Re: [tied] Whence Grimm?

>
> (TP)How do you know
> > that what
> > happened was the arrival of "a certain number of
> > Sarmatian brides"
> > and not a migration.
>
> *****GK: Because Tacitus speaks of marriages, not of
> population shifts or mixed settlements, and because we
> have no archaeological evidence to indicate
> otherwise.******

So what you're saying is that the Sarmatians sent their brides (and
saddles) straight to their Przeworsk bridegrooms without themselves
leaving any archaeological traces in the Przeworsk cultures, and and
anyone who thinks otherwise should have his head examined? I wonder
how it is possible for a people to marry into another people and none
of their culture appears in the archaeology?

>
> (TP)Don't forget that archaelogical
> > remains of the
> > Hunnic invasions wich were fairly substantial, I'd
> > say, have only
> > been found recently?
>
> *****GK: Your mind works in mysterious ways, Torsten.
> Nomadic cultures leave little evidence of course. Thus
> all we know of the very numerous Sarmatian complexes
> in the Eurasian steppes we gather from gravesites or
> from occasional finds in the material of more settled
> cultures. There was a bit of that available from
> Hunnic times before more recent discoveries added some
> more. But (try to follow, it's not that difficult),
> there is an enormous difference between positing the
> presence of Huns (and Sarmatians) in Eastern Europe
> even in the context of archaeological "poverty" and
> arguing Odinist fantasies.

There is an enormous difference between arguing against a theory
using facts and attributing it to some sinister Odinist movement.

>We have a substantial
> number of historical documentation on Huns and
> Sarmatians. And THAT, my good fellow, is precisely
> what we do not have concerning the mythical "Odin"
> migration from "Asgard".

Are we talking written sources? Snorri is one.

>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.

I understand that I'm an idiot and not entitled to propose a
hypothesis? I'm afraid I can't see other substance to the above.

Torsten