Re: That old Ariovistus scenario.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <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: If you want to involve Ariovistus it would have to be
> > somewhat earlier?
>
> That would 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.)****

Nor is there in Snorri's Ynglingasaga, according to which Odin took
land in Saxland, no mention of landnam in Gardariki:
http://www.snerpa.is/net/snorri/yngl-sag.htm
'Fór hann fyrst vestur í Garðaríki og þá suður í Saxland. Hann átti
marga sonu. Hann eignaðist ríki víða um Saxland og setti þar sonu
sína til landsgæslu. Þá fór hann norður til sjávar og tók sér bústað
í ey einni. Þar heitir nú Óðinsey í Fjóni.'
Apparently they were repulsed.

>
>
> > 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.

I don't think Snorri cared much for the feelings of the then
newly-arrived Hungarians.

> 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.

>
> > 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.

Could you mention a few characteristic features? I have a book on
Przeworsk archaeology I'd like to cross-reference with.

> Not the Przeworsk stuff. In any case the Iazigi move into Hungart
> dates from the first decades of the 1rst c. AD.****

Or what was left of them.

>
> 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.

> Since the rest is even more brittle, what's the point of hanging on
> to it? (GK)

We're getting closer now, aren't we?
George clings on to his last hope ;-)


Torsten