[tied] Re: Trajan's column

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh wrote:

> > It is possible to be like this. But there is no way
> > to say whehter
> > they're driven out of the province or only out of
> > the fortified zone.
>
> *****GK: If this is the last depiction on the column (?)

Practically, yes. The spiral finishes with animals peacefully
grazing, saw among trees' branches.

> it would at least intimate that these Dacians, though defeated,
> survived as a collectivity (with their weapons and stock),

Quite right. That is they were not destroyed.

> [...] and it would not suggest that they stayed under Roman
> domination. That's the simplest interpretation.******

That's one of the interpretations. It is by no means clear where
those guys were moving. But since it's about return to a peaceful
life, good chances are that Romans have figured on the Column the
life in their new province and not outside it.

>> Dacian fortifications _were_ in the mountains and it's there that
>> decisive final battles took place (women participating at them).
>> Keep in mind that after creation of Dacia Romana, a new
>> Sarmizegetusa Regia was founded, considerably lower than ex-Dacian
>> capital, at some good distance from it. The name could be
>> explained only in connection with local population's feelings,
>> otherwise Romans had no special reason to call another place
>> using a Dacian name.
>
> *****GK: That's a good point. But was this local population allowed
> to keep its weapons and retain its social and political structures?

To keep some weapons, yes. Social and political structures are not
figured on the Column, so I wouldn't speculate about them. :-)

> I still feel that the logical interpretation of the last scene is
> that these Dacians are not giving up, and moving away from the
> advancing Romans.******

That wouldn't fit historic facts. There was no significant free
Dacian uprising against Roman dominance during Trajan's reign, the
period in which the Column was built.

>> The interpretation is not so stupid, taking into account that
>> one key request ignored by Dacian king after the Ist war was
>> dismantling of fortified cities, which were to some extent
>> feared by Romans.
>
> *****GK: I still think this is strained. The defeated Dacians are
> allowed to keep their property

That's normal. It's about their daily lifes and ensuring some
production for support of Roman occupation army. Romans did not
wipe out everything, they were not so stupid to eliminate local
production.

> and their weapons.

Some of. In fact, those weapons are not so obvious on images I
saw up till now.

> There are better ways to depict the return to calm. That "look
> back" implies a sense of loss and danger.

It could be seen also as taking care of the others within the
group. Or it can be seen as artistical way to depict how harsh was
the defeat for Dacians (don't forget this was meant to glorify
the emperor and Roman army, and how bad were the "others" beaten).

> It still seems best viewed as the imposition
> of a new boundary, guarded by Roman arms.******

There is nothing which could be interpreted as boundary in those
sketches. The distance between the city being fired and those guys
does not allow to infer the existence of some boundary between them.
Summarizing, there is no doubt that Dacian people do leave a place
where they organized resistence (most probably, somewhere in the
mountain complex of cities). The images do not tell where the guys
are further settling and there is no decisive argument to decide
wheter they are moving within Dacia Romana or if they are driven
out of its' boundaries. Anyway, history and archaeological proofs
already established that a big amount of Dacians remained in the
new Roman province, fact which makes the above discussion rather
academical.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi