CHAPTER II .

THE PEOPLES OF NORTHERN EUROPE THE GETAE AND DACIANS

I. 

THE EARLIEST AGES

 

THE difficulties that beset attempts to determine when man first appeared on any part of our globe, are increased in the case of Northern Europe by its repeated glacial periods. It may be presumed that by far the greater part of the traces of man which probably existed from interglacial times have been completely obliterated by the destructive action of the ice on the earth’s surface. It is therefore significant that the most northerly dwelling-place finds of indisputable Early-Palaeolithic character in Germany lie outside the latest North European ice-cap, which is considered to fall in the Magdalenian period of West Europe. No decisive evidence that the Baltic districts also were inhabited as early as the last interglacial epoch has yet been advanced, but it is possible that it may be forthcoming from certain parts of the Scandinavian peninsula. Geologists have, indeed, proved that parts of Norway, particularly the coastal districts from Bergen to Lofoten, were not entirely covered by the latest land-ice. It has also been conjectured that the very ancient North-Norwegian Komsa culture discovered during recent years has its origins in the interglacial epoch. It is, however, worthy of mention that finds which are probably still older than the Komsa dwelling-places found hitherto have been made on the west coast of Sweden. These finds are thought to belong to the period about 9000 b.c. If it cannot yet be regarded as certain that the Komsa culture represents an immigration from the south, it is true of the Lyngby culture, ascribed to the Mesolithic Age, which is represented above all by picks or axes of reindeer horn and is undoubtedly that of a hunting people who followed in the tracks of the reindeer the receding ice-edge over the tundras of Northern Europe.

It is still not known to what race the bearers of the Komsa and Lyngby cultures belonged, as there are no skeleton remains from that period, nor has any direct connection been traced between that settlement and the one immediately following it, also Mesolithic, called the Maglemose culture after a place in Seeland. During the Ancylus period when the Baltic was a fresh-water inland lake, this culture extended over its North German and East Baltic shores and, above all, the Scandinavian peninsula. There is a find of skeleton remains of this age from Stangenas in Bohuslan (Sweden), which are ascribed to the Nordic race and so mark their first appearance in prehistory. The settlement attested by the kitchen-middens on the shores of the Litorina-Tapes Sea is a direct development of this civilization. This is also true of the numerous Neolithic Age dwelling-places which are characterized particularly by an abundance of pottery.

At the beginning of the North European Neolithic Age (which is placed by Montelius, probably too early, about 4000 b.c.) a culture with agriculture and cattle-raising appears here. The Megalithic graves characteristic of one of the main groups of a later stage in the new civilization are regarded as barbaric imitations of the built graves of the Orient which reached Scandinavia by way of the coasts of North Africa and Western Europe. They certainly came here by way of England, and they have also been interpreted as evidence of an immigration from the west. This question must still be regarded as unsettled. On the other hand it must be taken as established that the Megalithic grave culture of the Baltic regions is associated with that of Western Europe and has its centre on the Danish Islands. The German and Dutch Megalithic graves may probably be regarded as simplified descendants of the Nordic ones. Strong influence from the north can also be traced in the German-Dutch Megalithic grave culture. Certain types of tools and weapons and the abundant pottery attest this affinity.

Scandinavia and North Germany also show common features in the second main group of the agricultural civilization of the Stone Age—that of the single graves. Opinions vary greatly as to the interpretation of these conditions. On the one hand this culture, which is marked by beautiful battle-axes and pottery of a definite type, is taken to be a Scandinavian culture group which spread over adjacent parts of the continent. According to another theory it is due to a wave of culture from the south, brought by the Indo-Europeans who migrated into the country at that time. A third school identifies the Nordic race (Homo europaeus) with the Indo-Germanic primitive people who spread from South Scandinavia, or that region together with North-West Germany, beginning as early as the Stone Age. Where the truth lies it is at present impossible to decide. The fact that in Scandinavia—apart from its northernmost parts inhabited by Lapps and Finns—no names of places or of natural features are met with which are not of Indo-European origin, deserves very serious attention. They invite a comparison with other very different conditions found, for example, in Greece. It is thus not impossible that Tacitus was right in thinking that the Germani were the original inhabitants of their country, and it is a tenable view that the North German and Scandinavian agriculturalists of the Later Stone Age are largely directly descended from the nomads who occupied the land when the ice receded. In any event, it is probably right to describe the inhabitants of Scandinavia and North Germany between Weser-Aller and the lower Oder (or Vistula) during the Later Stone Age as proto-germanic.

It is more difficult to determine whether the original home of the Germanic people included the East Baltic countries. Western Finland and parts of the former Russian Baltic provinces exhibit a Stone Age culture which, in general, shows considerable resemblances to the Scandinavian—though here Megalithic graves are not found. Nevertheless, the paucity of the skeleton material from this period—entirely lacking in Finland—makes it impossible to draw any certain conclusions. But it has been assumed both by philologists and archaeologists that the Swedish-speaking inhabitants of the present day in Finland derive from the Stone Age. The ‘comb-pottery’ on the other hand, which is richly represented in Eastern Europe and also in countries north and south of the Gulf of Finland, is ascribed in general to Finnish and Baltic tribes.

Conditions during the Bronze Age (which in Scandinavia began c. 1800 b.c.) agree with those of the Later Stone Age in so far as the centre of culture lay in Denmark, and still more markedly than before. At the same time the boundary towards the south is still more sharply drawn than during the Stone Age. Foreign influences are more pronounced in North Germany than in Scandinavia, and on the Continent the way is less prepared for the development of a national culture. Even in this period, however, traces of Scandinavian influences in North Germany appear partly in the shape of imported goods and partly in the development and forms of the remains. But the competition of the southern metal cultures was too strong, and during the Bronze Age northern influences do not extend over the continent as they did earlier. On the other hand, Nordic cultures gain in the East some compensation for what is lost in the South. South-West Finland may now be described as a province of Central-Swedish culture. In a lesser degree Swedish influences extend even to the countries south of the Gulf of Finland, and clear traces of it are found as far east as the regions of Oka and the upper Volga.

Although the continental part of Germanic territory with its largely heterogeneous culture seems less markedly an outward fringe of Scandinavia, its civilization shows great vitality. The spread of Late Bronze Age razors of Nordic type and certain clay vessels has been adduced as evidence of the expansion of this culture and its bearers towards the Rhine during that period. The rise of the East-German culture group (‘Grossendorfkultur) with its centre in Pommerellen (the district between the Vistula and the Persante) is also of great importance. Its strongly local character indicates that it is deeply rooted and tells against the theory that it marks an invasion moving from West to East. But it is rich and vigorous and exercises a considerable influence, especially on the Bronze Age of Eastern Scandinavia.

The end of the Bronze Age, at the middle of the first millennium b.c., shows a cultural weakening in Northern Europe. This continues during the early centuries of the Iron Age when it is characterized by great paucity of finds, and it does not cease until the second century b.c. This decline has been attributed to various causes, such as the Celtic migrations on the continent, which interrupted communications with the metal exporting countries. That an interruption of this kind actually did play a part is confirmed by the fact that the beginning of the renascence seems to coincide with the exploitation of the native bog-ore iron in the middle of the second century. It has also been maintained by men of science that a deterioration of climate occurred in Europe during these centuries. The view that this was a factor in the cultural depression finds some support in the repeated emigrations from Scandinavia which can be assigned to this period—those of the Vandals, the Burgundians, the Goths, and others. That these peoples were of Scandinavian origin is attested by their own traditions, their ethnic names, their house-forms, the evidence of philology and archaeological data, while the fact that these ethnic names appear in Tacitus as those of continental Germanic tribes indicates that their emigration to the continent must have begun before the end of the first century b.c.

II.

THE ENTRANCE INTO HISTORY OF THE NORTHERN PEOPLES

 

The Germania of Tacitus marks the entrance into history of the North-European peoples. But long before his time isolated glimpses are caught of them. The name of a Scandinavian people (the Teutones) is first met with in Pytheas. This Greek from Massilia, who made a journey to Britain at the beginning of the fourth century b.c., mentions Thule, lying six days journey to the north of Britain. That country has been identified as the northern part of Norway. Information about the continental part of Germania in other authors may be traced to his work, which has itself perished. The first more detailed description of a North-European people is Polybius’ picture of the Bastarnae, whose connection with the Germani, however, it was left for the elder Pliny to elucidate. The first writer to realize that the Germani were a people by itself, separable from Celts and Scythians, was Posidonius (135—51 b.c.), in his lost continuation of Polybius’ historical work. It is from his writings that classical authors chiefly derive their pictures of the violent attacks of the Cimbri and the Teutones—the first sign of the ‘blonde peril’ threatening the Roman Empire. Important information about the Germani—though sometimes hard to interpret—is also contained in Caesar’s Gallic War. To the decades immediately before and after the beginning of the Christian era belong three sources concerning northern Europe that supplement each other—Augustus’ short presentation in his Res Gestae of the most important results of his foreign policy, Velleius’ detailed description of Tiberius’ campaigns, and Strabo’s geo­graphical work. Augustus and Strabo mention the Cimbri, but on the whole the Elbe is still the boundary of the world as known to the Romans. The summary of the geographical knowledge of the time presented by Pomponius Mela shortly before the middle of the first century a.d., mentions the Sinus Codanus and its island world north of the Elbe. He is here probably referring only to the southern part of the west coast of Jutland. Pliny shows himself considerably better informed in his Natural History, in which five main Germanic tribes are enumerated. Of the countries north of the Baltic he mentions the island of Scadinavia, a word which is probably akin to the name of the Swedish province Skane (Scania), and may be assumed to refer to the southern portion of the Scandinavian peninsula.

In the knowledge of North Europe among the civilized people of his time Tacitus’ Germania marks a great advance. The work, the original title of which is assumed to have been De situ et origine Germanorum, is one of the earliest works known to us wholly devoted to the presentation of a geographico- ethnographical subject.

From the first chapter of the Germania we can conclude that the shifting towards the south which the distribution of the Scandinavian tribes indicates was paralleled among the Germanic people on the continent. This becomes clear when the contents of that chapter are compared with the evidence of archaeological research. In the middle of the last millennium b.c., when the southern boundary between the Germani and the Celts is easy to trace, thanks to the entirely different burial customs of the two peoples, the Germani practising cremation, the Celts inhumation, the conditions in the Saale districts afford clear evidence. The territory of the Germani does not extend farther south than the Harz and the Celts still occupy Thuringia. In the time of Tacitus, however, the Germani’s southern boundary lies along the Danube.

He gives the Rhine as the western boundary of the Germani, though he himself states that the Mattiaci (around Wiesbaden) were clients of Rome and that the area in the angle between the Rhine and the Danube {agri decumates) lay within the boundaries of the Roman Empire. The statement that the Rhine was the Germani’s western boundary is also misleading in so far as it ignores the tribes living west of the Rhine, some of whom Tacitus himself enumerated. Efforts have been made to decide from arch­aeological evidence when these Germani cisrhenani mentioned by Caesar occupied Eastern Gaul, and a number of grave-finds have been interpreted as indicating that the Germani passed the lower Rhine as early as in the middle of the last century b.c..

Tacitus’ statement must be taken to refer to the political boundary between the Roman Empire and free Germania. For the rest, there are many signs that this boundary was not exclusively political, and that before the close of the first century a.d. the Romans had made a considerable advance in their endeavour to merge the foreign element into the body of the community. It is probable that the task of absorbing the western Germanic tribes into the Roman Empire was facilitated by the fact that the people there were not unmixed. Caesar’s statements about the Belgae indicate that the Celts had not been entirely driven out, but had largely remained in the country. It is difficult to decide whether the Germani west of the Rhine had simply become celticized, as some scholars have assumed. The grave finds are rather scanty, and in addition the two cultures are fairly similar—even that of free Germania shows strong Celtic influence during the closing centuries of the pre-Christian era. The fact that the cremation­grave culture, which was so vigorous at that time, becomes general in these districts shows that in this respect the Germani set the fashion. But as regards the period following Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, it is certain that no cultural expansion, either Celtic or Germanic, went on here, but rather a fusion with romanizing tendencies. The archaeological material points unmistak­ably in this direction. All the commodities which reach England, West Germany and Scandinavia especially from the mouth of the Rhine after the end of the second century, are provincial Roman in character. As a further sign that the Rhine Germani of this period are separated from their fellow-tribes reference may be made to the fact that of the Germanic fibulae which are found in such profusion only a single group is really represented here. This may indicate that even in Tacitus’ time the Rhine was not only a political but also an ethnographical boundary, along which classical culture encountered Germanic.

Thus at the time of Tacitus there lived west of the Rhine a number of Germanic tribes, who undoubtedly formed an im­portant element in the population of these areas. Both Tacitus’ account and the archaeological facts referred to above suggest that they were in culture, though not in speech, largely denation­alized. Even though a number of tribes still proudly asserted their Germanic origin we need not assume the existence of a Germania irredenta groaning beneath the Roman yoke. The real description of the Germani by Tacitus thus begins with his account of Germania libera, the regions east of the Rhine.

III.

THE ‘FREE’ GERMANI OF THE CONTINENT

 

In his account of these free’ Germanic tribes in the west he begins with the Chatti living in what is now Hessen, whom he describes in considerable detail and extols for their military virtues. The Tencteri and the Usipetes on the right bank of the Rhine, who are said to have been skilled horsemen, receive similar praise. After a short mention of some other tribes, come the Frisii. These people, who inhabited the coast-lands between the Rhine and the Ems, had joined the Romans at the same time as the Batavi and did them great service during the campaigns of Drusus and Germanicus. By a revolt in a.d. 28, provoked by the severity of the tax-collectors, they made themselves independent, were again subdued in 46-47, but joined the revolt of the Batavi in 69-70 and regained their freedom. Tacitus has not much to say about the Frisii, but a good deal can be discovered from archaeological evidence. The finds which can be referred to them practically all come from remains of the artificial mounds on which they built their villages (Terpen). The oldest go back to the La Tene period, while several of the later ones contain a considerable quantity of both native and imported (Roman) pottery from the early Empire. To a smaller extent, also, metal objects are met with, among them Roman bronze vessels. These Roman wares in Terpen may be regarded as the earliest evidence for the Frisii as traders. The transportation of cattle up the Rhine by the Frisii is attested in literature from the end of the third century. As has been seen, there was considerable export of provincial Roman wares from the mouth of the Rhine at the end of the second century, and it must be assumed that this was chiefly in Frisian ships. The Terpen finds attest connections between this people and the Romans as early as the first century, and it may be assumed that this trade began at the time when their waters were directly connected with the Rhine by the canal built by Drusus in 12 b.c.

After the Frisii a brief reference is made to their neighbours on the east, the Chauci at the estuary of the Weser—now traced in archaeological material—and on the south the Cherusci, Arminius’ renowned tribe, who, however, by the time of Tacitus had lost much of their power to their more warlike neighbours, the Chatti. Next come the Cimbri, whose name evokes gloomy reflections on what the Romans had to endure from the Germani—‘tam diu Germania vincitur’. The position of their home-country is not precisely stated, but their name is found in the present Danish place-name Himmerland, the district south of Limfjorden. The home of the Teutones, their comrades in arms (who are not mentioned by Tacitus), is also definitely known now. It is to be found in Thy, north-west of Limfjorden. Archaeological evidence of these two peoples has now been found in traces of extensive abandoned agricultural areas, obviously deserted in prehistoric times, and a fortified place in the moor at Borre.

Great interest attaches to the account of the Suebi, the collective name for a number of tribes—indeed, according to Tacitus, all except those dealt with above. This is a single use of the name; Pliny and Tacitus himself elsewhere give to it a more restricted meaning. The Suebi are generally made to include the tribes in Mecklenburg, Brandenburg, Saxony and Thuringia. Their habitation is traced in the name Schwaben. The fact that Suebi are placed also on the Eider indicates, perhaps, that they, like many other peoples, were invaders from Scandinavia. The next chapter, that about the Semnones round the Havel and the Spree, who consider themselves the leading tribe among the Suebi, gives clear information as to the nature of this tribal alliance. In a sacred grove in the territory of the Semnones representatives of all the Suebi assemble at fixed times for collective religious observances which include human sacrifices. The Langobardi, so renowned later, also belong to the Suebi, living north-west of the Semnones, in what is now Lüneburg, at the beginning of the century and probably also in the time of Tacitus. According to their own traditions, they migrated from Scandinavia. It has been assumed that they came from the Swedish provinces Skane or Halland but spent a short time in Gotland before they landed in Germany, a theory which receives some support from the fact that the Gotland archaeological material from the pre-Roman Iron Age is strongly influenced from North-West Germany. North-German burial places of a certain type are unanimously ascribed to the Langobardi: the men’s burial places with weapons (Nienbuttel, Rieste, Korchow, etc.), and the women’s without weapons (Darzau). These burial customs are interpreted as indicating Woden-cult and their connection with the Suebi has been disputed.

Another kind of cult-association of a similar nature to that of the Suebi is mentioned as existing north of the Langobardi, and more detailed information about the nature and object of the cult is given. The goddess Nerthus, identified by Tacitus with terra mater is carried round in procession at certain times of the year in a covered waggon drawn by cows, and worshipped by the people with festive joy and with the laying aside of weapons. Here we have obviously the female representative in the twin deity of fertility, which is known to us from the Mediterranean countries and the Orient, whence this cult spread over the world. The old German form of the name Nerthus corresponds to the Icelandic Njordr, the Swedish Njord, which is, however, the name of the male deity. The Nerthus-worshipping tribes are identified with the Ingaevones mentioned by Tacitus, but it may be observed that Nerthus also was worshipped in Scandinavia, to judge from several place-names, e.g. Nartuna in Uppland. Among the seven peoples enumerated by Tacitus are to be noted the Angli, with their original tribal centre on the peninsula Angel in East Slesvig, and their neighbours on the south-west, the Reudigni who occupied the territory of the Chauci by the lower Elbe towards the end of the second century, and who are probably identical with the Saxons. On Ptolemy’s map (a.d. 150) the Saxons are placed on the right bank of the lower Elbe, in the Lauenburg. The types of remains, characteristic of both these peoples, which are to be met with in England and mark the Anglo-Saxon invasion, belong however to a later period than the one dealt with here. A considerable West-Germanic tribe in this region whose name does not appear in Tacitus is that of the Franks. This name is therefore assumed to have arisen later to designate a tribal association inhabiting the district between the Rhine and the Ems and composed of the Bructeri, Ampsivarii and others. It is thought that this group appears in Tacitus as the Istaevones.

After the diversion to the north which the description of the Nerthus people implies, Tacitus turns southward and goes now from west to east. The first people dealt with are the Hermunduri, who lived south of the Chatti. Philologists associate their name with the first element of the name Thuringerwald, the mountain country forming part of their tribal territory. The name of this tribe has also been connected with that of the Herminones, and it has been assumed that we must seek in these districts the third of the tribal confederations mentioned by Tacitus. This is confirmed by the fact that, according to Pliny, the Herminones inhabit the interior of Germania and consist, inter alia, of Suebi, Hermunduri, Chatti and Cherusci. That the territory of the Hermunduri, or the tribes allied to them, extended far southward is indicated by what Tacitus says about their trade with the Roman province of Raetia, a trade which was not confined only to the neighbouring river, the Danube, but penetrated far into the Roman Empire. The privileged position enjoyed by the Hermunduri in this respect was the reward for their conduct during the critical period in the first century a.d.. They had taken no part in the war against Rome led by Arminius and the Cherusci.

While only vague glimpses of the Hermunduri are caught both in literature and archaeological material we are, on the other hand, well informed about the Marcomanni and the Quadi. The first references to the Marcomanni are found in Caesar6, where they are mentioned as forming part of Ariovistus’ army. It is assumed that at that time they lived between the Main and the Danube in the territory evacuated by the Helvetii. When the Romans occupied the country west of the Rhine and were obviously preparing to cross the river and subdue the Germani, the Marcomanni found their position insecure, and under the leadership of their king, Maroboduus, they marched eastward into Bohemia, large parts of which they conquered in the last decade b.c. Maroboduus, who seems to have been possessed of some statesmanship, obtained great influence in Central Germany during the next two decades, and became leader of a tribal alliance which is said to have extended from the Elbe to the Vistula. His power was broken by a defeat at the hands of the Cherusci under Arminius in a.d. 17, and after the Goths, under the leadership of the exiled Marcomannic nobleman Catualda, invaded Bohemia in a.d. 19, Maroboduus’ empire collapsed, and he himself ended his days in exile in Ravenna a.d. 35.

The Germania gives only vague indications of the relations between the Marcomanni and the Romans: ‘raro armis nostris, saepius pecunia iuvantur, nec minus valent’. But in the Annals Tacitus makes a statement which, short as it is, is illuminating, and affords an explanation of one of the most important factors in the Germanic culture of the Earlier Empire. When Catualda conquered Maroboduus’ capital, he found there sutlers and merchants from the Roman provinces who had immigrated thither ‘from greed of gain.’ It is clearly possible that there was some sort of commercial agreement, as Tacitus suggests, which entitled Roman merchants and other traders to settle and do business within the boundaries of the Marcomannic kingdom. The leading cultural role of Bohemia within the Germanic world at this time is explained in this way. As a transit country for Italian exports to Northern Europe it had been of importance as early as the beginning of the Bronze Age. Further, as the Romans gained control of Carnuntum, first as a summer camp and later as a fortress, the town became a staple place for trade with Northern Europe. It is of still greater importance that Bohemia now became the centre of a particularly vigorous culture built up of Germanic, West-Celtic, Boian, provincial-Roman and purely Italian elements. It was this culture, characterized by certain fibulae, buckles, mounts for drinking-horns, etc., which sets its stamp on the whole of the archaeological material of Northern Europe during the beginning of the first century. In view of the dominating importance of this culture of the Marco­manni, its bearers—the last people in the West-Germanic group dealt with by Tacitus—must also be given a prominent position during the Earlier Empire which can only be compared to that of the Goths during the Later.

Tacitus’ description of the East Germanic and non-Germanic peoples together occupies only about half the space devoted to the West Germani. This indicates that the information he could obtain about these tribes, which were farthest away from the Roman boundaries, was somewhat scanty. Herein probably lies also the explanation—which will be dealt with in more detail later—why the author’s own speculations about these peoples were given freer scope than before. In spite of their paucity and other shortcomings these notes are of great importance, since they comprise the oldest extant historical detail about several peoples. It is therefore assumed that Tacitus had access to some now lost written source, or, more probably, to verbal information from some traveller. In this connection the Roman knight who visited the amber coast has been suggested. After having mentioned by way of introduction four little known tribes, one of which (the Osi) is generally considered to be Illyrian, he discusses in somewhat more detail the Lugian group who are said to occupy the largest area. The tribes enumerated here are also practically unknown to history. Of ethnographical interest are the particulars about the Harii—possibly identical with the Hirri mentioned by Pliny—that they have black shields, blacken their bodies and choose dark nights for their battles. The information about the Naharvali—that in their territory they had a sacred grove where ancient rites were performed—suggests that within their tribal group they played the same part as the Semnones among the West Germani, and that thus these Lugii also were associated in a common cult. Beyond the Lugii dwell the Gotones (Goths), and in the coast regions (of the Baltic) the Rugii and the Lemovii, all of whom are curtly described as ‘distinguished by their round shields, short swords and obedience to their kings.’ With regard to the shields, however, it is to be observed that over the whole of the Germanic territory, besides the predominant round shape, other types of shields, both oval and many-sided, for example hexagonal, are also met with. On the other hand, the statement that the short (one-edged) sword is specially characteristic of the East Germani at that time is correct. But the contrast to which Tacitus alludes between the West-Germanic long and the East-Germanic short swords belongs to the end of the pre-Roman epoch. In Tacitus’ time also the West Germani used short swords, but only two-edged of Roman gladius type although with certain native features. As the Burgundians and Vandals do not appear among the tribes enumerated here, though the latter are mentioned elsewhere it has been assumed that they are included in the Lugii. Of the Germanic people on the continent (i.e. not in Scandinavia) mention is also made of the Veneti and Peucini or Bastarnae. Their nationality is stated with a certain hesitation as they are said to resemble the Sarmatae.

In the description of the continental Germanic tribes, the statements about the Bastarnae deserve special interest, as they are the Germanic tribe with whom the classical peoples had come into contact previously, and who thereby first made their appearance in history. As early as the end of the third century b.c. they are said to have appeared in the company of the Sciri at the estuary of the Danube, where during the following centuries they were allies of Rome’s enemies, until they suffered a decisive defeat at the hands of M. Crassus in 29 b.c. Earlier Roman sources regard them as Celts or Scythians, and their Celtic nationality has also been maintained by modern scholars, but their Germanic origin may be regarded as established. The reliefs of them which can be studied on Trajan’s Column show Germanic types with the characteristic knot of hair. This detail, as well as their grave-culture, has caused surprise, since these features are looked upon as particularly West-Germanic. The explanation lies perhaps in the fact that the Bastarnae were a continental Germanic tribe, whereas the specific East-Germanic culture was created by people who immigrated from Scandinavia. The Bastarnae may be considered to have been the first Germanic people to have moved down towards the Black Sea from the Baltic, and their road thither is indicated by the name for the Carpathians, Alpes Bastarnicae, known from classical sources. It has been assumed that theirs was the peculiar culture which, at the beginning of the Iron Age, had spread over Pommerellen, and is characterized by stone cist­graves filled with pottery—sometimes as many as thirty vessels, many of them face-urns. This culture has been declared to be a direct continuation of the Grossendorfkultur in the same district from the Later Bronze Age. The cause of the departure of the Bastarnae from the shores of the Baltic has been sought in the immigrations from Scandinavia in the closing centuries of the pre-Christian era.

Among the Scandinavian peoples who were the earliest to move to the south coast of the Baltic are numbered the Vandals, mentioned first by Pliny under the name of Vandili. Their name has been associated with the Danish place-name Vendsyssel, Jutland, north of Limfjorden, which area is supposed to have been their original home, an assumption which receives some support from the fact that one of the Vandal tribes bore the name Silingae, a name probably connected with Saelund, the old form of Sjaelland (Seeland). That in the time of Tacitus Jutland at any rate had connections with East Germany appears from the ornamentation of the Jutland pottery (meander or meander-like patterns with continuous lines), which agrees with what is found on the pottery in that area, whereas in the adjacent West-German territory these patterns consist of dotted lines made with a little toothed wheel. In Silesia, which obtained its name from the Silingae, and where both the latter and other Vandalic tribes thus lived, pottery has been found from as early as the first century b.c., closely corresponding to that in Denmark and Sweden. The researches of recent years have succeeded in tracing with fair certainty from the archaeological material (house-foundations, burial customs, pottery) the movement of the Vandals to the continent during the second century b.c. The name of the Vandals used to be associated with the face-urn culture, but that does not square with the results of most recent research, as we have seen above, and their line of immigration was not the Vistula but the Oder.

A closer study of burial culture and types of remains has made possible more definite conclusions with reference to the other East-German peoples enumerated by Tacitus. In western Further Pomerania and round the bend of the river Vistula a group of burial grounds can be distinguished, characterized by Brandgrubengraber with girdle-hook and an abundance of weapons, among them ornamented spearheads. Rondsen, lying within the area last mentioned, is typical of these burial grounds. As the same burial practice obtained in Bornholm in the centuries immediately preceding the birth of Christ, the burial grounds of this type on the mainland have been associated with the Burgundiones also mentioned by Pliny, who are assumed to have migrated from Bornholm (Borghundarholmr) in the second century b.c. East and north of the Burgundian territory referred to, in Pomerania, burial grounds with Brandschüttungsgraber, and several skeleton graves appear towards the end of the pre-Roman period. The Rugii (‘rye-eaters’) first mentioned by Tacitus are placed here, and this is supported by a statement in Jordanes, according to whom the Goths after their landing on German soil—this is nowadays placed in the first century b.c.—first attacked the Ulmerugi (i.e. the Rugii on the island), which probably refers to that section of the Rugii who had settled in the delta of the Vistula. The name of the island of Rügen has also been correctly associated with that of the Rugii. Some of the Rugii are assumed to have been settled at the estuary of the Oder. There is agreement among Scandinavian scholars that the Rugii come from Rogaland in south-west Norway. In view of the fact that a find in Rogaland (the Avaldsnesgrave) from about a.d. 300 contains a remarkable number of Roman imported goods and that similar goods are also found in abundance in connection with skeleton-graves in the estuary of the Oder and on the Danish islands, it has been suggested that the Rugii migrated from their native country to the mouth of the Oder and Vistula with the Danish isles as an intermediate station. Thus the appearance of Roman imported goods in Scandinavia was largely due to the Rugii’s trade with their kinsmen in Denmark and West Norway. After the successful invasion of the Goths their allies the Gepidae settled down at the delta of the Vistula as neighbours to the Rugii; east and south of them lived the Goths. The Gothic-Gepidae area is characterized by burial places with both skeleton and cremation graves, a form of burial well known from South Sweden—especially Östergötland and Västergötland—during this period. This has been inter­preted as a proof that the Goths came from Götaland, part of the mainland of Sweden, not as had been previously supposed from Gotland. Their name has been interpreted as the people on the Gutälven (Göta älv—the Göta River). South of the region occupied by the Burgundians, Rugii and Goths a culture-group with urn-graves, Brandschüttungsgräber, and weapons is still to be found under the Empire—during this period weapons cease to be found in the northern area—in Silesia, Poland and West Russia. This widely spread culture is considered to have been that of the Vandals and a little area in Silesia with skeleton­graves is referred to the Silingae.

In this outline of the distribution of peoples, which refers to the conditions immediately before and after the birth of Christ, certain changes may be traced as we pass to the second century a.d. At that time a vigorous expansion of Gothic culture in various directions may be observed. The lower reaches of the Passarge had formed the eastern limit of the spread of the Goths in the main area of East Prussia. In Samland, the peninsula between the Frisches Haff and the Kurisches Haff, and also in Natangen at the base of this peninsula, burial places now appear which indicate Gothic immigration, although the native culture—ascribed to the Aestii of Tacitus—is still prevalent. Towards the middle of the second century the Rondsen type of burial place is no longer found at the bend of the Vistula and is replaced by a mixed grave-culture—that of the Goths, marking their advance southwards as they drive out the Burgundians, whose burial places now appear farther towards the south-west.

IV.

SCANDINAVIA AND THE EAST BALTIC

 

To his account of the continental Germanic tribes Tacitus adds a description of the Suiones, the only people in the Germania who can with absolute certainty be stated to have lived on the Scandinavian peninsula. The following chapter deals with the Sitones, and contains a digression about a northern sea which must be the Gulf of Bothnia. These two chapters are among the most difficult to interpret in the work. They also seem to constitute a curious mixture of correct facts, misunderstood statements, and the author’s subjective speculations on the information he had obtained. It has been impossible to check his statement that the Suiones were especially strong at sea, and therefore its accuracy has been called into question. During the last ten years, however, there have been discovered in the province of Uppland, where the original home of the Swedes must be sought, very many burial places from the next two centuries a.d., characterized particularly by upright stones, so that there can be no doubt that the province was thickly populated at that time. The Swedes originally formed only a small part of this population, having as their nearest neighbours, so it has been assumed, the Danes, who had not yet migrated southwards. The Swedes had at that time obviously achieved hegemony, and possibly also extended their kingdom round Lake Malar. Tacitus’ description of their ships as of the same shape fore and aft, and with oars that could be moved and used on either side, gives a good picture of the Scandinavian boat as we know it from the centuries before Christ, until the Viking period.

Though certain parts of this chapter now receive satisfactory archaeological confirmation, others do not. Thus, the strange statement that in times of peace weapons were not worn by the men but were kept in some sort of arsenal under the custody of a slave is probably due to a confusion with the sacred peace observed at sacrificial feasts, when weapons were laid aside. Nor, undoubtedly, is the emphasis laid on the strength of the royal power quite justified, but should be viewed in connection with the statement about its increase to be noted among the Goths and the degenerate form of it among the Sitones. The power of the king of the Suiones can no more have been independent of the will of the people than that of the king of any other Germanic people, but he possibly had somewhat greater authority. This may be ascribed partly to his character as commander of a mighty fleet, partly due to his position, which dates from very early times and may have lasted even till Tacitus’ day, as chief priest and repre­sentative on earth of a god of fertility belonging, like Nerthus, to the god family of the Wanes (Vanir). In a fertile country particularly suitable for agriculture and cattle-raising, it must be assumed that this god occupied an unusually dominant position. Finally, reference may be made to the circumstances mentioned below, which indicate that as early as during the first century after Christ the power of the Suiones was somewhat greater than that of the usual Germanic tribal kingdoms.

Immediately adjoining the Suiones lived the Sitones, who only differed from their neighbours in that their ruler was a woman. Opinions as to the proper interpretation of these statements have been very conflicting. One suggestion is that the name in question refers to the traders who moved from the valley of Lake Malar to the coast of the Bothnian Gulf and there became in part dependent on the Finnish Quains known from a later time at the upper part of that water. The resemblance between this name and the old Norse word kvaen (woman, wife) is said to have given rise to the statement about the degenerate gynaecocracy. This theory is supported by the circumstance that Adam of Bremen also mentions a terra feminarum lying north of the Swedes.

In comparison with the abundant information about the continental Germanic peoples contained in Tacitus, particulars about the Scandinavian countries are more than scanty. They still lay too far beyond the periphery of the known world. It seems strange that even Denmark, which lay nearest and already possessed a flourishing culture, should have been unknown, for its civilization was characterized by just the abundance of Roman imports and Roman-Marcomannic influences, the expression of lively, even if not direct, connections with the Roman Empire. During the centuries after Tacitus this importation of Roman goods increases still more and now comes also by way of the mouth of the Rhine. The geographical work of Ptolemy from the middle of the second century a.d., which is largely based on the accounts of travelling merchants, contains the first detailed particulars about South Scandinavia. At this time also Denmark’s star rises in the firmament of history. From the haze which has hitherto surrounded the Sinus Codanus appear the contours of the ‘Cimbrian peninsula’ (Jutland), and four islands lying to the east of it, of which the largest and the most easterly is obviously to be identified with the Scandinavian peninsula. Among the seven tribes on Jutland enumerated by Ptolemy, it is thought that at least four can be located with the help of place­names. On the largest Scandia island are also mentioned seven different tribes, among whom the inhabitants of the Hedmark, the Lapps in the north, and the Goths in the south have been identified. According to another interpretation Ptolemy’s Chaidinoi does not allude to the inhabitants of Hedmark but to those of the western part of the Swedish province Smaland. Among the other tribe-names of Ptolemy’s map glimpses are perhaps also caught of several territories in the province Skane.

In addition to the tribes about whose ethnographical connection with the Germani there is no doubt, Tacitus also deals shortly with some other peoples of Northern Europe. The Aestii living on the amber coast east of the mouth of the Vistula, whom for his part he regards as Germani, are described fairly fully. The reason why Tacitus is so well informed about this people is undoubtedly to be sought in the fact that the Romans were in direct contact with them through the amber trade, attested by Pliny’s story of the noble sent out by Nero to procure amber for the Roman arena. According to Tacitus the Aestii resemble the Suebi in appearance and customs, but their language is nearer that of the Britons. The last-mentioned statement must be accepted with reserve, since Tacitus cannot have been in a position to decide this question, but it is reasonable to conclude that the language of the Aestii differed materially from that of the Germani. Modern investigators have held conflicting opinions as to whether the Aestii were a Germanic or a Baltic people, but in general the latter assumption has been accepted. According to old sources, this people inhabited a very large area—presumably the whole coast up to the Gulf of Finland. This is corroborated by the circumstance that they bequeathed their name to the West Finnish tribe who inhabit the south coast of the same bay at the present time. However, certain philological conclusions, among them those dealing with a number of place-names, also indicate that Germani inhabited the East Baltic area at a very early date. It also receives some support from the skeleton material from prehistoric times found in these countries. From this it appears that the earlier inhabitants of the countries south of the Gulf of Finland represent to a considerable extent the Nordic race. Whether they are the original inhabitants or immigrants cannot yet be decided.

After the short statement about the Sitones referred to above Tacitus comes in his last chapter to the Veneti, Fenni and Bastarnae, about whose nationality he expresses some doubt. In the case of the Bastarnae this was unjustified, as has been shown above; as regards the Veneti it has been shown that this name is undoubtedly identical with that of the Wends, later used by the Germani to designate the Slavs. But as a West Finnish tribe has inherited the name Estians, the Slavs have succeeded an Illyrian people in the possession of the name Veneti. That in the Germania the Slavs are referred to is indicated by the fact that Tacitus places them between the Bastarnae and the Finns. This agrees with the supposed situation of the original home of the Slavs, immediately south of the Balts—the upper Dniester south of the Pripet marsh. The original home of the Finns is now placed in the region of Moscow.

The description of the Fenni which concludes Tacitus’ work is one of its most discussed parts. They are described as ‘notably brutal, miserably poor: they have no weapons, no horses, no homes, herbs serve them for food, hides for clothes, the ground for their couch. Their only hope lies in their arrows, which they point with bone, because they have no iron. This description of a nomadic people in a very low state of civilization has been declared by some scholars to be so untrue of the Finns that it must refer to the Lapps. This theory is supported by the fact that the modern Norwegian name for the Lapps is still ‘ Finner,’ and the Lapps are found mentioned under that name in classical and medieval literature (Ptolemy, Procopius, Jordanes, Adam of Bremen). Although, however, it is not known how far south the Finnish-speaking, but probably independent, Lappish race had penetrated in the time of Tacitus, it is certain they never lived south of the Gulf of Finland, and to judge from the context in which they are mentioned Tacitus’ Fenni must be placed there. But in the period before the birth of Christ Finnish tribes lived there, to whom therefore the statements in the Germania probably refer. The territory between the Gulf of Finland, Lake Ladoga and the Dvina is no longer to be regarded as the original home of the Finns: it has been shown that the Finnish language lacks words for forest and for a number of forest animals and also for certain fish found in the Baltic regions and for the crayfish, from which the conclusion is drawn that their original home must be sought in the Moscow district. From this centre Finnish peoples spread along the Gulf of Finland to the Baltic as early as the middle of the last millennium b.c., and may thus be assumed to have lived at least in Esthonia and Northern Latvia in the time of Tacitus. It is also worth observing that there is found in Latvia an extremely primitive culture, ascribed to the pre-Roman Iron Age, characterized particularly by bone and horn implements. The cultural stage attained by its bearers does not appear to contradict that ascribed by Tacitus to the Finns and the scantiness of metal is a feature consistent with the East Finnish Bronze Age, which is ascribed to a Finnish people who spread from the original home at an earlier stage than the southern tribes. It is also probable that this bone culture might have persisted till the time of Tacitus. It is true that in Esthonia, Latvia and the Memel district of Lithuania, a rich Iron-Age culture is also found, but it does not begin before the second century. It bears a strong East-Germanic impress, and is undoubtedly to be ascribed to influences from that quarter. North of the Dvina this culture was probably shared by a mixture of Germanic-Baltic-Finnish peoples, south of the same river, more particularly by Baltic tribes, about whose period of immigra­tion however the most conflicting opinions are held. This culture is thought to have been carried to Western Finland by a Finnish migration across the Gulf of Finland, which, however, cannot be traced farther back than to the second century a.d. Nevertheless in connection with the assumption that Tacitus’ Fenni really refers to the Finns it must be noticed that this description is largely conventional and therefore of very little value as ethno­graphical evidence.

As regards Finland—of which a glimpse is caught in Tacitus’ description, if the Sitones are rightly to be regarded as the Germanic inhabitants of this country—only a single archaeological find from the first century a.d. is known, a Roman wine-ladle from south Osterbotten, certainly imported by way of Sweden. With the second century begins the invasion from the south which gives a marked East-Baltic impress to the Finnish archaeological material. But that the Finns found there a Scandinavian population, even though a rather scanty one, and received from it significant cultural impulses, appears from about 400 ancient Norse loan-words in the Finnish language, among them the names for king, prince, rule, judge, fine, and the like.

V.

THE GERM4NM AND THE CIVILIZATION OF THE GERMANI

 

The information about the non-Germanic peoples in North Europe which we can obtain from Tacitus and other classical writers is comparatively insignificant. We are best informed about the Germani, the most important source being Tacitus’ work. It is true that this work has lost some of its authority owing to the penetrating criticisms of such scholars as Georg Wissowa, Eduard Norden and A. Schroeder. It has been shown that the Germania is a late representative of a long succession of geographical-ethnographical works by Greek and Roman authors. In the statements of these works about the various peoples can be discerned a long series of ethnographical migration motives.’ Thus one of Tacitus’ statements about the Germani is met with in the Hippocratic Corpus referring to the Scythians, another in Herodotus, where it refers to the Persians, and so on. It has also been shown that, directly and indirectly, Tacitus must have availed himself largely of other sources, such as Posidonius, Caesar, Livy and Pliny. A further weakness in the work, though a very explicable one, is that the Roman author, who had himself seen the dark sides of civilization at close quarters—the reign of terror under Domitian—sometimes unconsciously idealizes in his description of the unspoiled children of nature. As has been shown, this ‘ethnographical romanticism,’ despite its Rousseauist character, is also old and ultimately has its roots in the Stoic conception of the baleful influence of culture on mankind. Closely connected with this is the fact that in the interpretation of Germanic customs and conceptions—marriage, religion, government, various forms of punishment, and the like—points of view are adopted which are Tacitus’ own, not those of the people he is describing. By the side of this subjectivity the aestheticizing tendency asserts itself as a weakness from the scientific point of view. The tendency of the author, the trained rhetorician, towards epigrammatic acerbity not infrequently degenerates into incom­prehensibility; his taste for effective points with which to conclude a section in the book, and his seeking after the artistic welding of the various parts, sometimes impair the work. But in spite of this and other weaknesses touched upon later, Tacitus’ work is still a document of inestimable value for our knowledge of the early history of the Germani. What it has lost in authority through the critical research of recent decades it has gained through the results of archaeological research which, more often than not, confirm its statements with surprising emphasis. Hardly any other people has had the good fortune to be introduced into history by an author at once so penetrating and so kindly disposed.

The introductory chapters in the Germania may in their general character be from Pliny, as Norden has sought to show, the contents being largely derived from Book XX of his lost work on the Germanic Wars. However that may be, this part of Tacitus’ book contains much information not to be gained from other sources. This includes his notes about the tribal saga of the Germani and about the origin of their name, which only the Tungri are said originally to have borne. The interpretation of this has been the subject of much dispute. The general opinion is that the name was originally that of a tribe, which was later given to the whole people as the result of the prominence of its bearers as conquerors1. Tacitus gives no explanation of the name Germani —indeed, he seems to have had little interest in etymology—and the question must still be considered unsolved; there is not even unanimous agreement to what language the name belongs.

After the description of the physical characteristics of the Germani, a description which proves to be largely in agreement with Posidonius’ account of the Celts, the author turns to the nature and features of the country. Here, as elsewhere in the book, geographical conditions are touched upon very briefly. The natural features of Germania are stated to be varied, but in general the country is covered with gloomy forests and horrible swamps. This exaggeration is echoed in Tacitus’ account of the battle of the Teutoburgerwald and of Germanicus’ campaign along the marshy coasts of the North Sea. At the same time, however, it is indicated that the marshy parts of the country lie nearest to Gaul, while those lying along the Danube boundary are higher. Further the country is said to produce grain but to be unsuitable for fruit-growing. Cattle-breeding is carried on extensively, but the cattle are small and hornless. Probably they belonged to the ‘mountain breed’ which still today predominates in the north of Scandinavia.

In this country the Germani lived in scattered farms and villages, in houses roughly built of wood. In Jutland and Gotland particularly, a large number of house-foundations from the first centuries of our era are known, which give us an idea of the type of buildings of that time—rectangular houses with the entrance on one of the short sides in Gotland, or on one of the long sides in Jutland. Also more primitive dwellings, half underground, are mentioned by Tacitus, and survive even now in several countries. The dress for men of all classes was a mantle, held together by a fibula, or for lack of a fibula, by a thorn. The extremely rich development of the fibula in Germanic territory accords excellently with this statement. The wealthier had also close-fitting under­garments. Roman reliefs, as well as sculptures and statuettes, show us the normal Germanic costume of that period. It appears from these that the dress had been greatly changed since the Bronze Age, above all by the adoption of long trousers—which are supposed to have been borrowed from one of the horse-riding peoples in South-East Europe. Among their objects of luxury were furs, sometimes brought from distant countries in the most northerly parts of Europe. The women’s clothing was similar in character. As regards the relations between the sexes, monogamy was the rule and matrimony, which was entered into fairly late, was held sacred. Adultery was rare and was severely punished. The children grew up ‘naked and dirty’ and no differ­ence was made between those of the free-born and the serfs. The women occupied a highly honoured position. In peace woman was the man’s adviser, even credited with a prophetic instinct; in wartime she urged him on to combat, and wavering armies had stood firm at the adjurations of their womenfolk.

Tribal and family feeling were very strong among the Germani, and they were loyal to each other both in friendship and enmity. Family revenge was an imperative duty on every man, but the Vendetta was not implacable. Even murder could be expiated by fines, a principle preserved in the Germanic laws which were codified much later. Indeed reconciliation between families was almost a social necessity in view of the temperament of the Germani and their forms of social intercourse. Extensive hospitality was practised, and feasts often finished with fights and bloodshed. As a drink Tacitus mentions a fermented beverage prepared from barley and wheat. Wine was probably imported in much larger quantities than the Roman author was aware of. Dice­throwing was also a favourite amusement of the Germani. This statement is well corroborated by the archaeological material; from the first century a.d. until the time of the Vikings, dice and gaming-men—the older ones of glass, the later ones of bone— frequently recur in the furnishings of the men’s graves.

The reason why so much time could be devoted to social life and amusements is that peaceful work was considered unworthy of a freeman, who therefore left it to the women and serfs. The chief industries were cattle-raising and farming. The latter was of a primitive character, and the description of the methods employed is particularly difficult to interpret. It is a debated question whether it was on communal lines, as described in Caesar’s Gallic War has been argued by Fustel de Coulanges and others that Caesar’s statements refer to the exceptional circumstances prevailing among the invading tribes, but that otherwise full ownership of land existed among the Germani.

As regards trade, Tacitus’ statements are rather calculated to give the impression that the Germani had little interest in it, but it is observed that furs were obtained from the far distant North. Of Roman goods for which the Germani were eager only wine is mentioned, and this is said not to have penetrated farther than to the tribes on the frontier. They amassed capital in the form of herds of cattle and placed little value on precious metals in general. The tribes in the interior of Germania traded chiefly by barter, and only those nearest to the borders used money. For practical reasons they preferred silver. Most in favour were serrati and bigati, the full-weight denarii of the Republic.

Many of these statements are well founded. The large part played in the economy of the Germani by cattle-rearing is reflected in the fact that the word in the Germanic languages for cattle during ancient times (Got. Faihu, old Norse fae) also denotes property in general. It is also true that money came into use comparatively late and coins struck before Nero’s depreciation of the coinage (a.d. 63) were most in demand. Over 500 Republican denarii from free Germania and also many such coins from the Empire before Nero are certainly extant. A number of German hoards show, however, that these coins continued to be introduced right up to the time when Trajan withdrew them (a.d. 107)1. This anxiety to secure coin of good quality contradicts Tacitus’ statement about the indifference of the Germani to precious metals. The beautiful gold ornaments, which give evidence of great technical skill, also point in the same direction. The enormous quantities of gold which the continental tribes demanded from the Roman Empire during the period of migrations, and the tributes in silver which the Vikings imposed on Western Europe, also show plainly that the desire for money was far from foreign to the Germani of those times. An interest in trade must also have been long established among them. As early as the Stone Age the South Scandinavians carried on an extensive export of flint implements and amber. The latter attained still greater importance during the Bronze Age for the purpose of barter for metals (bronze and gold). During the first period of the Northern Iron Age trade with foreign countries suffered a great set-back, but during the last century before Christ connections with Italy began. This is proved, for instance, by the importation of bronze situlae dating from the La Tène period, no less than fifteen having been found in Hanover alone, while five had found their way to Scandinavia. There are no statistics to show the extent of the Roman imports into the continental portion of free Germania but it was undoubtedly considerable. Of Roman and provincial Roman wares the Scandinavian countries show more than 500 vessels of bronze, about 260 of glass and half-a-dozen of silver. These figures go to show that the Germani could appreciate the products of the Roman metal industries far more than Tacitus’ statements would lead us to suppose. The considerable proportion of trullae (wine-ladles) among the bronze vessels indicates that wine had also penetrated far beyond the frontiers of free Germania, probably as early as the time of Tacitus.

Just as Tacitus pays too little attention to the trade of the Germani with the Roman Empire, he also fails to recognize their receptivity of Roman culture. As early, however, as the Later Stone Age, they had shown themselves extremely susceptible to cultural influences from abroad. During the Bronze and Early Northern Iron Ages a decided increase in these influences in connection with the metal import is observed, which reaches its height during the first two centuries a.d. They certainly remained unacquainted with the highest expressions of Roman culture, such as literature, art, and the like, but the imported Roman goods and the marked classical forms of the native antiquities are so cha­racteristic of the epoch that Scandinavian archaeologists call it the Roman Iron Age. With regard to the group which is far the most numerously represented—the fibulae—they are certainly not, as was formerly assumed, imports from the Empire, but their forms were strongly affected by classical taste. This applies in general to all the Germanic forms of ornaments, implements, earthenware vessels, belonging to these two centuries. The gold ornaments in particular attest an independent development of the filigree technique copied from the classical peoples, perhaps the Etruscans. As also during the Bronze Age, it is in the Scandinavian countries that the technique of metal-work reaches its zenith. The great absorption of Roman culture by the Germani is also remarkable, because it contrasts with the indifference of the Scotch and Irish, who appear to have remained unaffected by it.

In view of the fact that the best goods of foreign and native extraction are almost entirely taken from graves, a reservation must also be made against Tacitus’ statements about the simple burial custom of the Germani. The burial-mounds with cremated bones and few objects which he describes are characteristic especially of the districts of the Lower Rhine, whence indeed he got much of his information about the Germani. But in other parts of free Germania graves of another type with more abundant furniture are met with. Before the beginning of the Christian era isolated skeleton-graves had begun to make their appearance, probably as a result of Celtic influences. At first their adornment had been quite simple, but during the first century of our era grave objects were often very abundant. The inhumation flat graves in particular often contain rich deposits either of native earthen­ware vessels or of imported wares of bronze, glass or occasionally of silver. It is mainly in this type of grave that the imported Roman goods referred to above are found.

As has been indicated above, Tacitus’ account of the religious conditions must also be read with a certain scepticism. The explanation given of the lack of images and temples reflects his own personal ideas. The real cause may be sought in the fact that the Germani had not yet got quite beyond their original nature­worshipping stage. During the Bronze Age they had still worshipped the divine powers, mainly in the shape of axes and other symbols. A number of small statuettes of a naked woman are found from the end of this period, probably representing a goddess of fertility—possibly the same as Tacitus’ Nerthus—and in the time of Tacitus the divine world is entirely anthropomorphized. The chief gods mentioned in the Germania, Mercury, Hercules and Mars, are identified in various ways, but usually as Woden (Odin), Donar (Tor) and Tiu (Tyr). The cult of the war-god Woden is traced in the burial customs of several West-Germanic tribes, whereas the Scandinavian peoples at this time worshipped predominantly the Wanes (Vanir), the divine family of Nerthus. But the Germani had not yet reached the stage of images and temples, and all kinds of magic, the interpretation of signs and other primitive customs, still constituted part of their religion. There was a priesthood, but the father of the family also had certain religious duties.

The most interesting chapters in Tacitus’ work are those that deal with the political and social structure of the Germanic peoples. At the same time they are among the hardest to interpret, not from the point of view of language, but as regards their contents. In short, sometimes enigmatic, sentences a number of problems are touched upon which are still not entirely solved. This is the more remarkable in that discussions about them take up by far the greater part of the literature which has appeared in con­nection with Tacitus’ work. It is now universally agreed that the Germanic community was based on the family. During the time of Tacitus and much later, the Germanic State was of the nature of an alliance of families and constituted a rather loose association of a number of small territories. These Tacitus calls pagi and says that each is ruled by a prince (princeps). The bond of union within each state is the national assembly (the Thing) and the king (rex), who possesses very limited powers1. The terminological difference between princeps and rex made by Tacitus and other classical authors is, however, assumed to be foreign to the Germani. These statements do not entitle us to make a distinction between mon­archical and republican forms of government. Among the Scandinavians at any rate all princes seem as a rule to have borne the name of king. The most varied opinions have been expressed about the origin of the power of the kings among the Germani. According to some scholars, it is very ancient, according to others comparatively late and developed from other offices such as that of general. The three distinctive functions of the king—as generalissimo, supreme judge and chief priest—suggest its great antiquity because they indicate that the office ultimately has its roots in the authority of the head of the family.

In Tacitus’ statement about the Suiones we get a glimpse of another kind of kingship, embracing several civitates. A number of facts indicate that this strongly sacral kingship arose out of the old kingship under influences coming from the Mediterranean countries in connection with the cult of the fertility goddess. It can be assumed that, as in Egypt and India also, the King and Queen of the Suiones were looked upon as the hypostases of the male and female forms of that twin deity of fertility. Nevertheless even kingships such as those of the Suiones must be assumed to have been somewhat loosely welded monarchies, most nearly of the same character as the tribal associations on the continent (referred to above), whose cult was chiefly the bond that held them together. But the over-kingship common to the states of the Suiones is remarkable, nothing corresponding to it being mentioned elsewhere, though it is alleged that this sacral Uppsala-kingship was the model at the founding of the all­Norwegian dominion during the ninth century. Whether it also influenced the development of this institution among other Germanic peoples it is not yet possible to decide. But it should be observed that the word king is proved to be of North-Germanic origin and further that it is absent in the Gothic—Ulfila’s term is fiudans—and that in the West-Germanic languages it is bor­rowed from the North.

According to Tacitus the kings were chosen for their noble birth, which probably referred to divine origin which was usually claimed by the dynasties of the Germani. As the history of the Germani shows, kingship was so strictly confined to certain families that in practice it was hereditary—even though not in the direct line. The power of the king was limited. The love of liberty was strongly developed and the Germani submitted to authority unwillingly. By the side of the king there was a council of princes, who settled minor matters and had the right to prepare more im­portant ones before they were laid before the national assembly, which had the right of decision, in certain cases (matters of life and death), also jurisdiction. The members of the Thing, which was composed of all free men, received the proposals with a murmur of disapproval or an assenting clash of weapons.

The democratic features of the Germanic method of government were counterbalanced by certain aristocratic ones. Although the serfs were well treated—some of them seem to have been in a position almost resembling bond tenants—sharp distinctions were drawn between them and the men who had been freed, and between these and the real freeborn. The nobility (nobiles) had the greatest influence in the Thing, and a certain order of precedence was observed in the division of land. The power of the aristocracy was very much strengthened by the chieftains’ surrounding them­selves with large armed body-guards (comitatus) of freemen and youths. The institution of body-guards with their cultivation of the virtues of war and their glorification of the bond of loyalty between the chieftain and his men appears to be a forerunner of the chivalry of the Middle Ages and seems to have had a close analogy among the Celts. It had the effect of weakening the power of the king, but at the same time undoubtedly helped strongly to accentuate the warlike traits in both peoples. Campaigns and the booty they produced were necessary for the maintenance of the body-guards and in turn the comitatus often formed the nucleus of new kingdoms in the time of the great migration.

The military system of the Germani is also a subject which Tacitus dwells on fully. Their military organization, the disposition of the army, and their method of fighting, as well as their weapons, are described in detail. Weapons are seldom laid aside, and as in Rome a youth assumed the toga on coming of age, so among the Germani he was given a shield and lance. When speaking of the Cimbri, Tacitus takes the opportunity to give a survey of the struggles of the Romans with the Germanic peoples and strongly emphasizes their character as Rome’s most dangerous enemy. It can hardly be doubted that an expansion of the Germani was to Tacitus the great danger that still threatened the Roman Empire. To him the internal dissension among the Germanic peoples was the only bright side of this picture. To warn and enlighten his fellow-countrymen and to some extent also for the purpose of their self-examination, he published in a.d. 98— at the time when Trajan was present on the banks of the Rhine for the purpose of settling frontier questions—his book about the vigorous, brave and moral but rapacious and bellicose people who inhabited the wide countries of free Germania.

VI.

THE GETAE AND THE DACIANS

 

There is both linguistic and archaeological evidence for an early settlement of Thracian peoples in Transylvania and the eastern Carpathians, and in the adjacent steppes beyond to the north of the Danube estuary and the Black Sea. By the eighth and seventh centuries b.c., it would seem, the Thracians had achieved a strong and stable political organization, as appears from the remarkable fact that only the earliest and latest stages of Illyrian iron culture succeeded in penetrating into the lands to the east of the central Danube, where in the intervening period the tra­ditional bronze culture continued to flourish. This significant separation from and contrast with the west, where Illyrian influence was predominant, clearly points to the existence of a unified system of government among the Thracian settlers, a system which crumbled before the onslaught of the immigrant hordes from the remote north-east. It is even possible that this first unification of northern Thrace was itself the achievement of an invading wave of pre-Scythian horse-riding shepherds—the mare-milkers of Homer. For in this district traces have been found of a horse-riding people who coalesced with the northern Thracians at a time contemporary with the later Hallstatt age, and who have been identified with the Cimmerians. The triquetrum, which combines the parts of various animals into one composition, the animal form with body twisted backwards, and the Shaman crown, from the find at Mikhalkowo, suffice to prove that the users of this type of ornamentation came from the home of the North-Asiatic animal style. The wealth in gold of the Transylvanian Agathyrsi, which Herodotus emphasizes, is pre­Scythian and dates from this early period in the land’s history.

Archaeology shows that Transylvania again changed masters in the sixth century b.c. A similar series of articles to the early Scythian finds from South Russia often occurs here, especially in the valley of the Marisus (Maros). The Scythian types and their ornamentation have an archaic flavour, and do not share the development which occurred in South Russia under Greek influence. The intrusion of local elements reflects the gradual absorption of the Scythian conquerors by the native Thracian population. We learn more about this process in Herodotus. The Agathyrsi of the Marisus basin, of whom he writes, had their place in the original tribal organization of the Scythians; they constituted one of the three parts into which the Scythian people was divided for military and political purposes, and which also formed the framework of their religious institutions. Moreover, the tribal name of this people and also of its original king Spargapeithes is genuinely Scythian. All that emerges from Herodotus’ conflicting statements is that the Agathyrsian conquest in Transylvania dates back to the sixth century. The aloofness of the Agathyrsi during Darius’ Scythian expedition is in keeping with the isolation reflected in the archaeological remains, and also with the singularity which has repeatedly characterized this country, cut off as it is by mountains on every side. As early as Herodotus the effects of Thracian influence were profound: in two generations the exogamy of the horse-riding shepherds had sufficed to bring about a large measure of assimilation between rulers and subjects. An illuminating parallel in later times is provided by the rapid germanization of the ruling aristocracy of the Huns.

We have much less information concerning the consequences of the next great invasion of the lands to the north of the Danube. We know that the Celts penetrated to Hungary at about the same time as they invaded Italy, but their arrival in Transylvania was somewhat later, if we may trust the archaeological evidence. It would seem, indeed, that intermittent advances were made as early as the fourth century, but there was no real invasion until some hundred years later, when the La Tène culture finally established itself here. The names of tribes and settlements preserved in Ptolemy attest further Celtic immigration in the Getic East, Galicia, and Bessarabia; they also throw light on the migrations of the third century.

The Celts, like the Scythians, exercised a repressive influence on the primitive inhabitants of the eastern Carpathians, but they neither destroyed them nor drove them out. Subsequently these older races became known to the neighbouring Greeks, who established the fact that the complex of peoples in northern Thrace which had supplied much human material for the Athenian slave­market in the fourth century b.c. was composed of two main elements, Dacians and Getae. Since, however, the Greeks had more to do with the Getae, who were their immediate neighbours, they applied this name to all the peoples of northern Thrace, to the confusion both of ancient and of modern writers. In spite of this it is possible to delimit with some accuracy the territories occupied by the Dacians and the Getae. The former were not confined to Transylvania, but were distributed over an area reaching westwards as far as the central Danube, and northwards beyond the Carpathians to the Vistula. Agrippa’s map of the world marked these northerly Dacians, and the place-names ending in -dava (the Dacian for settlement) which occur over an area extending as far as Podolia confirm the accuracy of his authorities. We have from various sources a considerable number of tribal names. It must have been in early times that the collection of tribes in the Carpathians, cut off as they were by their geographical en­vironment from the other branches of their race, became differentiated as the special group of Dacian Getae, even though the name Dacian is unknown to the Greek world before the fourth century. The Getae proper had settled to the east and south of the Carpathians. The Dniester was the limit of the really populous area, but they extended far beyond, since Thracian nomenclature occurs in the personal and place-names of the Bosporan kingdom. To the south the Getic region of settlement extended along both banks of the Danube, and was bounded by the mountain barrier of the Balkan range. The Dacians and Getae spoke the same language—a Thracian dialect.

It is natural that our Greek authorities should make earlier and more frequent mention of those Getae who lived to the south of the Danube, between the lower reaches of the river and the Balkan massif, than of the others. The complexity of this mountainous area was reflected in the diversity of the tribes inhabiting it, which remained isolated units, and in spite of their common origin and great personal bravery failed to achieve national unity, and in consequence were severely handled and oppressed by their more powerful neighbours. A few words must suffice to describe their sufferings which lasted for centuries. The Scythians not only made plundering raids into their territory, but settled there permanently from the sixth century onwards, as the growing Scythian influence on these Getae shows. Subsequently Darius during his Scythian expedition devastated their country, and in the following centuries their kings were successively subjects of the Odrysians, the Scythian Atheas, Philip of Macedon, and Lysimachus. First Celtic hordes, then the Bastarnae and the Sarmatae ravaged their territory, but in the first century b.c. they were still strong enough to oppose the generals of Rome, after Mithridates had sought to master them. In 73 M. Lucullus defeated them, but shortly afterwards, at about the middle of the century, the southern Getae were incorporated in Burebista’s great Dacian kingdom. About the time of Caesar’s death, however, this dangerous unification of the northern Thracians broke down, and when M. Crassus, after 30 b.c., brought order into these regions we hear of several petty kingdoms of the Getae. The territories of Roles and Dapyx were situated on the frontier district between north­eastern Bulgaria and Roumania, while Zyraxes ruled to the south of the Dobrudja. Their strength was broken and their subjects were incorporated in the Roman Empire.

Still harder was the fate of the other Getae, who inhabited the plains to the north of the Danube and the Black Sea and so were exposed to the attacks of immigrant peoples. We know little of their fate under the Cimmerians and Scythians; the shift of the Scythian centre of power to the vicinity of the Danubian delta must have seriously lessened their political freedom. This change did not, however, destroy them utterly: when Alexander the Great crossed the Danube and defeated them they showed themselves to be an independent people of great bravery. Their military power is best illustrated by the defeats they shortly afterwards inflicted on Macedonian generals of repute. Zopyrion, for example, failed ignominiously against them, and Lysimachus fared no better. Lysimachus’ opponent, Dromichaetes, was supported by contingents from many tribes of Wallachia and South Russia; but the military strength of the Getae was later shattered by the mass migrations of the Sciri and Bastarnae, who by about 230 b.c. must have begun to make definite inroads into Getic possessions, since their territory extended at that time as far as the shores of the Black Sea. Nevertheless, Oroles, the king of the Getae, despite early defeats, contrived to hold his own in the face of these enemies. It is, however, clear from the numerous military undertakings of the Bastarnae in the Balkans, and from their attacks on the Greek cities on the north coast of the Black Sea, that the Getae in the second century b.c. could make little headway against such opponents, and the prominent part played by the Bastarnae in the campaigns and armies of Mithridates shows that this critical situation persisted. The Germanic Sciri were cowed by the Dacians (after 60 b.c.), and the Bastarnae were subdued by Crassus in 29—8 b.c., but neither of these happenings was of much help to the Getae, as yet a new enemy arose to oppress them. For the break-up of the kingdoms of Mithridates and Burebista opened the way westwards to the Sarmatae. It is not improbable that the mass migration of the Bastarnae with all their belongings to Moesia in 29 b.c. was due to the beginning of Sarmatian pressure. Certainly from 16 b.c. onwards Roman generals frequently came into contact with them, and Ovid in his exile could frequently observe them in the neighbourhood of Tomi. They also crossed to the right bank of the Danube. It is therefore not surprising that the Getae on the Black Sea coast vanish from the stage of history under the Empire.

While the peoples of the steppes to the east of the Black Sea had cut each other’s throats, the Dacians in the rocky fastness of Transylvania grew stronger. Although they too were weakened by wars, yet even before the king who was to be the founder of their power came to the throne, a representative of the Greek city Dionysopolis on the shores of the Black Sea found it advisable to appear at the Dacian court. In the ten years 61—51 b.c. came the great expansion that was achieved under Burebista. The chronological order of his conquests is uncertain; they made him the dominant ruler to the north of the Danube and also in Thrace. Eastwards he succeeded in utterly crushing the Bastarnae —at a later date their fortresses were still in the hands of Dacian petty princes. The brave resistance of the Greek cities in the north-west corner of the Black Sea was in vain: most of them were plundered, many razed to the ground, and they never recovered from this terrible blow. About 55 b.c., it would seem, Burebista turned against Thrace, devastating and in part subduing the country as far as Macedonia and Roman Illyria. Farther westwards he conquered the powerful Celtic tribe of the Scordisci between the Save and the Morava, and made them his allies, presumably for his next war, in the course of which he almost destroyed the Boii and Taurisci. The Boii were recent immigrants who had driven the Dacians beyond the Theiss. By their victory the Dacians recovered the Hungarian central plain, and took possession of Slovakia.

The sudden emergence of so powerful a kingdom, which could mobilize a force 200,000 strong in the rear of Macedonia and Italy, presented a challenge to the chief power of the ancient world, which must sooner or later be taken up. Although the death of Burebista and the collapse of the power he had built postponed the day of reckoning, the future of the Dacians re­mained dependent on their relations with Rome.

All along the borders of the civilized world there stretched a belt of turbulent peoples who were ignorant of the restraining influences of civilization but were eager to gain for themselves the riches it had produced. Wherever Rome broke the power of a Hellenistic State she destroyed at the same time a bulwark of defence against these frontier peoples. Thus when she destroyed the Macedonian State she inherited its enemies in the north. The raids of the Balkan tribes enticed their northern neighbours the Dacians into joining in the game. In 112 and 109 b.c. the Dacians are found in alliance with the Scordisci against Roman generals; in 75 they assist the Dardani against Scribonius Curio, who follows them along the valley of the Morava or Timok as far as the Danube, but then falls back, being unprepared for an advance into the primeval forest of the Dacian mountain ranges. But Rome’s frontier defences were presently crippled by the extreme internal strain of the civil wars, and the astonishingly rapid spread of Burebista’s power in every direction is largely due to Roman weakness. Burebista negotiated with Pompey before Pharsalus, but did not give him any real assistance; and this only strengthened Caesar’s determination to come to a final reckoning with this opponent. His great expeditionary force had already been set in motion; the young Octavian was to leave his studies at Apollonia to join Caesar’s staff. But the Ides of March intervened. The Dacian king himself lost his life at about the same time, and his empire broke up into four principalities.

Through the advance of the Empire’s frontier to the Danube the problem of Dacia assumed a different aspect in Augustus’ reign. From a point near Vienna to the river mouth, the Dacian and Roman frontiers marched side by side, and the Dacians had to be taught to cease their encroachments on the Roman bank. Siscia, captured in 35 b.c., was to have served as Octavian’s base of operations for a great Dacian campaign. The clash with Antony, however, prevented an active offensive: indeed, the initia­tive lay with the Dacians, for, since the decisive action in the civil wars took place in the Balkan peninsula, each of the rival opponents was constrained to attempt to draw on the military resources of the Dacians for his own uses. Antony accused Octavian of having planned to win King Cotiso’s support by a matrimonial alliance; but the Dacians, after fruitless negotiations with the ruler of the West, favoured Antony. The prince Dicomes promised him numerous troops, but proved unable to keep his promise; another prince, Scorylo, wished to maintain peace—the truth was that internal rivalries prevented all from any active participation. The most powerful of these dynasts was Cotiso, the ruler of Transylvania, whose armies were still a frequent menace to the security of Moesia and Pannonia. The astonishing number of his gold staters which have been found is in itself sufficient evidence of a prosperous reign. They were probably made for him by coin-designers from Olbia. The fear of the Dacians at Rome in the years after Actium is vividly reflected in the relevant passages of Horace and Virgil, and there was a general sigh of relief when Cotiso’s armies were defeated.

The solution of the Dacian question was in fact a very difficult matter for the Roman State—not because the Dacians were a match for Rome, as has been suggested, but because Transylvania, the inaccessible mountain land of the Dacians, lay outside the natural frontier line on which the Romans based their plans of conquest, namely, the line of the Danube. Incorporation in the Empire was not accordingly a part of imperial policy, but the Romans concentrated on reprisals for raids, and on various methods of isolating the Dacians from the regions bordering on the river. This could not be achieved without military activity. The reports preserved of these measures are very defective. It is quite by chance that we learn from a fragmentary inscription that some general (presumably M. Vinicius, cos, 19 b.c.) penetrated into Dacia in the lower Danubian region, and defeated an army of Dacians and Bastarnae, while at the same time his legate in the North-West of Dacia carried out a punitive expedition against the Osi, Cotini, Anartii, and others, perhaps in revenge for the Dacian invasion of 10 b.c. A second important expedition against the Dacians was led by Cn. Cornelius Lentulus (cos, 18 b.c.) apparently in the later years of Augustus’ reign. He succeeded in driving back the Dacians and Sarmatae from the north bank of the stream. Aelius Catus, perhaps in cooperation with him, transplanted 50,000 Dacians from the north bank to Moesia. Through this aggressive action the Romans also succeeded in splitting one of the most powerful Dacian principalities into two parts. One of these offensives was important enough in the Emperor’s eyes to merit mention in his Res Gestae.

Strabo maintains that the Dacians were pacified by these measures, but this was not the case—they remained a thorn in the side of the Empire to the end. From year to year they made small raids across the Danube: the Appuli of the Marisus valley, for example, frequently penetrated as far as the Greek cities of the Black Sea in their search for booty. On two occasions, in 10 b.c. and a.d. ii, the solemn closing of the temple of Janus by Augustus was prevented by dangerous Dacian incursions. Moreover the Dacians combined with rebellious Pannonians to ravage in Moesia (a.d. 6) and we learn from Ovid of serious disturbances in the last years of Augustus’ reign.

Rome’s hard-won victories failed, therefore, to impose tranquillity. Tiberius, however, here as elsewhere, followed the policy formulated by his predecessor: he concentrated on keeping the Dacians away from the immediate vicinity of the river. Indeed he may well have been responsible for transferring the Iazyges, the westernmost tribe of the Sarmatians, from the estuary of the Danube to the Hungarian plain in order to cut off the Dacians from the Danubian border of Pannonia. Under subsequent emperors the pressure of the Roxolani, who were akin to the Iazyges and sought to follow them, stirred up the Dacians on the border of Moesia. Possibly these Roxolani initiated that ‘incipient revolt of the Sarmatae, which Plautius Silvanus suppressed under Nero and in which the Dacians and Bastarnae were concerned on one side or the other. A hundred thousand barbarians were transplanted to the Roman side of the Danube by Silvanus; he was given absolute power in organizing the country adjoining the limes, and made himself felt as far as the Crimea. But the gap thus created gave the Roxolani still more room for their restless movements. And when in the confusion that followed Nero’s death the Dacians attacked Moesia, not they but the Roxolani were the most dangerous disturbers of the peace. The revival of Dacian power begins under the Flavians.

VII.

DACIAN CIVILIZATION

 

About the time when Trogus announces the ‘incrementa Dacorum per Burobusten regem’, we see Dacian civilization beginning to bear an individual stamp of its own. Before this period the Dacians and Getae constituted merely a province of the Thracian, Scythian and Celtic cultures which were coloured to a greater or less extent from their contact with the supreme achievements of Greek civilization.

Scythian influence in this region has been generally underestimated, although (especially since the researches of Minns and Rostovtzeff) the fundamental modification which it caused even in the Greek coastal cities has been clearly demonstrated. On the Thracians it is also very marked, especially among the more northerly tribes. Thus Bulgaria is rich in finds of Scythian art-products, and the crossing of Thracian and Scythian stock through intermarriage is well attested. In Homer the Thracian allies of the Trojans still fight with war chariots, whereas Thucydides knows them as mounted archers of the Scythian type, just like the Getae. The long Thracian cavalry cape is also borrowed from the Scythians, as are several of their customs, notably to induce perspiration and complete unconsciousness resembling sleep by means of the fumes from grains of hemp, thrown on heated flat stones. Among the Getae and Dacians, who were much more open to this influence, its effects were still more profound. This has been demonstrated by linguistic evidence: even the name of the Getae is the abbreviated form of a Scythian title, which appears to have originally designated an upper class among the Scythians. The name Danus, applied to the central and upper Danube, is Scythian, and so is even the name of the chief Getic deity Zalmoxis. The explanations given by Porphyry of this word’s original meaning are by no means unconvincing. He translates it ‘bearskin’ and ‘strange man’, and the two interpretations are complementary. The first takes us back to the cult of the bearskin prevalent among the North-Asiatic hunting peoples, and the second is a typical secret name for the bear among the same races. The cult of the bearskin belongs to a very primitive cultural stratum among the nomads the sacred trio of bearskin apparently corresponds to a triple social division of the people, just as in the next stage of development the two animal ancestors correspond to a double social division. The Scythians still preserved a threefold tribal organization when they reached the Black Sea region, and the Agathyrsi comprised one of the three units. The threefold structure has also a matriarchal aspect with the goddess of the hearth Tabiti, who organizes the life of the community, at its centre; the worship of Hestia of the Getae may correspond to this. The bear-father in heaven, on the lofty mountain peak, the withdrawal of Zalmoxis to the (world-) cave, and the predominant part played by the belief in immortality may all belong to this order of ideas. The Scythians also introduced the knowledge of iron weapons among the Dacians, but the marked Iranian influence is not attributable to the Scythians alone. The Iazyges and the Roxolani were the Getans’ instructors in the use of the phalanx of heavy-armed cavalry, and were in general a contributory factor in prolonging Iranian influence down to Imperial times. Hence the Thracian horseman divinity retained his original character, and the dragon remained the national banner of the Dacian troops.

Greek influence on the northern Thracians was naturally more indirect and far more superficial, though there was a strong demand for the excellent Greek manufactures which were bartered in exchange for raw materials and slaves. There was a considerable market for the products of Greek industry among the Getae—and also to the north of the Danube, where Istros and the neighbouring cities controlled the supply, but in the mountainous regions of Dacia the imports were slight indeed. The great bronze hydria from Bene is evidence that even in the sixth century such splendid manufactures could penetrate as far as Slovakia, just as, conversely, scanty reports concerning the inhabitants of Transylvania reached the Greeks at this early stage. But in the classical period this exchange of commodities was very small. A few of the fibulae found at Marosvasirhely and elsewhere may date back to this era, but the flow of trade did not really quicken until there came a moderate development in the Hellenistic age. Greek palmettes on Dacian spiral silver armlets, copies of Megarian tankards from the Wittenberg near Segesvar, and especially the circulation of Greek coins, attest this tendency. In the third and second centuries Dacians accustomed themselves to a monetary system, and used the silver coinage of Philip II and especially the gold of his son and of Lysimachus. Numerous tetradrachms from the first Macedonian administrative region and from Thasos also penetrated into the land. The vast number of drachmas from Apollonia and Dyrrachium, however, herald the approach of a time when Dacia will be a Roman sphere of influence, since these cities were used by Rome as military and trading centres. Yet coins from the Black Sea coastal cities are also found.

It was much easier for the Thracians to assimilate the La Tène culture with which they were brought into immediate proximity through the Celtic conquests. Whereas in earlier times this culture in Transylvania as elsewhere shows a striking uniformity, from the second century b.c. it develops in its own way into a special Dacian branch, which affords a parallel to the tendency towards unification in the political sphere, since the civilization of Moldavia and Wallachia, as of Transylvania, is uniform in character. On the ornaments, mostly of silver, and the other typical articles, special Dacian characteristics emerge; while the Macedonian and Thasian tetradrachms are replaced by primitive imitations minted locally. A very impressive monument to this Dacian culture, and at the same time characteristic of its strange aristocratic flavour, is to be found in its fortresses. Few of these have as yet been examined, but their number and the skill with which they have been constructed are striking in themselves. The walls are unusual: the outer and inner faces are built of squared blocks of hewn limestone held together by wooden ties, while the centre is packed with rubble and earth; in Gradiste it is reported that the blocks of stone bear Greek letters. These walls were built to a certain height only, a superstructure of sun-baked brick being added. The laborious levelling of platforms among the rocks, the transport of the heavy building materials into the mountain ranges, the construction of huge circular edifices—whether they were of practical utility (perhaps as granaries) or served a religious purpose is not yet determined—these, and many other achieve­ments increase our respect for the builders of these strongholds. Great treasures of gold coins which came to light in these fastnesses reflect their owners’ wealth.

The prestige of the kings was upheld by the great authority of the high priest, whose position doubtless resulted from a partition of the functions originally discharged by the priest-king. The leading aristocrats were called pilleati, the free warriors capillati (a title reminiscent of the Ostrogothic capillati) : the sculpture of the Trajanic age has preserved typical portraits of both classes, which reveal the masculine arrogance of their character. In time of peace the Dacians practised cattle-breeding, and agriculture where there were plains to make it possible. In time of war they fought as infantry, and were feared for their scythe-like falces, whereas among the Getae cavalry predominated; both peoples were famed for archery.

At the same period at which friction with Rome began, in other words after the occupation of Macedonia, the cultural influence of Rome also became more strongly felt. Roman imports on the sites of Dacian settlements (such as Campanian bronze ware from the first century of our era), and also a list of Dacian botanical names originally written in Latin are evidence of this. And, in particular, the lively circulation of Roman denarii from the second century b.c. onwards, and the local copying of these issues, show that the Dacians could adopt the superior Roman culture. The enemies which Rome had to face after the thorough-going extermination of the Dacians were far more dangerous because they were wholly unfamiliar with Roman civilization.

 

THE PARTHIAN DYNASTY IN THE TIME OF

THE ROMAN EMPIRE

Kings                                                       Sharers or rivals of the Royal power

Phraates IV. 38/7—3/2. B.C.                    Tiridates1. 32/1,28/78.0.

Phraataces (Phraates V, son of above),       (Phraates (?) V.)

and Musa. 3/2 b.c.—a.d. 4.                       Mithridates, c. 12-9 B.C.3

Orodes III

Vonones I. A.D. 8/9-11/2. (Son of Phraates IV.)

Atropatene Branch

Artabanus III. 10/11-40.                              Vonones I

Vardanes. 40/1.                                            Phraates.

Gotarzes. 41-51                                             Tiridates, 36

                                                                      ( ?Cinnamus )     

                                                                      Vardanes.42-4

Vonones II. 51.                                              Meherdates.49        

Vologases I. 51-77.                                         Vardanes son of Vardanes

Vologases II. 77-9.6

Pacorus II. 77-96 or later.                               Vologeses (II). 79

                                                                      Artabanus (IV)

Osroes. 106-(?) 130.                                       Vologeses (II). 121

Vologases II. (?) 130-47.                                  Mithridates

Vologases III. 148-91.

Vologases IV. 190/1-208/9.

Vologases V. 208/9..

Artabanus V. 227.

Artavasdes. 228.

 

The evidence of the literary sources can be in part supplemented or controlled by that of coins, especially of the silver tetradrachms of the kings which bear a year and month of the Seleucid Era. But the issue of tetradrachms was irregular, and the kings’ portraits which they also bear cannot always be identified. The actual names of the kings, as distinct from the traditional royal title, are rarely given before the middle of the second century. The chronology of the Parthian kings is therefore hypothetical and controversial.  

CHAPTER III

THE SARMATAE AND PARTHIANS