Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[tied] Re: That old Ariovistus scenario.

Expand Messages
  • tgpedersen
    ... That Haplotype Ia (Tanais, Croatia, Scandinavia) and Ic (Tanais, Scandinavia) distribution has to be explained somehow. ... I never said it did. But it
    Message 1 of 30 , Jun 28, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, gknysh@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
      > >
      >
      > > > How would you account for the movement of Croats from Tanais to
      > > > Southern Slavland?
      > >
      > > GK: In the first place one cannot even prove that there was any
      > > such movement. The Bosporan inscription refers to an individual
      > > with a hellenized Iranic name. We have no other evidence of
      > > "Croats" in that area at that time (3rd c. AD).

      That Haplotype Ia (Tanais, Croatia, Scandinavia) and Ic (Tanais,
      Scandinavia) distribution has to be explained somehow.


      >
      > > > GK: My view is that defensive set-ups ("croatias")
      > >
      >
      > > GK: I don't have my notes on hand, but remember that that there
      > > is a Slovak verb where "croat" (something like "khorovaty se" if
      > > memory serves) means "to defend" one's self
      >
      > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59285
      >
      >
      >
      > Gol/a,b:
      >
      > The Origin of the Slavs, pp. 323-328
      >
      > 'In the above discussion of the Iranian loanwords in Slavic I have
      > omitted proper names, because their etymology usually entails more
      > difficulties and uncertainties than that of common nouns. There is
      > however, an ethnicon that for serious phonemic and morphologicical
      > reasons seems to be of Iranian origin: the ethnicon *XUrvate/i,
      > i.e., S-C Hrváti, Hrvate in older sources (nom. plur.), Hrvâtâ
      > (gen. plur.), and Hrvatin (nom. sing. in older sources).
      > Since the Iranian etymology of this ethnonym is only a hypothesis,
      > on equal footing with other hypotheses about its Slavic and
      > Germanic origin, I feel obliged to devote a separate excursus to
      > this problem.
      >
      > ****GK: Golomb's interesting hypothesis has nothing to do with your
      > notion that Charudes=Croats=Slavs

      I never said it did. But it does presuppose an intermingling of Slav
      and Bastarnian speakers.

      > (he holds Bastarnian to be Germanic BTW).
      No,
      'the PGermc. dialect of the Bastarnians'
      he holds it to be a dialect of of PGmc., which by defintion is the
      origin of the Germanic languages, thus he holds Bastarnian to be a
      Para-Germanic language.'


      > I agree with him in positing the "Croat" phenomenon as originating
      > north of the Carpathians, but associate it with Avar state-
      > building.****

      Proof?
      >
      > > > were organized by the Avars along their northern borders (in
      > > > the Carpathians and beyond) against the looming Turkic threat.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > GK: Sometime in the 570's.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > The leading elements were imported from the east and settled
      > > > among Slavs. Their ethnicity is open to debate: you can try
      > > > etymologizing the names of the rulers' ancestors from the
      > > > account in Constantine Porphyrogenitus.
      > >
      > > GK: (from memory) There were five names (3 "brothers" and two
      > > "sisters) None seemed particularly Slavic.
      >
      >
      > We've been there. I didn't make much headway with them.
      >
      > ****GK: Correction. FIVE brothers (Kluk, Lobel, Mukhlo, Kosjenc,
      > Horvat) The sisters were Tuga and Buga. I have a feeling one might
      > find Turkic meanings in some of these.****

      The names look vaguely like those Slovenian words
      Joz^ef S^avli — Matej Bor
      Unsere Vorfahren die Veneter
      use to 'prove' the Slavicness of the Veneti.



      BTW, here's another attempt at interpreting the Croat name:
      *xaruG-at-
      from the Germanic/Mingrelian-Laz/Ossetic/Semitic *xarug- plus -at,
      discussed by Gol/a,b.
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/63992
      http://www.theegyptianchronicles.com/ANEW/HERG.html
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/54653
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/54642

      cf.
      de Vries
      'Ho,rðar mpl. 'bewohner des gebietes am Hardangerfjord',
      lat. Harudes,
      gr. Kharou~des (Ptolemaios),
      vgl. auch Arochi (falls statt Arothi) bei Jordanes und
      den herulischen PN. Aroúth (= *Haruþ) bei Prokop;
      run. schw. Haruþs (g. sg. Rök c. 800. als PN.),
      adä. Harthæsyssel, ndä. Harsyssel (A. Johansson APhS 9, 1934, 25-37).
      — > air. Hirotha, Hiruaith (Marstrander NVA 1915 Nr 5, 56-8, der
      Hiruaith als irisches sagenland betrachten möchte, das seit der
      Wikingerzeit mit Norwegen verbunden sein sollte).
      — ae. Hæredas VN., as. Hardago: PN.
      — Neben *haruþ auch *hariþ, vgl. norw. inselname Herðla.
      — Wohl zu
      ae. harað, hared 'wald' in ON.,
      mnd. hart 'wald',
      ahd. harød 'bergwald' (...),
      also weiter zur sippe von ho,rgr.
      — Nach IEW 532 eher zu air. caur (< *karuts) 'held'.
      — vgl. Harðangr.'


      Torsten
    • gknysh@yahoo.com
      ... No, Jastorf spread eastward. It might have been Proto (...) Germanic speaking, ****GK: Like I said, I m not getting into your pre- para- proto- games.
      Message 2 of 30 , Jun 28, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- On Sun, 6/28/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

        > But here it is: the Roman expansion under Caesar and other field

        > commanders in the area where later Romance languages are spoken is

        > matched on the other side of the Rhine in the area where later

        > Germanic languages were spoken by a number (at least two) with the

        > Germanic(?) title of Wod-an- "army leader".

        >

        > GK: But Germanic spread eastward some two centuries before it spread westward (if indeed that is what happened with Ariovistus in the first c. BCE), "protos" or "proto-protos" notwithstanding.


        No, Jastorf spread eastward. It might have been Proto (...) Germanic speaking,

        ****GK: Like I said, I'm not getting into your "pre- para- proto-" games. All the literature I have consulted acknowledges Jastorf as carrying a form of Germanic. And that is good enough for me. That explains Tacitus' comment about the Bastarnians. There are plenty of good "Germanicists" on this list. Let them comment on your peculiarities.*****


        but in that case we should find Proto (...) Germanic placenames in the western parts of Germania (actually you could argue that's what the IE NWBlock language is, it's linked archaeologically to the Harpsted-Nienburg culture,

        http://de.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Harpstedt- Nienburger_ Gruppe

        (no English version, it seems)

        which like Jastorf is descended from the Nordic Bronze Age culture).



        > That does not fit the Snorrist scenario. But then neither does the

        > career of Ariovistus. There is no discernible relationship between

        > a westward movement which began ca. 72 BCE and events further

        > east.

        >

        > >

        >

        > > Let me see if you understand this one: Everywhere the *xarud-

        > > name appears you find high percentages of haplotype I

        > > (Oppenheimer' s 'Ivan').

        >

        > > GK: The Wikipedia "Croats" article suggests the haplotype I

        > > convergence



        ...



        > > between Croats and Scandinavians is due to events which happened

        > > 30,000 years ago, not in the time of Ariovistus.

        >

        > 30,000 years ago is the time that haplotype broke away from the

        > rest. Since historians, also DNA historians by default assume peace

        > and quiet and no major take over by a foreign male gene pool where

        > they haven't heard of one, they automatically assume that

        > everything is founder effect, ie. that those groups were

        > distributed the way they are today because people moved into the

        > areas we find them in today immediately after the last Ice Age.

        > Thus it is a default assumption, based on no further data. However,

        > a scenario in conformity with that presented by Snorri


        ****GK: The Snorri scenario is not taken seriously by genetic scientists because it is ridiculous and has no foundation in reality. I don't see you as advancing anything new beyond your usual mantra which you were asked long ago to discontinue...****

        >

        > http://www.sacred- texts.com/ neu/pre/pre03. htm

        >

        > ('The Æsir took wives of the land for themselves, and some also for

        > their sons; and these kindreds became many in number, so that

        > throughout Saxland, and thence all over the region of the north,

        > they spread out until their tongue, even the speech of the men of

        > Asia, was the native tongue over all these lands.') would explain

        > the distribution of haplotype I (there's a map of its distribution

        > in the Files under 'Maps, The Orgs of the Brits').

        >

        > GK: Are you saying that the Przeworkers= "the men of Asia"?



        Yes.

        > Where's your proof? There is no discernible "eastern influence" in

        > the constitution of Przeworsk. Snorri's fantasy can't fill the

        > gap.



        Maybe Wikipedia can.

        ****GK: Prove that "the Germanic -speaking men of Asia" constituted Przeworsk and brought Germanic speech thereto from Asgard? OK let's see your Wikipedia evidence.****

        http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Przeworsk_ culture

        'Influences



        Scholars view the Przeworsk culture as an amalgam of a series of localized cultures. Preceeded by the Pomeranian culture (especially the Bell-Shaped sub-culture, the Przeowrsk tradition arose due to influences which are considered external to the Vistula basin. The most prominent influences are those of the La Tene (especially in metal-work) and Jastorf cultures.

        ****GK: Unimpeachable stuff. Nothing from the East.****



        To the east, in what is now northern Ukraine and southern Belarus, was the Zarubintsy culture, to which it is linked as a larger archaeological complex.'

        ****GK: That is OK also (though there are also important differences). One ought to add that two other local cultures belong to this larger "linkage": Poeneshti-Lukashovka in Moldavia and the Oksywie culture in northern Poland.****



        http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Zarubintsy_ culture

        'The Zarubintsy culture was of mixed origins. Valentin Sedov postulates that the culture arose when tribes local to the Pripyat and middle Dnieper basin forged contacts with peoples of the Milograd zone and the Scythian nomads.

        ****GK: This is either incorrect or badly stated. The Zarubinian culture had four substrate components: (1) Milograd/Pidhirtsi (identical to what Sedov calls the "tribes local to the Pripyat and [the northern portion of the GK] middle Dnieper basin" (2) the settled "Scythians" of the southern portion of the Middle Dnipro basin (these were almost certainly "Thrakoid") (3) the Pomorian culture carriers who settled in Western Polissia during the 4th c. BCE) and (4) incoming Jastorfers. The Scythian nomads had largely evacuated the Ukrainian steppes by the time the Zarubinian culture began to form (3rd c. BCE).*****


        Malcolm Todd also sees evidence of Celtic influences.

        ****GK: What is unclear is whether this influence was direct or mediated. A good case can be made for both scenarios.****


        The Scythian-Sarmatian influence is evident, especially in pottery, weaponry, domestic objects and personal ornaments.

        ****GK: That depends on the time frame. There is no such discernible influence in the early phases of the Zar. culture.****



        The bearers of the culture engaged in agriculture and livestock raising as well as hunting. There is evidence they also traded wild animal skins with Black Sea towns. They practiced cremation burials, with the ashes placed in an urn or pit. Settlements include both open sites and hilltop villages defended by ditches and banks, structures built to defend against nomadic tribes from the steppe.

        ****GK: Correct.****'



        How will you prove that no Iranian or otherwise hostile group arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the mid first century BCE?

        ****GK: If you want to involve Ariovistus it would have to be somewhat earlier? But no matter. I've studied the history of the Z. culture pretty thoroughly. (There is also a lot of relevant stuff in Shchukin for you).(I'm away from my notebooks till July 10 so what follows is from memory). There is no contemporary or near-contemporary evidence of any kind to prove or indicate that an "Iranian or otherwise hostile group arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the mid first century BCE". There is evidence that a series of Sarmatian assaults (probably by the Iazigi) were undertaken against Zarubinian fortresses sometime in the last decades of the 1rst c. BCE (arrowheads,signs of fire etc. The fortresses were later rebuilt). Prior to this, the relationship between Zarubinians and the Scythian complex to the south had been amicable. There are Zarubinian burials in the Scythian Lower Dnipro cities, and Scythian burials in the Zarubinian Middle Dnipro fortresses.
        After the departure of large Iazigian contingents towards the basin of the Tisza, amicable relationships were resumed (until a new Aorsan Scythian dynasty embarked on empire building in the mid-1rst c. AD. The Zarubinians do not appear to have been affected by the Getan expansion under Burebista in the mid-1rst c. BCE.) Why would the Iazigi have attacked them? In the period ca. 150-110 BCE Iazigi and Roxolans had been Scythian vassals. The victory of Mithradates' generals over Palak son of Skilur destroyed this renewed Scythian power. Scythians, Roxolans, Iazigi, and Bastarnians became autonomous under the King of Pontus' overall suzerainty. They retained this autonomy after the death of Mithradates. The Iazigi (located between Danube and Dnipro) were not well disposed towards Scythians. They had probably collaborated with Burebista (whose destruction of Olbia was a major blow against the economic interests of Scythia). The Zarubinians as old Scythian
        trading partners were a target.
        I should add that AFAIK that is also no evidence of any invasion of the Przeworsk area from the East in the mid-1rst c. BCE. ****
      • tgpedersen
        ... No, you didn t. ... Since you re out of your depth here. ... None of the existing literature is aware of the need for an event of dispersal to explain the
        Message 3 of 30 , Jun 29, 2009
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, gknysh@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > --- On Sun, 6/28/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
          >
          > > But here it is: the Roman expansion under Caesar and other field
          > > commanders in the area where later Romance languages are spoken
          > > is matched on the other side of the Rhine in the area where later
          > > Germanic languages were spoken by a number (at least two) with
          > > the Germanic(?) title of Wod-an- "army leader".
          > >
          > > GK: But Germanic spread eastward some two centuries before it
          > spread westward (if indeed that is what happened with Ariovistus in
          > the first c. BCE), "protos" or "proto-protos" notwithstanding.
          >
          > No, Jastorf spread eastward. It might have been Proto (...)
          > Germanic speaking,
          >
          > ****GK: Like I said,

          No, you didn't.

          > I'm not getting into your "pre- para- proto-" games.

          Since you're out of your depth here.

          > All the literature I have consulted acknowledges Jastorf as
          > carrying a form of Germanic. And that is good enough for me.

          None of the existing literature is aware of the need for an event of dispersal to explain the seeming sudden breakup of the Germanic languages at the time.

          > That explains Tacitus' comment about the Bastarnians.

          Which one is that?

          > There are plenty of good "Germanicists" on this list. Let them
          > comment on your peculiarities.*****

          Bring'em on.


          > but in that case we should find Proto (...) Germanic placenames in
          > the western parts of Germania (actually you could argue that's what
          > the IE NWBlock language is, it's linked archaeologically to the
          > Harpsted-Nienburg culture,
          >
          > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpstedt-Nienburger_Gruppe
          > (no English version, it seems)
          > which like Jastorf is descended from the Nordic Bronze Age culture).
          >
          > > That does not fit the Snorrist scenario.

          I still don't get the contents of your home made words. But here's a comment:
          The scenario among those who don't think the existence of a separate IE NWB language is controversial is that the NWB geographical area became Germanic-speaking around the beginning of our era by invasion or immigration of Germanic-speakers from the east.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock

          > But then neither does the career of Ariovistus. There is no
          > discernible relationship between a westward movement which began
          > ca. 72 BCE and events further east.

          > > > Let me see if you understand this one: Everywhere the *xarud-
          > > > name appears you find high percentages of haplotype I
          > > > (Oppenheimer' s 'Ivan').
          > >
          > > > GK: The Wikipedia "Croats" article suggests the haplotype I
          > > > convergence
          >
          >
          >
          > ...
          >
          >
          >
          > > > between Croats and Scandinavians is due to events which happened
          >
          > > > 30,000 years ago, not in the time of Ariovistus.
          >
          > >
          >
          > > 30,000 years ago is the time that haplotype broke away from the
          > > rest. Since historians, also DNA historians by default assume
          > > peace and quiet and no major take over by a foreign male gene
          > > pool where they haven't heard of one, they automatically assume
          > > that everything is founder effect, ie. that those groups were
          > > distributed the way they are today because people moved into the
          > > areas we find them in today immediately after the last Ice Age.
          > > Thus it is a default assumption, based on no further data.
          > > However, a scenario in conformity with that presented by Snorri

          > > ****GK: The Snorri scenario is not taken seriously by genetic
          > > scientists because it is ridiculous and has no foundation in
          > > reality.

          What would a geneticists know about that? They reject it, because that's what linguists and archeologists tell them to.

          > I don't see you as advancing anything new beyond your usual mantra
          > which you were asked long ago to discontinue...****

          Apparently not. Try reading the paragraph again.

          > >
          > > http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/pre/pre03.htm
          > >
          > > ('The Æsir took wives of the land for themselves, and some also
          > > for their sons; and these kindreds became many in number, so that
          > > throughout Saxland, and thence all over the region of the north,
          > > they spread out until their tongue, even the speech of the men of
          > > Asia, was the native tongue over all these lands.') would explain
          > > the distribution of haplotype I (there's a map of its
          > > distribution in the Files under 'Maps, The Orgs of the Brits').
          > >
          > > GK: Are you saying that the Przeworkers= "the men of Asia"?
          >
          > Yes.
          >
          > > Where's your proof? There is no discernible "eastern influence"
          > > in the constitution of Przeworsk. Snorri's fantasy can't fill the
          > > gap.
          >
          >
          > Maybe Wikipedia can.
          >
          > ****GK: Prove that "the Germanic -speaking men of Asia" constituted
          > Przeworsk and brought Germanic speech thereto from Asgard?

          I'm undecided as to where Germanic came from, but I lean towards Jastorf.

          > OK let's see your Wikipedia evidence.****
          > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Przeworsk_ culture
          >
          > 'Influences
          >
          > Scholars view the Przeworsk culture as an amalgam of a series of
          > localized cultures. Preceeded by the Pomeranian culture (especially
          > the Bell-Shaped sub-culture, the Przeowrsk tradition arose due to
          > influences which are considered external to the Vistula basin. The
          > most prominent influences are those of the La Tene (especially in
          > metal-work) and Jastorf cultures.
          >
          > ****GK: Unimpeachable stuff. Nothing from the East.****
          >
          >
          > To the east, in what is now northern Ukraine and southern Belarus,
          > was the Zarubintsy culture, to which it is linked as a larger
          > archaeological complex.'
          >
          > ****GK: That is OK also (though there are also important
          > differences). One ought to add that two other local cultures belong
          > to this larger "linkage": Poeneshti-Lukashovka in Moldavia and the
          > Oksywie culture in northern Poland.****
          >
          > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Zarubintsy_ culture
          >
          > 'The Zarubintsy culture was of mixed origins. Valentin Sedov
          > postulates that the culture arose when tribes local to the Pripyat
          > and middle Dnieper basin forged contacts with peoples of the
          > Milograd zone and the Scythian nomads.
          >
          > ****GK: This is either incorrect or badly stated. The Zarubinian
          > culture had four substrate components: (1) Milograd/Pidhirtsi
          > (identical to what Sedov calls the "tribes local to the Pripyat and
          > [the northern portion of the GK] middle Dnieper basin" (2) the
          > settled "Scythians" of the southern portion of the Middle Dnipro
          > basin (these were almost certainly "Thrakoid") (3) the Pomorian
          > culture carriers who settled in Western Polissia during the 4th c.
          > BCE) and (4) incoming Jastorfers. The Scythian nomads had largely
          > evacuated the Ukrainian steppes by the time the Zarubinian culture
          > began to form (3rd c. BCE).*****
          >
          >
          > Malcolm Todd also sees evidence of Celtic influences.
          >
          > ****GK: What is unclear is whether this influence was direct or
          > mediated. A good case can be made for both scenarios.****
          >
          >
          > The Scythian-Sarmatian influence is evident, especially in
          > pottery, weaponry, domestic objects and personal ornaments.
          >
          > ****GK: That depends on the time frame. There is no such
          > discernible influence in the early phases of the Zar. culture.****
          >
          Dates?

          >
          > The bearers of the culture engaged in agriculture and livestock
          > raising as well as hunting. There is evidence they also traded wild
          > animal skins with Black Sea towns. They practiced cremation
          > burials, with the ashes placed in an urn or pit. Settlements
          > include both open sites and hilltop villages defended by ditches
          > and banks, structures built to defend against nomadic tribes from
          > the steppe.
          >
          > ****GK: Correct.****'
          >
          > How will you prove that no Iranian or otherwise hostile group
          > arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the mid first century BCE?
          >
          > ****GK: If you want to involve Ariovistus it would have to be
          > somewhat earlier?

          That wouls have to be in the beginning of the period 72 - 59 BCE, as far as I can see. That qualifies as mid first century BCE for me.

          > But no matter. I've studied the history of the Z. culture pretty
          > thoroughly. (There is also a lot of relevant stuff in Shchukin for
          > you).(I'm away from my notebooks till July 10 so what follows is
          > from memory). There is no contemporary or near-contemporary
          > evidence of any kind to prove or indicate that an "Iranian or
          > otherwise hostile group arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the
          > mid first century BCE". There is evidence that a series of
          > Sarmatian assaults (probably by the Iazigi) were undertaken against
          > Zarubinian fortresses sometime in the last decades of the 1rst c.
          > BCE (arrowheads,signs of fire etc. The fortresses were later
          > rebuilt).

          Aha. Tweak that by a few decades, and I'm in business.

          > Prior to this, the relationship between Zarubinians and the
          > Scythian complex to the south had been amicable. There are
          > Zarubinian burials in the Scythian Lower Dnipro cities, and
          > Scythian burials in the Zarubinian Middle Dnipro fortresses.

          And then they weren't.


          > After the departure of large Iazigian contingents towards the
          > basin of the Tisza,

          Aha, south to Saxland.

          > amicable relationships were resumed (until a
          > new Aorsan Scythian dynasty embarked on empire building in the
          > mid-1rst c. AD. The Zarubinians do not appear to have been affected
          > by the Getan expansion under Burebista in the mid-1rst c. BCE.)

          > Why would the Iazigi have attacked them?

          ?? You just said they did? And why would Napoleon or Hitler attack anybody? But they did.

          > In the period ca. 150-110 BCE Iazigi and Roxolans had been Scythian
          > vassals. The victory of Mithradates' generals over Palak son of
          > Skilur destroyed this renewed Scythian power.

          When?

          > Scythians, Roxolans, Iazigi, and Bastarnians became autonomous
          > under the King of Pontus' overall suzerainty. They retained this
          > autonomy after the death of Mithradates. The Iazigi (located
          > between Danube and Dnipro) were not well disposed towards
          > Scythians. They had probably collaborated with Burebista (whose
          > destruction of Olbia was a major blow against the economic
          > interests of Scythia). The Zarubinians as old Scythian
          > trading partners were a target.
          > I should add that AFAIK that is also no evidence of any invasion of
          > the Przeworsk area from the East in the mid-1rst c. BCE. ****

          There is a sharp archaeological break (Zäsur) in Przeworsk with a new upper crust with international, Roman grave goods. What traces would Iazigi (= Yass, etc) have left?


          Torsten
        • george knysh
          ... That wouls have to be in the beginning of the period 72 - 59 BCE, as far as I can see. That qualifies as mid first century BCE for me. ... Aha. Tweak that
          Message 4 of 30 , Jun 29, 2009
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- On Mon, 6/29/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:


            >

            > How will you prove that no Iranian or otherwise hostile group

            > arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the mid first century BCE?

            >

            > GK: If you want to involve Ariovistus it would have to be

            > somewhat earlier?



            That wouls have to be in the beginning of the period 72 - 59 BCE, as far as I can see. That qualifies as mid first century BCE for me.



            > But no matter. I've studied the history of the Z. culture pretty

            > thoroughly. (There is also a lot of relevant stuff in Shchukin for

            > you).(I'm away from my notebooks till July 10 so what follows is

            > from memory). There is no contemporary or near-contemporary

            > evidence of any kind to prove or indicate that an "Iranian or

            > otherwise hostile group arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the

            > mid first century BCE". There is evidence that a series of

            > Sarmatian assaults (probably by the Iazigi) were undertaken against

            > Zarubinian fortresses sometime in the last decades of the 1rst c.

            > BCE (arrowheads, signs of fire etc. The fortresses were later

            > rebuilt).



            Aha. Tweak that by a few decades, and I'm in business.

            ****GK: How so? Apart from the war damages there is no record of conquest nor settlement by the steppe nomads in any part of Zarubinia (unlike the situation which developed after the Aorsan assaults in the mid-1rst c AD.)****




            > Prior to this, the relationship between Zarubinians and the

            > Scythian complex to the south had been amicable. There are

            > Zarubinian burials in the Scythian Lower Dnipro cities, and

            > Scythian burials in the Zarubinian Middle Dnipro fortresses.



            And then they weren't.



            > After the departure of large Iazigian contingents towards the

            > basin of the Tisza,



            Aha, south to Saxland.

            ****GK: The Hungarians wouldn't care for that terminology, since the Iazigi moved into the plains of Hungary. The Romans knew them there simply as Sarmats, and fought many wars with them.****



            > amicable relationships were resumed (until a

            > new Aorsan Scythian dynasty embarked on empire building in the

            > mid-1rst c. AD. The Zarubinians do not appear to have been affected

            > by the Getan expansion under Burebista in the mid-1rst c. BCE.)





            > In the period ca. 150-110 BCE Iazigi and Roxolans had been Scythian

            > vassals. The victory of Mithradates' generals over Palak son of

            > Skilur destroyed this renewed Scythian power.



            When?

            ****GK: The dates usually mentioned are <110-106> BCE.****



            > Scythians, Roxolans, Iazigi, and Bastarnians became autonomous

            > under the King of Pontus' overall suzerainty. They retained this

            > autonomy after the death of Mithradates. The Iazigi (located

            > between Danube and Dnipro) were not well disposed towards

            > Scythians. They had probably collaborated with Burebista (whose

            > destruction of Olbia was a major blow against the economic

            > interests of Scythia). The Zarubinians as old Scythian

            > trading partners were a target.

            > I should add that AFAIK that is also no evidence of any invasion of

            > the Przeworsk area from the East in the mid-1rst c. BCE.




            There is a sharp archaeological break (Zäsur) in Przeworsk with a new upper crust with international, Roman grave goods. What traces would Iazigi (= Yass, etc) have left?

            ****GK: The same they left everywhere else esp. their particular burial rites and inventory. Not the Przeworsk stuff. In any case the Iazigi move into Hungart dates from the first decades of the 1rst c. AD.****


            P.S. If you are leaning towards Jastorf as the source of Germanic, that means you are doubting a major element of Snorri's story. Since the rest is even more brittle, what's the point of hanging on to it? (GK)



            Torsten
          • tgpedersen
            ... Nor is there in Snorri s Ynglingasaga, according to which Odin took land in Saxland, no mention of landnam in Gardariki:
            Message 5 of 30 , Jun 29, 2009
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > How will you prove that no Iranian or otherwise hostile group
              > > arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the mid first century BCE?
              > >
              > > GK: If you want to involve Ariovistus it would have to be
              > > somewhat earlier?
              >
              > That would have to be in the beginning of the period 72 - 59 BCE,
              > as far as I can see. That qualifies as mid first century BCE for me.
              >
              > > But no matter. I've studied the history of the Z. culture pretty
              > > thoroughly. (There is also a lot of relevant stuff in Shchukin
              > > for you).(I'm away from my notebooks till July 10 so what follows
              > > is from memory). There is no contemporary or near-contemporary
              > > evidence of any kind to prove or indicate that an "Iranian or
              > > otherwise hostile group arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the
              > > mid first century BCE". There is evidence that a series of
              > > Sarmatian assaults (probably by the Iazigi) were undertaken
              > > against Zarubinian fortresses sometime in the last decades of the
              > > 1rst c. BCE (arrowheads, signs of fire etc. The fortresses were
              > > later rebuilt).
              >
              > Aha. Tweak that by a few decades, and I'm in business.
              >
              > ****GK: How so? Apart from the war damages there is no record of
              > conquest nor settlement by the steppe nomads in any part of
              > Zarubinia (unlike the situation which developed after the Aorsan
              > assaults in the mid-1rst c AD.)****

              Nor is there in Snorri's Ynglingasaga, according to which Odin took
              land in Saxland, no mention of landnam in Gardariki:
              http://www.snerpa.is/net/snorri/yngl-sag.htm
              'Fór hann fyrst vestur í Garðaríki og þá suður í Saxland. Hann átti
              marga sonu. Hann eignaðist ríki víða um Saxland og setti þar sonu
              sína til landsgæslu. Þá fór hann norður til sjávar og tók sér bústað
              í ey einni. Þar heitir nú Óðinsey í Fjóni.'
              Apparently they were repulsed.
              >
              >
              > > Prior to this, the relationship between Zarubinians and the
              > > Scythian complex to the south had been amicable. There are
              > > Zarubinian burials in the Scythian Lower Dnipro cities, and
              > > Scythian burials in the Zarubinian Middle Dnipro fortresses.
              >
              > And then they weren't.
              >
              > > After the departure of large Iazigian contingents towards the
              > > basin of the Tisza,
              >
              > Aha, south to Saxland.
              >
              > ****GK: The Hungarians wouldn't care for that terminology, since
              > the Iazigi moved into the plains of Hungary.

              I don't think Snorri cared much for the feelings of the then
              newly-arrived Hungarians.

              > The Romans knew them
              > there simply as Sarmats, and fought many wars with them.****
              >
              OK.
              >
              > > amicable relationships were resumed (until a
              > > new Aorsan Scythian dynasty embarked on empire building in the
              > > mid-1rst c. AD. The Zarubinians do not appear to have been
              > > affected by the Getan expansion under Burebista in the mid-1rst
              > > c. BCE.)
              >
              >
              > > In the period ca. 150-110 BCE Iazigi and Roxolans had been
              > > Scythian vassals. The victory of Mithradates' generals over Palak
              > > son of Skilur destroyed this renewed Scythian power.
              >
              > When?
              >
              > ****GK: The dates usually mentioned are <110-106> BCE.****

              So the Yasigi would have been free to pursue own goals after that, as
              long as Mithridates held out.

              >
              > > Scythians, Roxolans, Iazigi, and Bastarnians became autonomous
              > > under the King of Pontus' overall suzerainty. They retained this
              > > autonomy after the death of Mithradates. The Iazigi (located
              > > between Danube and Dnipro) were not well disposed towards
              > > Scythians. They had probably collaborated with Burebista (whose
              > > destruction of Olbia was a major blow against the economic
              > > interests of Scythia). The Zarubinians as old Scythian
              > > trading partners were a target.
              > > I should add that AFAIK that is also no evidence of any invasion
              > > of the Przeworsk area from the East in the mid-1rst c. BCE.
              >
              >
              > There is a sharp archaeological break (Zäsur) in Przeworsk with a
              > new upper crust with international, Roman grave goods. What traces
              > would Iazigi (= Yass, etc) have left?
              >
              > ****GK: The same they left everywhere else esp. their particular
              > burial rites and inventory.

              Could you mention a few characteristic features? I have a book on
              Przeworsk archaeology I'd like to cross-reference with.

              > Not the Przeworsk stuff. In any case the Iazigi move into Hungart
              > dates from the first decades of the 1rst c. AD.****

              Or what was left of them.

              >
              > P.S. If you are leaning towards Jastorf as the source of Germanic,
              > that means you are doubting a major element of Snorri's story.

              That must be because you assume that Przeworsk-talk would be
              identical to Jastorf-talk, and that Jastorf-talk was homogenous
              throughout the Jastorf territory. Give the time scale of both
              cultures, and the inevitable changes in their language occuring when
              Jastorfers settled in a foreign environment, both assumptions are
              wrong. Przeworskers arriving in Scandinavia would have spoken a
              tongue immediately incomprehensible to the natives, but learnable.


              > Since the rest is even more brittle, what's the point of hanging on
              > to it? (GK)

              We're getting closer now, aren't we?
              George clings on to his last hope ;-)


              Torsten
            • gknysh@yahoo.com
              ... Nor is there in Snorri s Ynglingasaga, according to which Odin took land in Saxland, no mention of landnam in Gardariki: http://www.snerpa. is/net/snorri/
              Message 6 of 30 , Jun 29, 2009
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                --- On Mon, 6/29/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:


                > > How will you prove that no Iranian or otherwise hostile group

                > > arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the mid first century BCE?

                > >

                > > GK: If you want to involve Ariovistus it would have to be

                > > somewhat earlier?

                >

                > That would have to be in the beginning of the period 72 - 59 BCE,

                > as far as I can see. That qualifies as mid first century BCE for me.

                >

                > > But no matter. I've studied the history of the Z. culture pretty

                > > thoroughly. (There is also a lot of relevant stuff in Shchukin

                > > for you).(I'm away from my notebooks till July 10 so what follows

                > > is from memory). There is no contemporary or near-contemporary

                > > evidence of any kind to prove or indicate that an "Iranian or

                > > otherwise hostile group arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the

                > > mid first century BCE". There is evidence that a series of

                > > Sarmatian assaults (probably by the Iazigi) were undertaken

                > > against Zarubinian fortresses sometime in the last decades of the

                > > 1rst c. BCE (arrowheads, signs of fire etc. The fortresses were

                > > later rebuilt).

                >

                > Aha. Tweak that by a few decades, and I'm in business.

                >

                > GK: How so? Apart from the war damages there is no record of

                > conquest nor settlement by the steppe nomads in any part of

                > Zarubinia (unlike the situation which developed after the Aorsan

                > assaults in the mid-1rst c AD.)



                Nor is there in Snorri's Ynglingasaga, according to which Odin took

                land in Saxland, no mention of landnam in Gardariki:

                http://www.snerpa is/net/snorri/ yngl-sag. htm

                'Fór hann fyrst vestur í Garðaríki og þá suður í Saxland. Hann átti

                marga sonu. Hann eignaðist ríki víða um Saxland og setti þar sonu

                sína til landsgæslu. Þá fór hann norður til sjávar og tók sér bústað

                í ey einni. Þar heitir nú Óðinsey í Fjóni.'

                Apparently they were repulsed.

                ****GK: In your terms they should have "broken through" (^^)****



                > > Prior to this, the relationship between Zarubinians and the

                > > Scythian complex to the south had been amicable. There are

                > > Zarubinian burials in the Scythian Lower Dnipro cities, and

                > > Scythian burials in the Zarubinian Middle Dnipro fortresses.

                >

                > And then they weren't.

                >

                > > After the departure of large Iazigian contingents towards the

                > > basin of the Tisza,

                >

                > Aha, south to Saxland.

                >

                > GK: The Hungarians wouldn't care for that terminology, since

                > the Iazigi moved into the plains of Hungary.



                I don't think Snorri cared much for the feelings of the then

                newly-arrived Hungarians.

                ****GK: You're probably right. But then I don't think he would have used "Saxland" with respect to Hungarian territory in his time.****



                > The Romans knew them

                > there simply as Sarmats, and fought many wars with them.

                >

                OK.

                >

                > > amicable relationships were resumed (until a

                > > new Aorsan Scythian dynasty embarked on empire building in the

                > > mid-1rst c. AD. The Zarubinians do not appear to have been

                > > affected by the Getan expansion under Burebista in the mid-1rst

                > > c. BCE.)

                >

                >

                > > In the period ca. 150-110 BCE Iazigi and Roxolans had been

                > > Scythian vassals. The victory of Mithradates' generals over Palak

                > > son of Skilur destroyed this renewed Scythian power.

                >

                > When?

                >

                > ****GK: The dates usually mentioned are <110-106> BCE.****



                So the Yasigi would have been free to pursue own goals after that, as

                long as Mithridates held out.

                ****GK: But they could do no "S*** disturbing" on their own until 63 BCE****



                >

                > > Scythians, Roxolans, Iazigi, and Bastarnians became autonomous

                > > under the King of Pontus' overall suzerainty. They retained this

                > > autonomy after the death of Mithradates. The Iazigi (located

                > > between Danube and Dnipro) were not well disposed towards

                > > Scythians. They had probably collaborated with Burebista (whose

                > > destruction of Olbia was a major blow against the economic

                > > interests of Scythia). The Zarubinians as old Scythian

                > > trading partners were a target.

                > > I should add that AFAIK that is also no evidence of any invasion

                > > of the Przeworsk area from the East in the mid-1rst c. BCE.

                >

                >

                > There is a sharp archaeological break (Zäsur) in Przeworsk with a

                > new upper crust with international, Roman grave goods. What traces

                > would Iazigi (= Yass, etc) have left?

                >

                > GK: The same they left everywhere else esp. their particular

                > burial rites and inventory.



                Could you mention a few characteristic features? I have a book on

                Przeworsk archaeology I'd like to cross-reference with.

                ****GK: OK. But I won't have access to my books until 10 July.****



                > Not the Przeworsk stuff. In any case the Iazigi move into Hungart

                > dates from the first decades of the 1rst c. AD.



                Or what was left of them.

                ****GK: Actually the bulk of the Yazigi migrated to Hungary, tho' some clans remained behind, with the Roxolans.*****



                >

                > P.S. If you are leaning towards Jastorf as the source of Germanic,

                > that means you are doubting a major element of Snorri's story.



                That must be because you assume that Przeworsk-talk would be

                identical to Jastorf-talk, and that Jastorf-talk was homogenous

                throughout the Jastorf territory. Give the time scale of both

                cultures, and the inevitable changes in their language occuring when

                Jastorfers settled in a foreign environment, both assumptions are

                wrong. Przeworskers arriving in Scandinavia would have spoken a

                tongue immediately incomprehensible to the natives, but learnable.


                ****GK: No what I meant is that since the Yazigi were Iranics, they could not, unlike Snorri's imagined "Asiamen" have been carriers of Germanic. And had they made it to Przeworskia (which of course they didn't) they would have assimilated to the local Germanic speech.****



                > Since the rest is even more brittle, what's the point of hanging on

                > to it? (GK)



                We're getting closer now, aren't we?

                George clings on to his last hope ;-)

                ****GK: Kind George would prefer to have Torsten on board ship ,as an interesting contributor, than needlessly sinking in the Ocean for the sake of phantom ideals. But since George also acknowledges human autonomy he will regretfully let Torsten sink if that is his expressed wish. (:=)).***



                Torsten
              • tgpedersen
                ... Here is an alternative translation: He went first to the Western Gardariki and then to the Southern Saxland . ... It s pretty obvious that you have very
                Message 7 of 30 , Jun 29, 2009
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, gknysh@... wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > > > How will you prove that no Iranian or otherwise hostile group
                  > > > arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the mid first century BCE?
                  > > >
                  > > > GK: If you want to involve Ariovistus it would have to be
                  > > > somewhat earlier?
                  > >
                  > > That would have to be in the beginning of the period 72 - 59 BCE,
                  > > as far as I can see. That qualifies as mid first century BCE for
                  > > me.
                  > >
                  > > > But no matter. I've studied the history of the Z. culture
                  > > > pretty thoroughly. (There is also a lot of relevant stuff in
                  > > > Shchukin for you).(I'm away from my notebooks till July 10 so
                  > > > what follows is from memory). There is no contemporary or
                  > > > near-contemporary evidence of any kind to prove or indicate
                  > > > that an "Iranian or otherwise hostile group arrived in the
                  > > > Zarubinian culture in the mid first century BCE". There is
                  > > > evidence that a series of Sarmatian assaults (probably by the
                  > > > Iazigi) were undertaken against Zarubinian fortresses sometime
                  > > > in the last decades of the 1rst c. BCE (arrowheads, signs of
                  > > > fire etc. The fortresses were later rebuilt).
                  > >
                  > > Aha. Tweak that by a few decades, and I'm in business.
                  > >
                  > > GK: How so? Apart from the war damages there is no record of
                  > > conquest nor settlement by the steppe nomads in any part of
                  > > Zarubinia (unlike the situation which developed after the Aorsan
                  > > assaults in the mid-1rst c AD.)
                  >
                  > Nor is there in Snorri's Ynglingasaga, according to which Odin took
                  > land in Saxland, no mention of landnam in Gardariki:
                  > http://www.snerpa.is/net/snorri/yngl-sag.htm
                  > 'Fór hann fyrst vestur í Garðaríki og þá suður í Saxland. Hann átti
                  > marga sonu. Hann eignaðist ríki víða um Saxland og setti þar sonu
                  > sína til landsgæslu. Þá fór hann norður til sjávar og tók sér
                  > bústað í ey einni. Þar heitir nú Óðinsey í Fjóni.'

                  Here is an alternative translation: 'He went first to the Western
                  Gardariki and then to the Southern Saxland'.
                  >
                  > Apparently they were repulsed.
                  >
                  > ****GK: In your terms they should have "broken through" (^^)****
                  >
                  It's pretty obvious that you have very strong convictions what my
                  terms must be, and that you don't have a clue.
                  >
                  > > > Prior to this, the relationship between Zarubinians and the
                  > > > Scythian complex to the south had been amicable. There are
                  > > > Zarubinian burials in the Scythian Lower Dnipro cities, and
                  > > > Scythian burials in the Zarubinian Middle Dnipro fortresses.
                  > >
                  > > And then they weren't.
                  > >
                  > > > After the departure of large Iazigian contingents towards the
                  > > > basin of the Tisza,
                  > >
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tisza

                  > > Aha, south to Saxland.
                  > >
                  > > GK: The Hungarians wouldn't care for that terminology, since
                  > > the Iazigi moved into the plains of Hungary.

                  Somewhere on the course of Tisza.

                  > I don't think Snorri cared much for the feelings of the then
                  > newly-arrived Hungarians.
                  >
                  > ****GK: You're probably right. But then I don't think he would have
                  > used "Saxland" with respect to Hungarian territory in his time.****
                  >

                  Could you explain to me what route they took in order to avoid
                  infringing upon the territorial integrity of Przeworskia/Saxland?
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Przeworsk2.PNG

                  > > The Romans knew them there simply as Sarmats, and fought many
                  > > wars with them.
                  > >
                  > OK.
                  > >
                  > > > amicable relationships were resumed (until a
                  > > > new Aorsan Scythian dynasty embarked on empire building in the
                  > > > mid-1rst c. AD. The Zarubinians do not appear to have been
                  > > > affected by the Getan expansion under Burebista in the mid-1rst
                  > > > c. BCE.)
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > In the period ca. 150-110 BCE Iazigi and Roxolans had been
                  > > > Scythian vassals. The victory of Mithradates' generals over
                  > > > Palak son of Skilur destroyed this renewed Scythian power.
                  > >
                  > > When?
                  > >
                  > > ****GK: The dates usually mentioned are <110-106> BCE.****
                  >
                  > So the Yasigi would have been free to pursue own goals after that,
                  > as long as Mithridates held out.
                  >
                  > ****GK: But they could do no "S*** disturbing" on their own until
                  > 63 BCE****

                  That means that in the interval 72 - 63 BCE, Ariovistus must have
                  campaigned as a general under Mithridates.

                  > >
                  > > > Scythians, Roxolans, Iazigi, and Bastarnians became autonomous
                  > > > under the King of Pontus' overall suzerainty. They retained
                  > > > this autonomy after the death of Mithradates. The Iazigi
                  > > > (located between Danube and Dnipro) were not well disposed
                  > > > towards Scythians. They had probably collaborated with
                  > > > Burebista (whose destruction of Olbia was a major blow against
                  > > > the economic interests of Scythia).

                  An aspiring Ariovistus would have had interesting things to learn
                  from the Dacians on how to run a cause/crusade as a warrior priest.

                  > > > The Zarubinians as old Scythian trading partners were a target.
                  > > > I should add that AFAIK that is also no evidence of any
                  > > > invasion of the Przeworsk area from the East in the mid-1rst c.
                  > > > BCE.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > There is a sharp archaeological break (Zäsur) in Przeworsk with a
                  > > new upper crust with international, Roman grave goods. What
                  > > traces would Iazigi (= Yass, etc) have left?
                  > >
                  > > GK: The same they left everywhere else esp. their particular
                  > > burial rites and inventory.

                  Horsey stuff?
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przeworsk_culture#Features

                  > Could you mention a few characteristic features? I have a book on
                  > Przeworsk archaeology I'd like to cross-reference with.
                  >
                  > ****GK: OK. But I won't have access to my books until 10 July.****
                  >
                  ...
                  >
                  > > P.S. If you are leaning towards Jastorf as the source of
                  > > Germanic, that means you are doubting a major element of Snorri's
                  > > story.
                  >
                  > That must be because you assume that Przeworsk-talk would be
                  > identical to Jastorf-talk, and that Jastorf-talk was homogenous
                  > throughout the Jastorf territory. Give the time scale of both
                  > cultures, and the inevitable changes in their language occuring
                  > when Jastorfers settled in a foreign environment, both assumptions
                  > are wrong. Przeworskers arriving in Scandinavia would have spoken a
                  > tongue immediately incomprehensible to the natives, but learnable.
                  >
                  > ****GK: No what I meant is that since the Yazigi were Iranics, they
                  > could not, unlike Snorri's imagined "Asiamen" have been carriers of
                  > Germanic.

                  True that. But since eg. Avestan has generalized sprirantization of
                  stops before other consonants (eg. -xt- for -kt-, -ft- for -pt-) I
                  suspect Iranian speech habits, carried to the extreme, might be
                  responsible for Grimm's law in Germanic.

                  > And had they made it to Przeworskia (which of course they didn't)
                  Would you take a look at the map again?

                  > they would have assimilated to the local Germanic speech.****

                  Yes, and that unique language became the language of the Asiamen and
                  was then spread by Ariovistus and later conquerors to the rest of the
                  later Germania. Snorri had no way of knowing that.

                  > > Since the rest is even more brittle, what's the point of hanging
                  > > on to it? (GK)
                  >
                  > We're getting closer now, aren't we?
                  > George clings on to his last hope ;-)
                  >
                  > ****GK: Kind George would prefer to have Torsten on board ship ,as
                  > an interesting contributor, than needlessly sinking in the Ocean
                  > for the sake of phantom ideals. But since George also acknowledges
                  > human autonomy

                  How many postings is it ago you wanted me shut up?

                  > he will regretfully let Torsten sink if that is his expressed wish.
                  > (:=)).***

                  Sail on, Cap'n Smith. I think I'll stay on my iceberg.


                  Torsten
                • gknysh@yahoo.com
                  ... How will you prove that no Iranian or otherwise hostile group ... (GK) There is no contemporary or ... http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Tisza ... Somewhere
                  Message 8 of 30 , Jun 29, 2009
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- On Mon, 6/29/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

                    How will you prove that no Iranian or otherwise hostile group

                    > > > arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the mid first century BCE?


                    (GK) There is no contemporary or

                    > > > near-contemporary evidence of any kind to prove or indicate

                    > > > that an "Iranian or otherwise hostile group arrived in the

                    > > > Zarubinian culture in the mid first century BCE". There is

                    > > > evidence that a series of Sarmatian assaults (probably by the

                    > > > Iazigi) were undertaken against Zarubinian fortresses sometime

                    > > > in the last decades of the 1rst c. BCE (arrowheads, signs of

                    > > > fire etc. The fortresses were later rebuilt).

                    > >

                    > > Aha. Tweak that by a few decades, and I'm in business.

                    > >

                    > > GK: How so? Apart from the war damages there is no record of

                    > > conquest nor settlement by the steppe nomads in any part of

                    > > Zarubinia (unlike the situation which developed after the Aorsan

                    > > assaults in the mid-1rst c AD.)

                    >

                    > Nor is there in Snorri's Ynglingasaga, according to which Odin took

                    > land in Saxland, no mention of landnam in Gardariki:


                    > Apparently they were repulsed.

                    ****GK: Again: Saxland northern or southern did not include the steppes of the Tysza basin in Snorri's time. There are sources on Icelandic medieval geography you could consult.*****


                    >

                    > > > Prior to this, the relationship between Zarubinians and the

                    > > > Scythian complex to the south had been amicable. There are

                    > > > Zarubinian burials in the Scythian Lower Dnipro cities, and

                    > > > Scythian burials in the Zarubinian Middle Dnipro fortresses.

                    > >

                    > > And then they weren't.

                    > >

                    > > > After the departure of large Iazigian contingents towards the

                    > > > basin of the Tisza,

                    > >

                    http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Tisza



                    > > Aha, south to Saxland.

                    > >

                    > > GK: The Hungarians wouldn't care for that terminology, since

                    > > the Iazigi moved into the plains of Hungary.



                    Somewhere on the course of Tisza.

                    ****GK: They were nomads. They occupied the Alfold primarily. And they chased out most of the Dacian inhabitants thereof (acc. to Pliny).****



                    > I don't think Snorri cared much for the feelings of the then

                    > newly-arrived Hungarians.

                    >

                    > GK: You're probably right. But then I don't think he would have

                    > used "Saxland" with respect to Hungarian territory in his time.

                    >



                    Could you explain to me what route they took in order to avoid

                    infringing upon the territorial integrity of Przeworskia/ Saxland?

                    http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ File:Przeworsk2. PNG


                    ****GK: Along the north shore of the Danube, then across the mountains into the Hungarian plain. The same route later taken by the Roxolans and the remaining Yazigi. The same "contact" route the Romans guaranteed to the Roxolans after their conquest of Dacia.****



                    > > The Romans knew them there simply as Sarmats, and fought many

                    > > wars with them.

                    > >

                    > OK.

                    > >

                    > > > amicable relationships were resumed (until a

                    > > > new Aorsan Scythian dynasty embarked on empire building in the

                    > > > mid-1rst c. AD. The Zarubinians do not appear to have been

                    > > > affected by the Getan expansion under Burebista in the mid-1rst

                    > > > c. BCE.)

                    > >

                    > >

                    > > > In the period ca. 150-110 BCE Iazigi and Roxolans had been

                    > > > Scythian vassals. The victory of Mithradates' generals over

                    > > > Palak son of Skilur destroyed this renewed Scythian power.

                    > >

                    > > When?

                    > >

                    > > GK: The dates usually mentioned are <110-106> BCE.

                    >

                    > So the Yasigi would have been free to pursue own goals after that,

                    > as long as Mithridates held out.

                    >

                    > GK: But they could do no "S*** disturbing" on their own until

                    > 63 BCE



                    That means that in the interval 72 - 63 BCE, Ariovistus must have

                    campaigned as a general under Mithridates.

                    ****GK: Out of the blue... Like an attack of epilepsy...What in the world does Ariovistus have to do with the Yazigi??





                    > >

                    > > > Scythians, Roxolans, Iazigi, and Bastarnians became autonomous

                    > > > under the King of Pontus' overall suzerainty. They retained

                    > > > this autonomy after the death of Mithradates. The Iazigi

                    > > > (located between Danube and Dnipro) were not well disposed

                    > > > towards Scythians. They had probably collaborated with

                    > > > Burebista (whose destruction of Olbia was a major blow against

                    > > > the economic interests of Scythia).



                    An aspiring Ariovistus would have had interesting things to learn

                    from the Dacians on how to run a cause/crusade as a warrior priest.






                    > > > The Zarubinians as old Scythian trading partners were a target.

                    > > > I should add that AFAIK that is also no evidence of any

                    > > > invasion of the Przeworsk area from the East in the mid-1rst c.

                    > > > BCE.

                    > >

                    > >

                    > > There is a sharp archaeological break (Zäsur) in Przeworsk with a

                    > > new upper crust with international, Roman grave goods. What

                    > > traces would Iazigi (= Yass, etc) have left?

                    > >

                    > > GK: The same they left everywhere else esp. their particular

                    > > burial rites and inventory.



                    Horsey stuff?

                    http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Przeworsk_ culture#Features



                    > Could you mention a few characteristic features? I have a book on

                    > Przeworsk archaeology I'd like to cross-reference with.

                    >

                    > GK: OK. But I won't have access to my books until 10 July.

                    >

                    ...

                    >

                    > > P.S. If you are leaning towards Jastorf as the source of

                    > > Germanic, that means you are doubting a major element of Snorri's

                    > > story.

                    >

                    > That must be because you assume that Przeworsk-talk would be

                    > identical to Jastorf-talk, and that Jastorf-talk was homogenous

                    > throughout the Jastorf territory. Give the time scale of both

                    > cultures, and the inevitable changes in their language occuring

                    > when Jastorfers settled in a foreign environment, both assumptions

                    > are wrong. Przeworskers arriving in Scandinavia would have spoken a

                    > tongue immediately incomprehensible to the natives, but learnable.

                    >

                    > GK: No what I meant is that since the Yazigi were Iranics, they

                    > could not, unlike Snorri's imagined "Asiamen" have been carriers of

                    > Germanic.



                    True that. But since eg. Avestan has generalized sprirantization of

                    stops before other consonants (eg. -xt- for -kt-, -ft- for -pt-) I

                    suspect Iranian speech habits, carried to the extreme, might be

                    responsible for Grimm's law in Germanic.


                    ****GK: Is this your great discovery? That Germanic was changed by the speech habits of Yazigs migrating into the area of the Przeworsk culture in 63 BCE? One problem is that we have no record of such an invasion. I'll leave it to the linguists (if they have patience) to opine on the possibility in linguistic terms. Historically and archaeologically there is no case.****



                    > And had they made it to Przeworskia (which of course they didn't)

                    Would you take a look at the map again?

                    ****GK: ???? *****



                    > they would have assimilated to the local Germanic speech.



                    Yes, and that unique language became the language of the Asiamen and

                    was then spread by Ariovistus and later conquerors to the rest of the

                    later Germania. Snorri had no way of knowing that.


                    ****GK: Sounds like pure delirium to me... Let's see: Yazigs arrive in Przeworskia in 63 BCE, led by Ariovistus. They become Suebians or whatever, just like that (in De Bello Gallico Ariovistus notes that his men had been without a roof over their heads (or something like that) for fourteen years... (acc. to Torsten: 9 years as Yazigs fighting for Mithradates, 4 years as Suebians). They not only change their linguistic habits instantly, but also their cultural and military habits en masse (no one would even guess that the core of Ariovistus' army was composed of Yazig horsemen...).
                    Meanwhile Ariovistus learns Gallic (excellently, no switcheroos there). The catalogue of impossible idiocies is unending it seems...****






                    Sail on, Cap'n Smith. I think I'll stay on my iceberg.

                    ****GK: Are you sure the iceberg is still there? (:=)))Maybe it's experienced a grim shift...****
                  • tgpedersen
                    ... You do know that the Sarmatians are considered to be Iranian-speakers, or? ... Snorri was talking about events preceding his own by more than a millenium.
                    Message 9 of 30 , Jul 1, 2009
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, gknysh@... wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > > > How will you prove that no Iranian or otherwise hostile group
                      > > > > arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the mid first century
                      > > > > BCE?
                      >
                      >
                      > (GK) There is no contemporary or
                      > > > > near-contemporary evidence of any kind to prove or indicate
                      > > > > that an "Iranian or otherwise hostile group arrived in the
                      > > > > Zarubinian culture in the mid first century BCE". There is
                      > > > > evidence that a series of Sarmatian assaults (probably by the
                      > > > > Iazigi) were undertaken against Zarubinian fortresses
                      > > > > sometime in the last decades of the 1rst c. BCE (arrowheads,
                      > > > > signs of fire etc. The fortresses were later rebuilt).
                      > > > >
                      > > > Aha. Tweak that by a few decades, and I'm in business.

                      You do know that the Sarmatians are considered to be
                      Iranian-speakers, or?
                      > > >
                      > > > GK: How so? Apart from the war damages there is no record of
                      > > > conquest nor settlement by the steppe nomads in any part of
                      > > > Zarubinia (unlike the situation which developed after the
                      > > > Aorsan assaults in the mid-1rst c AD.)
                      > >
                      > > Nor is there in Snorri's Ynglingasaga, according to which Odin
                      > > took land in Saxland, no mention of landnam in Gardariki:
                      >
                      > > Apparently they were repulsed.
                      >
                      > ****GK: Again: Saxland northern or southern did not include the
                      > steppes of the Tysza basin in Snorri's time. There are sources on
                      > Icelandic medieval geography you could consult.*****
                      > >
                      Snorri was talking about events preceding his own by more than a
                      millenium. 'Saxland' would have had the territory the predecessors of
                      the inhabitants of Saxland in Snorri's time possessed, whichever way
                      the predecessors were defined.
                      The basic difference of our views on Snorri as a historian here is
                      that I think he is drawing on native trasditions, and you think he
                      doesn't have a clue and made it all up.


                      > > > > Prior to this, the relationship between Zarubinians and the
                      > > > > Scythian complex to the south had been amicable. There are
                      > > > > Zarubinian burials in the Scythian Lower Dnipro cities, and
                      > > > > Scythian burials in the Zarubinian Middle Dnipro fortresses.
                      > > >
                      > > > And then they weren't.
                      > > >
                      > > > > After the departure of large Iazigian contingents towards the
                      > > > > basin of the Tisza,
                      > > >
                      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tisza
                      >
                      > > > Aha, south to Saxland.
                      > > >
                      > > > GK: The Hungarians wouldn't care for that terminology, since
                      > > > the Iazigi moved into the plains of Hungary.
                      >
                      > Somewhere on the course of Tisza.
                      >
                      > ****GK: They were nomads. They occupied the Alfold primarily. And
                      > they chased out most of the Dacian inhabitants thereof (acc. to
                      > Pliny).****
                      >

                      > > I don't think Snorri cared much for the feelings of the then
                      > > newly-arrived Hungarians.
                      > >
                      > > GK: You're probably right. But then I don't think he would have
                      > > used "Saxland" with respect to Hungarian territory in his time.
                      > >

                      How about Ruthenia then?

                      >
                      > Could you explain to me what route they took in order to avoid
                      > infringing upon the territorial integrity of Przeworskia/ Saxland?
                      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Przeworsk2.PNG
                      >
                      > ****GK: Along the north shore of the Danube, then across the
                      > mountains into the Hungarian plain. The same route later taken by
                      > the Roxolans and the remaining Yazigi. The same "contact" route the
                      > Romans guaranteed to the Roxolans after their conquest of Dacia.****
                      >
                      > > > The Romans knew them there simply as Sarmats, and fought many
                      > > > wars with them.
                      > > >
                      > > OK.
                      > > >
                      > > > > amicable relationships were resumed (until a
                      > > > > new Aorsan Scythian dynasty embarked on empire building in
                      > > > > the mid-1rst c. AD. The Zarubinians do not appear to have
                      > > > > been affected by the Getan expansion under Burebista in the
                      > > > > mid-1rst c. BCE.)
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > > In the period ca. 150-110 BCE Iazigi and Roxolans had been
                      > > > > Scythian vassals. The victory of Mithradates' generals over
                      > > > > Palak son of Skilur destroyed this renewed Scythian power.
                      > > >
                      > > > When?
                      > > >
                      > > > GK: The dates usually mentioned are <110-106> BCE.
                      > >
                      > > So the Yasigi would have been free to pursue own goals after
                      > > that, as long as Mithridates held out.
                      > >
                      > > GK: But they could do no "S*** disturbing" on their own until
                      > > 63 BCE
                      >
                      > That means that in the interval 72 - 63 BCE, Ariovistus must have
                      > campaigned as a general under Mithridates.
                      >
                      > ****GK: Out of the blue... Like an attack of epilepsy...

                      Even your considerable powers of self-deception were not sufficient
                      to incorporate this statement continuing my usual scenario into your
                      conviction that Torsten had submitted, which shock you experience as
                      a fit of epilepsy and then blame it on me.

                      > What in the world does Ariovistus have to do with the Yazigi??

                      OK.
                      >
                      > > >
                      > > > > Scythians, Roxolans, Iazigi, and Bastarnians became
                      > > > > autonomous under the King of Pontus' overall suzerainty. They
                      > > > > retained this autonomy after the death of Mithradates. The
                      > > > > Iazigi (located between Danube and Dnipro) were not well
                      > > > > disposed towards Scythians. They had probably collaborated
                      > > > > with Burebista (whose destruction of Olbia was a major blow
                      > > > > against the economic interests of Scythia).
                      >
                      > An aspiring Ariovistus would have had interesting things to learn
                      > from the Dacians on how to run a cause/crusade as a warrior priest.
                      >
                      > > > > The Zarubinians as old Scythian trading partners were a
                      > > > > target.
                      > > > > I should add that AFAIK that is also no evidence of any
                      > > > > invasion of the Przeworsk area from the East in the mid-1rst
                      > > > > c. BCE.
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > There is a sharp archaeological break (Zäsur) in Przeworsk with
                      > > > a new upper crust with international, Roman grave goods. What
                      > > > traces would Iazigi (= Yass, etc) have left?
                      > > >
                      > > > GK: The same they left everywhere else esp. their particular
                      > > > burial rites and inventory.
                      >
                      > Horsey stuff?
                      >
                      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przeworsk_culture#Features
                      >
                      >
                      > > Could you mention a few characteristic features? I have a book on
                      > > Przeworsk archaeology I'd like to cross-reference with.
                      > >
                      > > GK: OK. But I won't have access to my books until 10 July.
                      > >
                      Thank you.

                      > ...
                      > >
                      > > > P.S. If you are leaning towards Jastorf as the source of
                      > > > Germanic, that means you are doubting a major element of
                      > > > Snorri's story.
                      > >
                      > > That must be because you assume that Przeworsk-talk would be
                      > > identical to Jastorf-talk, and that Jastorf-talk was homogenous
                      > > throughout the Jastorf territory. Give the time scale of both
                      > > cultures, and the inevitable changes in their language occuring
                      > > when Jastorfers settled in a foreign environment, both
                      > > assumptions are wrong. Przeworskers arriving in Scandinavia would
                      > > have spoken a tongue immediately incomprehensible to the natives,
                      > > but learnable.
                      > >
                      > > GK: No what I meant is that since the Yazigi were Iranics, they
                      > > could not, unlike Snorri's imagined "Asiamen" have been carriers
                      > > of Germanic.
                      >
                      > True that. But since eg. Avestan has generalized sprirantization of
                      > stops before other consonants (eg. -xt- for -kt-, -ft- for -pt-) I
                      > suspect Iranian speech habits, carried to the extreme, might be
                      > responsible for Grimm's law in Germanic.
                      >
                      > ****GK: Is this your great discovery? That Germanic was changed by
                      > the speech habits of Yazigs migrating into the area of the
                      > Przeworsk culture in 63 BCE? One problem is that we have no record
                      > of such an invasion.

                      The sources I have seen have absolutely no explanation for the sudden
                      genesis (in their opinion) of this new upper crust with a wealth that
                      contrasts sharply with rest of the population, both before and after
                      its 'genesis'.

                      > I'll leave it to the linguists (if they have patience) to opine on
                      > the possibility in linguistic terms. Historically and
                      > archaeologically there is no case.****

                      Let's discuss that after the 7/10.

                      >
                      > > And had they made it to Przeworskia (which of course they didn't)
                      > Would you take a look at the map again?
                      >
                      > ****GK: ???? *****
                      >
                      > > they would have assimilated to the local Germanic speech.
                      >
                      > Yes, and that unique language became the language of the Asiamen
                      > and was then spread by Ariovistus and later conquerors to the rest
                      > of the later Germania. Snorri had no way of knowing that.
                      >
                      >
                      > ****GK: Sounds like pure delirium to me... Let's see: Yazigs arrive
                      > in Przeworskia in 63 BCE, led by Ariovistus. They become Suebians
                      > or whatever, just like that (in De Bello Gallico Ariovistus notes
                      > that his men had been without a roof over their heads (or something
                      > like that) for fourteen years... (acc. to Torsten: 9 years as
                      > Yazigs fighting for Mithradates, 4 years as Suebians).

                      The 63 BCE date was to accommodate your idea that the various nomadic
                      nations could not have acted on their own before Mithridates' death.
                      But his power was weakened several years before that. He would not
                      have had the means then to ensure their compliance.

                      > They not only change their linguistic habits instantly, but also
                      > their cultural and military habits en masse (no one would even
                      > guess that the core of Ariovistus' army was composed of Yazig
                      > horsemen...).

                      Tsk, tsk. As you may recall, Ariovistus army was founded on the
                      principle of pairs consisting of a foot soldier and a mounted
                      warrior. It would be the ideal means to ensure the integration
                      between Iranian-speaking cavalry and Germanic-speaking infanrty.


                      > Meanwhile Ariovistus learns Gallic (excellently, no switcheroos
                      > there).

                      No, he learned that in Gaul.

                      > The catalogue of impossible idiocies is unending it seems...****

                      Did you just call Caesar an idiot?

                      >
                      > Sail on, Cap'n Smith. I think I'll stay on my iceberg.
                      >
                      > ****GK: Are you sure the iceberg is still there? (:=)))Maybe it's
                      > experienced a grim shift...****

                      Rather fight for your life on your own iceberg than drown like a
                      mouse in someone else's third class.


                      Torsten


                      BTW and could please clean up the double-lining in your postings?
                    • gknysh@yahoo.com
                      ... Snorri was talking about events preceding his own by more than a millenium. Saxland would have had the territory the predecessors of the inhabitants of
                      Message 10 of 30 , Jul 1, 2009
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- On Wed, 7/1/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:


                        > GK: Again: Saxland northern or southern did not include the

                        > steppes of the Tysza basin in Snorri's time. There are sources on

                        > Icelandic medieval geography you could consult.

                        > >

                        Snorri was talking about events preceding his own by more than a

                        millenium. 'Saxland' would have had the territory the predecessors of

                        the inhabitants of Saxland in Snorri's time possessed, whichever way

                        the predecessors were defined.


                        ****GK: I'm afraid not. You are totally confused (Snorrism will do that to you). Anatolia was "Tyrkland" to him because that's what it was in the 12th/13th c. Ditto "Gardariki" (in Scandinavian terms). Again, I urge you to consult works on medieval Icelandic geography. At least browse through Pritsak's "Origin of Rus": there are many refernces there for further study.****

                        The basic difference of our views on Snorri as a historian here is

                        that I think he is drawing on native trasditions, and you think he

                        doesn't have a clue and made it all up.

                        ****GK: Snorri was certainly working on the basis (partly) of relatively recent Viking traditions (Gardariki, Tanakvisl, Vanaland et sim.) But his euhemerizing manipulations thereof are his own (unless some recent predecessor had already done this) We've been here before. Snorri's inventions do not fit the facts of the time he is allegedly describing. Wise investigators have seen this for a very long time. It seems you never will.*****
                      • tgpedersen
                        ... I assume you re you feel you are being lenient and that confused is one of the lower grades of disagreeing-with-George-ness which ends in heretic who
                        Message 11 of 30 , Jul 1, 2009
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, gknysh@... wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > --- On Wed, 7/1/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > > GK: Again: Saxland northern or southern did not include the
                          > > steppes of the Tysza basin in Snorri's time. There are sources on
                          > > Icelandic medieval geography you could consult.
                          > > >
                          > Snorri was talking about events preceding his own by more than a
                          > millenium. 'Saxland' would have had the territory the predecessors
                          > of the inhabitants of Saxland in Snorri's time possessed, whichever
                          > way the predecessors were defined.
                          >
                          >
                          > ****GK: I'm afraid not. You are totally confused (Snorrism will do
                          > that to you).

                          I assume you're you feel you are being lenient and that 'confused' is one of the lower grades of disagreeing-with-George-ness which ends in 'heretic who must be taken care of'?

                          > Anatolia was "Tyrkland" to him because that's what it was in the
                          > 12th/13th c. Ditto "Gardariki" (in Scandinavian terms). Again, I
                          > urge you to consult works on medieval Icelandic geography. At least
                          > browse through Pritsak's "Origin of Rus": there are many refernces
                          > there for further study.****
                          >
                          That still doesn't change the fact that if he is drawing on native traditions those would refer to countries with the extent they had at the time which the events took place.

                          > The basic difference of our views on Snorri as a historian here is
                          > that I think he is drawing on native trasditions, and you think he
                          > doesn't have a clue and made it all up.
                          >
                          > ****GK: Snorri was certainly working on the basis (partly) of
                          > relatively recent Viking traditions (Gardariki, Tanakvisl, Vanaland
                          > et sim.) But his euhemerizing manipulations thereof are his own
                          > (unless some recent predecessor had already done this) We've been
                          > here before. Snorri's inventions do not fit the facts of the time
                          > he is allegedly describing.

                          Yes, that is what you have been claiming all the time. That doesn't make it true. So far we can point to possible archeological analogs for the trip from Tanais to Zarubinia, and from Przeworsk to Alsace. Now I just need to connect the dots between Z. and P.


                          > Wise investigators have seen this for a very long time. It seems
                          > you never will.*****

                          It seems they weren't so wise after all.




                          Torsten
                        • gknysh
                          ... ****GK: Not to a Snorrist, since Snorri is his Bible. How can anything interfere with that? You are a true believer, and absolutely nothing will ever sway
                          Message 12 of 30 , Jul 1, 2009
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, gknysh@ wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > --- On Wed, 7/1/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > > GK: Again: Saxland northern or southern did not include the
                            > > > steppes of the Tysza basin in Snorri's time. There are sources on
                            > > > Icelandic medieval geography you could consult.
                            > > > >
                            > > Snorri was talking about events preceding his own by more than a
                            > > millenium. 'Saxland' would have had the territory the predecessors
                            > > of the inhabitants of Saxland in Snorri's time possessed, whichever
                            > > way the predecessors were defined.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > GK: I'm afraid not. You are totally confused (Snorrism will do
                            > > that to you).
                            >
                            > I assume you're you feel you are being lenient and that 'confused' is one of the lower grades of disagreeing-with-George-ness which ends in 'heretic who must be taken care of'?

                            ****GK: I said you are totally confused. I meant that you are totally confused. Is that so hard to understand? *****
                            >
                            > > Anatolia was "Tyrkland" to him because that's what it was in the
                            > > 12th/13th c. Ditto "Gardariki" (in Scandinavian terms). Again, I
                            > > urge you to consult works on medieval Icelandic geography. At least
                            > > browse through Pritsak's "Origin of Rus": there are many refernces
                            > > there for further study.
                            > >
                            > That still doesn't change the fact that if he is drawing on native traditions those would refer to countries with the extent they had at the time which the events took place.

                            ****GK: Explain why Hungary is "Saxland" according to "native tradition". Are you suggesting that Icelandic geography in Snorri's time did not reflect that?****
                            >
                            > > The basic difference of our views on Snorri as a historian here is
                            > > that I think he is drawing on native trasditions, and you think he
                            > > doesn't have a clue and made it all up.
                            > >
                            > > GK: Snorri was certainly working on the basis (partly) of
                            > > relatively recent Viking traditions (Gardariki, Tanakvisl, Vanaland
                            > > et sim.) But his euhemerizing manipulations thereof are his own
                            > > (unless some recent predecessor had already done this) We've been
                            > > here before. Snorri's inventions do not fit the facts of the time
                            > > he is allegedly describing.
                            >
                            > Yes, that is what you have been claiming all the time. That doesn't make it true.

                            ****GK: Not to a Snorrist, since Snorri is his Bible. How can anything interfere with that? You are a true believer, and absolutely nothing will ever sway you away from your ideological committment. You've even reached the point of massive geographical redefinitions, and seem oblivious to the wonderful ridiculousness of your claim. And its blatant self-contradictions.*****

                            So far we can point to possible archeological analogs for the trip from Tanais to Zarubinia,

                            ****GK: I must have missed that.****

                            and from Przeworsk to Alsace. Now I just need to connect the dots between Z. and P.

                            ****GK: Since you've nothing in Zarubinia which supports the Snorri scenario your dot connecting is another instance of your irremediable fantasy.****
                            >
                            >
                            > > Wise investigators have seen this for a very long time. It seems
                            > > you never will.
                            >
                            > It seems they weren't so wise after all.

                            ****GK: Snorri is great and Torsten is his prophet.****
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • neckfil
                            The Sarmatians are an intriguing ethnicity. The Romans are known to hire, as mercenaries, nomadic skilful fighters from the east, sometime around 0 AD. These
                            Message 13 of 30 , Jul 3, 2009
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              The Sarmatians are an intriguing ethnicity. The Romans are known to hire, as mercenaries, nomadic skilful fighters from the east, sometime around 0 AD. These people then settled between Hungary and Poland, with military ties to the Roman Empire. The name pop ups in England, where the Romans used the Sarmatians to fight Gallic tribes. Before that, the Romans had been exploring northern coast of the black sea, where they stumbled upon nomadic people, fought against them, and, being impressed by their fighting skills, brought them to Europe. With time, the Sarmatians, who thanks to having been in alliance with the Romans, reinforced their new country in Eastern Europe, gained a good geopolitical knowledge; much better than that of surrounding them tribes, and created an independent mostly military nation. Meantime, the alliance with the empire had been broken. Now, there is no convincing evidence of the language spoken in this new kingdom, but someone was responsible for spreading Slavic languages across EE, and, for me, the Sarmatians are a good candidate, the more so that there is no other in view.
                            • tgpedersen
                              ... If the search function had functioned properly, I could have asked you to search vang , wang , vakh in the archives for an old discussion of the
                              Message 14 of 30 , Jul 5, 2009
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "neckfil" <neckfil@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > The Sarmatians are an intriguing ethnicity. The Romans are known to
                                > hire, as mercenaries, nomadic skilful fighters from the east,
                                > sometime around 0 AD.

                                If the search function had functioned properly, I could have asked you to search 'vang', 'wang', 'vakh' in the archives for an old discussion of the possible eastern provenance of the Vangiones
                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vangiones
                                But it doesn't. I would like to use the opportunity to once again draw the attention of the moderators to the possiblity of getting this fixed.

                                > These people then settled between Hungary and
                                > Poland, with military ties to the Roman Empire. The name pop ups in
                                > England, where the Romans used the Sarmatians to fight Gallic
                                > tribes. Before that, the Romans had been exploring northern coast
                                > of the black sea, where they stumbled upon nomadic people, fought
                                > against them, and, being impressed by their fighting skills,
                                > brought them to Europe. With time, the Sarmatians, who thanks to
                                > having been in alliance with the Romans, reinforced their new
                                > country in Eastern Europe, gained a good geopolitical knowledge;
                                > much better than that of surrounding them tribes, and created an
                                > independent mostly military nation. Meantime, the alliance with the
                                > empire had been broken. Now, there is no convincing evidence of the
                                > language spoken in this new kingdom, but someone was responsible
                                > for spreading Slavic languages across EE, and, for me, the
                                > Sarmatians are a good candidate, the more so that there is no other
                                > in view.
                                >

                                More likely they established some symbiotic relationship with the Slavs, permitting the Slavs to move into the lands the Sarmatians had occupied.


                                Torsten
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.