Forgery or Legit: Dacian art in lead plates?

[Romano-Dacis]

Given how rare any phyiscal remnant of the Dacians is, I thought it would be worthwhile to share the story of these plaques and the controversy behind them. These lead plates were discovered in the 19th century in Romania, and they were originally attributed as forgeries, but recently the topic has come up again as to whether they are authentic or not, since the tablets seem to contain information that was not available in any scholarly body of knowledge about the Dacians at that time, and no real physical evidence exists to prove they are fake.





More can be found here: http://www.bibliotheca-dacica.ro/frames_en.htm

The site has an English page and a Romanian page, and apperantly the scholarly concensus is still not solid as to whether these are legitemate or not.

The lead plaques form a library of over one hundred (possibly two hundred) of relief inscriptions – written in an unknown language with mostly Greek characters and lavishly illustrated – that speak about the Getic and Dacian civilization. The plaques were photographed during WW2 by Dan Romalo, in the basement of Bucharest’s Antiquities Museum, with the archeologist Ioan Nestor’s intent to publish. Marioara Golescu, a young researcher, was about to publish these plaques as a forgery attempt. According to I. Nestor’s statement, the plaques appeared in the museum in the times of Grigore Tocilescu, somewhere between the 19th and 20th century. No one ever doubted their unauthenticity, no one ever published them (unfortunately neither Marioara Golescu did), no researcher ever studied them. The plaques never benefited from an inventory or a summary mention in any written paper. 35 plaques reappeared (there is no mention where from) in 2002 and are now at the “Vasile Pârvan” Archeological Institute in Bucharest. Two more plaques rest at the Sinaia Monastery, and a few more, of smaller sizes and diverse materials can be found in private collections or Romanian museums.

On the one hand:

The analysis carried out at the Physics and Nuclear Engineering Institute in Bucharest by Dr. Bogdan Constantinescu in may 2004 showed a lead composition very similar to that used in typography lead in the 19th century, confirming the hypothesis of the copies or of a possible forgery.

On the other hand:

Although, analysis carried out on a single item in Oxford, item 023, by Dr. Peter Northover, left the debate open, as he proved that the lead from this item is nearly similar to that of a cramp removed from Sarmizegetusa’s wall and used as witness item. (ROMALO 2005: 291-292). The lack of funding, destined to more precise analysis of all remaining items, impedes us from drawing a clearer conclusion.

No one knows were does this library of plaques comes from, but oral traditions states that the leaded artifacts were made in the last quarter of the 19th century, on King Carol the 1st orders, from the gold originals, discovered in a thesaurus from Poiana Văcăriei in Sinaia, were the Peleş Castle was to be built.

So, even though the composition could indicate a fake, it is possible that these are legitemate or reproductions of a legitemate artefact.

It would indeed be interesting if they turned out to be authentic, as then they would reflect a great deal on the ability of the Getic and Dacian populace to absorb and adopt foreign cultures (notice the writing has Greek chracters). On other Dacian artefacts we possess have writing in Latin characters, but those date from the time of Decebal (88-107AD), which may have been as much as 3 centuries after these plates were made.

Opinions, anyone?

[abou]

If anyone on the team knows, it will be Paullus. I anxiously await to see what he thinks too.

[Daos]

I don't know, I'm not an expert but they don't look 2000 years old. Have they been deciphered yet? Maybe the text itself can give more evidence...

[Watchman]

I don't know, I'm not an expert but they don't look 2000 years old.

...meaning...?

[cmacq]

fake, fake, fake, and fake. to know the golden with but a wee touch of the commie's rule.



The material may be old, but they look very 1960's to me.

[Daos]

...meaning...?

Well meaning that lead is a very soft material. And these things don't show to many signs of degradation. They even have the look of 19th century printed material. Look at the overall form, not the letters.

[Tiberius Nero]

hmm, there isn't even one letter missing due to random damage and corrosion, how likely is that?

[Ayce]

Here is the book „Cronica getă apocrifă pe plăci de plumb” written by mr. Dan Romalo, who studied the plates for about 30 years: scanned and uploaded

The book is mostly in Romanian, though the possible translations and various chapters involving conclusions are translated into English. It's a must read. There is no nationalist chauvinism, only well documented research. The plates contain at least 3 distinct writing systems, two of them being dominant and decipherable, and among them, the most common being the Greek like one.

Now, IMO they are not fake. The task of faking 200 plates perfectly, involving complete historical accuracy and linguistic evolution in the 19th century or before was like going to the moon. Besides there was no interest in promoting anything Dacian, at that time, as only Romanity could gave us a political and cultural edge in that time-frame. And BTW the „legend” is that they were gold tablets, that in the 19th century were copied in lead to be smelted or that the originals were lost with the Romanian Treasure after WWI in Russia. The pictures he used in his study were made in 1946. Today only 30 of the lead plates survive.

[Romano-Dacis]

The material may be old, but they look very 1960's to me.

Ok, this statement doesn't even correlate with the evidence that might suggest it's fake. The plates, if they are fake, come from the 19th century.

hmm, there isn't even one letter missing due to random damage and corrosion, how likely is that?

The plates were originally been made of gold, or so the story goes. I do agree though, it is suspicious how well these plates were preserved.

Well meaning that lead is a very soft material. And these things don't show to many signs of degradation. They even have the look of 19th century printed material. Look at the overall form, not the letters.

These are supposedly reproductions of them in the 19th century, so anything about how "good the lead looks" wouldn't reflect too much on the authenticity, since these are reproductions.

The one thing which makes me really suspicious is the form of the translated words. Apperantly, the word for "god" is "dio", something which sounds very Italian (not even Latin, but like modern Italian). There are other suspicious translated words: paceo “peace”, armoso “army”, purcedeo “to leave, to proceed”. The abundant use of o's at the ends of words (read a little of the text) once again rings very much like modern Italian. The website tries to pass these off as "possibly words adopted from Latin by the Dacians" but something about this whole argument seems false.

Then again, my argument above isn't evidence I'd take to court, but it gives me reason to be suspicious.

[The Persian Cataphract]

Archaeological findings still have the tendency to surprise; Maybe we should not look at the plates themselves, but perhaps at the site of origins. Geo-physics and the quality of the soil can have a tremendous effect when it comes to preserving goods like these. Ice and salt for instance have yielded absolutely phenomenal findings on Tocharian "mummies" and the Parthian "salt-men", where even the most rudimentary earthen-ware and organic tissue have survived remarkably well. Textiles and leather in particular have survived with relatively little damage in those conditions.

Plates such as these are rather common in Iran; Seeing this high grade material does not surprise me and does not immediately give the impression of forgery, especially if there is an entire series of such findings. Sassanian gilded and silver-ware vessels and dishes, as well as Achaemenid and Parthian rhytons are of remarkably high quality. This does not surprise me a bit at all, and the lack "lacunae" in the text may be a bit unusual, but hardly an anomaly. Several metal plates from Persepolis display undeniable clarity on the cuneiform. A trained eye will see that these Dacian inscriptions are thoroughly made relief-works on metal with clearly protruding legends. These are fairly large objects after all, and not exactly as small as mere. This would by large explain the clarity of the text contained therein. However, what I think is not important. It's not my area of expertise, and the arbiter in my opinion would have to be a standard procedure dating process in order to establish a date. Paullus ought to know more about this.

Excellent pictures, by the way.

[Ayce]

Ok, this statement doesn't even correlate with the evidence that might suggest it's fake. The plates, if they are fake, come from the 19th century.



The plates were originally been made of gold, or so the story goes. I do agree though, it is suspicious how well these plates were preserved.



These are supposedly reproductions of them in the 19th century, so anything about how "good the lead looks" wouldn't reflect too much on the authenticity, since these are reproductions.

The one thing which makes me really suspicious is the form of the translated words. Apperantly, the word for "god" is "dio", something which sounds very Italian (not even Latin, but like modern Italian). There are other suspicious translated words: paceo “peace”, armoso “army”, purcedeo “to leave, to proceed”. The abundant use of o's at the ends of words (read a little of the text) once again rings very much like modern Italian. The website tries to pass these off as "possibly words adopted from Latin by the Dacians" but something about this whole argument seems false.

Then again, my argument above isn't evidence I'd take to court, but it gives me reason to be suspicious.

The conclusion mr. Romalo give is that it's the other way around. Whatever proto-Dacian language existed long before the tablets were created lexically influenced the various Italic languages. He also states that Dacian might be a pre-indo-european language due to the slightly „weird” grammar. Most words have a correspondence in modern-day Romanian (NOBAΛO - nobil, MATO - original meaning is lord, probably evolved into „mata”). A few have a form kept in French, rather than Romanian (AΔEΣIO - alliance, getting together, alăturare). Some names that exist today have been identified: Mara, Marica (MAPIK), Radu (ΡΑΔV ΤΡΙ - Radu the 3rd - probably a local taraboste). Historical figures have a slightly different form than expected: ΒΕΟΡΩΒΥΣ(Ε)ΤΟ/ΒΩΕΡΙΒΥΣΤΟ, ΔΑ?ΙΒΑΛΟ (where the ? is a Ψ with part of the left vertical line missing - representing a č). See the book for more. There is also a map of Sarmisegetusa (named ΣΑΡΜΙΨΙΤΙΟΖΑ (Ψ meaning dj) usually - BTW they had paved roads - ΣΘΡΑΤΟΥ). APMOΣA is army and APMOΣO is usually arming or a case of APMOΣA. Y is believed to be pronounced ju (iu, yu, you ), but I think it could also be a short i in some case, don't take my word for it though.

The general view is that they are forgeries, but this conclusion was drawn up without any real investigation, so it's invalid.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yes you've got a point there. Forgery or not, the fact that the material is well preserved doesn't really mean much.

For example (lots?) of jewelry from the Bosphoran settlements have been found, virtually intact. One may argue that gold doesn't easily disintegrate (which is false, btw) but in natural circumstances lead, especially lead coated in lead-oxide/lead-sulphate (which is what these 'plaquettes' basically are) does not suffer much from such decline either.

There's virtually nothing but strong acid which makes it disolve; so especially when the soil is base (soils rich in minerals, therefore often fertile) little or no decline takes place at all...

Question is: does the 'printing' reveal something?

[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?

[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.

[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?

[Romano-Dacis]

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.

Well it's kind of hard for me to accept a theory without reading the book.

Maybe it won't rewrite history if it were true, but some things I've never even heard about before, like "Regalianus's Kingdom" after the Aurelian withdrawal.


Can anyone honestly say this wouldn't completely change the political map of Europe in 271.

Who knows, maybe he's the only guy in the world who has it right and there really was a Dacoromania about half the size of the Roman Empire, but until I read his book, his claim has equal value in my eyes as "Sarmatians in England created the first English state."

Oh wait, they actually made a movie out of that...

[Ayce]

That map is AD before the Aurelian retreat. It wouldn't change anything in 271 BC, neither would the subject of this discussion. The map is the supposed Regalian Kingdom, Regalian being proclaimed Emperor by the people in Pannonia, Dacia, Thracia, Makedonia, Illyria, with the rest of the Dacians and the Goths joining in on the rebellion. He was killed before the Aurelian retreat. That first state of the Vlachs sound like BS to me since it wasn't only Vlachs. It was like the East/West split with a different guy claiming leadership and isn't relevant to the subject that deals with pre-Roman conquest Dacia.

PS: I wasn't commenting on Savescu's work.

Elmetiacos: Diiu Dio Ziu or Za (in composed words) written ΔΙΥ ΔΙΟ ZY or ZA is used as god - ZABEΛO (god of war) and ZABOΛY (god of sleep - now boală=disease)

[cmacq]

Right, just got back and haven't read any of the above posts. Has anyone mention the Albanians yet?

[Ayce]

Nope, though I could mention Albanian is called ΑΛΩΒΑΝΩ in one of the tablets, though because of the many Albania-like toponyms existing in that period, it's exact meaning isn't known.