From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 57184
Date: 2008-04-12
----- Original Message -----
From: "george knysh" <gknysh@...>
>> >> So what ?
>> >>
>> >> Germanic people conquered other areas,
>> >> so it's not wonder no continuity is expected.
>> >
>> > GK: The logic of this statement escapes
>> me.
>> >
>> ================
>>
>> For example,
>> How do you show the continuity between Rome's
>> archeology in -100 BC and the
>> Roman Empire AD 100 ?
>>
>> Arnaud
>>
>> ===========
>
> ****GK: In this case archaeology is almost wholly
> subsidiary to history (though of course not entirely).
> It is, for instance, possible to discover objects
> indicating the area whence some of Rome's 1rst c. CE
> population migrated from, if this is not mentioned in
> extant literary sources. Archaeology is most useful
> for prehistoric periods, or historic ones where the
> relevant "history" has little if anything to say about
> the relevant territory.
>
> With regards to the "Asiatic Germans" of the first
> millennium BCE, what would be needed, according to
> your scenario,is proof that there is a culture or
> cultures west of Andronovo in the first millennium or
> two BCE which can be demonstrably shown to be derived
> in whole or on part from the classical Andronovo
> culture. Such a culture does not exist. And thus the
> populations which evolved into "Germanics" have no
> discernible linkages to Andronovo. Your linguistic
> musings, also criticized on linguistic grounds, have
> no archaeological support at all. Point final.****
>>
===============
What is the archeological support for Hungarians arriving from mid-Eurasia
into Hungary ?
I suppose we have -nothing- in archeology supporting the hypothesis that
Hungarians came from somewhere else.
As a matter of fact, we don't known exactly -where- they came from.
Your reasoning does not even apply to a -known- case of intrusion.
Where is your point final ?
This is politely commentable as -superficial-.
Arnaud
===========