From: Torsten
Message: 67565
Date: 2011-05-19
>I can't find that?
> Here's a preliminary view (I have yet to consult Pachkova's latest
> /2006/ opus on the Zarubinian culture, but have incorporated
> conclusions mentioned in passing in other articles). I will
> concentrate on the northern Bastarnae (i.e. Zarubinia) for the
> moment, since they are now considered to have been the major players
> in the Balkan campaigns of 179-168 BCE.
> The linguistic evidence, such as it is, is twofold: (a) documentary,
> and (b) topo/hydronymic. The archaeological evidence is somewhat
> helpful when coordinated with (a) and (b). All is very tentative of
> course, but the hypothesis has a strong level of plausibility.
>
> 1. Re (a) Strabo's account (7,3,17) is almost certainly drawn from a
> source which discussed the Bastarnae of Mithradates' time frame
> (i.e. first half of the 1rst c. BCE), since he admits he has no
> recent knowledge of them.
> The Peucini might, however, be an exception to this (after all theyStrabo 7, 3, 17
> were a border people for areas of Roman interests), and so his
> tentative mention of the B. as within the "Germanic" fold might
> refer to that particular group. This would then be in line with (a)-
> type documentation from the 1rst c. CE (Pliny and Tacitus). But
> Strabo's information about the Bastarnae of the "interior" would be,
> possibly, less certain for his time.
> 2. Earlier Greek authors (e.g. Polybius, and Livy's source for theLocus, please? I can't find it.
> 168 BCE events) counted the B. among the "Galatae", which may or may
> not mean Celts.
> We know that the prince of these northern Bastarnae,My interpretation of the word actually made it Aestian/Venetic but with a long presence in Germanic and Slavic.
> throughout the Balkan campaigns) was one Clondicus. And this sounds
> Germanic
> (for the Greeks the term "Galatae" would also cover thisSource, please?
> group at the time).
> Livy's source states that these Bastarnae couldLivy 40, 57
> communicate with the Scordisci.
> At first (and perhaps second)So the top might have 10 - 25% might have spoken Germanic, the rest Venetic and Slavic?
> glance, this might suggest that there were important Celts among the
> leadership. But there is one complication: the Scordisci were a
> "mixed" group, Celto-Illyrian and/or Celto- Thracian. The language
> of Bastarnian-Scordiscan communication could hardly have been
> Germanic (proto- pre- or whatever) in 179 BCE. It could have been
> Celtic, but it could also have been Illyrian, or (perhaps less
> likely) "Thracian". The case here rests on (b)-type documentation.
> The topo/hydronyms of northern Bastarnia are (today) solidly Slavic.
> But for the period prior to 500 CE, investigators have also
> discovered Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, "Illyrian", and also "Thracian"
> remnants. By "Illyrian" BTW Ukrainian linguists mean not only those
> of the Balkans but also the population from the area of the old
> Lusatian culture in Poland (sometimes also called "Veneti") which
> they believe to be linguistically related. So the Livy evidence is
> ambiguous, and remains so even after coordinations with
> archaeological evidence.
> 3. The archaeological evidence shows that the northern Bastarnae
> were divided into three distinct groups. There were important
> "sharing" characteristics (esp. in a part of their ceramics, and in
> their fibulae inventory and burial setups), but there were equally
> significant distinctions, which archaeologists believe to have been
> the result of distinct substrate elements (more or less powerful) in
> the three areas. The "incoming migrants" were themselves of two
> archaeological categories: Late Pomeranian (=Venetic or "Illyrian",
> but also Celtic.NB: there is some but very little "pure La Tene"
> east of the Carpathians, so the explanation of the Celtic
> topo/hydronyms is today that incoming Celts were among the Late
> Pomeranian elements) and Yastorfers (=Germanics). These migrants
> were not equally distributed in all three areas either as a whole re
> the "locals", or with respect to each other. Also: there was no
> territorial continuity between the three groups, i.e. large areas of
> archaeological "nothingness" extended between the territories of
> group 1, group 2, and group 3. The economic relationships of the
> three groups also differed significantly. And the historical fate of
> the groups after 50 BCE and esp. after 50 CE were different. Group 1
> was located south of the Prypjat' (Pripet) river, straddling today's
> border between Ukraine and Belarus in the area of the Horyn and
> Styr. Group 2 extended along the Middle Dnipro, from north of Kyiv
> to south of the Ros' river and even further almost to the steppes.
> Group 3 was located on the upper Dnipro between the Sozh and the
> Berezina, in eastern Belarus.
>
> 4. Before the arrival of the western "migrants" the territory of
> group 1 was inhabited by representatives of the Lusatians (with a
> first wave of Late Pomeranians settling in the 4th c.) in the west,
> and Milohradians (a Baltic unit) in the east. The territory of group
> 2 was shared by Pidhirtsovians (the Ukrainian label for
> Milohradians) in the northern section above Kyiv, and "Scythians" in
> the south. These "Scythians" were likely a Thrakoid group whose
> aristocracy had been largely incorporated into the Aukhata
> ("agricultural Scythians") in classical Scythian times. The
> territory of group 3 was completely "Baltic" but under some
> "Scythian" influence from the south. These were the "local"
> substrate populations of northern Bastarnia.
>
> 5. The migrants (Late Pomeranians and Yastorfers) settled more
> densely on the territory of group 1, somewhat less so on that of
> group 2 (archaeologists estimate that there were three times as many
> "migrants" among the population of group 1, relative to the whole
> population of the group, as among that of group 2. Very few
> "migrants" settled in the group 3 area, and the Zarubinian culture
> spread there apparently by voluntary "local" acculturation and by
> some movement northward from group 2 "acculturated" ex-"Scythian"
> elements. The "migrants" constituted approximately 25% of the total
> population of group 1 (as reflected in the examined archaeological
> sites) , and perhaps 10% of that of group 2.
> Their social power was clearly much greater than their numbers,Cf. the Austrian and Ottoman empires.
> since it is their culture which created the key distinguishing
> characteristics of "Zarubinia" esp. in "prestige" ceramics, funerary
> patterns and "aristocratic" apparel (esp. fibulae). It's difficult,
> of course, to estimate language use in such societies, but it seems
> plausible to postulate long epochs of stable multi-lingualism.
> Besides Celtic, Germanic, "Illyrian", "Thracian", and Baltic (orSo there was an immigration-driven increase in Germanic-speakers in Bastarnia in the 1st cent. BCE.
> BaltoSlavic?), Iranic and Greek might also have been languages of
> use among some sections of the population. Iranic in group 2 which
> had strong economic ties with Scythia to the south esp. the Lower
> Dnipro cities (there was a colony of Zarubinians there and a colony
> of Scythians later settled in a northern fortress near Kyiv). North
> Zarubinia also continued to be an area of attraction for migrants
> from the west: newer Yastorf (or already Elbe Germanic), Przeworsk,
> and even Oksywie elements have been found among group 1 and 2
> locations for the first c. BCE.
> And in the 2nd c. there will be substantial Przeworsk in- migrationNote Martynov's hypothesis here
> into group 2 locales. Again it's hard to estimate. but it seems that
> a case can be made for there being a little more Celto-Illyrians
> than Germanics in the north (numbers wise) and the reverse in the
> south (in the Poeneshti-Lukashovka area). In the phase 200-50 BCE
> this made no discernible difference.
> (to be continued)