Re: Summary of where it's at for the Sarmatian connection

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>  --- 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).

But they were in all likelihood not Germani proper.

> 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".

I like the "et al." interpretation more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germani#Ethnonym

> And the Cisrhenani Germani made their
> crossing a century prior to Ariovistus if not even earlier****

Whatever they were, clearly they can't be part whatever plan was thought up in Sarmatia.

> 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.****

Lichardus, who you got this impression from, lists 18 estaiblisjhed points and continues (pp. 89-90):

'Die hier in Punkten aufgezählten Ergebnisse fügen sich zu einem Gesamtbild, das, zugegebenermaßen, hervorgeht aus einer Aneinanderreihung von qualitativ unterschiedlichen Einzelelementen. Dies ist dadurch bedingt, daß die Untersuchung zumindest einiger Fragen eingeschränkt ist durch ein recht sprödes und wenig aussagefähiges Quellenmaterial, weshalb dessen Analyse nicht immer eine lückenlose und schlüssige, sondern eine auch deduktive Elemente enthaltende Beweiskette ergibt. Dies gilt insbesondere für den sozialen Bereich, und es stellt sich hier natürlich die Frage, ob ein derartiges Vorgehen überhaupt zulässig ist.'

"The results listed as points here join to a total picture, which,m admittedly, arises from juxtaposition of qualitatively different elements. This is caused by the fact that the investigation of at least some questions is limited by a rather brittle and not very expressive source material, so that analyzing them produces a chain of evidence which is not closed and conclusive, but also contains deductive elements. This is true in particular for the social area, and the question presents itself whether such a procedure is permissible at all."

'Von diesen Einschränkungen speziell betroffen ist die hier geäußerte Ansicht, daß die südlichen Elbgermanen die Körpergrabsitte von der im Voralpenraum lebenden keltischen Oberschicht übernommen hätten, denn die heute verfügbaren Befunde, das Grab von Traunstein und die wenigen frühkaiserzeitlichen Körpergräber Bayerns, scheinen nicht auszureichen für derartige Schlußfolgerungen. Dennoch scheint mir dies der richtige Weg zu sein, denn die Vergleiche beruhen ja nicht auf Einzelelementen, sondern auf einer Beurteilung sowohl der chronologischen wie der geographischen und kulturellen Gesamtsituation. Entsprechend den methodischen Forderungen, wie sie von G. Kossack anläßlich seiner Definition von Prunkgräbern gestellt wurden, geht es bei solchen Fragestellungen nicht darum, nur quantitative Faktoren zu berücksichtigen, sondern es müssen strukturelle Gesetzmäßigkeiten und qualitative Merkmale herausgearbeitet werden. Im Erkennen der hierbei ausschlaggebenden Kriterien liegt der wichtigste methodische Ansatz, und man kann nur hoffen, daß diese Art der Argumentation zukünftig weniger vernachlässigt wird.'

"Especially affected by these limitations is the standpoint presented here that the southern Elbe Germani had taken over inhumation from the Celtic upper layer living in the area immediately north of the Alps, since the finds at our disposal today, the grave from Traunstein and the few inhumation graves of the early Imperial period in Bavaria do not seem to suffice for such conclusions. In spite of that this seems to me to be the right road to take, for the comparisons do not rest on singular elements, but on an evaluation of as well the chronological as the geographical and cultural overall situation. According to the methodological demands, as posed by G. Kossack in the course of his definition of ostentatious graves, in those questions the important thing is not just to only take account of quantitative factors, but structural regularities and qualitative characteristics should be worked out. In recognizing in this process the decisive criteria lies the most important methodological moment, and one can only hope, that this type of reasoning will be less ignored in the future."

Impressed? I'm not.

It turns out that most of the Celtic upper layer inhumation graves, which he sees as intermediate, are female and from the time of Germanic expansion. Now there is a scenario that looks more like the 'female marrying into other culture' proposed as solution for the gakk trail in W Europe.

> 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.****

The number of Sarmatisms is acually greater than the number of Celtisms.

> 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.****

True, I don't know where I got that from.

> 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.

You're not disproving here. You're trying to establish reasonable doubt.

> (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.

That's new. You're raising the bar again.

> There are also some elements of
> "the cheap local stuff" which are revelatory (e.g. the Sarmatian
> food offering for the dead ritual).

Przeworsk inhumations have local pottery.

> 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.

So he surmises Romanized Sarmatians of various stripes. Why would that be such a sensation under Roman command?

> 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.

Why?

> 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.****

I think that what you are trtying to say is that you don't feel that any Sarmatian incursion hypothesis (which exists by virtue of hving been proposed by numerous others before me) has been proven.

Looks like we have to look for Aorsan/Alan.


BTW, just found this Iranian etymology for 'horse':
http://tinyurl.com/lr2lqs



Torsten