Re: Nosevych

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

>
>
>
> If you move forward to node 177, you'll find some interesting maps
> of the Latenized cultures Pachkova discussed. Esp. the second one.
> Both Pachkova and Nosevych feel that the eastern "drang" which
> created Przeworsk, Oksywie, Zarubinia, Poeneshti-Lukashovka was a
> co-operative enterprise of Celts, Germanics, and "Pomeranians"
> (Nosevych calls them "Veneds", with the latter two groups
> numerically preponderant (though in different % in different areas).
> She believes that P/L was 90% a "daughter of Yastorf" culture, but
> Zarubinia only some 30 to 40%. To her and Nosevych the linguistic
> situation was far clearer in P/L. She is even reluctant to apply the
> label "Bastarnians" to the population of Zarubinia. Nosevych isn't.
> His view is that of the three Zarubinian groups, that of Polissia
> were the Atmones, and that of the Middle Dnipro the Sidones. He
> thinks the Upper Dnipro Zarubinians were more "Veneds", and that
> they remained unknown to Strabo, and were less affected by the
> Farzoi destruction of Bastarnia.
>

George, do you have an explanation for this:

http://vln.by/node/178

'Археология позволяет уточнить ситуацию. Так, фиксируется передвижение в причерноморские степи новой волны сарматских кочевников, которые принесли с собой новое имя â€" аланы. Сарматы первой волны, языги и роксоланы, были вытеснены на запад, в современные Румынию и Ð'енгрию, где их не раз упоминают римские авторы. Значительные разрушения, вызванные сарматским нашествием, фиксируются и в ареале зарубинецкой культуры. Ð'след за этим она претерпевает глубокую трансформацию. Классическая зарубинецкая культура трансформируется в позднезарубинецкую общность, представленную несколькими локальными вариантами. Из них памятники типа Лютеж характеризуются преемственностью со среднеднепровским вариантом, типа Почеп â€" сочетанием среднеднепровского компонента с сильным субстратом юхновской культуры, типа Картамышево-Терновка â€" тоже среднеднепровским и юхновским компонентами при участии пшеворского, типа Ð"рини â€" наследием верхнеднепровского варианта.[2]Ð'торой компонент памятников типа Ð"рини, привнесший характерную керамику с расчесами, поначалу связывался с культурой штрихованной керамики, но С. Е. Рассадин показал, что он также имеет юхновское происхождение.[3]'

"Archaeology helps to clarify the situation. Thus, a movement is recorded in the Black Sea steppes of a new wave of Sarmatian nomads who brought with them a new name - Alans. Sarmatians of the first wave, Yazygi and Roksolani, were driven to the west, into modern Romania and Hungary, where Roman authors did not mention them before. Significant disruptions, caused by the Sarmatian invasion, is recorded in the area of the Zarubintsy culture. As a consequence of that it undergoes a profound transformation. The classical Zarubintsy culture is transformed into the post-Zarubintsy community represented by several local variants. Of these sites the Lyutezh variant is characterized by continuity with the Middle Dnepr variant, the Pochep variant by a combination of the Middle Dnepr component with a strong substrate of the Yukhnovsky culture, the Kartamyshevo-Ternovka variant also by Middle Dnepr and Yukhnovsky components and with the participation of Przeworsk, and the Grini variant with the legacy of the Upper Dnepr variant. The second component of the Grini sites, bringing in distinctive pottery with combs(?), first contacted with the culture of scratched(?) ceramics, but SE Rassadin demonstrated that it also has Yukhnov origin.

The Poleski variant of the Zarubintsy culture at that time disappears, and its descendants seem to migrate into the area of the Przeworsk culture, where some mixed Przeworsk Zarubintsy groups are formed Zubritskaya, the Rakhny variant, the Grinewicz(?) Wielke - Czerniczyn variant. In that(?), they are distinguished not by a LaTènized but by a Romanized appearance. Interestingly, there is another observation by VE Eremenko: the classical Zarubintsy tradition of the Upper Dnepr Chechersk-Kisteli variant is most impressively preserved in the sites of the Pochep and Abidnya variants (the latter corresponds to the Grini variant of other authors), thus(?) "the impression heaps up(?) that the "classic" Zarubintsy avoided communication with their "Romanized" family."

(My best correction of Google translate; please correct where necessary)

I assume we're talking about the time of the Mithridates wars here.

1. How did part of the Bastarnae become Romanized?

2. Why would that make the other Bastarnae avoid them?

Allow me to quote myself:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67466
'Plutarch
On the Fortune of the Romans, 11

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Fortuna_Romanorum*.html#T324
'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 either against or together with the Sarmatians and Bastarnians at some time in 91 - 88 BCE, most likely in the beginning of that period. In 89 BCE, he sends ambassadors to the Cimbri, the Gallograecians, the Sarmatians, and the Bastarnians, to request aid,
(Justinus: Epitome of Pompeius Trogus' "Philippic histories" 38.3.6-7)
http://attalus.org/translate/justin6.html#38.3
'6 In the next place, well understanding what a war he 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''

Did the Romans bribe part of the Bastarnae to join their side? How did the the Roman stuff reach them physically? Along which channels?


Torsten