Re: Romanized Bastarnians

From: gknysh
Message: 68319
Date: 2011-12-28

Clarification.

> --- On Wed, 12/28/11, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> > > (T) But the events of Mithridates' 'Sarmatian and Bastarnian wars'
> > > must have 'fixirovatI' itself in the finds one way or another.
> > > What else in the archaeology of the region would you point to?
> > >
> > > GK: I don't think anything notable exists for that period except
> > > for some indicators in the ruins of Neapolis Scythica that
> > > "something was going on" in the late 2nd c. BCE But that would be
> > > the earlier conflict with Diophantes, not with the subsequent war
> > > with ex-Scythian vassals. Nothing at all in the archaeology afaik
> > > until the Bastarnian-Yazig conflicts and the Getan invasion after
> > > Mithradates' death, and then after a spell the outmigration of
> > > most Moldavian Bastarnians towards Dardania ca. 29 BCE, and the
> > > subsequent reconsolidation of their remnants as Tacitus'
> > > "Peucini".
>
> Yeah, right.
> Nosevych
> http://vln.by/node/178

>
> "The Poleski variant of the Zarubintsy culture at this time disappears, and its descendants seem to migrate into the area of the Przeworsk culture, where some mixed Przeworsk-Zarubintsy groups are formed: Zubritskaya, of the Rakhno type, of the Hryniewicze Wielkie - Chernichin type."
>
> (BTW does that Russian construction after the colon mean there are three independent subgroups, or that there is one, with two subgroups?)

****GK: I'm trying to understand why you think Nosevych provides arguments for you. Judging by your quote supra the only thing I come up with is that you somehow think that the processes which occurred in the mid-first century AD and later apply to the period of the wars between Mithradates and the Bastarnians/Sarmatians, i.e. to the first half of the 1rst c. BCE. They don't. What Nosevych is describing here from his point of view is what I wrote about a while back when talking about King Farzoi of the Aorsan Scythian dynasty. Whatever Nosevych feels relevant to the first c. BCE he discussed earlier.*****