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

--- On Sun, 8/9/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> 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.
>
> GK: They were as "Germanic" as anyone could be at that time.
>
> > 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.
>
> GK: Which in itself demonstrates that "Germanicism" was
> independent of any such plans.

You're alone with that one. Try reading the Wiki article again.

****GK: There's nothing in the Wiki article to suggest that Germanic self-identity was based on some "plan thought up in Sarmatia". You seem to be alone with that one.****

> > 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,

****GK: There's also Wozniak and his source.****

lists 18 established

> points and continues (pp. 89-90):
>
>
> "The results listed as points here join to a total picture, which,
> 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.

> 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.
>
> GK: It's a sound hypothesis.

Why does Lichardus then use special pleading for it?

****GK: A hypothesis is something less than a firm theory or an established fact. Lichardus (and every other serious scientist we've looked at) would not even rate your "Sarmatian incursion" notion as a hypothesis. If you know anyone who does this bring him/her on.****

> Maybe not 100% certain but obviously much more plausible than the
> scenario of a Sarmatian "incursion".

Are you obviousing now too?

****GK: I have no vested interest in the Snorrist scenario and therefore can call them as they are. You on the other hand, are so ideologized by your prejudice, that you sincerely believe that piddling "evidence" for your view (which a normal investigator would not look at twice [proof: they haven't] not only rates as equal to a plausible if not yet completely acceptable scientific hypothesis like the Celtic origin or influence of Germanic inhumation graves, but is in fact preferable to it.****

> 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".

'rather brittle and not very expressive source material', says Lichardus. But you know better? From where?

****GK: He also says "In spite of that this seems to me to be the right

> road to take". Give me any professional archaeologist who says the same thing about your "Sarmatian incursion" fantasy.****

> > Here also the "Schukin analogy" doesn't work.

The 'Shchukin analogy' works beautifully also for another reason: their weapons are old Roman hand-me-downs with local repairs and imitations thereof.
http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/27140
http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/11200


*****GK: I see you're going to avoid looking for further specific evidence about these "Golden cemetary" graves, but will "argue" on the basis of the incomplete accounts given so far. Are you afraid of seeking more information? (rhetorical question) (:=)))*****

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

> > 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.
>
> GK: Of course. I don't have all the facts and would like to. In
> the absence of such facts I am merely pointing out that your
> conclusion is premature.

I am not concluding any thing, as you well know. I'm saying this is a possible scenario.

****GK: Are you afraid that more specific information about the "Golden Cemetary" graves will eliminate this "possibility"? Snorrism requiring exclusion of evidence so as to maintain its positions? Seems so...****

> > (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.
>
> GK: I am not. This "bar" I already raised in a number of
> earlier postings incl. message 64375 and another one where I
> pointed out that there were at least 4 distinct varieties of
> Sarmatian inhumations (Yazigian, Roxolanian, Aorsan, Alanic). I
> objected to the simple fact of "inhumation" automatically being a
> Sarmatian marker. I still do.

But in a mixed Sarmatian auxilliary detachment they would give up such differences. They might even, given that Yazigian, Roxolanian, Aorsan and Alanic might have developed to a point of total or partial mutual incomprehensibility have switched to some version of Latin for everyday purposes; which would explain the very low number of Iranian loans in Germanic, along with some early Latin loans.

****GK: The "mixed auxiliary detachments" of the Goths did not. Why should these have? You make no sense at all here. Anything to avoid looking at more descriptive evidence of these graves eh? And what does language have to do with burial rites? But I guess a closed mind defends itself as best it can.****

> > 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.
>
> GK: It's not just that. It's the presence of ritual "food
> offerings" designed to give the deceased a snack while on his/her
> way...

Plates, goblets, wine sets is what they get. I'll check if food remains have been found.

> > 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") .

And insufficient material to characterize the graves as belonging to any particular Iranian-speaking group.

****GK: That's pretty clear for Veselovskyi since he believes these to be "Roman" graves. But here again you are doing the best you can to avoid seeking further evidence.*****

> > 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.

Let's say we find in a couple of thousand years graves of Anglicized Indians or English gone native. You demand that if we can't determine the caste of the deceased from grave goods, he must be English?


****GK: Bla bla bla. Hey Torsten! There IS more evidence here. You're reasoning in the abstract as though there wasn't. "If necessary I can shut my eyes" right? (:=)))****

> So he surmises Romanized Sarmatians of various stripes. Why would
> that be such a sensation under Roman command?
>
> GK: They would simply not abandon their traditional burial
> methods just like that.

Why not?

****GK: Because they have no reason to.****

> Especially not in an area absolutely saturated with their
> coethnics.

But they just betrayed their coethnics by joining a foreign army. Keeping the respect of their coethnics by sticking to their customs wouldn't work since they lost it already.

****GK: Now that is completely ridiculous. Sarmatians easily switched sides. Read Tacitus' Annales about their participation in the Parthian wars.****

> And the Romans would not require this. So it's quite a significant
> indicator.

Erh, no.

****GK: "If necessary I can shut my eyes"****

> And that is why more information is needed.

I'm not stopping you.

****GK: "Ignorance is bliss". Bask in it my dear fellow. "Snorri akbar"****

> > 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?
>
> GK: Because that would be closer to what one would expect of
> imported "Romans".

They fell fighting for a foreign force. How much labour for building a mound over those individuals do you feel a Roman general thought he would spare?

****GK: Oh you know how a Roman general on the Kuban would make such decisions? Anything to avoid searching for more evidence. And you call your view a "possible scenario"? Seems to me to be rather more than that.****

> > 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.

Except for the odd gakk/tamga, dragon banner or ring-pommeled sword. Which matches Romanized Sarmatian deserters quite well.

*****GK: So now it's Yatsenko who is wrong? Retreat into "know-nothingness" if that is required for your psychic well-being.****