From: george knysh
Message: 64249
Date: 2009-06-24
--- On Wed, 6/24/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
--- In cybalist@... s.com, gknysh@... wrote:
>
>
> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
>
> > > GK: Ariovistus was certainly a name for Caesar.
> > (TP)He didn't know any better.
> >
> > GK: Without Caesar you would know practically nothing of
> > Ariovistus (:=))
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> (GK)As is everything which deviates from your Snorrist
> orthodoxy (:=)).
>
It's irrelevant to the discussion of whether Ariovistus is a name or a title. Stay focused.
And if you think I'm ignoring evidence which contradicts a proposal I made, please tell me.
> > End of discussion since what follows is likely: did too- did
> > not-- did too-- did not---
****GK: I am. And what is happening is exactly as predicted: Caesar knows whether Ariovistus is a name or a title-- no he doesn't-- yes he does--- no he doesn't etc... yawn. End of discussion.****
>
>
> > > His title (since 59 BCE) was "rex".
> >
> > Not to his men it wasn't.
>
> GK: You interviewed them? (:=))
You did?
****GK: End of discussion. "Refute the unrecorded and arbitrarily posited. Ortherwise it's "science"." No thank you.*****
> > GK: How would one translate "rex" into 1rst c. BCE German?
>
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Ariovistus
> 'He was recognised as a king by the Roman Senate, but how closely
> the Roman title matched Ariovistus' social status among the Germans
> remains unknown.' "Called", rather.
>
> > That's what his men would call him.
>
> A baseless postulate.
>
> GK: And "irrelevant" of course. As above (:=)))
No, baseless.
On the word *kuningas, cf.
http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/12139
****GK: I was hoping the great linguist Pedersen would rtwist out something from the "ric" suffix borrowed from Celtic. But perhaps this doen't fit the Snorrist relevancy,****
As you can see it has something to do with the Ukraine.
****GK: "The" is now considered insultingly anachronistic. Thanks for continuing to popularize it.*****
You must be very proud now.
> > That was what the Romans called him. Besides the difference
> > wasn't that great, cf dux/herizogo.
> > Check for yourself
> > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Ariovistus# Etymology
> >
> >
> > GK: Most of this analysis supports the notion that "Ariovistus"
> > was a name not a title. You'd better find a better source.
>
> Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology is a
> good enough source for me.
>
> GK: Once one tosses out the "irrelevancies" (:=)))
That etymology is the only one of Smith's Wikipedia mentions. What is it you accuse me of ignoring here?
****GK: The fact that most of the analysis supports the "name" hypothesis rather than the "title" hypothesis.****
> Besides, as a linguist I like to make my own etymologies.
>
> GK: Bypasses the point of "name" versus "title" (typical)
???
> > (The citations which follow here are irrelevant since you've not
> > made the major point.
>
> What does that mean? That I haven't addressed a major point in your
> reply?
>
> > Fairly typical procedure on your part.)
>
> If you want to accuse me of something, could you please be more
> clear?
>
> > >(GK No point in rehashing the Odin pseudo-history of Snorri
> > > Sturluson BTW.
> >
> > Not with you there ain't. I look forward to you actually refuting
> > it.
> >
> > GK: It's been refuted a zillion times, and not only by me.
>
> I don't think you know what 'refute' means. You refute someone's
> proposal by showing it can't have happened that way. You have never
> done that.
>
> GK: Snorri's "history" runs counter to all that we know of
> factual events in this area of the world on the basis of
> contemporary documents and archaeology. That has been demonstrated
> to you ad nauseam.
That's almost too funny. You knew zilch about the archeology of Germania
*****GK: Again, the usual red herring. The archaeology and "factual events" I am referring to are those of Easternmost Europe. in the first c. BCEl Or have I missed your jettisoning Snorri's fantasies about Asgard and Vanaland? Now that would be progress indeed!!*****
until I translated the relevant passages of Peschel, Hachmann, Kossack and Kuhn, which described an invasion from the Przeworsk area into the Wetterau, which fact Polish archaeologists equate with Caesar's description of the Ariovistus invasion. Which of the facts I translated for you (for which you were appropriately grateful, thank you very much; I'm not angling for more appreciation, just setting the record straight) do you feel you have used, and ad nauseam at that, to prove to me that Snorri's scenario couldn't have happened?
****GK: If you have indeed shifted your ground (Przeworsk has nothing whatever to do with Asgard etc..)then that is momentous and I apologize for not having recognized it. There are other problems of course but that's nothing compared to what you advanced before.*****
> If your scientific "technique" consists in postulating historically
> unrecorded events
Sorry, they were recorded both by Caesar, Snorri, Saxo, plus a host of minor sagas.
*****GK: We are now talking about entirely different things it seems (??)
> (which by definition cannot be refuted
That depends. We both agree (I presume, following Peschel et al. and after the long discussions we had on the various movements in the Wetterau valley and surroundings) that there was an invasion from the east in Germania at the relevant time. My claim is that this invasion is what Snorri, Saxo et al. describe as Odin's conquest of land in Germany. Your claim is that everything they say is fabrication or has to do with a much later time. Both our claims are unverifiable, since we don't have access to those guys' minds since they're dead, so we can't prove one way or another that they didn't lie. But my proposal is the most economical one, since it requires the fewest assumptions; if we assume they were making up their stories we will have to explain why so much of it matches what we know from other sources.
*****GK: So Snorri is OK from the point where he talks about "Odin"sarrival in Germania and spread westward. And everything to do with Asgard etc.. is now recognized as fantastic speculation? Is this your latest position? If so, state this clearly please.****
> > > (GK)The old idea that there were "Slavs" in 1rst c. BCE
> > > Przeworsk is untenable.
> >
> > They would only have had to be there long enough, coming from the
> > east, to join Ariovistus' campaign.
> >
> > GK: Where is your evidence that Slavs (as distinct from
> > Baltoslavs) were an identifiable group in the time of
> > Ariovistus?
>
> The identifiable group or rather the identifiable group name is
> Hrvaty/Charudes/ Horouathos.
>
> GK: The Croats were certainly not Charudes.
Why not? It would certainly explain the odd distribution of
haplogroup I, on Scandinavians and Croatians.
****GK: What does this have to do with Slavs?****
> Nor were they Slavs in the 1rst c. BCE.
There were Charudes
****GK: Who were not Slavs.****
> The name is not even attested until the 3rd c.AD (Bosporan
> Kingdom).
Ah, so you do recognize the name on the Tanais stone to represent "Croat".
****GK: I would accept this. The standard view is that originally the "Croats" were a non-Slavic (perhaps Iranic?) group which later mingled with some Slavs and transferred their name to them (something akin to the "Bulgar" phenomenon, and I could give other examples).
Tanis is another area with high concentration of haplogroup I.
****GK Whatever that proves it doen't prove Slavdom"***
Furthermore that group seems to have gone through a bottleneck, ie.
have consisted at a time of very few men. How does that link up with
Snorri et al.?
> You rate an F- on this one.
>
> And on the question of method: I don't have to prove it happened a
> certain way, since that is in principle not possible. I have to
> make sure instead that my proposal does not contradict known facts.
>
> GK: That is precisely what your Snorrist idee fix does.
Which ones?
> And in the competition with other unrefuted proposals, the one
> should be preferred which provides the most explanations for known
> facts.
>
> GK: Yours is not even in the ball park. Correction: it's not
> even on the same planet.(:=)) )
George, your blood presssure.
****GK: My blood pressure is fine. Thanks for your concern.****
> P.S. Do read Shchukin.
My Russian sucks. It would take me weeks to translate the whole site. Could you point out the paragraphs you find relevant?
****GK: His main point is that "Slavs" begin to emerge in the Late Zarubinian epoch (i.e. from ca. the end of the 1rst, beginning of the 2nd c. AD) and that prior to that the various constituent elements of Slavdom had not yet coalesced. You had Bastarnians, Balts, Scythians, Thracians, Germanics, but no "Slavs as such". The first genuine Slavic culture (that from which all subsequent identifiable cultures emerge) is, according to him (and I agree), the "Kyivan culture" which is fully formed by the end of the 2nd c AD.=== I would add to Schukin that the area of this culture is recorded in Ptolemy (Marinus of Tyre?) as that of the "Stavani". And I would also add the "Illyrian" component which Shchukin doesn't distinguish from the "Bastarnian" one. Shch. says that Slavs were formed in the "area of mutual fear" mentioned by Tacitus (between Germanics and Sarmatians). Linguistically, the idiom was a "modernization" of Baltic.****
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Give Back
Yahoo! for Good
Get inspired
by a good cause.
Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.
Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.
.