--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- 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.
No, non-presence is inferred, and departure is inferred from presence and non-presence.
> Archaeologists can also measure the "intensity" of a presence by micro-dating their finds.
Yes, in principle.
>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.
The issue here is the dating of the Atmoni - Sidones flight to 50 - 70 CE, not what happened before that event.
>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.
Arrivals, like departures, do not show in the evidence, they are inferred from presence and non-presence.
> No evidence for any "Bastarnian" movement towards the lands of classical Przeworsk at any time.
Not true.
http://krotov.info/history/09/3/schukin.html
'СпаÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð¾Ñ ÑаÑмаÑÑкиÑ
набегов ноÑиÑели заÑÑбинеÑкой кÑлÑÑÑÑÑ â" баÑÑаÑÐ½Ñ Ð¸ÑÑÑ Ð½Ðµ ÑолÑко в ÐоднепÑовÑкиÑ
поймаÑ
, заÑиÑавÑиÑ
, веÑоÑÑно, не ÑлиÑком надежно, но и ÑазбегаÑÑÑ Ð² более оÑдаленнÑе ÑайонÑ. ЧаÑÑÑ Ð½Ð°ÑÐµÐ»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐолеÑÑкой гÑÑÐ¿Ð¿Ñ ÑÑла, возможно, на запад, на Ð'олÑнÑ, где, в ÑмеÑи Ñ Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ñ
одÑÑими поÑÑепенно ÑÑда же ноÑиÑелÑми пÑевоÑÑкой кÑлÑÑÑÑÑ, они обÑазовали зÑбÑеÑкÑÑ Ð¿Ð¾ÑÑзаÑÑбинеÑкÑÑ Ð³ÑÑÐ¿Ð¿Ñ Ð³Ð¾ÑизонÑа РаÑ
нÑ-ÐоÑеп (Ðозак 1991).'
"Escaping from the Sarmatian raids thyearers of the Zarubintsy culture, the Bastarnae seek not only to the floodplains of the Dnieper, protecting, probably not too reliably, but also fleeing into more remote areas. Part of the population of the Polesie group is gone, perhaps, to the west, into Volhynia, where, mixed with the gradually arriving here carriers of the Przeworsk culture, they formed the Zubretskaya post-Zarubinetsy group of the Rakhno-Pochep horizon (Kozak, 1991)."
>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)*****
Irrelevant to the discussion.
> 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.*****
You're not making sense. If we can't identify the Atmoni and Sidoni archaeologically, then we can't show their presence or absence.
> How was this Zarubintsy 'crisis' in 40 - 70 CE fixed temporally?
>
> *****GK: Read about it in Nosevych and Shchukin. They give references.****
>
I'm trying to get them thru my library. But it seems to me that since the Zvenigorod group had Roman influence, the flight of the Atmoni - Sidones into the Przeworsk area has been dated to some time after the border LaTène D - Roman A.
'Ð' Ð'еÑÑ
нем ÐоднеÑÑÑовÑе в 40-70-е Ð³Ð¾Ð´Ñ Ñже ÑÑÑеÑÑвовала оÑÐ¾Ð±Ð°Ñ Ð¿ÑевоÑÑко-дакийÑко-ÑаÑмаÑÑÐºÐ°Ñ ÐвенигоÑодÑÐºÐ°Ñ Ð³ÑÑппа (иногда ее, как кажеÑÑÑ, без оÑобÑÑ
оÑнований, оÑноÑÑÑ Ðº липиÑкой кÑлÑÑÑÑе): ÑилÑно вооÑÑженнаÑ, имеÑÑаÑ, ÑÑÐ´Ñ Ð¿Ð¾ наÑ
одкам бÑонзовой импоÑÑной поÑÑдÑ, конÑакÑÑ Ñ ÑимлÑнами. Ðе иÑклÑÑено, ÑÑо именно лÑди из Ðолоколина-ÐвенигоÑода-Чижикова пÑедÑÑавлÑли ÑеÑ
баÑÑаÑнов, Ñ ÐºÐ¾ÑоÑÑми имел дело ÐлавÑий СилÑван, когда в 62 г. âподавил, наÑавÑиеÑÑ Ð±Ñло, Ð²Ð¾Ð»Ð½ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÑаÑмаÑовâ (ÑаÑмаÑов ФаÑзоÑ?) и веÑнÑл баÑÑаÑнам заложников. Ðод пÑикÑÑÑие ÑиÑов ÑвоиÑ
ÑодÑÑвенников и бежали, возможно, баÑÑаÑнÑ-заÑÑбинÑÑ, ÑоÑ
ÑанÑвÑие заÑем в зÑбÑеÑкой гÑÑппе Ñвой ÑзÑк и ÑамоÑознание вплоÑÑ Ð´Ð¾ конÑа III века.'
"In the Upper Dniester in 40-70s there was already a special Przeworsk-Dacian-Sarmatian Zvenigorod group (sometimes it, as it seems for no particular reason, is referred to as Lipitskiy culture): heavily armed, having, according to the findings of imported bronze vessels, contacts with the Romans. It is not to be ruled out that the people of Kolokolina-Zvenigorod-Chizhikova were those Bastarnae, whom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plautius_Silvanus
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Velleius_Paterculus/2D*.html
had to deal with, when in 62 CE 'he suppressed, the already begun(?), rebellion(?) of the Sarmatians "(Farzoy's Sarmatians?) and returned hostages to the Bastarnae. Under the cover sheets of their relatives also fled, possibly, the Bastarnae-Zarubintsy, retaining in the Zubretskaya group their language and identity until the end of the III century."
(There must be some mistake here; Sivanus Plautus was consul in 2 BCE)
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html
Torsten