Re: [tied] Thrace

--- "Rex H. McTyeire" <rexbo@...> wrote:

> Narrowing:
> ****GK: My view on the other hand is that "Ancient
> Scythia" is Herodotus' way of referring to the
> political situation here antecedent not only to the
> arrival of the "Royal" Scythians ca. 650 BC but also
> prior to the Cimmerians. He used "Ancient Scythia"
> for
> lack of a better term. It extended from the Danube
> to
> appr. the isthmus of Perekop, therefore WEST of the
> "Royal" Scythian lands of Herodotus' time. ****
>
> (R mcT)My (H.) translation says (on disk in

MSword..so

> traditional line
> reference codes are beyond my formatted copy, please
> excuse.) �old�..not
> ancient, but clearly refers to a distinct NW Pontic
> coastal presence
> beginning above the Northern most Danube connection
> with the Black
> Sea..and Eastward to a North Pontic presence. There
> is no doubt of
> western Scyth influence < after > N. Pontic
> consolidation. There is no
> question to earlier eastern IE traffic into the
> Danube basin and the
> Carpathians. However: in my view there was no
> significant, defining or
> politically important Scythian presence west of the
> Dniester prior to
> Scyth consolidation of Cimmeria.

*****[NEW}**GK: I'll repeat myself. There is no
evidence of any Scythian presence prior to the actual
arrival of the historical Scythians (mid-7th c. BC).
But "Cimmeria" itself was a short-lived phenomenon
(ca. 800-650 BC). There is no record of what the
previous "dominant presence" called itself. We COULD
refer to them by names given to archaeological
cultures (the "Bilozerans", the "Chornolissians"
etc.). Herodotus didn't know these peoples' names
either, and so he chose to call them "Ancient" (or
"Old"-- no diff) "Scythians", since their descendants
had consolidated with the Paralata-Skolota into a
single "nation". It's as if, in the absence of any
information about Gaul someone were to call Gaul "Old
France".******

>
> The center element of our dispute seems to be the
> question: Was there a
> Thrace North of the Danube,

*****GK {NEW}****: My point is that nothing NORTH of
the Danube was CALLED "Thrace", even if it can be
shown that many of the populations north of the Danube
actually spoke a language and had customs very close
to those of the "Thracian" populations south of the
Danube. What might be a proper analogy? At the risk of
irritating some linguists, and salva positione, how
about the relationship between the Catalans and the
Valencianos in Spain? The Valencian language is very
close to the Catalan, but Valencia is not Catalonia
just as Dacia/Getia is not Thrace.*******

or was that region

> (R McT)instead an earlier form
> of any sort of �Scythia�? (Or more one than the
> other?) I stand by
> Thrace either side of the question.
>
> I have only seen one map so far; that presents
> itself as copied forward
> from pre-Roman political situations: and It
> unambiguously portrays
> Thracia extending MOSTLY North of the Danube
> encompassing the
> Carpathians, Transylvania and all between the
> Carpathians, Adriatic and
> Black Sea western shore; as does all other
> evidence.

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

>
> *****GK: I am not referring to a tiny Roman
> province,
> but to a large though undefined area SOUTH OF THE
> DANUBE.
>
> (R mcT)IMO you are referring to Odryssia which is

bigger

> than the Roman
> province of the name Thrace (by the inclusion also
> of the province(s) of
> Moesia and parts of Macedon and Illyricum), but only
> a fraction of
> Thrace. But I agree part of the problem is
> inappropriate usage of
> terms, and political names applied out of time.
> While I offer that
> Thracian is more accurate than Scythian..which seem
> to be where you wish
> to take the point.

*****GK [NEW]: No that is not my point. As a matter of
fact I would even agree that in Herodotus' time most
of the Western part of "Scythia" spoke a language very
close to that of Thrace (though not as close as the
Getans'). Despite the political dominance of the
Iranic Paralata, and despite the fact that they
constituted a majority of the top aristocracy, I do
not believe that what Herodotus called "Scythian" was
an Iranic language, though it might have incorporated
lexical elements thereof. After the Paralata suffered
their disastrous defeat at the hands of Philip of
Macedon, their power waned somewhat, and dominance in
the complex was challenged by the older "Aukhata"
"brother". I think that the demise of classical
Scythia was as much due to the struggle for power
between Aukhata and Paralata as an effect of the
Sarmatian invasions (who could actually have been
brought in as allies by the Paralata: some were
undoubtedly there in the time of Ateas). The Aukhata
lost this struggle, and withdrew south of the Danube
into a culturally and linguistically more friendly
environment.*******

(R mcT)So lets keep it Geographic:

>
> The Carpathian to Black Sea area, N of the Danube:
> Did it have more in
> common culturally, tribally, linguistically,
> ethnically with people
> referred to Classically as: Thracian..or Scythian?

******GK[NEW] : Some with Thr.(Agathyrsi) others with
Scyth.(Alizones)******

>
> As defined by Herodotus, the limited Thrace doesn�t
> fit.

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


The population

> there in H�s time never approached that of the SE
> Corner of Anatolia he
> called home, and would not be remarkable for power
> and potential.

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

Your

> sub Danube Thrace kinda� has to be defined at its
> largest potential
> between The Black Sea, The Aegean, The Illyrians
> (Which H. References)
> and The Danube. Most of H�s Thracian references
> deal only with Persian
> passage against the Greeks; which Is the problem,
> that and Aegean
> stories of Thrace at the North of said Aegean
> limiting the
> perception..all too common in Classical studies of a
> few decades ago,
> without input from several disciplines. Scythia was
> a peripheral focus
> of obvious interest to H. himself.. but the Thracian
> implications are
> still clearly there, falling incidentally between
> his primary Story
> elements: Persia, Greece and N. Pontic Scythia (He
> even manages to tie
> Egypt to Thrace :-)).
>
> (GK)If you check all contexts where Herodotus
> speaks of Thrace, including the one where he makes
> his
> comment about their numbers, you will find that he
> nowhere knows of a Thrace North of the Danube. In
> fact
> he even located the Getae south of the Danube.
>
>(RMcT) There <were> Getae south of the Danube. I have
> already stated that
> Dobrodgea was primarily Getic, with Moesi and
> Greek�but the Getae were
> also north, east, and N. West of there, extensively,
> even when capitoled
> there..which seems to be the case when Darius passed
> through. Now you
> will dismiss Tyragetae (as well as Thyssagetae and
> the admittedly
> questionable Massagetae) ?

*****GK [NEW]: Why should I dismiss the Tyragetae?
They were Getae of the Tyras area. Piotr has
conclusively demonstrated that the Massagetae have
nothing to do with Getae (they are rather the "Big
Saka") and I suspect that the Thyssagetae are in the
same category, but will withhold judgement.******

>
> ****GK I am
> quite willing to accept that by "AGATHYRSI" he meant
> the Daco-Getan population NORTH of the Danube (he
> localizes the Agathyrsi in Transylvania and in the
> Rumanian plain west of Scythia). What is interesting
> to me here is that these "Agathyrsi" are closely
> related to the Scythians (Pontic Greek Foundation
> Legend).******
>
>(RMcT) Pre-Roman Dacia, and Roman Dacia are just
> inconvenient name confusions
> into Scythia?

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

I can�t limit my position to the

> Agathyrsi: I think they
> were one small tribal group of at least twenty five
> or so such groups I
> can list that were Getae, Dacian or other 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>******

(R mcT)in the tradition

> also of Tyragetae.
> Unless you choose to label all IE influence moving
> west of the Dniester
> with out regard for time as Scythian; or charge
> anybody ever on a Horse
> was a Scyth: It doesn�t work (IMO).

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

>
>
> ****GK: But as mentioned above Herodotus knew of no
> THRACE north of the Danube. And that is more than
> 400
> years before the Romans.*******
>
> 1) I think rather he assumes it to be known; and
> talks of unique
> features and customs of small groups when it pleases
> him while telling a
> very Persian story with color and a splash of Scyth.
> He certainly refers
> to the Getae as Thracian,

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

(RMcT)and from a Greek view

> there was no difference
> (Dacians = Getae) The Romans reversed this. (The
> former came at them
> nautically from the East; the latter overland and
> from west and
> linguistic and [Thracian] cultural similarities
> lumped them in two piles
> of perspective: Dacian and Getic.)

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

>
> 2) He discusses a traverse by Sesostris from Asia
> (the western extent
> Marked above the Pontic by Scythia AND the
> Dniester.) into Europe
> westward from N. Pontic (marked by Thrace) while
> wondering about
> accurately about the markers for the separation
> between Asia, Europe
> (and others)..mentioning the Dniester in my
> interpretation of his N
> Pontic marker. Then in this case he directly
> mentions that the traveler
> leaves Thrace overland to return to Egypt via
> Colchis �on his way�.
> Now, whether Sesotris ever made the trip or no tis
> not the issue: One
> does not Leave S the Danube, and circumnavigate the
> Black Sea to get
> south east; and one telling such a story from your
> view of Thrace does
> not state:
>
> �Returning to Egypt from Thrace, he came, on his
> way, to the banks of
> the river Phasis.� (Colchis)

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

>
> 3)The �old Scythia� Reference is specific to Darius�
> travel. Darius
>

GK: {NEW}**** The rest of your message was truncated.
But in the matter of King Scylas (not Scythes) it is
clearly stated by Herodotus that the Scythian and
Thracian Kings met at the Ister (Danube). Which is
logical since that was the boundary between Scythia
and Thrace in his time.******

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com