Forgery or Legit: Dacian art in lead plates?

[Ayce]

In case you missed it: the book that studies the plates

I've uploaded separately: the uncovered lexicon in the study (Ro) and the conclusions (Ro+En)

EDIT: TA, what do you mean by printing? I don't get it.

And not all the plates are of high quality, it varies, though it's generally good.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well, for instance during antiquity people didn't use serifs -- so any Greek character you see whith a serif is definitely not from back then. That's what I meant. (I know it isn't called printing, but it is something I can't recalle the right word for atm.)

[Ayce]

It doesn't use serifs (obviously), the words aren't delimited except in one plate (the last image posted by Romano-Dacis, showing how Dromikathes was injured in a battle). Some plates contain punctuation in the form of plusses (+). The usual alphabet is Greek-like. A second alphabet is used more as a decorative, religious script, possibly a precursor to the primary. A third, undeciphered script (possibly pictograms) is present. Some plates show portraits, maps, factional symbolism (that word delimited plate shows a possible alliance between the Haţeg Dacians and ΣΚΙΤ ΨΕΤ (Skit Get - Scythian Dacians, Dacians livin in Scythia, around EB's Olbia) under Dromikathes)

[paullus]

I'd be surprised if they were legit. The grammar is bizarre, and looks fabricated. There are literally dozens of loan words from Greek (fine), Latin (fine...the plates would be late BC or early AD anyway), but also modern Romanian and other Romance languages. The orthography isn't really objectionable as far as I can see, though a lot of it is without precedent. I'd be curious whether the guys who've "translated" the plates have found that they unlock the meaning of the handful of much smaller Getodacian inscriptions. I'm also suspicious about the find itself. There's nothing similar to them that's been found in any Thracian/Getodacian territories, so finding a huge cache of these things makes me suspicious, especially when they're allegedly copies of originals in gold. Right.

Anyway the first post said that there were things revealed in the tablets that no one would have known back when the tablets were made. Examples?

[Parallel Pain]

I'd be surprised if they were legit. The grammar is bizarre, and looks fabricated.... but also modern Romanian and other Romance languages.

Convinces me it's a fake.

[Elmetiacos]

Funny language... reminds me a bit of North Sabellic; it looks as though it ought to be Indo-European, but the words make no sense. Btw, don't we know the Daco-Thracian word for "god" - Ziu?

[cmacq]

With collectors and antiquarians the old saying is caveat emptor.

I am an archaeologists and I do know a thing or two about the antiquities blackmarket? That is why context and the method of recovery is everthing. And, yes the 'printing' or how the letters are executed does reveal something; that they are all fakes. I don't have time to detail this, but try here for a quick outline...

http://www.museum-security.org/fakes.html

However, at a glance I can tell these have something to do with nationalism.

[Ayce]

cmacq, earlier you said that they look 1960s, but the pictures were taken in 46 (before the commies won the rigged elections). And they certainly existed before 1900. I don't see who'd forge 200 of them back then.

paullus, the idea proposed is that most aren't loans from Latin, but that Latin loaned from a pre-Daco-Thracian language. I'll search for examples about the „no-one would had known” thing. Stay tuned later on.

OK, a few short things: Plate no 21 is a map of Sarmisegetuza, consistent with archaeological findings in 1939. Plate no 9 (not the only one) depicts historically accurate equipment of Dacian and Celtic armies. (Celtic helmet, Correct proportions for Dacian shields, as found in archaeological digs, especially in Piatra Roşie). Generally the plates have a high degree of historical accuracy. A forgerer would have to be maniacally obsessive. And 2-3 plates contain orthographic mistakes, indicating a natural writing. Many images are consistent with Dacian and pre-dacian coins and pottery.

[abou]

paullus, the idea proposed is that most aren't loans from Latin, but that Latin loaned from a pre-Daco-Thracian language.

Huh?

[Ayce]

Maybe I should have said „the idea proposed in the book”. Aka Italic languages having a pre-Thracian adstrate.

Another extremely detailed thing. Big cats at Burebista's court, as Plutarch described that theywere kept at Getic courts. (plate 20)

[Daos]

Huh?

Well don't get me wrong I don't wanna get into a debate here but we are taught that most words in our language come from Latin. Well I like many others have found that in many cases it's clearly the other way around. This has two possible explications: 1 Romans borrowed words from Getai, which is unlikely but not impossible seeing they borrowed military equipment. 2 Both languages come from the same root language and some words in Romanian remain closer to the original words, which I think is more likely. What really is uncanny is the close resemblance that our language has with the ancient Sanskrit. Almost all ancient deity names from India have a corresponding word in Romanian. They mostly mean trivial things but we even got a city named Deva. Which means deity in Sanskrit. It comes from the ancient Dava but still the striking resemblance is there.

[Romano-Dacis]

Well, a lot of these ideas, of which many are probably reading about for the first time, were proposed in the 19th century in a book by Napoleon Savescu called "We are not the Descendants of Rome."

The opinion today is hardly mainstream, but it's still held by a few modern Romanian historians. The biggest problem with Savescu's book, is that it implies the complete rewriting of how civilizations came to be, since its conclusion is that Roman and Hellenic civilization are the result of Pelasgic civilization, or offshoots from Dacian culture.

I know, to those of us used to more orthodox interpretations of history, it sounds pretty unbelievable, and I don't subscribe to it myself, but there is a school of thought which still still believes this.

If I recall correctly, the reason why such a hypothesis came in to being was because the short duration of Roman colonization of Dacia was seen as problematic when considering that it resulted in a Romanized people (Romanians). Some people solved this by looking at the sheer extent of colonization (French academic V. Duruy considers the colonization of Dacia: “By far the largest colonial effort in ancient history!”) but this school of thought proposed the idea that Dacian and Roman cultures were similar to begin with.

[paullus]

Ayce, two things about your defense of the plates:

1) All those details you pointed out were known prior to WWII, and in the 19th century as well. The city plan of Sarmiszegethusa is nowhere near as clearly laid out on the plate as it would need to be to actually be convincing. It can be imaginately reconstructed as such, no more.

2) Arguments for precise detail are never good arguments on forgeries. The people who make forgeries are, of course, always obsessive over details, if they're good forgers.

[Ayce]

Well, a lot of these ideas, of which many are probably reading about for the first time, were proposed in the 19th century in a book by Napoleon Savescu called "We are not the Descendants of Rome."

Actually the first documented proposal of this theory dates back 300 years in Rome

The opinion today is hardly mainstream, but it's still held by a few modern Romanian historians. The biggest problem with Savescu's book, is that it implies the complete rewriting of how civilizations came to be, since its conclusion is that Roman and Hellenic civilization are the result of Pelasgic civilization, or offshoots from Dacian culture.

I myself base this theory in the Nicolae Densuşianu's work „Prehistoric Dacia” that studies written accounts, the correlation between folklore and mythology and more recently this book by mr. Romalo, because it makes more sense. It fits in with the Black Sea deluge and the advanced civilizations in the old (pre-Hellenic) Balkans. You can add „indirect result” there. And I'm not implying the part about offshoots of Dacian civilization, by the time they became Dacians, they were lagging behind a little.

I know, to those of us used to more orthodox interpretations of history, it sounds pretty unbelievable, and I don't subscribe to it myself, but there is a school of thought which still still believes this.

I hate it when people won't even take into consideration a theory, instead of actually investigating. Besides, it wouldn't rewrite history, as the time frame is almost blank on this aspect, it would just add to history.

If I recall correctly, the reason why such a hypothesis came in to being was because the short duration of Roman colonization of Dacia was seen as problematic when considering that it resulted in a Romanized people (Romanians). Some people solved this by looking at the sheer extent of colonization (French academic V. Duruy considers the colonization of Dacia: “By far the largest colonial effort in ancient history!”) but this school of thought proposed the idea that Dacian and Roman cultures were similar to begin with.

More so than the short duration was the (stable) conquest of only 14% of Dacian territory.

paullus: I don' need a defense of the plates, I want to see if a valid offense can be made to challenge their authenticity, since none has been specifically made.

[abou]

Well don't get me wrong I don't wanna get into a debate here but we are taught that most words in our language come from Latin. Well I like many others have found that in many cases it's clearly the other way around. This has two possible explications: 1 Romans borrowed words from Getai, which is unlikely but not impossible seeing they borrowed military equipment. 2 Both languages come from the same root language and some words in Romanian remain closer to the original words, which I think is more likely. What really is uncanny is the close resemblance that our language has with the ancient Sanskrit. Almost all ancient deity names from India have a corresponding word in Romanian. They mostly mean trivial things but we even got a city named Deva. Which means deity in Sanskrit. It comes from the ancient Dava but still the striking resemblance is there.

Only problem is that doesn't make much sense linguistically... at all. You even said that they are both Indo-European languages so naturally they have certain similarities, but it is very specious to suddenly feel that it was Latin that borrowed from Getic: especially considering that they had practically no major contact until after Rome became involved with Macedon as a province.

I would be curious to see the original publication that proposed the theory, but I have a strong feeling that there aren't too many linguistic experts who would agree.

[Cronos Impera]

Joining the debate, sorry I'm late.
The biggest problem one has with the Sinaia lead plates is that
1) They contain 3 different types of scripts which makes little sense for the Dacians
2) The Getai ware unlikely to use their precious metals for chronicles, as the lead plates ware supposed copies of the original "golden" plates. This was just a lame atempt of the nationalists to discredit Carol I who had supposedly smelted the real plates and copied them on a cheaper support.
3) The entire story of their discovery makes little sense either. The plates had been allegendly unearthed during the construction of Peles castle in an area without any other Getai artifacts whatsoever. At that time protochronist scholars placed Kogaion in the Bucegi Mts.
4) The plates themselves say nothing about Getai history when compared to the works of other ancient scholars. When you read a Getai plate you would expect to find referances to previously unknown events relating to the wars with the Keltoi and Bastarnoz, probably with Scythiai and Hellenes but all we get are some folk-like stories with unknown voievodes and princes resting at Sarmisegetuza

The best solution our ignorant archeologists would have is to leave those plates in a museum basement and focus on saving "real" artifacts.... and preserving those "geniue" artifacts. This whole Sinaia story is just an excuse for some to quietly smuggle Getai bracelets and other artifacts in the homes of rich, private collectors.