Re: Fwd: Re: [tied] Re: That old Ariovistus scenario.

--- On Wed, 7/1/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> A Yazigian postscript.


> (Torsten's question): Could you explain to me what route they took in order to avoid

> infringing upon the territorial integrity of Przeworskia/ Saxland?

> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ File:Przeworsk2. PNG

>

>

> GK: Along the north shore of the Danube, then across the mountains

> into the Hungarian plain. The same route later taken by the

> Roxolans and the remaining Yazigi. The same "contact" route the

> Romans guaranteed to the Roxolans after their conquest of Dacia.

>

>

> GK: For particulars cf.

> http://www.kroraina .com/sarm/ jh/jh2_1. html

> Harmatta's views on the Sarmatians are not always right, but he's

> quite on target as to the time and route of the Yazigian migration.

> Some 70 years posterior to the Ariovistus saga. Door closed.****

>

We are talking of two different things.

My question was: where did the Yazigi go after they were repulsed by the Zarubinians?

****GK: That's your new question. For the old question (obviously not answered to your taste), see above. As for your new question: by all accounts, they returned home to the steppes.****


And:

How do we know that the new upper crust, which is suddenly in place in Przeworkia *and* in Jastorfia in the mid-1st century BC, isn't Yazig?


****GK: What's your evidence for this new crust at that time? ****