--- On Thu, 6/25/09, tgpedersen <
tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> 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
Well, say so, since the part from Przeworsk onwards is close to being standard now.
****GK: Who else besides you believes that Germanic originated with the carriers of Przeworsk?****
It would rather seem that you have realized you can't fight the part
between Przeworsk and Wetterau, since you realized it is now or will
be communis opinio.
****GK: I think you're the only one here in permanent conflict with communis opinio. Again, who else believes that Germanic spread westwards from Przeworsk with Ariovistus? AFAIK communis opinio remains that Germanic is to be primarily associated with Jastorf in the BCE period, and that other Continental cultures become Germanic to the extent that Jastorf moves eastward from the 4th c. BCE.****
>
> There were Charudes
>
> GK: Who were not Slavs.
Baseless assumption again. The genetics matches, and people change languages.
****GK: Priceless. The Charudes did not speak Slavic, but they had "Slavic genetics"? (:=)))??? ****
>
> 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"
No, but it proves Haruditude.
****GK: I think I should end my current visit to the Torstein asylum.****
Some well-known linguist, I forgot which, characterized Proto-Slvic
as a language with no surviving concepts above that of basic
survival, which would fit Shchukin's scenario. But every language has
a predecessor, and the Charudes could have a language of that type.
If they were a social and ethnic group before the formation of
Shchukin's purely Slavic culture, they might have been farmers in an
area teeming with migrant robbers of other ethnicity. You wouldn't
discover them archaeologically that way. Actually this would
correspond to the situation in eg. the later Austria-Hungary: Germans
(or German-speakers) in the cities, Slavic-speakers in the country).
It worked then for centuries, so why couldn't it have been so even
earlier?
****GK: Slavic existed in 400,000 BCE as "grunts and wheezes". I can't refute that Torsten. (:=)))*****