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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "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?

****GK: Of course, catering to the whims of peripheral dilettantes should be a professional's first priority.****

> >GK: 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.
>
> (TP)You had hoped to drag me into a protracted discussion about the
> Romanicity or Sarmaticity or the 'Golden Cemetery' graves, I suppose.

****GK: I have no interest in "dragging you" into anything my dear fellow.****

> The main thing for me is that they prove

****GK: ... nothing at all, until we've looked at the particulars. The Veselovskyi thesis is pretty clear. Kuchkin, on the other hand, could well be in one of his occasional "quandoque dormitat" phases (which does not derogate from the excellence of his other analyses). THAT is why it's important to look at the evidence directly. Veselovskyi is the primary investigator here. Kuchkin did no digs and only reacted to Veselovskyi. We have to have the latter's descriptions in order to see whether Kuchkin's doubts are justified. Mere "authority" is insufficient here. ****

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.

****GK: And that is precisely the premature conclusion which needs to be avoided, but which you gleefully adopt because it's in line with your prejudice.****