Talk:Krobyzoi
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Codrinb in topic Are you sure they mere not mentioned in Dacia?
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Are you sure they mere not mentioned in Dacia?
editThe classification of being also a Dacian tribe eludes connection to Dacia. I don't think it should be removed from the category Ancient tribes in Dacia. I agree that the definition of region of Dacia is subjective, but is certainly not limited to Roman Dacia province which was just a fragment conquered by the Romans. I tend to support a more linguistic definition of the region (which corresponds to the area of domination during Burebista), as given by linguist Sorin Olteanu. Please take a look to his maps for what Dacia could have meant, basically having a border at the Balkans with the Thracian world. The terms dava and deva were used on both sides of the Danube.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually they are only mentioned as Getae, never as Dacians (which, btw, are mentioned south of the Danube only in plunder expeditions). The fact that the Getae are identical with Dacians is just a Romanian historiographical paradigm based only on the fact that, according to Strabo, they spoke the same language. The validity of this paradigm has been contested by both foreign and Romanian authors (mostly by the younger generation, but also, to a lesser degree, by long-established archaeologists such as Alexandru Vulpe). The common particle in the name of their settlements points only to a similar language, not to the existence of a unified Dacian group (just as the fact that both Bulgarians and Serbians use grad to call a city doesnt'n mean they are the same - with the caveat that the concept of "ethnic group" as we understand it today is a modern era invention, and cannot be applied to population groups of antiquity). Sorin Olteanu's map only plots the attestations of "dava" settlements trying to identify an area where the language he calls "thraco-daco-moesian" was spoken, and makes no claim about that being Dacia. According to all old and modern definitions, Dacia stops at the Danube. As for Burebista, there's no way to know if and what territory he rule south of the Danube, the only antique source making that claim being an epitaph (things that are known for they tendency to present facts as much better than in reality). Anonimu (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the detailed answers and input. There are various theories regarding Getae and Dacians being or not being the same people. I tend to believe that they are somewhat different but not radically different or unrelated. Burebista create a union of some of these tribes, under a region whose borders we don't know exactly indeed. I agree there is no continuum. I guess we need to bring more content and sources to this stub to clarify things. Hopefully you can populate the further readings section with your knowledge or good references you know about. Thanks again.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually they are only mentioned as Getae, never as Dacians (which, btw, are mentioned south of the Danube only in plunder expeditions). The fact that the Getae are identical with Dacians is just a Romanian historiographical paradigm based only on the fact that, according to Strabo, they spoke the same language. The validity of this paradigm has been contested by both foreign and Romanian authors (mostly by the younger generation, but also, to a lesser degree, by long-established archaeologists such as Alexandru Vulpe). The common particle in the name of their settlements points only to a similar language, not to the existence of a unified Dacian group (just as the fact that both Bulgarians and Serbians use grad to call a city doesnt'n mean they are the same - with the caveat that the concept of "ethnic group" as we understand it today is a modern era invention, and cannot be applied to population groups of antiquity). Sorin Olteanu's map only plots the attestations of "dava" settlements trying to identify an area where the language he calls "thraco-daco-moesian" was spoken, and makes no claim about that being Dacia. According to all old and modern definitions, Dacia stops at the Danube. As for Burebista, there's no way to know if and what territory he rule south of the Danube, the only antique source making that claim being an epitaph (things that are known for they tendency to present facts as much better than in reality). Anonimu (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Possible sources
edit- Hecataeus
- Strabon
- Pseudo-Scymnus
- Phylarchus
- Athenalos (Athenaeus?)
- Suidas
- V. Besevliev
- The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, Part 2: The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries BC by John Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, E. Sollberger, and N. G. L. Hammond, ISBN 0521227178, 1992, page 598 “However, a text of the Hellanicus associates the Crobyzi as well the Terizi (From the Tirizian promotory) with the Getae, who “immortalize” (Hdt IV94) that is “render immortal” by ritual. The Crobizi were a subgroup of the Getae tribes. Already known to Hecataeus they are grouped by Herodotus with Thracians”
- Dacia: Landscape, Colonization and Romanization by Ioana A Oltean, ISBN 0415412528, 2007, page 46
- The Histories (Penguin Classics) by Herodotus, John M. Marincola, and Aubery de Selincourt, ISBN 0140449086, 2003, page 256: "The tribe of Thracians called Crobyzi"