--- On Mon, 8/10/09, tgpedersen <
tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>(GK) Give me any professional archaeologist who says the same thing
> about your "Sarmatian incursion" fantasy.
(TP)They don't seem to even consider the possibility, which, given the inhumation on both sides, seems strange to me.
****GK: That's because you are an opinionatedly ignorant ideologue who cannot or will not grasp any concept or evidence which seems dangerous to your prejudices. You have been repeatedly told that mere "inhumation" proves absolutely nothing, and that one must examine all available specifics of such before hypothesizing (let alone concluding) about ethnicity. This is the established scientific approach. By rejecting it, you place yourself (quite comfortably it seems) in cloud kookooland. Professionals on the other hand know very well that Yazigian, Germanic, etc..etc.. etc.. inhumations differ (sometimes profoundly) from each other. Examination of the Germanic area inhumations (whether Elbe Germanic or Przeworsk) shows instantly that they could not have been left by Sarmatians. Professionals are not kooks.*****
GK: So now it's Yatsenko who is wrong?
(TP)That the gakk-decorated spearheads and dragon standards were parts of a dowry? Ehm, yes, I think that would be an odd thing to include in a dowry. I think the idea they were brought there by males is less strained.
****GK: What is the point of discussing anything with a denizen of cloud kookooland who doesn't even understand the simplest notions? Sarmatian gakks were an important element of identity, especially if you belonged to an aristocratic clan (or royal clan). Their use on objects existing much later was a proud affirmation of descent. It's interesting that Germanic warriors of the early 3rd c. would have decorated their spearheads with gakks. An indication of how much they valued the connection with the great Scythian/Aorsan emperor of the 1rst c. and his aristocratic retinues.*****
(TP)I noticed that you are having 7 (simulated?) tantrums underway regarding my supposed unwillingness to check further the evidence of whether the group Shchukin mentioned was Romanized Sarmatians or Sarmatized Romans. Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that it makes no difference to my scenario one way or another.
****GK: Don't worry about that any more Mr. Pedersen. I see this quite clearly. No evidence of a scientific nature matters to you if it conflicts with your ideological prejudices. You're only interested in what you can somehow twist into your fable. If it can't be done, it is dismissed, ignored, or laughed off. Constantly, and systematically.****
I even recall vaguely one medieval source which claimed that a Germanic? Slavic? tribe had been founded by a Roman deserter. It's somewhere in the archives, but I wouldn't know how to find it.
****GK: It makes no difference to your scenario.****
As to the title of this thread. The answer is, of course, "zilch". That is what you have established. But not to worry. This doesn't matter one whit in cloud kookooland.