--- On Sat, 8/8/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@... com> wrote:
> As I announced some weeks ago ..., I realized that whatever project Ariovistus / Harjagist had, it was ultimately a failure, so it can't have been the real origin of the spread of Germanic (the Wetterau traces of Przeworsk disappear).
****GK: It is also worth remembering that the first "Germanics" to cross the Rhine were not the Ariovistans but the associates of the Belgae, the so-called Germani Cisrhenani (who as far as we know did not participate at all in the Ariovistus saga). Quite probably the very term borrowed by the Romans to identify "Germani" was the one used by Belgae and other Celts, a Celtic word meaning "neighbours". And the Cisrhenani Germani made their crossing a century prior to Ariovistus if not even earlier****
Therefore I must claim two separate Sarmatian vel sim. incursions, one into Przeworsk,
****GK: This assumption remains to be proved. There is nothing in the material advanced so far which substantiates it, and the "Shchukin analogy" doesn't work at this stage of the analysis. A fuller description of these early Przeworsk inhumation graves is essential. The simple "inhumation" argument is inadequate. What we have so far is enough to characterize these burials as non-Sarmatian (either those of Germanized Celts (more likely) or of Celtic-influenced Germanics.****
one into the Marbod etc complex, which was more successful. They both have inhumation, but of different type.
****GK: There is no proof for the Sarmatian character of the Marbod era inhumation burials of Germania. The material advanced so far suggest a strong Celtic influence (and a growing Roman one) on Germanic elites, but not enough Sarmatisms to indicate "incursion". Here also the "Schukin analogy" doesn't work.****
Other than that, I think both enterprises represented an old strategic dream: setting up a base near the borders of Rome's home turf, Italy, and in time launch a crushing blow to them, a dream dreamt by Filip II,
****GK: Philip II, Alexander's father? That simply can't right. Rome was hardly the object of his ambitions in the mid-IVth c. BCE (too insignificant). Persia was.****
Mithridates, Ariovistus, and whichever *n,Wod-an-'s followed, a dream that was ultimately successful.
The quote of Shchukin of Romanized Sarmatians was meant more like a proof of concept.
****GK: i.e. that if Shchukin could speak of "Romanized Sarmatians" in the Kuban in the kater 1rst c. CE the same point could be made about "Romanized Sarmatians" at work in Germania on the basis of the "elite" inhumation graves of that period. The "Shchukin analogy". I'm afraid this doesn't work. For two related reasons.
(1) It is not at all certain that Shchukin is right against Veselovskiy. We would need to be told what these "Golden Cemetary" burials are all about in concrete and specific terms. That hasn't been done yet.
(2) Even if Shchukin is right (I don't believe he is but let's assume this for the sake of argument) his analogy would not apply to Germania. Torsten writes:
"And as described, they [the Kuban burials GK]match perfectly the 'new' Germanic inhumations graves: plenty expensive Roman stuff, cheap local stuff, no other ethnic characteristics (except for the odd tamga, dragon standard and ring-pommeled sword)."
None of this is sufficient. The most significant aspect about a burial (from the ethnic point of view) is the structure of the grave and the position of the body. There are also some elements of "the cheap local stuff" which are revelatory (e.g. the Sarmatian food offering for the dead ritual). Even without being given the details it is clear that the Kuban burials contain sufficient "ethnic characteristics" for two archaeologists of the stature of Veselovskyi and Shchukin to differ in their conclusions ("barbarized Romans" vs. "Romanized barbarians"). While waiting for further particulars, I must say that the reason why I think Veselovskyi might be right here is not only because Romans, like Greeks before them had a tendency to go "local" in certain (not all!) garrison situations esp. in the East, but esp. because Shchukin is incapable of distinguishing INDIVIDUAL Sarmatian tribal traits in these graves. Which suggests that the grave structures did not
reflect any of the Sarmatian (Aorsan, Alan, Siracian etc.) peculiarities. I'm almost willing to bet that these graves were "simple pit" inhumations, which, in the context of the Kuban is a strong argument for Veselovskyi. And in Germania, the inhumation graves have not been noted as of Sarmatian type either (in the material so far presented). So we are nowhere near a "Sarmatian incursion" hypothesis, either at the Przeworsk stage or at the Marbod stage.****