From: Torsten
Message: 66893
Date: 2010-11-28
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
And my conclusion is that they were minted near a seashore, by
pirates wanting to buy Slaves from the Dacians.
Note
Jordanes, Getica XI (67)
(written approx. 551 CE)
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html
'Then when Buruista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burebista
was king of the Goths, Dicineus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decaeneus
came to Gothia at the time when Sulla [consul first time 88 BCE -
retired 81 BCE] ruled the Romans. Buruista received Dicineus and
gave him almost royal power. It was by his advice the Goths ravaged
the lands of the Germans, which the Franks now possess.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frankish_Empire_481_to_814-en.svg
Which means the Dacians may have passed on Germanic POWs as slaves
to whoever wanted to buy them (pirates). Selling your neighbour as
usual would not have been something Burebista would want to promote.
This might be where the Germani in Spartacus' army came from. In
the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Mithridatic_War (88 - 84 BCE)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mithridatic_War (83 - 81 BCE)
the slave port of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panticapaeon
in the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporan_Kingdom
would have been inaccessible to the Romans, and the Latin
colonization of devastated formerly hostile Italic territory after
the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_%2891%E2%80%9388_BC%29
would have demanded the acquisition of slaves in large numbers
Further background, on Mithridates alliances.
Appian's History of Rome: The Mithridatic Wars §112
http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_mithridatic_23.html#%A7112
'He [Mithridates] made alliances with the Samnites and the Gauls, and he sent
legates to Sertorius in Spain.'
Some time between 90 and 88 BCE
(attalus.org says 103 BCE
http://attalus.org/bc2/year103.html#19
but that, given the context, is certainly wrong)
Mithridates sends ambassadors to
the Cimbri, the Gallograecians, the Sarmatians, and the Bastarnians, to request
aid,
(Justinus: Epitome of Pompeius Trogus' "Philippic histories" 38.3.6)
http://attalus.org/translate/justin6.html#38.3
'4 Nicomedes, too, dying at the same time, his son, who was also named
Nicomedes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomedes_IV_of_Bithynia
was driven from his dominions by Mithridates, and, having gone as a suppliant to
Rome, it was decreed by the senate that "both the kings should be restored to
their thrones;" and Aquilius and Manlius Maltinus (L. Manlius?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manius_Aquillius_%28consul_101_BC%29
were commissioned to see the decree executed.
5 On being informed of this proceeding, Mithridates formed an alliance with
Tigranes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigranes_the_Great
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armenian_Empire.png
with a resolution at once to go to war with the Romans; and they agreed that the
cities and territory that should be taken from the enemy should be the share of
Mithridates, and that the prisoners, and all booty that could be carried off,
should belong to Tigranes.
6 In the next place, well understanding what a war be was provoking, he sent
ambassadors to the Cimbri, the Gallograecians, the Sarmatians, and the
Bastarnians, to request aid;
7 for all the time that he had been meditating war with the Romans, he had been
gaining over all these nations by acts of kindness and liberality. He sent also
for an army from Scythia, and armed the whole eastern world against the Romans.'
It is surprising to find the Cimbri at this late time as a force to be worth
having an alliance with, after their total defeat at Vercellae in the Po valley
in 101 BCE.
I suggest to identify these Cimbri with the Jastorf part
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastorf_culture
of the Przeworsk culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przeworsk_culture
http://tinyurl.com/34s6t2r
http://tinyurl.com/ylltf43
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Przeworsk2.PNG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cimbrians_and_Teutons_invasions.svg
and BTW the Bastarnians with the PoieneÅti-LukaÅ¡evka culture southeast of it
(this is now a traditional opinion) even though PoieneÅti-LukaÅ¡evka is hardly
mentioned in Wikipedia (but plenty of it in the archives, mainly from George
Knysh).
Now if Cimbri was another name at that time for the people of the Przeworsk
culture, from where Ariovistus came, Caesar's equation of the threat posed by
that king with that of the Cimbri makes sense,
and their abode in Northern Jutland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himmerland
plus that of the Teutones ibd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thy_(district)
was thus a Rückzugsgebiet, withdrawal zone, into which they were pushed after
being replaced in the Jastorf area, their original home, by Elbe Germani coming
from Przeworsk.
This means also that the Jastorf language was pre-Grimm Germanic, the immediate
ancestor of Proto-Germanic (since k > x in Cimbri and t > þ in Teutones had not
yet taken place, that would happen in Proto-Germanic, the language of the
Przeworsk culture, influenced by the new upper class coming from the south,
probably from Slovakia),
and the PoieneÅti-LukaÅ¡evka culture of the Bastarnae,
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66387
into which Burebista was expanding).
Appian Mithridatic wars 15,69
[Pelopidas, Mithridates emissary, to Roman generals and ambassadors:]
'He [Mithridates] has allies also ready to obey his every command, Scythians,
Taurians, Bastarnae, Thracians, Sarmatians, and all those who dwell in the
region of the Don and Danube and the Sea of Azov.
Tigranes of Armenia is his son-in-law and the Arsacid king of Parthia is his
ally. He has a large number of ships, some in readiness and others building, and
apparatus of all kinds in abundance.'
but Plutarch:
On the Fortune of the Romans, 11
>
http://tinyurl.com/2c3f6fn
'the Sarmatian and Bastarnian wars restrained Mithridates during the time when
the Marsian war was blazing up against Rome', ie. 91 - 88 BCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_%2891%E2%80%9388_BC%29
which seems to suggest that Mithridates had to wage war on the Sarmatians and
Bastarnians at some time in 91 - 88 BCE in order to make them join him.
Later, in the beginning at the Third Mithridatic war, in 75 BCE, according to
Appian: History of Rome: The Mithridatic Wars §69
http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_mithridatic_14.html
the situation was this:
'From Europe he drew of the Sarmatian tribes, both the Basilidae and the
Iazyges, the Coralli, and those Thracians who dwelt along the Danube and on the
Rhodope and Haemus mountains, and besides these the Bastarnae, the bravest
nation of all.
Altogether Mithridates recruited a fighting force of about 140,000 foot and
16,000 horse.
A great crowd of road-makers, baggage carriers, and sutlers followed.'
The Bastarnae ally was active in the siege of Chalcedon, 74 BCE
Appian: History of Rome: The Mithridatic Wars §71
http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_mithridatic_15.html
'The Romans from all directions flocked to Cotta at Chalcedon. ...
The Roman loss was about 3,000, including Lucius Manlius, a man of senatorial
rank. Mithridates lost twenty of his Bastarnae, who were the first to break into
the harbor.'
and
Memnon: History of Heracleia 27, 7
http://attalus.org/translate/memnon2.html#27
'The navies of Rome and Pontus met in battle by the city of Chalcedon, and a
battle also broke out on land between the king's army and the Romans; the
generals of the two sides were Mithridates and Cotta. In the land battle the
Bastarnae routed the Italians, and slaughtered many of them. There was a similar
outcome in the naval battle, and on one and the same day the land and sea were
covered with the bodies of dead Romans. In the naval battle 8,000 men were
killed and 4,500 were captured; in the land battle 5,300 of the Italians were
killed, and out of Mithridates' army about 30 Bastarnae, and 700 others.
Everyone was cowed by this success of Mithridates.'
To sum up:
According to historical sources:
1) The Cimbri existed as a unified force, presumably (where else?) in
Przeworsk-land, in appr. 88 BCE
2) The Bastarnae existed as a unified force, presumably in
PoieneÅti-LukaÅ¡evka-land at the same time.
3) The Bastarnae existed as a unified force, presumably in
PoieneÅti-LukaÅ¡evka-land in 75 BCE
(called the bravest of all; some recent exploit?).
4) No mention of the former ally, the Cimbri, in 75 BCE or at any later point,
which means they either left the alliance or ceased to exist.
5) The Bastarnae existed outside of PoieneÅti-LukaÅ¡evka-land in 74 BCE
And where is Burebista, whose Daci/Getae on the advice of Decaeneus waged war on
the Germans, in all this?
Ion HoraÅ£iu CriÅan
Burebista and his time
pp. 132-133
'In Burebista's time the political supremacy over the space between the
Carpathians and the Dniester was held by the Bastarnae. Theirs is the PoieneÅti
culture (named after the village of PoieneÅti and LukaÅ¡evka, Moldavian
S.S.R.).
The Bastarnae's PoieneÅti-LukaÅ¡evka culture comes to an end by the middle of
the 1st century B.C. The Dacian settlements dating from the 1st century B.C.
contain no traces of Bastarnian elements. The phenomenon was accounted for by
the Bastarnae's assimilation into the mass of the autochthonous population.
Although the explanation can be partly justified for northern Moldavia, it must
be emphasized that for the same area as well as for central and eastern Moldavia
the absence of Bastarnian cultural elements is due to the latter's having been
driven off by Burebista.
Literary documents make no mention of Burebista's war with the Bastarnae. Yet it
seems that such a war really took place. Its existence has been postulated by C.
Brandis ever since the beginning of the century. The Bastarnae, who had
established their political supremacy on the lower Danube, were beaten off by
Burebista and driven somewhere to a northern region. Taking advantage of the
great king's death and of the confusion that followed it, large numbers of
Bastarnae would in 29 B.C. try to move south into the Balkan peninsula. The end
of the PoieneÅti-LukaÅ¡evka culture in the middle of the 1st century comes in
support of the proposition that Burebista fought them out of Dacia. We may
assume that not all the Bastarnian tribes were pushed northward. Some of them
may well have been incorporated within the boundaries of Burebista's realm like
several other foreign peoples. Once the political power of the Bastarnae was
annihilated it may be possible that those of the Bastarnae that had been left
behind were assimilated into the mass of the natives, leaving no traces to be
evidenced archaeologically.'
The Bastarnae, thus pushed out of their old home in PoieneÅti-LukaÅ¡evka-land, would have to retreat north, ie. into Przeworsk-land, where they would have become that new upper layer we see appearing there at that time. Whatever Iranian element we see in that upper layer would then come from their incorporation into the Bastarnae.
Rolf Hachmann
Die Chronologie der jüngeren vorrömischen Eisenzeit
pp. 123-4
'Das Gräberfeld PoieneÅti läÃt sich verhältnismäÃig einfach und sehr überÂzeugend an die mitteldeutsche Chronologie anschlieÃen (vgl. Abb. 41). Die SpätÂlatènefibel mit stufenförmigem Bügel, die hier mehrfach vorkommt, ist mit dem mitteldeutschen Typ dieser Art identisch. Die bandförmigen Gürtelhaken mit zur Ãse umgelegtem Ende, die in PoieneÅti reichlich vorkommen, gleichen Gürtelhaken, wie sie im östlichen Mitteldeutschland vorkommen und u. a. in Cammer in der Zeitgruppe 3 vertreten sind, in der ja auch die Fibeln mit stufenförmigem Bügel erscheinen. Damit wird deutlich, daà die Gruppe PoieneÅti zeitlich dem Abschnitt A der mitteldeutschen vorrömischen Eisenzeit entspricht. Es ist bezeichnend, daà in PoieneÅti Spätlatènefibeln Var. K und deren übrige Zeitgenossen gänzlich fehlen. Das bedeutet jedoch nicht unmittelbar, daà die Gruppe PoieneÅti nicht bis in den Abschnitt B hineinreicht, heiÃt vielÂmehr, daà sie sich im Verlaufe des Abschnitts A aus dem mitteldeutschen Kulturverband herauslöste, dem sie ursprünglich angehört haben muÃ. Eine Weiterentwicklung des Formenschatzes hat nach dieser Loslösung jedenfalls so gut wie gar nicht stattgefunden. Ein sehr langes Weiterleben der Gruppe nach erfolgter Loslösung wird man daher auch nicht annehmen dürfen.'
"The grave field PoieneÅti can be joined relatively easily and very convincingly with the Central German [approx. Thuringia and environs] chronology (cf. Fig 41).
http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/files/PhaseCorrespondenceBetweenThuringiaAndPoienesti.png
[the Kobil group is a similar group in Bohemia]
The late Latène fibula 'mit stufenförmigem Bügel' [with tiered body?], of which several occur here, is identical to the Central German version of this type. Die band-shaped belt hooks with the end turned into an eyelet which are found in abundance in PoieneÅti, look similar to belt hooks, such as are found in eastern Central Germany and eg. in Cammer are represnted in time group 3, in which also the fibulas 'mit stufenförmigem Bügel' appear. From this it is obvious, that the PoieneÅti group coincides in time with time section A of the Central German pre-Roman iron age. It is significant, that in PoieneÅti late Latène fibulas var. K and their contemporaries are completely absent. This doesn't directly mean that the PoieneÅti group doesn't stretch into time section B, but rather, that during time section A it detached itself from that Central German culture union to which it must originally have belonged. In any case, after detaching itself it had no significant further development in the set of forms. Thus one shouldn't assume the group lived on for very long after detaching itself"
Which means, in my estimation, that after being routed by Burebista the Bastarnae evacuated PoieneÅti-LukaÅ¡evka-land and migrated to Central Germany.
Torsten