From: gknysh
Message: 31776
Date: 2004-04-07
>again.
> >(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
>sites to
> (TP)I have never claimed that there would be separate Sarmatian
> be found among the Przeworsk.*****GK: One needs much less (if by site you mean something more
> what we see is a foreign people moving in among the locals andtaking
> over (since they also supply a small number of very rich inhumation*****GK: Excuse me, but from your presentations based on Kuhn, the
> graves).
> Przeworsk cultures: A sudden increase in the number of graves, a*****GK: So the analogy here would be that these graves have a
> distinct difference (Zäsur) from the previous graves, and the
> appearence of a small number of rich inhumation graves.