Re: Romanized Bastarnians

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

>
> --- On Wed, 1/4/12, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> 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.
>
> *****GK: Nitpicking won't help you. /similar points cut for economy***
>
> (GK)> No evidence for any "Bastarnian" movement towards the lands of classical Przeworsk at any time.
>
> (TP)Not true.
>
> *****GK: Absolutely true. Recently coonized Volynia was not part of clssical Przeworsk.*****

So? Who's nitpicking now?

> http://krotov.info/history/09/3/schukin.html
> 'Спасения от сарматских набегов носители зарубинецкой культуры - бастарны ищут не только в Поднепровских поймах, защищавших, вероятно, не слишком надежно, но и разбегаясь в более отдаленные районы. Часть населения Полесской группы ушла, возможно, на запад, на волынь, где, в смеси с подходящими постепенно сюда же носителями пшеворской культуры, они образовали зубрецкую постзарубинецкую группу горизонта Рахны-Почеп (Козак 1991).'
>
> "Escape from the Sarmatian raids the bearers of the Zarubintsy culture, the Bastarnae seek not only in 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 fled, 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)."
>
> *****GK: "gradually arriving" yes. And no Zarubinians further west have been noted, i.e. in the territory of classical Przeworsk.

Of course not, Atmoni and Sidones ceased to exist as independent ethnic groups.

> Note that most recently archaeologists have been reassessing these "arriving Przeworskers" as a possibly closely related but distinct Chernychenska culture.*****

Okay.

> 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.
>
> *****GK: Don't be sillier than usual Torsten. If we can't identify ANY Zarubinian sites or objects somewhere then by inference this applies to the A. and S. since they were Zarubinian.*****

I repeat:
'The army of archaeologists and historians and 'textologists' would have to show presence of the Atmoni and Sidones and the absence of the Rachny and Pochep post-Zarubintsy groups'

The *presence* of Atmoni and Sidones and no other Bastarnae, since we know already that the Peucini survived some centuries longer. Thus from the presence of Bastarnae we can not infer the presence of Atmoni and Sidones

> > 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.
> 'в верхнем Поднестровье в 40-70-е годы уже существовала особая пшеворско-дакийско-сарматская Звенигородская группа (иногда ее, как кажется, без особых оснований, относят к липицкой культуре): сильно вооруженная, имеющая, судя по находкам бронзовой импортной посуды, контакты с римлянами. Не исключено, что именно люди из Колоколина-Звенигорода-Чижикова представляли тех бастарнов, с которыми имел дело Плавтий Сильван, когда в 62 г. “подавил, начавшиеся было, волнения сарматов” (сарматов Фарзоя?) и вернул бастарнам заложников. Под прикрытие щитов своих родственников и бежали, возможно, бастарны-зарубинцы, сохранявшие затем в зубрецкой группе свой язык и самосознание вплоть до конца 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 can't 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?)
>
> *****GK: No, the Iazigi allies of F.******
>
> 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
>
>
> *****GK: We're talking about the Silvanus who was the Roman governor of Moesia under Nero.*****

Okay.


Torsten