From: tgpedersen
Message: 64413
Date: 2009-07-24
>What does that mean? The interesting part of that is whether they reflect actual events.
>
> --- On Fri, 7/24/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> The Sarmatian connection is at the heart of what the Polish state
> once built its existence on
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Wincenty_ Kad%C5%82ubek
> and for a good part of that time seeming to be furthering Polish
> nationalism was not a good career move.
>
> ****GK: Kadlubek's inventions about the Sarmatians are about as
> "scientific" as Snorri Sturluson's about the men of the east.
> As the Poles might say this is a "droga" to "nikond" (a road toDepends on the Pole, probably.
> nowhere).****
> > BTW why not look at the references concerning the PrzeworskGood enought to explain the sudden appearance of two different schools of inhumation in an otherwise cremation culture.
> > inhumations mentioned by Lichardus in his footnotes 8 ss.?
>
> I'll check with the library.
>
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Not good enough. Why do two geographically distinct types of
> inhumation suddenly appear?
>
> ****GK: What's not "good enough"? Good enough for what?
> Facts are facts.I don't think I disputed that.
> Przeworsk is different from Wielbark.Why introduce Wielbark now? Did Wielbark introduce a third style of inhumation on top of a cremating Oxywie?
> The coalescing components are not quite the same, though close.****Now you are obscuring matters again. Regardless of your perspective, of course there was no revolution in the introduction of inhumation graves if they were just a continuation of the Celtic imhumation practice of several centuries before, but that is what we are discussing.
>
> The one conclusion I can reach is that the Przeworsk graves with
> suite are related to some 'Ariovistus revolution' having to do with
> Ariovistus (substitute some other warlord if you have to)
> organizing a campaign to take Celtic, ultimately abortive as we
> know, and that the southern Elbe Germanic ones were a fresh start,
> and that the culture they represent is, and I change position here,
> the origin of all later things Germanic, including language (except
> for the runes, invented by Ariovistus/Harjagast).
>
> ****GK: When you look up the Przeworsk references see what they say
> about the continuation time of these new inhumations graves beyond
> the mid-1rst c. BCE. They should also have a notion of their
> origin. From my perspective I don't see any "revolution" in the
> graves themselves, if they simply continue the inhumation
> traditions of various East European Celtic groups slowly
> integrating with the more numerous Germanics, for which there is
> plenty of archaeological evidence.****
> > > GK: The Wikipedia Polish-language article on Przeworsk statesNot Przeworsk, and your source does not cite a reason for its assignment of those graves to 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.
>
> The 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.
>
> ****GK: We don't need Lichardus here. The unbroken inhumation
> tradition is established by independent evidence (the
> Transcarpathian culture;
> the Silesian culture cf. my reference to the Wozniak article:But those graves were the Przeworsk graves we already discussed, they are nothing new in this debate, and Wozniak attributes them to Celts for no particular reason, as we just discussed.
> both solidly 1rst c. BCE, and prior to AriovistusYou mean to the Ariovistus exodus? So?
> (and to some extent also posterior).****Get that thumb off the scale, George.
>
> > > So the idea is that northeastern Celtic groups assimilating
> > > into Przeworsk kept up aspects of their earlier funeral rites.
> >
> > Much earlier.
> >
> > GK: There was a general shift to cremations in the 3rd c. BCE
>
> ****GK: I should add "general but not universal".****
> > there. One interesting thing we have no information about: whatI think they served mead too.
> > "position" was the body cremated in? "Flexed and on the side"?
> > This tradition is very ancient for inhumations (bronze age and
> > earlier).
>
> Inhumation 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,
>
> ****GK: ??? Nothing but spirits in Valhalla? (:=)))****
> so orientation or position of the body during cremation doesn'tI just made that up. I have fallen into bad company in this group.
> matter.
>
> ****GK: How do you know that? ****
> And the crouched position was to accomodate a short grave,Why do you keep mentioning Wielbark?
>
> ****GK: Not always. We know of crouched positions in spacious
> graves over the millenia.****
>
> there are no such restrictions in open air.
>
> > In any case a return to inhumations could have several
> > explanations, none involving foreign ethnic presence from the
> > east, where the fl/side position was not practised.
>
> Suppose this is just a question of doing the inhumation on the
> cheap in harder soil than that in the east?
>
> > > Note however that this 'sidelying/flexed/ ' position differs
> > > from 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.****
>
> That's what I said. So what did you mean by 'earlier'?
>
> ****GK: Sorry for the ambiguity. I was discussing the transition
> from Wielbark to Chernyakhiv and by "earlier Wielbark" I meant the
> period ca. 50-> 200.****
> > > Where did the impulse for that come? The Marcomanni? [Note thatI'll extend that: Flexed goes with short, on the side goes with shallow. We don't want his knees sticking up, it doesn't look nice.
> > > 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 cremation burials of that
> > culture. No archaeologist has ever found "eastern" elements
> > therein (constant reminder "in passing"...
>
> Yes, true.
>
> > > On the other hand, as Wielbark spread into Ukraine
> > > 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).
> > >
>
> Any geographical connection with soil type?
>
> ****GK: I've read literature which made such a connection in the
> case of house types, but no direct statement about this affecting
> the burial rite.****
>
> > Does the flexed/sidelying pose type of inhumation have any
> > 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).
> >