Back to
Istituto Romenos Publications
Back to Homepage
Quaderni 2004
p. 13
Dragoș
Măndescu,
The
Argeș County Museum, History Department
In a present Europe willing more and more seldom to agree
and to promote in archaeological discourse the doctrines of kossinnian essence
with foundations since the 19th centurys first quarter[1],
should have been, practically, impossible that post-war Romanian archaeology
could dodge responsibility of such a purifying trial. In these circumstances it
become explicable why the conference held at Bucharest in 1997 by Karl Strobel,
Ph. D. of Trier University, whom accessibility was sensible increased by his
publishing, one year later, in Romanian language, into a large circulation and
authority periodical edited by Romanian Academy[2],
produced some waves through Romanian archaeological milieu which has as
predilect studies target the Second Iron Age. The main objection of the German scholar
was related to the way how the concept of Geto-Dacians or Daco-Getae is
used by Romanian archaeologists and historians. The Geto-Dacians term, a
modern creation, suggests, in an unhistorical manner, a historical and ethnic
unity. This levelling and generalizing concept involves an identity, false in
fact, of the two distinct units (Getae and Dacians) and, through this, the
existence of a unitary pseudo-éthnos.
The problem was not a new one. The question of
Geto-Dacian concepts legitimacy concerning the thorny problem of cultural
and ethnic unity was also required, two decades ago, by the Romanians scholars[3].
In Romanian historiography, the notion of Geto-Dacians is used with more or
less discernment as a conventional term, in generic sense, to designate the
whole ensemble of North-Danubian Thracian tribes. Just like that was evoked in
the solely in writing retort at Strobels objections[4],
the term of Geto-Dacians as well as the Daco-Getae one was used for the
first time in 1926 by Vasile Pârvan, in his Getica. A protohistory of Dacia
and represented initially a
p. 14
simple
convention meaning Northern Thracians the Thracians who lived North to the
Balkan Mountains. The concepts confiscation and warp is due to the intrusion
of policy in the easy handling historys domain.
The dogma of an unique Geto-Dacian folks antique
existence is not anything else than one of the sundries myths of Romanian
historiography, a creation of the modern nationalist ideology[5],
which tried a projection of the ancient Dacian kingdom over the present
territory of Romania and which insisted on the idea of unshaken unity of the
inhabitant people. This exaggeration didnt take place isolated ex abrupto, but it was included into a
whole dogmatic package, through which it can be more properly understood and
outside of which it couldnt had disclosed his real valences. The
exemplification of only few measures, belonging to above-mentioned ensemble,
is entirely relevant. It was proceeding to abusive labelling as Geto-Dacian
ones, not only in the case of a serial importations discovered in Dacia
Gallo-Roman metalwork items (the bronze masks from Piatra Roșie and Ocnița[6]),
Celtic[7]
and Germanic pottery[8],
but skittish even with the idea of certain Geto-Dacian contribution in the
genesis of a famous cauldron discovered in the bogs of Jutland[9]
had been supposed right auspicious. Not even the Romes symbols couldnt be
rescued from such labelling, the goddess Dianas personification on the averse
of a Roman republican denarium, roughly copied in clay, being suspected that it
would reflect a glaring symbolism of Dacian roots nothing more or less than
the Thracian goddess Bendis[10]!
A symptomatic image of the former ideology is the one offered by the map constantly
facsimiled in all the history museums from Romania of the Geto-Dacian
political entities before the Burebista (between 4th-2nd
centuries B. C.): the pre-Roman Dacias space was forcibly crowded by multiple
even if some of them entirely anonymous territorial unites; it didnt count
that some neighbouring unites were not contemporary at all[11].
The landscape wouldnt be complete if the straight aberrant situations on which
it has been attained rest unnoticed, like that illustrated by a central
periodical, in which, under the frontispiece of obligatory section 2050 years
from the creation of the first centralized and independent Dacian state, laid
a single article, signed A. Deac, entitled 1918: The Great Union[12].
p. 15
For the argumentation of the legitimate rights on
territory through the paradigm of the oldest, eventually the first known
inhabitants, it was affirmed, on the basis of a patriotism with true
sentimental valence, that our Getae [sic!] resided on these lands since the
Bronze Age. It didnt count again that the Dacians were testified by literary
sources hardly towards the middle of 1st century B. C. they must
have been existing for as long as the Getae have, too, because the
historical-linguistic researches proved that the Daco-Getae are one and the
same people[13]. It was a
constant struggling on the historiographys and therewith on the mental domains
to suggest a merged unity without any chasm, monolithic like. The likely
specialization of territorial, ethnical and linguistic nature or of cultural
orientations, because these couldnt be suppressed through an offensive
demagogy, was ordinary hushed, placed under the sign of the taboo. Here is the
place to recall the fact that in the domain of the external influences too, the
two great North-Thracian areas (Dacian and Getian ones) chose different
options. Banat and Transylvania constantly stood, since the First Iron Age, in
the Italic culture influence area (for instance, bronze situlae of Hajdúböszörmeny type, like that from Remetea Mare and
the fragments from Sâg, or North-Italic bronze bucket like those from Brăduț
and Alba-Iulia were never found in the Getian territory), while the Getae
from the Lower Danube knew in an overwhelming proportion the Greek-Macedonian
one. More than these, the distinctive traits and the precocious cultural
flourishing of the Getian tribes had occasioned thesis of their inclusion,
cultural and ethnical, in the South-Thracians group, idea underlined, sometimes
with overmuch supererogation, since almost a half century ago[14].
Using, by means of a mental automatism, the
Geto-Dacians concept, has tried the translation of a reality specific to the
Dacian kingdom, viewed like a symbol of unity and of struggle for
independence, about some earliest times, quite less proper to this concept.
The so beloved motif of unbreakable unity has necessitated being the prime
one. What kind of Geto-Dacian unity may be implied in the space of future
kingdom ruled by Burebista and later by Decebalus, if in the same time when the
Thraco-Getian prince has been entombed at Agighiol, the Celts buried their
deeds on the sand dune at Pișcolt, and in the end of the next century, the
Bastarn spearhead started breakthrough in Northern and Central Moldavia and the
Danubian Oltenia has known more and more intensely the influence of the Celtian
people of Scordisci, exerted, very probably by an effective presence, and not
at far? Authorized viewpoints are the followers of the cautious deliverance, by
using the indigenous concept, without ethnic determination, for instance,
when we speak of old-timer population from Transylvania and Crișana under the
Celtic domination in 3rd-2nd centuries B. C.[15]
p.
16
The uniform term of Geto-Dacians is retrieved in
unhappy chosen formulations, in contradiction both to researched space and to
chronological frame which reference is: hereby, we can meet it used respecting
the extra-Carpathian space between 4th-3rd centuries B.
C.[16]
or respecting Wallachian Plain during the whole Second Iron Age[17].
Not even the Dacias Roman conquest had not the power to leave off the
exploitation of the concepts ethnical valence, in respective occurrence
Geto-Dacians being the free barbarians from Wallachia, Eastern of Limes
Alutanus[18].
The counselled ones can easy observe that the
preeminence of one or another of the double construction is due to the
preference induced by the archaeological school in which the respective scholar
has been formed a kind of local patriotism which succeeded to yield a
disgraceful effect of inconsistency: the coins are of the Geto-Dacians [19]
yet the pottery is a Daco-Getian one[20].
But not even this guideline is not followed to the end, sometimes the
archaeological school being betrayed: according to their publishers, the davon at Ocnița, in the Western
Wallachia, is a Dacian one[21],
likewise of that from the Siret river at Brad[22],
and of enclosure at Pietroasele[23]
in the Buzău sub-Carpathians, assertions which can be only partially justified,
at most by a little later chronological framework.
The last examples are exceptional occurrences,
because, regularly, when it is used only a single component of the double term,
leaving apart the consequences of application of ubiquitous principles related
by above-evoked local patriotism, the result is more closer of antique reality:
the davon at Grădiștea, in the
extreme Eastern Wallachia, is a Getian one[24],
the dava from Wallachia in the Second
Iron Age are Getians ones[25].
For the East-Carpathians space between 5th-1st centuries
B. C., there have been very sporadic the meritorious occurrences in which it
told exclusively about the Getae and Getian culture, without any Dacians
involvement[26]. In
exchange, for the archaeologists belonging to Transylvanian school, the
inhabitants of Dacia are, at most,
p. 17
Daco-Getae[27].
The Transylvanian literature steadily makes not even one concession to Getian
term the titles are only for the Dacians[28].
Evidently, this rigorous point of view sometimes led to exaggerations and
inaccuracies. For instance, the book entitled Dacian Portraits opened with
that of Getian ruler Dromichaites[29].
Sustaining, only by absurd, the Odrysian origin of Dromichaites, ex officio of an error also famous due
to Polybios (or due to his later ignorant scribes), we might have more success
towards our obtruded point of view, than if we try an argumentation advocating
the Dacian roots of this basileus! On
few occasions, probably to achieve a bigger impact force, the Getae are almost
completely forgotten, being sacrificed for the Dacians into some titles in
catalogues of exhibitions of archaeological artefacts among 4th B.
C. and 1st A. D. centuries[30]
but what Dacian have inside of them the treasures and glitter tombs of 4th
century from the Lower Danube? Sometimes, to rescue of the cause, it was
performed even an abusive substitute, inside the famous Herodotus IV.93 antique
testimony, of the Getae term with the Dacians one[31].
It was not for the first time, forasmuch with a decade and a half previously,
the first chapter of a volume entitled The Dacians, was called The most
brave and most honest of the Thracians[32].
What is Getian, what is Dacian and, for that
matter, if yet anything else rests, what is Geto-Dacian or Daco-Getian,
still needs to become more definite, clarified and sedimented in the
preoccupations on theoretical floor of Romanian archaeology. Surely, this one
will be not a sterile discussion.
A doubtless
reality is that, differential by preceding the period of 7th-5th
centuries dominated by a mosaic of regional cultural peculiarities[33],
and by that of 4th-3rd centuries when the Carpathian
Danubian space was split up between the early Getian culture of
Enisala-Murighiol type[34],
Celtic culture of Latène type[35]
and, then, the Poienești-Lukaevka culture belonging to Germanic tribes of
Bastarnae[36], a short
period
p. 18
after the Celtian factor ceased to
show up in Transylvania, the lands populated by Getae and Dacians tribes start
to promote a self defined image by a relative cultural unity. Sheepish
initially, but in time more and more outstanding, this unity led to the
proposal and then to the legitimacy of the concept of classical Geto-Dacian
culture.
For the argumentation and exemplification of the common
traits of the classical Geto-Dacian culture, the pottery constituted the most
important factor[37]. The forms,
technique and ornamentation of the ceramics are unitary, exceeding whatever
local plies, in the whole space inhabited by Getae and Dacians. New ceramic
shapes, like fruits bowl and Dacian cup are supposed entirely peculiar to
this culture and their diffusion, especially of the last one, over an extended
area starting with 1st century B. C., from Olbia to Balkan Mountains
and to Slovakia (and actually to Eastern Austria[38]),
outside the archaeological testify of a temporary expansion of king Burebistas
lordship, didnt keep not the Romanian historiography from some caddish
nationalistic exaggerations.
But in this domain of pottery apparently so unitary,
too, there is a series of differentiation between the two areas separated by
the Carpathians, over which we cannot pass so easy. The fruits bowl with a
high and serrated in triangular shapes leg, an oldest form, is absent from the
inner of Carpathian arch. The rich and intricate embossed decorated bowls,
autochthonous replica of the prototypes made in Delos an Megara, know, between
middle of the 2nd and middle of the 1st centuries B. C. [39]
a preponderant Southern diffusion (especially in the Wallachian Plain) and some
more seldom in East (Moldavia), that in Transylvania being only few rare
appearances (i. e. Piatra Craivii, Sighișoara, Țigmandru)[40].
The abundance of the importation amphorae, especially the Rhodian ones, in the
Getian extra-Carpahians habitations, understudied by the presence of imitated
autochthonous amphorae have not a real correspondent in Transylvania[41].
The presumption that the wines and oils, which came from the
p. 19
Hellenistic
South, were passing across the Carpathians by skins[42]
is ostensibly joust but not enough of satisfactory.
The general picture of the silver treasures, another
intrinsically component in the classical Geto-Dacian culture, bear a light
peculiarity, too, because these are characterized by a Dacian preponderant
diffusion. The spread areas map of silver fibula with nodes on foot, basically
item of silver treasures in their early phase, therein is more than
symptomatic.
On the macrostructure level, both
South-Carpathian Getian space (i. e. Popești, Cârlomănești, Ocnița,
Sprâncenata), East-Carpathian (i. e. Poiana, Răcătău, Brad), from Dobrudja (i.
e. Satu Nou), and the Dacian one too, from Banat (i. e. Pecica) or from
Transylvania (i. e. Cugir, Piatra Craivii, Racoș) are studded, starting with
the middle of the 2nd century B. C., by big settlements of davon, dava[43] type, equivalents of the oppida of Celtic world or, in some
structural aspects, of Greeks poleis .
Few ones of them were identified, more or less convincing, with the localities testified
by the third book of Ptolemys Geography.
More relevant than material creation for
illustration of cultural levelment reached during the classical period proved
themselves to be the aspects linked to spiritual component which it is
notorious given their conservatism, should endure very hard or at all
mutations in case of some different and uncomplimentary populations. In the
first instance, it must be cited the phenomenon of the absence of Geto-Dacian
ordinary populations cemeteries, phenomenon that is a piece of the larger
European landscape without graves [44].
Beyond
any doubt, this reality cannot be put on account of the researches stade, and
it was explained through the so-called discreet rites. The only few graves,
probably belonging to aristocratic families of warriors chieftains, met in the
proximity of major dava,
cannot compensate these parsimonious picture. The absence of graveyards in the
Geto-Dacian world is associated, instead of it, with a recrudescence of human
sacrifices[45].
In the same domain of this cultures spiritual
component it is marked out the relatively uniform diffusion in the space
inhabited by Getae and Dacians, between the 2nd B. C. and the 1st
A. D. centuries, of the enclosures and sacred places with sacrifices and
voluntary deposed of gifts to the gods[46].
The cultic architecture knew in this epoch, as well, a common form for the both
Getian and Dacian spaces, characterized by a
p. 20
remarkable
uniformity and conservatism, namely the construction with the apse towards
Northwestern sector, considerated some kind of sanctuary[47].
At the end of these partial and maybe too personal
strokes, the question arises: should we have maintained or should we have
rejected the so-blamed Geto-Dacians term? The answer without any claim of
postulate is, like always, somewhere at the middle.
Beyond the affirmation often bided over, sedulous
repeated until saturation and converted into Leitmotiv of Trogus Pompeius XXXII, 3, 16: Daci quoque suboles
Getarum sunt (The Dacians as well are a scion of the Getae), in the guarded
spirit intercessions of present-day Romanian historiography it is admitted the
fact that denominations of Getae and Dacians have a proper history and an own
purport which evolved in time[48].
The (double) term, which is so convenient to Romanian
languages usage, can be indulged, but only in its primary meaning, the
conventional one[49]. The
ideological and militant coat which today doesnt find any self justification,
being abandoned, we hope for ever in which the concept was dressed with
perseverance during three decades, from the 60s till the 80s, constitutes a
still living example in our mind regarding the involvement of policy in
historical domain. And, therewith, a warning for the future.
For this material, permission is granted for
electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and
personal use.
Whether you intend to utilize it in scientific purposes, indicate the
source: either this web address or the Quaderni della Casa Romena 3 (2004)
(a cura di
Ioan-Aurel Pop e Cristian Luca), Bucarest: Casa Editrice dellIstituto Culturale
Romeno, 2004
No permission is granted for
commercial use.
© Șerban Marin, June 2005,
Bucharest, Romania
Last updated: July 2006
Back to Homepage
Quaderni 2004
Back to
Istituto Romenos Publications
[1] Gustav Kossinna, Die
deutsche Vorgeschichte, eine hervorragend nationale Wissenschaft, Ist
edition, Dresda, 1912; Ibidem, IInd edition,
Mannus-Bibliothek 9, Berlin, 1925; Idem, Ursprung
und Verbreitung der Germanen in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit,
Mannus-Bibliothek 6, Leipzig, 1926.
[2] Karl Strobel, Dacii.
Despre complexitatea mărimilor etnice, politice și culturale ale istoriei
spațiului Dunării de Jos, in Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și
Arheologie, 59, no. 1, 1998, pp. 61-95.
[3] Alexandru Vulpe, Puncte
de vedere privind istoria Daciei preromane, in Revista de Istorie, 32,
no. 12, 1979, pp. 2262-2264; Mircea Babeș, Lunité
et la diffusion des tribus géto-dace à la lumière des donées
archéologiques, in Actes du IIe
Congrès International de Thracologie, vol. II, Bucharest, 1980, p.
8.
[4] Al. Vulpe, Geto-dacii?,
in Centrul de Istorie Comparată a Societăților Antice, no. 1-2, 1998, p. 3.
[5] Lucian Boia, Istorie
și mit în conștiința românească, IIIrd enlarged edition,
Bucharest, 2002, p. 31, p. 216.
[6] Constantin Daicoviciu, Cetatea dacică de la Piatra Roșie, Bucharest, 1954, pp. 117-119,
fig. 37-38; Dumitru Berciu, Masca de
bronz de la Buridava dacică (Ocnița), jud. Vâlcea, din vremea lui Augustus,
in Apulum, no. 13, 1975, pp. 615-617.
[7] Iliri și daci,
Cluj-NapocaBucharest, 1972, p. 163, pl. XXXII/D92.
[8] Mihail Macrea, Dumitru Protase, Mircea Rusu, Șantierul arheologic Porolissum, in
Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice, no. 7, 1961, p. 368, fig. 8/13.
[9] Kurt Horedt, Zur
Herkunft und Datierung des Kessels von Gundestrup, in Jahrbuch des
Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum Mainz, no. 14, 1967, pp. 134-143.
[10]C. Daicoviciu and coll., Șantierul arheologic Grădiștea Muncelului, in Materiale și
Cercetări Arheologice, no. 5, 1959, pp. 396-397, fig. 8.
[11] M. Babeș, rewiew I
daci, Milano, 1997, in Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și
Arheologie, 48, no. 2, 1997, pp. 180-181.
[12] Revista Arhivelor, no. 55, 1978, 40/4.
[13] Hadrian Daicoviciu, Dacii, Bucharest, 1965, pp. 11-17.
[14] D. Berciu, Sunt
geții traci nord-dunăreni? Un aspect arheologic al problemei, in Studii și
Cercetări de Istorie Veche, 11, no. 2, 1960, pp. 261-283.
[15] M. Babeș, in Al. Vulpe, Mircea PetrescuDâmbovița
(coord.), Istoria românilor, vol. I, Moștenirea timpurilor îndepărtate,
Bucharest, 2001, pp. 517-518.
[16] Aurel Zanoci, Fortificațiile
geto-dacice din spațiul extracarpatic în secolele VI-III a. Chr.,
Bibliotheca Thracologica 25, Bucharest, 1998.
[17] Mioara Turcu, Geto-dacii
din Câmpia Munteniei, Bucharest, 1979.
[18] Gheorghe Bichir, Geto-dacii
din Muntenia în epoca romană, Biblioteca de Arheologie 43, Bucharest, 1984.
[19] Constantin Preda, Monedele
geto-dacilor, Biblioteca de Arheologie 19, Bucharest, 1973.
[20] Ioan Horațiu Crișan, Ceramica daco-getică. Cu specială privire la Transilvania,
Biblioteca Muzeelor, Bucharest, 1969.
[21] D. Berciu, Buridava
dacică, Biblioteca de Arheologie 40, Bucharest, 1981.
[22] Vasile Ursachi, Zargidava.
Cetatea dacică de la Brad, Bibliotheca Thracologica 10, Bucharest, 1995.
[23] Vasile Dupoi, Valeriu Sîrbu, PietroaseleGruiu Dării. Incinta dacică fortificată, vol. I,
Biblioteca Mousaios, Buzău, 2001.
[24] V. Sîrbu, Dava
getică de la Grădiștea, județul Brăila, Biblioteca Istros 12, Brăila, 1996.
[25] Radu Vulpe, Așezări
getice din Muntenia, Monumentele Patriei Noastre 25, Bucharest, 1966.
[26] Mark Tkaciuk, Manifestări
culturale din secolul V-I a. Chr., in Thraco-Dacica, no. 15, 1994, pp.
221-228.
[27] C. Daicoviciu, Die
Dako-Geten. Eine Richtigstellung, in Ier
Congrès International de Thracologie. Contribution roumaine, Sofia,
1972, pp. 67-75; H. Daicoviciu, Dacia și
daco-geții, in Iliri și daci, pp.
65-82.
[28] Ioan Glodariu, Eugen Iaroslavschi, Civilizația fierului la daci,
Cluj-Napoca, 1979; I. Glodariu, Arhitectura
dacilor civilă și militară (sec. II î. e. n.-I. e. n.), Cluj-Napoca,
1983; H. Daicoviciu, Ștefan Ferenczi, I. Glodariu, Cetăți și așezări dacice în sud-vestul Transilvaniei, vol. I,
Bucharest, 1989; Aurel Rustoiu, Metalurgia
bronzului la daci (sec. II î. Chr.-sec. I d. Chr.). Tehnici, ateliere și
produse de bronz, Bibliotheca Thracologica 15, Bucharest, 1996; E.
Iaroslavschi, Tehnica la daci,
Cluj-Napoca, 1997.
[29] H. Daicoviciu, Portrete
dacice, Domnitori și voievozi 24, Bucharest, 1984, pp. 9-29.
[30] Iliri și daci,
passim; I daci, passim.
[31] Die Daker. Archäologie
in Rumänien, exhibition catalogue, Mainz, 1980, p. 9.
[32] H. Daicoviciu, Dacii,
Bucharest, 1965.
[33] Al. Vulpe, Archäologische
Forschungen und historische Betrachtungen über das 7. bis 5. Jh. im
Donau-Karpatenraum, in Memoria Antiquitatis, no. 2, 1970, pp. 115-213.
[34] Emil Moscalu, Ceramica
traco-getică, Bucharest, 1983.
[35] Vlad Zirra, Beiträge
zur Kenntnis des keltischen Latène in Rumänien, in Dacia, N. S.,
no. 15, 1971, pp. 171-238.
[36]
M. Babeș, Die Poienesti-Lukasevka-Kultur.
Ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte im Raum östlich der Karpaten in den letzen
Jahrhunderten vor Christi Geburt, Saarbrucker Beitrage zur Altertumskunde
30, Bonn, 1993; Idem, s. v. Poienești-Lukaevka-Kultur,
in Heinrich Beck, Dieter Geuenich, Heiko Steuer (coord.), Reallexicon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, Berlin, 2003, pp.
230-239.
[37] M. Babeș, Lunité
et la diffusion des tribus géto-dace à la lumière des donées
archéologiques, in Actes du IIe
Congrès International de Thracologie, vol. II, pp. 9-10.
[38] Stefan Folitiny, Eine
dakische Henkel schale aus Müllendorf in der Wolf-Sammlung des Burgenländischen
Landesmuseum, in Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland, no. 35,
1966, pp. 79-88.
[39] M. Babeș, Problèmes
de la chronologie de la culture géto-dace a la lumiére des fouilles de
Cârlomănești, in Dacia, N. S., no. 19, 1975, p. 136, fig. 7.
[40] Ioana CassanFranga, Contribuții la cunoașterea ceramicii geto-dacice. Cupele deliene
getice de pe teritoriul României, in Arheologia Moldovei, no. 5, 1967,
pp. 7-35; I. H. Crișan, op. cit., pp.
137-140, fig. 63, pl. CLXX-CLXXI; M. Turcu, Les
bols à reliefs des collections du Musée dHistoire du Municipe de
Bucharest, in Dacia, N. S., no.
20, 1976, pp. 199-204; Al. Vulpe, Maria Gheorghiță, Bols à reliefs de Popești, in Dacia, N. S., no. 20, 1976,
pp. 167-198; Niculae Conovici, Cupele cu
decor în relief de la Crăsani și Copuzu, in Studii și Cercetări de Istorie
Veche și Arheologie, 29, no. 2, 1978, pp. 165-183; Constantin Popescu, Original și imitație în cultura materială a
geto-dacilor. Boluri cu decor în relief, in Angustia, no. 5, 2000, pp.
235-264.
[41] I. Glodariu, Relații
comerciale ale Daciei cu lumea elenistică și romană, Cluj-Napoca, 1974, pp.
181-209, pl. II.
[42] Viorica Eftimie, Imports
of stamped amphorae in the lower Danubian regions and a draft Rumanian corpus
of amphore stamps, in Dacia, N. S., no. 3, 1959, p. 206, note 44; I.
Glodariu, Arhitectura dacilor, pp.
31-32.
[43] Al. Vulpe, Geto-dacii?,
p. 5, Excursus I, for the reasons of
Greek grammatically form.
[44] M. Babeș, Descoperirile
funerare și semnificația lor în contextul culturii geto-dace clasice, in
Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie, 29, no. 1, 1988, pp.
3-37.
[45] V. Sîrbu, Credințe
și practici funerare, religioase și magice în lumea geto-dacilor, Biblioteca
Istros 3, Galați, 1993, pp. 31-36.
[46] Idem, Incinte
și locuri sacre cu sacrificii și depuneri de ofrande în lumea geto-dacilor,
in Pontica, no. 27, 1994, pp. 39-59.
[47] Cristina Bodó, Construcțiile
cu absidă din Dacia preromană, in Istros, X, 2000, pp. 251-275.
[48] Al. Vulpe, in Al. Vulpe, M. PetrescuDâmbovița
(coord.), Istoria românilor, vol. I,
pp. 417-419.
[49] Al. Vulpe, Geto-dacii?,
p. 10.