--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> In other words,
****GK: As long as these "other words" reflect what I am saying adequately (=:)))*****
the new upper class in Przeworsk can't have been Bastarnian, since it can't be derived from any of the components in the Bastarnian ethnos.
*****GK: There is very little in this world that "can't be". What I am saying is that the balance of probability is such that a Bastarnian provenance for this new upper class is unprovable scientifically. Ideologically of course, it is an entirely different matter. For instance, if I wished to argue that the new ruling class came from Central Asia, or from Ireland, or from Scandinavia, or from the Baltic area, how would that be refuted? And it's not a question os derivation from a "component" but from a whole source as historically constituted.*****
But in the other hand, one of the components in the Bastarnae was the people of the Przeworsk culture,
****GK: At the start of the process. But we are talking about a group which had evolved over a couple of centuries into a mix of many components, cultural and genetic. That is what would have migrated.*****
so ruling out in principle that the new upper class developed from the Bastarnae at the same time rules out that it developed from the Przeworsk culture, as I think you are aware too. This is a problem.
****GK: It is not a problem. It is a non-sequitur. I am not "ruling out in principle", just pointing out that a Bastarnian of 70 BCE was a Bastarnian of 70 BCE and not one of the components prior to the development of the mix. So that if there is no evidence of any such contemporary Bastarnians in the new Przeworsk culture, this is as good an argument as you can get scientifically for the contention that this new ruling class was not of Bastarnian provenance. Archaeology does not know of any "pure Przeworsk" or "pure Jastorf" or "pure Getic sites in Poeneshti-Lukashovka****