Re: That old Odin scenario ...

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > > > I agree with Kortlandt and Shchukin: it is impossible to
> > > > > identify a "Slavic" group as of your mentioned dates
> > > > > <72-58 BCE>.
> >
> > I would disagree. If we theoretically allow multi-ethnic and
> > multi-lingual areas, we could identify (Proto-Proto-!) Slavs with
> > the farmers in Zarubyntsi and Przeworsk,
>
> ****GK: Proto-proto etc.. Slavs cannot be shown to
> have spoken a Slavic language, or to have been Slavs.

No, but they can be shown to have spoken a Proto-Proto-Slavic using
the same methods as you archaeologists use.

> Add enough protos,and you're back to PIE and substrates.

That's right. That's how we linguists get back to PIE and substrates.

> This is meaningless gibberrish,

Gibberish

> and the direct result of the utterly unscientific committment

commitment

> to discover "historical" facts behind Snorri's euhemerism.

I'm always puzzled where you get your conviction that Snorri and
similar chroniclers fabricated the accounts they wrote.

> Since this is an ersatz-religious committment there is really no
> point in discussing or debating it.

You're right. That's why I try to avoid the subject as long as
possible since I know your commitment will get you terribly agitated
and make you call for me to be suppressed or banned.

> No matter how many times one demonstrates the untenability of this
> or that point, the committment will remain.

Well, I'm a Scandinavian, and we mostly don't think people fabricate
stories. I can't get into my head what motive those chroniclers would
have to make up those stories.

> Thousands of different "explanations" will be invented if necessary.

It's the fact that Niemcza turned out to match what I had guessed it
would that gets to you, right?

> Endless floggings of dead horses, of their bones, and of the
> dust thereof will be enthusiastically pursued in
> scenario after scenario, with the "committment" always
> only a shout away.

Oh no, George is talking about horses again. Maybe if I ignore him, it
will go away?

> Mainstream positions will be constantly negated (not on the basis of
> science, but on that of the "committment").

Do you feel I am following false prophets?

> We have now reached the
> point where we can confidently state that 6th century
> Slavic culture (when they emerge on the historical
> arena) cannot in any meaningful sense be viewed as
> having developed out of Przeworsk or Zarubintsi (or
> Sarmatians or Scythians for that matter).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_culture

W. hasn't reached that point yet, see bottom of page.

> Which automatically cancels this latest "farmer" scenario of yours.

Care to update Wikipedia?

> If you had paid attention to the quote from the
> JHG 2007 article you would have seen that this is now
> strongly confirmed by recent genetic studies.*****

If you had paid attention to what I wrote, you'd know it didn't
contradict those findings.

> > later surviving in a band between Niemcza and Dniepr (this is the
> > "Polish archaologists'" part),
>
> ****GK: This is no longer tenable.****

This is no longer mainstream. I find it difficult to believe that
Polish archaeologists would have held on to that view if it had had no
evidence to support it.

> > later reinforced with (Proto-) Slavs from Dniepr (the mainstream
> > part).
> >
> > As for the Kortlandt quote, he is obviously accepting the
> > mainstream view, which influences some of his temporal estimates.
>
> ****GK: An Odinist cannot accept "the mainstream view".

I don't know why you go on with that Odinist crap, no matter how often
I tell you I'm not. You would have made an excellent Odinist yourself,
I just don't have that temperament.

> It would mean abandonment of the committment...****

Well, why don't you?


Torsten