Re: The complexities of Bastarnia (B)-- From Mithradates to Farzoi

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Do you think the southward movement of the Przeworskers was related
> the fact that Mithridates had enlisted the Cimbri as allies in 89
> BCE, cf Justinus' epitome of Trogus 38.3.6
> http://attalus.org/translate/justin6.html#38.3
> (assuming there are the same people)? I know the time is a bit off.
>
> Torsten
>
> ****GK: We don't know if the "Cimbri" were at all involved in any of
> the Mithradatian campaigns. If Justinus is correct in his statement
> (he may be, since his later text also mentions the Cimbri in
> Mithradatus' speech) then we at least know that M. tried to recruit
> there. But we don't know how successful he might have been. On the
> other hand there is an oddity in Justin's account: the Thracians are
> missing, and we know they participated in good numbers. One
> possibility is that a scribe mistakenly wrote "Cimbri" for
> "Thracians" (they seem to do these things: cf. in Strabo the already
> mentioned "Pasiani" business, and the "Taurisci" for "Scordisci" in
> 4,6,10, and, perhaps, the "Adrias" for "Tyras" already discussed),
> another is that a scribe simply omitted "Thracians" from the list...

You like to emend, don't you ;-)

> As to the Przeworkers, all that archaeology can say is that
> they BEGIN  to settle in great numbers in Ukraine (Galicia and
> South Volynia) not earlier than the middle of the first c. BCE

How is that dated? The thought of two peoples migrating simultaneously in opposite directions, playing musical chairs seems odd to me.

> (which is why I thought of Burebista). One arguable Mithridatian
> "resettlement" however would be that of Bastarnae on Peuce. I would
> agree that a very good case could be made for Ps.Scymnos noting just
> that fact as recent. And understandable as helping to "dividere et
> imperare" the Scythians.
>
> P.S. I am definitely going to try to acquite Pachkova's magnum opus
> on the Zarubinians, since it seems to contain the kind of
> microanalysis which might help to establish what areas
> representatives of culture 'X' came from.

Do you have a title? I might be able to get it here.

> For instance in her
> earlier work on Poeneshti-Lukashovka, she established that the
> Yastorfers who moved to the east and south at the beginning of the
> Bastarnia-creating process were primarily "Gubin" Yastorfers. Maybe
> she has the same type of info about the Przeworskers.*****

Now that is interesting, since the Gubin group also particated in Ariovistus' trek southeast, to a man, it seems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_in_Antiquity#Early_Roman_wars_and_movement_of_tribes
'Much circumstantial evidence points to the participation of Germanic people from Polish lands in the events that took place in the first half of 1st century BC and found their culmination in Gaul in 58 BC, as related in Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico. At the time of the Suebi tribal confederation led by Ariovistus arrival in Gaul, a rapid decrease of settlement density can be observed in the areas of the upper and middle Oder River basin. In fact the Gubin group of the Jastorf culture disappeared then entirely, which may indicate this group's identity with one of the Suebi tribes. The western regions of the Przeworsk culture were also vacated (Lower Silesia, Lubusz Land and western Greater Poland), which is where the tribes accompanying the Suebi tribes must have come from. Burial sites and artifacts characteristic of the Przeworsk culture have been found in Saxony, Thuringia and Hesse, on the route of the Suebi offensive. The above mentioned regions of western Poland had not become repopulated and economically developed again until in 2nd century AD.[22]'

So, it this true:
Gubin group -> P/L Bastarnae
P/L Bastarnae -> Gubin group
Gubin group -> southeast with Ariovistus ?

Or how do we reconcile these facts?



Torsten