Re: Summary of where it's at for the Sarmatian connection

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

>
> --- 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.

The usual personal smear. So if I was not an opinionatedly etc I would not find it strange that they don't consider the possibility?
If it's so obvious those Germanic inhumation graves are not
Sarmatian, surely professional archaeologists could waste five lines
on refuting it?

> You have been repeatedly told that mere "inhumation" proves
> absolutely nothing,

Tell it to Lichardus and Wozniak.

> and that one must examine all available specifics of such before
> hypothesizing (let alone concluding) about ethnicity.

True. That's what I would do before concluding that the Przeworsk II
inhumation graves were Aorsan, Yasig etc.

> This is the established scientific approach. By rejecting it, you
> place yourself (quite comfortably it seems) in cloud kookooland.

Good thing I don't, then. I never tried to associate the Przeworsk II
graves with any particular Sarmatian subgroup other than
speculatively, so I have never rejected using this, that or the other
criterion.

> Professionals on the other hand know very well that Yazigian,
> Germanic, etc..etc.. etc.. inhumations differ (sometimes
> profoundly) from each other.

True.

> Examination of the Germanic area inhumations (whether Elbe Germanic
> or Przeworsk) shows instantly that they could not have been left by
> Sarmatians.

That must be very instantaneous, since they don't bother to discuss
the possibility.

> Professionals are not kooks.*****

I would like to see Sarmatian on the shortlist of candidates for
Germanic inhumation graves from one of those professionals. Then I
would know what arguments they have for rejecting a connection. I
haven't seen one so far.

> 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?

What simple notion is that now?

> 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.

Well, that's what I said. The difference between Yatsenko and me is
he insists it's female descent.

> It's interesting that Germanic warriors of the early 3rd c. would
> have decorated their spearheads with gakks.

Yes, isn't it?

> An indication of how much they valued the connection

Through descent, as you said.

> with the great Scythian/Aorsan emperor of the 1rst c. and his
> aristocratic retinues.*****

They had a connection? Tell me more about it.

> (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.****

You had hoped to drag me into a protracted discussion about the
Romanicity or Sarmaticity or the 'Golden Cemetery' graves, I suppose.
The main thing for me is that they prove that in that area Romans
could become so Sarmatized, or Sarmatians so Romanized, that you
can't make out any which particular Sarmatian ethnos they belonged
to. That fact means I don't have to assign any particular Sarmatian
ethnos to the Germanic inhumation graves, Romanized Sarmatian /
Sarmatized Roman will do.

> 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.****

Roman soldiers on the northern front far from any Sarmatians were
becoming Sarmatized too, in the inventory of weapons.

> 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.

Etc, etc.


Torsten