the Pontic coast south of Tomi into the Haemus, essentially the
                SE quarter of Dobrogea...but no major rivers in it..and < most > of
                the water shed [News Flash: flowing down hill as water is wont] empties
                into the Pontic.) You can list Getae, Mysi and Moesi tribal names
                forever, and that is what they will still be: tribal names. Tribes
                moved, intermingled, aligned, absorbed others and disappeared George.
                Thrace has been a constant presence for millennia (4? or 5?), changing
                only in the size left undefined by emerging political entities.

                Thy Mysi have < also > been placed on both sides the Danube by the
                sources you revere. The Agathyrsi were Thracian, and that is IMO but
                not very speculative, even if you charge that Tyragetae is speculative
                in association: in any case Agathyrsi do not define the eastern Balkan
                peninsula North of the Danube at any point in time ( I do have one
                interpretive map that attempts to depict this..also taken solely from
                too close an adherence to H. in one set of references to a small kingdom
                west of the Scythians mentioned four or five times. ) It does not hold
                up to scrutiny as anything larger than a NE Thracian kingdom at the time
                of H.'s reference.

                Yes; you have mentioned many of those before, and your sources do not
                limit them to south..you are doing that all by yourself. Yes; you
                mentioned "Little Scythia". Essentially it is from a Roman
                characterization of a North east inset portion of the late province of
                _Moesia Inferior_ (The north half of Dobrogea, or Dobrogea above Tomi)
                alternately expressed and depicted as "Scythia Minor" or "Scythia
                Parva"..so named because the < Getic speaking Getae > tribes there
                historically applied Scythian-like tactics in warfare with mounted
                archers. By this time Romans are also calling the area < North > of
                the Dobrogea Border : "Getarum Solitudo"

                This last < is > speculative, and beyond my linguistic ability, but not
                my interest and curiosity :-) : Athyrs & Agathyrsi < may > both be
                related to a very Getic and Thracian application of the Dionysus
                tradition: then perhaps even associated with the very origin of the
                word: Thrace. The word Thursos entered Greek, directly from Thrace
                and Phrygia: was then Latinized as Thyrsus (pl. -si). Coming to mean a
                staff tipped with a pine cone and twined with ivy .. carried by
                Dionysus, and his followers (then called Thyrsi, or Thyasi in various
                locations ..waving thyrsoi [wreaths of ivy] ) .. and satyrs. There are
                very early references to the Dionysus persona becoming a bull (Phrygia,
                Lydia, Crete, Athens) and a wolf (Thrace and Lydia)...the latter with
                very clear links to Dacian and Getic myth.

                Cu Stima;
                Rex H. McTyeire
                Bucharest, Romania.
              • george knysh
                ... *****GK: Etc. etc. etc. etc. Dear Rex, It does not really matter what I say or don t say. You have your idee fixe and you will stay with it no matter
                Message 7 of 14 , Mar 3, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- "Rex H. McTyeire" <rexbo@...> wrote:
                  > Combining your last two George: why don't we accept
                  > my proposition that
                  > H. does not answer the question and look elsewhere,
                  > and avoid
                  > frustration? The Scylas thing is inconclusive, and
                  > dissecting it further
                  > is pointless; as is H. alone on the issue.

                  *****GK: Etc. etc. etc. etc. Dear Rex, It does not
                  really matter what I say or don't say. You have your
                  "idee fixe" and you will stay with it no matter what.
                  Inconvenient evidence will be ignored or rejected as
                  "inconclusive" so as to "avoid frustration". You have
                  been told over and over that there is no classical
                  source which defines the area NORTH of the Danube as
                  "THRACE". And that is the key issue. It's not up to me
                  to find a passage negating your idee fixe. It's up to
                  you to find one supporting it. Even if we were to
                  accept that the Getae were "Thracian" in a linguistic
                  or cultural sense it would still not make THRACE out
                  of the Land of the Getans, just as the fact that
                  Americans or Canadians or Scots, all of whom are
                  mostly English-speaking do not live in ENGLAND. Is
                  that so difficult for you to understand? I guess it
                  must be... But in fact we don't have to accept that
                  the Getae (and Dacians) spoke the Thracian of the real
                  Thracians south of the Danube. Strabo can be used as
                  an argument here, since he says that the word for city
                  in the Thracian language is "bria" (7.6.1), whereas in
                  Getan it would be "dava". Piotr could give you many
                  more pointers here were you really interested. But of
                  course admitting that Getans and Thracians spoke
                  different languages would be too "frustrating". And
                  the fact that the Agathyrsi customs resembled those of
                  the Thracians does not make Thracians out of them, let
                  alone Thracians residing in Thrace. Whatever some
                  Greeks may have supposed about the Getan identity in
                  centuries past the very fact that Strabo proferred an
                  expression like "used to suppose" (7.3.2) should alert
                  you to the fact that... they no longer did so.
                  BTW you might be interested in a recent article by a
                  Moldavian scholar called Tcaciuc (it's in Russian
                  though, but you can find it at
                  http://www.ant.md/school/has/ The journal "Stratum
                  plus", n.4, 1999: "The Getica we have lost"), who
                  argues very plausibly that there is no record of Getae
                  north of the Danube prior to the IVth c. BC. Since
                  they lived south of the Danube in the times of
                  Herodotus and Thucydides this may have been one of the
                  reasons why some Greeks "used to suppose" they were
                  Thracians.

                  Speaking of Thucydides, here is a quote from Book II
                  of his "Peloponnesian War". He was a general rather
                  than a storyteller and his opinion carries more weight
                  than Herodotus'.

                  Having described the Kingdom of the Odrysians ruled by
                  Sitalkes (the Getae were his subjects, and the Kingdom
                  extended to the Danube where it bordered on that of
                  the Scythians), Thucydides resumes:

                  "...the kingdom (of Sitalkes) became very powerful,
                  and in revenue and general prosperity exceeded all the
                  nations of Europe which lie between the Ionian Sea and
                  the Euxine; in the size and strength of their army
                  being second only, though far inferior, to the
                  Scythians. For if the Scythians were united, there is
                  no nation which could compare with them, or would be
                  capable of resisting them; I do not say in Europe, but
                  even in Asia..." Could this be a "correction" of
                  Herodotus about the Thracians? (:=)))["if the
                  Thracians could be united under a single ruler in a
                  homogeneous whole, they would be the most powerful
                  nation on earth, and no one could cope with them"]

                  ==="An ideologue-- one who thinks ideologically--
                  can't lose. He can't lose because his answer, his
                  interpretation and his attitude have been determined
                  in advance of the particular experience or
                  observation. They are derived from the ideology, and
                  are not subject to the facts. There is no possible
                  argument, observation or experiment that could
                  disprove a firm ideological belief for the simple
                  reason that an ideologue will not accept any argument,
                  observation or experiment as constituting disproof...
                  ... If there is any seeming conflict between doctrine
                  and reality, then reality not the doctrine, must give
                  way. This is exactly what proves that his system of
                  belief is not a meaningful assertion about what is or
                  is not the case in the real world, but an ideology.
                  the primary function of which is not to state truths
                  but to adjust attitudes." (James Burnham)




                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
                  http://sports.yahoo.com
                • george knysh
                  ... Yes; you mentioned Little Scythia . Essentially it is from a Roman characterization of a North east inset portion of the late province of _Moesia
                  Message 8 of 14 , Mar 3, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- "Rex H. McTyeire" <rexbo@...> wrote:
                    Yes; you
                    mentioned "Little Scythia". Essentially it is from a
                    Roman
                    characterization of a North east inset portion of the
                    late province of
                    _Moesia Inferior_ (The north half of Dobrogea, or
                    Dobrogea above Tomi)
                    alternately expressed and depicted as "Scythia Minor"
                    or "Scythia
                    Parva"..so named because the < Getic speaking Getae >
                    tribes there
                    historically applied Scythian-like tactics in warfare
                    with mounted
                    archers.

                    *****GK: Here as in many other things, you simply
                    don't know what you're talking about. Here is the
                    truth of the matter concerning "Little Scythia", which
                    has nothing to do with your fantasies. It is from
                    Strabo.

                    "the whole of this country [GK: most of the Crimean
                    interior], together with about all the country outside
                    the isthmus as far as the Borysthenes, was called
                    Little Scythia. But on account of the large number of
                    people who left Little Scythia and crossed both the
                    Tyras and the Ister and took up their abode in the
                    land beyond, no small portion of Thrace as well came
                    to be called Little Scythia; the Thracians giving way
                    to them partly as the result of force and partly
                    because of the bad quality of the land, for the
                    greater part of the country is marshy. (7.4.5)"

                    The "Little Scythia" of the Crimea and Lower Dnipro
                    (capital: Neapolis) lasted until the late 2nd century
                    AD, when it was incorporated into the Bosporan
                    Kingdom. The "Little Scythia" in Dobrudja was the new
                    home of the Scythian Aukhata (Aratores) as mentioned
                    in an earlier post, and it lasted for less than two
                    centuries. It was named Scythia because it was
                    populated by and dominated by migrant Scythians, not
                    because Getans used Scythian archery tactics. Lower
                    Moesia wasn't founded as a Roman province until early
                    in the reign of Tiberius, some 100 years after the
                    fall of "Little Scythia" in Dobrudja.



                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
                    http://sports.yahoo.com
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.