Comosicus is a North Thracian ruler included in the so-called list of “Dacian kings”, which is an interpretation of the series of dynasts in the Inner Carpathian region, imposed in contemporary historiography. A large part of this Nomenclature is based exclusively on the late evidence of Jordanes in his work Getica (or De origine actibusque Getarum) from the mid-6^th century. The ancient author, who sincerely believed the Getae to be Goths, Jordanes writes that after the death of Dicineus, they held Comosicus in almost equal honor, because he was not inferior in knowledge. By reason of his wisdom, he was accounted their priest and king, and he judged the people with the greatest uprightness. When he too had departed from human affairs, Coryllus ascended the throne as king of the Goths and for forty years ruled his people in Dacia (Iord. Get. 73).

The historical presence of Comosicus did not evoke doubts among the contemporary authors, although other sources lack information about him. The North Thracian ruler is not mentioned around the events in the late ’thirties and early ’twenties of the 1^st century BC (with the participation of Cotiso/Cotisoni[s], Dicomes, Rholes, Dapyx and Zyraxes), as a result of which some authors pushed back the start of his rule to the end of the 1^st century BC, e.g., ca. 15 – 10 BC. Other authors date the event to the beginning of the 1^st century – the possibility is assumed that the power transition from Dicineus to Comosicus took place around 11 AD. The argumentation is built on the biography of Augustus by Suetonius, which narrates about the death of three of the duces of the Dacians, whose incursions were stopped by the emperor (Suet. Aug. 21. 2). The information about the victory over the invading Dacians is provided by Octavian himself in The Deeds of the Divine Augustus (Aug. Res Gest. 30). The events are linked to the acts of Lentulus in Northern Thrace, mentioned also by Tacitus (Tac. Ann. 4. 44), Florus (Flor. 2. 28. 18-19) and Jordanes (Iord. Rom. 247). The campaign of the legatus is with fluid dating between 18/16 BC and 10/12 AD. М. Due to the lack of concrete data and the different identifications of Lentulus, it is impossible for the campaign to serve as a basis for building an absolute chronology of rulers.

According to the most widespread opinion, Dicineus and Comosicus, who inherited the royal and priestly prerogatives, shared the interval between 44 BC and 28/29 AD. The dating of the end of the rule of Comosicus to 28/29 AD stems from the interpretation of the evidence about his hypothetical direct successor Coryllus, based on mathematical calculations. Main characteristic of this ruler is the duration of his rule. Coryllus is identified with the Dacians’ rex Scorylo mentioned by Frontinus during one of the civil wars in Rome (Front. 1. 10. 4), and later with Scorilo from the imprints in the composite text “DECEBALUS PER SCORILO”. The stamps are on clay vessel-pithos from Sarmizegetusa Regia. After the graffito’s finding in 1954, in historiography became predominant the idea that Scorilo or Coryllus, who reigned for 40 years (between 28/29 and 68/69 AD), was the father of the last North Thracian king Decebalus.

Even assuming that those speculative conclusions were right, they do not date the transition of power from Dicineus to Comosicus and do not explain the long rule of the two, spanning 72/73 years. Another opinion, according to which Dicineus, Comosicus and Coryllus (who is not identical with Frontinus’ Scorylo = Scorilo from the graffito) shared the interval between 44 BC and the beginning of the 1^st century AD, allows the possibility that Comosicus’ actual reign was relatively brief.

The information in Jordanes allows a new interpretation as well. He (Iord. Get. 39; 67-73) and Strabo (Str. 7. 3. 5; 7, 3, 11; 16, 2, 39), i.e. the two ancient authors who give information about Dicineus, never refer to him using the title “king”. He had legislative, religious and ideological functions in his capacity of first adviser to the king and high priest. The respect of the Getae was also due to his wisdom and personal prestige. Although the character of his rule is defined as “almost royal,” the texts of Strabo and Jordanes are unequivocal that Dicineus was not king, unlike Comosicus. For lack of evidence on autonomous rule of the priest after Burebista’s death and the specific chronological correlation of the two political and spiritual associates, it can be assumed with a high degree of probability that Dicineus died before the ruler.

The aggregate information suggests that the “Getic man Burebista” took power by force, probably benefiting from the internecine struggles in the dynastic home. He resorts to the services of Dicineus to crush and dominate the reactions of dissatisfaction, elicited by the turmoil among aristocracy. The act of “usurping” the throne and the need of legitimisation could explain the delegating of obligations and the dividing of the supreme power between the two. The activities of Dicineus reduced to a minimum the dissatisfaction with the violation of the traditional political norms and laws, which had been restored after the ruler’s death. The fact that the priest’s death preceded that of the Getic king is also a logical explanation of the success of the conspiracy. Deprived of the prestigious support of his associate, Burebista was killed in 44 or 43 BC and his state was divided (probably into four parts) among the plotters. Hypothetically, it can be assumed that one of them was Comosicus (specifically introduced by Jordanes as priest and as king). He first inherited the functions and dignity of priest from Dicineus and after Burebista’s death, Comosicus also became king, ruling over a part of the divided territories, whose explicit localization is not possible.