Forgery or Legit: Dacian art in lead plates?

[Tiberius Nero]

A linguistics question: what sound is the "H" letter in the inscriptions supposed to represent? Since the alphabet is Greek, I suppose it is the Greek value of the letter, which at this point in history (if this is supposed to be early AD) was pronounced no different than "I", so a people adopting a foreign alphabet would have little reason to keep redundant letters like the "H" in Greek to represent the same sound.

The fact that the circumstances of their discovery (in fact of the original gold plates) are clouded in myth, as the site linked to admits, does little for me to convince me that those are authentic, the context of discovery of such artifacts is indeed essential.

And again, no matter what has been said earlier, I took the trouble of looking at all of the plates I could find in the site, and there isn't a single letter missing or damaged anywhere in two dozens of inscriptions, or more. In fact I have come across newspapers which were harder to read than this. All this is too good to be true, sorry.

[Ayce]

The H is supposed to represent a long i (I-I).

And there are worn out plates, plates written in such a manner and eroded that you can't make heads or tails of it. Also some lettering on various good quality plates that is hard to understand because of aging. You are probably talking about the site posted in the first post. I didn't even look at that one. Today there are about 30 left. In the book I posted earlier, there are pictures of 79 plates taken in the 1940s, 71 being from the National Archeology Museum since the 19th century. There were more pics, but some were destroyed when a building came down during the 1977 earthquake.

To me, the facts that it's an enormously complex task (the lead plates have the exact same composition as other ancient plates, extreme historical accuracy and detailed, very well constructed language, natural mistakes) and that at the time of discovery, the existence of such plates would be detrimental to Romanian political interest make them, or most of them perfectly authentic.

[paullus]

"the lead plates have the exact same composition as other ancient plates"

---oh?

[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.

[Ayce]

abou: I find it myself impossible that the Romans could have borrowed from the Getai. The theory goes that the pre-Dacian linguistic continuum of the Balkan Peninsula greatly contributed to the cultural genesis of the Italic civilizations before the founding of Rome. A book about this theory was first published in 1913 - Prehistoric Dacia by Nicolae Densuşianu - translated into English here, with the limited data available at the time (ancient works, the Vatican archive, Romanian folklore vs ancient mythology, available archaeological findings). Now with the discovery of the Black Sea Deluge, this would be the chain of events:
Bosphorus opens in 6400 BC - advanced civilizations living around the Black Lake flee the rushing waters: proto-indo-europeans flee to the east and north (north branch evolves into balto-slavs, a small bit of the east branch may have reached Japan and formed the mysterious Ainu population), another branch flees toward Sumer, two semitic branches flee through Asia minor, one settling in Syria, one becoming the pre-dynastic Egyptians (bringing irrigation and agriculture), four branches flee westwards, the northernmost reaching Gaul (bringing longhouses), the southernmost settles in Dalmatia, the middle two being the Vinča and Hamangia cultures, bringing advanced pottery designs and the earliest pictographic writing - the synthesis of the Balkan cultures form the so-called Pelasgian civilization that exerted it's linguistic and religious influence over Italy - the Greeks arrived, took the basis of the religion, the technology and developed them, out competing the Pelasgians descendants, the Thracians - and you know the rest.

Cronos Impera: The plates shows 2 scripts are symbolic/religious, one of them being the precursor of the Greek like script, as plate 1 shows a more primitive main script with elements of the secondary.
There are 2 possibilities: 1 - Originals are gold (not unlikely considering the large amount of gold in Dacia at the time), 2 - the lead plates are original (this was apparently backed up by an analysis of a certain US university, but I can't find it anymore).
There are references to wars, raids, construction projects, a map, military orders and ceremonies.
And it's as much of a crime not to investigate the plates as it is to let other artifacts be stolen.

[edyzmedieval]

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.

1) Uhm, what? Why does it make little sense?
2) I agree with your point on this one. So far I haven't seen in any museum in Romania any Getai inscriptions made of expensive material.
3) Why does it have to be strictly related to an area of Getai artifacts? Getai spread everywhere, and where Sinaia is today isn't extremely far from where Sarmizegetusa is. So there might be a possibility of a old Getai settlement there, with a proper temple and stuff.
4) Good point, but it also might be the first evidence discovered of this sort.

I'm uncertain. It points out as a fake, especially how they look and what they contain, but it might also be a true thing recalling a sort of Getai "sagas".

[Ayce]

OK, there may be some misconceptions about the plates message because of the small numbers surviving. Here are plates 9 and 10 in the book, each one using a different alphabet, one depicting the aftermath of a battle and the other a ritual:

[cmacq]

abou: I find it myself impossible that the Romans could have borrowed from the Getai. The theory goes that the pre-Dacian linguistic continuum of the Balkan Peninsula greatly contributed to the cultural genesis of the Italic civilizations before the founding of Rome. A book about this theory was first published in 1913 - [/B]

This would be the natural path out of the Steppe, so I would have to agree with this to some degree. As there and then Italic, Keltic, and Baltic would have been one tongue.

[Tiberius Nero]

@Ayce: Just a clarification, when you talk about the "Greek like script" do you refer to the one most of the text is written in? This is not Greek like, it is entirely Greek and the alphabet is a later form than those of the classical era (it contains H as a vowel, and Ω which doesn't exist earlier as a letter). The precursor of this alphabet is the Phoenician alphabet.

[Ayce]

@Ayce: Just a clarification, when you talk about the "Greek like script" do you refer to the one most of the text is written in? This is not Greek like, it is entirely Greek and the alphabet is a later form than those of the classical era (it contains H as a vowel, and Ω which doesn't exist earlier as a letter). The precursor of this alphabet is the Phoenician alphabet.

Yes, I said Greek like because of the presence of letters meaning [č], [dʒ], Y is pronounced [ju] (yoo) in most cases probably, and the presence of V as a [u]. Most plates are written around the time of Caesar's assassination. I suppose Getic, Greek and Italic scripts, evolving in the same geographical area, would have mutually influenced them selfs.

[Tiberius Nero]

1) Uhm, what? Why does it make little sense?

Well there isn't much reason to employ 3 different types of script at the same time; Linear B e.g. does, but only to clarify the meaning of some words since the fact that it is written in syllabograms and the rules of writting allow for much ambiguity (a made up example, the sequence pa-te, could be read both as "Sparte" or "pater"), but in an alphabet there is no reason for this (Japanese does employ 3 different scripts but for similar reasons, to explain ideogramms and the third is only used to transliterate foreign words). Could one of the scripts be "hieratic", one understood by only a select few (members of the priesthood e.g.)? But why write this along with a generally readable text, if this could provide the key to the decipherment of the hieratic script? And what of the third type of script? Could we be dealing with bilingual or tri-lingual inscriptions? Why then are there so few elements of the non-Greek script, if they would be translations of the whole main text? I really don't know, the whole thing seems as designed to be very flashy and mysterious; nationalism doesn't necessarily have to be the only force behind a forgery, one could do this for whatever reasons.

btw, which letters are [č] and [dʒ]? I have seen a couple of letters which look suspiciously close to cyrillic characters.

[Ayce]

The Ψ like letter is [dʒ]. The Ψ with part of the left branch missing is the [č]. Forgot to say the inverted Z is the same as the normal Z. Both types appear on the plates, probably depending on the period at which they were written. B is both [b] and [v].

Out of the three, the undecyphered tertiary is rarely present and possibly pictographic, the secondary is probably a script that was replaced in mainstream use, but used for ceremonial purposes (decorative writing: Kotopol Cieneu, Mato Boerebysto; describing ceremonies), it would be known by some nobility and the priest class. The primary Greek is mainstream. The last 2 are used for the same language, with equivalent letters (minus a sign in the secondary that represents the [ts], an equivalent separate from T is inexistent in the primary).

[cmacq]

Well, with a closer exam, why does the artistic style of the figures seem very much like typical medieval types? Both in overall composition and individual motif? I'm just saying?

Plus, after a quick review of the lit. this is on the list.

[Ibrahim]

abou: I find it myself impossible that the Romans could have borrowed from the Getai. The theory goes that the pre-Dacian linguistic continuum of the Balkan Peninsula greatly contributed to the cultural genesis of the Italic civilizations before the founding of Rome. A book about this theory was first published in 1913 - Prehistoric Dacia by Nicolae Densuşianu - translated into English here, with the limited data available at the time (ancient works, the Vatican archive, Romanian folklore vs ancient mythology, available archaeological findings). Now with the discovery of the Black Sea Deluge, this would be the chain of events:
Bosphorus opens in 6400 BC - advanced civilizations living around the Black Lake flee the rushing waters: proto-indo-europeans flee to the east and north (north branch evolves into balto-slavs, a small bit of the east branch may have reached Japan and formed the mysterious Ainu population), another branch flees toward Sumer, two semitic branches flee through Asia minor, one settling in Syria, one becoming the pre-dynastic Egyptians (bringing irrigation and agriculture), four branches flee westwards, the northernmost reaching Gaul (bringing longhouses), the southernmost settles in Dalmatia, the middle two being the Vinča and Hamangia cultures, bringing advanced pottery designs and the earliest pictographic writing - the synthesis of the Balkan cultures form the so-called Pelasgian civilization that exerted it's linguistic and religious influence over Italy - the Greeks arrived, took the basis of the religion, the technology and developed them, out competing the Pelasgians descendants, the Thracians - and you know the rest.

Cronos Impera: The plates shows 2 scripts are symbolic/religious, one of them being the precursor of the Greek like script, as plate 1 shows a more primitive main script with elements of the secondary.
There are 2 possibilities: 1 - Originals are gold (not unlikely considering the large amount of gold in Dacia at the time), 2 - the lead plates are original (this was apparently backed up by an analysis of a certain US university, but I can't find it anymore).
There are references to wars, raids, construction projects, a map, military orders and ceremonies.
And it's as much of a crime not to investigate the plates as it is to let other artifacts be stolen.

I agree that this is indeed wrong (the author's theories). I have considered it and rejected it for these reasons:

1-yes the black sea did flood; and it may have driven sumer out of the area. but it is known that those who speak afro asiatic languages (semetic, hametic, chadic, etc) are based overwhelmingly in africa, and archeological and linguistic evidence points to them coming from africa before the black sea flooded (around 8000BC). if you want to know what these items of evidence are, I'll PM.
2-Egyptians were not semetic speaking in 6400BC. their language is only distantly related(both are afro-Asiatic).
3-the Ainu (or Ainu like poeple) have been documented in the area of japan and the Americas in around 7000BC (e.g. kenewick man). mitochondrial evidence also points there
4-thraikioi were apperently indo european themselves (at least as far as I could tell)
5-even if pelasgians influenced the romani, would the Etruscans count as pelasgians?
now as for the plates-I say that I can't say anything about them until a better analysis is conducted.

[cmacq]

5-even if pelasgians influenced the romani, would the Etruscans count as pelasgians?

I believe that yes, the Tyrrhenians might be considered Pelasgian-esque. They seemed to have migrated from western Anatolia to Italy around the same time the Punes moved to Tunis (very late bronze and/or very early iron age). There are nearly no contemporary documents from this era, that’s why it’s often called a 'dark age.'

[Ibrahim]

pelasgianesc-not pelasgian. the theory is full of holes in my opinion.

[cmacq]

everything is full of holes if you think about it long enough.

right, tell me about the holes.

[Ibrahim]

I already mentioned them earlier

[cmacq]

Good god you expect me to read all of this tread?

Right, reread all and for you no mention of Tyrrheni/Τυρρηνοίas as Pelasgian or Πελασγοί as the pre-greek greeks? In Anatolia they were the Tyrseni or Τυρσινοι/Τορρηβοί and these are not to be confused with the Minyans or Μινύαι. Actually, this theory has nothing to do with the Balkans. There are some that see holes (see Dionysius), but they (the Tyrrheni) were clearly not Italic nor Ligurians/Λίγυες.

[Ayce]

I agree that this is indeed wrong (the author's theories). I have considered it and rejected it for these reasons:

1-yes the black sea did flood; and it may have driven sumer out of the area. but it is known that those who speak afro asiatic languages (semetic, hametic, chadic, etc) are based overwhelmingly in africa, and archeological and linguistic evidence points to them coming from africa before the black sea flooded (around 8000BC). if you want to know what these items of evidence are, I'll PM.
2-Egyptians were not semetic speaking in 6400BC. their language is only distantly related(both are afro-Asiatic).
3-the Ainu (or Ainu like poeple) have been documented in the area of japan and the Americas in around 7000BC (e.g. kenewick man). mitochondrial evidence also points there
4-thraikioi were apperently indo european themselves (at least as far as I could tell)
5-even if pelasgians influenced the romani, would the Etruscans count as pelasgians?
now as for the plates-I say that I can't say anything about them until a better analysis is conducted.

1. I didn't say the semitic language necessarily migrated, I said the guys that brought the semitic people more advanced technology and society.
2. Sorry about that, my mistake. There are 2 semitic branches coming from in East Anatolia, and another branch from center-west Anatolia is the pre-dynastic Egyptian.
3. I said maybe.
4. If they are closely related to the proto-indo-europeans, making such a confusion is only normal. Note: By the BSD theory, You have a pontic language group of which proto-indo-european is part of, a sort of proto-proto-indo-european or combination of the indo-european and aryan theories.
5. Yes they would be. There are indications that they migrated there. Ex: When the Etruscans offered the Romans shepherd's cheese, shepherd was coebanum, indicating a more eastern origin.

[paullus]

Well, with a closer exam, why does the artistic style of the figures seem very much like typical medieval types? Both in overall composition and individual motif? I'm just saying?

You're right, they do bear such similarities. But you may also connect aspects of the composition and artistry to the Gundestrep cauldron for instance, and even stretch to make a comparison to Venetic and archaic Etruscan cauldrons. The equipment seems relatively decent: phrygian caps/helmets or round, potentially la tene helms on most warriors. We see tall, narrow Celtic shields (spearmen on upper left), small and medium-sized round shields (on cavalry and the infantry on the lower left), and oval shields (on marines). If round shields ever became popular among Getic spearmen, we have no evidence for it--most evidence points toward simple oval shields for the entire period.

The main composition feature that seems anachronistic to me is the number of figures in that siege scene. While the design of individual figures may remind me of Gundestrep or a few other artifacts, the number and close spacing of figures looks medieval. Is there an actual battle plate, as opposed to plates showing large armies? It would be interesting to compare composition of battle in such a plate with composition in either medieval, archaic or Hellenistic battle depictions.

And what's up with dividing lines to throw in some pictures? When and where did people do that? I feel like that's a medieval phenomenon, but there are probably ancient examples somewhere, I just can't think of any off the top of my head.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Just the clarity of the letters (every single one, without fault, as has been mentioned before) seems so unlike anything remotely from the time period that I have ever seen.

[paullus]

are they carved or printed? the figures--the soldiers in particular--seem to be "printed" from molds. could the letters be "printed" from molds as well?

[Ibrahim]

1. I didn't say the semitic language necessarily migrated, I said the guys that brought the semitic people more advanced technology and society.
2. Sorry about that, my mistake. There are 2 semitic branches coming from in East Anatolia, and another branch from center-west Anatolia is the pre-dynastic Egyptian.
3. I said maybe.
4. If they are closely related to the proto-indo-europeans, making such a confusion is only normal. Note: By the BSD theory, You have a pontic language group of which proto-indo-european is part of, a sort of proto-proto-indo-european or combination of the indo-european and aryan theories.
5. Yes they would be. There are indications that they migrated there. Ex: When the Etruscans offered the Romans shepherd's cheese, shepherd was coebanum, indicating a more eastern origin.

thanks for the clarification on point one, my bad. I understand that your theory is subjunctive(with the maybe already noted), but the thraikikoi are still a worry.

[Ayce]

Teleklos Archelaou: Plates are worn in areas, not individual letters. EX:

Plates 28, 31, 106:








Not really a battle, but the aftermath:



Interesting to translate the second phrase, it mentions that on plate 65 you can see the method of formation of the plates, by using a thin metal plate mold. Can someone help translate it exactly? It's a bit technical.


Also plates featuring characters:







paullus: By dividing line, you mean the vertical line spanning the whole of plate 9? That is because it's a composite image.

[paullus]

no, by dividing lines I meant the places on many of the plates where pictures intrude into lines, interrupting or dividing lines of text and even interrupting words. I can't think of good comparisons to that prior to a few examples I've seen from the medieval period. But perhaps it was done earlier, even much earlier, and I just don't know the examples.

The number of round shields concerns me. Seems rather inaccurate. Also, many shots of architecture look medieval or later. For instance, I can see a round stone keep and a few bell-towers.

[Ayce]

no, by dividing lines I meant the places on many of the plates where pictures intrude into lines, interrupting or dividing lines of text and even interrupting words. I can't think of good comparisons to that prior to a few examples I've seen from the medieval period. But perhaps it was done earlier, even much earlier, and I just don't know the examples.

The number of round shields concerns me. Seems rather inaccurate. Also, many shots of architecture look medieval or later. For instance, I can see a round stone keep and a few bell-towers.

I think I remember seeing a roman inscription that had text interrupted by images. The interrupts words thing I wouldn't worry about. Most inscriptions that don't separate words terminate a row without ending a word.

Yes, the round shields is a bit weird, but it might be related to the period, or type of unit. I don't know. As for architecture, it looks more Doric than Medieval to me. And I don't spot any possible bell-towers.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

The building on the bottom left of page 105 looks like a bell tower to me, or at least like nothing ancient I've seen.

[abou]

abou: I find it myself impossible that the Romans could have borrowed from the Getai. The theory goes that the pre-Dacian linguistic continuum of the Balkan Peninsula greatly contributed to the cultural genesis of the Italic civilizations before the founding of Rome. A book about this theory was first published in 1913 - Prehistoric Dacia by Nicolae Densuşianu - translated into English here, with the limited data available at the time (ancient works, the Vatican archive, Romanian folklore vs ancient mythology, available archaeological findings). Now with the discovery of the Black Sea Deluge, this would be the chain of events:
Bosphorus opens in 6400 BC - advanced civilizations living around the Black Lake flee the rushing waters: proto-indo-europeans flee to the east and north (north branch evolves into balto-slavs, a small bit of the east branch may have reached Japan and formed the mysterious Ainu population), another branch flees toward Sumer, two semitic branches flee through Asia minor, one settling in Syria, one becoming the pre-dynastic Egyptians (bringing irrigation and agriculture), four branches flee westwards, the northernmost reaching Gaul (bringing longhouses), the southernmost settles in Dalmatia, the middle two being the Vinča and Hamangia cultures, bringing advanced pottery designs and the earliest pictographic writing - the synthesis of the Balkan cultures form the so-called Pelasgian civilization that exerted it's linguistic and religious influence over Italy - the Greeks arrived, took the basis of the religion, the technology and developed them, out competing the Pelasgians descendants, the Thracians - and you know the rest.

Ah, I see, I see. Interesting theory to say the least - though inacurate considering current knowledge. I'll have to read the link when I get the chance out of sheer curiosity.

Thank you, Ayce.