Dacians and otherTransdanuvianiMIHAIL ZAHARIADE

GETAE AND DACIANS

GETAE and Dacians are widely accepted as being

two different names for the same native popu-

lation of Thracian origin, speaking an Indo-

European language and having the same

material culture. Modern historians use

the term Geto-Dacians to encompass both

groups. They inhabited the great majority of

the territory from the Balkan mountains to the

south, the middle course of the DANUBE to

the west, the northern Carpathian mountains

to the north, and the Dniester River to the east.

Strabo and other ancient authors (Appian,

Cassius Dio, and Pompeius Trogus) make

clear that the different names were given

according to their geographical location: the

Getae between the Haemus (Balkan) moun-

tains and Carpathians and toward the BLACK

SEA (present-day Oltenia, Wallachia, south

Moldavia, and Dobrudja), and the Dacians in

modern Transylvania and along the middle

Danube. Greek authors mostly used the name

Getae, while Roman writers preferred Daci.

The area encompassed the entire territory of

today’s Romania and went beyond its modern

borders. HERODOTUS expressly states that “the

Getae are the bravest and most rightful of all

Thracians.” Both Getae and Dacians are

represented in the history of ancient eastern

Europe from the sixth century BCE to the sec-

ond century CE, though, owing to their early

contacts with the Greeks, the Getae appear in

the literary sources five centuries before the

Dacians.

According to Ptolemy (Geog. 3.8.1–4), the

Getae and Dacians were divided into tribes;

this system was probably a reality by the early

first millennium BCE. There was economic and

social stratification between the prominent

warriors (tarabostes) and the common people

(comati, or capillati). The slave system may

also have been in existence at that time, in

both the Getae and Dacian societies. These

elements may have represented the basis of a

social organization in the first century BCE to

the first century CE.

The Greek sources mention Zalmoxis (or

Zamolxis) as a prophet, a religious innovator

who introduced religious practices from the

Aegean and Asia Minor to the Geto-Dacian

world. It would be plausible to imagine the

Geto-Dacian religion as henotheistic or poly-

theistic in substance, similar to other Indo-

European religions.

Little is certain regarding the language of the

Getae and Dacians. About seventy to eighty

words are known to have survived in the Roma-

nian language. Some river names are still pre-

served, such as Siret (Sereth); Prut (Piretus);

Mures (Maris, Marisia); Olt (Alutus); Somes

(Samus); Cris (Crisia); Arges (Ordessos/

Argessis); and Timis (Tibisia).

The main economic activity in Geto-Dacian

society was agriculture and pasturing, viticul-

ture, fruit growing, beekeeping, and handicrafts

such as woodwork, pottery, mining, and metal-

work (particularly iron, gold, and silver). There

was intensive trade between the Geto-Dacians

and the Greek Black Sea colonies, and later with

republican Rome. From the mid-third century

BCE the Geto-Dacians issued coins inspired by

Greek or Macedonian coinage, which ceased to

circulate when the local market was swamped

by the republican denarius. There are remark-

able products of Geto-Dacian material culture

from the period of Hallstatt B3 and C–D3

(800–ca. 350 BCE; see HALLSTATT CULTURE). The

famous princely tombs of Peretu and Agighiol,

as well as royal objects from Poroina, Craiova,

Baiceni, and Cotofenesti, show the clear influ-

ence of Scytho-Iranian art.

From the sixth to third centuries BCE fortified

settlements in Oltenia and Transylvania con-

temporary with the grandiose turf and timber

fortresses in Moldavia, such as Stancesti and

Cotnari, indicate the growing political power

of local dynasts. In the fifth century BCE SOPHO-

CLES records a Dacian king, Charnabon. In the

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine,

and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 1908–1912.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18032

1

fourth and third centuries BCE Wallachia was

clearly an important center of Getic political

power, since in 334 BCE local kings opposed

ALEXANDER III THE GREAT’s expeditionary force

north of the Danube, and in the early

third century King Dromichaites crushed a

Macedonian army led by LYSIMACHOS. In the

third century BCE the material culture of the

Geto-Dacians tended to acquire a unitary

appearance across the entire territory. Political

life became increasingly dynamic, and the

power of the local dynasts was considerable.

King Oroles, who controlled eastern Transyl-

vania and western Moldavia on both sides of

the Carpathian mountains, successfully

opposed Bastarnian inroads from the north

(see below), while Dacian power increased

under King Rubobostes. This unification rep-

resents the so-called Classical epoch, from the

first century BCE to the first century CE. It mir-

rors the developing political unity of Geto-

Dacian society during the reigns of the great

kings Burebista (ca. 80–44 BCE) and DECEBALUS

(86–106 CE). Settlements and tribal centers

became increasingly numerous, and the

occupation of the territory was dense and per-

manent, e.g., at Popesti, Piscul Crasani,

Tinosu, Carlomanesti, Racatau, Bradu, Piatra

Neamt, Covasna, Jigodin, Simleul Silvaniei,

Piatra-Craivei, Pecica, and Polovragi. In the

first century BCE a considerable area in

the Sureanu mountains, in central Dacia, was

organized as the political and religious core

of the Dacian state under Burebista, with

SARMIZEGETUSA REGIA as capital. The heyday of

the political organization and the dynamic

presence of the Dacians in eastern Europe

and the middle Danube occurred in the mid-

first century BCE, when Burebista’s kingdom

expanded considerably beyond the Carpathian

arch, toward the Bug to the east, the Balkan

mountains to the south, the middle Danube

to the west, and the northern Carpathians to

the north. In the eyes of Burebista’s contem-

poraries, the kingdom was a remarkable polit-

ical construction of the Geto-Dacian world.

For a short time it was the only viable Euro-

pean “barbarian” state outside the borders of

the Roman Empire, and the only one to chal-

lenge Rome’s supremacy in the Balkans. The

historical literature and official documents

of the time acknowledge the momentum

achieved by the Dacians under Burebista.

Strabo states,

Burebista, a Getan, setting himself in authority

over the tribe, restored the people, who had been

reduced to an evil plight through numerous wars,

and raised them to such a height through train-

ing, sobriety, and obedience to his commands

that within only a few years he had established

a great empire and subordinated to the Getae

most of the neighboring peoples (7.3.11, trans.

Jones).

An official Greek inscription fromDionysopolis,

which mentions Burebista’s father, also as a

Getan king with whom the city had had good

relations, bears witness to “Burebista, becom-

ing a king, the first and the greatest king of

Thrace and dominating the entire land beyond

and behind the Danube River. . . .” (SIG3 762)

Even after the temporary fragmentation into

five parts of the Dacian state following

Burebista’s death, some of these political struc-

tures, particularly the most powerful one in

present-day Transylvania, continued to play

the same important role.

In the first half of the first century CE the

Roman Empire, which had established provin-

cial structures south of the Danube, faced the

most powerful “barbarian” state in Europe,

the Dacian kingdom. In order to secure the

Danubian frontier and weaken the southern

flank of the Dacian state, Rome transferred

fifty thousand inhabitants from present-day

Wallachia around 4 CE, and a hundred thou-

sand transdanuviani from the northern

mouths of the river in 56–7 CE. The Dacian

kings, such as Comosicus, Coryllus, and

Dorpaneus, reacted vigorously, making devas-

tating inroads south of the Danube (69 and

86). The war against Dacia initiated by the

emperor DOMITIAN in 87–88, when Decebalus

was king, made the kingdom a formal ally of

Rome, although the peace terms were highly

2

favorable to the Dacian king. In 101, aware of

the great threat that Dacia posed on the Dan-

ube, TRAJAN commenced large-scale military

operations. The two successive wars with the

Dacians (101–102 and 105–106), among the

most difficult that Rome faced in its history,

demanded huge human and material efforts

that revealed the robustness of the Dacian

kingdom, the Dacians’ exceptional fighting

qualities, and their unflinching thirst for lib-

erty. However, at the end of the conflict, in

106, part of the Dacian kingdom became a

Roman province with the name of DACIA.

The sedentary population of the Geto-

Dacians came into close complex political and

cultural contact with migratory populations

that led to a multifaceted process of

acculturation.

THE SCYTHIANS

The SCYTHIANS were a nomadic population of

Iranian origin who occupied the north Pontic

steppes in the eighth century BCE. Evidence of

the presence of the Scythians in the Geto-Dacian

area is based on critical examination of the text of

Herodotus 4, supported by archaeological evi-

dence. The emerging power of the Scythians

triggered a massive Persian expedition led by

Darius I, who failed to subdue them. The decline

of Scythian power began in the fifth century BCE.

The defeat of some communities by the

Bosphoran kingdom, as well as the pressure of

their kinsfolk from the east, the Sarmatians, led to

their mass migration south of the Danube under

King Atheas bymid-fourth century BCE. Scythian

kings including Ailios, Sariakes, Tanusa, Akrosas,

Charaspes, and Kanites are recorded by their

coins as settled in southern Dobrudja in the

third century BCE. Gradually the Scythians lost

their national identity in Dobrudja under

strong Greek and Getic influence.

THE CELTS

The exceptional impact of the Celts on

European civilizations and on those in Asia

Minor is also discernible in the Geto-Dacian

area. Halted for a time by Alexander the

Great and LYSIMACHOS, they penetrated violently

into Thrace, Illyria, and Greece in the late 280s

and attacked the Delphic sanctuary (see DELPHI;

CELTIC WARS). A branch of the Celts established

a short-lived kingdom in today’s southwest

Bulgaria, known as the kingdom of Tylis.

Some powerful Celtic tribes occupied large

territories to the west and southwest of the

Geto-Dacian area: Scordisci between the Dan-

ube and Sava rivers; Boiae, Teurisci, Anartae,

and Eravisci in Pannonia. The table- and low-

land regions of present-day Transylvania,

Crisana, and Banat were also occupied by the

Celts. A relatively dense occupation has been

archaeologically identified on the upper Mures

river valley, while the lower Mures, Tisa,

and Cris river valleys were taken from

their Scytho-Thraco-Illyrian populations (the

Szentes-Vekerzug-Chotin culture). Rich Celtic

necropoleis with weaponry (swords, daggers),

armor (breast-plates, helmets), and war char-

iots have been found at Apahida, Ciumesti,

Curtuiuseni, Ghiris-Tarian, and Aradu-Nou.

The Dacian population was considerably

influenced by the more advanced La Tene

Celtic culture, notably in their craftsmanship,

pottery, and art. In the 60s BCE many settle-

ments and strongholds of the Boiae, Eravisci,

and Teurisci, including Zemplin, Velem St.

Vid, Budapesta/Gellert-Taban, and Zidovar,

were conquered and destroyed by the Dacian

armies of Burebista. Although the territories

beyond the Carpathians were not occupied,

they were politically and culturally influenced

by the Celts.

THE SARMATIANS

The Sarmatians were a population of Iranian

origin, closely related to the Scythians, whom

they finally replaced in the northern steppes

of the Black Sea in the third century BCE.

According to the ancient writers, they

were divided into three main branches: the

Iazygae east of the Dniester River, the Royal

3

Sarmatae between the Dniester and Dnieper

rivers, and the Roxolani on the Don River.

They seem to have crossed the Dniester only

in the first century BCE. In ca. 20 CE the Romans

allowed the Iazygae to occupy the Tisa Plain,

a territory inhabited mostly by the Dacians.

TACITUS (Hist. 3.46.3) shows that during the

reign of Claudius they had already taken over

this territory. They were replaced in northwest-

ern regions of the Black Sea by the Roxolani,

who appear east of the Prut River not earlier

than the second century CE. From there they

raided the province of Lower Moesia. West of

the Prut River the Roxolani encountered the

powerful political structure of the Carpi,

whose characteristic burial rite was inhuma-

tion. Fronto-occipital or circular deformation

of the skull at an early age was also practiced in

Sarmatian society.

THE BASTARNIANS

Of Germanic origin, the Bastarnians migrated

south in the third century BCE from the northern

Carpathian mountains and the upper and

middle Vistula River. Also known as Peucini,

they settled in the area east of the Carpathians,

from where they initiated a series of devastat-

ing raids south of the Danube. The Dacian king

Oroles thwarted their advance further south in

the second century BCE. They can be identified

through their original Poienesti Lukasevka

culture on the upper basin of the Siret River,

in the central Moldavian tableland, and in the

area between Prut and middle Dniester rivers.

Their pottery indicates relations with the

Przeworsk culture on the Vistula and Oder

rivers, while some adornments and costume

jewelry (Pomeranian brooches, crown-like

necklaces, and buckles) show connections to

northern Germany and Denmark. The end of

the large Dacian territorial strongholds east of

the Carpathians, e.g., Stancesti and Cotnari,

can be linked to the Bastarnian invasions.

Some elements characteristic of Dacian mate-

rial and spiritual culture appear in the

Bastarnian settlements.

SEE ALSO: Coinage, Roman Empire; Illyria

and the Illyrians; Macedonia; Ptolemy

(astronomer,mathematician); Scythia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Babes, M. (1993) Die Poienesti-Lukasevka-Kultur:

ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte im Raum ostlich

der Karpaten in den letzten Jahrhunderten vor

Christi Geburt. Bonn.

Barca, V. and Symonenko, O. (2009) Calaretii

stepelor: Sarmatii ın spatiul nord Pontic. Cluj-

Napoca.

Berciu, D. (1984) Contribution a l’etude de l’art

thraco-gete. Bucharest.

Casson, S. (1926) Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria:

their relations to Greece, from the earliest times

down to the time of Philip son of Amyntas. Oxford.

Crisan, I. H. (1978) Burebista and his time.

Bucharest.

Cunliffe, B. (1997) The ancient Celts. Oxford.

Daicoviciu, H. (1972) Dacia de la Burebista la

cucerirea romana. Cluj-Napoca.

Dumitrescu, V. and Vulpe, A. (1988) Dacia before

Dromichaites. Bucharest.

Eliade, M. (1970) De Zamolxis a Gengischan.

Paris.

Hansel, B. (1976) Beitrage zur regionalen und

chronologischen Gliederung der alteren

Hallstattzeiten der Unteren Donau. Bonn.

Hoddinott, R. F. (1981) The Thracians.

London.

Oltean, I. A. (2007) Dacia; landscape, colonisation

and romanisation. London.

Papazoglu, F. (1978) The central Balkan tribes in

pre-Roman times. Amsterdam.

Petrescu-Dambovita, M. (1978) Scurta istorie

a Daciei preromane. Iasi.

Piotrovsky, B. B. and Grach, N. (1986) Scythian art:

the legacy of the Scythian world, mid-seventh to

third century BC. Leningrad.

Pippidi, D. M. and Berciu, D. (1965) Din istoria

Dobrogei, vol. 1: Geti si greci la Dunarea de Jos.

Bucharest.

Russu, I. I. (1969) Die Sprache der Geto-Daker.

Bucharest.

Vasiliev, V. (1980) Scitii agatırsi pe teritoriul

Romaniei. Cluj-Napoca.

Vulpe, R. and Barnea, I. (1968) Din istoria

Dobrogei, vol. 2: Romanii la Dunarea de Jos.

Bucharest.

4