Re: That old Odin scenario ...

--- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> Zarubyntsi it is then.
> I can't figure out from the Wikipedia article
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarubintsy_culture
> whether Zarubyntsi is a successor to Milograd or a
> competitor?

****GK: It gobbled up most of Milograd along both
banks of the Pripet in the 3rd c.BCE, and expanded
into the upper Dnipro basin(apart from its other
holdings).****

>

>
> Chernyakov, the successor to the Zarubyntsi (on its
> territory)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernyakhov_culture
> must have been at least bilingual Slavic/Gothic,
> right?

****GK: Possibly on the northern border, where
"Kyivans" and "Chernyakhovites" territorially
intermingled. The emerging Slavic element was
represented by the "Kyivan culture", a partial
successor to Late Zarubintsy (with northern components
added). Chernyakhiv was the continuation of Wielbark,
plus interaction with some locals. It pushed out
whatever remained of Zarubintsy, and later also pushed
out the "Kyivans" who were east of the Dnipro in the
forest-steppe zone(this in the 4th c., in Hermanaric's
time)****

>
> Why is Przeworsk and Zarubintsy seen as one complex
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarubintsy_culture
> if there was absolutely no exchange of upper crust?

****GK: Probably because they are both basically
"LaTenized" cultures. Other authors say the same about
Zarubintsy and Poeneshti-Lukashovka.****

> And how do you get (according to orthodoxy) a
> Germanic-speaking and a
> Slavic-speaking culture to be part of the same
> complex? That doesn't
> make any sense.

*****GK: It doesn't. This is an older idea, now being
abandoned. The Slavs are now seen to have developed in
more northern (forest and non LaTenized) contexts,
with the "Kyivan culture" (emerging slowly after ca.
50CE)as the first identifiably Slavic phenomenon
(since it clearly develops into indubitably Slavic
cultures). Przeworsk, Poeneshti-Lukashovka, Zarubintsy
are now seen as basically Germanic (with other
assimilated components being Venet(d)ic, Dacian,
Baltic, Scythian("Thrakoid")****

> Also, what I can't understand is that if the only
> thing that separates
> the Lubieszewo graves from their surrounding culture
> is the expensive
> Roman grave goods, why can't they be related to the
> graves further
> east which are characterised by similar Roman grave
> goods? One book I
> read drew up a shortlist of candidates for possible
> origin of the
> Lubieszewo graves: 1. Romans, 2. East Germani, 3.
> Celts. No eastern
> candidates. Why?

****GK: Perhaps because what you call "the

> graves further
> east which are characterised by similar Roman grave
> goods" are clearly Aorsan, Alanic, Maeotic

(Sindic),or of other local cultures, and had
representatives thereof moved west some evidence of
this would have been found in the L.type burials
besides Roman imports.*****



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ