From: george knysh
Message: 64840
Date: 2009-08-19
--- On Wed, 8/19/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
George keeps raising the bar
****GK: And Torsten keeps lying about this. I raised the bar at the very beginning when I mentioned that you needed to find more than inhumations to identify Sarmatian influence in a burial on Germanic soil. And it is you, Mr. Pedersen, who kept and lowering this bar. And still do below, once again uttering your mantra "inhumation" as if that meant something.****
and pestering me
****GK: You mean smiling at your silly conclusions?****
about showing similarities between Sarmatian and Germanic princely graves; I've found a description in Shchukin of what a middle Sarmatian grave should look like in 2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE:
Shchukin:
Rome and the Barbarians in Central and Eastern Europe
pp 94ff
'Major changes were also occurring in the steppes of the Volga region and the Sub-Ural, between the Don, Manych and upper Tobol rivers, the area considered by some to have been the homeland of the Sarmatians. Here Prokhorovka culture was displaced by the Suslovo one, and the early Sarmatian phase succeeded by the middle one.
****GK: "Early phase"= VI-IV c BCE. "Middle phase"= IIIrd c.- I/II c CE. That's the standard Soviet and post-Soviet view.****
A special study is needed to show how these changes were connected, although any such effort would be hampered by the chronological confusion surrounding Siberian and Central Asian antiquities. These problems need to be dealt with in another work devoted to the Sarmatians in Asia; this, however, lies outside the scope of our subject and competence.
As for archaeological traces of the Reuxinali-Roxalani, these should probably be sought among the Sarmatian sites situated between the Don and Dnieper, and mapped by Smirnov and Abramova.
****GK: Shchukin doesn't say anything about the Yazigi in this 1989 work?****
It has been thought
****GK: Not everyons thought that. Most other archaeologists I have read made two assumptions here: the Roxolanian graves were simple-pit ones, usually rectangular, and they were always surmounted by barrows.****
that the Roxalani left the distinctive burials in which the deceased were placed diagonally, especially as these burials appeared simultaneously with the arrival of the Roxalani in the European steppes. But more detailed study has shown this to be a mistaken assumption. The diagonal burial was widely used in the Sarmatian world and can not be linked to any one tribe.
****GK: I have not seen it mentioned in descriptions of Aorsan or Alanic graves.****
According to the map by Abramova we must however, note that about 30 single Sarmatian burials of the 3rd century BC - 1st century AD have been identified in the steppe between the Don and Dnieper: these are distinguished by features related to the nomadic Prokhorovka and Suslovo archaeological cultures of the Volga and the Sub-Ural. About 10 earlier burials of the 3rd-2nd centuries BC are scattered evenly throughout the whole of this region.
****GK: One interesting feature that he doesn't mention in your quotes is that earlier Sarmatian graves were almost always "dug-in add-ons" to more ancient kurgans (some of them thousands of years older!), which is an interesting testimony as to their religious beliefs and "ancestor reverence".*****
The later, Suslovo burials of the 2nd century BC - 1st century AD are concentrated into three groups: along the Don, in the Severski Donets and between the river Molochnaya and the Azov coast (Illus. 31-1). Only the last-named contains large cemeteries,
****GK: Correct.****
such as the two near Akkerman, which first appeared in the 2nd century BC. Here one of the burials was found to contain a vessel with a globe-like body and a cylindrical neck, a shape common to the Prokhorovka and early Suslovo burials along the Volga (Illus. 31, 2, 3). Another burial contained a Mid La Tène Zarubintsy fibula of the 2nd-lst century BC. A kantharos found in yet another burial dates to the same period.
****GK: This would be either Yazigian or Roxolanian, judging by the time frame.****
For the most part, however, this cemetery necropolis dates to the turn of the millennium. The Sarmatian burials along the right bank of the Dnieper also belong to that later time, and we shall return to them later. At the present time it is impossible to connect any of these burials with any ethnic or tribal group.
****GK: If he means the burials "along the right bank" of the Dnipro he is quite wrong and in conflict with other archaeologists and with post-1989 literature. These have been identified as Aorsan (if the burial is of the "pi(o)dboy" (=niche) type, as Yazigian if the pit is simple rectangular with southward orientation of the skeleton (does Shchukin know the Hungarian burials in this work?GK), and as Old Scythian (with a return to the practice of the 4th/3rd c BCE further north on this right bank (in the area cleared of Zarubinian settlements during the reign of Farzoi and his successors). So Shchukin here is a bit out of touch.****
What then was the Suslov culture of the mid-Sarmatian period, and how can we in future ascertain the Sarmatian provenance of particular sites? In this context we must remember how relative the term "Sarmatian" is, for it covered nomadic tribes of different origins and stock.
We can not at present know all the variations peculiar to that Suslovo culture, but we can note the major ones. The burial ritual was especially prone to variations. Inhumations were the rule, surmounted virtually without exception by barrows:
****GK: check. Note that the "dug-in add ons" occasionally persisted even at this stage.****
however the placement and orientation of bodies varied considerably, as did the configuration of burial pits. There were diagonal placements in square pits, simple narrow trenches,
****GK: These are considered eigther Yazigian or Roxolanian (depending on the south or north orientation.) Diagonal is no longer viewed as significant. Here Shchukin is right.****
pits with shoulder insets,
****GK: These are the so-called "podboy" or "niche" graves. They are neither Yazigian nor Roxolanian. They are almost always Aorsan and sometimes early Alan.****
and catacombs.
****GK: Never Yazigian or Roxolanian. Very rarely Aorsan. Almost exclusively Alanic.
NB: The Molochna cemetary was used at a time when four distinct Sarmatian groups inhabited the area: the Yazigi (those who had remained behind), the Roxolani (who moved to the Danube in the later 1rst c. CE), the Aorsi, and the Alans. All four groups BTW are mentioned there by Ptolemy.****
The bodies were virtually always stretched out on their backs, with the legs occasionally crossed. The bodies were laid on cushioning of various kinds, whether cloth, wood or chalk: religious beliefs may have dictated that a corpse should not touch the ground. Simple pieces of chalk or ochre are occasionally found in the graves. Magic may also have dictated the inclusion of metal mirrors, which often occur in Sarmatian graves: large mirrors with handles were typical of the Prokhorovka phase, to be succeeded later by small pendant mirrors which had lost their functional purpose.
Cylindrical clay censers also served some ritual purpose in the burials. Zoomorphic vessel handles are characteristic for the Sarmatians, and are one of the features that attest to the ideological conceptions of these tribes.
These zoomorphic handles are not only found on clay vessels, but also on the small alabaster ones which are characteristic of the culture. The pottery shows many regional variations, but expressive features are few. The Sarmatians apparently preferred to adopt local ceramic traditions. The late Prokhorovka- early Suslovo phase is characterised by bomb-shaped forms and elongated necks: thereafter one finds a proliferation of pitchers, elongated pots and mugs of different form. Ornamentation is rare, consisting of incised pine-tree forms and vertical lines. Occasionally one comes across wheel-turned pottery, from grey clay or glazed red: apparently this was produced mostly in the Kuban region.
The Sarmatians also used bronze kettles on stands and bone piksid-boxes for perfumes. They also liked beads, particularly of a sky-blue colour and melon-shaped ones made from blue glass paste, Egyptian blue scarabs and faience figurines, obtaining all of these from classical trading centres. Many such items have been found in the northern Caucasus and along the Kuban.
****GK: Does he mention the "ritual goodbye dinner" with food left in the grave?****
The Sarmatian armed forces were being re-equipped and gradually reorganised during the time in question. Under Queen Amage, the nomadic Scythian forces consisted primarily of lightly armed archers. They attacked in fast-moving waves which would come within arrow shot of the enemy, unleash a cloud of arrows and turn to disappear as rapidly as they came, despatching another round of arrows as they turned. Sarmatian ranks included women archers, some of whose burials have been found to include an array of typically Sarmatian trefoil arrow-heads. Sarmatians generally avoided close combat, relying in foot combat on short swords with scroll-like pommels (which were replaced by a ringlet-like form in the 1st century BC). The same tactics had been previously employed by the Scythians. They were very effective against slow-moving Assyrian or Urartian formations, sowing confusion among the charioteers who could not keep up with the horsemen as well as the foot
soldiers and cavalry who were not accustomed to shooting on the move.
But the nomadic tactic of attacking in waves proved powerless against the heavily armoured Macedonian phalanx. The Scythians learned this in Thrace against the forces of Philip of Macedon. The Sarmatians learnt the same lesson in Bactria and the Crimea, especially when the 6,000-strong force of Diophantes disposed of 50,000 Roxalani under King Tasius.
But already in the 4th-3rd centuries BC the nomads were adopting new weapons which were to change their battle tactics. The Sarmatians of the Prokhorovka phase, operating in the Volga-Ural region, used long swords which allowed a rider to slash without dismounting. The Scythians had discovered the uses of plated body armour. It just remained to bring this all together, to cover the horse with armour and for the rider to hold a long lance. This was the weapon of war which was destined to crack the Roman legions, most notably in 53 BC when the Parthians defeated Marcus Crassus and in 36 BC when Marcus Antony suffered the same fate.
Such complicated personal armour could not, of course, be obtained by simple commoner warriors, so the adaptations of new military tactics catalysed fundamental internal changes in Sarmatian society. The result was an emergent class of warrior-aristocrats . But the evolution was gradual, and such a class was not yet formed in all Sarmatian tribes by the 2nd-lst century BC; the burials of that time still contain some short swords and arrow heads.
Another category of find is apparently connected with the burials of Sarmatian aristocrats. These phalerae (disc-shaped decorations for horses' harnesses) with depictions of goddesses, griffins, fantastic beasts and ornamental motifs executed in a non-nomadic style. These come from the previously mentioned sites at Serce-Surcea and Hera^stra^u in Rumania, Galiche in Bulgaria, and Bulakhovka and Yanchokrak along the Dnieper. At the last site, the bridle remains were found together with fragments of a bronze pan handle, the vessel being a pater of Aylesford type (Eggers 130). This is the most precisely datable item in this complex of finds. These pater pans are of Italian manufacture and were usually part of a set including the Kelheim type of pitcher which was current in Western Europe between 90 BC and 10 BC. Burials containing phalerae similar to the kind just described have been found as far west as the Don and Donets-Seversky: the sites include the
Starobelsky treasure; the burials at Klemenkovsky, Antipovo and Balaklia; and the Taganrog and Fedulovo treasures. Some individual analogies can be found still further east, for example at Novouzensk on the Volga, some decorative plates from Niaksimvol in western Siberia, the Graeco-Bactrian bridles with depictions of elephants from Peter the Great's collection (reportedly found in "Tatar burials" between the Irtysh and Ob rivers, as well as near Astrakhan and between the Kama and Volga rivers). There is also some connection with the decorative element of the silver plates from Noin-Ula in Mongolia and the earlier wooden plates from Tuekta and Pazyryk in the Altai.
All these sites date to between the 4th and 1st century BC. They would seem to form a homogeneous group, given the thread of continuity found in the decorative motifs and ornamental detail, the methods of manufacture and fitting of the phalerae, and the recurrence of certain items found in association with them. This group deserves a special study****, which will probably revolve around the goldsmiths of the Dacian-Thracian world on the one hand, and the art of the Graeco-Bactrian world in the late Hellenistic period on the other. The northern nomads may well have fallen under Hellenistic cultural influence through their involvement in Bactrian affairs; the Sarmatian participation in the war of Pharnaces I of Pontus against Bithynia, Cappadocia and Pergamon; clashes with Diophantes; and the general nomadic movement westward towards the Danube. Under this influence the nomads became more receptive to the complex images and symbols of eastern Hellenistic
ideology, some of which thereby found their way into phalerae decorations. It is noteworthy that the distinctive animal-style "art of the steppes simultaneously fell into decline and virtually disappeared after the 4th century BC. It did revive somewhat later, in the 1st century AD, as evidenced by the "Hokhlach" treasure. We will deal with this problem a bit later.
The distribution of the phalerae can hardly be linked to the migration of any single Sarmatian tribe.
...
**** This question is of particular interest if we consider the fact that stylistically similar objects were found in Western Europe: the bottom of the cauldron from Gundestrup, the disc from Helden in Holland, and the disc from the National Library in Paris, which has an inscription mentioning Mithridates the Eupator. '
Compare with the royal Germanic grave at Mus^ov in Moravia
(J. Pes^ka - J. Tejral.
Das germanische Königsgrab von Mus^ov in Mähren)
Inhumation ... check
****GK: Check what? How many times doesa one have to tell you that "inhumation" by itself is no proof of Sarmatian presence.****
Phalerae ... check
****GK: An identifier, but only if other things "check" (such as grave type above all) Otherwise not decisive (as indecisive as the presence or absence of non-Sarmatian cultural objects in Sarmatian graves).****
Tamgas/gakks ... check
****GK: Check what? BTW does Shchukin mention them? Not in your quotes... The authority here is Yatsenko. He has clearly explained that the mere presence of gakks (like "inhumations" GK) is not proof that you are dealing with a Sarmatian object, esp. if these gakks are accompanied by Germanic runes or symbols... So sorry Torsten, no check.****
Zoomorphic handle (on situla) ... check
****GK: As with phalerae above.****
Supine stretched-out position of deceased ... check
****GK: No check. Germanic inhumations (cf. Wielbark and Chernyakhiv) had the same position.****
Lances (spears) ... check
****GK: Not decisive.****
Plated body armour ... check
****GK: Not decisive.***
Clay censers ... nope
Mirrors ... nope
Anything else I can do for you?
****GK: It is clear enough that the Koenigsgrab in Mus^ov is Germanic and not Sarmatian. The most you can conclude is that this was a Germanic chieftain who had contacts with Sarmatians or inherited objects from someone who had such contacts. Big deal...****
And if you once more do a Brian on me and advance the lame defence
****GK: Pretty funny that coming from a specialist in consistently lame reasoning (:=)))*****
that if there was any relatedness between Germanic princely and Sarmatian warrior graves, researchers would have discovered it along time ago,
****GK: Exactly right.****
which is why they never mention it as a possibility, I'll reply that if that possibility has ever been considered, then how come I, a rank amateur, can discover undiscovered gakks/tamgas and phalerae in a three volume publication about a royal Germanic grave written by the finest experts in the field?
****GK: Precisely because you, the rank amateur (but saved by your "correct belief") don't understand what you are describing, whereas the professionals do. What matters in the grave are not sundry "Sarmatian" objects (a spearhead with gakks+lunar/solar symbols is Germanic not Sarmatian)(if this was decisive then the Kubrat Bulgarian grave near Poltava (7th c.) would be considered that of a Roman/Byzantine warrior), but prime indicators like grave shape and type. I advise you to do more reading on the subject.*****
Torsten