--- On Fri, 10/23/09, alexandru_mg3 <
alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
> > 1. Costoboci was a Dacian Tribe not a Sarmatian one...
>
> GK: Their location in Pliny's NH. 6.19 hardly proves this, and Pliny identifies the original Costoboci (his source was likely Posidonius, though this is not entirely certain) as Sarmatians.
1. "Sarmatian' was a Generic Name like Scythian too
****GK: Right. And this "Sarmatian" tribe on the Don was called the Costoboci.****
2. as you said, Pliny made an indirected quotation
****GK: We have to guess his source. It could be Posidonius, it could be someone else. There is a large list in Book 1 of his "Natural History" to choose from. In any case the source looks post-Herodotan and describes a situation prior to the mass movement of Sarmatians westward across the Don, which began ca. 200 BCE or thereabouts (not earlier as once thought).****
3. what about the -dava cities in zone ? where is sarmatian toponomy?
****GK: Not required. Political control does not necessarily assume substantial ethnic presence. Also: you earlier mentioned that Sarmats did not build cities. True. But they could (and did) control them, as did many other historical nnomadic peoples. Cities (or locations) inhabited by Dacians (or others) were subject to the Costoboci and labeled after them.****
>The
But the original name was that of a Sarmatian tribe, which must have been dominant at the inception of the complex.
>
Please quote here the historical sources about this Sarmatian Tribe....
****GK: It's the passage in Pliny's "Natural History" at Book Vi, section 19, which lists the Sarmatian populations on the Don (ca. 200 BCE or thereabouts). The "woman-ruled Sarmatians" are assumed to be the tribes of the Iazigi and Roxolani (the first to move westward). The Costoboci would perhaps be early Aorsans.****
Thanks,
Marius