W hat remains to be explained then are the internal reasons underlying the erection of hillforts — reflecting a clearly differentiated social structure —, the accumulation of wealth — mainly in the form of silver — and the obvi
ous and sudden growth of Dacian power. The often laconic data on Dacian social structure describe two distinct, almost caste-like layers: the tarabostes or "cap-w earers", and the commoners or "long-haired" people. Later de
pictions indeed show that members of the Dacian nobility wore felt caps.
The separation of a small elite minority from a subjugated majority offers a plausible explanation for the duality of the Dacian archaeological heritage, a unique phenom enon among the other Late Iron Age cultures in the Lower Danube region. Greek import pottery, Greek mirrors, a high standard of local silverworking and carefully executed wheel-turned wares ornamented with painted patterns from the Dacian hillforts are in sharp contrast to the
hum ble and coarse handmade pottery and poor quality iron artifacts which maintain Early Iron Age traditions in the open settlements.
That one tribe or a smaller group of tribes conquered extensive territo
ries within a relatively short period of time, and either subdued and ex
ploited the local population — one not necessarily related to it linguistically
— or forced it into an uneasy alliance is by no means an unusual phenom enon in these centuries. Before the Dacians gained control in the Lower and Middle Danube region, Roman Macedonia was first harassed by the Celtic Scordisci from the north and later, from the beginning of the first century B.C., by the Dardanians of southern Serbia and Macedonia. At the time when the Scordisci are designated as the archenemies of Rome in the Balkans, the Dardanians either pass without comment or are lumped together with other Thracian tribes as the allies of the Scordisci in their wars against Rome. The power of the Scordisci was broken around the turn of the second and first centuries B.C., and they are rarely mentioned among the Balkanic enemies of Rom e thereafter. At the same time, increasingly more is written about the Dardanians and various other Thracian tribes who accompanied them to the battlefields and who had previously only been "grudgingly" listed am ong the allies of the Scordisci. The political history of the Carpathian Basin during the last few centuries B.C. was characterized by the reign of a tribe or a smaller group of tribes. The northern and western areas of the Carpathian Basin were, at the close of the second century B.C., controlled by a Celtic tribal alliance led by the Boii. The Sava Valley was dominated by the Scordisci who until the beginning of the first century B.C. were the over
lords of the Pannon tribes living between the Drava and the Sava. The he
gemony of the Scordisci in this area was probably broken after the crushing defeats inflicted on them by Rome. The independence of the Pannon tribes in the 60s is suggested by the fact that when Mithridates, king of the Pontus region, set out to attack Italy via the Balkan Peninsula and the Alps, it was the Pannons and not the Scordisci who were said to control the area.
In the mid-first century B.C., the peoples of the Carpathian Basin and the Balkans found themselves confronted by the Dacian king, Burebista, who had embarked on a series of swift and unexpected campaigns. Our sources offer little conclusive evidence as to whether Burebista had actually been the first significant ruler to unite the Dacian tribes, or whether he was fol
lowing up on the achievements of his predecessors. His reign is correlated with major events of Roman history: the arrival of Burebista's right-hand man and chief counsellor to the Dacian court is synchronized with Sulla's ascension to power (82 B.C.), while Burebista's murder is set alongside Cae
sar's assassination (44 B.C.). These ill-constructed parallels serve only to enable us to date Burebista's reign before the mid-first century B.C. A c
cording to Strabo — our most important source — Burebista carried out his major conquests within a matter of a few years. An inscription found in Dionysopolis9 (Balchik, Bulgaria) dating to around 48 B.C. flatly states that Burebista was "the first and greatest of all the kings of Thracia". The same inscription m entions a Getan ruler to whose father the town of Dionysopolis 9. G. Mih a il o v, Inscriptions Graecae in Bulgaria repertae. I. (2nd edition, Sofia 1970).
No. 13 = DobO, Inscriptions ... 837.
sent a delegation. The delegation was received by the Getan king in Arge- dava. Owing to the fragmentary state of the inscription it is not entirely clear w hether this king of Argedava was Burebista's father, or whether Argedava itself may perhaps be identified with Arcidava (Varadia) on the eastern fringes of the Banat. If so, the king receiving the Greek delegation may plausibly be identified with Burebista's father. This possibility is, how ever, somewhat contradicted by the fact that in the first half of his reign, every sign suggests that Burebista did not have any influence over the Greek towns of the Pontic littoral. In the audacious plans drawn up in the 60s by Mithridates, king of the Pontus region, the Dacians are ignored — they ap
pear neither as potential allies nor as foes — suggesting that Dacian rule did not at that time extend to the Lower Danube or to the Black Sea littoral.
Consequently, Burebista's conquests can be assigned to a brief period in the 50s of the first century B.C. During the first, and longer, half of his region, Burebista was undoubtedly preoccupied with the unification of the Dacian tribes and with the creation and consolidation of the Dacian Kingdom. His chief counsellor and aide in this protracted and undoubtedly bloody proc
ess was Decaineus, the high priest, who was invested with "an almost royal pow er".
The chronological order of Burebista's conquests is uncertain because our sources mention little more than the fact itself. Burebista extended Dacian rule in three directions. He broke through to the southeast as far as the Pontic littoral and vanquished the Greek towns lying on the seacoast be
tween the Danube delta and the Balkan Mountains. Before he could achieve this, the Getan tribes inhabiting the! Lower Danube region had to be sub
jected in parallel with crushing the power of the Bastarnae occupying the territory to the north of the Getae beyond the Carpathians. This population of Celtic or Germanic stock had by the second century B.C. frequently put their troops at the disposal of the Macedonian kings and appeared time and time again as mercenaries serving various powers. After Burebista's death they were either the allies of, or mercenaries in the service of, the Dacians in the wars against Rome.
The other thrust, deemed dangerous in Roman eyes, was directed against Macedonia. Burebista crossed the Danube, and after ravaging the better part of the Balkan Peninsula he came to the Roman province of Macedonia and the Dalmatian coast, also in Roman hands. In Julius Caesar's last years, the removal of the Dacian threat was high on the agenda of Roman foreign policy. However, the only established result of these Balkanic conquests was that the Scordisci fought alongside the Dacians in Burebista's later wars, and that the Dacians had gained a lasting foothold to the south of the Dan
ube, in the northern part of present-day Serbia.
The third direction of Dacian expansion affected their western neigh
bours, the Celts. The Boian tribal confederacy embraced, in the first half of the fir§t century B.C., the Celtic tribes of western Transylvania. Burebista first probably tried to break the hegemony of these tribes, the Taurisci and the Anartii, and then found himself facing the Celtic (Boian) tribal confed
eracy controlling the northern areas of the Carpathian Basin. The conflict was sparked off by the Dacian advance towards the settlement territory of the Boii that lay in Transdanubia and western Slovakia. Burebista's victory
over the Celts led to the dissolution not only of the Boian tribal confed
eracy, but also to the settlement of Dacians in what is today southern Slo
vakia. Besides the widespread distribution of the characteristic hand-made Dacian pottery, this fact is also reflected in the marked "D acianization" of Celtic personal names during the second century A.D. in southern Slovakia.
The changes in the balance of power in the Middle and Lower Danube region caused consternation in Rome if for no other reason than that a hith
erto unknown population — furthermore one living far beyond the Roman sphere of influence — had with alarming swiftness grown into a m ajor po
litical force in Illyricum (the Dalmatian coastline) and Macedonia. The ne
cessity of breaking Dacian power was justifiably a major point in Julius Caesar's political programme. He planned an expedition against them that was to have been launched from Macedonia and would have taken place by 44 or 43 B.C. had his assassination not thwarted these plans. Around the same time, Burebista too became the victim of political murder. This con
spiracy (or rather revolt, in our sources) appears to have reflected the inter
ests of a particularist group (or groups) of the Dacian nobility: the Dacian tribes could have been united only after the elimination of their independ
ent tribal leaders. Obviously, the possibility that Roman foreign policy also had a role in Burebista's death cannot be entirely ruled out. Som e of Burebista's successors are known to have made contact with Octavian and Anthony.