Re: The "Golden Cemetery" of the kuban r.

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

>
> --- On Thu, 8/13/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, george knysh <gknysh@> wrote:
> >
> > Here's something more recent than Shchukin or Veselovskyi:
> >
> > http://kronk. narod.ru/ library/guschina -zasetskaya- 1994.htm
> >
> > Judging by the contents account (and that's all we have here) the
> > burials were of the "catacomb" type. That settles it: this was
> > the primary Alanic custom. So these are Alanic graves. Not
> > "barbarized Romans" (Veselovskyi) nor "Romanized barbarians" of
> > uncertain Sarmatian ethnicity (Shchukin). Yatsenko peripherally
> > speaks of the "kurgans" and gakks of this cemetery (in your
> > "tamga feast" posting). The Roman influence is probably
> > explainable by the political contacts of the Bosporan kingdom.
> > Which was actively "sarmatized" from the 1rst c. CE. These
> > Sarmats were Alans (this we know from many sources).
>
> Romanized Alans, then.
>
> ****GK: As "Romanized" as the kings of Bosporus who all called
> themselves "Iulius Tiberius" (in honour of the Roman Emperor) but
> spoke Greek and Sarmatian (Alanic)...Bosporus was not "Romanized"
> but "Sarmatized" in the 1rst-3rd c. CE****

By Romanized Sarmatians, then.

> Strange that neither Shchukin or Veselovskiy knew that, if it's so
> obvious?
>
> ****GK: Maybe they were fascinated by the Roman imports.

??

> BTW note that the multiple foreign imports in the Tillya Tepe
> graves did not turn these nobles into "internationalized" ethnics.

Last time you spoke to them?

> They remained Kushan nomads. And the Koktepe princess likewise
> remained Kangar. Ditto in Kuban re the Alans.

Erh, OK.

> And there is nothing surprising about archaeologists who make a
> more thorough survey of the material to come to different
> conclusions from those of their predecessors.

I never said there was. I was puzzled by the fact that two prominent
archaeologists couldn't find any sign of Sarmatianness in the first
inspection.

> For instance, Shchukin himself corrected Baran on an important
> point re the archaeology of Galicia in the 4th c. CE, and proved
> that the latter's contention about the Slavic culture of the
> population at that time was mistaken and premature. This is what
> apparently has happened with the initial evaluations of the Golden
> Cemetary finds: not barbarized Romans, not Romanized barbarians of
> uncertain ethnicity, but Alans who liked Roman stuff in their yurts
> (:=)))****

So I find some third generation Danes of mixed descent in Nebraska
who eat Danishes once every two weeks. Are they now
1) Danified Americans?
2) Americanized Danes?
3) Americans who like to put Danishes in their mouth?
What is your point?

You seem to forget your tactical position here. Before we found the
gakks in supposedly Germanic and Thracian tombs which linked them to
Alans, I had to find a de-Sarmatized Sarmatian people in Sarmatia in
order to show proof of concept for such an entity, if I wanted to
claim a Sarmatian origin for graves without any Sarmatian markers.
Now, since those graves do have Sarmatian markers, I don't, and if
your agenda still is to minimize to possibility of any Sarmatian
origin of the Germanic upper layer (and I have no reason to believe
it isn't) I think you should concentrate on downplaying the role of
those gakks as proof of linkage.



Torsten