--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> --- On Thu, 12/29/11, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
> >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. 18-19
>
> '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.'
>
>
> ****GK: But the point is that the archaeological dates for eastern
> sites (such as the territory occupied by the Bastarnians, Venedae,
> Scythians etc.) are determined independently of what happened at
> Manching and when (for instance by the dates of Greek amphora
> imports and many other references).
Not true.
ibd. pp. 25 - 27
'In the heart of the Germania Libera and right up to Scandinavia and the Dnieper a circle of La-Tèneicised cultures was situated - the Jastorf culture at the Seedorf stage, the Przeworsk and Oksywie, and the Zarubintsy cultures, all preserving their former La Tene aspect.
R. Hachmann described the corresponding stage in the development of these cultures, which was synchronous to the Late-La Tène period in southern regions, as "the Late Pre-Roman period", emphasising in this way its difference from the La Tene culture of the Celts.
But these cultures were so steeped in Celtic influence, which had become an organic and integral part of them, that the removal of the word "La Tene" from their designation emasculates the very essence of this phenomenon. It is not accidental that the majority of researchers could also not desist from using the adjective "Late-La Tene" when referring to memorials and finds of the Przeworsk, Oksywie and Zarubintsy cultures. Perhaps it would be expedient to use the term "North European La Tene" (NELT) in this instance, although it is not very exact from the geographical point of view - the Zarubintsy and PoieneÅti-Lukashevka cultures lay to the north-east and east of the Celtic world.
For the time being the debate around Manching has rocked the upper stages of the Late-La Tene and NELT chronological system, a breach in its till unshakeable (as the majority of researchers had believed) construction has begun to form, as in the lower stages of the eastern part - in the chronology of the La Tènicised cultures of the Ukraine and Moldavia. It all began with the amphorae. In the Zarubintsy settlement of Pilipenkova Gora the handle of a Cossian amphora stamped 230 - 220 BC was found, in some settlements of Rumanian Moldova - fragments of Greek amphorae stamped 220 -180 BC and in Lukashevka II - fragments stamped 220 - 146 BC.82 And this is 100 years earlier than the earliest datings for the burial grounds which are being established from the fibulae using R. Hachmann's and Jan Filip's chronological systems. In the old controversy between the proponents of the short chronology of the Zarubintsy culture and PoieneÅti-Lukashevka, on the one hand, these cultures were thought to date to the turn of the 2nd -1st centuries BC and to have come from Central Europe83 and, the proponents of the long chronology, on the other hand, they were thought to go back to Scythian times and were dated to the 3rd century BC.84 The amphoral finds have come down heavily in favour of the latter. The opponents can now only doubt the authenticity of these finds.
The contradiction between the chronology of the fibulae and amphorae and the chronology of the burial grounds and settlements nevertheless remains. Attempts have been made to resolve matters by introducing a special "fibulae-less stage" in the development of these cultures,85 but they were not successful - the "fibulae-less stage"* turned out to be fictional.86
In the meantime, the course of the debate around Manching and the doubts about R. Hachmann's and Jan Filip's absolute datings have compelled archaeologists to consider the possibility of a shift downwards in the entire chronological system. Then Kasimierz GodÅowski proposed a clever solution to the problem.87
The earliest forms of fibulae in the NELT are variant A according to Kostrzewski, long, of mid-La Tene design with little balls - thickenings on the foot. (illus 4; 37, 38, 76). These are quite well known in the Celtic world. Jan Filip considered them one of the earliest mid-La Tene variants ("united" in his terminology) and not very successfully called "disjointed" or "segmented". The little balls or other decorative elements divided up, as it were, the foot. The "disjointed" fibulae are typical for Stage C of European La Tene, and more so for C1 than C2.
Variant A fibulae were regarded earlier as the subsequent typological link of the Celtic disjointed types. GodÅowski saw them as one of the variants which was developing in parallel. Thus the beginning of NELT would synchronise with La Tene C, rather than La Tene D.88
Just as the Celtic disjointed fibulae served as primordial prototypes of local fibulae in the eastern part of NELT, the Celtic fibulae with balls played the same role in the western regions. Their local variants survived for quite a while longer in the Jastorf culture.89 We can synchronise NELT with Stage C thank to the swords with the bell-shaped, curved guillon, which were so widely represented in the Przeworsk and Oksywie cultures.
GodÅowski cites yet another argument. All the NELT cultures appear to have quite a large amount of varied objects placed in the graves which were not at all characteristic of their predecessors and forebears, bearers of earlier phases in the Jastorf cultures and the Pomeranian culture in Poland. It is possible that the new model of burial ceremony was also borrowed from the Celts. But in that case it could have happened no later than Stage C1, because later the Celts themselves dropped this custom.90
A large part of the international datable objects of NELT have something in common with finds in Celtic oppida, but this particular stage, when the Celts changed to a semi-urban way of life in the oppida and adopted the burial ceremony that is elusive to archaeologists - the oppida horizon - usually correlates with La Tène D. Just lately, a considerable amount of material has been accumulating which shows that this horizon was begun earlier. Such centres as Stare Gradisko in Moravia, Stradonitcsy and Gratchsany in the Czech lands and Manching in Bavaria already existed in La Tène C. Caesar also informs us that the Cimbri and Teutons had already clashed in Gaul with the oppida-citadels.91
Thus, the beginning of NELT is pushed backwards, to La Tene stage C, and even the last of Stage B2 (illus 4). Sometime within the boundaries of this stage the peoples of Northern and Eastern Europe received a powerful dose of Celtic influence. Henceforth, although contacts with the Celtic world of La Tène culture were maintained to some degree or other, the NELT cycle cultures evolved in their own way.
How can we determine in absolute figures the period of most intensive contact between the Northern European peoples and the Celts? This is not a simple task and still today almost insoluble, because, unfortunately, period C itself has altogether no reliable, absolute leads. It is merely "squeezed" between the beginning of period la Tène D, the dating of which is uncertain as has been discussed above, and the even shakier date for the end of period La Tène B. Only one thing is clear, that La Tène C can not be much later than 100 BC, if we accept the dating of the treasure at Lauterach from the Roman coins to be later than 82 BC, if we proceed from the dating of the Nauheim fibula from Talamon as also later than 76-71 BC, and if we draw on the dating of the second period of burial grounds at Ornavasso. It is possible that the campaigns of the Cimbri and Teutons could have played a certain role in the reshaping of La Tèene C into La Tène D, and of the roughly synchronous phase NELT-b into phase NELT-c.'
> In other words archaeological consensus as to the timeframe for the
> demise of classical Bastarnia (to which Shchukin adheres by the way,
> and which he did much to establish in certain areas) and its
> accompanying territorial and population shifts has been firmly set
> at ca. 50 AD, no matter who or when destroyed Manching.
Not in the source you supplied, AFAI can see. Above he dates NELT, the last phase of North European LaTène, to the decades after 90 BCE.
> There is no room for discussion here. Since you are now able to
> translate from the Russian,
I always was; now things go faster with Google Translate to look up glosses.
> you can proceed to read Shchukin in his original: cf.
> krotov.info.history/09/3/schukin.html
>
Comment above.
> The classic article on Slavic beginnings written eight years after
> your citation from the 1989 Shchukin volume. It has a lot on
> Bastarnia, none of which supports you.*****
None of which contradicts me.
Torsten