DACII/GEŢII VOR RENAŞTE !!!

Articole despre Daci/Geţi, Dacia/Geţia (Articles with Dacians/Getae, Dacia/Getia)

Despre mine

Fotografia mea
Constanta, Romania
OM dac/get mandru de stramosii lui ! (Proud Dacian OM); - studii: postuniversitare - masterat (master degree) Universitatea "Ovidius" Constanta; - hobby: muzica, tatuaje, istorie adevarata (music, tattoos, true history); Daca esti tolerant, tolereaza-mi intoleranta / If you are tolerant, tolerate my intolerance. "Prostul moare de grija altuia."

marți, 15 decembrie 2009

Cavalerul trac


Cavalerul trac este un tînăr zeu al tracilor balcanici şi danubieni, reprezentat călare pe cal, adesea în împrejurări cinegetice, identificat de către grecii antici cu zeul Heron.

Atributele şi originea zeului sunt deocamdată obscure; pare a fi însă rezultatul unui sincretism destul de rapid, poate datorită penetraţiei romane în ariile cultului său (Balcani, Dacia) atestat totuşi din secoulul II-III. Grecii îl numeau Theos Heros (grec. "ηρςω" - stăpân, căpetenie; mai târziu - semizeu, de origine muritoare), iar romanii, Deus sanctus Heron; unele imagini ale Cavalerului Trac sunt însoţite de inscripţii, unde numelui (Heros, în cele greceşti, Heron, în cele latine) îi urmează adesea diverse epitete: Invictus (Nebiruitul), Aeternus (Veşnicul), ΚαταχΘδνιος (Stăpânul morţilor), Κτvξστης (Întemeietorul de neamuri), mai ales de Vetespios.

Pe teritoriul României s-au găsit cel puţin 200 de imagini de epocă, atestând cultul Cavalerului Trac în Dobrogea, Oltenia, Transilvania. Uneori, imaginile includ (ca relieful cinegetic de galop, de la Constanţa) un element marginal derutant (poate biblic): un arbore cu un şarpe încolăcit pe tulpină. Unii cercetători susţin că imaginea Cavalerului trac a fost preluată de iconografia creştină, pentru a-l reprezenta pe Sf. Gheorghe.

(Wikipedia)




luni, 14 decembrie 2009

Petitie pentru Sarmizegetusa

Sarmizegetusa nu poate fi scoasa la lumina datorita faptului ca (de ce oare?) padurea din jurul cetatii dacice este declarata monument natural. Parca toata vegetatia din Romania ar consta in aceasta padure…Pentru alte paduri care au fost defrisate nu a mai plans nimeni…Aveti aici o petitie pe care, daca sunteti mandri de stramosii vostri, ar trebui sa o semnati:


http://www.petitieonline.ro/petitie/pentru_sarmizegetusa-p55684054.html


Scythians or Goths or Getae or Dacians

We are now arrived at the last, and most important part of this Dissertation ; and a subject upon which the whole modern history of Europe depends. Sensible of its prodigious weight, I shall examine it with all the sedulous care, and minute accuracy, which my purpose permits.

The Scythians or Goths have been followed to their Eastern Settlements in Asia, and to their Southern in Europe. Let us now trace their western progress, or that of our progenitors. If English, Scotish, Irish; if French, Spaniard, Italian, German, Dutch, Swiss, Swede, or Dane, let the reader attend with reverence, as he pursues the sacred steps of his ancestors. Here every European is personally interested, save the Sarmatians of Russia and Poland; save the Celto- Welch of England, and the Celt-Irish of Ireland and of the Highlands of Scotland ; and save the Fins of Hungary, Finland, and the Laplanders.

The reader will recollect that the Getae, who extended all over the west of the Euxine, are shewn to have been the same identic people with the Parental Scythians or Goths. On the north-west the Baster- nae, a German nation, as Pliny and Tacitus shew, bordered on the Getaj. On the south-west that division of the Getaj, called Daci, bordered with Germany. Pliny, IV. 12. says, GetcE, Daci Romanis dicti, ” those Getae called Daci by the Romans.” Strabo, lib. VIII. r«l«5 Tok Aaxoif o/tofxtTloue; ” the Getae and Daci have one and the same speech.” Steph. de Urbibus also says the Daci are the same with the Geta;: and to this all ancient and modern writers assent. Therefore the Germans bordered, on the east, with the Getae or Parental Goths. So Pliny, VIII. 15. Germania Scythian contermina.

Thus we are come to the very crisis of our research. If we cannot shew the Germans to have been originally Scythae, this Dissertation is inept. If we can, a field of wide curiosity and enquiry opens to the learned of Europe, For the origin of government, manners, laws, in short, all the antiquities of Europe, will assume a new appearance; and instead of being only traced to the woods of Germany, as Montesquieu, and the greatest writers have hitherto done, may be followed through the long descriptions of the manners, &c. of the Scythians and Thracians given us by Herodotus. Nay, even up to the Aboriginal Scythic empire in Persia, beyond which there is no memorial of human affairs, save in Egypt alone ; the history of which begins with Menes, the first king, about 40OO years before our era; while the earliest appearance of the Scythians in history is about 400 years after, when Vexores (Vesosis, Sesostris, nn) was king of Egypt, and Tanaus of the Scythae. Not to mention the collateral light to be derived from the whole history of the Greeks and Romans, who were Scythae, as just shewn..

“An enquiry into the history of Scotland: preceding the reign of Malcom III”, (fragment) by John Pinkerton

About Dacian History

This study explores the debate concerning the revaluation of the Dacian heritage, in the context of the quest for a cultural milieu. Carolus Lundius, the President of the Swedish Academic of Science, in the year 1687, published “Zamolxis Primus Getarum Legislator” (Zamolxis the First Legislator of the Getae) in which he affirms that the first written laws in the mankind history were Zalmoxis’s laws.[1]
The greatest Rumanian historian Nicolae Densusianu proves: the Dacians spoke the Latin language, before the Romans existed. His book” The Preistoric Dacia” has been first published in Rumania in 1913, but its contents remain as revolutionary, visionary, and controversial as they were almost 100 years ago.[2]
The Rumanian poet and the philosopher Lucian Blaga (1895-1961) was very interested by the Dacian ancestors, as witnessed by his essay on the ”Revolt of the non-Latin element”, or the play Zamolxe, both published in 1921. The writer challenged the current view which privileged the Latin element in the typology of the …. ns.
. Five years later, the monograph Getica of the historian Vasile Pârvan became the very source of the fascination for the Dacians in the Rumanian culture before WWII. Numerous titles invaded the cultural market, both scientific and amateurish, and a new current, the thracomania, became fashionable. On champions of Dacianism was the theologian Ioan Coman, who saw the Dacian religion as announcing Christianity in its orthodox form. Once again, Blaga entered the dispute, attempting to tone down nationalist and intolerant Dacianism; he offered the model of a lucid intellectual engaged in an animated cultural debate.
The fact that the Rumanians are not ...Rome ’s descendants and that the Romans are their later “grandsons” (see Augustin Deac ”The History of the Historical Truth” 2002), stil waits to be acknowledged by some of the Rumanian historians today.[3]
It is dificult to explaine today that the ancient Greeks may have “borrowed” their mythology or letters from the Dacians. Yet, the identities Dacian = Thracian = Macedonian = Pelasgian [4]
should change some old believe regarding the above group of people. More astonished is when Dionisu of Miletus, referred to by Diod. Sic. (3.67.12) says that the Pelasgians were the first to use the Cadmeian letters (from whom the Greeks borrowed them). [5]
More astonished is to find out that the first written message in the history of humanity was found at Alba District, Tartaria, Rumania (Old Dacia) where little clay tablets were found to carry a pre-Sumerian writing, as part of Vincea civilization. Tartaria’s tablets are as old as 7,540 years, and they were puzzling the imagination of scientific community.
Turning over the pages of the world’s publications, we find the American sumerolog, John A. Halloran asking himself “How can it be explained the fact that inside a western Rumanian region, surrounded by towns with Sumerian names: Urastie, Simeria, Kugir, there were found little tablets made from local clay with Sumerian pictograms on them, but older by 1,000 then the ones from Mesopotamia.”
In the “Scientific American Journal” from 1968, the Tartaria tablets are presented as being similar to the ones from …. Mesopotamia , but earlier by 1000 years.
How could they, the pre-Dacians, write before anyone else? How were they to write, if they couldn’t read?
One of the most serious theories of Indo-European Origins proposes that the homeland of the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language is to be found in the …. Southeast Europe . This theory was most comprehensively proposed by the eminent Russian linguist and historian Igor M. D’iakonov in his seminal paper (1985). “On the Original Home of the Speakers of Indo-European.” [6]
A very much respected archaeologist of our time, Colin Renfrew thinks that Proto-Indo-European unity is to be found in the Balkans, in agreement with the opinion of D’iakonov. Proto-Indo-European was however an offshoot of Pre-Proto-Indo-European which was the language of the early farmers who crossed the Aegean from Anatolia to settle in ….Thessaly . There, and in their subsequent northern expansion was formed the Proto-Indo-European community which subsequently gave birth to all the historical Indo-European languages.[7]
From Carpato-Danubian-Balkans center, as Diakonoff realized, (around 5000 BCE), a division with the bulk of the early Proto-Indo-European languages of central and Western Europe (the languages of “Old Europe” in some terminologies) appears and on the one hand, and those of the steppe lands to the north of the …. Black Sea on the other (4th millennium BCE).
More recently, Finnish scholar Kalevi Wiik has also proposed Indo-European origins in …. Southeast Europe . He has expounded his theory on the origins of European peoples in several journal articles and, more recently in his book “Eurooppalaisten juuret” There is also an article written by him on the Web [ .... Europe 's Oldest Language]
The theory of Indo-European origins in …. Southeast Europe has received additional confirmation recently from Gray and Atkinson. They were using a methodology similar to that used in evolutionary biology, [“Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin,” Nature 426, 435-439]. The results of all analyses, irrespective of the initial assumptions were very robust and accurate.
They were also in agreement with an other independent linguistic analysis of Indo-European languages [Rexova, K., Frynta, D. & Zrzavy, J. “Cladistic analysis of languages: Indo-European classification based on lexicostatistical data.” Cladistics 19, 120–127 (2003)].
We are told, today by some people, the Dacian language has disappeared, as have the Dacians themselves [8]. And as the Dacians, their brothers, the Thracians lost their language, and they never had books! [9]. To say that Alexander Macedon or Constantine’s language was Dacian would be like replacing one unknown quantity by another. And so it would be, indeed, if it could be proven that the Dacians/Thracians and their language have disappeared. Yet, upon examination, this disappearance turns out to be worse than a hollow statement: it clashes head on with a number of testimonies.
Understanding these testimonies presupposes a little reflection on an observation made by Herodotus. The Thracians, says Herodotus “have many names, depending on their respective regions” [10]. proper is, of course, to this day, the name of the region encompassed by …. Mount …. Haemus (Stara Planina) and the …. Thracian …. Sea ( …. Aegean Sea ). But the people living north of …. Mount …. Haemus , in …. Mysia , were also considered as Thracian, because they spoke the same language. For the same reason, the term Thracian has been used as a common designation for the people living in , i.e. on the Asiatic side of the Straits, as well as for the people north of the Danube, those in the original …. …. Dacia (also called Gothia). Among the Thracian peoples often mentioned by ancient historians, most conspicuous were the Dacians (Gaete or Goths), the Macedonians, the Paeonians, the Phrygians, the Mysians, the Odrysians and the Bessi.
Tremendous efforts have been made by some recent academics to blur the ethnicity of the Dacian nation. This compels us to take a close look at the subject, starting perhaps with the Paeonians.
These people were familiar to Herodotus, who speaks at some length about their customs. Five hundred years later, Strabo observed that the Paeonians lived on both sides of the …. Vardar (the Axius) [11]. Many Paeonians, however, lived further north. Dio Cassius, a man well-placed to know, since he was at one time governor of that province, wrote that the Paeonians “dwell near Dalmatia along the very banks of the Ister, from ….Noricum to …. Moesia …” [12].This was two hundred years after Strabo’s time.
Another, 350 years later, John the Lydian explained that the real name of the Province was …. ….Pannonia , “Which the Greeks have termed Paeonia, inventing the name for purposes of euphony and to avoid a barbarian word form.” [13].
Ioannes Tzetzes, writing almost 600 years after the Lydian, did not notice that these people had disappeared. For him they were still there. [14].
Another famous group of Dacian/Thracian people were the Phrygians.
According to Strabo, “the Brygi and Bryges and Phryges are the same people”. And elsewhere:” And the Phrygians themselves are Brigians, a Thracian nation …” [15].If you look at a map done by Ion Pachia Tatomirescu (see www.dacia.org Old maps of …. Europe ) you will understand the length of Dacian Empire at the beginning of European history.
In a fragment (No. 25) of his Seventh Book – badly mutilated Strabo quotes Herodotus, whose words are: “According to the Macedonian account, the Phrygians, during the time they had their abode in Europe and dwelt with them in Macedonia, bore the name of Brigians; but on their removal to Asia they changed their name at the same time as their dwelling place.” [16].
The Moesians (Mysians) were yet another Dacian/Thracian group of people whose settlements filled the area between the Danube and Mount Haemus, as well as Bithynia, on the east side of the Bosphorus, and the Thracian/Aegean fringe of Minor Asia.
On the ethnicity of the Mysians Strabo is quite explicit.
The Mysians in Minor Asia, he says, are Thracians “who now live between the Lydians and the Phrygians and the Trojans” [17]
And elsewhere: “The country north of …. ….Pergamum is held for the most part by the Mysians”.
And again: “Now the Greeks considered the Getae (the Dacian) as Thracians, the Getae lived on either side of the Ister, as did the Mysians, these also being Thracians [18]”
The identification of Macedonians as the southest Dacian/Thracians is also unquestionable, although the wording differs from author to author.
Polybius calls the Thracians and the Macedonians homogenous i.e. people of the same nation, stock or race [19].
Pliny speaks of Mysomacedonians in Asia Minor, who “get together (convenient) at …. ….Ephesus ” [20].
Appian calls the Sinti a Macedonian tribe; Strabo calls them Thracian [21]. Both are right, of course.
Dio Chrysostom observed, at the beginning of the second century A.D., that the population of …. ….Nicomedia consisted of “the leaders among both Greeks and Macedonians” [22] making a clear difference between the two races.
….Nicomedia at that time was the greatest city of …. . It was founded, says Pausanias, by Zipoetes “a Thracian by birth to judge from his name” [23].
Strabo explains that “the Bithynians … received this name from the Thracians … who settled the country in question” and he refers to Nicomedes III as “the Bithynian” [24].
Four centuries later Zosimos quoted an oracle in which Nicomedes II is considered “Thracian King” [25], while Ioannes Malalas says that Nicomedes I was “of Macedonian” origin” [26].
Of interest in this connection are a couple of facts:
Euripides (Rhesus, 404) making Hector call the Thracian king Thesus, he considered the Trojans to be of the same stock or race as the Thracians from …. .
The other similar instance is provided by Conon. In his 46th Narration Conon speaking of Orpheus who “reigned over the Macedonians and the country of the Odrysians”, then refers to the “people of and ” and to “a crowd of Thracians getting together at Leibethra”, where Orpheus is believed to have died at the hands of “the women of and …. ” [27].
Euripides and Conon may have written for entertainment only, but Pausanias, a contemporary of Conon, gives an accurate description of …. and its knowledge. To him, Orpheus was a Thracian from north aria of Danubiu [28], in fact Dacian, while five centuries later Ioannes Malalas calls Orpheus “the most famous lyric poet, an Odrysian from Thrace” [29].
Eight centuries later, the identity of the Dacians and Macedonians is attested by Nicephorus Gregoras in a letter which he wrote in the year 1325 or 1326, describing his trip through Macedonia; we learn that the majority of the local people were “from the very beginning Moesians (Mysian) who lived intermingled with our own people” [30].
Gregoras is rejecting any nonsens about a subsequent arrival of Thracians (Mysians) in …. . He does not tell us when the first Greek settlers arrived in …. , but Pompeius Trogus says that they came under the leadership of Caranus, an event occurring in the year 810 B.C., or around then. Prior to that time, the whole of …. was settled by Dacian/Thracians people [31].
The origin of the name …. has also some relevance to our topic.
According to a legend – the Egyptian king Osiris, later promoted by the religious caste to the rank of god, had two sons, Anubis and Macedon. The second one was left by his father as a ruler of …. , earlier named Emathia, and from him the country got its name [32].
From figures supplied by Manetho, it is belived that Macedon was ruling about the year 2326 B.C. [33].
Hesoid, like a good Greek poet, endowed Macedon with a Greek ancestry: he makes him the son of Zeus and Thyia, Deucalion’s daughter [34].
On the other hand, Hellanicus believed Macedon to have been the son of Aeolus, when the Macedonians “inhabited the land together with the Mysians” [35].
Regardless of the margin of error, the Macedonian name must have been familiar throughout the East at the time of the Trojan War.
Why, then is there no mention of it in Homer?
Nobody so far has suggested a plausible explanation. Yet, faced with the fanatic zeal with which Greek writers strove to blot out some “barbarian” names while favoring we are glad to be able to make a correction. Homer may not have cared to admit that, without the help of some Macedonians, the Greeks would have been destroyed before the walls of …. ….Troy . Thus, either he, or someone like him, may have thought of replacing the Macedonians by Myrmidones.
And it just so happens that for Ioannes Malalas, the Homeric Myrmidons were identical with those hose home was once in …. Thessaly – a Macedonian district [36].
From the first century of our era a very important part in the history of Central and South-Eastern Europe is played by the Dacians/Getae people. Some writers have called the Dacians Getae, other have preferred to call them Goths. Most of these people lived between the Danube and the Carpathian Mountains, although there were Dacians settlements south of the Danube, and many others in the area north-east of the Carpathians like, Susudava, Selidava,Maramabista, Tiragetia, Costobacia, or East like Moldadava or Massagetia.
To go back in time we see that even the puzzle of Dacians versus Gets was solved almost 2000 years ago by Dio Casius in Epitome of Book LXVII: “I call the people Dacians, the names used by the natives themselves as well as by the Romans, though I am not ignorant that some Greek writers refer to them as Getae“.
A vigorous campaign has been under way for a long time to retroactively make of the Goths a Germanic nation. This thesis should be rejected. In fact, every single bit of information tends to prove that the Goths were none others than the Hutzuli, a branch of the Getae, a Thracian nation par excellence [39].
The Dacians nation has never ceased to exist. They have never lost their vigor. Dio Cassius tells of a stinging defeat they inflicted on Mark Antony in …. Mysia [40]. They were obviously very strong, since Octavian is said by Suetonius to have sought the hand of a Thracian princess [41].
Pliny the Elder, who died during the eruption of the Mount Vesuvius (79 A.D.), calls the Dacians /Thracians one of the most powerful nations in …. Europe [42]. In the third century, they were the first people in Europae able to kick the Romans out of …. ….Dacia [43].
At the dawn of the 4th century, their leader ….Constantine (dacian by his routs) marched on ….Rome, defeated Maxentius at the …. Milvian …. Bridge , disbanded the praetorian cohorts and, by moving the capital of the empire to the Bosporus, reduced …. ….Rome to the status of provincial city.
We learn from Theophanous that in the year 497 A.D. Anastasius, in support of one of his generals in the East, sent out an army of Goths, Bessians “and other Thracian nations” [44].
Procopius calls them “the Romans from …. ” [45]. He also makes reference to the city of ….Anchialo, on the …. Black Sea , which, he says, was “inhabited by Thracians” [46].
Since the Bessians and the Goths had not disappeared, we are not surprised to read that their dialects were spoken in the middle of the 6th century. Thus, Jordanes, in his Getica, noted that Hister was the name of the …. Danube in the language of the Bessi [47]. The language of the Bessi was definitely spoken about the year 570 A.D., as we may learn from the Itinerary of Antoninus Placentinus [48].
As to Gothic, it was heard in Constantinople and in many parts of …. , where some Gothic clerics seem to have been able to write it, although they were apparently unable to write Latin [49].
Not only were the Dacian/Thracian dialects widely spoken in the Byzantine Empire but also Dacian has been a written language ever since the second millennium B.C.and Euripides is able to refer to Thracian tablets inscribed in the language of Orpheus [50]. The fact that this literature is mentioned in a drama and not in a history paper should not mislead us. Euripides certainly used in poetry, and in dialogue forms, something which was common knowledge in his time. Even today we found more then 300 tablets ( Sinaia-Romania/Dacia) done in gold or lead and people paying almost no attention to them (see www.dacia.org “Cronica Dacica pe placi de plumb).
Herodotus, mentions the existence of Thracian oracular tablets [51]
and Ovidiu was able to compose a poem in the language of the Getae [52].
Photius tells us that about a writer of the 7th century A.D.who used Thracian books [53].
In his book entitled De Magistratibus, Ioannes Lydus reports that Constantine the Great wrote, in his native (oikeia) tongue, some Discourses which he left to posterity [37]. While avoiding carefully to specify what exactly the native tongue of …. …. Constantine was, the Lydian, deliberately or not, gives us a clue. Evidently, …. ….Constantine ’s “domestic” language could not have been Greek; otherwise the adjective (oikeios) would have been out of place, even confusing [38]. Could …. ….Constantine ’s native tongue have been a “primitive” Latin? To designate the Latin tongue otherwise than by its name, Byzantine writers generally used the words patris jonh in his own home?
The Lydian wrote his book sometime between years 551 and 564 A.D., when latin language in …. Constantinople was in full retreat. Justinian himself is said to have spoken broken (vulgar) Latin, and Greek like a barbarian. Surely, someone can wanders what was Justinian mother language if was not greek or roman/ latin? Remaines only one choice, Dacien/ Thracien.
As there is abundant circumstantial evidence that Constantine the Great was a Dacian, as is also for Justinian.
Two centuries after the death of ….Constantine, clearly, throughout this period, there was in Constantinople people who could read Latin and/or Greek, and also people who could read …. ….Constantine ’s Discourses, written in his “domestic” language. The Lydian darkly hints that in his time, Latin language beeing pushed out as official business language, by what other language then dacian/thracian?
The old Dacian/Thracian books have been successfully wiped out by religious fanatics and other savages, who have tried many times to destroy the Dacian people’s history. But the Daco-Thracian language has survived throughout the ages, as has the Dacian/Thracian script itself [54]. All doubts regarding these matters are dispelled for anyone who cares to stop for a moment on the testimony of Theophylactus Simocata.
Writing in the 7th century A.D., Simocata states twice over that the Slavonic peoples of his day and age about those who in earlier times were called Getae/Dacians.
These were the people whose wealth was admired by Herodotus, whose medical science was praised by Plato, and whose army defeated at one time Philip II and later on the forces of Lysimachus [55].
Pausanias (IV.27.9-11) has recorded a telling case. “The wanderings of the Messenians outside the Peloponnesus lated for 300 years”, wrote he, “during which it is clear that they did not depart in any way from their local customs and did not lose their Doric dialect bet even to our day have retained the purest of Doric in ….Peloponnesus .” Quick changes occur only when two or more peoples speaking different languages are suddenly thrown together, thus being forced to develop a makeshift system of communication. That is why hybrid languages like Bulgarian, French and English have strange vocabulary and a simpler grammatical structure, when compared with the parent languages. Rumanian language who escaped to this kind of distortion may also borrow some words and some grammatical forms, but in a very small scale.
That Rumanians – as are called today the Dacian people– had borrowed some words from the Greek, Romans, and Slavic people and nobody will contest these, as today the “american” languge is a great inspiration for them also.
But how much has Greek and others nations borrowed from the” barbarian” Dacians nobody speaks.
Dior Chrysostom tells us that Homer himself “used many barbarian words … sparing none that he believed to have in it anything of character vividness” [56].
Plato, too, was aware of such “borrowings”. “I imagine”, he wrote, “that Greeks, especially in countries which are under the influence of “barbarians”, have borrowed many words (onomata) from them [57]. The Daco-Macedonians being the nearest “barbarian” people to the Greeks and, in fact, living intermingled with them, is only normal to come across Daco-Macedonian words in the Greek Lexicon.
Athenaeus drew the attention of his readers to this fact. “Many Antic writers”, “use Macedonian idioms, as a result of intercourse with them” [58].
A. Bailly spells the last word “krabbatos” and sys that this was a loan word of obscure origin. Liddell and Ascott, however, think that it is a Macedonian word, which is actually the case. We find a derivative of this word (krabbataria) in the 7th and 6th centuries, respectively [61].
Porphyroghenitus in his Book of Ceremonies has several words such as bele, bikh, ide, ogun and toul, for the word “Dans”, meaning he says, dancing [62]. In the Daco-Getic language, rumanian language, we pronous it even today “Dans” with the same meaning, Dancing.
From Diodorus Siculus we may learn that “Estia” was a Thracian Daco-Getic goddess [65]. She was worshipped also in …. ….Rome , under the name of Vesta, and was believed by her devotees to have discovered how to build and equip homes [66]. As a mater of fact for Dacian people She was representing the protector of fire for their homes. In other words she was a knowing woman, in Dacian (today Rumania ) language, meaning “nevasta”, Ne-VASTA / wife, a bride, i.e. a young woman who must yet be initiated in the art of family life; on the same token, in Macedonian language ( Arumania, Vlahos,Vlacika, as they call us today) the word is still Nivesta,Ni-VESTA. A loan-word to which scant attention has been paid.
An elaborate attempt to disguise the Dacian origin of a Greek word – the name of a pagan goddess – may be watched in Ioannes Lydus.
The place-name Nestan, which has mysteriously escaped the eye of both ancient and modern philologists. Pausanias reports that, in …. ….Arcadia , were he came upon the ruins of a village called Nestan, near which Philip II of Macedon had once pitched his camp [70]. One look at this word is sufficient to convince us that we have before us a casual transcription of the Old-Dacian words NEA STAN, meaning Stan’s village. Nestan is meaningless in Greek. Pausanias must have written it down as he heard it from some local person.
The words discussed so far are described by lexicographers as Phrygian, as possibly Macedonian, as Barbarian, as ancient, or simple of unknown origin. They have one thing in common: they are very much alive in modern language. Particularly striking are the names Vesta (Hestia) – “nevasta” and Nestane – to which many others may be added.
Several other categories deserve to be looked into when studying the lexical osmosis between Greeks and Rumanians. Words are usually borrowed along with the objects or actions they designate. The Greeks were a maritime people : fishermen, tradesmen and pirates. On the other hand, the Dacians being predominantly an agricultural people, it was natural for the Greeks to adopt some Dacians words regarding agriculture. The Rumanian word Colac , which means a round loaf of bread with a hole in the middle (a wheel), reappears in Greek as “colic” or “kollix” a loaf of barley-bread; Telina (celery) becomes selinon etc
This list is far from being exhaustive.
Several grammatical forms also suggest the impact of Dacian on ancient Greek language. Position of the definite article for example: in ancient Greek, the article is of the prefix type, whereas in Dacian the article follows the noun (or the adjective).
There is a large number of facts from history, linguistics, archaeology, numismatics, and folklore, over and above the ones mentioned in this paper, which underscore the conclusion that the language of Constantine the Great was an elderly form of Dacian dialect which has come to be known as Rumanian (Valahian). Collecting and classifying these facts could become an interesting research project. However, “necessaria non sunt multiplicanda”. The following examples should, therefore, be considered mainly as adding color to what has been said before.
Laonicus Chalcondyles says that he discovered the Triballians to be the most ancient and greatest of all nations [71].
For specialists in these subject, “Dacii Tribali” Triballians Dacians, were noting else then a group of Dacian living at the south of Danubian river.
For Strabo the Triballians were Thracians.
Dio Cassius counted the Triballi , as well the Dardani, as Moesians (Mysians) [72].
According to Cesare Baronius, Constantine the Great claimed to be a descendant of Vespasian [73].
Annales Ecclesiastici (1624 edition), t.3, col.4. Regardless of whether …. ….Constantine did or did not put forward such a claim, the statement in Annales Ecclesiastici raises another intersting question. Baronius says that his authority was Pollio. Yet in Pollio’s text, such as we have it, there is no mention of …. ….Constantine ’s so-called claim to be a descendant of Vespasian. The missing portion, then, must have disappeared after Baronius saw it. How could it have disappeared from the Vatican Library?
Those who do not believe that the language of Constantine the Great was Dacian, i.e. a Dacian dialect known today as Rumanian, would do a service to historiography, if they could show just what other language it must have been.
I share the opinion of those scholars who have observed that the most ancient sources are, as a rule, the most reliable ones. Greater care is required when using more recent sources, while the opinions voiced by contemporary writers must always be looked upon with suspicion.
To make things worse, eager but prejudiced translators have often warped the meaning of original sources.

[1]Carolus Lundius [Zamolxis Primus Getarum Legislator-1687]
[2] Nicolae Densusianu [ Dacia preistorica-1913]
[3] Augustin Deac [The History of the Historical Truth- 2002]
[4] Pompeius Trogus [Book VII.I.2 - Garnier (1936) - Justin's Epitome], t.1, p. 155)
[5] G. Sotiroff, Koinh and Idiai [ The Classical World, Philadelphia, Dec., 1968, pp. 131-132.]
[6] Igor M. D'iakonov [The Original Home of the Speakers of Indo-European." Journal of Indo-European Studies. Volume 13, p. 92 1985]
[7] Colin Renfrew [The Tarim Basin, Tocharian, and Indo-European origins: a view from the west," in V.Mair (ed.), The Bronze Age & Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia -Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph #26, vol.1]
[8] Napoleon Savescu, author of „Noi nu suntem urmasii Romei” (Editura Intact, Bucuresti, Rumania, 1999 ), tells us that "ther is no evidence neither archeological nor philological about the disappearance of the Dacian tongue. "Who the ancient Dacians were has much been disputed and their language has perished utterly." No recent authority has rejected these gratuitous statements. The current trend seems to suggest that the Dacians have been "Latinized", by repeating ad nauseum the claim that Roman people had "arrived" in, "invading", Dacia in the 2nd century A.D. The fundamental questions; if the Romans conquered 14% of Dacian's territory and the entire population learned in 165 years to speak Latin language, what happened in 86% of Dacian's unoccupied territory - who were their "teachers", is never discussed. The matter has been further obscured by the majority of the Romanian philologists, which is based on the assumption that, indeed, the Dacian language has virtually disappeared. There was a time when I, too, believed this. Not any more.
[9] Wilhelm Tomaschek, Die alten Thraker, Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie ser Wissenschaften, Vienna, 1893, pp. 123-127).
[10]V.3.
[11] Hdt., V.6 and Strabo, Fragm.11 of book VII. (Loeb, t.3, pp.329-331.) In the same fragment, Strabo explains what was called, in his time, Macedonia, was in earlier times called Emathia, and that most of its inhabitants were Thracians.
[12] Book XLIX.36.2(loeb,t.5p.415)
[13] De mag.,III.32.5.
[14] Chiliades, X.185. (reprint of the 1826 edition by Georg Ols, Hildesheim, 1963.)
[15] 12.3.20. and 5.3.2
[16] Hdt. VII.73.
[17] 7.3.2
[18] 13.4.4. and 5.3.2. Noteworthy is also a remark by Athenaeus (Deipn., IX.398 - Loeb) indicating that the Paeonians and the Mysians spoke the same language.
[19] Book XXIX.6.2
[20] N.H.,V.31;N.H.,V.120.
[21] Appian, Mithr., 55. 224 (tebner, 1962, t. 1, p.567); Strabo, 12.3.20 and Frag. 45 (46) - Loeb., t.3, p.367.
[22] 39th Discourse, 1. (Loeb, t.4, p. 97.)
[23] 12.3.3 and 12.3.40. (Loeb, t.5, pp.375 and 449.)
[24] 39th Discourse, 1. (Loeb, t.4, p. 97.)
[25] Historia Nova, II.37. (Engl. Transl. By J.J. Buchanan and H.T.Davis, TrinityUniversity Press, San Antonio, Texas, 1967, p. 77.)
[26] Cronographia, IX (0 285). (CSHB, p.221.)
[27] In Photius, The Library,cod.186.(BL.,Paris,1962,t.3,p.33-34.)
[28] Book VI (Elis II), XX.18. (Loeb, t.3, p. 129.)
[29] Op. Cit., IV. (CSHB, p. 72)
[30] Correspondance, BL, Paris, 1927, p.38
[31] It is common knowledge that Eumolpus was a leader of the Thracians thatin Attica. Ancient Greek literature is replete with references to Thracians throughout the country, including the islands. The presence of Thracians in Phocis is evidenced by the "legend" about Tereus and Philomela. Prominent men, such as philosophers Antisthenes, Pittacis, Themistocles and Iphicrates, were half-Thracian. Menander was proud of his Thracian origin. Pompeius Trogus testifies that the oldest name of the Macedonians was Pelasgians. (Book VII.1, ed. Garnier, Paris, 1936, t.1, p. 155 of Justin's Epitome.) These Pelasgians occupied the whole of the Peloponnesus. It was not without some perfidy that, around 1528 B.C. (computed from Orosius, Book I.11), Danaus, fleeing from Egypt, came to the Peloponnesus and occupied the main city there (Argos), after which he ordered that the name of the country and the people be changed to his own name. Computations based on the chronologies of Manetho, Eusebius and Orosius, as well as on the Parian Marble, all converge to 16th century B.C. as the probable time of arrival of the first Greek colony from Egypt.
[32] Diod. Sic., Book I.18.1-3
[33] See the Loeb edition (1956), p.16
[34] See the Loeb edition (1959), pp. 156-157.
[35] Quoted by Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De thematibus, 2.38.B. Another interesting detail: Livy (XXXI.XXX.15) says that Macedonians, Acarnanians and Aetolians used the same speech. On the other hand, the Acarnanians are identified with the Thracians in a roundabout but nonetheless very persuasive way. The mother of Themistocles, according to Cornelius Nepos, was an Acarnanian. When, later on, Plutarch wrote his biography of Themistocles, he called her a Thracian. This is not the only evidence.
[36] Op.cit. (CSHB, p. 97).)
[37] Book 2.30.2. I am most grateful to Professor T.F.Carvey, of the University of Windsor (Ontario), for drawing my attention to this portion of the Lydian's book. (See Professor Carney's brilliant translation of Lydus' De magistratibus.The Wentworth Press, Sydney, Australia, 1965.)
[38] Several derogatory remarks about Graeculi, made by orators in the presence of Constantine, a priori, rule out any possibility for the emperor to have had Greek family connections. (See especially Inceri panegyricus Constantino Augusto dictus, IX, 1 and Panegyricus Constantino dictus, VII.XIX-BL, t.2, pp.128 and 70.)
[39]. For an explanation of this onomastic puzzle (Getae = Goths) see G.Sotiroff, The Assassination of Justinian's Personality, pp.135-140. Here we shall note only that, according to Julius Capitolinus, the father of Maximinus was a Goth. Maximinus never learned to speak Greek and, in his youth, hardly knew any Latin but spoke to the emperor (Alexander Severus) in "almost pure Thracian). (SHA, Maximini Duo, 1.7 and 2.5)
[40]. Book XXXVIII.10.1-3. (Loeb, t.3, p.217.)
[41]. Divus Augustus, LXIII. Suetonius also says that Octavian had promised his daughter Julia to Cotys "king of the Getae", whom Ovid calls king of the Thracians.
[42]. N.H. IV.40. (Loeb, t.3, p.147).
[43]. The version currently peddled is that Aurelian "withdrew" from Dacia the Roman garrisons and all Roman citizens. Nobody has explained just why he withdrew them. The fact that, before Aurelian, Hadrian removed planks from the top of the bridge across the Danube which he had inherited from Trajan, is explained by Dio Cassius (LXVIII.13.6) by the fear Hadrian had that the "barbarians", i.e. the Dacians, might use the bridge to cross over into Roman territory. This goes to show who was strong and who was weak in those days. Aurelian "withdrew" the Roman citizens from Dacia because they had been expelled.
[44]. P.G. t.108, col.347.
[45]. De bello gothico, VI.XII.26-27 and II.19.32 (Loeb). One should note the way Memnon speaks of the army "of the Romans and the Thracians", almost as if these two were the same people. (Photius, The Library, cod.224, BL, t.4, p.95.)
[46]. De Aedif., III.VII.18 (Loeb).
[47]. Getica, XII.35.
[48]. In Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, (Paul Geyer ed., Vienna, 1898, pp. 183-184.)
[49]. The Museo Nazionale at Naples has a papyrus concerning the sale of a Gothic church (? In Ravenna)). While the document itself is drawn up in Latin, some Gothic clerics have signed it in their own Gothic script.
[50]. Alcestis, 966-970. Here, as elsewhere, the imprecision of the Greek language has lead to some fancy translations. Instead of "I have found no drug in the Thracian tablets written in Orpheus's language", Arthur S. Way thought he understood: "There is naught in the tablets of Thrace, neither drugs whereof Orpheus taught". (In the Loeb ed.)
[51]. Book VII.111.
[52]. Ex Ponto, IV, ep. XIII.17-22. (Garnier, 1957, p. 401)
[53]. Op.cit., cod. 177a. (BL. T.2, p.163.)
[54]. For Dionisu of Miletus, referred to by Diod. Sic. (3.67.12) says that the Pelasgians were the first to use the Cadmeian letters (from whom the Greeks borrowed them). (See G.Sotiroff, KOINH and IDIAI, The Classical World, Philadelphia, Dec., 1968, pp. 131-132.)
[55]. See Simocatta's Histories, III.4.4. and VII.2.5. (Ed. De Boor, Leipzig (tebner), 1887. Reprinted 1972. (A Russian translation has been published (1957) in Moscow.) On the troubles of Philip II. In the Triballian country see Pompeius Trogus, Book IX. Chap. III (garnier, Paris, 1936 [Justin's Epitome], t.1, p.187.) According to Herodotus (V.17), the Macedonian king Alexander I. Got a talent a day from the silver mines in his country. Plato makes Socrates say (Charnides, 156D) that the Getic/Dacien medics were so skilled that they had the reputation of being able to give immortality. The treatment of Lysimachus, after his capture by the Thracian king Dromichaetes, may be learned from Diodorus (XXXI.12.4-5). Curiously enough, Orosius (III.23) calls this same king Dorus.
[56]. 12th Discourse, 57. (Loeb, t.2, p.71.)
[57]. Cratylus, 409 e.
[58]. Deipnosophists, III.122. (Loeb)
[59].
[60].
[61]. See (in the CSHB edition) Malalas, p. 436 and Chronicon Paschale, I, p.696.
[62]. BL. Paris, 1939, t.2., p.186. zakanon is used, as may be guessed, in the sense of lex or mos recepta. (Ibid., cap.8; para.3)
[63]. Annalium, lib. XVI.II. (CSBH, 1887, p.15)
[64].
[65]. Book I.94.2.
[66]. Zalmoxis is said to have claimed that Hestia (i.e. Vestia) gave to the Getae/Dacian their laws. (Ibidem.)
[67].
[68].
[69].
[70].Arcadia, VIII.VII.4. (Loeb, t.3, p.377.)
[71]. Laonicus Chalcondyles, P.G., t.159, col. 41-42. Not to be forgotten is the fact that Chalcondyles somehow avoided being burned at the stake, but his book was put on the Index librorum prohibitorum. N.B. - He equates the Triballians with the Daciens (Op.cit., col.26.)
[72]. Strabo, 7.3.13 (Loeb, t.3, p.215) and Dio Cassius, LI.23.3. (Loeb, t.6, p.67.)
[73]. Annales Ecclesiastici (1624 edition), t.3, col.4. Regardless of whether Constantine did or did not put forward such a claim, the statement in Annales Ecclesiastici raises another intersting question. Baronius says that his authority was Pollio. Yet in Pollio's text, such as we have it, there is no mention of Constantine's so-called claim to be a descendant of Vespasian. The missing portion, then, must have disappeared after Baronius saw it. How could it have disappeared from the Vatican Library? Another small mystery: Julius Capitolinus reports (Gordiani III, 24.5, in Loeb t.2, p. 447) that Licinus claimed to be a descendant of Philippus Major. How come, Barronius had nothing to say about this claim?

Dr. N. Savescu www.dacia.org

Originea geto-daca a limbii române (fragmente)

1.1. Argument lingvistic;
1.2. Argument istoric
1.2. Argument istoric: În acest subcapitol voi prezenta o serie de date istorice care pot explica de ce româna nu poate proveni din latină folosind, de astă dată, argumente strict istorice, după ce în capitolul precedent am prezentat o serie de argumente de ordin lingvistic. Am indicat deja mai sus câteva din elementele istorice extrem de importante cum ar fi perioada scurtă a controlului roman la nord de Dunăre şi mai presus de orice, teritoriul foarte restrâns pe care romanii
l-au stăpânit, comparativ cu teritoriul imens locuit de geto-daci care nu a fost controlat niciodată de romani, elemente care au fost ignorate în mod sistematic în mai toate cercetările privitoare la istoria poporului şi a limbii române. Dacă prin absurd dacii din provincia romană Dacia s’au romanizat şi după o romanizare rapidă s’au refugiat în sudul Dunării cum le place roeslerienilor să susţină, nici măcar aceştia nu s’au obosit să demonstreze aşa-zisa dispariţie din istorie a dacilor. Cum a avut loc această dispariţie nimeni nu a dat vreo soluţie plauzibilă, deoarece în general acest lucru a fost considerat ca un fapt de la sine înţeles, deşi nimeni, absolut nimeni nu l’a argumentat vreodată, afirmându-se vag că ar fi fost asimilaţi fie de slavi, fie de goţi. Dispariţia dacilor din istorie este o ipoteză nedemonstrată, dar cu toate acestea considerată un fapt bine stabilit. În ştiinţă o ipoteză rămâne o simplă ipoteză (doar cu sensul de posibilitate si nu de realitate demonstrată), or atâta timp cât o anumită virtualitate nu este sprijinită de date concrete, verificabile şi demonstrabile nu poate fi luată drept realitate. Prin urmare, o astfel de ipoteză nedemonstrată ori insuficient demonstrată poate fi oricând înlocuită cu o nouă teorie bazată pe date concrete. În cazul originii poporului şi a limbii române această ipoteză nedemonstrată şi în ultimă instanţă nedemonstrabilă a ajuns o “axiomă” repetată timp de peste 100 de ani. Cred că a venit timpul ca acestei absurdităţi să i se pună capăt mai ales că acum avem argumentele necesare să o combatem, deoarece această teorie nu poate rezista argumentelor bazate pe date.
Conform unor astfel de principii ar fi fost normal ca populaţia să se fi romanizat cel mult acolo unde au fost romanii şi să apară un nou popor, iar pe restul teritoriului să fi rămas dacii şi prin urmare să avem de a face cu două limbi şi în ultimă instanţă două popoare diferite, dar nici acest lucru nu s’a întâmplat. Nimeni nu a explicat cum cel mai numeros popor din lume după indieni, fără îndoială cel mai numeros din Europa întins pe un teritoriu vast, a dispărut fără urme din istorie. Este demn de menţionat că românii şi în ziua de azi sânt răspândiţi pe un teritoriu întins chiar dacă în multe locuri nu mai sânt majoritari, iar acum 800-1000 de ani (cf. N. Drăganu, 1933) erau mult mai bine reprezentaţi unde azi s’au împuţinat sau au dispărut chiar. Cum au ajuns dacii romanizaţi din Oltenia şi sudul Ardealului să romanizeze rapid o populaţie cu mult mai numeroasă ca ei pe un teritoriu imens pe o rază de peste 1000 de km la est şi la nord, când invaziile de tot felul veneau tocmai din această direcţie. Cu mult mai interesant devine totul, atunci când constatăm că prezenţa românilor în aceste locuri este atestată cu mult timp înainte de întemeierea statelor feudale româneşti, prezenţa lor depăşind cu mult în acele timpuri graniţele acestor state româneşti şi chiar a oricărui stat românesc vechi sau modern. Lucrarea de faţă îşi propune tocmai să arate neverosimilitatea ipotezelor privitoare la originea poporului şi a limbii române. Cum au ajuns daco-geţii din Transnistria şi Ucraina să fie romanizaţi cînd nu a călcat picior de roman vreodată pe acolo, nimeni nu s’a aventurat să explice. În aceste locuri toponimia veche şi hidronimia atestă prezenţa strămoşilor noştri daco-geţi pe aceste meleaguri din cele mai vechi timpuri şi pînă azi. A. Boldur (1980) consultând o serie de surse istorice, cu precădere vechi cronici ruseşti, identifică o mulţime de hidronime şi toponime traco-dacice în Volhinia, Galiţia, Podolia, întinzându-se de fapt de pe malurile Pripetului până în Balcani. Astfel Boldur găseşte 28 de toponime traco-dace având componenta -dava în bazinul râurilor San şi Bugul de Vest, 19 astfel de toponime, în bazinul râurilor Styr şi Sluci, 37 în bazinul râurilor Teterev şi Bugul de Sud, iar între Prut şi Nistru 179 de denumiri dacice, între care 95 de astfel de toponime în – dava.
Revenind la cucerirea Daciei de către romani şi transformarea colţului de sud-vest al regatului dacic în provincie romană, acest eveniment cu totul nefast în istoria poporului nostru, care a avut loc în anul 106 DC1 când imperiul roman atinsese culmea gloriei şi perioada de extindere maximă, trebuie să reamintim câteva date care au fost tot timpul trecute cu vederea. Provincia romană Dacia a fost instaurată in anul 107 DC, dar în tot timpul existenţei sale această provincie nu s’a bucurat de linişte. Pentru a trasa doar câteva coordonate cronologice amintesc că Dacia a fost cucerită cu mult mai târziu .. alte teritorii din Europa devenite ulterior provincii romane. Astfel Dacia a fost cucerită la peste 200 de ani după ce procesul de cucerire lentă a peninsulei iberice s’a încheiat (considerând căderea Numantiei din 133 ÎC ca punct terminus în acest proces), peste un secol şi jumătate după cucerirea Galiei (52 ÎC), peste 100 de ani după cucerirea Raetiei. În plus, în aceste provincii romanii au avut control asupra întregului teritoriu, pe când la nordul Dunării au controlat doar cca 1/5 din teritoriul întregului regat dacic cum deja am arătat mai sus. Romanii şi-au retras administraţia din Dacia la 271 DC, deşi relatările autorilor antici indică o pierdere a controlului real la nordul Dunării înainte de această dată, mai precis pe la 265 DC. Cel mai probabil romanii au pierdut total controlul la nordul Dunării pe vremea împăratului Galienus dacă nu şi mai devreme. Retrageri similare ca cea din nordul Dunării nu a avut loc nici din Gallia, nici din Peninsula Iberică, provincii care au rămas parte integrantă a imperiului până la prăbuşirea acestuia. Pe lângă toate acestea în Dacia, ca şi în Moesia, Dalmaţia şi Pannonia nu au avut niciodată loc colonizări, cu italici sau neitalici, cei care veneau în aceste locuri veneau numai din iniţiativă personală, după cum arată Th. Mommsen. De altfel ceea ce i-a interesat pe romani în Dacia a fost doar minele de aur din munţii Apuseni, precum şi cele de sare de pe valea Oltului şi alte câteva astfel de mine situate în jumătatea de sud a Ardealului. De aceea imperiul nici nu s’a exins dincolo de aceste zone de interes strict economic.
Pe lângă aceste argumente se pot menţiona concepţiile a doi dintre cei mai mari istorici români şi anume N. Iorga şi V. Pârvan. Aceşti doi mari istorici se îndoiesc fiecare în felul său că romanizarea a putut avea loc într’o perioadă de timp aşa de scurtă. Pârvan (1956) arată că romanii cuceresc târziu provinciile illire şi trace de la nord şi est de Alpi până la Dunăre. Cucerirea acestor teritorii s’a făcut foarte încet astfel Pannonia Inferioară, Moesia Inferioară precum şi Thracia vor mai rămâne încă în afara organizării romane, până în prima jumătate a sec. 1 DC. Regiunile din Thracia şi Moesia vor rămâne state clientelare conduse de regi locali până către mijlocul sec.1 DC. Pârvan nu aminteşte însă că pe vremea lui August puţin a lipsit ca Roma să fie distrusă după ce a fost înfrântă de o coaliţie illiro-pannono-tracă (cf. Velleius Paterculus). De altfel şi Noricum şi Rhaetia au avut o soartă similară cu Thracia şi Moesia păstrând multă vreme organizarea locală sub protectorat roman, după ce Roma cucerise demult Gallia, Spania, nordul Africii, Asia Mică. În schimb Pârvan crede în mod complet eronat că pannonii, illirii şi traco-dacii au fost romanizaţi de negustorii romanii cu mult timp înainte ca armatele romane să cucerească aceste teritorii începând cu 200 ÎC: o afirmaţie fără sens şi fără vreo dovadă istorică. Niciunde în întreaga istorie universală nu a avut loc aşa ceva. În sprijinul ideii sale aberante citează pe Velleius Paterculus care povesteşte la numai 15 ani de la cucerirea Pannoniei, după o serie de războaie crâncene că aceştia vorbeau un fel de latină: “omnibus autem Pannonis non disciplinae tantum modo, sed lingue quoque notitia Romanae” (11, 110). Desigur pannonii vorbeau o limbă apropiată de latină, deoarece erau illiri, deci erau vorbitori de traco-illiră, dar în nici un caz nu puteau vorbi latina la vremea aceea aşa cum greşit crede V. Pârvan, mai ales că pannonii nu cedaseră cu uşurinţă romanilor, luptând cu dârzenie multă vreme împotriva Romei. V. Paterculus spune clar că pannonii aveau obiceiuri comune cu romanii inclusiv disciplina militară romană pe care nu le deprinseseră în cei câţiva ani de dominaţie romană, ci le avuseseră cu mult timp înainte având origini comune cu aceştia din urmă. Pannonii au făcut parte din regatul lui Burebista, regat întemeiat pe principii naţionale, după ce fuseseră alungaţi toţi celţii din aceste locuri. Din afirmaţiile lui V. Paterculus reiese că pannonii aveau aceleaşi obiceiuri cu romanii, ceea ce denotă că erau înrudiţi îndeaproape. Faptul că pannonii înţelegeau bine latina, acest lucru este o mărturie în plus că limba vorbită de ei era apropiată de latină. De altfel cam în aceeaşi perioadă, Ovidiu se plânge că la Tomis nu este nimeni să înţeleagă latina, deşi el însuşi reuşeşte să înveţe repede limba getică. Tot el spune că geţii râd prosteşte când aud vorbindu-se latină, lucru firesc dacă luăm în considerare apropierea, dar neidentitatea celor două limbi; astfel geţii percepeau o getică “stâlcită” când auzeau vorbindu-se latină ceea ce stârnea ilaritatea, o limbă din care nu înţelegema Pârvan, în acelaşi context el afirmă în mod cu totul nejustificat că Moesia era romană înainte de 43-49 DC când a devenit provincie romană pentru a fi colonizată cu peste 100 000 de daci de peste Dunăre, colonizare care nu avea nimic de a face cu limba vorbită în Moesia, din punctul de vedere al Romei, cel mult noii colonişti veniţi din nord se puteau simţi ca acasă, deoarece localnicii vorbeau aceeaşi limbă cu ei. Tot el afirmă că primele influenţe italice în Dacia merg până in epoca villanoviană, deci din epoca bronzului. După cum vom vedea civilizaţia bronzului şi apoi a fierului trebuie să fi venit din răsărit spre apus şi în nici un caz invers, dar desigur pe vremea lui Pârvan arheologia nu se afla în stadiul de azi. Această idee este preluată de Boldur (1980) care afirmă tot în maniera lui Pârvan şi Iorga că dacii au fost romanizaţi cu mult înainte de cucerirea Daciei. Boldur crede că dacii au fost romanizaţi de celţii veniţi din apus încă din epoca bronzului fără să ne explice în primul rând cum s’au romanizat celţii înşişi la acea vreme, când cetatea Romei nu se zidise încă.
Pentru a justifica aceeaşi idee a imposibilităţii romanizării dacilor intr’o perioadă aşa de scurtă, N. Iorga (1989) recurge la o explicaţie cu totul diferită .. cea a lui Pârvan şi anume aceea a emigrării masive de ţărani italici în toată zona illiro-tracă, fenomen care ar fi avut loc cu mult timp înaintea cuceririi acestor locuri de către romani, fără să aducă nici cea mai neînsemnată dovadă istorică în afara propriei sale imaginaţii bogate. În plus, Iorga ignoră cu desăvârşire faptul că la vremea la care el se referă, în Italia existau încă mai multe popoare care vorbeau limbi diferite chiar dacă multe erau înrudite între ele. Iniţial latina s’a vorbit doar în Latium, o regiune nu mai mare .. mărimea unui judeţ din zilele noastre. Iorga consideră că Traian nu a cucerit Dacia din motive de glorie şi ambiţie personală în sensul lor cavaleresc din timpurile moderne şi de asemenea nu crede că Dacia a fost romanizată după 107 DC când a devenit provincie romană care a dăinuit până la retragerea lui Aurelian. Şi el ca toţi ceilalţi istorici pare să ignore faptul că doar o mică parte a teritoriului locuit de daci a fost sub controlul Romei. În continuare, Iorga arată de asemenea că vreo 50 de ani au durat războaiele care avut loc înainte de retragerea romanilor, perioadă de totală instabilitate politică în zonă, la care se adaugă încă vreo 20 de ani pentru pregătirea şi venirea coloniştilor. În schimb Iorga ignoră faptul că mai multe decenii după infiinţarea Daciei romane au avut loc mai multe răscoale ale dacilor din provincie, dar şi invazii ale dacilor liberi şi ale goţilor. Ţinând cont şi de acest fapt nu rămân .. cca 40-50 de ani de relativă linişte când colonişti romani se puteau stabili în Dacia. În acelaşi timp, Iorga menţionează clar că aceşti colonişti erau “romani” din Syria, Asia Mică, Egipt, Brittania, dar şi mai de aproape din Grecia şi Tracia. În acest caz aceşti colonişti vorbeau o latină stricată cu diferite accente şi particularităţii din zonele respective. Iorga înţelege bine faptul că un popor ca să se deznaţionalizeze trebuie să fie invadat de o populaţie mai numeroasă având aceeaşi ocupaţie şi bineînţeles să vorbească o altă limbă. Având aceeaşi ocupaţie cele două grupuri etnice sânt în permanent contact social şi astfel populaţia mai numeroasă poate deznaţionaliza pe cea mai puţin numeroasă. Şi aici Iorga scoate asul din mânecă, pentru că dacă lucrurile stau aşa, el trage concluzia că: ” Într’o anumită fază din viaţa ei economică, Italia nu a avut nevoie de ţărani şi i-a exportat. Erau vilele, latifundiile, casele de plăcere, parcurile de vânătoare , viaţa de lux”. Mai departe Iorga afirmă, fără să demonstreze, că Roma importa produsele agricole şi nu mai avea nevoie de ţărani. Astfel el ajunge la strania concluzie că: “Şi atunci a venit deodată un aflux de populaţie deznaţionalizând parte din ilirieni şi traci. Şi confundâdu-se deznaţionalizaţii în masa civilizatoare au întărit-o. Curând au mers înainte cu toţii, păstrând aceleaşi ocupaţii, tot mai numeroşi până au ajuns la limita Dunării şi au trecut-o pe la Drobeta. După opera de deznaţionalizare făcută pe tăcutele de popor, a venit apoi împăratul care a dus această operă mai departe”. Iorga nu mai spune ce s’a întâmplat cu dacii de la nordul Dunării după ce tracii deznaţionalizaţi au trecut Dunărea pe la Drobeta; de ce tocmai pe la Drobeta şi nu şi pe altă parte, Iorga din nou omite să spună, dar nici nu ar fi avut ce spune pentru că toate aceste afirmaţii sânt pure invenţii. Mai departe tot el afirmă că : “Nu văd ce argumente logice s’ar putea aduce în contra acestei teorii. Doar Peninsula Balcanică nu este închisă cu ziduri chinezeşti de către Dunăre, şi un prisos de populaţie era sigur aici. Şi nimeni nu poate împiedica lucrul acesta că din locul unde populaţia era mai densă, ea să treacă în locul unde era mai rară şi din locul unde populaţia era mai puţin liberă din punct de vedere social şi politic ea să treacă acolo unde social şi politic, populaţia era mai liberă”. După cum se vede Iorga inventează un întreg scenariu prin care trebuia “să explice” romanizarea dacilor, nu numai fără dovezi şi argumente concrete, dar şi cu afirmaţii foarte greu de susţinut în orice condiţii istorice. De ce ar fi părăsit în masă ţăranii din Italia pământurile lor şi să “invadeze” pur şi simplu pe illiri şi pe traci? În acea vreme, dar şi mult mai târziu economia ţărănească era de tip autarhic, în sensul că ţăranii trăiau din ce produceau pe pământul lor, fără să’şi vândă produsele .. în mică măsură, dacă presupunem că cei bogaţi importau produsele agricole aşa cum susţine Iorga. Emigrând din Peninsula Italică avea cineva mai multă nevoie de ei în ţinuturile illire şi trace .. în Italia? Existau acolo mai mulţi amatori să le cumpere produsele? Cu siguranţă că nu! De ce populaţia illiro-tracă trebuia să fie rară ca să fie loc pentru invazia italică. Herodot ne spune în sec 5 ÎC că tracii erau cel mai numeros popor din lume, după indieni, deci cu mult timp înainte de presupusa invazie a italicilor în aceste locuri. De ce primii ar fi lăsat pe italici să le ocupe teritoriile, mai ales că aceştia din urmă nu s’au aşezat acolo prin forţa armelor, ba mai mult atât illirii, cât şi tracii erau foarte bine organizaţi în state conduse de regi locali. Aceste state au opus o rezistenţă dârză chiar armatelor romane cărora le-a luat un timp îndelungat să supună aceste regiuni aşa cum reiese chiar din scrierile autorilor romani şi cum o recunosc şi istorici moderni. Aceşti autori relatează de cele mai multe ori cu lux de amănunte despre războaiele duse de romani pentru a cuceri pe illiri, pannoni şi traci, fără să mai enumerăm războaiele împotriva puternicului regat dacic de la nordul Dunării. După cum se poate vedea, în ciuda convingerii lui Iorga, există pe lângă argumente istorice, o mulţime de argumente de logică împotriva teoriei sale.
Situaţia politico-militară la nordul Dunării în timpul stăpânirii romane: În tot decursul celor cca 150 de ani de existenţă a provinciei Dacia, au avut loc tot timpul fie invazii din afara provinciei ori revolte din interior, fie şi una şi alta. Voi face o scurtă trecere în revistă a acestor mişcări. Prima mare mişcare de acest fel are loc la anul 117 AD, anul morţii lui Traian, mort în Asia Mică la scurt timp după pierderea bătăliei cu parţii. În acest an are loc o dublă invazie una condusă de iazigi din apus şi alta din răsărit condusă de roxolani. Coincidenţa în timp şi atacul simultan din două direcţii diferite indică faptul că această invazie a fost plănuită cu mult timp înainte cu toate că provincia nu avea .. 10 ani de existenţă. Succesorul lui Traian, Hadrian încearcă să controleze situaţia învingându-i pe roxolani, pe de o parte şi cumpărând cu bani grei pacea cu iazigii. Noul împărat era hotărât să abandoneze cu totul această provincie cum făcuse deja cu încă trei provincii din răsărit şi anume Armenia, Mesopotamia şi Asiria. Istoricul roman Eutropius scrie că împăratul a fost convins de oamenii săi să renunţe la ideea abandonării Daciei pentru că “prea mulţi cetăţeni romani ar cădea în mâinile barbarilor”, dar este mai mult ca sigur că atât prestigiul noului împărat cât şi al imperiului ar fi avut mult de suferit dacă atât de multe teritorii ar fi fost cedate într’ o perioadă de timp aşa de scurtă. Drept consecinţă Hadrian dispune construirea faimosului limes alutanus, de-a lungul Oltului care era de fapt graniţa de răsărit a provinciei. Acest limes era un val de apărare din pământ construit pe partea de răsărit a Oltului pentru a opri invaziile venite din această direcţie. Un val similar a fost construit în aceeaşi perioadă în Brittania pentru a opri invaziile picţilor din actuala Scoţie. Ceva mai târziu, în timpul domniei impăratului Antoninus (138-161 DC) are loc o revoltă a dacilor din provincia Dacia, susţinută de o invazie a dacilor liberi, cei din afara provinciei. De asemenea în timpul aşa-numitului război marcomanic care a durat 20 de ani pe vremea lui Marcus Aurelius (161-180 DC) care a domnit imediat după Antoninus au avut loc mai multe revolte în Dacia, precum şi o serie de invazii din exterior. Într’una din aceste invazii, condusă de un prinţ dac atât Sarmisegetusa, capitala provinciei, cât şi Alburnus, centrul de exploatare a aurului din Munţii Apuseni au fost distruse şi arse.
Pe de altă parte, goţii, care în ultimă instanţă au dat lovitura de graţie imperiului roman, au atacat constant nu numai provincia de la nordul Dunării, ci şi la sud de Dunăre. Goţii au venit de la Marea Baltică în nordul Mării Negre de unde s’au angajat în atacuri repetate împotriva romanilor până în secolele 3-4 DC când vizigoţii pleacă în Italia, iar puterea ostrogoţilor este distrusă de huni la 375 DC. Este demn de menţionat că sub numele de goţi se ascundeau de multe ori geţii, istoricii romani şi bizantini confundându-i de cele mai multe ori. Uneori această confuzie este eliminată atunci când autorii antici indică triburile costobocilor sau al carpilor care ştim sigur că erau daci. Toate aceste triburi au atacat imperiul fie separat, fie împreună. De pe la 230 DC încoace aceste atacuri au devenit tot mai puternice. În cele mai multe cazuri, romanii erau nevoiţi să cumpere pacea cu bani, şi în cazurile când reuşeau să oprească un atac îşi luau supranumele pompos de Dacicus ori Carpicus. În timpul lui Galienus (260-268 DC), goţii (unii autori antici îi numesc însă geţi) lansează un atac de proporţii venind cu corăbiile pe Marea Neagră în provinciile romane de la sudul Dunării. Scriitorii romani Iordanes (18), Ammianus Marcelinus (31, 5-13), Zosimus (1, 13), Aurelius Victor (29) toţi scriu că romanii au pierdut total controlul la nordul Dunării în această perioadă. Retragerea oficială a avut loc la 271 DC de către Aurelian, el însuşi trac de origine, ordonând distrugerea podului de pe Dunăre de la Turnu-Severin, măsură necesară cu scopul de a opri invaziile din nord, dar această măsură nu a oprit complet aceste invazii din nordul Dunării. Un secol mai târziu, venirea hunilor şi avarilor în regiune a împins pe vizigoţi în sud, dar şi aceste popoare noi venite la nordul Dunării făceau multe incursiuni pe celălalt mal al Dunării.

(”Originea geto-daca a limbii române”, Pontos, Chisinau, iunie 2002, 198p. Prefata de prof. univ. dr. Ion Dron si conf. univ. dr. Dragos Vicol “)
Mihai Vinereanu (City University, New York, SUA)

666 – numar sacru la daci (traci, pelasgi)

Unii dintre cei care au avut un impact esential asupra viitorului contemporan a fost, BUREBISTA, cel mai mare dintre regii Traciei, care s-a nascut cam pe la inceputul secolului I i.d. Ch., la mai mult de 2000-3000 de ani de la prabusirea MARELUI IMPERIU PELASGIC, atunci cand lumea antica era dominata de Imperiul Roman. Alte nume ale lui au fost SARMIS VASIL (CEL MAI MARE REGE) si PAVEL-TER (STAPAN ABSOLUT AL TRACILOR. Sfatuitorul lui, a fost Marele Preot DECENEU, care i-a instruit pe traci sa traiasca potrivit cu Legile Naturii, cunoscute pana azi ca “LEGILE BELAGINES”
Se pare ca in timpul lui BUREBISTA, s-a decis ca anul -I- sa fie anul cand s-au nascut cei doi Zalmoxis (Vezi la rubrica Istorie – tema “Dacia Secreta”), 713 i.d. Ch., iar anul reformelor politice-religioase 666, apare pe tot felul de inscriptii de pe tot teritoriul pelasgic ca ,,SSS” (6,6,6) sau ,,CCC” (6-grecesc) ori
,,VIVIVI” (6-latin).
Iata rugaciunea unei femei gete, Zalmoxiene, gasita pe o placa de marmura la Tomis, continand si un …ACROSTIH… dovedind inca o data marele rafinament atins de geto-daci.
A*YRELIA STRALUCITOARE
B*ENERIA CURATA
S*YM FORO MAREATA DOAMNA
S*YN DIO SUNT CREDINCIOASA
S*YN ZE SASE TRI SUNT CU TREI DE SASE
K*AI TETHI GATRI DAR ATAT TE ROG
A*YRIS NONAM CANDVA SA MA AJUTI
N*IASCHARIAN SA RENASC

Dar citind pe vertical, primele litere apare ,,AB SSS K-AN” : ,,Cu 666, de ani” aceste fiind semnul la care se inchinau cei intorsi la adevarata religie, semn ce se purta pe mana dreapta sau pe frunte.

citat din “Noi nu Suntem Urmasii Romei”

*Nota: Numarul – 666- pe pamant este rasturnatul (in oglinda) al numarului -999- in Cer, (al 9-lea Cer) , simbolul LUMINII! Numarul 9 este simbolul (Tatalui din Cer), iar 6, al Fiului (de pe Pamant)!sau al sufletului care prin iluminare se releaga de Tatal Ceresc!(SPIRITUL CREATOR INFINIT IN MANIFESTARE)

ZAMOLXIS – FIRST LEGISLATOR OF THE GETAE (C 1)

CHAPTER I
Summary
§1. ZamolxiV, SAMOLSES in our scrolls. To him are related the beginnings of the paternal laws and the defence of that truth. Who is he and where comes from? He belongs to the Getae, who are the same with Goths and Scythians. §2. The ones being called Getae are also called SVEONES. §3. Some deny they are called Svions from Svidur: their argument can easily be overthrown. §4. Before ODIN, there is no reference of that word in the writings of the old ones. §5. Sueons’ power extended once all over. §6. Whether the country is called Svia from Svidia, a region apart from Goths’ land. Why Svidia? §7. Why the inhabitants are not called rather Gautae than Svions from Odin: SVIFDAGR was born to Odin The Svif. §8 It is quite ridiculous believing that the name of SUEONIA could be related to the place and forest (VEDEN?), idem from ZWEI REICHE (two empires / a double empire). §9. SVIPIOD has a different meaning, while the name of Svions, who are also called Ingueones or Ingevones (in both cases they are spelt correctly); it is the same name with Ingi, Ingve and Ingemundr. §10. Those who have been called Scythians, thereafter called Sueons (Sueones). Where does the name of Scythians come from? For they come from the Elysium Fields, hence their name. §11. Who are the Hyperboreans? So do the foreign writers call them. Where comes the name of Wgugih (Oghiughie). The earliest authors mean by t hat word the trajectory of terrestrial days.§12. Once in our homeland, heredity was considered by the number of bows and arrows. What is the meaning of ARS and ARSDOBOLKAR in the earliest legislation rules. §13. The number twelve, of arrows, was deemed by the ancient peoples to be ordained by the gods; the number of nine days also had the same interpretation. §14. The Gothic SKUTA matches the Latin verb sagittare (“to take very well aim with an arrow”).
§1. The waxed tablets together with the other manuscripts, where they talk about the origin of paternal (national) laws, they are referring to SAMOLSE. It is not known quite exactly about him whether he was a real man and when he was born. However, most authors assert, with greatest levity, that he was born somewhere in the Thracian Land. About that time, the Getae were living there, “Qreikwn andreiotatoi kai
dikaiotatoi
” (Hdt., IV, XCIII, to the end), that is “the most brave and pious of the Thracians”, in Herodotus’ words. Among the praiseworthy virtues, no doubt by right, that of undefeated is added, with which Procopius (IV, Hist. Goth., 419) has adorned the Goths.
The ones who in Thrace were called Getae, later in Procopius’ (a Greek historian that died in 562 AD) time were called Goths and in older times they were called Scythians. Such authors we owe a due trust, since they are among the best ones; beside them, through his ancient dignity and authority, brilliant Messenius imposed, too (Foreword to a versified edition of the laws, signed Ragvaldus) who, in a few words, has shown with so much clarity and perspicacity that the first laws of the Svions and Goths (Getae) have been made up by Samolse. In order for such conclusion to necessarily be most correct, he clothed it with the word infallible. Subsidiary, if needed anymore, opinions have thereafter recorded, of certain brilliant scholars like BOXHORNIUS (Hist., VII, in the year 101), LOCCENIUS (Antiquit. Sveog., lib. I, chap.1), SCHERINGHAM (De orig. Angl., chap.IX, X. XI), HACHENBERGIUS (De orig. Sved., §XII, ff.), IACOB GISLON (in foreword and Chron. p.m.5 to the end) and in however other passages where the same opinion on the Getae, Goths and Scythians based on different proofs also in the mind of doctrine disciplines writers, such writers being among the most enlightened: that truth is perfectly confirmed by uncounted evidence. It is worthy retaining that unique truth, namely the Getae and the Goths were one and the same people and they were also called with the name of Scythians (Joh. Magn. Hist., S. 4, lib. I, chap.IV, f.f. Schol. Antiq. In Adam N. LXXXVII and authors next chapter)
§2. Therefore, they are called GETAE, GOTHONES, GOTHINI, GETAR, GETTAR, JETTAR, JOTTAR, GAUTAR2, GOTAR3, like with the natives, attrâ from GA, GE, which is the same thing with GAU, GO, JO, GIO, GOJA, i.e. TERRA from the verb GIETA, meaning to give birth, develop, spread open-handed (others have a quite different opinion, namely their names would come from GAUT or ATTYS, the son, loved by Cybele, of the Sangarius river). SVIONES, SVEVI, SVIDAND, SVAND, SVEAR, SVIANAR would come from Attys, more recently; who is also called ODIN, SVIDUR, SVIUR, SVIFR, FTOLSVIDUR, SVIDUDUR, SVIDRIR, SVIDI, from SVIDIA, meaning to devastate through fires. The following add, too: SIGFADUR, SIGTHYR, SIGMUNDUR, SIGTHER, SIGTHROOR, SIGI; and also GAUT, GAUTE, GAUTUR and WALGAUTUR, an assembly of administrative (business) names, which were en vogue at that time, designating both courage and wiseness and a charming finesse in every victorious people; a destruction of enemies’ fields, fires, sieges, has been also called havoc, ruin. Why not also Thràsàr (meaning more vulnerable to cruelty of cutting and burning, not rarely attacked to be publicly exposed). That is yet also name and cult object of the ancestor Attys through most useless games (caprices) and witchcraft; after that superstitions have invaded him, as we learn from the Eddic monuments (it is about two collections of mythological and legendary poems of ancient Scandinavian peoples, T.’s N.) at the location and with the inhabitants SVITHI-OD, SVI-THOD, it is transmitted to us that a new and perpetual name has been given from itself, that just mentioned.
§3. They are not even experts in old literary works that would deny such designation of ODIN. At first, for grammar reasons, his name should have been spelt that way, as coming from SVIDRIR, SVIDRISTHIOD and not SVITHIOD; those are some kind of sophisms, like some enigma that nobody can clear up. Yet the mass of scholars is too big for their boots, looking for vain glory, like our own ignoramuses, out of vanity, consider them admirable. Since not so much SVIDRIS, but at the same time under other flexional titles of names, Odin can be recognised, as already set forth above. In the case of such words in disorder it is always more clear if not expressed but in the case of a multitude of expressions relating to such word. Thus it is reasonable from GAUT or GAUTUR – GAUTLAND, from SIGI or SIGTYR – SIGTUNA, from SEMMINGUR – SEMMIING – HUNDRA, from RAUMUR, RAUMELF, RAUMARIKE, from INGI – INGLINGAR, from SKIOLDUR – SKIOLDUNGAR, and so we may find, of that type, with the thousands, where the second case, not clearly, but precisely, towards they incline, is to be preferred. See also moreover other historical documents – Thorstiens viikings soanr saugu (chap.I), where just the following words can be read: pad eru Kallader Alfheimar, er Alfur Konungar ried fyri. Afheimo from the king name of Alfo. What does it mean? That the assailant, in his opinion, would need rather to prove an alibi; for a similar reason, the word SVITHIOD popularly reads SVEON and moreover, and the whole matter, in itself, in such a manner it is said, that it can be carried through with a sword only.
§4. Then, that ODIN word seems to be much older than his coming into the world. Here it is, on what rely those claiming such a thing: sure thing is that that name has never been mentioned before Odin would appear, neither by foreign writers, nor by the native ones. They endeavour to impose the contrary with ability and through trifles, as resulting from the Eddic writings. that such is the state of things, As so it is in the foreword of the Eddic writings, where, in both books written with great care, they call DROTZET of the High Praetorian Tribunal, the heroine of the all-heavenly and companion, master, GREAT GABRIEL of Gardie, whom the Academy in Uppsala has since long: “… thadan for Othin i Svithiod, thar var sa Kongur er Gylsi het: oc er han fretti til Asia manna er Aesir voru Kalladir, for han i moti theim, oc baud seim i fit riki en fatimi fylgdi ferd theirra. Hwar sem their dvol thust i londum, ja thar par ar oc trutho men artheir voru theßradandr thui ar rikis menn sa tha olika flestum mannum othrum at segurd oc vitj. Thar thotti Othin sagrit vellir, oc Landzkostir godur, oc Kaus fier thar Vorgarstadt sem nu heitir Sigtun.” Odin left there for Sveonia, the king of which was Gylso. At him arrived the fame of the Asians’ names, which one called AESIR who, upon his throne mounting, invited them all: they complied with the invitation without delay. Wherever your eyes may have looked, you only could see but thriving crops, as everywhere peace was flourishing, among the local people of good faith, there were accepted with them those things that were well thought-out, while for others, the science and the excellence of the form were more alluring. Odin, where he saw the crop thriving and the soil being fertile, chose a location for the stronghold, which the local people call now Sigtuna, thadan, says the author, for Othin et Svithiod. From there, Odin came to Sueonia, as it is called today. With such name does it show off, but, except that, it was called before Svithiod as it is confirmed by the Eddic writings, as printed by the most deliberated Ressenius, in question being an edition resulted from a collating of a few more copies: Efftr thad for han nordut that sein nu heiter. Words that are completely the same, the Danish interpret assures us; it also tallies with the Latin version of the Icelander Olaus Magnus of 1629. Therefore, it is in question the same place that is called now Svithiod, that is Svecia. Of the same opinion also is Stephanus The Icelander Olaus when in 1646, he proves, the adorned interpretation of Haunia. However, about that and many other words, I deem as useless appealing to more precepts than it has been done before – it’s simple enough.
§5. Stress is being laid on the same issue: it is, undoubtedly, astonishing why resorting to other regions, the names of which did not come from the same name, on the contrary, their names read with those names with which they have remained since long. As it is quite easy for such an objection to be rejected. If in that passage of the Eddic writings so it was understood to be reproduced, where, in clear words, it is proved as more suitable that the reign of Sueonia should begin with Odin and where, after so many errors a reliable place can be finally set and, to the fęted person’s fame, it can still be invested with monumental names, which can be legally transmitted to the descendants. To conclude, by the name of Svithiod it was meant all that was in sight in the north; the other reigns were called at other times tractus (“vast country”), it meaning a reunion of lands of a very vast empire – at the level of the universe. In fact, it was replaced by the old ones with Manheim, Gudheim, Alsheim, Jotnaheim or Risaland / Vanheim, oc oll thau titi thar til halda (every reign that had to be haunted by the majesty of Sueonic Empire, as clearly asserted by Snorrus, accord. to Snorrus, in the version of Johannes Martinus, Slangerup p.1). The book, published in 1594, gives us the following information: “Norden for palude Maeoti ot swarte hass/ kalde de paa gammel Norske Svithiode. Det nafn haswe de paa alle diße kalde land som ligge mod norden/ oc erre somme af diße land öde fot fraast oc snee” (as author mistranslated the Gothic text in Latin, I dare to translate it, conveying in fact the essence: “Svithiod land being located north of Azov Sea, just in its most northern point, it has a very severe climate, the region being exhausted by frosty weather and snow”, T.’s N.) Let’s add to that source also Iordanes, the chapters (De Getarum sive Gothorum origin et rebus gestis, IV and V) in which we can find very clearly and well substantiated, from where and how arrived there for the first time the Goths (the Getae), that they have settled in Scythia, next to Black Sea and he describes already a number of settlements of theirs; from the notes of other writers, cited by Nicolaus Ragvaldus, in his speech (Herod., lib. IV), never praised enough. And it is in question not only the native writers, but to such also add some of other nations, in the words of whose we should trust with the power of truth comprised in them, having the strictness of purely scientific works: these are Herodotus (chap.IV), Xenophon (chap.11, Memoriale), Plato (Timaeus and Kritias) and many others nearer, among which one rises above all. This is Cl. Olaus Rudbeck (Atlant., chap.VII, §VIII).
Let’s go back however to Lucan, chap.II of De bello civili, from which we learn that our ancestors have roamed Europe, Egypt and Etruria and “have reached with their boats also Scythia Minor, at Lacus Maeotis, a black swamp full of all kinds of peoples.”
§6. So, in vain some endeavour to convince us that Svialand, the Sveonia region apart from Gothia, derives from Svidia, which means “to ravage”, “to burn.” Also, to destroy through iron and fire villages and forests, as in spite of the fact that the field, attacked inside, was, according to the custom, seeded and harrowed, everything was turned into graves, nothing having been sifted from the crop. The first to come to these lands called Sviar, which cannot yet be proved by any written document, worthy of being noticed.
§7. Although the name came into common use, yet the people wander why not GAUTA would rather be called the inhabitants, instead of SVIONES from Odin, as many centuries before the emergence of Odin, such name was given to those populations, like I set forth above and this historical truth can be easily proved through different peoples’ and nations’ history. Why then tarrying about this one? If however would anyone doubt the legend of the nomenclature, then one argument would suffice: why did not that ethnic group usurp that name before Odin. Lang fedgatal yet does not doubt that ethnic group having borrowed its name from Odin’ son, called Svifdage.
§8. From all these considerations is clearly resulting that somebody is nevertheless asserting that Sueonia can be inferred from Veden’ lake and forest (“se lacu et veden sylva”) – words mentioned above – an opinion which one could rather wonder about than reject. No less valid an opinion would be, that it would come from zwei Reiche (two reigns/empires), ideas about which Messenius claimed (Spe. Suec. et Goth, chap.VIII) they “render callous their errors by right and in fact.”
§9. From all stated above, it clearly results how much the concept of svithiod, I mean Sueons’ power or empire had to “suffer.” To thwart such a saying‚ a man (now passed away to join the happy ones) not a profane in homeland and ancient history, comes with an argument supporting the Sueons, Goths (Getae) and Odin; upon returning to the concept of Scandia everything getting mixed: undoubtedly Svealand is something different from Svearik or Sviavelldi, as moreover, other literary monuments of our ancestors, there are also homeland laws, under which it is asserted, in clear words, the following development: “Swerikis Rzjke a aff Hedhna Warld samankomit/af Swealand oc Götha”, chap.1 main Konungz Valter, e.e. (“The Kingdom of Sveonia, according to the last memory of the profane religion, has coagulated from the Sveonic and Gothic regions”). Same are the things in the case of the proper name of Svithiod instead of Svealand that clearly differs from GOTHALAND. accord. to the 1egend of Vilkina (p. d. 76): “Vilkini kunungr eignadist med rikinu, oc hernadi thad land er kallad var Vilkinaland en thad heitir nu Svithiod oc Gautland, oc alt Sviavelldi, Skaney, Sialand, Jutland, Vinland, oc oll thau riki er par til halda.” (“King Vilkinus, by the force of weapons, appropriated the Kingdom of Vilkinaland, which is today made out of Sveonia, Gothia, Scania, Selandia, Jutia, Vinlandia (Vandalsa) and all regions bounding that empire”). Thus, to spade a pikestaff, Svithiod differs from Gautland and Sviavelldi. And let’s us rely on the same history: af heiti ens, fyrsta haufdingia tekr hans riki‚ nafn, oc su thiod er han stiornar (from the name of its first prince the kingdom took its name, and not from the people the prince reigned over. It is entirely worthy being trusted, according to what is said above. So, from Ingve, or Inge comes the word Sueones and Ingveones. Ingveones, according to Plinius (lib. IV, C. XIII), and even Tacitus (De mor. Germ., chap.12); yet they do not call by something obscure or hidden, but even by something more open and clear, I mean they are those citizens who have been under the domination and authority of the Ingons. Ingi or Ingve, Inge or Ingemunder designate one and the same thing, as we can read in most documents dedicated to such name.
§10. But they also called Scythians, which thereafter called Sueoni, accord. to an old manuscript titled Chronicon. As Iaphet dre komne Skyter oc Geter, som langt epter Kalladis Gother / oc nu Swenske. (“Scythians and Getae were born to Iaphet who later, after the Goths, called also Sveons.”) But in no hand written laws collection that order is wrongly written. Even Isidorus (the beginning of that Chronicle and the next chapter) begins his chronicle as follows: the reign of the Goths (undoubtedly it reads Getae’s – T.’s N.) is the oldest, as it was born from the reign of the Scythians. Scythians truly are brilliant archers, they raising a lot above other nations, as that kind of weapons was specifically proper to them – just for that reason Herodotus (IV, 27) called them ARIMASPOI, “the ones who pointed at very well with the arrow” (although the legend says the Arimasps had one eye only, T.’s N.); they were mounted archers (ippotoxotai, Thuc. 11, 139); Laurentius Valla gave the same interpretation that later was also recognised by Henricus Stephanus. Moreover, Herodotus (I, 73) called that skill of wielding the bow and arrows tenhn twn toxwn, i.e. “the art of pointing at with arrows”, and Xenophon (On Socrates’ acts and words, I, III, the Latin translator being Cardinal Nicenus), where it is said that, unlikely other nations, the Scythians and Thracians are naturally gifted with that net superiority in wielding a bow and arrows. Yet, unlikely the Spartans, who wield a sword and shield, the Scythians and Thracians do not dare to also conversely handle them, Spartans refuse to fight the first using their weapons – bow and arrows.
Lucan (Lib. III) also calls the Gelons sagittiferi volucres, i.e. “from the hands of which the arrows fly like birds”, and the Gelons are a Scythian nation. As Lucan (chap.II) claims, the Masagets are Scythian too, like the Gelons occurring about the Maeotis Lake, i.e. the Azov Sea, driving Scythian wagons or riding horses that flew like birds, like arrows. Through the art of wielding the bow and arrows our ancestors have stood out from other peoples, as our national history confirms it to us. Since they knew how to send an arrow with a perfect precision, they went to war or fights, their bodies bare, to show the enemy how expert are they in pointing at by piercing with their arrows exactly the targeted point. For their skill in wielding the bow and arrows e.g. Magn. Sigurdar. Sigurdar., Magnusa Barfots and the legend of Olof Trygfars (Flot. Lb., III, chap.8) and many other passages. So, the Scythians were among the first of our ancestors. The handling of the bow and arrows with the Scythians was learned since the early childhood; Florus (Lib. III, chap.VIII) recounts that a child would refuse the food given by his mother until she did not show him, through her self example, how is she hit by arrows. All their hopes were those arrows, as Tacitus (De mor. Germ., to the end) recounts. They roamed with their herds, herds of horses, goats and sheep through forests and untilted deserts, hence they were called Nomads, Shepherds, by Homer, Strabo and, among others, also by Silius (I, III).
They did not have any houses, living in wagons, roaming over the plains, and wandering as they did, they always had around the penates. Strabo locates them to the north, where the north wind blows, and Diodorus Siculus (Bibl. Hist., chap. p.m. 209) recounts that they were living on an island called Basilea out of which, in bad weather, came out a kind of very bright amber, which could not be found in any other part of the world: this was also called electrum. Urania, daughter of the skies, upon her father’s death, accepted to reign over Basilea and afterwards gave birth to dia docouV thV basileiaV, the devisees of the reign, Hyperions (Diod. Sic., Bibl. Hist., chap.III, chap.7, 9, 10, 13 and 14). Solinus adds that from the islands inhabited by the Germans, Scandinavia is the biggest and nothing in that island is more valuable than the glassware that offers both the crystal, yet also the amber, which the Germans call with a native word GLAESUM (STICLA). Plinius calls it glassware (XXVII, 1, 2). And just in our Sveonia, in the region of Helsingia, there was such a valley called ELYSIA [(the valley of glass = Glysisdal, Elysisdal, LIUSDAL), according to Ovid, Champs-Elysees according to Virgil, Glysis hed, Elysis hed, i.e. LIUSHED] (See also Tacitus, De mor. Germ., XLV; Tibull., I, 3, In Messal.) According to illustrious D. Gustavus Rosenhanus, who in 1658 chaired that province, he talked me about the places where the merchandise was exported from, like coming from the Elyzeens and Naharvals,who formerly would have inhabited those lands; Tacitus (De mor. Germ., XLIII) recounts about the Manimos [Manheimos] Elyzieni and Naharvali. Quoting Plutarch who, in his turn quotes Homer, asserts that in the Champs-Elysees is the end of the Earth, since there the shadow becomes visible putting an end to the Globe; there, where the light is prevented, and the descending sun just doubles the growing shadows, Radamantes’ kingdom, i.e. the Inferno begins.
Why from the Gothic lysa, and this, in its turn, from lius, liusis or lysis? Its origin is unclear, since in the summer those fields, as their name tells, are always seen to be bright; hence poets invented the wording “at the happy places of the righteous people”, “in the happy islands”, “where neither the winds blow nor the clouds drop their rain” and “the sky is always clear and laughs with a generously spread light” (Lucret., De rerum natura, chap.III, about the beginning) or in Horatius, Epoda XVI:
“The Planetary Ocean leaves us, we are surrounded by fields
we arrive at the happiest fields, at rich islands:
look, the field unploughed for so many years is being given back to us –
Ceres gives it us now flourishing and loaded with grape clusters.
the olive trees pull out their buds and every tree is adorned with buds;
the resin springs out of the high mountain oaks
and trickles through the bark down to earth.

There come from itself directly in the chapel’s censer …”

(See also the comments of Acronius Porphyrionus of Rotterdam, as well as of the others concerning the ode in question). Other versions concerning the origin of that region’s name may also be heard; among them, the Plato’s (Gorgias, p.m. 370 ff.) Virgil, for instance, sets against Champs-Elysees, Lacus Stygias (where Plouton, the “god” of the Inferno rules, T.’s N.), nigra Tartara, a place reserved after death those wrongdoers, unfaithful, where people shiver with cold (See also Hesiod, Theogonia, see 682, 721, 736 and Plato, Phaedron, p. 517 ff.) Both Stygii lacus, and Seneca’s Stygiae shadow, come from the Gothic STYG. The verb is styggias formidare (“to be afraid of the styg”); many other words have hence formed in our language. In Greek there is the verb sugew, having the same meaning, although yet the interpreters doubt its Greek origin (I deem it would rather refer to certain old Romanian words: 1. Strigă = “grey coloured owl with orange eyes, also meaning lady vampire, witch”, as well as 2. Strigoi, T.’s N.) (see also Virgil, Aeneis, p. 237 and 251). For good reason even the question is put, just where it has been called by the ancient people GLESARIA after: no doubt it comes from the verb GLA, meaning “to shine”, “to glow”, and hence GLEA, GLIA, GLOA, GLIOSA and LYSA = “to lighten” (It is not excluded it might be linked to the old Romanian GLIE, “ploughed land” and GAIA / GEIA / GE, “mother land” and of course the Greek must have taken it from us and not conversely, as it is too the case of wallach – from German, meaning “castrated horse”, as it is the case too of the West Falls (Westfalen) and the East (Ostfalen) and the Egyptian and Indian fellah, all those nations whose names are related to the land cultivation, agriculture, having their origin in the traditional word Valach, the oldest the Romanian ethnic group attested until now, accord. to Homer, Iliad, II, 739, T.’s N.) Since it is not like the case of the Latin Aquilo,-onis (“north wind”), Boreas in Greek, which asserts Aulus Gellius with serenity (II, 22) must have been formed from boatus, meaning “bellow” (apo thV bohV), while some erudite men, who devoted themselves long ago to the letters and antiques, cannot approve of such an etymological explanation, believable among babies only.
§11. That is too the case of the toponym BASILIA mentioned by Pytheas of Marseille (a famous navigator and geographer of the 4th century BC, T.’s N.) as the seat of the royal Scythians: basileio V meaning quite “kingly”, “royal” (Plin. XXXVII, II). I call as a witness just Herodotus (IV, 56) in a passage where Gerrhos clearly recounts on the county of nomad Scythians and that of royal Scythians (“tón te tvn Nomadwn cwrion kai ton tvn basilhiwn Skuqewn”). Lacus Maeotis (Azov Sea, T.’s N.) too is inhabited by the Royal Scythians and the Sauromatians (“Maihtin, SkuqaV te touV
basilhiouV kai SauromataV
”). This is how far the Sveons’ Empire stretched once, as I already said here above (that is also perfectly valid for the Geto-Dacians, who have lived for centuries, if not even millenniums, mixed with Germanic peoples, both in the Scandinavian Peninsula, and in the southern Russia, T.’s N.) Those Scythians who lived in Asia, it is due to call them Nomads (SkuqaV touV NomadaV, Hdt. I, 73). On the same island – BASILIA – the old ones called it BALTHIA from BALDUR or Apollo or from the bows and belts (baltheis) which the Scythians used, a respect in which it is worth mentioning Herodotus (IV, 11, 19 and 50, VI. 74), where he some times speaks about the bow, and other times about Hercules The Baltic (centurion) and not only about Scytha as Hercules’ son, after whom the Kings Scythian have been called (Plin., 1.chap., Hdt., IV, 8, IX, 10). Apollo himself is called by Virgil The Bow Carrier (Verg., Aen. III). And in the 5th book of the same Aeneid says it explicitly: “Be it now allowed us to explain how it came from the belt to the word Baltic (belte) Sea, as it appears in ancient words. The Scythians called Royal, were also called Hyperborean4, and their seat was in the Hyperborean island, Yswer Norden, in Greek uper, poetic super in Latin, Yser with the Goths and Sveons, letters p and s are used alternately, either instead of the other. „Same way could also be explained SCAN, nowadays SKAN / SKANE, Scania being called in ancient times Scandia. As Scandia, Scanau, Scanorum sive Scandorum island (Scans’ or Scanzs’ Islans), a name under which we have yet another region located beyond the other regions, getting in touch with the Aquilone (the north wind). That is why Lucan mentions them as dwelling in a region located under the Polar Circle or Hyperborean Ursa (De bell. Civil., V, p. m. 121), and Cicero, quoting from Aratus’ poetry, he says: “consequently come the Northern” (De nat. deorum, II, p.m. 47); Seneca calls the North Pole, by the synechdoche Ursas: the icy wagon of the Hyperborean Ursa (Med. Act., II, cor. V, see 315).
In ancient times, our ancestors called it Scandia, it being confirmed, among other writings, by the chronicles inclusively. So, in laws fragments, among the oldest are also those prescribed the Sveons and the Goths in 1375, where Sveonia is called YSWERSTOG/OSTWANSTOG and NORDANSTOGH (Diod. Sic., Bibl. Hist., p.m. 91 …) From the tradition of the old ones, as Diodorus shows it, so it has been found to be graphically represented. The inhabitants of that island have been called by the ancient peoples Hyperboreans; all the more it is trustworthy, as such judgement is placed in the beginning of the book. The Hyperboreans have been called after the adverbuper, “over”, “beyond” and BoreaV , “North wind”, therefore the ones who live beyond the whipping north wind (Plin., VI. 1 3), and in his scholar, Adamus (p.m. 149, 111, 83): “the Danes, the Sveons and the Normans, as well as the other Scythian peoples have been called by the Romans, Hyperboreans; those Marcian loaded with praises of all kinds.” The Greek writers (among which Diodorus Siculus, Lib. III, p.m. 132) and Plutarch, De facie in orbe Lunae, p. m. 941), called them western, Atlantic, and Hyperborean populations; Tacitus (De Mor. Germ., CXLV) recounts: “beyond the Svions there is but a tranquil sea, almost still, surrounding and enclosing the Globe.” Among all the other Scythians, the Hyperboreans were some very special people, as RUDBECKIUS emphasises it.
§12. In our laws, both older and more recent, there are not only the arrows mentioned, but also always the bow and the arrows are mentioned together. In inheritance matters, where a succession was to be decided, the one of the sons was deemed more fortunate and hence more powerful at wars, which inherits twelve bows: that one was to be called, in fact, a Scythian. And, as the codices prove, in accord with all the other regulations, he had the title of agent through heredity – ARFDABOLKER, ARF meaning both “arrow”, and “bow.” Since an estate was regarded depending on the number of bows and arrows, a custom transmitted also to our Getae ancestors descending from the Scythians, the true Scythians were only deemed to be those possessing three times twelve bows (“thre tölptir SKUTHA stràng ok bogha”), and by the word ARF it is meant both “arrow”, and “bow.” That way of judging was also reflected in the heredity title – the more the number of bows and arrows a son inherited, the more appreciated he was in the battlefield; here he is, instituted in the context of a hunting: “If someone, in his own forest, therefore, in his own hunting ground, upon having cornered a beast, feels exhausted and wants to have some rest, so discontinuing the hunting, sends on the beasts trail a bow or an arrow; and if that beast is subsequently killed by others, those due is the skin, and that who was the first to shoot an arrow is due the rest of the beast; and should a dispute arise, then they would resort to an arbitration by good faith men (I suspect it isn’t meant a proceedings in court, yet instead a hunters’ association assigned to settle such differences T.’s N.), thus everything is to be settled with an elegance that characterises us” (I wonder if that is neither the ontological-gnoseological root of an old Romanian say “To sell the skin of a bear in the woods”?, T.’s N.)
§13. I have said that, in our laws, by the word ARF it is meant not only an “arrow”, yet also a “bow”, which is called too ARMBORST. The wording ARMBORST ATARS BRESTER has the meaning “the arrow is shot with a bow.”
In our laws, both old and recent, it is only mentioned as weapons the bow and arrows, hence their name of Scythians. According to information supplied by Kongbr (chap.XXIX of Codex Magni Erici and c. XXIV of the general law (Civil Code) of King Christoph), the warriors wore twelve arrows each, to match the number of gods, accord. to Virg. (Georg., I, p. 41): “That is why over the endless earth reigns the sun gilded by those twelve stars of the world.”; in Homer (Iliad. I, p. 2, see 3) we find the digit 9 to be used: “for nine long days the arrows of Zeus flew in the army.”
§14. From the foregoing quoted passages, as well as from other sources, it could be seen that Skyta meant, in our laws, “to shoot by a bow and arrow”; it results more clear from VOSSIUS, SCIOPIUS, CELLARIUS and BORRICHIUS (De variis linguae Latinae aetatibus: Defensione Vossii adversus Sciopium).

CAROLUS LUNDIUS – Swedish king advisor 1687