Fw: Re: [tied] Re: Frankish origins

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@> wrote:
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It seems no one has considered a possible Sarmatian origin
> > > > for Roman Mithraism.
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras
> >
> > From my posting you left out:
> > 'Large recruitment of ethnic Sarmatians (from either side of the
> > limes) in the Roman armies would tie in with that.
> > '
> >
> > > Since the wikipedia article to which you linked indicates that
> > > modern scholarship tends towards the belief that Mithraism
> > > originated in the Graeco-Roman world rather than in the Iranian
> > > why should they consider a Sarmatian origin?
> >
> > I think they should have considered it before starting to tend
> > towards any particular belief.
>
>
> I apologize if you thought I edited too much, but I still don't see
> your point.

It was just those two lines.

> Why would large recruitment of ethnic Sarmatians tie into the
> growth of Mithraism in the Roman Empire?

No, a (assumed) large recruitment of ethnic Sarmatians would tie into a *theory* which posited a Sarmatian origin of Roman Mithraism.

> Where is there the slightest indication that any Sarmatians held
> Mithraic beliefs prior to acquiring them from Romans?

The problem is we don't know much about Sarmatian religion in the first place.

> And unless there is such evidence, how can scholars consider the
> question?

How about the Phrygian cap?
And the Cilician pirates referred to by Plutarch were allies of Mithridates Eupator.

> What is there for them to consider?

The alternative, supposedly the null hypothesis, is that it was home-grown. I don't think that's a null hypothesis. Therefore the possibility of a Sarmatian origin should be considered.


Torsten