Re: [tied] Baltic-Slavic disintegration

George Knysh wrote:

> *****GK: Your view is not shared by the leading
> archaeologists of the Zarubynetska c. (even if they
> strongly disagree among each other as to the ethnic
> nature of this culture). The fact is that the
> Zarubynetska c. is a totally new reality, created by
> the fusion of various "incoming" and various "local"
> elements. There are three main areas to consider:
> Polissia, Middle Dnipro, Upper Dnieper. In each case
> we have a slightly different "mixture", depending on
> the combining elements. But the fact remains that,
> despite local variations, the Zarubynetska culture is
> one and the same everywhere.

Yes.

> There are no settlements
> where previous cultures continue to exist
> indefinitely. So your view that a part of the "local"
> (Milograd) population was unaffected by Zar. has no
> basis. Nor does it have any basis as to the other
> "local" elements of the mixture (Pidhirtsi, Scythian,
> Late Pomorian). In no case do we find coexistence of
> "Pidhirtsi" and "Zarubynetska", "Scythian" and
> "Zarubynetska" or "Late Pomorian" and "Zarubynetska".

I need time to check it again.
However the scheme given by M.B. Shchukin in "Rozhdenie slavyan"
( http://stratum.ant.md/stratum%20plus/articles/schukin/Sciukin.htm ,
unfortunately without pictures) shows that the Milograd culture survives in
a small scale till the beginning of our era (1st c. AD), and practically
simultaneously emerges and develops the line the Kisteni-Chechersk group -
sites of the Grini-Vovki type - the Kyiv culture.
On the other hand V.E.Eremenko in his monograph "Keltskaya vual i
Zarubinetskaya kultura" insists that the Milograd culture ends as early as
in the 3rd c. BC and doubts that it took place in forming the Zarub. c. at
all.

BTW, what is "Pidhirtsi"? Are there synonyms in other languages?

> There was indeed some outmigration by part of the
> Zarubynetska population, prompted by or in the wake of
> Sarmatian pressure. But the population that left and
> that which remained was in both cases "Zarubynetska"
> as to culture. Everyone is agreed that the Kyiv
> culture is more "primitive" than the Zarubynetska.
> Whatever the reasons for this (changed historical
> circumstances) mainstream archaeology continues to see
> Zarubynetska as "the genetic foundation" of the Kyiv
> c.******

If my supposition of Milograd c. -- (Zarub. influence) --> Kyiv c. is wrong,
the next supposition must be: the Kyiv culture people are newcomers.
I can not believe in Zarubinetskaya c. --> Kyiv c. Do you believe in such a
thing as "delatenization"? Can rivers flow back to hills? Can we turn back
into apes?

Alexander