From: george knysh
> --- In email@example.com, george knysh****GK: I'm not an archaeologist. But I seem to
> <gknysh@...> wrote:
> > --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > I agree with Kortlandt and Shchukin: it is
> impossible to
> > > > > > identify a "Slavic" group as of your
> mentioned dates
> > > > > > <72-58 BCE>.
> > >
> > > I would disagree. If we theoretically allow
> multi-ethnic and
> > > multi-lingual areas, we could identify
> (Proto-Proto-!) Slavs with
> > > the farmers in Zarubyntsi and Przeworsk,
> > GK: Proto-proto etc.. Slavs cannot be shown to
> > have spoken a Slavic language, or to have been
> No, but they can be shown to have spoken a
> Proto-Proto-Slavic using
> the same methods as you archaeologists use.
>****GK: I don't believe any linguists would suggest
> > Add enough protos,and you're back to PIE and
> That's right. That's how we linguists get back to
> PIE and substrates.
>****GK: Yes, I'm sure you are. That's why discussions
> > This is meaningless gibberrish,
> > and the direct result of the utterly unscientific
> > to discover "historical" facts behind Snorri's
> I'm always puzzled where you get your conviction
> that Snorri and
> similar chroniclers fabricated the accounts they
>****GK: Not any more, Torsten. I believe in freedom of
> > Since this is an ersatz-religious committment
> there is really no
> > point in discussing or debating it.
> You're right. That's why I try to avoid the subject
> as long as
> possible since I know your commitment will get you
> terribly agitated
> and make you call for me to be suppressed or banned.
>****GK: Well then you have some discovery tasks ahead
> > No matter how many times one demonstrates the
> untenability of this
> > or that point, the committment will remain.
> Well, I'm a Scandinavian, and we mostly don't think
> people fabricate
> stories. I can't get into my head what motive those
> chroniclers would
> have to make up those stories.
>****GK: It seems to match the standard view (a Slavic
> > Thousands of different "explanations" will be
> invented if necessary.
> It's the fact that Niemcza turned out to match what
> I had guessed it
> would that gets to you, right?
>****GK: The fact that you're ignoring everything which
> > Endless floggings of dead horses, of their bones,
> and of the
> > dust thereof will be enthusiastically pursued in
> > scenario after scenario, with the "committment"
> > only a shout away.
> Oh no, George is talking about horses again. Maybe
> if I ignore him, it
> will go away?
>****GK: You know best. I just think you're a true
> > Mainstream positions will be constantly negated
> (not on the basis of
> > science, but on that of the "committment").
> Do you feel I am following false prophets?
>****GK: What for? I prefer the latest documented views
> > We have now reached the
> > point where we can confidently state that 6th
> > Slavic culture (when they emerge on the historical
> > arena) cannot in any meaningful sense be viewed as
> > having developed out of Przeworsk or Zarubintsi
> > Sarmatians or Scythians for that matter).
> W. hasn't reached that point yet, see bottom of
> > Which automatically cancels this latest "farmer"
> scenario of yours.
> Care to update Wikipedia?
>****GK: Of course it did.****
> > If you had paid attention to the quote from the
> > JHG 2007 article you would have seen that this is
> > strongly confirmed by recent genetic studies.
> If you had paid attention to what I wrote, you'd
> know it didn't
> contradict those findings.
>*****GK: And it was a Pole (Godlowski) who set things
> > > later surviving in a band between Niemcza and
> Dniepr (this is the
> > > "Polish archaologists'" part),
> > GK: This is no longer tenable.
> This is no longer mainstream. I find it difficult to
> believe that
> Polish archaeologists would have held on to that
> view if it had had no
> evidence to support it.
>****GK: Snorrist then. A rose by any other name...****
> > > later reinforced with (Proto-) Slavs from Dniepr
> (the mainstream
> > > part).
> > >
> > > As for the Kortlandt quote, he is obviously
> accepting the
> > > mainstream view, which influences some of his
> temporal estimates.
> > GK: An Odinist cannot accept "the mainstream
> I don't know why you go on with that Odinist crap,
> no matter how often
> I tell you I'm not. You would have made an excellent
> Odinist yourself,
> I just don't have that temperament.
>****GK: I never was a Snorrist****
> > It would mean abandonment of the
> Well, why don't you?