--- On Mon, 1/2/12, Torsten <
tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> GK: If the Atmones and Sidoni fled in 88 BCE then how does one explain the fact that there is no archaeological evidence of any major departure from ANY "Bastarnian" area at thst time? I think you'll have to go to war no only with all archaeologists but with practically all historians and textologists.
Archaeological evidence shows presence, not departures.
*****GK: Non-presence is accounted as departure, for instance in the case of the earlier Peucini of the Poeneshti-Lukashovka culture. Archaeologists can also measure the "intensity" of a presence by micro-dating their finds. No archaeologist has noted any decrease in the "intensity" of the occupation of the sites of Bastarnia (except for P/L) prior to the mid-1rst c. CE. BTW archaeological evidence also shows arrivals as well as departures. For instance, it indicates "arrivals" of people from "Bastarnia" all over territory to their northeast and north, plus south. No evidence for any "Bastarnian" movement towards the lands of classical Przeworsk at any time. But certainly evidence of Przeworsk arrivals in today's west Ukraine in the last half of the 1rst c. BC. And then again even further east in the post-50 CE period (where they co-existed with the Late Zarubinians)*****
The army of archaeologists and historians and 'textologists' would have to show presence of the Atmoni and Sidoni and the absence of the Rachny and Pochep post-Zarubintsy groups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rome_and_the_Barbarians_in_Eastern_and_Central_Europe_around_100_AD_by_Shchukin.png
for the period 88 BCE - ca. 70 CE.
*****GK: That's been done. At least wirh respect to the archaeological groups accounted as "Bastarnians" (or fellow-travellers). No one really knows who Strabo's "Atmoni" and "Sidoni" were in these groups.*****
How was this Zarubintsy 'crisis' in 40 - 70 CE fixed temporally?
*****GK: Read about it in Nosevych and Shchukin. They give references.****