George Knysh wrote:
> *****GK: What are the arguments against the B[ondarikhino] culture
> being a late Ugrian culture? Its early pottery has
> strong affinities to the Pit-Comb cultures of Eastern
> Europe usually considered Ugrian (even more
> specifically, to the P-C cultures close to
> Karelia)****
There are 2 aspects in your comment: 1 - similarity of the Early
Bondarikhino and Pit-Comb pottery; and 2 - ethnic attribution of the
Pit-Comb cultures.
1) "Strong affinities" is too strong expression. Just look at both kinds of
ceramics. Yes, there is decoration in form of pits and especially comb stamp
on the Bondarikhino pottery (comb stamps are common for many steppe cultures
as well). But these pits don't cover the whole surface of a vessel, as
typically for the P-C cultures, but are concentrated in the upper part and
often form there triangles (tops look down); besides sometimes there are
solid horizontal lines. These features are typical for steppe cultures,
rather than for the P-C ones. Nevertheles I must agree that certain
similarity in the pottery decoration takes place.
But the form of pottery is quite different. The P-C pottery typically has a
sharp bottom (sometimes the form is almost conical). In contrast the Bond.
vessels always have a flat bottom, and (more remarcable) the dominating form
is a pot [gorshok] - this is typical for early Slavic cultures (Prague and
other; however the shape of pots is different).
Chronological considerations also don't allow as to consider local Pit-Comb
cultures (which late groups lived in the 3rd mill. BC) as ancestors of the
Bond. groups. They appeared in the Dnieper Left Bank zone only about 1200 BC
and substituted there the Srubnaya culture tribes, not P-C ones.
2) I know that some (even many) scholars consider P-C cultures as
Finno-Ugric. I can't take this seriously. It's impossibly to draw unbroken
line from them to modern Finnic or Ugric nations. But from the "Setchataya
keramika" cultures it goes smoothly. However these cultures can't be taken
as descendants of the Pit-Comb cultures. On the most territories the latter
disappear much earlier than the former appear. This is just chronology.
Ethnographical evidences are more demonstrative.
I can defend this position much stronger than the Slavs emergence
hypothesis.
> *****GK: I have doubts that the Zarubynetska c. as a
> whole can be viewed as "East Germanic". It is clearly
> an organic blend of a number of elements (local
> Milograd/Pidhirtsi) (predominant), Scythian (Thrakoid
> remnant), and Pomorian (esp. in the west). The only
> clearly Germanic component here is the Jastorf
> culture, which is a minor contribution to the mix.
Just one aspect - the Zarubinetskaya c. was a latenized one. Neither Slavs
nor Sarmats were latenized.
The minor Jastorf component seems to be the determinative one. A similar
situation we can see in the Chernyakhovskaya culture.
Alexander