Re: That old Ariovistus scenario.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, gknysh@... wrote:

>
>
> --- 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) 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.

You do know that the Sarmatians are considered to be
Iranian-speakers, or?

> > >
> > > 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.)
> >
> > Nor is there in Snorri's Ynglingasaga, according to which Odin
> > took land in Saxland, no mention of landnam in Gardariki:
>
> > Apparently they were repulsed.
>
> ****GK: Again: Saxland northern or southern did not include the
> steppes of the Tysza basin in Snorri's time. There are sources on
> Icelandic medieval geography you could consult.*****
> >

Snorri was talking about events preceding his own by more than a
millenium. 'Saxland' would have had the territory the predecessors of
the inhabitants of Saxland in Snorri's time possessed, whichever way
the predecessors were defined.
The basic difference of our views on Snorri as a historian here is
that I think he is drawing on native trasditions, and you think he
doesn't have a clue and made it all up.

> > > > 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,
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tisza
>
> > > Aha, south to Saxland.
> > >
> > > GK: The Hungarians wouldn't care for that terminology, since
> > > the Iazigi moved into the plains of Hungary.
>
> Somewhere on the course of Tisza.
>
> ****GK: They were nomads. They occupied the Alfold primarily. And
> they chased out most of the Dacian inhabitants thereof (acc. to
> Pliny).****
>

> > I don't think Snorri cared much for the feelings of the then
> > newly-arrived Hungarians.
> >
> > GK: You're probably right. But then I don't think he would have
> > used "Saxland" with respect to Hungarian territory in his time.
> >

How about Ruthenia then?

>
> Could you explain to me what route they took in order to avoid
> infringing upon the territorial integrity of Przeworskia/ Saxland?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Przeworsk2.PNG
>
> ****GK: Along the north shore of the Danube, then across the
> mountains into the Hungarian plain. The same route later taken by
> the Roxolans and the remaining Yazigi. The same "contact" route the
> Romans guaranteed to the Roxolans after their conquest of Dacia.****
>
> > > The Romans knew them there simply as Sarmats, and fought many
> > > wars with them.
> > >
> > OK.
> > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > So the Yasigi would have been free to pursue own goals after
> > that, as long as Mithridates held out.
> >
> > GK: But they could do no "S*** disturbing" on their own until
> > 63 BCE
>
> That means that in the interval 72 - 63 BCE, Ariovistus must have
> campaigned as a general under Mithridates.
>
> ****GK: Out of the blue... Like an attack of epilepsy...

Even your considerable powers of self-deception were not sufficient
to incorporate this statement continuing my usual scenario into your
conviction that Torsten had submitted, which shock you experience as
a fit of epilepsy and then blame it on me.

> What in the world does Ariovistus have to do with the Yazigi??

OK.

>
> > >
> > > > 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).
>
> An aspiring Ariovistus would have had interesting things to learn
> from the Dacians on how to run a cause/crusade as a warrior priest.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Horsey stuff?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przeworsk_culture#Features
>
>
> > Could you mention a few characteristic features? I have a book on
> > Przeworsk archaeology I'd like to cross-reference with.
> >
> > GK: OK. But I won't have access to my books until 10 July.
> >

Thank you.

> ...
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > That must be because you assume that Przeworsk-talk would be
> > identical to Jastorf-talk, and that Jastorf-talk was homogenous
> > throughout the Jastorf territory. Give the time scale of both
> > cultures, and the inevitable changes in their language occuring
> > when Jastorfers settled in a foreign environment, both
> > assumptions are wrong. Przeworskers arriving in Scandinavia would
> > have spoken a tongue immediately incomprehensible to the natives,
> > but learnable.
> >
> > GK: No what I meant is that since the Yazigi were Iranics, they
> > could not, unlike Snorri's imagined "Asiamen" have been carriers
> > of Germanic.
>
> True that. But since eg. Avestan has generalized sprirantization of
> stops before other consonants (eg. -xt- for -kt-, -ft- for -pt-) I
> suspect Iranian speech habits, carried to the extreme, might be
> responsible for Grimm's law in Germanic.
>
> ****GK: Is this your great discovery? That Germanic was changed by
> the speech habits of Yazigs migrating into the area of the
> Przeworsk culture in 63 BCE? One problem is that we have no record
> of such an invasion.

The sources I have seen have absolutely no explanation for the sudden
genesis (in their opinion) of this new upper crust with a wealth that
contrasts sharply with rest of the population, both before and after
its 'genesis'.

> I'll leave it to the linguists (if they have patience) to opine on
> the possibility in linguistic terms. Historically and
> archaeologically there is no case.****

Let's discuss that after the 7/10.

>
> > And had they made it to Przeworskia (which of course they didn't)
> Would you take a look at the map again?
>
> ****GK: ???? *****
>
> > they would have assimilated to the local Germanic speech.
>
> Yes, and that unique language became the language of the Asiamen
> and was then spread by Ariovistus and later conquerors to the rest
> of the later Germania. Snorri had no way of knowing that.
>
>
> ****GK: Sounds like pure delirium to me... Let's see: Yazigs arrive
> in Przeworskia in 63 BCE, led by Ariovistus. They become Suebians
> or whatever, just like that (in De Bello Gallico Ariovistus notes
> that his men had been without a roof over their heads (or something
> like that) for fourteen years... (acc. to Torsten: 9 years as
> Yazigs fighting for Mithradates, 4 years as Suebians).

The 63 BCE date was to accommodate your idea that the various nomadic
nations could not have acted on their own before Mithridates' death.
But his power was weakened several years before that. He would not
have had the means then to ensure their compliance.

> They not only change their linguistic habits instantly, but also
> their cultural and military habits en masse (no one would even
> guess that the core of Ariovistus' army was composed of Yazig
> horsemen...).

Tsk, tsk. As you may recall, Ariovistus army was founded on the
principle of pairs consisting of a foot soldier and a mounted
warrior. It would be the ideal means to ensure the integration
between Iranian-speaking cavalry and Germanic-speaking infanrty.

> Meanwhile Ariovistus learns Gallic (excellently, no switcheroos
> there).

No, he learned that in Gaul.

> The catalogue of impossible idiocies is unending it seems...****

Did you just call Caesar an idiot?

>
> Sail on, Cap'n Smith. I think I'll stay on my iceberg.
>
> ****GK: Are you sure the iceberg is still there? (:=)))Maybe it's
> experienced a grim shift...****

Rather fight for your life on your own iceberg than drown like a
mouse in someone else's third class.


Torsten


BTW and could please clean up the double-lining in your postings?