--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "gknysh" <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> Clarification.
>
> > --- On Wed, 12/28/11, Torsten <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> > > > (T) But the events of Mithridates' 'Sarmatian and Bastarnian
> > > > wars' must have 'fixirovatI' itself in the finds one way or
> > > > another. What else in the archaeology of the region would you
> > > > point to?
> > > >
> > > > GK: I don't think anything notable exists for that period
> > > > except for some indicators in the ruins of Neapolis Scythica
> > > > that "something was going on" in the late 2nd c. BCE But that
> > > > would be the earlier conflict with Diophantes, not with the
> > > > subsequent war with ex-Scythian vassals. Nothing at all in the
> > > > archaeology afaik until the Bastarnian-Yazig conflicts and the
> > > > Getan invasion after Mithradates' death, and then after a
> > > > spell the outmigration of most Moldavian Bastarnians towards
> > > > Dardania ca. 29 BCE, and the subsequent reconsolidation of
> > > > their remnants as Tacitus' "Peucini".
> >
> > Yeah, right.
> > Nosevych
> > http://vln.by/node/178
>
> >
> > "The Poleski variant of the Zarubintsy culture at this time
> > disappears, and its descendants seem to migrate into the area of
> > the Przeworsk culture, where some mixed Przeworsk-Zarubintsy
> > groups are formed: Zubritskaya, of the Rakhno type, of the
> > Hryniewicze Wielkie - Chernichin type."
> >
> > (BTW does that Russian construction after the colon mean there are
> > three independent subgroups, or that there is one, with two
> > subgroups?)
>
> ****GK: I'm trying to understand why you think Nosevych provides
> arguments for you. Judging by your quote supra the only thing I come
> up with is that you somehow think that the processes which occurred
> in the mid-first century AD and later apply to the period of the
> wars between Mithradates and the Bastarnians/Sarmatians, i.e. to the
> first half of the 1rst c. BCE. They don't. What Nosevych is
> describing here from his point of view is what I wrote about a while
> back when talking about King Farzoi of the Aorsan Scythian dynasty.
> Whatever Nosevych feels relevant to the first c. BCE he discussed
> earlier.*****
>
You are correct, that's what I think. I am aware that he times it to a century later than what I have in mind, but he doesn't in the text provide any relative or absolute markers for his timing.
The whole quote from Nosevych
http://vln.by/node/178
'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 Hryniewicze 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."'
places these event at the temporal borderline LaTènized - Romanized cultures. Now Shchukin criticizes that borderline as being too late
Rome and the Barbarians in Central and eastern Europe
Chap III, pp. 19-20
'In 1902 Paul Reinecke, continuing this system of European chronology from the Bronze Age to the Roman times and basing himself not so much on the typology of objects as on the combinations of their combinability in closed complexes, primarily in graves, proposed subdividing the La Tène into four stages.46
His La Tène A did not find correspondence in Tischler's material, but subsequent stages corresponded to Tischler's. He reckoned definite dates as follows: La Tène A - 500-400 BC; La Tène B - 400-300; La Tène C - 300-100; D - 100-0.
The Tischler-Reinecke system - and many of their conclusions, despite differences in methods, coincided - served as a basis for all further research and their terminology was widely accepted. The basis of their system still remains unshakeable today, although many amplifications have been made to it.'
This because it is based solely of the dating of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppidum_of_Manching#The_end_of_the_oppidum
as being caused by Romans in 15 BCE, whereas it is now considered to have been most likely destroyed by someone like Ariovistus.
ibd., p. 24
'It is still hard to evaluate fully the consequences of shifting the Manching date and the debate continues. But we are dealing with a system and changes to part of it must of necessity lead to changes to the entire system. A changed date for the destruction of Manching alters the date of the Nauheim fibulae which were considered one of the basic chronological indicators for the second half of the 1st century BC. Now it appears that all, or at least the majority of memorials, which have been dated from these fibulae, should be put back 50 years to the first half of the 1st century BC.'
Torsten