Re: That old Ariovistus scenario.

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>

> How will you prove that no Iranian or otherwise hostile group

> arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the mid first century BCE?

>

> GK: If you want to involve Ariovistus it would have to be

> somewhat earlier?

That wouls have to be in the beginning of the period 72 - 59 BCE, as far as I can see. That qualifies as mid first century BCE for me.

> But no matter. I've studied the history of the Z. culture pretty

> thoroughly. (There is also a lot of relevant stuff in Shchukin for

> you).(I'm away from my notebooks till July 10 so what follows is

> from memory). There is no contemporary or near-contemporary

> evidence of any kind to prove or indicate that an "Iranian or

> otherwise hostile group arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the

> mid first century BCE". There is evidence that a series of

> Sarmatian assaults (probably by the Iazigi) were undertaken against

> Zarubinian fortresses sometime in the last decades of the 1rst c.

> BCE (arrowheads, signs of fire etc. The fortresses were later

> rebuilt).

Aha. Tweak that by a few decades, and I'm in business.

****GK: How so? Apart from the war damages there is no record of conquest nor settlement by the steppe nomads in any part of Zarubinia (unlike the situation which developed after the Aorsan assaults in the mid-1rst c AD.)****

> Prior to this, the relationship between Zarubinians and the

> Scythian complex to the south had been amicable. There are

> Zarubinian burials in the Scythian Lower Dnipro cities, and

> Scythian burials in the Zarubinian Middle Dnipro fortresses.

And then they weren't.

> After the departure of large Iazigian contingents towards the

> basin of the Tisza,

Aha, south to Saxland.

****GK: The Hungarians wouldn't care for that terminology, since the Iazigi moved into the plains of Hungary. The Romans knew them there simply as Sarmats, and fought many wars with them.****

> amicable relationships were resumed (until a

> new Aorsan Scythian dynasty embarked on empire building in the

> mid-1rst c. AD. The Zarubinians do not appear to have been affected

> by the Getan expansion under Burebista in the mid-1rst c. BCE.)





> In the period ca. 150-110 BCE Iazigi and Roxolans had been Scythian

> vassals. The victory of Mithradates' generals over Palak son of

> Skilur destroyed this renewed Scythian power.

When?

****GK: The dates usually mentioned are <110-106> BCE.****

> Scythians, Roxolans, Iazigi, and Bastarnians became autonomous

> under the King of Pontus' overall suzerainty. They retained this

> autonomy after the death of Mithradates. The Iazigi (located

> between Danube and Dnipro) were not well disposed towards

> Scythians. They had probably collaborated with Burebista (whose

> destruction of Olbia was a major blow against the economic

> interests of Scythia). The Zarubinians as old Scythian

> trading partners were a target.

> I should add that AFAIK that is also no evidence of any invasion of

> the Przeworsk area from the East in the mid-1rst c. BCE.

There is a sharp archaeological break (Zäsur) in Przeworsk with a new upper crust with international, Roman grave goods. What traces would Iazigi (= Yass, etc) have left?

****GK: The same they left everywhere else esp. their particular burial rites and inventory. Not the Przeworsk stuff. In any case the Iazigi move into Hungart dates from the first decades of the 1rst c. AD.****


P.S. If you are leaning towards Jastorf as the source of Germanic, that means you are doubting a major element of Snorri's story. Since the rest is even more brittle, what's the point of hanging on to it? (GK)



Torsten