Introduction | Arhitecture | Art | A brief conclusion
Introduction
All persons who entered in contact with these pieces, along the way, were historians and archeologists (except Ion Coteanu and Dan Slusanschi), and their interest for the language found on the plates was minimum. To this we surely add the presence of the so-called Cyrillic signs from the inscriptions on the plates, which fastened the “false” verdict. A thorough analysis of the language would have raised eyebrows, stopping them from hasting, but they used as sole evaluation criteria the illustrations, which they considered strange, unexpected and not according to what was known about the Dacians. Today, this is the first invoked argument: the representations from the plates are not according to what was discovered in the last century regarding Getic and Dacian art. We can admit they are right but in the same time they are wrong. Firstly, this archive is unique, the technique used for realizing the pieces has no precedent in this geographic space and the same is the used material. The pieces had a sacred characteristic, were written by great priests and dedicated to the gods and probably were extremely well guarded, treasured and hidden. All these facts stop us to make a comparison with the usual Getic and Dacian products. Of course, there must be common points, and they must be sought within the motifs from the luxury painted ceramics, jewellery, weapons or other objects that may have belonged to the nobility. Although the plates come from different areas and times, one can observe a certain stylistic unity, explicable, probably, through the conscience of an ethnic unity (political unity was unnecessary) and through an old-established tradition.
The following pages comprise only a few selective observations. A thorough study of all illustrations would need a team of professionals and many years of hard work.