Re: [tied] Whence Grimm?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> >
> > (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)

*****GK: You have evidence of "Sarmatian saddles" in Przeworsk? Bring
it forth.*****

straight to their Przeworsk bridegrooms

*****GK: This is what makes "arguing" with you so unproductive. You
seem thoroughly confused about the correspondences between material
cultures and historical identities. Bastarnia is not Przeworsk but
Poeneshti-lukashovka.*****

without themselves

> leaving any archaeological traces in the Przeworsk cultures, and

and

> anyone who thinks otherwise should have his head examined?

*****GK: If you claim that there are archaeological traces but are
unable to provide proof then perhaps you should consider it.*****

I wonder

> how it is possible for a people to marry into another people and

none

> of their culture appears in the archaeology?

*****GK: Look for analogies. They may have been quickly assimilated
(we see this in the matter of Polovtsian brides). In any case your
question is spurious. This is a matter of fact not of speculation.
Whare are your facts? Where are the archaeological traces of
Sarmatian culture among the Bastarnae of the mid- 1rst c. BC? I can't
find them, hence my conclusion that these marriages were not the
equivalent of some significant migration.******

> >
> > (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.
>
> (TP)There is an enormous difference between arguing against a

theory

> using facts and attributing it to some sinister Odinist movement.

*****GK: Typical Torsten red herring. What "sinister Odinist
movement"? Just romantic fantasizing on a theme from Snorri.*****

>
>
> >(GK)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".
>
> (TP)Are we talking written sources? Snorri is one.

*****GK: Snorri is not an authoritative source on events which
allegedly occurred some 1300 years before his day. He had no
reliable material for his Asgard statements (no skaldic verses for
instance). There is no ancient documentation which can confirm his
Odinist stories. This had been argued ad nauseam and you have been
unable to present anything that would qualify as even the faint
beginning of a defense of Snorri's fairy tales.******

>
>
> >(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.
>
> (TP)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.

*****GK Exactly. We are still waiting for a hypothesis. A bare flatus
vocis does not qualify.*****

>
> Torsten