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.