--- On Mon, 9/21/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
Ah, you want me to translate it for you.
****GK: Not really. But your translations are always welcome.*****
Well here goes
' In my paper "Iranier, Germanen und Römer im Mittleren Donaubecken" I pointed out in 1960 that the immigration of the Iazyges possibly took place at an earlier date as it was assumed so far. I quote the relevant passage: "It is mostly assumed, that the Yazyges immigrated to the great Hungarian low plain between 18 and 20 CE. This perception is based on the one hand the fact that Aquincum in this period experienced a military occupation and the construction of a camp, on the other hand, that the Yazyges is mentioned by Ovid still between 9 and 17 CE near Tomi. In spite of that it seems not impossible that the first bands of Yazyges in the Tisza region appeared even earlier. We can refer to a statement by Eusebius,
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Eusebius
to the effect that Tiberius 7 CE beside the Dalmatians also forced the Sarmatians to recognize Roman supremacy. Since the military operations of Tiberius during the great Pannonian uprising in the main was confined to the area between Sava
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Sava
and Drava,
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Drava
http://encarta. msn.com/map_ 701512157/ Drava.html
it is very likely, that these Sarmatians, who then were defeated by him together with the Dalmatians, were already settled near the Pannonian tribes, somewhere on the Tisza plain.
****GK: The likeliest explanation (in the absence of firm historical or archaeological indicators) is that Sarmatian horsemen were hired by the Pannonians from somewhere north of the Danube, not necessarily the Tysa area, Dacian at the time.*****
Thus one might think that the immigration of the Yazyges into the Hungarian low plain might have taken place much earlier than assumed until now. Under this assumption the locus in Lucanius
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Marcus_Annaeus_ Lucanus
would be easier to understand, according to which the Yazyges at his time had already lived for a century near Pannonia. One shouldn't imagine this movement by the Yazyges as one single advance towards the Northwest. As we shall see, these Iranians lived in a rather loose family and tribal organization also 100 years later. Thus the idea suggests itself that their penetration took place in smallish bands, families or tribes. Under this assumption their mention by Ovid can also be explained. While the first groups of Yazyges were already settled between the Danube and the Tisza, other tribes of this people might still have lived in Muntenia
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Muntenia
and near Tomi."
Maybe we can do better than that, they might have settled *among* the Dalmatians etc as equestrian mercenaries, as they did elsewhere and elsewhen.
****GK: Here you are going beyond the available evidence for this early time frame. That is always the main difference between you and me (and other scholars). There is always a danger in overreaching and trying to make the facts say what they don't say because you have a beloved agenda. In this case Harmatta has one also (=very early Yazigian settlement in Hungary), and his belief opens the way to yours (and could even support more radical views: once you stretch things a little (Harmatta) you can stretch them a little more (Pedersen), and then even a lot more (someone could claim the Sarmatians already wound up in France, or Spain, or elsewhere |as equestrian mercenaries) : if you can have them in the Tysa basin before they are documented in history or archaeology (Harmatta) you can have them anywhere...*****
> We know that they ranged on the Lower Danube (and perhaps made
> incursions westward) as early as the end of the 2nd and the
> beginning of the 1rst c. BCE. BTW the Wikipedia article also has it
> wrong in calling the Yazigi "metanastae" (after Ptolemy) already at
> the time of their original settlement in Ukraine. The Metanastae
> are those Yazigi who settled in Hungary. There is no evidence for
> the settlement of Yazigi in the trans-Pannonian plain until very
> shortly before the mid-1rst c. CE. During Vannius' time of trouble
> with his relatives, when these had the loyalty of the Quadian
> cavalry, Vannius, in need of equestrian mercenaries, got some help
> from the Yazigi, with the probable permission of Farzoi.
Oops! Where did this fact (Vannius' cavalrylessness) come from?
*****GK: Tacitus. Vannius' "native" troops were infantry only at that time.***
> So your speculations below about Yazigi in Pannonia are quite empty
> and useless.
Based on the fact that you (and other scholars) have another opinion.
****GK: Indeed. We try not to fantasize when the evidence isn't there.****
>
> The Pannonia to Netherlands story of the Franks of course occurs
> also in Trithemius' 'De origine gentis Francorum compendium' which
> has been translated now
> http://tinyurl. com/lfrkvd
>
> Maybe one should check that 'Cronyke van Hollandt, Zeelandt ende
> Vriesland'.
I can understand that you are freaking out when you see Trithemius again popping up. Problem is, the Sarmatian-ness of Childeric etc must explained by some migration route of someone, either inside or outside the Limes.
****GK: It's explained well enough by the theory of the "Pannonian workshops". Also: by the 6th century there were a lot of Alans and other Sarmats west of the Rhine. This is well documented.****