Fwd: Re: [tied] Re: That old Ariovistus scenario.

From: tgpedersen
Message: 64322
Date: 2009-07-01

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 7/1/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > > (GK)A Yazigian postscript.
> >
> >
> > > (Torsten's question): Could you explain to me what route they
> > > took in order to avoid infringing upon the territorial
> > > integrity of Przeworskia/ Saxland?
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Przeworsk2. PNG
> > >
> > >
> > > GK: Along the north shore of the Danube, then across the
> > > mountains into the Hungarian plain. The same route later taken
> > > by the Roxolans and the remaining Yazigi. The same "contact"
> > > route the Romans guaranteed to the Roxolans after their
> > > conquest of Dacia.
> > >
> > >
> > > GK: For particulars cf.
> > > http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh2_1.html
> > > Harmatta's views on the Sarmatians are not always right, but
> > > he's quite on target as to the time and route of the Yazigian
> > > migration.
> > > Some 70 years posterior to the Ariovistus saga. Door closed.****
> > >
> > We are talking of two different things.
> > My question was: where did the Yazigi go after they were repulsed
> > by the Zarubinians?
> >
> > GK: That's your new question. For the old question (obviously
> > not answered to your taste), see above.

You misunderstood my question.
>
> I think I am in a better question than you to know what the
> original question is, regardless of what you choose to hear.
>
> ****GK: Don't get flustered Torsten. One is always "in a better
question" than someone else when one is talking to oneself (:=)))...

Bla-bla-bla. Deliberately or not, you got the question wrong.

> You just forgot to ask the question directly, and ignored the
> inconvenirnt reply to the question you did ask.*****
>
Sigh.

>
> > As for your new question: by all accounts, they returned home to
> > the steppes.
>

> Let me guess: there aren't any.
>
> ****GK: Any what? Replies?

Accounts of course.

> Now you're being deliberately disingenuous.

Yes, you are.

> The usual technique of the flustered Snorrist (:=))) My dear
> fellow, the Yazigi returned home, just as the Scythians who
> assaulted the Lusatians repeatedly in the 5th c. BCE returned home
> after their campaigns. That's not too diffiult for you to
> understand I hope. Everybody else seems to get it. (Unless one
> imagines hem to be led by Ariovistus with a Snorrist agenda
> (:=))).*****

Bla-bla-bla. So there *is* no account of it.

>
>
> > And:
> >
> > How do we know that the new upper crust, which is suddenly in
> > place in Przeworkia *and* in Jastorfia in the mid-1st century BC,
> > isn't Yazig?
> >
> > GK: What's your evidence for this new crust at that time?

Oh, so that you didn't know either. Sigh.


>
> ****GK: Are we talking about the area which was depopulated after
> 58 BCE i.e. the Ariovistus migrants?****

Yes.



Torsten