[tied] Re: Trajan's column

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

>>>(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)

It doesn't fit because the artists who made those images on the
Column did not have a time machine at their disposal to find out
what the defeated Dacians would do some tens of years afterwards.
For the historical moment of the building, Dacians were clearly
beaten and they were keeping low profile. Out of that, the glorifying
purpose of the Column makes even more unlikely to figure "warning"
Dacians very eager to fight back Romans the day after.

>>>(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?********

There are some weapons but it's not clear who is really bearing
them (whether the guys are Romans or Dacians). I put an image of
that part in the Files section. For me, the person who bears the
weapon seems more likely Roman. Other opinions differ.

>>>(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.******

That's more likely _if_ your interpretation "Dacian army in retreat"
is valid. With Romans controlling every place, that interpretation
would be somehow surprising. Presence of women, children and peasible
farm animals doesn't exactly contribute to enforce your point of view.

>> (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)

I reproduced what other people say about that image you can see by
yourself in the "Files". I am not so sure about its' meaning.

> the notion that this represents an out-migration of determined
> resisters is more plausible.

Well, the "more plausible" depends on very subjective criteria. :-)

> It's not "decisive" of course, but you know about Ockham's razor (:

=)).

Speaking about science, I basically keep in mind the principle of
Sir Isaac which reads: "Hypotheses non fingere" :-)

>> (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.

OK, on that we agree.

> As you say, archaeology does show that many remained,

As the Column shows, many Dacians even recognized Roman authority
and were not implied in fightings against them on Dekebalos' side.
Those guys had no reason to move away after other Dacians were the
beaten side. Out of that, Romans could not supply all "replacements"
for "viribus exhausta" Dacia; they encouraged people to continue
their lifes inside Dacia Romana (remember new Sarmizegetusa Traiana).

> [...] even if increasingly marginalized by the massive

"all-imperial"

> colonization process.

The right proportions are very hard to estimate.

> BTW it also shows that many Dacians left,

Undoubtedly, a part of them 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.

That's new for me. I.H. Crisan, one of the most reputed
archaeologists
specialized in Dacian culture, says that while in Dacia Romana, the
2nd
century marks a clear discontinuity, with massive penetration of Roman
forms combined with Dacian elements, out of its' borders, there is a
clear continuity of culture from 2nd to 4th century (but also with
some
progressive penetration of Roman elements) with respect to the "IIIrd
phase" [that is 1st century B.C.-1st century a.D.]. The essential word
he uses with respect to free Dacian culture is "maintaining". He
doesn't
speak about spontaneous emerging of cultures in the free Dacian zone.
Can you provide some infos on that topic?!

> So the discussion is not quite as academic as you intimate.******

From my point of view, yes, it's academic, since from the Column one
cannot say where those Dacian guys going and, even if accepting they
're
driven out of Dacia Romana, one cannot infer anything about how many
of
them left and how many remained. That is: the pictures on the Column
do
not bring any new valuable information.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi