Gotvandi (Dezfuli), Guti and Gothic

That is a hint for this topic and other related topic (Specifically for Cyrus, so plz do not get offended) 

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Science and skills are not tradable, you yourself said that the Swedish text says they were originally invented in Luristan, not imported from Luristan, didn't you? Gotlanders couldn't read Gutians' mind by looking at their inventions.

You can't believe this even yourself. Of course science and skills are tradeable. I'm not commenting it further, you cannot possibly have thought this through before you wrote it.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri I think Suren gave the best reply to all posts in this thread, as I have found the most important thing is that you never say Gutians put their feet on the holy land of Gotland (white Europeans), ok, I don't say it because no one is offended but if our European friends don't change their sayings, according to what King John said:   Originally posted by King John As far as I can tell it is not talking about migrating populations but rather about the spread and diffusion of culture and goods.   It can be concluded that the Gutian culture spread from the land of Gutians (Luristan) to Gotland and Gutians themselves didn't migrate to Gotland, we all know that language is a cultural identity.

It can also be concluded from the Swedish excerpt you posted and I translated that the goods made their way to Gotland and the Mälar Valley via the Hallstatt Culture.  What language are you talking about?  Can we please not go through another one of your Germanic Languages are a branch of the Iranic Languages discussions?  You have already been proven wrong in that thread and it was something like 70 or so pages; let's not rehash that here.  Your argument is predicated on the idea that the Gutians are the ancestors of the Goths via human migration, are you admitting that that idea is wrong?

P.S. Cyrus, are you going to respond to my points starting at the end of page 2?  You have replied to a couple of my posts but your replies have not been (for the most part) to any point I made or question I asked.

Edited by King John - 20-May-2009 at 15:56

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Would you please ignore what I myself said and read the books that I suggested? For example you can find several proves of the identity of the Guti with the Goths in this book that I mentioned, this 736 page book (Published by Kessinger Publishing, 2004) just almost talks about this thing, another interesting proof in this book:

You have posted this once already and I believe I responded then.  I've read the book and it seems to me that the only real proof that the book relies on is something from 1911.  Should we also ignore that the supposed homeland of the Goths (Gotland) was already inhabited by 3100 BC?  Maybe the Gutians came south from Gotland and not north to Gotland.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri King John, I think Suren gave me a good advice: "It doesn't matter how hard you try, they deny with any means.", as you usual you read another proof and denied it without even saying anything about the main thing (Iarla, Earl, ...) As you can read in the first page, Dr. Birger Nerman's article is about the Bronze Age and just talks about the bronze objects of this period, it is clear by "types" he means "types of any bronze objects of the Bronze Age", there can be different types, like Chinese type, Egyptian type, ... but what does it mean when he says about the Scandinavian type, this type originated in Luristan (Persia)?

He speculates that one type of objects (the connected rings) might have appeared in Luristan. He do not say these are Scandinavian. It simply means that these things were first created in Persia, then spread (usually by merchants). Just like, for example, how the rudder went from China to Europe (certainly no Chinese migration there).

Styrbiorn I do not support any sort of Aryan supremacy or racism theories. I simply said what I have experienced especially in central Europe. Many common people look at us differently whenever it happen to be middle eastern be my guest to experience the attitude. Fortunately, I have many smart European and American friends (which admit the existence of that attitude within society and a need for more education and endurance).
Plz forget about master race which I said; it was out of frustration, but still the bossy attitude exists in many white Europeans. If you don't have it then good for you and your friends.

Cyrus, you need to use more reliable sources, if you want to have a better discussion.

I will leave you guys alone... have a nice discussion.


Edited by Suren - 20-May-2009 at 21:43

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri King John, I think Suren gave me a good advice: "It doesn't matter how hard you try, they deny with any means.", as you usual you read another proof and denied it without even saying anything about the main thing (Iarla, Earl, ...)

I didn't say anything because you have posted this book before, as a website article written by Samir Abbas.  I spoke to it's claims then and don't feel the need to repeat myself, however I will.  The book was written in 1929 so the fact that it was published as a reissue in 2004 is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that it's argument hasn't been proven correct in the 80 years since it was first written; and one would assume that we today have more tools with which to prove this thesis correct than were available to the author in 1929.  Let's also do a little criticism of the book, I believe I pointed out that Waddell notes that since 1911 nothing has proven the descent of Goths from Gutians.  You replied with essentially "so what, that was 1911."  Well in 1929 that was very recent scholarship, now however that scholarship is antiquated so you might want to find a more recent source.  The reissue in 2004 doesn't take away the fact that all the footnotes and bibliography are references to scholarship written in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.  If you came to a professor with a theory and paper for which the sourcing dated almost entirely to the early 20th and late 19th Centuries, they would tell you to find more reliable and more recent sources.  They would also probably tell you to rethink your idea.  

Edited by King John - 21-May-2009 at 00:28

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Would you please ignore what I myself said and read the books that I suggested? For example you can find several proves of the identity of the Guti with the Goths in this book that I mentioned, this 736 page book (Published by Kessinger Publishing, 2004) just almost talks about this thing, another interesting proof in this book:   Hehe, it might have been published in 2004; it was written in 1929 by Laurence Wadell, also the writer of "The great epic poem of the ancient Britons of the exploits of King Thor, Arthur, or Adam and his knights in establishing civilization reforming Eden & capturing the Holy Grail about 3380-3350 B.C.", where  he claimed - among other interesting things - that the Icelandic Edda was actually British. He also claimed the alphabeth was not Phoenician at all: it was created by the Aryan über-menschen, along with the First City or Ur, Babylon and whatnot. Since you seem to like this book (which incidently is named Makers of Civilization in Race and History, referring to the "Aryan race") so much, do you agree with the conclusions?: I'm quoting: Originally posted by Cyrus's source In the foregoing pages the Sumerians are proved to be the Early Aryans or the primitive Goths, and of that race which is now generally called "The Nordic" or North European, who as the most advanced people of their time entered Asia Minor about 3380 B.C. from the North or West, and established there the first great state, and built there the first city, with Civilization, in the dictionary meaning of that word. The immemorial homeland of the Goths is the mighty fertile and richly metalliferous Danube Valley,... He goes on how they were the Civilized Overlords of the "short pit-dwelling Mediterranean race" and then invaded Mesopotamia where they created civilization. Yet another Aryan supremacist on Cyrus's list of sources, that is. Is this what you were refering to, Suren?

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri You can't hide your ultra-nationalism by accusing others of being Aryan supremacist, Sumer was just some kilometers west of the western Iran where Gutians lived, we know Gutians have been mentioned in the earliest Sumerian texts, so they could be even an older nation in compare of Sumerians, if it is proved that Gutians were an Aryan/Indo-European people then it won't be difficult to prove Sumerians were the Early Aryans or the primitive Goths, as Sharruking said about "Sumerian civilization" in this thread: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=487&PID=7980#7980 it is traced back to the Kermanshah Culture (c. 7500-5600 BC) of western Iran.  The descendant culture appeared in central Mesopotamia, known as the Samarra Culture (c. 5700-4900 BC).  Later still, elements of this culture migrated south into southern Mesopotamia where the Ubaid Culture (c. 5300-3900 BC) took root.  It developed into the Uruk Culture (c. 3900-3100 BC).  It was during this time that the earliest pictographic writing developed (by c. 3500 BC), which developed into a proto-cuneiform script by the Jembat Nasr period (c. 3100-2900 BC), which became a fully developed cuneiform script in the Sumerian Early Dynastic Period (c. 2900-2300 BC) by about 2500 BC.  There was apparently no interruptions in the development of Sumerian civilization from its Neolithic past.

You are using Nazi sources but I'm the nationalist?
Why don't you ask Sharukkin what he thinks about a superior Aryan race descending from their home on the plains of Danube in 3380BC from where they invaded Mesopotamia and created Civilization?

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri   Do you think you can fool us because we don't know Swedish language? It is enough that someone just reads the short summary in English:

Yes, let's read it:

Originally posted by Cyrus's source But Scandinavia, primarily Gotland, also had connections further east. This applies particularly to the Caucasus. The pin in Fig. 11 from Gotland is Imported from there (cf. Fig. 12). Caucasian influence can be detected in several objects: from per. 4 of the Bronze Age a tutulus with bird figure from Blekinge (see Fig. 13, cf. Fig. 14), from per. 5 a loop from Småland for instance (see Fig. 15, cf. Fig. 16), from per. 6 a pin from Halland for instance (see Fig. 19, cf. Fig. 20), from per. 1 of the Iron Age a pin from Gotland (see Fig. 17, cf. Fig. 18). Influenccs are also obscrvablc from Luristan in west Persia, e. g. the bronze bowl in Fig. 21 from Västmanland from per. 5 (cf. Fig. 22). What is most surprising, however, is that parallels can be found between Seandinavia on the one hand and Siberia, North China and perhaps even Indo-China on tlie other. Thus the animal beads on processional requisites (Fig. 24) from the neighbourhood of Falköping belonging to per. 5 and the animal heads on stern and stern of the rock-carved ship (Fig. 23) from »Brandskogen» forest near Enköping have counterparts in Siberia and North China (Fig. 25). Indeed, a knife from Holstein (Fig. 26) and a similar one from Jutland may have affinitles with knives in Annam (Fig. 27). These types probably originated in the Caucasus and Persia, whence they spread both to the north-west and to the east. Commcrcial intercoursewith the east brought riches to the motherland areas. The expansion may perhaps best be explained by assuming a fairly large Central Sweden-Gotland realm with its centre in that case in the Mälar valley. It was from bere that the conquests were made, trading activities being mainly left to the people of Gotland. Gotland and presumably even other Scandinavian traders evidently made their way to the east and south-cast of tlie Baltic Sea during the late Bronze Age, and it is not 1mpossible tbat Scandinavian and Caucasian merchants sometimes met in eastern Europé. A bit into per. 1 of the Iron Age tlie Central Swedish and Gotland connections with t lic east come to an end.

The whole section is about trade.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri What does "influence" mean? A merchant? according to my Oxford dictionary this word means "the capacity to have an effect on the character or behaviour of someone", do you think it happened by telepathy?!!

Someone claiming to have a PhD degree in history ought to know what influence means, so I'm not sure if you're kidding with me. But I'll bite. Swede buys funny-looking thing from  Merchant who in turn bought it from a Persian. The Swede likes some of its looks and incorporates it in his own works. Influence occured. Happens every day, since time immemorial.