--- Horia Vlad <
lupul@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi George!
>
> > (2) Why do you think the Costobocs were "Thracian"
> > rather than "Celtic"? Their name sounds very close
> to
> > that of one of the Galatian tribes.*******
>
> Those Galatian tribes were "tolistobocii" /
> "tolistobioi". I know there have been advocated
> several theories for Costobocii: Dacian, Celtic,
> Sarmatian and a far stretched one - Proto Slavic.
> The Dacian theory is based on archaeological
> evidence and on the onomastic of king Pieporus'
> royal family (Pieporus, rex Coisstobocensis - CIL,
> VI, 1801).
>
> We know the names of his royal family, that all have
> a Thracian origin:
*****GK: I'll get to your very useful material in a
bit. At this period in time, "royal" names are not
always indicative of ethnicity (e.g. Bosporan kings
also frequently bore "Thracian" names, and early
Slavic leaders had nearly all of them "Germanic"
names. There is a famous comment in Jordanes about
such proclivities), but in this particular case the
possibility of Dacian origin for the ruling family is
very good. The "lypyts'ka" culture you mention later
is certainly Dacian, and is partly intrusive into an
area previously occupied by the "pshewors'k" culture,
a La Tene-post Pomorian (Celtic-Germanic-Venedic) mix.
Its [Lypytsja] heyday here has been calculated fairly
precisely as ca. 40-70 AD. Back later.*******
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com