From: tgpedersen
Message: 65030
Date: 2009-09-16
>This is not true. I have repeated here again and again that I am exploring the hypothesis that what those medieval chroniclers wrote was or contained elements of what actually happened, not that I am convinced that every word they wrote is the truth. What you think you gain by continually misrepresenting me I can't gather and I don't think I would like to know.
>
> --- On Tue, 9/15/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> A lot of revealing nonsense, demonstrating once again that his key
> authority in these discussions is a mediaeval Icelandic mythmaker,
> and that he (TP) is only interested in the work of current
> scientists if they can be scavenged to support the fantasies of his
> fundamental source. This will be my final posting on the issue. I
> consider Mr. Pedersen to be an unreformable Snorrist kook.
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, george knysh <gknysh@> wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians#Ethnogenesis
> >
> > --- On Mon, 9/14/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Since we agree in principle that Sarmatians were present in the
> > flesh in the west, in particular in the Mus^ov princely grave,
> > traditionally called Germanic,
> >
> > GK: Mus^ov is a Germanic and not a Sarmatian grave though it
> > may contain Sarmatian objects. Just like the Pereshchypinskyj 7th
> > c. grave, loaded with Byzantine objects, is not a Byzantine but a
> > Bulgarian grave,
>
> Do you think he knew that himself?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians#Ethnogenesis
> Do you think he would have stooped to take a word of Bulgarian in
> his mouth, if he was so preoccupied with his status?
>
> ****GK: Archaeologists even surmised that Pereshchepyn might have
> been the grave of Khan Kubrat (d.641) or at least someone very high
> up in the hierarchy of Old Bulgaria. All this is apparently way
> above a kook's perceptions.****
> > and just as the Kuban 1rst c. graves, loaded with Roman objects,Would they have thought of themselves as Alanic, not as Roman
> > are not Roman but Alanic graves.
>
> Would they have thought of themselves as Alanic, not as Roman
> mercenaries? Why don't you claim they were pre-Slavic?
>
> ****GK: Because I am not on leave from an asylum.****
>You mean you don't like it. In what sense is it a non-sequitur?
> > which you assign to a relative of the Sarmatian kings Pharzoios
> > and Inismeios on the basis of the tamgas in the grave, which
> > occur also in the similar grave in C^atalka which along with Vize
> > is traditionally called Thracian, and thus also must contain a
> > Sarmatian,
> >
> > GK: The conclusion is a non-sequitur.
> The word you're looking for is 'insubordination' .In that case he would have made himself an ally in Valle in Norway too. For what earthly purpose? Why waste a daughter on that?
>
> > Yatsenko has adequately explained the presence of tamgas on
> > Germanic spearheads.*
>
> Yatsenko surmised that the tamgas on the spearheads showed that the
> owner, the deceased's grandmother was Sarmatian, ie. that he was
> ethnically partially Sarmatian.
>
> ****GK: That was one of three possibilities. The others were:
> political alliance (without matrimony)
> and political subjection.****And you can't do that without being physically present.
> Since they used tamgas to signify clan membership (why else useYou're right that by Pharzoios' and Inismeios' time the Germani would already have a partially Sarmatian elite.
> it?) they were also culturally partially Sarmatian. And since there
> was no Germanic elite at his grandmother's time to marry into that
> part must have been large.
>
> ****GK: I wonder how many normal individuals would accept the
> notion that in the 1rst c. CE the Germanic tribes had no "elites"?
> Or is it because Odin had not yet arrived (:=)))? *****Sarmatians.
> > but disagree only on the estimate of their relative share in theI thought they gave that methos of handlling dissent in your country?
> > emerging upper class of the Przeworsk culture,
> >
> > GK: You have offered no proof other than Heimskringla. .. A 13th
> > century euhemeristic fantasy which you misinterpret to be genuine
> > popular tradition has no scientific standing compared to the
> > analyses of professiona historians and archaeologists.
>
> Rejecting Snorri as a source based on no particular argument except
> by fiat that all such sources, ie. North European, pre-Christian
> sources are false is a left-over from the forced Christianization
> of Northern Europe, which was a racket run to set up a foreign
> power elite. It amounts to calling the whole pre-Chriatianization
> population of Northern Europe congenitally mendacious. Ascribing
> negative properties to an ethnic group is racism by all
> definitions, and since it's about the ethnic group I happen to
> belong to, I take it as a personal affront.
>
> ****GK: This should be referred to a psychiatrist for analysis.****
>
> > which became the upper class of the Germanic-speaking countries,quotes from Tacitus' Germania:
> >
> > GK: In the last eight years you have not offered a single
> > adequate proof other than your interpretations of Snorri
> > Sturluson's Heimskringla fantasies to back up the notion that the
> > Przeworsk culture (the eventual Vandals) was the incubator of
> > "the upper class of the Germanic-speaking countries".
>
> The homogeneity of the Germanic upper class is striking is all
> areas in Germania. Therefore if one part of it is Sarmatian, they
> all are.
>
> ****GK: Interesting that Tacitus, who didn't particularly like
> Sarmatians (cf. his comments on the Bastarnians) seemed to have
> missed this important point about his Germani. *****