Carpi (people) - Ethno-linguistic Affiliation

Ethno-linguistic Affiliation

There is no direct evidence in surviving Roman imperial era sources, literary or epigraphic, regarding the language of the Carpi. In the near-total absence of inscriptions in the barbaricum, the only valid (though not infallible) indicator of the linguistic affiliation of barbarian peoples are personal names, which can sometimes be ascribed to a linguistic group. However, not a single Carpi personal name is preserved in the surviving ancient sources, other than the name "Carpi" itself, which cannot be ascribed with confidence to any linguistic group.

According to traditional Romanian historiography, as well as to several non-Romanian scholars, the Carpi were a people of the Dacian tongue and culture Heather, who supports this view, suggests that the Carpi name was adopted as the collective name of the Free Dacian tribes when they achieved a degree of political unification in the early 3rd century.

However, a significant number of scholars dispute that the Carpi were ethnic Dacians, and have identified them variously as Sarmatians, Thracians, Germans, Celts, or even proto-Slavs. This is because the region between the rivers Siret and Dniester was of great ethnic diversity during the Roman imperial era. In addition to Scytho-Sarmatian tribes (Roxolani, Agathyrsi), the ancient sources attest Germanic tribes (Bastarnae), Celts (Bastarnae, Taurisci, Anartes), Thracians ( the Biessi and Thraces identified by Ptolemy between the Danube and Dniester), and Dacians (Tyragetae). Also, some modern authors surmise the existence of ethnic groups formed in loco from mixed origins (but mostly with an indigenous Dacian/Sarmatian base e.g. the Goths).

Apart from a single tribal name of doubtful meaning and validity in a Byzantine chronicle (see paragraph below), the evidence adduced to support a Dacian identity for the Carpi is archaeological. Pottery and other artifacts, identified as "Dacian-style" by archaeologists such as Bichir, were discovered at sites in the region of Moldavia presumed occupied by the Carpi in the period AD 100-300 (e.g. at Poieneşti, near Vaslui) as well as in burial sites. In particular, Bichir points to a cup of unusual design and to the "corded" decoration of pots, as characteristically Dacian . However, determination of the Carpi's ethno-linguistic affiliation using the typology, or by the relative quantity, of finds has been questioned by Niculescu. Batty concurs that the presence of "Dacian-style" artefacts attests to the material level of the indigenes, but does not prove their ethnicity. These objections reflect modern archaeological theory, which considers that material cultures are not a reliable guide to the ethnic identity, and even less to the language, of the people in question (which may, in any case, have changed over time).

Zosimus, a Byzantine chronicler writing around AD 500, records an invasion of Rome's Danubian provinces in 381 by a barbarian coalition of Huns, Scirii and Karpodakai ("Carpo-Dacians"). The latter term has been taken by some scholars as 'proof' of the Carpi's Dacian ethnicity. But this is the only literary evidence linking the Carpi name to that of the Dacians, and Zosimus is regarded by numerous modern scholars as an unreliable chronicler. One historian accords Zosimus "an unsurpassable claim to be regarded as the worst of all the extant Greek historians of the Roman Empire it would be tedious to catalogue all the instances where this historian has falsely transcribed names, not to mention his confusion of events...". In any case, the term is ambiguous. It has also been interpreted as the "Carpi and the Dacians" or "the Carpi mixed with the Dacians". According to the eminent classical scholar Kahrstedt, the term does not refer to the Carpi at all but to Free Dacians, who occupied the territory of the Carpi, after the latter were deported by the Romans. He argues that, in ancient Greek, the first part of the term could only have a geographical meaning: i.e. Karpodakai means "the Dacians from the land of the Carpi". In the same vein, it has also been interpreted as "the Dacians of the Carpathians". (Compare Tyragetae, supposedly meaning "the Getae from the Tyras region"). It is possible that the entire Carpi people were transferred to the Roman empire by 318, which is supported by literary and archaeological evidence: Bichir notes that the culture which he calls "Daco-Carpic" ended in about 318. If so, then Zosimus' Karpodakai could not be referring to the Carpi.

A possible argument against Dacian ethnicity is that Roman emperors did not use the long-established imperial victory-title (cognomen ex virtute) Dacicus Maximus (literally: "the greatest Dacian") for victories over the Carpi, but instead adopted the separate title Carpicus Maximus. This was introduced by Philip the Arab in 247, the first Roman emperor to defeat the Carpi in person. Such titles were usually ethnographic, not geographical (i.e. Dacicus meant "victorious over the Dacians", not "victorious in Dacia") The existence of a separate victory-title for the Carpi may imply that the Romans did not consider the Carpi to be ethnic-Dacians. The same argument may also apply against a Sarmatian or Germanic identity for the Carpi, as Sarmaticus and Germanicus were also established titles in Philip's time. However, the victory-title argument is not conclusive, as 3rd-century emperors used three titles simultaneously to indicate victories against the same ethnic group, the Iranians: Parthicus ("Victorious over the Parthians"), Medicus ("Medes") and Persicus ("Persians").

Note: *Some of the titles above are attested to in multiple inscriptions.