From: gknysh
Message: 64345
Date: 2009-07-06
> >****GK: Double sigh. How many times does one have to repeat something before it sinks in? The assaults of the Yazigi against the southern forts of the Zarubinian complex (Bastarnians acc. to Shchukin, Venedic associates of the Bastarnians acc. to me) have been archaeologically dated to the period <40-20 BCE>. This is completely independent of any "events inside the Burebista reign". The dating automatically precluded any such "reasoning" since Burebista was assassinated years before the first possible date of the assaults. The only archaeologically dated event whioch can be related to Burebista is the destruction of Olbia (archaeologically dated as ca. 50 BCE) which is attributed to the Getae according to the Borystheniann speech of Dio Chrysostomus...****
> > Of course, but was there a specific dating relative to Burebista's
> > reign and campaigns?
> >
> > GK: The destruction of Olbia was dated ca. 50 BCE.
>
> Sigh. I'll try again: Was there a line of reasoning using the
> archaeological finds of the Yazig assault on Zarubinis which
> permitted a dating of those attacks relative to events inside the
> Burebista reign?
> > settlements of the Lusatian culture in Poland through srchaeology.****GK: Destructions similar to those effected by Yazigi raiders against the Zarubinans (burnings, Scythiann arrowheads). Polish archaeologists of the Lusatian culture have dated them to the first half of the 5th c. BCE.****
>
> Huh? What was that? When?
>****GK: Actually, we have already seen. (That is to say professional archaeologists have. I don't think they would have missed a Yazigian connection (:=))) But if you wish to waste your time, be my guest. The late James Burnham would have loved this (:=)))****
> >(GK) It's theoretically possible that Yazigi attacked the Przeworskians.
> > But if they did, no evidence of any kind remains.
>
> We'll see. This new uniform form inventory must have come from
> somewhere.