Re: [tied] Thrace

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.