Re: Suslovo burial vs. Germanic in Mus^ov

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

>
> I'm away from home, but I see that your "activity" continues... So
> a few comments below.

You just can't stay away from the internet café, can you?

>
> --- 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.

That must have been the beginning after that beginning where you asked me to provide proof that the Przeworsk burials were inhumation?

> And it is you, Mr. Pedersen, who kept and lowering this bar.

I do what? Did you get that old metaphor at all?

> And still do below, once again uttering your mantra "inhumation" as
> if that meant something.****

Couple of months ago, it meant the world.

>
> and pestering me
>
> ****GK: You mean smiling at your silly conclusions?****

Oh, that was your nice side?

> 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

...

> 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?****

Much.

...

> 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".*****

To the kurgans of the ancestors of those people they just exterminated. Very endearing touch. They did the same in Denmark.


...

> 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.****

Bunch of cheapskates, apparently.

...

> 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?****

Not that I recall.
...

> 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.****

I didn't cite inhumation by itself but as part of a list. How did you miss that?

> Phalerae ... check
>
> ****GK: An identifier, but only if other things "check" (such as
> grave type above all)

George raises the bar.

> Otherwise not decisive (as indecisive as the presence or absence of
> non-Sarmatian cultural objects in Sarmatian graves).****

Yup. Now suddenly the grave goods isn't interesting anymore. George raises the bar.

> Tamgas/gakks ... check
>
> ****GK: Check what? BTW does Shchukin mention them? Not in your
> quotes...

Yes, several places, I even quoted him here.

> 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...

No, he didn't. He presented some half-baked idea that gakk'ed spears and phalerae in graves in Germanic territory belong not to the deceased, but to his wife, a proposal so hopeless that you yourself emendated it to make them the property of single migrants. You realize of course what the consequences would have been to a single migrant who decided to migrate alone from Sarmatia to Norway with spear and phalerae?

> So sorry Torsten, no check.****

Hahaha. Nice try.

> Zoomorphic handle (on situla) ... check
>
> ****GK: As with phalerae above.****

Of course. No longer relevant.

> Supine stretched-out position of deceased ... check
>
> ****GK: No check. Germanic inhumations (cf. Wielbark and
> Chernyakhiv) had the same position.****

Oh, they did? Some weeks back the position was extremely important. George raises the bar again.

> Lances (spears) ... check
>
> ****GK: Not decisive.****

Yawn.

> Plated body armour ... check
>
> ****GK: Not decisive.***

Do.

> 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.

Let me see... On the cover of the book I read it says
Das ger-ma-ni-sche Kö-nigs-grab von Mu-s^ov in Mäh-ren
Yes it seems you're right, Brian, erh, excuse me, George, I mean.

> 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.

Why? Because otherwise George begins to cry?

> Big deal...****

I think you should concentrate on your vacation. You certainly need it.

> 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 (:=)))*****

No, 'lame' here was intended, as you can tell from the context, to mean "argumentum e silentio expertorum". I mostly don't do that.

> 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")

Why do you always have to mix religion into it?

> don't understand what you are describing, whereas the professionals
> do.

So when I find gakks/tamgas and phalerae in the grave I don't understand what I'm doing, but when the professionals don't they do?

> What matters in the grave are not sundry "Sarmatian" objects

Especially not if George puts quotation marks around "Sarmatian".

> (a spearhead with gakks+lunar/solar symbols is Germanic not
> Sarmatian)

Of course. Those are only found in Germanic areas where we know there have never been any Sarmatians (except for migrant wives and errant knights) and since that is the case we know that there have never been any Sarmatians there (except for migrant wives and errant knights).

> (if this was decisive then the Kubrat Bulgarian grave near Poltava
> (7th c.) would be considered that of a Roman/Byzantine warrior),

That is very interesting.
Would you care to inform me why this is relevant?

> but prime indicators like grave shape and type.

George raises the bar again.

> I advise you to do more reading on the subject.*****

Of course you do. Tell me, back in Soviet time, did you work in some ministry? Visa work? Motor office? I did a lot of reading when my car was broken down in Yugoslavia.


Torsten