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 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.

****GK: In your terms they should have "broken through" (^^)****

> > 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.

****GK: You're probably right. But then I don't think he would have used "Saxland" with respect to Hungarian territory in his time.****

> 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****

>

> > 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.

****GK: OK. But I won't have access to my books until 10 July.****

> 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.

****GK: Actually the bulk of the Yazigi migrated to Hungary, tho' some clans remained behind, with the Roxolans.*****

>

> 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. And had they made it to Przeworskia (which of course they didn't) they would have assimilated to the local Germanic speech.****

> 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 ;-)

****GK: Kind George would prefer to have Torsten on board ship ,as an interesting contributor, than needlessly sinking in the Ocean for the sake of phantom ideals. But since George also acknowledges human autonomy he will regretfully let Torsten sink if that is his expressed wish. (:=)).***



Torsten