Re: Hachmann versus Kossack?

>> > 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 ?
>
> ****GK: Read the literature. Why should I do your
> homework for you?****

==========
All that is hypothesized on the Hungarians is 100% linguistic.
The route they followed, whom they met, etc is 100% linguistic.
If Hungarian was the only language left of Uralic, we would have no idea
where it came from.
The archeological file is = zero
and anything archeological is just shreds to be interpreted in the light of
linguistic considerations.
Arnaud
============

> ****GK: We have a pretty good idea about the various
> places they came through before reaching Hungary. By
> then they were a pretty complex lot, and became even
> more so in the first century of their residence in the
> old Avar heartland.****
>>
>> Your reasoning does not even apply to a -known- case
>> of intrusion.
>
> ****GK: It applies quite well thank you.****

=============
See above.
The archeological file is = zero.
Everything is 100% linguistic-based.
Arnaud
======

>> Where is your point final ?
>
> ****GK: Your theory of "Asiatic Germans" has no
> archaeological backing whatsoever.****

==========
PT1 : I have not written Germans are Asiatic. This is your personal
caricature.
I maintain that proto-Germanic, as a language, displays significant
connections with Tocharian, Tibetan, Early Uralic, Yenissei and Kartvelian
and to account for that, Jastorf is just outright stupid.
PT2 : There is no archeological support for : Hungarian, Chuvash, Cremean
Tatar, Turkish movements.
All we think about these languages (and people) is 100% based on linguistic
considerations (and historian chronicles when they exist).
The archeological file is = zero.
Arnaud
=============

> This is politely commentable as -superficial-.
>
> ****GK: It's good enough. I'll be polite and not
> comment on the quality of your thesis beyond what's
> been stated.****
>

=========
The archeological file is = zero.
Arnaud
======