Re: Whence Grimm?

From: tgpedersen
Message: 31782
Date: 2004-04-07

--- In, "gknysh" <gknysh@...> wrote:
> --- In, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> >
> > >(GK) Now as to the missing
> > > archaeological evidence of Sarmatian migration into
> > > Bastarnia. (Pay attention) It has been pointed out to
> > > you repeatedly (I did it, and most recently Piotr)
> > > that it is not up to those who do not accept your
> > > baseless contentions to "prove" them wrong: you are
> > > methodologically not entitled to make them, and it is
> > > up to you to advance at least something which might
> > > back a hypothesis. You can't simply fantasize and then
> > > proclaim "disprove this!". This is an infantile
> > > approach. The sooner you realize this the better. But
> > > I'm not holding my breath... We can speak of a
> > > Sarmatian migration into Bastarnia in the 1rst c. BC
> > > as soon as sites proving it are discovered. Until that
> > > is done, we are not entitled to use this romantic
> > > fantasy (and that's all it is at the moment)as part
> > > and parcel of a serious scientific argumentation. Do
> > > you understand what I'm saying? Strain the little grey
> > > cells a little.
> > >
> >
> > (TP)I can see you are beginning make a case for me being silenced
> again.
> *****GK: Premature paranoia, but interesting*******

"Premature"? Interesting.

> >
> > (TP)I have never claimed that there would be separate Sarmatian
> sites to
> > be found among the Przeworsk.
> *****GK: One needs much less (if by site you mean something more
> substantial than a grave). Just enough to identify a particular
> burial as "Sarmatian", or as of someone "of Sarmatian culture".


>But I
> confess that I'm starting to worry about what exactly you are
> claiming. You seem to change perspectives frequently.

That's an illusion created by your gradualy grasping what it is I'm

>I thought that
> you were arguing that your Odinist contingent initially settled
> the Bastarnae, not among the proto-Vandals.******

I assume they first settled among the Bastarnae; that would match
with what Tacitus says. The archaeological evidence points to the
whole Przeworsk area including Oksywie, Oder-Warthe, the works
suddenly receiving an influx of a wealthy upper crust, and a lot of
people ending up in graveyards at approximately the same time. Given
the geography, I would assume the former took place before the
latter, but basically it could be interpreted as the same phenomenon.

> We don't see that in southern Jastorf,
> > what we see is a foreign people moving in among the locals and
> taking
> > over (since they also supply a small number of very rich
> > graves).
> *****GK: Excuse me, but from your presentations based on Kuhn,
Peschel, actually. Kuhn is more interested in the further expansion
west of the resulting (from Jastorf + intrusive Oder-Warthe) Proto-
Germanic (in the linguistic sense) culture.

> point seems to be that these graves can be identified as Przeworsk
> infiltrations

Oder-Warthe, to be exact.

into a southern Jastorf environment. He must have some
> clear material evidence for this, does he not?*****

He does. I'll come back with some quotes.

> There is exactly the same pattern among the various
> > Przeworsk cultures: A sudden increase in the number of graves, a
> > distinct difference (Zäsur) from the previous graves, and the
> > appearence of a small number of rich inhumation graves.
> *****GK: So the analogy here would be that these graves have a
> material culture that enables one to claim that they are the
> of people of "Sarmatian" origin (if you claim that your Odinist
> contingent went directly to proto-Vandalia), or or people
> of "Sarmatian" or mixed "Sarmatian/Poeneshti-Lukashovka" culture
> you claim that these newcomers into Vandalia came from Bastarnia
> where they spent a few years before moving. Ditto re their presence
> in Bastarnia: you need evidence of graves which can be identified
> being "Sarmatian" infiltrations just as Kuhn


(per your statements)
> could identify Przeworsk elements among the southern Jastorf. Now I
> say that you have nothing of the sort. So what is the basis of
> your "hypothesis"? There is none, so it is not a hypothesis at all
> but a flatus vocis on behalf of a romantic fantasy.******

Well this is the kind of behavior that should get a moderator to
intervene, not the advocating of "false" theories.

If one leaves out the flatus mentis of the last sentence, I think
that you are asking me to provide proof that the rich graves of the
Przeworsk culture contain specifically Sarmatian stuff. That's is a
missing link, true. I'll get around to it.