About the First Appearance of the Early Sarmatians in the Lower Don Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are different points of view regarding the date of the appearance of the early Sarmatian archaeological culture of the 2nd – 1st centuries BC within the Lower Don region. However, most researches have been of the view that the Lower Don region and the Northeastern Black Sea region were developed by the Sarmatians relatively late, namely not earlier than the second half of the 2nd century BC. The main objective of this study is to define the date of the first appearance of the Sarmatians on the territory of the Don region based on the analysis of the archaeological data from Sarmatian and ancient archeology, as well as information from the literary and epigraphic sources. According to the scale of the relative chronology there is plenty of early monuments in the Sarmatian antiquities within the 2nd century BC. However, the number of chronological indicators in Sarmatian burials of this time horizon is relatively low. On the basis of the Rhodian amphora with stamps, black-glazed cantharoi and Megarian bowls, the date of the earliest complexes can be set within the second or third quarters of the 2nd century BC. The arrival of the Sarmatians had a general destabilizing effect on the situation in the Don region and the Northeastern Black Sea region. The destruction of settlements and the devastation of territories were recorded on the Bosporus. The city of Tanais in the Lower Don region was fortified in the second quarter of the 2nd century BC. The first reliable mentions of the Sarmatians in official documents are dated to the end of the first – the beginning of the second quarter of the 2nd century BC (the treaty is dated 179 BC, Delphic manumissions). Further the authors conclude that the first appearance of the Sarmatians in the Lower Don region and the Northeastern Black Sea region is associated with the movement of nomadic tribes as a result of the expansion of the Xiongnu state, formed at the end of the 3rd century BC, which reached the Russian southern steppes as a result of domino effect.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".