Re: [tied] Re: Trajan's column

--- m_iacomi <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

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

But was this local

> population allowed
> > to keep its weapons and retain its social and
> political structures?
>
> (MI) To keep some weapons, yes. Social and political
> structures are not
> figured on the Column, so I wouldn't speculate about
> them. :-)

******GK: What do you know about the lex Traiana
mentioned by Alex? All I found in Lactantius is
reference to a heavy yoke imposed on the defeated
population, but nothing about post-106 uprisings in
conquered Dacia.*******

>
> >(GK) 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.
>
> (MI) 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.

*****GK: As far as I remember the "free Dacians" did
not confront the Romans until 117 or 118 (probably) or
143 (certainly). But how would the interpretation of
that last depiction as representing out-migrating
Dacians not fit historical facts? It fits them
precisely I should think. Some Dacians leave with
their women, children, stock, and weapons "to fight
another day" (warning).******

>
> >>(MI) 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
>
> (MI)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.
>
> >(GK) and their weapons.
>
> (MI) Some of. In fact, those weapons are not so

obvious

> on images I
> saw up till now.

*****GK: I haven't seen any images, and am working on
the basis of your report. What are you saying here?
That there are no weapons showing?********

>
> >(GK) There are better ways to depict the return to
> calm. That "look
> > back" implies a sense of loss and danger.
>
> (MI) 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).
>
> >(GK) It still seems best viewed as the imposition
> > of a new boundary, guarded by Roman arms.
>
> (MI) 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.

*****GK: It's simple logic. If these armed Dacians are
retreating before the Romans, they would not stop
until reaching a point beyond which Roman arms are no
longer an immediate threat. Which suggests the
boundary between Roman Dacia and the territories of
the free Dacians.******

> (MI) 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.

*****GK: If you initial report is correct (presence of
weapons) the notion that this represents an
out-migration of determined resisters is more
plausible. It's not "decisive" of course, but you know
about Ockham's razor (:=)).*****

(MI)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.

*****GK: I certainly did not mean to imply that there
was a total exodus of Dacians after 106, leaving the
land empty. As you say, archaeology does show that
many remained, even if increasingly marginalized by
the massive "all-imperial" colonization process. BTW
it also shows that many Dacians left, since the
culture of the Carpi (the major free Dacian group) is
dated from the 2nd to the late 3rd century in areas
east of the borders of Roman Dacia, and the Carpathian
barrows culture (another free Dacian group) also
emerges in the 2nd century. So the discussion is not
quite as academic as you intimate.******

>
> Regards,
> Marius Iacomi
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com