[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


>Tommy Tyrberg <tommy.tyrberg@aerotechtelub.se> wrote:
>>The Goths (east germans) and the Getae (thracians) were two completely 
>>different tribes that weren't even contemporary.
>True, they weren't contemporary.  However, several authors of late antiquity 
>(Philostorgius, Cassiodorus, Iordanes) identified the Goths as descendents 
>of the older Getic tribes.  There is no evidence that such an identification 
>is true - most likely it's an invention to provide the Goths with an 
>illustrious and ancient pedigree.  Nevertheless, the Getae/Goth link has 
>been mentioned in the same context as the existence of Zalmoxes.

The Goths were germanic, the Getae were celtic, and there are 500 years 
between them, so we can safely assume that this identification was a pure

>>Zalmoxis by the way was a semi-mythical culture hero of the getae rather 
>>than a king.
>Ancient sources refer to him as both a god and a king.  In general, the 
>distinction between the two is often subtle or non-existent in these 

The Rumanians usually have the name as Zalmoxes.
They say he originally came from Greece. He was a priest (or something like 
and instructed the king (maybe the Geto-Dacian emperor Burebista). Zalmoxes 
lived three years under the ground, and people thought he was dead. When he 
came out they regarded him as a god, and he taught them about herbal medicine.
Fitting name for a herbivorous Rumanian dinosaur, is it not?