Re: [tied] Re: Trajan's column

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

>
> 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: If you had filed this at the very beginning,
we wouldn't have had this conversation... What I see
here are two Roman soldiers setting fire to a
fortified settlement from which a group of Dacians are
scurrying away. These Dacians (the men at any rate)
seem well-dressed (nobles?) There are about 10 or 11
figures. I can't discern any weapons, though one of
them seems to be carrying a purse of some kind. The
woman is lounging towards the children, while the two
Dacians "looking back" are apparently in conversation
with the one closest to the soldier. I can't discern
any animals, though I've looked hard. On the basis of
this depiction I don't think one can argue that this
group represents people hurrying away from Roman
domination. They're obviously relocating, but don't
seem to feel threatened by the soldiers (who are
totally ignoring them).*******

>
> >> (MI)Anyway, history and archaeological proofs
> already established
> >> that a big amount of Dacians remained in the new
> Roman province

> > GK: I certainly did not mean to imply that
> there was a total
> > exodus of Dacians after 106, leaving the land
> empty.
>
> (MI) OK, on that we agree.
>
> >(GK) As you say, archaeology does show that many
> remained,
>
> (MI) 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).
>
> >(GK) [...] even if increasingly marginalized by the
> massive
> "all-imperial"
> > colonization process.
>
> (MI) The right proportions are very hard to

estimate.

*****GK: In any case, the native Dacian culture was
certainly marginalized. ******

>
> >(GK) BTW it also shows that many Dacians left,
>
> (MI) Undoubtedly, a part of them left.
>
> >(GK) [...] 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.
>
> (MI) 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?!

******GK: The "Carpathian barrows" culture interests
both Ukrainian and Romanian archaeologists. Both
groups agree that it is "Dacian". And
Mihailescu-Birliba argues (cf. Acta Musei
Porolissensis 21(1997), pp. 833-878) that it emerged
as a result of tribal movements subsequent to the
Roman conquest of Dacia. As to the Carpi, their
culture is dated as of the 2nd-3rd cs. by Bichir and
Ionita (sp..) Interestingly, there is no evidence of
any movement from Dacia into the area dominated by the
Costoboci.****


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