From: george knysh
Message: 64329
Date: 2009-07-03
--- On Fri, 7/3/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
(GK) After their assault on the Zarubinian fortresses of the Tyasmyn and
Ros' areas south of Kyiv. The assaults are dated as of the later
1rst c. BCE (between ca. 40 and 20).
(TP)How were they dated?
****GK: As far as I remember, primarily (though not exclusively) on the basis of amphora imports from the Greek city-states. They developed a pretty precise system allowing them to date various stratigraphic levels at the archaeological sites of the fortresses from the 2nd c. BCE through the mid-1rst c. AD when they were finally destroyed. The Yazigi assault evidence is uniformly below the mid-1rst c. BCE level in all affected fortresses. BTW only a number of fortresses located at the borderland with the steppes were attacked at that time.*****
(GK)According to Ukrainian archaeologists this was a local war between
Yazigi and Zarubinians, in the period subsequent to the Burebista
era.
(TP)Why subsequent?
****GK: Because the Burebista era ended ca. 44 BCE.*****
(GK) One has to guess the motives. There is such a dearth of information
that it's quite difficult.
(TP)They might have had a psycho leader who thought he should carve up an empire in the North.
****GK: Apparently the Zarubibians were strong enough to beat them off. In any case this is all posterior to the Ariovistus epoch.****
(GK)But one thing is certain: everyone is agreed on this. The Yazigi
were located in the steppes between Danube and Dnipro at the time
of the Mithradates saga and after. They were basically still there
in Augustan times.
Doesn't prove part of them might not have gone elsewhere.
****GK: There is no evidence for that. Arguing like you do one might say they went to India, Africa, America, China. If there is nothing to indicate a presence somewhere one is not entitled to postulate same (to quote Charlie Chan). This is an elementary principle of historical investigation.*****
They are one of the main Sarmatian groups with which he concluded a
treaty in ca. 2 BCE. Their migration into Hungary did not begin
until the early years of the 1rst c. AD. There is no record of any
kind, historical or archaeologicaL of any move into any of the
Przeworsk areas by them.
Snorri and Saxo are historical sources too.
****GK: They are completely unreliable for the period in question, since they are basically in conflict with secure contemporary sources. They are just as unreliable as the Scythian Foundation legend is for the period 1500 BCE ("the country was a void, then Targitaus apppeared") or the Kyivan Primary Chronicle is for the period 50 AD ("Andrew the Apostle travelled from Chersonesos to Rome by the Viking route, up the Dnipro et, to Novgorod, then by the Baltic, North Sea, Atlantic Ocean, pillars of hercules, and into the Mediterranean"). This is all elementary stuff.*****
Where does the whole Sarmatian tradition in Poland stem from?
*****GK: I believe this emerges in the 16th c. Snorri was not the only one with a fertile imagination. But perhaps Piotr could be more precise if he has time or patience to comment. In the 17th c. Ukrainians developed a similar theory (perhaps borrowed) about their ancestors (!) the Roxolanians. And in the 16th c. also Russian chroniclers came up with a pedigree for Ivan the terrible reaching back to Augustus (!).Interesting stuff but completely irrelevant historically. BTW Lithuanians also developed a notion of their state having been founded in the 1rst c. AD by refugees from Nero's Rome led by one Polemon (or some similar name I don't remember precisely). The earlier Polish chronicles don't mention "Sarmatism" as far as I remember.****
(GK) At any time in the 1rst c. BCE or AD. There is no record of
any move there by Zarubinians either, or by any group "from the
east". Sapienti sat.
See above.
****GK: Exactly.****
NB> Another point known about the Yazigi. They were very determined nomads, and could not abide "mixed residences" with an agricultural population. When large groups of them migrated from their earlier haunts, they "cleared" the area of their new settlements of local peasants. There is good evidence of this along the Dnister r. (settled in the 1rst c AD) and in the area of the finally destroyed Zarubinian fortresses (all previous locals were either killed or chased out, and only nomad burials are found from the mid- 1rst c. AD). Which does not mean that agriculturalists did not remain in areas controlled by the nomads. They just didn't "co-habit" with them. The same thing happened in Hungary. Some Dacians were allowed to remain, but most were chased away or killed. The absence of any such slaughters or removals in Przeworsk in the 1rst c. BCE is a good initial indicator thhat no Yazigi arrived. Actually, the depopulation of Gubin Yastorf and middle
Silesia might have been an argument 'for", but there is no corroborating positive evidence of a Yazigi presence so these depopulations must be explained otherwise (as indeed they have been).