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

Re: [tied] Thrace

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.