A New Framework for Approaching Dacian Identity

8/6/2019 A New Framework for Approaching Dacian Identity

1/29

.....

ANEW FRAMEWORKFORAPPROACHINGDACIAN IDENTITYThe Burial Contribution 1

CataIin Nicolae POPAPhD student, University ofCambridge, [email protected]

Keywords: La Tene, Romania, Dacians, burials, identity

The last two decades have witnessed an increased interest in the identity of Europe's Iron Ageinhabitants. A heated debate was launched especially over terms like 'Celtic' and 'Celticity: Many of theproblems appear to have arisen after the Venice exhibition in 1991,entitled "The Celts, the origins ofEurope': which also led to the publication of a volume that integrated studies on the Celts from all theregions of the continent (MOSCATI1991). Both the exhibition and the volume have been interpretedby some researchers, most of them coming from the British school of archaeologi, as an attempt togive historical foundation to the European Union by creating an artificial unity in the Late Iron Age.The debate became especially animated in the pages of the Antiquity journal, where COLLIS(1997) andJAMES1998), on the one side, and Ruth and Vincent MEGAW1996; 1998) on the other, argued againstone another as to whether archaeologists should use terms like 'Celtic' or 'Celticity: While there is stillno clear consensus, the researchers from France, where studies on the LaTene have an especially strongtradition, still use the terms freely (AuDouzE 1992;BucHsENscHuTz 2007; FICHTL2000; KRUTA2000)3and, even in Britain, Hill's and Collis'sideas seem to have come heavily under attack in the last two years(DAVIS2008; KARL2008). I personally consider that there is enough evidence, coming from both thearchaeological record and textual sources, to safely assume the existence of large groups of people thatcan be generally referred to using the word 'Celtic: Nevertheless I do not think that they necessarilyregarded themselves as sharing the same ethnic identity.The Celts were not however, the only people inhabiting Europe in the Late Iron Age.Toward theeast, living in the regionwhich can be roughly defined asthe Carpathian Basin, one can find the Daciansor Getae. This region was not included in the debate about the unity of Europe in prehistory as studieson the identity and ethnicity of these people are virtually non-existent. This is the gap which I will tryto fill through this paper: using the data from burials, I aim to produce conclusions on how the Dacianpeople perceived themselves and how they portrayed their image to others; and whether they empha-sised ethnic, regional or local identity.In order to achieve my goal I have structured the paper in three main parts, enveloped by thecurrent introduction and the final conclusions. The first part will deal with the past approaches to theDacian burials, that have proven to be, as I will point out, quite unproductive; additionally I will givean outline of the current ideas on identity and its implementation in archaeology, ideas which I will beusing in the paper. The second part will deal with the methodology which I consider to be appropriatefor the interpretation of burials, much of it being based on the works of people like Parker Pearson and

I,

1. This paper represents the outcome ofmy MPhil studies at the University of Cambridge.2. Especially through people like COLLIS(1996; 2003) or HILL(1995; 2006).3. Eventhough there are people like DITLER(1994) who slightly contest the wide use ofthe term Celtic.Iron AgeCommunitiesin theCarpathian Basin,2010,p. 395-423


2/29

396 I CATALIN NICOLAE POPALucy.On the other hand, I will argue that those methods are not exactly the best way of approaching theDacian burials as they need to be modified to a significant degree in order to produce the best results;the changes imply regarding the burials not just as the end result of a funerary ritual, but as accountingfor more complex elements, which leads to a need to integrate them in the more general phenomenaoccurring in the Dacian world. The third part represents the implementation of the methodology on theactual body of data. I will analyse the burials globally, pointing out general patterns which are notice-able when examining the spatial or chronological distribution4, as well as discuss some of the artefactsoccurring in the graves and draw some condusjons by broadly comparing the burials to one another.Additionally, I will examine in greater detail a number ofburials from which I will attempt to extract theideas about identity that are contained within them.

Before moving on to the first of the three main parts, I consider it necessary however to give ashort introduction about who actually were the Dacians, where and when they lived, and the broad ideaswhich circulate in traditional archaeological literature about them.Who were the Dacians?

The Dacians, or better yet, the Getae, represent the northern branch ofthe Thracians that becamevisible archaeologically as a separate group ofpeople after approximately the 81hcentury BC Accordingto the ancient authors and, to a certain degree, the archaeological evidence, the region that they occu-pied isbroadly delimited by: the Dniester (or Nistru)river to the east; the Tisza River to the west; the

northern Carpathians to the north, and the Balkansto the south (GOSTAR-LICA1984, 19) (Fig. 1).The first information that wehave about themcomes from Herodotus who mentions them in rela-tion to the Persian kingDarius' expedition against theScythians, as the Getae where the only people amongthe Thracians that did not surrender to his army andhad to be defeated in battle. After this point we starthaving more mention ofthem, even though they onlyB~.II:k start to attract the actual interest ofthe ancient authors

Sc:a in the 151century BC, when many of the Getic tribeswere united under a single rule bykingBurebista who- -- - - got involved in the civilwar in Rome between CaesarFig. 1.MaximumexpansionoftheDacians. and Pompey. Burebista's state was split however infour and then fivesmaller kingdoms after his disappearance in approximately 44 BConly to be followedby Decebalus's Dacian state, towards the end of the 151 century AD. The last Dacian kingdom was defeatedin two wars against the Romans, in 101-102 and 105-106, after which the Roman province ofDacia wasestablished, the point which is used to mark the end of the Iron Age and start of the Classical period(PARVAN926;CRI~AN1977;GOSTAR-LICA984;VULPE-ZAHARIADE987;CRI~AN1993) (Fig. 2).This paper does not deal with the existence of the Dacians in the entire Iron Age. It aims onlyto discuss the situation during the so-called


3/29

A New Framework for Approaching Dacian Identity. The Burial Contribution I 397northernThracianpeopleseparatethemselvesfrom southern

Thracians

Lysimachus(Macedonian

basileus) defeatedby Dromichetaes(Getic ruler)

Celts'disappear'and Dacianpower ISestablished in

Transilvania

Burebista'skingdom

first direct battlebetween theDacianstate and the RomanEmpire; Decebaluscomes to power

Darius'sexpedition;first mention ofGetae

Celts enter andtake control of

parts ofTransilvania

101-102;105-106 AD

"incrementaDacorum perRubobosten

regem " (TrogusPompei us)

Romans controlthe right side ofthe Danube

Roman-DacianwarsFig. 2. Important events in the existence of the Dacians.

Fig.3. Geographicalmap of Romaniawith important featuresmarked.Fig. 4. The regions of Romania.

and the Dacians are the same people, as Strabo mentions that the Getae are the ones living towards theBlack Sea and the east, while the Dacians occupy the western part, towards Germany and the sourceof the Danube (DANA2007); he further writes that they spoke the same language.7Most authors haveinterpreted Strabo's text as the Getae and Dacians being the same population, with only slight regionaldifferences (VULPE-ZAHARIADE 1987).8

The discussion gets much more complicated when one considers how the two names are usedin the Romanian archaeological literature. In general the authors prefer to use the term Geto-Dacian,a modern invention as STROBERL1998) accurately remarked, referring to an ethnic entity without anyattempt at supporting evidence. Most of the artefacts are assigned an ethnic dimension and are inter-preted as reflecting the presence of the Geto-Dacians in whatever context they are found (LOCKYEAR2004). It is unlikely that the situation will change anytime in the future, even though there have beenrecent Romanian studies which have started to raise doubts about the idea of a great Geto-Dacian ethnicunity (SPANU2002). In this paper I will use preferentially the term Dacian, but through it I only mean7. There have alsobeen interesting studies on the origin of the name Dacian. The most widely accepted ideas isthat proposed

byEUADE(1959) who considers that it comes from the Phrigian daosmeaning wolf. This point of view has been contestedhowever in the last decade (DANA2000).8. For a more thorough discussion on the employment ofthe term Getae and Dacian by the ancient authors see PETRE2004and STROBEL998.


4/29

....398 I CATALIN NICOLAE POPAthe northern Thracian people that roughly inhabited the territory of modern Romania.9 Therefore theterm is employed conventionally, without attaching any ethnical connotation, which allowsme to avoidthe risk of compromising my quest for identity.I. Past approaches to Dacian burials1.1. Burials

There are very few burials which can be attributed to the Dacians in the period that I am inter-ested in. I have counted just about 50, an important number of which were only identified as such ordiscovered in the last 15 to 20 years. The mysterious phenomenon, that led to the 'disappearance' of thegraves, and which affects a large area of Central and South-East Europe (SPANU2002, 103), has beenlinked to a radical change in religious beliefs. While it is only possible to speculate about a funerary ritethat leaves no archaeological traces, it seems likely that the Dacians practised either exposure (SiRBU1993) or cremation, with the remains scattered in fields or in rivers (VULPE-ZAHARIADE987,80).Consequently, most authors just ignore the few burials that have been dated to the Late La Tene,choosing instead to state the obvious, that we are uncertain of how the Dacians dealt with their dead(CRI~AN1977;GOSTAR-LICA1984;VULPE-ZAHARIADE987).When one starts browsing through theRomanian archaeological journals it is possible to observe however occasional articles on Dacian buri-als, but the large majority of them represent only the publication ofthe archaeological material that wasfound in one grave, sometimes followed by a short and inconclusive discussion (VULPE1976; CRI~AN1980;MOGA1982; CIUGUDEAN-CIUGUDEAN993).10Besides the previously mentioned studies, thereare also some volumes that do in fact giveattention to the funerary discoveries. These are usually studiesthat aim at presenting all the aspects of the Dacian civilisation from one particular region (TURCU1979;COSTEA2002; GHEORGHIU005). While they contain lists with the graves that have been identified inthat area, with the inventory and the most probable dating being mentioned, they are never followed byan actual analysis of those discoveries or by their integration into other aspects of Dacian society.Finally there are two volumes which deal specificallywith the funerary discoveries from Romaniain the Late Iron Age. The first one was written by PROTASE1971) and is aimed at listing all the Dacianburials dated both before and after the Roman conquest. While the author's effort is laudable, the vol-ume contains a very large number of finds which either cannot be verified, due to the lack of accuratepublication, or do not actually have to do with the funerary phenomenon (e.g. the case of the pits fromMoigrad). Hence the study suffers from a lack of proper research on the nature of those discoveries,which unfortunately makes it virtually useless in most cases.SiRBU'S1993) work however does not suffer from the same problem. The author has done anexcellent job at bringing together all the finds that relate to the Dacian funerary record and which canbe validated. Moreover, he has integrated these into a larger discussion on ritual practices, thus includ-ing the human sacrifices or the finds of human bones in non-funerary contexts, and expanded the areaof research by also presenting the finds coming from cultural groups with an important Germanic orCeltic influence (the Daco-Scordisc group from Oltenia, and the Lipita group from northern Moldova).Eventhough the study isbecoming outdated because of the finds that have been brought to light since itspublication, Sirbu has continued to publish articles and volumes in which new discoveries are publishedand integrated within the larger body of data (SiRBUETAL. 1999; SiRBU2006a; SiRBU2006b; SiRBUETAL. 2007; SiRBu-ARsENEscu2006). Additionally, he has published a volume which aims at creating acommon terminology when examining Dacian burials (SiRBU2003), and which I am employing in thecurrent paper. Despite the impressive studies that he is producing, I think there are two major issueswith his work. Firstly, even though Sirbu acknowledges that these burials are not representative of theway the Dacians dealt with their dead, he unfortunately treats them as such. He uses them as just anyother database on burials, inferring from them the social position of the deceased and the meaningbehind the funerary inventory, forgetting the special character of the burials. Additionally there is also9. Nonetheless I will also refer to other northern Thracian tribes, such asthe Tribali or Moesi who lived south of the lower

Danube (RUSTOIU2002).10. I must admit however that there are a couple of articles in which there is an attempt to fit the discovery into the more

general Dacian funerary phenomenon or some that attempt to integrate the mortuary practices into their larger context(BABE~ 1988; RUSTOIU ET AL. 2001; $PANU 2002).

-. -


5/29

A New Frameworkfor Approaching Dacian Identity. The Burial Contribution I 399the problem inherent in almost all Romanian archaeology that all the interpretations are made with thebelief that the Dacians (Geto-Dacians) are regarded as forming a unitary ethnic group.ll

In brief, the burials from the territory of Romania dated to the Late La Tene have been usuallygiven little or no attention at all.What is more, the few studies that have actually attempt to create a listwith all the funerary finds have either been done in a totally unsatisfactory manner, or been marked bypreconceived ideas.1.2.Identity

Identity can be defined as the essence ofwho the individual is, or who the group is in relation tolarger social contexts; it defines what is unique about the individual and about the group (WELLS1998,242). Closely related to it, and usually employed together, are the terms ethnicity and ethnic identity,which represents the aspect of a person's self-conceptualization which results from identification with abroader group in opposition to others on the basis ofperceived cultural differentiation and/or commondescent (JONES1997).

The fields of archaeology and anthropology have employed the term identity on a regular basis.Its use throughout the twentieth century has varied considerably, and this variation can be linked tothe three theoretical schools of archaeology: culture-historian, processualist and post-processualist(TRIGGER2006).

In the culture-historian period, while there were usually no works that dealt directly with identityand ethnicity, the concepts were employed extensively in archaeological studies. The general idea wasthat archaeological cultures corresponded to ethnically distinct groups ofpeople, leading to the image ofa prehistoric landscape populated bymonolithic cultural entities that gradually evolved in time. The twomain authors who introduced and developed these concepts were Kossina and Childe (JONES1997),12

As the ideas about archaeological cultures changed due to the attacks of BINFORD1962; 1968),so did the perspectives on identity. BARTH(1969) introduced an entirely new way ofthinking about eth-nicity, which has been named "the instrumentalist theoretical approach" (JONES1996;GRAVES-BROWN-JONES1996; JONES1997). The two main concepts that he introduced where that ethnic identities areformed and exist through the active maintenance of boundaries, and that individuals continually shifttheir identities so as to best suit their economic and social interests.13Barth's ideas were, and still are,highly influential and there are hardly"any studies on identity nowadays which do not quote his work.Actually, the 'instrumentalist view' is still popular and in use today (WELLS1998; COHEN2000;WELLS2007), even though slight adjustments have been made to the initial concepts (BARTH2000).

With the birth of post-processualism and the rise of ideas about the subjectivity and relativityof archaeological knowledge, new ways of thinking about identity were also introduced. The end resultis that there appears to be no clear-cut way of getting to ethnicity through archaeology, each authorchoosing to build their own framework in their studies. The general trend is however to use BOURDIEU'S(1977) theory ofpractice by linking the formation and expression of identity to the habitus (JONES1996;JONES1997; JONES1999; HAKENBECk2004; BABIC2006; DfAZ-ANDREU2006). Thus identity is builtusing the same principles that are active within the habitus, and just like them, is constructed and rein-forced through everyday practice. Furthermore, since material culture shapes and is itself shaped by thesame governing principles, and at the same time represents one of the means through which identity ismanifested, it ispossible to study the ethnicity ofpast people by examining the overlapping patterns thatresult from the archaeological record. 14The general rule is that all these elements vary from one contextto the other, as the expression of identity is modified according to the social principles which are active11. The ethnic character of the artifacts appears unquestioned. Moreover, there is even a subtle feel in his works that he issomehow trying to justify the true character of the Geto-Dacian ethnicity.

12. The Eastern European schools remain verymuch tributary to this approach. Hence, in their view, the essence ofthe ethnosis constituted by very real cultural and linguistic components which comprise the 'inner integrity' of a group's identity(GRAvEs-BRawN-JoNEs 1996).

13. It should be added that within the 'instrumentalist school' the direct relationship between material culture and ethnicityisquestioned to a certain degree, but not denied.14. The fundamental problem in accessing ethnicity purely through material culture is that objects can no longer be consid-ered simple ethnic signifiers, but they can have ethnic significance; however this significance exists only within a knownand communicable frame of reference (HAKENBECK004b, 3).


6/29

400 I CATALIN NICOLAE POPAin that particular situation. There ishowever a problem linked to the construction of ethnicity which hasnot been given an answer yet and that has led to the splitting into two groups of the researchers. Mostauthors consider that the formation of an ethnic identity is a subjective phenomenon, that it is built onthe similarities that one has with the other members of a group (SHENNAN989;JONES1996; GRAVES-BROWN1996; JONES1999; Lucy 2006). In contrast, partly inheriting the ideas of the 'instrumentalisttheory: some think that it is the product of the marking of difference and exclusion, rather than the signof an identical, naturally-constituted unity (HALL1996).Whatever the answer might be, it is quite clearthat when working with ethnicity one needs to bear in mind that identity markers signal both samenessand difference at the same time.

All in all, the subject of identity appears to have given rise to important polemics that will prob-ably remain unsolved indefinitely. In the mean time however, one should not hold back from approach-ing ethnicity; it is just necessary to leave aside any preconceived ideas that one might have a,bout thetopic and take into account all the elements that previous authors have signalled.II. Approaching the Dacian burials

I aim in this part to construct the methodology that I believe represents the best way to approachthe Dacian burials. To achieve my goal, I will depart from the existing literature on funerary ritualsand adapt those ideas so that they can be utilised in this particular case. I will thus describe the generalcontext of the Dacian funerary discoveries so that their unique character can be understood, leading tothe need for a unique approach. It should be noted also that the ultimate objective is to get a model thatcan give as much information as possible about identity. This can mean that some alternative implica-tions, such as those relating to some specific religious practices, may be at some points intentionallyoverlooked.II.1. Interpreting burials

The archaeology of burials is a very distinct form of archaeology having its own rules that oneshould constantly be aware of. It is important to remember that death, along with birth or marriage, rep-resents one of the major events in the existence of a person. Death is a moment when our attitudes to thebody are presented most clearly and prominently, often in wayswhich are very different to body treat-ment in everyday life (PARKERPEARSON1999a, 58). Therefore, even though it may occur on a relativelyregular basis in a community, the passing of each individual is given great attention. The burials are theresult of a very elaborate ritual that starts with the death of the individual and ends with the placing ofthe body, or of the cremated remains, in the ground; sometimes the ritual may continue for some timeafterwards. The provision of a final resting place for someone's mortal remains is generally a carefullythought through procedure which may have taken, months or even years to plan and execute, makingthe burial a deeply significant act imbued with meaning (PARKERPEARSON1999b, 5). Thus the funeraryritual is a highly structured event when people are expected to know how to behave; a specific range ofresources, for instance, phrases, bodily movements, and material symbols, are expected to be mobilisedin ways appropriate to each group of individuals taking part in a funeral (MIZOGUCHI1992,40).Various meanings linked to different aspects of the deceased's existence, like rank, social condi-tion, occupation, age, gender, ethnicity, etc. may be suggested during the funerary ceremony. All, some,or none of these may be singled out through the type of funerary rite (inhumation/cremation), theposition of the body (or the way the cremated remains are placed), the type of grave (flat/tumular), theposition of the grave (isolate/in a cemetery; central/marginal), the funerary inventory and the positionof the grave goods to the deceased's body/remains and to one-another, the food offerings15,and the listcould go on. For instance, in a very rudimentary interpretation, the placing ofweapons within a grave ishighly likelyto signal the martial prowess of the deceased.

But burials tell a much more complicated and elaborated story than just who the deceased hadbeen in life; this is because funerary rites are actually much more about the living than they are aboutthe dead (MIZOGUCHI1992). For some time it was believed by archaeologists that the form and struc-15. PARKERPEARSON1999a) has shown for example that a commonly used mark of social differentiation throughout the

British Iron Agemay have been the totemic significance of the pig as a high-status feasting food; thus the placing ofmeatofferings coming from these animals in graves was a clear sign of the social position of that individual.


7/29

A New Frameworkfor Approaching Dacian Identity, The Burial Contribution I 401~.lrewhich characterised the mortuary practices of any society were conditioned by the form and the.:omplexity of the organisational characteristics of the society itself; changes or variability in either formm structure had to take into account the limiting or determining effects exerted on these practices bythe nature of the organisational properties of the society (BINFORD1971, 23). These ideas have beenhowever proven to be inexact and argued against by people like PARKEREARSON1999a). Nevertheless,the observation that funerary rituals belong to a large extent to the domain of the living, and hence givemuch information on the nature of societies, still holds and to get access to those particular meanings it'."-'asnecessary for archaeologists to put forward a very important idea: the dead do not bury themselves;t.~eyare treated and disposed of by the living (PARKERPEARSON1999a; 1999b; Lucy 1992; 2002). It isthe community that decides the dressing of the deceased, the objects that should accompany them intheir grave and how they are placed; they are the ones that participate in the feasts, fasts or food offer-ings that are triggered by a death and which lead to the placing of food and drink in a grave (PARKERPEARSON1999b,7-11). In the end, it is to them that all the messages put forward in the funerary ritualsare addressed to; they must be the ones to receive and understand them, not the dead!

Therefore one needs to understand mortuary rituals as the natural response of the communityto the loss of one of its members; they are not a .. .. ... ...fl t ' f ' d ' .d 1 l ' fi b f h ' THEDECEASEDre ec Ion 0 an III IVI ua s 1e ut 0 t e Impactof their death16(HAKENBECK2004a,41),organ-ised by and aimed towards the living. As a result,what we get in burials is not a reflection of thedeceased's life but an image that is constructedby the community with the occasion of his/herdeath. What is more, it does not even need to bea reflection of how that individual was perceivedby the community; it isjust the end result of what FUNERARYRITUALthe communi ty considered to be the proper way t ' d th I t t d' I~ d ' d t 't f th d don ame e cons ruc e lie an I en I yo e eceaseof sayinggoodbyeto its member in a particular , ,.,circumstance (MCCARTHY004) (Fig.5). FIg,S,Thethree Imagesof thedeceased,

I think that the best way to understand burials is to see them as the result of a theatrical play.Theplot of the play is simple: the death of a member a group. The scene, which is of course carefully chosenand constructed, is represented by the locations where the different ritual activities take place, includingthe actual laying in the ground of the mortuary remains. The actors are the other members of the groupand/or the different social groups that exist within that community. The viewers are also the members ofthe group plus other adjacent communities, because if we assume that funerals were public events thenwe can imagine members from each of the burial communities taking part in the funerals of the othercommunity (HAKENBECK004a, 52). The message that is transmitted through the play is entirely in thehands of the actors themselves: they may chose to portray the individual just as he/she was (or betteryet was perceived) in real life; they may however opt to portray him/her as just any other individual ofthat group even though the deceased had been one of the wealthier members or was actually a foreignerwhich came into the group some time before and retained much of their original identity; or they mayverywellprefer to emphasise the military attributes despite the deceased having only limited or no com-bat experience at all. Also, we have to assume that the message of the play usually has a specific targetaudience and that it is not necessarily perceived in a similar manner by different viewers. For instance,the placing of a sica (Le.curved knife, specificof the Dacian area) could be understood by some asdeclaring martial prowess, while others could translate it as suggesting the belonging of the deceased toa particular social group; both interpretations may very well be true.

A question that naturally arises in such a scenario is why would a community choose to twistreality in such a way? Why would they present a rich man/woman as being ordinary or a child oradolescent as a military hero? The answers are unfortunately as many as there are opinions within

hadacertainwayof life

THECOMMUNITYhadits ideaof the deceasedandhis/herlife

~6,Fromanevolutionaryperspective,deathispart of theenvironmentto which thehumananimalneededo adapt.Consequently the mortuary ritual isviewed asthe human'sadaptive response to death, with ritual language singledout as its crucial form of response (DAVIES1997, 1).


8/29

402 I CATALIN NICOLAE POPAthe post-processualist school, and most of them might be true; it is all very much dependent on theindividual context.

For example, let us take the case when the settlement evidence suggests wealth being accumu-lated by a restricted group of individuals, while the burials show the image of an egalitarian society.From a Marxist point of view the situation would be perfectly clear: the social group which is accumu-lating wealth and thus rising to power is not yet strong enough so as to feel safe to display fully theirstatus, as the rest of the community members might react against them; thereby they willingly distortthe funerary ideology and portray an idealised image in the mortuary rituals in which all the individu-als are shown as being equal. Thus the funerary 'play' is manipulated so that it suits the goals of certaingroups of people who have it in their best interest for a particular message to be transmitted (PARKERPEARSON1982;LULL2000).Thereare ofcourseother possiblenarratives.Thefuneraryritualsmightbefixed by a set ofvery strict religious beliefs,which may very wellhave been adopted before wealth startedbeing accumulated by some members. These beliefs could have stated that no grave goods, or just someparticular kinds, were allowed to be deposited with the deceased (thus allowing only limited variability)and that burials could only be constructed in a particular manner. In this case the entire communitywould participate in order to distort the message, but not with the intention of depicting an ideal soci-ety but to portray the ideas that the group shared about the afterlife. One more possibility is that therewas no manipulation of the funerary ritual at all;the burials showed the image of an egalitarian societybecause those people may have well been like that. The wealthy members of society may have chosento differentiate themselves in such a clear manner in death that they built their final resting place in adifferent area that maybe quite far away from the community from which they came, making it difficultfor archaeologists to make a link between the two.

What I have hoped to demonstrate through this example, and the discussion that lead to it, isthat one should never consider burials as just a reflection of who the deceased was and of the society ofwhich he/she was part of. Burials are always the result of the decisions made by the people who organ-ise the funerary rituals (Le. the mourners) and thus represent deliberate constructions which may beanchored in reality to a greater or lesser degree. While I have not referred to identity directly, because itconstitutes in all cases one of the messages that is transmitted in the 'enactment' of the funerary ritual, itis only natural that it follows the same rules. Consequently it seems reasonable for the same theoreticalassumptions to be used in my enquiry into Dacian identity. Unfortunately the model might not entirelyfit in this particular case and I intend to show why.11.2. Going beyond burialsThe funerary finds from Romania dated in the LT C2-D may appear at first glance to cover arange of recognised burial practices: cremationsl7, in flat or tumulus graves, isolated or in small groupsl8,most of them containing cremated remains19which were either deposited directly in a pit or put in afunerary urn; the funerary inventory varies from just a pot (or even absolutely nothing), to full warriorpanoply and luxury items. Sowhat is it that makes them so different that they shouldn't be analysed likeregular burials? It isvery simple actually: their number.

The total number of burials from Romania belonging to the 'classic Dacian civilisation' is just5120,for a period covering 250 years! It isnot possible to argue that the region was not populated, as allthe settlement evidence points otherwise. Furthermore, the inhabitants of those lands must have beenquite numerous since ancient sources inform us that king Burebista could raise an army of 200,000 men(VULPE-ZAHARIADE987),whicheventhoughundoubtedlyan exaggeration,bearswitnessto the sheer17. Only three individuals were inhumed.18. Only the fivegraves from Zimnicea came from a large cemetery (containing 166 burials) but all except for these were dated

between the 4thand 3rdcentury BC (SiRBU1993,76). Additionally one may consider the finds from Hunedoara-GrddinaCastelului as a cemetery, but the large majority of the tombs belonged to very small children (SiRBUETAL. 2007).

19. Although seven ofthem were cenotaphs asno human bones were found.20. There might be several other burials coming from the south-eastern part of Transilvania (COSTEA2002), but those find-

ings were generally uncovered more than fifty years ago and their actual existence cannot be validated. Anyhow, theseunconfirmed discoveries would only slightly raise the number of funerary findings and thus not make any real difference.It should also be mentioned that there are about 70 known tumuli which probably date to the 'classicDacian period' butonly around 30of them have been investigated (SiRBU1994, 130).


9/29

-- ---A New Frameworkfor Approaching Dacian Identity. The Burial Contribution I 403

number of the people living there. Consequently we come to the same conclusion as all the authorsdealing with the Dacians that these people dealt with their dead in a manner that unfortunately left noarchaeological traces.

For this reason the 51 burials that have been identified need to be treated as special discoveries.They do not represent the standard, regular way of dealing with the dead. They are exceptions, anoma-lies! Hence, seeing them just as burials would be totally wrong as the messages that they portrayed andthe meanings behind them are linked to their special character. These burials do not respect the regularfunerary rules that were employed in the Dacian world and thus may very well not respect the generalrules about burials at all, making it highly problematic to use the model employed by archaeologist tointerpret mortuary practices in generaPI Therefore the placing of a sword in a grave may have nothingto do with the deceased possessing outstanding military skills but may represent something totally dif-ferent which could only be properly understood in a particular context and abiding by a particular setof rules.

Despite this situation, I doubt that these extraordinary finds do not respect at least some of thethings that we generally think about burials. Hence, I am not implying that we should lead ourselvesinto believing that it is impossible to get to the meaning of these 'alien'22graves. In the end, it is quitelikely that a sword in a burial may imply martial prowess as we would suspect, even though the mean-ings associated with the object may be more numerous and complex than expected. I am just pointingout the need to ground all the assertions that are made about them in a much more solid manner thanwewould do when examining other types of burials. Moreover, it should be expected for meanings thatare not normally associated with the mortuary rituals to be present.

Therefore, my opinion is that even though they represent anomalies, we are still dealing withmanifestations of the funerary ritual; the deceased were reallylaid to rest in these graves and this cannotbe denied. Nonetheless, ifthe Dacian communities had only wanted to do that, to organise a mortuaryritual for one of their members, they would have done it in the regular way, leaving no archaeologicaltraces. So the big question iswhy did they do it?Why do these 'alien' burials exist at all?23

I think that the communities opted to alter the funerary rituals in such a radical manner becauseit was necessary for a very important message to be put forward. This would have been the perfect occa-sion to achieve such a goal, since as already mentioned, wemay assume that funerals were public eventsinvolving members from the neighbouring communities, and because the impact that was achievedthrough the deliberate modification of the mortuary ritual would havebeen considerable. Every partici-pant to the ceremony would have been struck immediately by the marked difference in the treating ofthese dead and thus we can assume that the intended meaning would have been extremely obvious. Theonly question left to answer now is what was the transmitted message about? What was that important?Tofind the answer it isnecessary to look at the other processes and events that affected the Dacian popu-lation in the LTC2-D and thus fit this very interesting phenomenon into its context.11.3. The larger Dacian 'picture'

The Dacians were not isolated. They came in contact with different populations and groups ofpeople that inhabited the regions around them. I think it is only fair to mention those that could haveinfluenced them in such a way so as to lead to the abnormal burial phenomenon (Fig. 6).21. CRAWFORD2004) actually argued that it might be better to see burials in general in the same manner as votive deposits,

as the main difference between a 'votive' deposit and a 'mortuary' deposit is the presence of all or part of a body, and eventhis distinction does not alwayshold.22. I employ the term 'alien' so as to signal the special character ofthe burials. It does not mean that they were foreign, comingfrom outside the Dacian culture.23. I think that this represents the question that we should be asking ourselves when looking at the Dacian burials. The

Romanian authors have been trying to understand why the people in the Late La Tene switched to an 'invisible' fu-nerary ritual and at the same time decipher the social meaning behind the few graves that we had (MOSCALU1977;SiRBU1985; 1986; BABE~1988; SiRBU1993; 1994; RusTolU ETAL. 2001). In contrast, I consider that we should beginwith the question of why we have these burials in the first place, as we normally should not. Only after the answer tothis riddle is unraveled can we really get behind the meanings that Romanian archaeologists have been so desperateto get to.


10/29

404 I CATALIN NICOLAE POPAFirst of all there are the Greeks who started occupying the shores of the Black Sea as far back as

the 7thcentury BC Their contact with the Dacians was very intense, asit can be proven bythe numerousGreek imports that can be found in many of the Late La Tene settlements from Romania (GLODARIU1976), especially those to the south and east of the Carpathian arch, like Pope~ti (VULPE1955; 1959;2004), Poiana (VULPE2003), Raditau (CAPITANU1976; 1981; 1986) and Brad (URSACHI1995).Moreover, there seems to have been a

great influence relating to the structur-ing of the Dacian political organisation,especially in the case of Burebista whomay have even originated from a regionwith strong contacts with the Greek col-onies (STROBERL998, 85). Finally, thed architecture that can be seen in many ofthe Dacian settlements, especially the

. defensive systems, seems to bear a strongHellenist resemblance (GLODARIU983).The influence of the Roman Empire wasalso considerable and the imports foundin the Dacian world (GLODARIU1976)can again confirm that, as well as themassive penetration of Roman coins(SPANU2006, 188-189). But it is the

Empires military force and campaigns which probably had the most important affect on the Dacians.Startingfrom the secondpart of the 151 centuryBCthe Romansestablishedthemselvesto the south ofthe Danube; from this point onward the threat become imminent and military clashes between the twoforces were more and more frequent (VULPE-ZAHARIADE 1987).

Next we should consider the Celts, who in my opinion exerted a very powerful influence on theDacians. The first Celtic groups moved slowly during the second part of the 41hcentury BC travellingthrough the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain and entering the upper basin ofthe Tisza River;afterwards they went south along the Western (or Apuseni) Carpathians and reached Transilvania24where they cohabited with, and arguably dominated, the indigenous population, a process which is doc-umented by a series of cemeteries which can be seen along this route (RusTOIu 2008, 69-70). Duringthe 2ndcentury BCone can observe the sudden disappearance of the Celtic graves and settlements fromTransilvania, a phenomenon that has been explained as either the assimilation of these people by thelocal population or as them being "expelled" by migrating groups from the south of the Carpathianswhich were led by a warrior elite, the so-called Padea-Panaghiurski-Kolonii group (WOZNIAK1974;1975; 1976; RusToIU 2002; 2008). The Celts are thought to have introduced many new elements to theDacian world, a process which can also be seen in the burial evidence through the appearance of thelong La Tene double-edged swords (longswords) or chain mails. This influence was even more impor-tant in Oltenia where there was close interaction with the Small Scordisci, a Celtic group that settledaround the Danube Gorge, resulting in an interesting cultural mix that manifested itself, among other,in a specific form ofburial practices.Besides the Greeks, Romans, and Celts there were also other populations which regularly inter-acted with the Dacians. To the south of the Danube, there were Thracian tribes, such as the Moesi orTribali who regularly formed alliances with their Late Iron Age counterparts from the north of the greatriver (RusTOIu 2002). To the north-north-east there was a powerful Germanic (Przeworsk culture)influence which lead to the formation of the already mentioned Lipita group that maintained a uniqueburial ritual (BABE~1988,9; SiRBU1993,26-27), whereas in the upper basin of the Tisza River the Celticgroups maintained their influence (KOTIGOROSKO995) leading to large settlements and cemeteries asthe ones from Zemplin (SiRBU1993,27). Finally, the Sarmatians, occupying the regions to the north of

Fig. 6. The neighbours of the Dacians(map produced using Google Earth).

24. I prefer to use the Romanian spelling, Transilvania, and not the English one, Transylvania, in order to respect its correctLatin etymology.

--


11/29

A New Framework for Approaching Dacian Identity. The Burial Contribution I 405the Black Sea, had an important impact on the Dacian culture from Moldova and Muntenia (BARcA2002)with whom they interacted regularly through exchange or any other type of contact.

After mentioning the external influences corning into the Dacian world it is necessary to look atwhat was actually happening within the Late La Tene societies on the Romanian territory. It is crucialthat we understand the fundamental changes that took place in the region sometime in the second partof the 2ndand start of the 151entury BC, as one facet is the 'disappearance' of the burial evidence whichrepresented the background for the 'alien' mortuary practices.With the start of the 'classic Dacian civilisation' we observe a massive demographic increase.Archaeological finds point towards a large increase in the number ofboth rural, undefended settlements,and more developed fortresses (FLoREA-SIRBu1997, 15) which reach, in some instances, a pre-urbanlevel,especially in the case of Sarmizegetusa, the capital ofthe Dacian state during the time ofDecebalus(GLODARIUET AL. 1988). Furthermore, most of the so called davae25,such as the ones from Pope~ti,Poiana or Brad, even though existing from previous times, reach their maximum expansion and develop-ment in this period, witnessing an important increase in crafts production (pottery, iron, bronze).26Someauthors would add that with the start of this period wecan witness a shift of power from the regions out-side the Carpathian arch to Transilvania, especially the region of the Ora~tieMountains where a complexweb of fortified centres start being built (Coste~ti- Blidaru, Capfllna, Piatra Ro~ie,Banita, etc.) aswell asthe future capital of Sarmizegetusa27(FLoREA-SIRBu1997, 15;RUSTOIU2002) (Fig. 7). This small areawould become the centre of what can be named to a certain extent the Dacian state.

The LTC2-D is thus the period whenthe Dacian state takes shape and the two pil-lars of this political creation, tightly linkedto one another, were the army and religion.The so-called 'unification' of the Dacians wasdone probably to a large extent through thepower ofthe army (FLoREA-SIRBu1997, 16).Therefore, Burebista, the first who managedto achieve this, used the power of his armiesto maintain control, which would explain whyfrom his time28we have the first fortressesthat had a purely military function (VULPE-ZAHARIADE987,55). It seems however thatthe new king went beyond just military forceas he needed a way to suppress efficiently the Fig.7.ThelocationoftheOra~tieMountainsandSarmizegetusa.power of the local elite, some of whom no doubt controlled powerful tribal entities; hence he employedthe power of religion.In the 61hcentury AD, Jordanes, a Romanised Goth from Moesia who wanted to write the his-tory of his people and who, to our advantage, confused the Goths with the Getae wrote some extremelyinteresting passages:

25. Many of the Dacian settlement names that we know from ancient sources contain the termination dava (e.g. Zargidava,Capidava, Piroboridava) and hence the term is considered to be the equivalent of the Greek word polis. Therefore thedavae were large fortified settlements, with intense signs of habitation, including what may be in some places a 'residen-tial area' and a sanctuary. They usually concentrated manufacturing and commercial activities and probably were tribalcentres controlling a territory around them with its rural settlements (BABE~1979;VULPE-ZAHARIADE987,43). All set-tlements of this type disappear after the Roman conquest (BABE~2000, 329).

26. Conversely, STROBEL1998, 81) thinks that such an affirmation is only true for Transilvania, while the maximum level ofdevelopment was already reached by this point in the regions to the south and east of the Carpathian arch. The archaeo-logical finds however do not support this point ofview.27. STROBEL1998) disagrees with this opinion as well and considers that the prominence of Transilvania over the regionsto the south of the Carpathian arch occurs only after the fallof Burebista's kingdom and the intervention of M. LiciniusCrassus in 29-28/27 BC, which created a large security zone, emptied of population, on the leftbanks of the Danube.

28. Although the dating of the first phase from these fortresses is often just conventionally thought as being during the reignof Burebista (LOCKYEAR004).


12/29

406 I CATALIN NICOLAE POPA"Then when Burebistas was king of the Goths, Decaeneus came to Gothia at the time when Sullaruled the Romans.""Burebistas received Decaeneus and gave him almost royal power.""Their [the Dacians'] safety, their advantage, their one hope lay in this, that whatever their counsel-

lor Decaeneus advised should by all means be done; and they judged it expedient that they should put itinto effect."

"Thus by teaching them ethics he [Decaeneus] restrained their barbarous customs; by instructingthem in the science of nature, he made them live naturally under laws of their own.. .He taught them logicand made them skilled in reasoning beyond all other races; he showed them practical knowledge and sopersuaded them to abound in good works,"

"He [Decaeneus] chosefrom among them those that were at that time of noblest birth and superiorwisdom and taught them theology, bidding them worship certain divinities and holy places. He conferredthe name of Pilleati on the priests he ordained, I suppose because they offered sacrifice having their headscovered with tiaras, which we otherwise call pillei."

"But he bade them call the rest of their race Capillati."(http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/Goths/Gothsl.htm)In my opinion Jordanes gives the answer to how Burebista kept under control the Dacian tribal

leaders: by employing Decaeneus at his side who introduced a major social and religious reform. Therehas been an enormous amount of debate around the problem of who this Decaeneus character reallywas29and the precise nature of the changes that he brought to the Dacians (CRI~AN 1977; BODoR 1981;DAICOVICIU1981; GOSTAR-LICA 1984; AVRAM1989; FLOREA-SiRBU1997; PETRE2004; FLoREA2006)and it would not be appropriate to go further into this discussion30as it would require a large amountof space. Nevertheless we need to remember that major changes occurred in fundamental areas of theDacian societies and we can only guess some of its effects in the archaeological record, one of thembeing the 'disappearance' of the burials. There seems to be however an important chronological issue,since most of the changes appear to have started sometime in the second half of the 2ndcentury BC,whileDecaeneus'sreforms only occurred after the start of the 1st century Be. A good solution to thisproblem has not yet been proposed, as far as I know of.Now that both the 'external' and 'internal' situation has been briefly presented the existence ofthe 'alien' mortuary practices seems to make somewhat more sense. Theywere without a doubt triggeredby the tremendous turmoil which affected the Dacian world, both due to this process of'state centralisa-tion' and the increasing Roman pressure. However, for the picture to be even clearer, I will summarisethe other major phenomena taking place in the Late La Tene linked to the same category as the burials(Le. ritual activities).

First of all there is the appearance of the impressive temple structures starting with the begin-ning ofthe 1stcentury BC (Fig. 8.1, 8.2). Made both ofwood and stone, these religious structures, whichprobably evolved from local domestic forms, were generally located within the ramparts of settlementsor fortresses31which were also the places where it is likely that the elites resided (FLoREA-PuPEzA2008,292). All of the temple buildings, including those from outside Roman Dacia, disappear after theRoman conquest (BABE~2000, 331), a phenomenon that has been interpreted as the immediate fall ofthe religious beliefs associated with these structures after the 'be-heading' of the Dacian aristocracy(FLoREA-PuPEzA2008).

Next, starting with the 2ndcentury BC, but apparent especially in the 1stcentury BC and 1stcen-tury AD, the Dacians practised human sacrifices. This phenomenon which is recorded both by ancient29. Especiallysince his life-history and activity isremarkably similar to what the antique source tell us about Zalmoxis, one of

the most important Dacian gods (PETRE2004),30. I feel the need however to express my support to the view proposed by AVRAM(1989) and further developed by PETRE

(2004) according to which the aristocracy suffered a change of character, shifting from a military to an aulic elite, hencechanging their 'sign' from the lavishly ornamented helmets that we can find in the 4thand 3,dcentury BCburials to a newkind of 'helmets', the pillei mentioned by Jordanes.

31. It has been pointed out that many of the strategic fortresses that had a purely martial function, with no apparent impor-tant civilian inhabitance, had sanctuaries located in their immediate vicinity (e.g. at Blidaru-Pietroasa /ui Solomon, BatcaDoamnei, Piatra Ro~ie,Piatra Craivii), further pointing out to a link between the military and religion (FLOREA-SiRBU1997, 16).

.. ,.__1


13/29

A New Framework for Approaching Dacian Identity. The Burial Contr ibution I 407

~"11--- -,,-~.~

000 00000000000

S 1=2m:3=4mmS

0000000 00 00 00,) .)00000000 00 O~ .00000000000000000000OOOOOOOOoOOOO~')o

:;:';:'2..., ,j--- 8D 910CCI 11

~12_13~ 14I:=:J15 T.IX 16

10 25 SOm.

T.IXDo-- -- _ _ _ ___~000000000 I0000000000(;':' 00000000,~o () 00 ~~ (~OOO

T.XI

Fig. 8.1. 'Sacred area' ofSarmizegetusa (GHEORGHIU2005,349).1. string; 2. wall; 3. paved road; 4. channel; 5. stairs; 6. temple with plinths; 7. dismantled plinths; 8. stone pilasters;9.hearth; 10.wooden pilasters; 11.threshold; 12. curb; 13.arrow of andesite sun; 14. andesite sun; 15.entrance platform;16. terraces.

.e........0.0..... "0./ ""..... ~.. ~: f ~. :I. . _.. . .\. . .. . .\ ...,. :, .~.- .~&~ .. ~,. .../.............Fig.8.2. Great circular temple and rectangular temple from Sarmizegetusa (GHEORGHIU005,345,347).

writings (e.g. Herodotus, Jordanes, Stephanus ofByzantium, Eustathius, Pomponius Mela) and archaeo-logical discoveries, was apparently practised for several reasons and on different occasions: propitiationofthe divinities, founding of a building, death ofthe husband (which can sometimes lead to the sacrificeof both the wife and children), death of a community member, killing of prisoners, etc. (SiRBU1993,31-36). Most of the sacrificial victims were children though adolescents and adults were present too,but no bones came from the elderly. The remains often presented signs of violence and were frequently


14/29

.408 I CATALIN NICOLAE POPAfound in pits, both inside and outside settlement areas, and contained large quantities of ceramics andanimal bones, but never weapons. The skeletons were sometimes found complete and other times lessso and the bones were often in non-anatomical connection (SiRBU1985).

Finally, there's the hoarding of precious metal objects. Approximately 29 golden and more than800 silver objects were found in 350Dacian hoards (Fig. 9), dated in the 1"1century BC and 1"1century

AD. Most of them were random discoveries and it hasbeen suggested that we may be dealing with their delib-erate exclusion from settlements and their hoarding inremote places (SPANU2006,190-192). SPANU2002) hasidentified two phases of this phenomenon, one dated

I betweenthe middleand end of the 1sl centuryBCwhenit occurred only inside the Carpathian arch, and a secondone when it wasextended towards the west and south, inBanat, Oltenia and Muntenia.32He also points out thatin Transilvania the hoarded goods contained both 'inter-national' prestige objects33as well as local ones, whereasto the south the few hoards that were present containedonly 'international' prestige goods, with the goods com-ing from within the Carpathian arch being placed ingraves.34t appears therefore that the phenomenon exhib-ited important regional characteristics a~d is undoubtedlylinked to different layers of identity being expressed.

Fig. 9. Silver objects from Sarcsau hoard(GHEORGHIU2005, 479).

11.4.Fitting the 'alien'burials into thepictureThe Dacian burials were hence one of the outcomes of an extremely agitated period. The Celtic

pressure disappears only to be replaced by the Roman menace; the mortuary practices of the 41hand ydcentury BC,usually incineration in tumulus graves (SiRBU2006b), were replaced by a new and 'invisible'ritual; the local tribes fight to dominate their neighbours leading to a fragile state which was split dueto local rivalries, only to emerge again almost a hundred years later; a religious reformer acquired king-like power; fortresses and temples (to old or new gods) were built, and the list could go one. But it is involatile situations of this type that identity seems to be expressed in the strongest manner; questions ofidentity often come to the fore at times of social and political change; the destruction of existing socio-cultural patterns and shifting power relations lead to the re-evaluation and re-presentation of identitiesas new communities arise (GRAvEs-BRawN-JoNES1996, 1).

I believe that many of the 'alien' burials had as one of their fundamental motivation just this, thedesire to express a different identity; these graves became fixed points of reference in a very dynamicworld. They represent a phenomenon directly triggered by the socio-political situation; they are the out-come of increased interaction which led the communities to become more conscious of the differencesbetween them and the people who they came in contact with.35The religious reform and the integrationin a largepolitical structure would surely have added to this. From this point of view the burials may alsobe seen as a means of resistance and of protest to these overarching structures that would have empha-sised the similarities, all the things that the Dacian communities shared with one-another, in order tomaintain cohesion and thus control.

In conclusion, the Dacian burials, far from being simple biographies of the deceased, are theresult of the dynamism of the period. They hold within them important information about the identityof the Late La Tene communities who felt the need to express these ideas in such times. The funerary32. He dates the maximum height of production and hoarding of objects between the first Roman campaigns in the inferior

basin of the Danube (74, 72-71 BC) and the firm installation of the Roman legions in the inferior part of the Danube(middleof 1stcenturyAD) (SPANU006,191).33. Which he defines as objects that circulated across a larger area.34. The conclusion is valid only for the areas where the funerary phenomenon still left archaeological traces, like the one in

Oltenia (with the Scordisc influence).35. A similar observation is made by WELLS(2007) when he looks at the identity in Central Europe during the Early IronAge.

-


15/29

A New Framework for Approaching Dacian Identity. The Burial Contribution I 409rituals represent the means through which these groups chose to put forward a simple message: "Thisis who we are!"III. The Identity behind the Dacian burials

In this part I will take a closer look at the burial evidence. In the first half I will be making broadobservations about the graves, relating to the different types that are encountered, their spatial distribu-tion, the chronology and the gravegoods that wecan findwithin them, thus extracting general informa-tion about the identity of the deceased and the communities that housed them. The second half will beformed of two case studies, where I will aim to give a detailed reconstruction of the identity of thoseparticular communities based on the funerary discoveries.IlL 1.Generalconsiderations

The total number of Dacian burials that have been dated to the LT C2-D amounts to just 5p6,but the number of individuals that they contained is just 44 since 7 of them were cenotaphs and ineach case there were only the remains of one person within each grave.37The large majority of the indi-viduals were incinerated (41), which representsthe main reason why some archaeologists con-sider that cremation was the regular burial riteof the Dacian aristocracy (BABE~1988; SiRBU1994). The graves come from only 22 locationsbecause an important number of them were partof small necropolises, comprising of anythingbetween 2 and 12 graves, though in the case ofZimnciea and Hunedoara-Gradina Casteluluitheir number gets as high as several hundred.38As for the type of burials that are encountered,27 were tumulus while the remaining 24 wereflat. It should be remarked that almost in no casehavesignsofrobberybeenmentioned. . . ... .. . . FIg. 10.The location of the DaClanbunals and the zones theyThe spatial dIstnbutIOn of the DaCIan define.1.Hunedoara-GriidinaCastelului;2.Calan; 3.Coste~ti-funerary discoveries is in my opinion quite Cetiifuie;4.Cugir; 5.Tartiiria;6.Blandiana;7.Teleac;8.Tili~ca;revealing as it is relatively clear that they clus- 9. Poiana (Gorj); 10. Grop~ani; 11. Spnlncenata; 12. Cepari;ter in three regions (Fig. 10): one in south-west 13. Cetiite~i; 14. Orbeasca de Sus; 1.5.Liice~i;I? Zimnicea;T .1 ' . 11 . h M R. 1 17. Pope~tl; 18. Radovanu; 19. PISCUCrasam; 20. Brad;ransl vama, espeCla y III t e ure~ Iver va - 21. Riiciitiiu; 22. Poiana (Galati).ley; another one in Muntenia and the eastern .part ofOltenia; and the third in Moldova, in the Siret Rivervalley.This raises the suspicion of a differentregional identity being expressed in each of the three cases. On a closer examination of the burials thisidea seems to be confirmed to an extent.

A total of 16 Dacian graves were found in Transilvania, 11 of which were flat, coming from 8locations. A remarkable characteristic of this group is that half of the burials contained weapons39andamong them there was always a sica or its scabbard and in 7 cases lances were also present (Fig. 11).This is extremely important because only two other graves of the total of 51 had a sicawhile 11contained a lance. Therefore it appears that one of the principal elements that was illustrated through36.Thereare of coursea considerablenumber of burialswhichhavebeen identifiedbut not excavated;nonetheless,thosewould at best double the current figure.

37.Eventhough in the first tumulus at Brad (Brad Tl) there might be two cremated individualsburied underneath themound. Furthermore, in the case of the third tumulus from Brad (Brad T3), besides the main incineration burial, therewere also the remains from two inhumations, but these represented without a doubt human sacrifices (SiRBU1994; UR-SACHI1995). A similar situation seemed to have occurred at one of the tombs from Cetiiteni (Cetiiteni M2) where thedismembered skeletons of three children were identified underneath a stone pavement (MANDESCU006).

38. In the case of Zimniecea however only 5 burials out of 166were dated in the 2ndcentury BC, while the rest belonged tothe 4thand 3rdcenturies BC (SiRBU1994,76). As for Hunedoara-Griidina Castelului only 6 of the graveswere taken in myanalysis because all the rest come from children of very small ages (SiRBUETAL. 2007).39. In most cases the tombs contain almost exclusivelyweapons plus, in some cases, horse-gear.


16/29

I

the Transilvanian funerary ritual was mar-tial prowess; that these communities held

5'. 11111 . an important military power during thelmllP-IIIII,-IIIIIL LIIIII~~mnP--lIIlI_ I" century BC,whenmost of the finds can.,-~ ~ " ~ ... ~. .~ ~ be more or less dated.40 The object cho-~ if rq'? ~fl; e r:;.fl.. ~ 'S'~(-~ ~~~ .. ~'O0 ,~


17/29

A New Framework for Approaching Dacian Identity. The Burial Contribution I 411we can only guess that they referred to a complementary identity, adding a more localized dimension.On the other hand, the two tombs situated near the important Dacian settlement ofTili~ca (Lupu 1989)contained several silver and glass objects, which may suggest ideas about the wealth of the community,somewhat contrasting with the stress on military attributes seen in the other cases.43Consequently, it ismy opinion that the burials from south-west Transilvania imply a strong regional identity that had as itsprincipal element military power, with more local nuances introduced by the weaponless tombs. Only thepeople ofTili~ca,who were situated further to the east and at some distance from the Mure~River,appearto have constructed a unique, local identity, which was expressed through the display of adornments.

In Muntenia and eastern Oltenia 22 Dacian burials have been excavated, the majority beinglocated near important Dacian settlements; 10 of them were tumulus, 3 of which were cenotaphs, and12 flat. This is a large area compared to the other two, and displays an enormous diversity in terms ofthe gravegoods and their association (Fig. 14). This may be seen as being the result of very differentinfluences that were being felt in theregion (Le.Greek,Roman,Scordisc) 14 ,~~~_=_~_-___ _____which led to unique identities taking 12,.,shape and being expressed. For this 1~rreason it is very difficult to observe 6 l

1 tll .any general patterns for this region. 4 r'One of the things that does stand np :L=-;JOOtJI1111~-jllLmJ(to a certain degree is that 6 of the ...


18/29

412 I CATALIN NICOLAE POPA

o zee 4011.I I . . .

Fig. 15. Plan of the area of Pope~ti (after VULPE1955).('''''''''):,."""""

........Novae;

Fig. 16. 'Fruit bowls: 1-2. from Craiva (GHEORGHIU2005,405); 3-4. from Spnlncenata (PREDA1986, 159).

1086~'41~1,/ IIIII~- lllll~- -IIIII~ cr,e"4>0(,e,/>0,,,,fIo;$'~


19/29

A New Frameworkfor Approaching Dacian Identity. TheBurial Contribution I 413Nevertheless Brad could have expressed a more local identity, especially since the third tomb (Brad T3)contained, beside the deceased's cremated remains, two inhumed, sacrificial victims.

A thing that could prove enlightening for the analysis is to examine whether it is possi-ble to observe any evolution that takes place in time from the 2ndcentury BC to the 151century AD.

15 16

20, ~IMW/HI--~IIII- - ~ ~IHI-- iMlm~IIUJ- - -lil,mrl~l. _ __O< ~___J2ndcenMy BC2nd-1stcentury 1stcenturyBC 1steentury BC_ 1stcenturyAOBC 1st century AD. 1 time interval.18 Number ofbun a s perig. .

Unfortunately, there is a very strong impediment relating to the very poor dating of the burials. As faras I am aware, the chronology was established in most, ifnot all cases using object typologies. Thereforethe dating is at best highly relative making chronological categorisations extremely risky.Atbest 5 peri-ods could be fixed (Fig. 18): 2ndcentury BC, 7 burials; 2ndto 151entury BC, 15burials; 151entury BC,16 burials; 1'1century BC to 1'1century AD, 4 burials; and 1'1century AD, 9 burials; obviously there isa serious overlap between some of the five time intervals. If we try to observe the regions in which the

9_/T! I8 ' / 1---"--t.~~ --'~---,-7~"I--'6+/\sJ /',\--I .-4' / I'II.3-1' I2-1-1'-I / 1'--1-( !0'

-- ----

1st c. BC - 1stc.AD 1st c.AD

Fig. 19.Number of burials in each period/region.

II!JIj I..II- jI- -II---II--Ii7

~ Transilvania[ll]]llMuntenia andeastern Oltenia

9 Moldova

tombs appear in each of those periods (Figure 19) it seems that the burials of Muntenia and Oltenia, aswell as those from Transilvania, even though the latter start off later, were built especially in the 2ndand151entury BC, while those of Moldova are constructed in the 151entury BC (Poiana) and 151enturyAD (Brad and Racatau). Consequently I might dare to say that there was an apparent move from thewest-south-west to the east (Illl/l). This apparent pattern might have to do with how strongly the pres-sure coming from the Roman Empire was being felt; as the Romans advanced to the Danube and thencrossed it, the communities that felt threatened by their presence reacted (Ill 1/2). Of course it mayalso have to do with the struggle for political domination within the Dacian territory; first there wouldbe the rise of the centre from Transilvania47,then an expansion to the south in Muntenia and Olteniaand finally to the east (Illl/3). Thus, the communities could be seen as living organisms, immediatelymight have been amerchant from one of the other two davae. Ifthis was indeed the case, then the community ofBrad wasclearly delimiting itself as different from the settlements to the south.

47. Thiswould mean ignoring the finds from the 2ndcentury Be. Fiveof them come from only one site, Zimnicea and are closeto the Danube; in their case the reaction to the Roman presence seems much ismore plausible. The other two 2ndcenturytombs are from Cetiiteni.


20/29

414 I CATALIN NICOLAE POPAreacting by clearly emphasising their identity as soon as the threat of being incorporated in a largerstructure appeared. . fint crondI" camyBC)

. J"" IcmlUly8C

. appro&,8 c :e alwyBC.......

Illustration 1. 1.The movement of the 'wave'of Dacia burials; 2. The reaction to the Roman pressure as suggested bythe burial evidence; 3.The reaction to the battles for political control suggestedby the burial evidence. 1.Hunedoara-GradinaCastelului;2.CaIan;3.Coste~ti-Cetatuie;4.Cugir;5.Tartaria;6.Blandiana;7.Teleac;8.Tili~ca;9.Poiana(Gorj);10. Grop~ani; 11. Sprancenata; 12. Cepari; 13. Cetateni; 14. Orbeasca de Sus; 15. Laceni; 16. Zimnicea; 17. Pope~ti;18.Radovanu; 19.PiscuCrasani; 20.Brad;21. Racatau;22.Poiana (Galati).

At this point I do not think that any more information can be gathered through a general analy-sis. Nonetheless, the conclusions obtained so far, about the difference in the creation of identity in thethree geographical regions, as well as the possible scenarios observed through the examination of thechronology, represent a good indicator of the dynamics occurring in the Dacian world during the LateLa Tene.111.2. Case studies

I wish to continue by undertaking a close examination of two Dacian burials. I willaim to extractas much information as possible about the identity of the deceased and that of the community fromwhich he/she was part of. In order to do so, I will start by presenting the general context of the tombs,continue with the gravegoods and finish with the analysis.

The first burial that I willbe looking at is the second tumulus found at Cugir (Cugir T2) (CRI~AN1980) and is dated in the 151entury Be. This finding represents the richest funerary discovery attributedto the Dacians, along with the forth grave from Pope~ti (Pope~ti T4) (VULPE1976).The tomb was partof a group of four tumuli and was located near an important fortified Dacian settlement. It was placedon an 8 m wide artificial terrace that was dug into the steep south-west ridge of the hill which housedthe settlement. Themound, made out of large quantities of river boulders and local stone covered withearth, had underneath it an area delimited by a small ditch which was covered with yellow clay, andcontained the funerary pyre, made of fir wood, and a small pit in the middle. The deceased, a 35 yearold male, was dressed in full panoply, with an Eastern Celtic helmet (PFLUG1989), chain mail, a longLT D sword, a sica, a lance and a shield with iron margins and umbo. He was placed in a cart pulledby two horses, the remains of which were found along with those from a third horse that would have


21/29

A New Frameworkfor Approaching Dacian Identity. The Burial Contribution I 415~c~ ~d for riding. After the incineration, the ashes::.: tamed objects were placed together in the small':~-:r.L pit which contained, besides the already men-- : -e.:i artefacts, adornments (massive silver fibulae'---~ s_".er buttons) and two gold plates, one that was: ': decorated and had its extremity in the form

, : ; sr-:lised animal, probably a ram48,and the other.;, ,""' ,: fragment that would have been attached to an-' - Gb'ect . Fig. 20). Next, the small pit was covered

-~ ~-ehowclay and on top of this was placed a small,::,; : hand-made ceramic vessel, a large (0.70 m in.:..u::eter .black 'fruit bowl', and a bronze situla, hav- .-g 'rapezOl

.

' dal attachments and swan -shaped handles. ':~

11

.:- :~ of all of the above was fixed a large rock (60 x .~,. -;,.:;~m which sealed the grave.

It is quite clear that we are faced with the :-~~=~


22/29

.416 I CATALIN NICOLAE POPA

or-'- :', ., an Italic import (SPANU2002,127) while the other two~ objectswereofclearlocalorigin.Socouldthis suggesta contrast; the opposition between the rising powerto the south (Le. Romans) and the local community?Moreover, there could be another contrast between thej small vessel and the large 'fruit bowl'. Even though itis very hard to confirm such a scenario, I would ven-ture to say that the 'fruit bowl: which was placed in a central position and 'dominated' the other objects,1 was used as a symbol ofthe local community, while the, small ceramic vessel symbolised other Dacian groups,

~~~},:~~;~ and the situla referred to the newly arrived Romans.~/~.:"" :: :"., . - - Therefore the community expressed their superiority... . over their adversaries, both local and from afar; they

defined themselves through the power that they hadaccumulated.Let us move now to a very different case, at

Sprancenata where we find an inhumation grave located" insidea dava (Fig.21)and dated to the pt centuryAD(PREDA1986). The burial is made of a rectangularand irregular pit starting from a depth of 1.90 m andextended in a semicircle to a depth of 3 m to the west. Itis only from this depth (3 m), where a threshold of yel-low claywas laid out, that the grave pit actually started,rectangular in shape and orientated north to south. Thepit contained some pottery sherds52,but much moresignificantly, it had on the bottom a coffin, carved out

, " of half of a tree trunk, and being thinner towards thesouthern part, where the feetof the deceasedwould havebeen, and wider towards the northern part (Fig. 22).The coffin did not contain any objects or bones; theonly skeletal remains coming from the pit were a radius

"'.", ," 'i' . ,,.~.,.., "',., m','. . a~d.some~halangesbelongingto an ado!escent.Also'.t ~.';h ,;~~~ .', ~~.~. .':;,' sl.gnrficant IS that the lower part of the pIt, after st:p-J.i/" I ,., ">


23/29

A New Frameworkfor Approaching Dacian Identity. The Burial Contribution I 417to even take a wild guess as to the mean-ing behind this impressive funerarydiscovery. It is obvious through its loca-tion (Fig. 23) that the burial was centralto the community members and to thesettlement itself; it was a focal point andprobably the place where important ritu-als took place. If the skeleton and funer-ary inventory were indeed taken whenthe settlement was abandoned, it meansthat the very existence ofthe community Fig.23.PlanofSpnlncenatawiththeburialhighlightedwas linked to the deceased; he/she must (afterPREDA986,16).have been the very element that defined its members; those remains would have been the essence oftheir identity. Did they belong to someone who they thought came down from some mythical ances-tor? Or was he/she seen as a prophet of some sort? Unfortunately such questions cannot be answered. Astriking thing is that even though the settlement was founded in the 2ndcentury BC, the burial was onlybuilt in the 1stcentury AD, in the last phase of its existence. Two possible scenarios come to my mind soas to explain this chronological gap: either the community suffered a sudden change in identity in the 1stcentury AD, which would fitwith the adolescent being a prophet, sent by the gods; or the chronology iswrong, since the burial is dated through the dirt that came out of the pit and which belonged to the finallevel of inhabitance. The pit could have been backfilled by the community members when they tookthe skeleton and abandoned the settlement, which means that the burial could have been constructedas the settlement was established, thus making ithighly plausible for the adolescent to be seen as eitherdescending from mythical ancestors, or as being sacrificed when the dava was founded. The funerarychamber built on top would have been a constant reminder of this event and it is likely that there wouldhave been periodic rituals to commemorate and/or reiterate it, thereby maintaining alive the identity ofthe community.To sum up, the burials from Spnkenata and from Cugir exemplify the variety in the expressionof identity. While some people saw their community as being defined by a person or an event from thepast, others thought that their martial skills, their wealth and their power were what better illustratedwho they are. Some chose to inhume their 'important dead: other to cremate them; some built funerarychambers in settlements, others constructed mounds on hillsides. They all might have shared similarforms of material culture (i.e. 'Geto-Dacian') but were by all accounts unique.

n

Conclusion. Searchingfor Dacian IdentityWho were the Dacians? I think that this question, which I attempted to answer in the introduc-tion of this paper, needs to be given a different answer now that the burial eyidence has been presented.The Dacians were not just "the noblest as well as the most just of all the Thracian tribes" as Herodotuswrote; they were not just Burebista and Decebalus; they were not just the enemies of Rome; they weremany, many more things than that.The Dacian communities were very diverse. They actively and dynamically responded to theworld around them, the social intersections and political machinations that were taking place in theLate La Tene and that affectedthem. One of the most fascinating responses was the intentional modifi-cation of the funerary rituals leading to the appearance of 'alien' burials. The chronology of these tombs,although extremely general, suggests that they represented an immediate reaction to the Roman pres-sure, on the one hand, and to the conflicts that led to military and political 'unification, on the other.56These two elements threatened to 'dilute' the identity of the Dacian communities and maybe even theirvery existence. The burials however counterbalanced this effect as they represented events when com-munal identity was openly expressed; the bonds that held together the members of the group were thusstrengthened. Some elements of their identity entailed substantial regional ties (e.g. the burials from56. The idea that they represented an immediate reaction isalso indicated byanother element of the chronology: where small

necropolises where erected, all the burials that have been excavated were dated roughly to the same time period. Hencethe 'bending' of the funerary ritual is likely to have been cause by the same event.


24/29

418 I CATALIN NICOLAE PaPATransilvania) while other indicated the unique character of the community (e.g. Sprancenata) leadingto very diverse narratives.

The Late LaTene people of Romania utilised a great range of objects so as to signal their identity.First of all,weapons were used to refer to the martial activities ofthe deceased and to the military powerof the community. It appears that many of the groups from Transilvania, but some from Muntenia aswell, considered that their warlike activities represented the most important element of their identity.The weapon that signalled martial prowess par excellencewas the sica followed by the lance. In very fewcases a full panoply was displayed, constituting of sica, lance, LTD longsword, shield, chain mail, hel-met, Thracian-type horse-gear. When all these objects did occur together exceptional military skills andgreat wealth are indicated.

Another category of objects which appeared to have been employed extensively were clothingaccessories and adornments: fibulae, buttons, beads, rings, pendants, etc. The items were made of iron,bronze, silver or gold and despite their regular occurrence in tombs were not found in large quantities,even though in some graves (Le.Cugir T2, Poiana T1, Pope~tiT2, Tili~caM1 and M2) there were severalitems of this type. Most of the burials that contained such items did not usually have weapons, thoughat Cugir T2 for example both categories were present. The identity suggested by the presence ofclothingaccessories and adornments was diverse though it could imply things like prosperity57,wide regionalconnections or isolation. 58Continuing on this idea, the vast majority of objects that were part of the funerary inventorywere produced in Dacian workshops. There were some Greek and Roman imports, especially amphoraand kantharoi59,plus the bronze situla from Cugir T2, which of course relate to extensive commercialrelations, but their numbers were generally low.It seems that these objects were genuinely incorporatedso as to express identity only in the case of the Moldavian davae60and possibly Pope~ti to a certaindegree. This implies that their commercial relations influenced the way they regarded themselves; theiridentity was referenced not only to the neighbouring communities but also to those located much far-ther away, such as the Greek colonies from the Black Sea. It doesn't appear that they were necessarilyused as prestige objects since the same items were found abundantly in the settlements and thus we can-not consider them extraordinary finds.61Furthermore, since many were imitations ofGreek and Romanforms, it is possible that we are dealing with the integration of such 'foreign' elements but adapted to thelocal conditions.

Building on the previous observation, I think that what the Dacian burials indicate is theexistence of several layers of identity. In most cases the main idea refers to a local identity; differentsets of elem~nts (e.g. incineration, in tumulus grave, containing iron fibula, silver buttons, 'fruit bowl:arrowheads, etc.) were employed so as to create specific combinations. This situation occurred becauseeach community used material culture in a different manner which led to them structuring their worldin unique ways. Since identity is based on the similarities shared by the members of the same group(JONES1999) it is only natural that we obtain the expression of highly localised identities. On top of thefirst layer, sometimes a regional identity can be spotted, especially through the repeated combinationof a specific set of items. This layer is more evident in some graves than in other, and stronger in samegeographical areas (Le.Transilvania and Moldova) than in other (Le.Muntenia and Oltenia). It is hardto determine however the extent to which those people saw themselves asbeing part of a larger regionalentity, but it isfair to say that in most cases, maybe with the exception of some of the warrior-like burials(e.g. Blandiana, Teleac), it is the local identity that came first.

Finally there is the question about the existence of a third layer, that of a Dacian ethnicity. Ithink that the burials from Late La Tene Romania do not show any evidence for the formation of a clearDacian ethnic marker; there are no elements which recur in such a manner so as to indicate an ethnic57. Prosperity may be real, and thus the community could have really defined itself through its economic situation, or 'not so

real: meaning that the community put forward the image of richness because it best suited its interest.58. This is suggested through sizeof the area within which they were encountered; hence some objects had a large circulation(e.g. many of the iron fibulae and pendants) while other were local forms.

59. Even though many were local imitations ofGreek and Roman objects.60. With the exception of Brad; the imports were only present there in the flat grave situated in a different area than thecemetery.61. Except maybe for the situla from Cugir T2 and some of the finds from the tombs from Poiana (Galati).

-


25/29

A New Frameworkfor Approaching Dacian Identity. The Burial Contribution I 419consciousness. The existence of a 'Geto-Dacian' ethnicity would have triggered in the burial record theconstruction of specific ethnic sets; these sets could have changed significantly or even totally in timeand from a region to another62but some linkage between them should have been noticeable. Ifthe 'alien'funerary phenomenon was caused primarily by the rising Roman pressure, the Dacian ethnicity shouldhave been extremely obvious in the tombs, since the communities would have expressed how they dif-fer from the same 'other' (i.e. the Romans). If, on the other hand, these mortuary practices had as theirmain agent the regional battles for military and political control, then it would be normal for localisedidentity markers to be used extensively.However, as it isunlikely that the communities would have goneto such a great length so as to completely hide their assumed ethnicity, it is much more probable that itwas never there. Therefore the evidence seems to point that the 'unquestioned, glorious Geto-Daciannation' is nothing more than a modern myth.

Bibliography

BOD OR 1981

Jordanes,Latin- English,Firsthalf.Availableat:http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/Goths/Gothsl.htm [AccessedAugust 9, 2009].Audouze, E, Towns, Villagesand Countryside of CelticEurope:From the Beginningof theSecondMillennium to theEnd of theFirstCenturyBC,London.Avram,A., Gedanken iiber den thrakisch-geto-dakischen Adel,StCl,26, 11-25.Babe~,M., La stade actuel des recherches sur la culture Geto-Dace a son Epoque dedevelopement maximum (lIesiE~clevone.-Iersieclede ne),DaciaN. S.,23,5-20.Babe~,M., Descoperiri funerare ~isemnificatialor in contextul culturii Geto-Dacice clasice,SCIVA, 39, 1,3-32.Babe~,M., La Conquete Trajane vue par l'Archeologie, IN: Avram, A.-Babe~, M. (ed.),CivilisationGrecqueet CulturesAntiques Peripheriques,Bucure~ti,323-338.Babic, S., Status Identity and Archaeology, IN: Diaz-Andreu, M.-Lucy, S.-Babic, S.-Edwards,D. (ed.), TheArchaeologyof Identity:Approachesto Gender,Age, Status,Ethnicityand Religion,London, 67-85.Barca, v., Patrunderea sarmatilor la Dunarea de Jos ~ide Mijloc ~irelatiile cu geto-dacii(sec.I a. Chr.-sec. I p. Chr.),EphemNap, 12,45-94.Barth, E, Introduction, IN: Barth, E (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The SocialOrganizationof CultureDifference,Boston, 9-38.Barth, E, Boundaries and Connections, IN: Cohen, A. (ed.), Signifying Identities.AnthropologicalPerspectiveson Boundariesand ContestedValues,London, 17-36.Binford,L.R.,Archaeology as Anthropology,Antiquity, 28, 217-225.Binford, L. R., Archaeological Perspectives, IN: Binford, L. R.-Binford, S. (ed.), NewPerspectivesin Archaeology,Chicago,5-32.Binford,L.R.,Mortuary practices: their study and potential, IN:Brown,J.(ed.),Approachesto theSocialDimension ofMortuary Practices,MSAA,6-29.Bodor,A.,Structura societatii dacice, IN:Daicoviciu,H. (ed.), StudiiDacice,Cluj-Napoca,7-22.Bourdieu, P.,Outlineof a TheoryofPractice,Cambridge.Buchsenschutz,0., LesCeltesde L'agedu Fer,Paris.Capitanu, v., Principalele rezultate ale sapaturilor arheologice in a~ezareageto-dacicade laRacatau (judetul Bacau),Carpica,8, 48-120.Capitanu, V.,Raport privind cercetarile arheologice de la Riicatau,judoBacau,MCA, 15.Capitanu, v., Raport privind cercetarilearheologice de la Racatau,judoBacau,MCA, 16.Ciugudean, D.-Ciugudean, H., Un mormant de razboinic geto-dac de la Tartaria (judoAlba),EphemNap,3, 77-79.Coarelli,E, TheColumnofTrajan, Rome.Cohen, A., Introduction: Discriminating Relations - Identity, Boundary and Authenticity,IN: Cohen, A. (ed.), Signifying Identities. Anthropological Perspectives on Boundaries andContested Values, London, 1-13.

JORDANES

AUDOUZE 1992

AVRAM 1989BABE~ 1979

BABE~ 1988

BABE~ 2000

BABIC 2006

BARcA 2002

BARTH 1969

BARTH 2000

BINFORD 1962BINFORD 1968

BINFORD 1971

BOURDIEU 1977BUCHSENSCHUTZ 2007CAPITANU 1976

CAPITANU 1981CAPITANU 1986CIUGUDEAN-CIUGUDEAN1993COARELLI 2000COHEN 2000

62. For example, the people from Transylvania may have translated their 'Geto-Dacian' ethnicity into using a sica and wearinga fibulawith knots, while those from Moldova could have translated itjust into using a 'fruit bowl'.


26/29

420 I CATALIN NICOLAE PaPACollis, J

Documents

A New Framework for Approaching Dacian Identity