From: tgpedersen
Message: 64404
Date: 2009-07-24
>That's not an argument from science, but from the sociology of science. The Sarmatian connection is at the heart of what the Polish state once built its existence on
>
> --- On Wed, 7/22/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> It seems everything here hinges on Eggers' conclusions, so I asked the library to find the article for me.
>
> ****GK: Apparently not one professional archaeologist has
> questioned these conclusions. His arguments must be pretty solid.
> I can see an analogy in Mahomedov's analysis of Chernyakhiv andI'll check with the library.
> Wielbark. Putting aside the obvious Sarmatian burials, the
> bi-ritual cemeteries of these cultures contained graves with an
> otherwise identical object inventory.
> BTW why not look at the references concerning the Przeworsk
> inhumations mentioned by Lichardus in his footnotes 8 ss.?****
> > In this text we could establish that the first inhumation burialsIt seems he divides the early inhumation graves into two groups of different 'habitus' (I find it difficult to relate to that German approach to the world in which facts are secondary 'manifestations' of primary inner developments):
> > in North-west Bohemia and in Central Germany appear in Phase 2. /...
> >
> > inhumation burials which, apart from the unique and different
> > treatment of the corpse, express the same elements of the
> > funerary ritual 5).(as do the cremation burials [GK/....
> >
> >
> >
> > in Central Germany there exist some East Germanic inhumation
> > funerals which are older than the earliest Elbe Germanic finds
> > 8).
> > Chronologically these burials belong to the middle section of the
> > later pre-Roman Iron Age, corresponding approx to the stage
> > Latène D1 in the area of Southern Germany. A conspicuous
> > concentration of such inhumation funerals is found above all in
> > Poland, in Silesia and Kuyavia, in the area of the Przeworsk
> > Culture; inhumation funerals have been demonstrated here
> > sporadically also in the early Imperial Period 9). In constrast
> > to the Elbe Germanic inhumation burials the deceased here are
> > often interred lying on the side with legs flexed [NB ****GK]
>
> It seems Lichardus, who was Czech, was concerned most of all withHe says the appearance of inhumation graves is a mystery to be solved, then provides a proposal only for his group of interest, group 2). That leaves the supposedly important question unsolved for group 1).
> what happened v C^echách, in the Czech lands. Hence the choice of
> subject, Southern Elbe Germani, and hence his cavalier attitude
> towards the evidence of other Przeworsk inhumation funerals than
> those he defines away as imitations of a half-forgotten Celtic
> custom.
>
> ****GK: I don't get your point. What is "cavalier" about his
> attitude?****
> > or in crouched position. Their funeral accoutrement consists ofNot good enough. Why do two geographically distinct types of inhumation suddenly appear?
> > apparel items, knives, awls, various fittings and only rarely of
> > weapons. The grave fields are often bi-ritual; burials in
> > segregated locations are found less frequently 10). In its total
> > habitus these inhumation burials are so different from the Elbe
> > Germanic ones, that a take-over from this area seems unlikely.
> > Also, these inhumation funerals show neither chronological nor
> > cultural connections to the Lubiesowo/Lübsow graves also shown to
> > be here 11), which for their own part have likely come about
> > under influence from the Elbe Germanic area, and no argument
> > whatsoever speaks for a derivation of the Elbe Germanic
> > inhumation burials from this area.
>
> And here Lichardus just multiplies the problem: why suddenly
> several styles of inhumation in an otherwise cremating culture?
> Several varieties of a afterlife-promising new religion?
>
> ****GK: Well Przeworsk was a distinct culture, different from
> Oksywie, Wielbark etc. etc. Note that there were also many
> different "styles" of cremation in a given culture.*****
> > GK: The Wikipedia Polish-language article on Przeworsk statesThe examples Lichardus cites are those of the Przeworsk suite which now (and not just by me) are connected with Ariovistus, which Lichardus wouldn't know. So this evidential support falls away and with that goes L.'s claim of an unbroken inhumation tradition from the Celts.
> > that this type of burial [flexed ****GK]covers an area "identical
> > to that of earlier Celtic settlements" .
>
> But at that time the Celts practised cremation, as mentioned.
>
> **** GK:Inhumations had never entirely gone out of style it
> seems.****
> > So the idea is that northeastern Celtic groups assimilating intoInhumation has to do with a theory/religion of an afterlife in the flesh, which is why the orientation of the body matters. The cremators have given that up, so orientation or position of the body during cremation doesn't matter. And the crouched position was to accomodate a short grave, there are no such restrictions in open air.
> > Przeworsk kept up aspects of their earlier funeral rites.
>
> Much earlier.
>
> ****GK: There was a general shift to cremations in the 3rd c. BCE
> there. One interesting thing we have no information about: what
> "position" was the body cremated in? "Flexed and on the side"? This
> tradition is very ancient for inhumations (bronze age and earlier).
> In any case a return to inhumations could have severalSuppose this is just a question of doing the inhumation on the cheap in harder soil than that in the east?
> explanations, none involving foreign ethnic presence from the east,
> where the fl/side position was not practised.****
> > Note however that this 'sidelying/flexed/ ' position differs fromThat's what I said. So what did you mean by 'earlier'?
> > the inhumation rite of the earlier Wielbark culture
> > (straightforward 'on the back' position).
>
> I didn't get that? The early Wielbark or the Wielbark appearing
> earlier (1st cent. CE) than the Przeworsk inhumation graves (I
> thought they were earlier than that) or the Wielbark overlaid by
> Przeworsk (that doesn't make sense)?
>
> ****GK: The Wielbark culture of the mid-1rst c AD-> which later
> developed into the Chenyakhiv culture. It is clearly later than the
> Przeworsk inhumation graves.****
> > Where did the impulse forYes, true.
> > that come? The Marcomanni? [Note that that Gutones were subjects
> > of Marbod and participated in the assault of 19 AD which
> > eliminated his rulership].
>
> No matter what line of reasoning might explain them as derived from
> the Marcomanni, there remain the very early inhumation graves of
> Central Germany, which must have to do with Ariovistus' campaign
> down the Wetterau valley.
>
> ****GK: Those are the ones the Polish Wikipedia associates with a
> "return" to earlier Celtic customs, though otherwise the inventory
> is as "Przeworsk" as the cremationa burials of that culture. No
> archaeologist has ever found "eastern" elements therein (constant
> reminder "in passing"...****
> > On the other hand, as Wielbark spread into UkraineAny geographical connection with soil type?
> > and transmogrified into Chernyakhiv (beg. in the 4th decade of
> > the 3rd c. D) it recorded a very significant number of burials of
> > the Przeworsk inhumation type as described above
> > ('flexed/sidelying' ) [acc. to Boris Mahomedov's magisterial 2001
> > study of the Chernyakhiv culture some 10% (!!) of the Chernyakhiv
> > inhumation burials were of this type. He distinguishes them from
> > the rare Wielbark/Germanic Chernyakhiv borrowings of "Sarmatian
> > poses" (legs crossed; hands on hips).*****
> >
> Does the flexed/sidelying pose type of inhumation have anyTorsten
> relatives elsewhere?
>
> ****GK: AFAIK not at that time. I could check way back to the
> bronze age (in the context of my earlier notion of the position in
> which bodies were cremated).*****
>