THE WOLF-SERPENT STANDARD OF THE DACIANS, NOW PROVEN TO EXIST FROM AT LEAST THE 2ND–1ST C. BC

NOTE: The following blog post is important because it goes to the heart of my contention that Arthur's father, Uther Pendragon, is to be sought at the Birdoswald/Banna Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall.  This fort was garrisoned for centuries by a Dacian-founded unit. I have elsewhere proposed that the AELI DRACONIS found on the Ilam Pan means 'Aelian dragon', a reference to the Aelian Dacian unit and, by extension, the Banna fort itself.  In this light, Uther Pendragon, the Terrible Chief-dragon, may owe his name/title to a peculiar traditional reverence at Banna for the draco standard.  Alternately, Pendragon may be a Welsh attempt to render the late Roman rank of magister draconum.  But even if this last is so, we might associate it with the Dacians and their draco.  

Photo Courtesy Dr. Alin Franculeasa

Not too long ago, Dr. Linda A. Malcor disputed the claim that the Dacians had a draco standard.  In her opinion, they had a wolf-headed standard with a mere windsock attached.  I was a bit surprised by her declaration, but found myself scrambling to find "proof" that the Dacian 'draco' actually existed!

Yes, we have a description of the draco as used by Julian in which the body is definitively described as reptilian (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-dacian-wolf-serpent-standard-and.html). But Malcor could point to the images of the Dacian 'draco' on Trajan's Column, which lack the necessary scalation to prove a serpentine body.  There are some connecting hoops with streamers attached, but no pattern of scales on the windsock.

Although the Dacian standard everywhere is called a draco (and I mean in all the relevant academic literature), I didn't feel as if I could assume that they were right.  In my mind, although I resisted the notion, Malcor had made a good point.  Yes, we had Dacian bracelets which were serpentine, but also either decorated with animal heads (some of which could be wolves) and scales or fur, but we can't extrapolate from these that the Dacian standard was also a wolf-snake hybrid monster.

Furtunately, Romanian archaelogists have just completed an analysis of a ceramic fragment once thought to be a forgery, but now confirmed as genuine and as belonging to the 2nd-1st centuries B.C.  This fragment depicts a Dacian standard, complete with wolf's head and a serpent's body. The tail is divided up into streamers.

The serpent body would mean we can, in fact, define the Dacian standard as a draco.  And while we cannot dismiss the images found on Trajan's Column, it is always possible that different versions of the draco existed at one time or the other.  We can allow for different dracos for the Dacians, the Sarmatians and the Thracians.  And within those peoples we may have had specific "totems" that represented certain classes or tribal/kinship groups or even military units.  Eventually, once the draco was adopted into the Roman army, a "standardization" (pun intended) would naturally have occurred, leading to the use of a uniform type of draco.

For now, here is what the scholars say about the early Dacian draco on the ceramic fragment:

https://docplayer.net/58851756-13th-international-congress-of-thracology-ancient-thrace-myth-and-reality.html

20.Alexandru Berzovan (Iași Institute of Archaeology, Romania)

The Dacian standard (draco) on a clay vessel north of the Danube

Co-authors: Valeriu Sîrbu, Alexandru Berzovan, Alin Frânculeasa

So far, this is the only known representation ofthe Dacian standard from archaeological finds in pre-Roman Dacia and, as such, it is a very special item. The absence of the famous Dacian standard in the Geto-Dacian hoards of the 2ndc. BC –1stc. AD is inexplicable, given its notoriety, highlighted by the many representations on Trajan’s Column in Rome or by the written sources.The vessel fragment, probably from a cup, was found by V. Teodorescu in 1980, in the Dacian settlement from Vadu-Săpat-Budureasca. However, for reasons difficult to explain, there was insufficient focus on the extraordinary meaning of the representation. There was a genuine silentio stampa on the item, even the suspicion of forgery, perhaps because V. Teodorescu dated it to the 5th–4thc. BC, which goes far beyond the acceptedarchaeological and historical context of this representation. A new analysis of the item, including by means of an electron microscope, has shown that the Dacian standard was rendered on the vessel before the firing, namely on the crude paste, as there are deposits and calcifications inside the incision. Therefore, it is beyond any doubt that we are dealing with a genuine artefact and, implicitly, with a representation that, so far, is unique. For that reason, we aim to discuss this finding anew and to bring it back into the scientific circles, accompanied by all the available data, including that offered by the new technologies. A new analysis of the discovery conditions has led us to date it, most likely, to the 2nd–1stc. BC, and to discuss its meaning in the context of the figurative representations of the late Dacian art from that period. This finding carries a special meaning, as it confirms the written and iconographic sources attesting the use of the draco by the Geto-Dacians north of the Danube. The meaning of the Dacian standard has been analysed by renowned specialists, such as V. Pârvan, D. Tudor, S. Sanie and M. Eliade, to name just a few.We believe that this metaphorical creature – wolf head on a dragon/snake body – is a symbolic cross between two animals with profound meanings in Geto-Dacian mythology. The wolf is an apex predator (that is to say, an exemplary warrior) and the snake stands for regeneration (namely, immortality), thus pointing to the mythological side of their history, as M. Eliade so beautifully put it.