Jump to content

Costoboci: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 44: Line 44:
# Onomastics: The evidence of an imperial-era funerary inscription found in Rome, dedicated to "Zia, daughter of Tiatus, Dacian wife of [[Pieporus]], Costobocan king".<ref name="CIL VI.1801"/> Some scholars consider that ''Pieporus'' is a name of Dacian origin, as are those of Pieporus' named grandchildren, ''Natoporus'' and ''Drigisa''.<ref name="J. Van Den Gheyn 1930 145">J. Van Den Gheyn (1930) 145</ref> The same ţscholars regard the name-suffix ''-poris/porus/por'' as typically Dacian.<ref name="J. Van Den Gheyn 1930 145"/><ref>Mommsen (1887) 225</ref> ''Caveat:'' some scholars (e.g. Mommsen) consider these names to be Thracian. In particular, the onomastic suffix ''-por'' is attested in Thracians names e.g. ''[[Rhescuporis]]'', ''Mucapor''. In any case, the name of a single king cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence of his people's ethnicity: it was not uncommon for barbarian royal families of this era to adopt non-native names, especially as a result of intermarriage with foreign dynasties e.g. the Thracian names of some [[Bosporan kingdom|Bosporan kings]]. (see note {{hcref|d|Names of Bosporan kings}})
# Onomastics: The evidence of an imperial-era funerary inscription found in Rome, dedicated to "Zia, daughter of Tiatus, Dacian wife of [[Pieporus]], Costobocan king".<ref name="CIL VI.1801"/> Some scholars consider that ''Pieporus'' is a name of Dacian origin, as are those of Pieporus' named grandchildren, ''Natoporus'' and ''Drigisa''.<ref name="J. Van Den Gheyn 1930 145">J. Van Den Gheyn (1930) 145</ref> The same ţscholars regard the name-suffix ''-poris/porus/por'' as typically Dacian.<ref name="J. Van Den Gheyn 1930 145"/><ref>Mommsen (1887) 225</ref> ''Caveat:'' some scholars (e.g. Mommsen) consider these names to be Thracian. In particular, the onomastic suffix ''-por'' is attested in Thracians names e.g. ''[[Rhescuporis]]'', ''Mucapor''. In any case, the name of a single king cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence of his people's ethnicity: it was not uncommon for barbarian royal families of this era to adopt non-native names, especially as a result of intermarriage with foreign dynasties e.g. the Thracian names of some [[Bosporan kingdom|Bosporan kings]]. (see note {{hcref|d|Names of Bosporan kings}})
#The rubric ''Dacpetoporiani'' on the [[Tabula Peutingeriana]]. This has been interpreted by some scholars as meaning "Daci Petoporiani". It has been suggested that "Petoporiani" is an error and should read "Pieporiani" ("the Dacians of Pieporus") and refers to the Costoboci.<ref>Hrushevskyĭ Mykhaĭlo(1997) 99</ref> According to Schutte, the people of Pieporus lived in Roman Dacia.<ref name="Schutte 1917 143">{{harvnb|Schutte|1917|p=143}}</ref> ''Caveat:'' the Peutinger map dates from the 4th century, while the Pieporus inscription is believed to be 2nd-century. Also ''petoporiani'' appears closer to the attested Dacian name ''Petipor'' than to Pieporus.
#The rubric ''Dacpetoporiani'' on the [[Tabula Peutingeriana]]. This has been interpreted by some scholars as meaning "Daci Petoporiani". It has been suggested that "Petoporiani" is an error and should read "Pieporiani" ("the Dacians of Pieporus") and refers to the Costoboci.<ref>Hrushevskyĭ Mykhaĭlo(1997) 99</ref> According to Schutte, the people of Pieporus lived in Roman Dacia.<ref name="Schutte 1917 143">{{harvnb|Schutte|1917|p=143}}</ref> ''Caveat:'' the Peutinger map dates from the 4th century, while the Pieporus inscription is believed to be 2nd-century. Also ''petoporiani'' appears closer to the attested Dacian name ''Petipor'' than to Pieporus.
# Archaeology: The Costoboci have been linked by some scholars with the Lipiţa culture.<ref name="Macrea1970"/><ref name="Bichir 1976 161">Bichir (1976) 161</ref> On the basis of this culture's characteristics, many Romanian archaeologists{{Who|date=January 2011}} argue that the population of this region was always, and remained, predominantly Geto-Dacian.<ref>Bichir (1976) 164</ref> ''Caveat:'' Equation of material cultures, as defined by archaeologists, with ethnic groups has not been regarded as scientifically reliable since the 1960's. Batty argues that the presence of Dacian-style pottery and other artifacts is an indicator of the material level attained by the indigenes, but in no way proves their ethnicity. Batty notes that the Lipiţa domain was shared by the [[Bastarnae]], a Celto-Germanic federation of tribes.<ref>Batty (2008) 378</ref>{{Verify source|date=March 2011}} It was also shared by the probably Celtic Anartes and Taurisci, according to Ptolemy.<ref>Ptolemy III.8.3</ref>{{Or|date=January 2011}} According to modern archaeological theory, Lipiţa could be the culture of any, or of all, of these groups.<ref>Renfrew (1987) 445</ref>{{Verify source|date=March 2011}}
# Archaeology: The Costoboci have been linked by some scholars with the Lipiţa culture.<ref name="Macrea1970"/><ref name="Bichir 1976 161">Bichir (1976) 161</ref> On the basis of this culture's "Dacian" characteristics, many Romanian archaeologists{{Who|date=January 2011}} argue that the population of this region was always, and remained, predominantly [[Geto-Dacian]].<ref>Bichir (1976) 164</ref> ''Caveat:'' Equation of material cultures, as defined by archaeologists, with particular ethnic groups has not been regarded as scientifically reliable since the 1960's. Batty argues that the presence of Dacian-style pottery and other artefacts is an indicator of the material level attained by the indigenes, but does not prove their ethnicity. Batty notes that the Lipiţa domain was shared by the [[Bastarnae]], a Celto-Germanic federation of tribes.<ref>Batty (2008) 378</ref>{{Verify source|date=March 2011}} It was also shared by the probably Celtic Anartes and Taurisci, according to Ptolemy.<ref>Ptolemy III.8.3</ref>{{Or|date=January 2011}} According to modern archaeological theory, Lipiţa could be the culture of any, or of all, of these groups.<ref>Renfrew (1987) 445</ref>{{Verify source|date=March 2011}}
# Name etymology: The Dacian element of the name “–bokoi” (i.e. Dacian Sabokoi <ref name="Schutte Gudmund 1917 121">Schutte Gudmund 1917 121</ref> ) re-appears in Koisto-bokoi,.<ref name="Schutte Gudmund 1917 121"/><ref>{{harvnb|Russu |1969|p=112,116}}</ref> ''Costo'' 'appear, see, show' from *kuek', kuok' <ref>{{harvnb|Russu |1969|p=112}}</ref> and ''Bokoi'' ‘light, noble’ from Indo-European roots *bho, *bha where “-k-“ is a suffix. Thus, according to Russu, Costoboci means "the shining ones".<ref>{{harvnb|Russu |1967|p=143}}</ref> ''Caveat:'' derivation of meaning by Indo-European root-word analysis is highly tentative, because the IE roots are reconstructions and because of the large numbers of alternative roots that could explain a word. The Bulgarian linguist [[Vladimir I. Georgiev|Georgiev]] describes root-word etymologies as "devoid of scientific value". (ref: Georgiev 1967).
# Name etymology: The Dacian element of the name “–bokoi” (i.e. Dacian Sabokoi <ref name="Schutte Gudmund 1917 121">Schutte Gudmund 1917 121</ref> ) re-appears in Koisto-bokoi,.<ref name="Schutte Gudmund 1917 121"/><ref>{{harvnb|Russu |1969|p=112,116}}</ref> ''Costo'' 'appear, see, show' from *kuek', kuok' <ref>{{harvnb|Russu |1969|p=112}}</ref> and ''Bokoi'' ‘light, noble’ from Indo-European roots *bho, *bha where “-k-“ is a suffix. Thus, according to Russu, Costoboci means "the shining ones".<ref>{{harvnb|Russu |1967|p=143}}</ref> ''Caveat:'' derivation of meaning by Indo-European root-word analysis is highly tentative, because the IE roots are reconstructions and because of the large numbers of alternative roots that could explain a word. The Bulgarian linguist [[Vladimir I. Georgiev|Georgiev]] describes root-word etymologies as "devoid of scientific value". (ref: Georgiev 1967).


The archaeological evidence presented by Bichir of two cultures, a nomadic minority and a sedentary majority, co-existing in the period AD 100-300 in the whole of Moldavia, raises the question of whether "Costoboci" was the name of the nomadic people or of the sedentary population and of the relationship between the two peoples. According to Bichir, Costoboci was the name of the sedentary majority, which he considers ethnic-Dacian, while the nomadic minority were ethnic-Sarmatian. Bichir claims that the Sarmatian minority accepted the political and cultural supremacy of the sedentary majority.<ref name="Bichir 1976"/> Nevertheless, Bichir reports that the Sarmatian minority retained their cultural customs, in the form of inhumation with tamga-mirrors, throughout the period, and did not convert to cremation-rites. The situation in Moldavia, therefore, was quite different from that in [[Wallachia]], where Bichir notes that the resident Sarmatians, a branch of the [[Roxolani]] tribe, achieved political dominance over the native [[Geto-Dacian]] majority.
The archaeological evidence presented by Bichir of two cultures, a nomadic minority and a sedentary majority, co-existing in the period AD 100-300 in the whole of Moldavia, raises the question of whether "Costoboci" was the name of the nomadic people or of the sedentary population and of the relationship between the two peoples. According to Bichir, Costoboci was the name of the sedentary majority, which he considers ethnic-Dacian, while the nomadic minority were ethnic-Sarmatian. Bichir argues that the Sarmatian minority accepted the political and cultural supremacy of the sedentary majority.<ref name="Bichir 1976"/> Nevertheless, Bichir reports that the Sarmatian minority retained their cultural customs, in the form of inhumation with tamga-mirrors, throughout the period, and did not convert to cremation-rites. The situation in Moldavia, according to Bichir, was quite different from that in [[Wallachia]], where Bichir notes that the resident Sarmatians, a branch of the [[Roxolani]] tribe, achieved political dominance over the native Geto-Dacian majority.


Batty argues that Lipiţa, a sedentary culture, is a poor match for the Costoboci, whom he considers a semi-nomadic "mobile" people (although he does not explicitly support Sarmatian ethnicity). Instead, he suggests that Lipiţa could represent the culture of a substrate population.<ref>Batty (2008) 375</ref>{{Verify source|date=March 2011}}
Batty argues that Lipiţa, a sedentary culture, is a poor match for the Costoboci, whom he considers a semi-nomadic "mobile" people (although he does not explicitly support Sarmatian ethnicity). Instead, he suggests that Lipiţa could represent the culture of a substrate population.<ref>Batty (2008) 375</ref>{{Verify source|date=March 2011}}

Revision as of 18:28, 2 June 2011

Map of Roman Dacia showing Costoboci to the north-east

The Costoboci (Latin variants: Costobocae,[1] Coisstoboci[2] or Castabocae;[3] Ancient Greek: Κοστοβῶκοι or Κοστουβῶκοι or Κοιστοβῶκοι[4][5]) were an ancient people located, during the Roman imperial era, between the Carpathian Mountains and the river Dniester. A branch of this people may also have been around the lower river Don.

Although it is possible that this people were mentioned by Pliny the Elder around AD 77, the earliest certain record of them in surviving ancient sources is in the Geographia of Ptolemy, published around 140. The last record of the Costoboci dates around 400.

The so-called "Lipiţa culture" has been linked by some scholars to the Costoboci. This people are considered by many scholars to have been a tribe of the Dacian nation. Other scholars have suggested a Thracian, Sarmatian, Germanic, or Celtic ethnicity.

The Costoboci invaded the Roman empire in AD 170 or 171, pillaging its Balkan provinces as far as central Greece. Shortly afterwards, their own territory was invaded and occupied by a Germanic tribe, and the Costoboci themselves were probably reduced to serfdom.

Territory

Mainstream modern scholarship locates this tribe in the region between the upper stretches of the rivers Siret and Dniester, to the North and/or Northeast of Roman Dacia i.e. SW Ukraine, NE Romania and northern Moldovan Rep.[6] This is based on the extent of the Lipita culture. The Barrington Atlas places them in a more limited region, the northernmost part of the former Principality of Moldavia (Rom.). (Ref: Barrington Map 22)

Some scholars argue that this tribe is first mentioned in the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder, published ca. AD 77, located much further East, around the lower river Don, near the palus Maeotis (Sea of Azov).[7] However, this identification is disputed. (See note Template:Hcref )

Ammianus Marcellinus, writing in ca. 400, locates the Costoboci "in the middle region of the arc" (in medio spatio arcus) formed by the Black Sea coast from the Cimmerian to the Thracian Bospori (i.e. from the Strait of Kerch to the Bosporus). (ref: Ammianus XXII.8: 12, 37, 42). However, Ammianus' geographical parameters are too vague to be of much value although it is an indication that even at this late date, the Costoboci may still have been a recognizable ethnic group. (See note Template:Hcref)

In his Geographia (published between ca. 140),[8] the Greek geographer Ptolemy seems to indicate that the Costoboci inhabited northwestern Dacia [9] (on both sides of the Carpathians)[10] as well as to its Northeast (Moldavia). There may have been two tribes having the same name or Ptolemy may have used two different reports of one and the same tribe.[9] But Ptolemy's topography of this entire region is suspect and the hypothesis of a Costobocan presence NW Romania/Slovakia is not widely accepted by modern scholars. (See note Template:Hcref )

Material culture

Further information: Lipiţa culture

The region believed inhabited by the Costoboci contained the so-called "Lipiţa culture".[11] This developed on the northern side of the Carpathians in the Upper Dniester and Prut basins in the Late La Tène period.[12] The bearers of this culture had a sedentary lifestyle, practicing agriculture, cattle-breeding, iron-working and pottery.[13] The settlements were not fortified and contained sunken floored buildings, surface buildings, storage pits, hearths, ovens and kilns.[14] The cemeteries were found close to settlements. The predominant funeral rite was cremation, with urns containing ashes buried in plain graves.[15] The culture disappeared during the 3rd century AD.[citation needed]

Ethnic and linguistic affiliation

The ethnic affiliation of the Costoboci is disputed.[16] It has been argued that they were a Dacian,[17] Sarmatian,[18], Celtic,[citation needed] Slavic[19] or Germanic people.[20]

Roman imperial-era literary sources suggest a Scytho-Sarmatian ethnicity for the Costoboci: Pliny the Elder, writing in ca. AD 77, probably includes the Costoboci in a list of Sarmatian tribes. In ca. 400, Ammianus Marcellinus also lists the Costoboci with Iranic steppe peoples, in this case the "European Alans ... and innumerable Scythian tribes".[1] However, neither of these sources provides unequivocal evidence. (See notes (a) and (b), below)

Mainstream modern scholarship classifies the Costoboci as an ethnic Dacian tribe, among the so-called "Free Dacians" not subjected to Roman rule.[4][21][22][23] The evidence adduced to support this view amount to a substantial, though not conclusive, case:[original research?]:

Transcript of funeral inscription found in Rome (now lost), attesting a Costobocan king named Pieporus, his Dacian wife Zia and his grandchildren Drigisa and Natoporus. Prob. 2nd c.
  1. Ptolemy: The fact that Ptolemy includes the Costoboci in his list of tribes inhabiting the northernmost part of Dacia proper.[24] Caveat: Ptolemy also includes in the same region the non-Dacian Anartes and Taurisci, probably Celtic peoples. It is doubtful that these three peoples were inside Dacia proper at all. (See note c)
  2. Onomastics: The evidence of an imperial-era funerary inscription found in Rome, dedicated to "Zia, daughter of Tiatus, Dacian wife of Pieporus, Costobocan king".[2] Some scholars consider that Pieporus is a name of Dacian origin, as are those of Pieporus' named grandchildren, Natoporus and Drigisa.[25] The same ţscholars regard the name-suffix -poris/porus/por as typically Dacian.[25][26] Caveat: some scholars (e.g. Mommsen) consider these names to be Thracian. In particular, the onomastic suffix -por is attested in Thracians names e.g. Rhescuporis, Mucapor. In any case, the name of a single king cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence of his people's ethnicity: it was not uncommon for barbarian royal families of this era to adopt non-native names, especially as a result of intermarriage with foreign dynasties e.g. the Thracian names of some Bosporan kings. (see note Template:Hcref)
  3. The rubric Dacpetoporiani on the Tabula Peutingeriana. This has been interpreted by some scholars as meaning "Daci Petoporiani". It has been suggested that "Petoporiani" is an error and should read "Pieporiani" ("the Dacians of Pieporus") and refers to the Costoboci.[27] According to Schutte, the people of Pieporus lived in Roman Dacia.[28] Caveat: the Peutinger map dates from the 4th century, while the Pieporus inscription is believed to be 2nd-century. Also petoporiani appears closer to the attested Dacian name Petipor than to Pieporus.
  4. Archaeology: The Costoboci have been linked by some scholars with the Lipiţa culture.[10][29] On the basis of this culture's "Dacian" characteristics, many Romanian archaeologists[who?] argue that the population of this region was always, and remained, predominantly Geto-Dacian.[30] Caveat: Equation of material cultures, as defined by archaeologists, with particular ethnic groups has not been regarded as scientifically reliable since the 1960's. Batty argues that the presence of Dacian-style pottery and other artefacts is an indicator of the material level attained by the indigenes, but does not prove their ethnicity. Batty notes that the Lipiţa domain was shared by the Bastarnae, a Celto-Germanic federation of tribes.[31][verification needed] It was also shared by the probably Celtic Anartes and Taurisci, according to Ptolemy.[32][original research?] According to modern archaeological theory, Lipiţa could be the culture of any, or of all, of these groups.[33][verification needed]
  5. Name etymology: The Dacian element of the name “–bokoi” (i.e. Dacian Sabokoi [34] ) re-appears in Koisto-bokoi,.[34][35] Costo 'appear, see, show' from *kuek', kuok' [36] and Bokoi ‘light, noble’ from Indo-European roots *bho, *bha where “-k-“ is a suffix. Thus, according to Russu, Costoboci means "the shining ones".[37] Caveat: derivation of meaning by Indo-European root-word analysis is highly tentative, because the IE roots are reconstructions and because of the large numbers of alternative roots that could explain a word. The Bulgarian linguist Georgiev describes root-word etymologies as "devoid of scientific value". (ref: Georgiev 1967).

The archaeological evidence presented by Bichir of two cultures, a nomadic minority and a sedentary majority, co-existing in the period AD 100-300 in the whole of Moldavia, raises the question of whether "Costoboci" was the name of the nomadic people or of the sedentary population and of the relationship between the two peoples. According to Bichir, Costoboci was the name of the sedentary majority, which he considers ethnic-Dacian, while the nomadic minority were ethnic-Sarmatian. Bichir argues that the Sarmatian minority accepted the political and cultural supremacy of the sedentary majority.[21] Nevertheless, Bichir reports that the Sarmatian minority retained their cultural customs, in the form of inhumation with tamga-mirrors, throughout the period, and did not convert to cremation-rites. The situation in Moldavia, according to Bichir, was quite different from that in Wallachia, where Bichir notes that the resident Sarmatians, a branch of the Roxolani tribe, achieved political dominance over the native Geto-Dacian majority.

Batty argues that Lipiţa, a sedentary culture, is a poor match for the Costoboci, whom he considers a semi-nomadic "mobile" people (although he does not explicitly support Sarmatian ethnicity). Instead, he suggests that Lipiţa could represent the culture of a substrate population.[38][verification needed]

Conflict with Rome

Further information: Marcomannic Wars
Map of the Roman empire in AD 125, showing the possible territory of the Costoboci (if defined as the extent of the Lipita culture), Northeast of Roman Dacia
Equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius. It may have been erected in 176 or 177 to commemorate his campaigns on the northern borders.[39]

During the rule of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, the Roman army fought the Marcomannic Wars (166-80, known to the Romans as the "German and Sarmatian War"), a vast and protracted struggle against an array of barbarian tribes across the middle Danube, principally the Germanic Marcomanni and Quadi (of N. Austria/Bohemia and Slovakia, respectively) and the Sarmatian Iazyges, who dominated the Hungarian Plain.

In late AD 169, it seems that the emperor launched the Roman armies on the middle Danube on a major invasion of the Hungarian Plain. But the offensive turned into a disaster. The Iazyges apparently inflicted a severe defeat on the Romans, in which the highly decorated general Marcus Claudius Fronto, governor of Moesia Superior and the "Three Dacias" combined, was killed "bravely fighting to his last breath for the Republic", according to his official epitaph in Rome. (Ref: CIL VI. 41142) [1] . Then in 170, the Marcomanni invaded the empire through the province of Noricum (Austria), and swept over the Alps into northern Italy.

It was probably the Romans' severe difficulties on the middle Danube that encouraged the Costoboci on the lower Danube to stage their own incursion into Roman territory. The unreliable Historia Augusta presents these events as the result of a "grand coalition" of barbarian tribes, including the Costoboci, against Rome. (ref: H.A. M. Aurelius II.22) But, at least as regards the Costoboci invasion, there is no evidence that any other tribe participated.

In AD 170[40][41] or 171,[41][42] the Costoboci crossed the Danube and swept through and ransacked the Roman provinces of Moesia Inferior, Thracia, Macedonia and Achaea, reaching as far as central Greece.[43]

Substantial evidence survives attesting the destructiveness of this invasion.The invaders may have attacked the Greek coastal city of Callatis in Scythia Minor (Dobrogea, Rom.), as its walls were repaired around this time.[44] Two funerary inscriptions discovered at the Roman colony of Tropaeum Traiani in Moesia Inferior (Adamclisi, Rom.) commemorate inhabitants who lost their lives in the barbarian onslaught: a duumvir (joint town-council leader), and a Daco-Moesian named Daizis Comozis.[45] [2] [3] Another tombstone was found at Scupi in Moesia Superior (Skopje, Macedonian Rep.), dedicated to Timon Dassus, an Illyrian decurion (cavalry squadron-leader) of the Roman auxiliary cohort II Aurelia Dardanorum, "killed by the Costoboci".[46][47][4]

Ruins at Eleusis. View over the excavation site towards the Saronic Gulf.

The contemporary Greek travel-writer Pausanias, writing some 20 years after the event, reports that "a horde of pillaging Costoboci had overrun Greece" in his lifetime. He adds that at Elateia in central Greece could be seen the bronze statue of a local hero named Mnesibulus, an Olympian champion who had led a citizen-militia against the invaders and fallen in combat.[48] The barbarians probably destroyed the famous Shrine of the Mysteries at Eleusis, near Athens, which ceased to function at this time.[49]

The emperor, who was fully occupied in fighting the invasion of the Marcomanni, responded to the crisis in the Balkans by despatching the procurator Lucius Gallus Iulianus to Greece with a task-force to intercept the Costoboci.[50] [5]

In the same period the Costoboci may have attacked Dacia. A bronze hand dedicated to Jupiter Dolichenus by a soldier from a cohort stationed in Dacia was found at Myszków in Western Ukraine. It has been suggested that this may have been loot from a Costobocan raid.[51][52]

Some scholars suggest that it was during this turbulent period that members of the family of king Pieporus were sent to Rome, as hostages.[53] However, this is speculative, as the Pieporus inscription is not datable with sufficient accuracy and the reason for his family's move to Rome is not stated. (Ref: CIL VI.1801)

Soon after AD 170,[54] the Hasdings, a people believed by many scholars to have been members of the Vandal group of East Germanic tribes, under their two kings, Raus and Raptus, reached the border of Roman Dacia "with all their households" (that is, families and servants), according to Dio. The Hasdings requested land to settle in and subsidies from Sextus Cornelius Clemens, the governor of the Three Dacias, [6] in return for their military allegiance to Rome. The governor refused their demands. But Clemens was doubtless aware of the danger posed by this warlike tribe, who in 167 had joined the Iazyges in a devastating raid into Dacia, in which one of his predecessors had been killed. He proposed to the Hasdings that they acquire the new land they sought by force of arms from the neighbouring Costoboci, while offering a temporary safe-haven for their women and children.[55][56] The Hasding war-host then attacked and crushed the Costoboci. (Ref: Dio LXXII.12)

The fate of the Costoboci who survived the Vandal invasion is uncertain. Bichir argues that most would have remained in their territory as serfs of the Vandals, pointing to the persistence of the Lipiţa culture into the 3rd century. He also suggests that some would have found refuge in the territory of their "fellow-Dacian" neighbours, the Carpi, based on a few "Lipiţa-style" fruit-stands found in central Moldavia. (However, there is no evidence that the Carpi supported the Costoboci's invasion of the empire in 170/1 and Bichir believes that they were probably loyal allies of Rome until the 3rd century).[29] Dio Cassius records that in AD 180, 12,000 "neighbouring" Daci, who had been driven out of their own territory, were admitted on the orders of the emperor Commodus into the Roman province of Dacia, and allocated land, to prevent them from joining hostile tribes.[57] It has been suggested that these were Costoboci refugees from the Vandal invasion of their homeland.[58] But the arrival of these Dacians occurred nearly a decade after the Vandal invasion and may have involved Free Dacian elements unconnected with the Costoboci.[citation needed]

See also

Notes

^ a: Pliny: The manuscripts of Pliny's Naturalis Historia contain various forms such as Cotobacchi, (ref: Frazer, 1898, p430) which may be corruptions of Costoboci. However, Russu (1959, p429) considers the Cotobacchi to be a distinct tribe. They are entered as such in the 2005 edition of the Barrington Atlas (Map 84).
^ b: Ammianus: Ammianus' vague location has been interpreted by some scholars as meaning the region between the Danube and Dniester rivers. (Ref: Den Boeft et al. (1995) p105). However, Ammianus adds that a "fast traveler" could cross this region in 15 days, while the 100 miles (160 km) between the mouths of the Danube and Dniester could be covered in just 3 days by a traveler on horseback. Ammianus may therefore have intended a much wider region, especially as he says it contained the "European Alans, Costobocae and innumerable Scythian tribes". It is also doubtful whether Ammianus was referring to the Costoboci of Moldavia, since these had been subjugated by Germanic tribes and had vanished from recorded history 230 years earlier.
^ c: Ptolemy: Despite his reputation as one of the greatest geographers of the ancient world, Ptolemy's understanding of the topography of Dacia was seriously flawed. He was apparently unaware that the Carpathian range forms a "horseshoe" pattern in Dacia and that the country was cut in half by the Southern Carpathians. Instead, he apparently believed that the country was flat from the Danube to the Northern Carpathians. As a consequence, there appears a degree of confusion between the southern and northern mountains. In particular, his inclusion of two Celtic tribes, the Anartes and Taurisci, inside Dacia is dubious, as is his location of Costoboci in NW Dacia, in apparent contradiction with his later location of this people outside Dacia to the NE. Most likely, the Celtic tribes lay outside Dacia in and beyond the northern mountains and the Costoboci location inside Dacia was simply a mistake.
^ d: Names of Bosporan kings: The ruling dynasty of the Bosporan kingdom, a Roman client-state in the northern Black Sea, was of Sarmatian origin. But, following the marriage of king Aspurgus to the Thracian princess Gepaepyris in the reign of emperor Augustus (r. 30 BC - AD 14), several successor-kings were given Thracian names (Cotys, Rhescuporis, Rhoemetalces), instead of the dynasty's traditional Iranic names (Sauromates, Mithradates, Pharnaces.

Citations

  1. ^ a b Ammianus XXII.8.42
  2. ^ a b CIL VI.1801
  3. ^ CIL VI.31856
  4. ^ a b Schutte Gudmund (1929) 74
  5. ^ Frazer 1898, p. 430
  6. ^ Birley 2000, p. 171; Talbert 2000
  7. ^ NH, VI, 19. See Frazer 1898, p. 429; Ormerod 1997, p. 259
  8. ^ Maenchen-Helfen Otto J. (1973) 448
  9. ^ a b Frazer 1898, p. 429
  10. ^ a b Macrea (1970) 1039
  11. ^ Bichir 1976, p. 162; Bichir 1980, p. 445; Shchukin 1989, p. 285,306
  12. ^ Bichir 1980, p. 446; Mikołajczyk 1984, p. 62
  13. ^ Bichir 1980, p. 446
  14. ^ Bichir 1980, p. 446
  15. ^ Bichir 1980, p. 446
  16. ^ Birley 2000, p. 171
  17. ^ Heather 2010, p. 131
  18. ^ Ormerod 1997, p. 259
  19. ^ Müllenhoff 1887, pp. 85–7
  20. ^ Musset 1994, p. 52,59
  21. ^ a b Bichir (1976)[page needed]
  22. ^ Heather (2010) 131
  23. ^ Millar (1981)[page needed]
  24. ^ Ptolemy III.8.1
  25. ^ a b J. Van Den Gheyn (1930) 145
  26. ^ Mommsen (1887) 225
  27. ^ Hrushevskyĭ Mykhaĭlo(1997) 99
  28. ^ Schutte 1917, p. 143
  29. ^ a b Bichir (1976) 161
  30. ^ Bichir (1976) 164
  31. ^ Batty (2008) 378
  32. ^ Ptolemy III.8.3
  33. ^ Renfrew (1987) 445
  34. ^ a b Schutte Gudmund 1917 121
  35. ^ Russu 1969, p. 112,116
  36. ^ Russu 1969, p. 112
  37. ^ Russu 1967, p. 143
  38. ^ Batty (2008) 375
  39. ^ Colledge 2000, p. 981
  40. ^ Cortés 1995
  41. ^ a b Kovács 2009, p. 198
  42. ^ Schiedel 1990
  43. ^ Birley 2000, p. 172; Croitoru 2009, p. 402
  44. ^ Matei-Popescu & 2003-2005, p. 309
  45. ^ Matei-Popescu & 2003-2005, p. 309
  46. ^ AE 2005 1315
  47. ^ Basotova 2007, p. 409
  48. ^ Pausanias X.34.5
  49. ^ Birley 2000, p. 172
  50. ^ Kłodziński 2010, pp. 5–6; Birley 2000, p. 172
  51. ^ AE 1998 1113
  52. ^ Croitoru 2009, p. 404; Opreanu 1997, p. 248
  53. ^ Mateescu 1923, p. 255; Bichir 1980, p. 449; Opreanu 1997, p. 248; Petersen & Wachtel 1998, p. 161
  54. ^ Opreanu 1997, p. 249
  55. ^ Dio LXXII.12.2
  56. ^ Kovács 2009, p. 228; Croitoru 2009, p. 403; Merills & Miles 2010, p. 27
  57. ^ Dio LXXIII.3
  58. ^ Gudmund Schutte (1929), 52

References

Ancient

Modern

  • AE: L'Année épigraphique
  • Alföldi, Andreas (1944), Zu den Schicksalen Siebenbürgens im Altertum, Budapest{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Basotova, Maja (2007), "A new veteran of the legion VII Claudia from the colonia Flavia Scupi", Arheološki Vestnik, 58: 405–409
  • Batty, Roger (2008): Rome and the Nomads: the Pontic-Danubian region in Antiquity[unreliable source?]
  • Bichir, Gheorghe (1976): History and Archaeology of the Carpi from the 2nd to the 4th centuries AD (English Trans. BAR Series 16 i)
  • Bichir, Gheorghe (1980), "Dacii liberi în secolele II - IV e.n.", Revista de Istorie, 33 (3): 443–468
  • Birley, Anthony R. (2000), "Hadrian to the Antonines", Cambridge Ancient History, vol. XI (2 ed.), pp. 132–194
  • CIL: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum ("Corpus of Latin Inscriptions")
  • Colledge, Malcolm A. R. (2000), "Art and architecture", Cambridge Ancient History, vol. XI (2 ed.), pp. 966–983
  • Cortés, Juan Manuel (1995), "La datación de la expedición de los Costobocos: la subscripción de XXII K de Elio Arístides", Habis, 25: 187–193
  • Croitoru, Costin (2009), "Despre organizarea limes-ului la Dunărea de Jos. Note de lectură (V)", Istros, XV: 385–430
  • Dana, Dan (2003), "Les daces dans les ostraca du désert oriental de l'Égypte. Morphologie des noms daces", Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 143: 166–186
  • Dana, Dan (2006), "The Historical Names of the Dacians and Their Memory: New Documents and a Preliminary Outlook", Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai - Historia (1): 99–127
  • Den Boeft, Jan; Drijvers, Jan Willem; Den Hengst, Daniel; Teitler, Hans C. (1995), Philological and Historical Commentaries on Ammianus Marcellinus, vol. XXII, Groningen{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Dessau, Hermann (1892), Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, vol. 1, Berlin{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Detschew, Dimiter (1957), Die thrakischen Sprachreste, Vienna{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Georgiev, Vladimir (1983), "Thrakische und Dakische Namenkunde", Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, vol. II.29.2, Berlin - New York, pp. 1195–1213{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Frazer, James George (1898), Pausanias's Description of Greece, vol. 5
  • Heather, Peter (2010), Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe, Oxford University Press
  • Hrushevskyĭ Mykhaĭlo (1997): History of Ukraine-Rus': From prehistory to the eleventh century published by Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 1997, ISBN 9781895571196
  • Kłodziński, Karol (2010), "Equestrian cursus honorum basing on the careers of two prominent officers of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius", In Tempore, 4: 1–15
  • Kovács, Péter (2009), Marcus Aurelius' rain miracle and the Marcomannic wars, Brill
  • Kropotkin, Vladislav V. (1977), "Denkmäler der Przeworsk-Kultur in der Westukraine und ihre Beziehungen zur Lipica- und Cernjachov-Kultur", in Chropovský, Bohuslav (ed.), Symposium. Ausklang der Latène-Zivilisation und Anfänge der germanischen Besiedlung im mittleren Donaugebiet, Bratislava, pp. 173–200{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Macrea, Mihail (1970), "Les Daces libres à l'époque romaine", in Filip, Jan (ed.), Actes du VIIe Congrés International des Sciences Prehistoriques et Protohistoriques, Prague 21-27 août 1966, vol. 2, pp. 1038–1041
  • Mateescu, George G. (1923), "I Traci nelle epigrafi di Roma", Ephemeris Dacoromana, I, Rome: 57–290
  • Matei-Popescu, Florian (2003–2005), "Note epigrafice I", SCIVA, 54–56: 303–312{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  • Merrills, Andrew H.; Miles, Richard (2010), The Vandals, Wiley-Blackwell
  • Maenchen-Helfen Otto J. (1973) The world of the Huns : studies in their history and culture edited by Max Knight, published by Berkeley, University of California Press, ISBN 0520015967
  • Mikołajczyk, Andrzej (1984), "The Transcarpathian finds of Geto-Dacian coins", Archaeologia Polona, 23: 49–66
  • Millar,Fergus (1981): The Roman Empire and its neighbours Duckworth
  • Müllenhoff, Karl (1887), Deutsche altertumskunde, vol. 2, Berlin{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Mommsen, Theodor (1909): The Provinces of the Roman Empire from Caesar to Diocletian (Translated with the author's additions, by William P. Dickson), London, Macmillan
  • Muratori, Lodovico Antonio (1740), Novus Thesaurus Veterum Inscriptionum, vol. 2, Milan
  • Musset, Lucien (1994) [1965], Les invasions: les vagues germaniques (3 ed.), Paris: Presses universitaires de France
  • Opreanu, C. (1997), "Roman Dacia and its barbarian neighbours. Economic and diplomatic relations", Roman frontier studies 1995: proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, pp. 247–252
  • Ormerod, Henry Arderne (1997) [1924], Piracy in the ancient world: an essay in Mediterranean history
  • Petersen, Leiva; Wachtel, Klaus (1998), Prosopographia Imperii Romani. Saec. I, II, III., vol. VI, Berlin-New York: De Gruyter
  • Renfrew, Colin (1987): Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice
  • Russu, Ion Iosif (1959), "Les Costoboces", Dacia, NS 3: 341–352
  • Russu, Ion Iosif (1967), "Limba Traco-Dacilor" ('Thraco-Dacian language') (2 ed.), Editura Stiintifica
  • Russu, Ion Iosif (1969), "Die Sprache der Thrako-Daker" ('Thraco-Dacian language'), Editura Stiintifica
  • Scheidel, Walter (1990), "Probleme der Datierung des Costoboceneinfalls im Balkanraum unter Marcus Aurelius", Historia, 39: 493–498
  • Shchukin, Mark B. (1989), Rome and the Barbarians in Central and Eastern Europe: 1st century B.C.-1st century A.D.
  • Schutte, Gudmund (1917) [1917], Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe: a reconstruction of the prototypes, vol. I (1 ed.), H. Hagerup{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Schutte Gudmund (1929): Our forefathers, the Gothonic nations, University Press, 1929
  • Talbert, Richard J. A. (2000), Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World
  • Tomaschek Wilhelm (1883): Les restes de la langue dace in "Le Museon Revue Internationale Volume 2, Louvain"
  • Tomaschek, Wilhelm (1980a) [1893], Die alten Thraker, vol. I (2 ed.), Vienna{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Tomaschek, Wilhelm (1980b) [1894], Die alten Thraker, vol. II.2 (2 ed.), Vienna{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Van Den Gheyn, S. J. (1930): Populations Danubiennes, Études D’ethnographie compareee in "Revue des questions scientifiques, Volumes 17-18, 1930" by "Société scientifique de Bruxelles, Union catholique des scientifiques français, ISSN: 0035-2160"[unreliable source?]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Costoboci&oldid=432217131"