From: george knysh
Message: 64378
Date: 2009-07-14
--- On Tue, 7/14/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
--- In cybalist@... s.com, gknysh@... wrote:
>
>
> Torsten,
> Check your Przeworsk materials for the period 75-50 BCE.
> (1) Are there inhumation burials?
> (2) If so, are the graves:
>
> (a) barrow graves (kurgans)?
> (b) double-pit graves? I.e. A rectangular (not round or oval) pit
> on whose floor a secondary narrow pit has been dug for the
> skeleton, and closed with a wooden cover of some type?
> (c) is the head of the skeleton pointing towards the south?
>
> Re (a): "Metanastae" Yazigians abandoned barrow burials shortly
> before they moved to Hungary, while they were still on the lower
> Danube. The other Yazigians retained them.
> Re (b): Some Yazigians were buried in simple pits (single) of
> rectangular shape.
> Re (c): A Yazigian characteristic through the 4th c. CE.
>
> There are a number of other characteristics but the above are
> defining ones.
If the Yasigians in Pannonia gave up barrow burials, why should putative Przeworsk Yasigians keep them?
****GK: The abandonment was gradual. The Metanastae were on the Danube for more than a century before moving on to Hungary and they were interrelating with other ethna (Getans, Romans, Bastarnians) whose practices influenced them. There was no such influence on the Yazigi of the interior. BTW the Scythians of the Crimea began to abandon barrow burials from the time of Mithradates, under the influence of the Greek colonists.==NB: the Yazigi who assaulted the Zarubinian forts were not the Metanastae...****
Anyway, this is the best I can offer for now. Translation follows:
****GK: The barrow point still holds, since the rite was still predominant among Metanastae Yazigians in 75 BCE (they had been roaming along the Danube for 50 years by then according to Strabo)and was not fully abandoned until ca. 50 CE. If the other main characteristics are not reflected in the material below, they were not Yazigians.*****
Jan Lichardus
Körpergräber der frühen Kaiserzeit
****GK: This is CE. Does he also deal with the first c. BCE?****
im Gebiet der südlichen Elbgermanen
pp. 59-69