Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Gotvandi (Dezfuli), Guti and Gothic
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 9>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240 		  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Gotvandi (Dezfuli), Guti and Gothic
    Posted: 14-May-2009 at 15:30

A linguistic book: http://books.google.com/books?id=V4KKN_oByKMC

The Nordic languages: an international handbook of the history of the North Germanic languages
By Oskar Bandle, Kurt Braunmüller, Lennart Elmevik, Gun Widmark
Published by Walter de Gruyter, 2002

There are some very interesting points in this book, lets read a page (page 687):



Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 14-May-2009 at 15:31
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240 		  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2009 at 16:38

Anthropology

Other than archaeologists, we see anthropologists also say that there is a connection betweem people of Lorestan, the Caucasus (North Armenia) and Scandinavia and consider them as belonging to a common Nordic-Iranian race, you can read here: Nordic race in north Armenia -> "People of Lori province of north Armenia are mainly Nordic with slight local Armenoid admixture.", this is really interesting that this part of the Caucasus has been also called "Lori" from the ancient times, so for "Lori" there are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori

Lori may refer to:

About Nordic-Iranian, Phallanx has posted a good article which mentions it in this thread: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=3900 (Who are the modern day "Greeks"?)

Nordic-Iranians (Type D)
Nordic-Iranians (Type D: Plate XL, m-q) have long and high heads with peculiarly deep occiputs, smooth ovoid-ellipsoid contour, sharply-cut muscle impressions, strong browridges, and tilted and capacious foreheads. Marked facial height and narrowness of cheeks compared to wide forehead and jowls makes a rectangular, horse-faced impression. Large but slightly retreating cheekbones enclose drooping orbits, and big, salient, and aquiline noses, long-arched palates, muscular jaws wide at the angles, and cleft chins lacking prominence all add to the same effect. Nordic-Iranians were tall and muscular, strong-necked, and probably included tawny-haired blue- or green-eyed blonds as well as brunets. Approximate identity, and noteworthy resemblances to North Iranian Bronze Age Proto-Nordics, to Anglo-Saxons, and to medieval Irish Monks show the divided eastern and northern relations of this Greek type. And although Type D has low variability, it includes four slightly different tendencies: a cylindrical-skulled, slab-faced Iron-Age Nordic one (D1: Chalcidian and E. Thracian, in Plate XL, n and o), a high-skulled, ellipsoid, “Corded” tendency (D2: Chalcidian in Plate XL, p slightly “dinaricised”), a long byrsoid, deep-skulled, huge-nosed, convex-profiled Iranian trend (D4: Athenian of Arcadian parentage, in Plate XL, m), and a small-faced Iranian-Mediterranean divergence approaching Coon's Cappadocian and Danubian types (D3: Athenian in Plate XL, q).
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366 		  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2009 at 18:50
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Anthropology

Other than archaeologists, we see anthropologists also say that there is a connection betweem people of Lorestan, the Caucasus (North Armenia) and Scandinavia and consider them as belonging to a common Nordic-Iranian race, you can read here: Nordic race in north Armenia 

Not that it really matters anymore because nobody takes your theories seriously, but do you really want us to take an Armenian nationalist website as a credible source?  This website has many characteristics in common with sites like Stormfront.  How does this site support your claim with any facts?  If you find good information why not go independently verify it.


*Edit: I added a question mark after the word source at the end of my first sentence.



Edited by King John - 14-May-2009 at 19:38
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240 		  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2009 at 19:19
Those who read and understand these valid evidences and sources, take it seriously but those who can't realize these things or their bias doesn't allow them to do it, never take anything about this topic seriously and I have never expected them to do it.

Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 16-May-2009 at 17:22
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366 		  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2009 at 19:36
That-a-way to dodge my points and questions.  People don't take them seriously because you use a theory to find evidence and you don't have a firm understanding of the things about which you speak.  Please answer my questions: do you really want us to take an Armenian Nationalist site (with posts like why I admire Hitler) seriously and How does this site support your claim with any facts?  These are two questions I posed to you in my last post please answer them.  

Are we to believe that your "valid evidence" comes from a site full of hate and propaganda?  I would think somebody who holds a PhD would be able to find better sources than that.  People who don't buy so called "valid evidence" from sites like Hossank aren't biased or unwilling to take evidence seriously, they are just skeptical of sourcing from a site like Hossank or Stormfront.  These skeptics are also hesitant to accept information that is not verifiable from other fora no matter what the fora's subject mater might be.

Again I ask you to actually address the points I made in my above post.
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1061 		  Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2009 at 19:39

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Those who read and understand these valid evidences and sources, take it seriously but those who can't realize these things or their bias doesn't allow allow them to do it, never take anything about this topic seriously and I have never expected them to do it.

It's actually vice versa. Those who don't fully understand pseudoscientific arguments have a strong tendency to believe them, those who do fully understand them, have no other option than to dismiss them.
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240 		  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2009 at 20:53
King John, you again found something among my several posts, ignored all other important ones and focused on an insignificant thing, I can't advise you to "Go after what he says not who he is." becuase it is not only important for you what he says but also who says it, the important thing for you is already where it is said! I don't see anything nationalistic in that page, is it possible to not accuse everyone who talks about the race and anthropology, a racist?!
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366 		  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2009 at 21:25
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

King John, you again found something among my several posts, ignored all other important ones and focused on an insignificant thing, I can't advise you to "Go after what he says not who he is." becuase it is not only important for you what he says but also who says it, the important thing for you is already where it is said! I don't see anything nationalistic in that page, is it possible to not accuse everyone who talks about the race and anthropology, a racist?!
1. What somebody says is important, that's the exact reason I went to the site; I wanted to see if it said what you claim it said.  You haven't always been accurate in reporting what a source says.

2. I didn't say anything about racism, I said nationalism.  The name of the site is Hossank: Armenians of the World Unite, how is this not nationalistic?  Let's also look at the internal "s's" of the site name.  If you look at them for a second you will see they look eerily similar to the SS logo used by the Nazis.

3. Look at two of the main posters in that thread; a person named Armanum and another named Leo_Matousian.  Leo_Matousian has an avitar/icon by his name that is a maltese cross with a swastika in the middle of it.  Armanum has started threads like "Hitler, Budha, Krishna" and "Heinrich Himmler."  A simple examination of the site would lead anybody to conclude that what ever is said on the site should be taken with a grain of salt.

4. I went to the site thinking it was going to be a real informational site.  I went there with no bias and an open mind.  I read the thread and noticed the things I have outlined above.  I did a little perusal of the site and evaluated it on what I saw.  My conclusions about the site are based on all the threads I have seen, the posts I have read, and other symbols on that site.

5. Am I not supposed to look at your sources?  Am I not supposed to criticize your sources?  If your source was good you wouldn't have this problem.  

6. You still have not answered my points and questions.  Please show me the same courtesy that I have shown you.  Please tell us how that thread/site helps your claim, it's a bunch of amateurs and nationalists that let their ideas get clouded by propaganda and personal agendas.


As I have said in other threads; if you provide sound evidence then I will criticize and analyze it and then gladly accept it, but when you provide shoddy/weak evidence I will criticize and analyze it and then reject it.  So far you have not provided sound evidence on the connections between Germanic society/culture/people/language and Iranic society/culture/people/language.  
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240 		  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-May-2009 at 16:59
Would you please criticize my archaeological evidences or linguistic and other ones here? The first post in that thread in the Armenian forum is "Map based on the theories of Ewald Banse, a German scientist and writer, who wrote Raum und Volk in Weltkrieg and believed in the Lebensraum concept.", isn't it?
 
This is the map:
 
 
I had posted this article about "Kurds and Gutians" by Samir Abbas: http://www.iranian.com/History/2005/March/Gutians/
 
As you see after the Germanic lands, red lines can be seen at most in the region where Kurds and Lurs already live and Gutians lived in the ancient times, would you please tell me your opinion about it? Is it nationalistic?!!
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366 		  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-May-2009 at 19:56
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Would you please criticize my archaeological evidences or linguistic and other ones here? The first post in that thread in the Armenian forum is "Map based on the theories of Ewald Banse, a German scientist and writer, who wrote Raum und Volk in Weltkrieg and believed in the Lebensraum concept.", isn't it?
That's what they claim it is.  However that doesn't negate my criticism of the site.  Whether these people provide a map or not has nothing to do with their ideology.
 
This is the map:
 
 
I had posted this article about "Kurds and Gutians" by Samir Abbas: http://www.iranian.com/History/2005/March/Gutians/
it's nice that you posted the article since it actually states:
when he announced in 1911 his discovery of the Guti Dynasty in Mesopotamia, and at the same time remarked that "nothing yet proves that they were the ancestors of the Goths. (Academie des Inscript. et Belles Lettres, Comptes Rendus, Paris, , 1911, p.327)" (Waddell 1929, p.358)
 
As you see after the Germanic lands, red lines can be seen at most in the region where Kurds and Lurs already live and Gutians lived in the ancient times, would you please tell me your opinion about it? Is it nationalistic?!!
I'm failing to see how the map helps your cause.  I have criticized your evidences before anybody who wants to see them can go to your other threads re: Iranians and Germans (language, people, and others).  

Edited by King John - 16-May-2009 at 20:00
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240 		  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2009 at 12:43
Originally posted by King John

]That's what they claim it is.  However that doesn't negate my criticism of the site.  Whether these people provide a map or not has nothing to do with their ideology.
Are you an ideological inquisitor?! People have right to have their own ideology and it doesn't relate to you or me at all!
 
it's nice that you posted the article since it actually states:
when he announced in 1911 his discovery of the Guti Dynasty in Mesopotamia, and at the same time remarked that "nothing yet proves that they were the ancestors of the Goths. (Academie des Inscript. et Belles Lettres, Comptes Rendus, Paris, , 1911, p.327)" (Waddell 1929, p.358)
Yes nothing was yet proved in 1911, what do you mean?
 
I'm failing to see how the map helps your cause.  I have criticized your evidences before anybody who wants to see them can go to your other threads re: Iranians and Germans (language, people, and others).
One important thing has been changed in this thread, now by Iranians I mean people of Iran, not Iranian speaking people, it seems Germanic peoples were among the native people of Iran and they were forced to migrate to north by Iranian-speaking people. This can be the reason that there is a large number of Germanic words even in the Old Iranian languages and vice versa.
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1061 		  Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2009 at 12:50
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

I'm failing to see how the map helps your cause.  I have criticized your evidences before anybody who wants to see them can go to your other threads re: Iranians and Germans (language, people, and others).
One important thing has been changed in this thread, now by Iranians I mean people of Iran, not Iranian speaking people, it seems Germanic peoples were among the native people of Iran and they were forced to migrate to north by Iranian-speaking people. This can be the reason that there is a large number of Germanic words even in the Old Iranian languages and vice versa.

At first Saxons were not Germanic, then all Germans were Iranian speaking, now they're just a people from Iran?? What comes next??
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240 		  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2009 at 13:35
Originally posted by Slayertplsko

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

I'm failing to see how the map helps your cause.  I have criticized your evidences before anybody who wants to see them can go to your other threads re: Iranians and Germans (language, people, and others).
One important thing has been changed in this thread, now by Iranians I mean people of Iran, not Iranian speaking people, it seems Germanic peoples were among the native people of Iran and they were forced to migrate to north by Iranian-speaking people. This can be the reason that there is a large number of Germanic words even in the Old Iranian languages and vice versa.

At first Saxons were not Germanic, then all Germans were Iranian speaking, now they're just a people from Iran?? What comes next??

I don't know, I am discovering more and more! Smile
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2009 at 15:05
You need to recognise the difference between discovering and inventing.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240 		  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2009 at 15:28

The possible relation between Gutians (Goths) and Hittites, an ancient people who lived in the eastern Turkey and spoke a certain Indo-European language (of Centum branch), is also interesting, This book mostly talks about these things (Guti, Kudti, Kurdi, ...) this is a page of it:
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240 		  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2009 at 15:39
Originally posted by gcle2003

You need to recognise the difference between discovering and inventing.
About this current topic, I am neither discovering nor inventing but just collecting evidences and sources.
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1061 		  Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2009 at 17:26
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Originally posted by gcle2003

You need to recognise the difference between discovering and inventing.
About this current topic, I am neither discovering nor inventing but just collecting evidences and sources.

Sorted! You're just collecting and cherry-picking inventions of others.

Khatti was not the way Hittites referred to themselves, that's a misconception based on the place name and only later it was proved wrong. Khatti refers to Hattians, a Caucasian people occupying Asia Minor prior to IE invasion. Hittites called themselves Neshili.
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366 		  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2009 at 17:28
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Originally posted by King John

]That's what they claim it is.  However that doesn't negate my criticism of the site.  Whether these people provide a map or not has nothing to do with their ideology.
Are you an ideological inquisitor?! People have right to have their own ideology and it doesn't relate to you or me at all!
People do have a right to their own ideology, however, when you cite something the ideology of the author comes into play.  By this I mean, ideology whether academic or political is important when examining a source.  Asking things like "what is the author's intent, agenda, objective, ideology, method?" are all valid questions when evaluating a source; this is basic source criticism, Cyrus.  Furthermore, ideology relates to you and me because it helps establish the veracity of a claim and the author's propensity for falsification for instance, when you provide theories about other cultures being Iranic in origin one can easily see your ideology is Iranian Nationalist.  I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that; I'm just saying that that is your ideology, as well as I can gather.  Now if somebody wants to read your argument and counter knowing your ideology helps.  When evaluating claims from known nationalists the evaluator has to note the high propensity for falsification or misrepresentation by the claimer.  You have already shown, in other topics and this one, that you cherry-pick your evidence; you have also shown that you come up with a theory and then find evidence that supports it and not the other way around (the academically right way).  It is wrong to take a claim from known nationalists with a grain of salt?  Let me ask the question another way: is it wrong to be cynical of the claims of nationalists?
 
it's nice that you posted the article since it actually states:
when he announced in 1911 his discovery of the Guti Dynasty in Mesopotamia, and at the same time remarked that "nothing yet proves that they were the ancestors of the Goths. (Academie des Inscript. et Belles Lettres, Comptes Rendus, Paris, , 1911, p.327)" (Waddell 1929, p.358)
Yes nothing was yet proved in 1911, what do you mean?
What I mean is that nothing has proven that the Guti were ancestor of the Goths, just as the quote says.  The quote was from a source that you provided, so I'm assuming it was satisfactory to you.  I read the page and found no proof there, especially in the section titled something like "Guti and Goth."  Would you care to tell me when after 1911 this connection was proven and could you do it from the source you provided from which I took the above quote?
 
I'm failing to see how the map helps your cause.  I have criticized your evidences before anybody who wants to see them can go to your other threads re: Iranians and Germans (language, people, and others).
One important thing has been changed in this thread, now by Iranians I mean people of Iran, not Iranian speaking people, it seems Germanic peoples were among the native people of Iran and they were forced to migrate to north by Iranian-speaking people.
Do you have any real proof that goes beyond the name of a ethnic group?
This can be the reason that there is a large number of Germanic words even in the Old Iranian languages and vice versa.
Or, and hear me out on this, the reason for similar words is a common Indo-European Origin for both language families.  
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240 		  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2009 at 18:16
King John, your above post shows that you have never read my previous posts, for example if you read those archaeological evidences in the first page of this thread, you will see that there is almost no doubt among the great Swedish archaeologistse, like Dr. Birger Nerman and Dr. T. J. Arne, that there was a migration from Luristan (western Iran) where ancient Gutians lived to Gotland and other parts of Scandinavia.
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366 		  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2009 at 19:38
Oh I read your posts on the first page of the thread, Cyrus.  But, if I didn't that still doesn't negate my point about source criticism and your general modus operandi.  To show you that I have read your posts on page one I will go through a rough overview of them and address certain points you made in said posts.  I will expect you to answer these points before I comment again, since I have seen a consistent misrepresentation of sources on your part.  You start the thread with your typical etymological work then you provide a bunch a pictures which prove nothing.  From there you go into a discussion of art and provide this: 
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

I just searched for the word "Luristan" in a famous book:

A History of art By Lawrence Gowing: http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=I5BUAAAAMAAJ&q=luristan&pgis=1

However you say nothing about the last sentence, all you say is "I just searched the word Luristan."  If you notice the last sentence says "in Sweden and Denmark human and animal figures appear as knife-handles and heads of pins, of as scepter-ornaments, some of them having an odd likeness to the bronzes from Luristan (Persia), though no direct connection is possible."  You provided this quote so how does it support your thesis?  The author explicitly states no connection is possible.  

After this discussion you move to articles which appear to be in Swedish, I unfortunately can't read Swedish and you did not provide a translation.  I however did read the English excerpt a few posts later.  That excerpt, while claiming, in the last paragraph, that there was connection between the East and Scandinavia says nothing about a migration it actually implies trade and at one point actually says that certain objects were imported.  Objects being imported have nothing to do with the migration of people importing objects is an effect of trade.  In fact the next two paragraphs of the source that you cite from Birger Nerman (the one in English second to last on page one) argues only for trade.  Migration isn't even a thought in regards to this argument.  The rest of the summary reads:
Originally posted by Birger Nerman

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 intercourse with the east brought ricbes 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 impossible 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 the east come to an end.

Where does Birger Nerman claim that the Goths are descended from the Gutians?  All he says is that the connections to the East are commercial not that there was any wholesale migration.  From everything that I've read you have misrepresented what sources say, specifically the one by Birger Nerman from which I have quoted.  This brings me back to one of my previous points and that is when a person is known to misrepresent source the examiner must be extra critical of what that claimer says.


Please show were Nerman and Arne state that

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

there was a migration from Luristan (western Iran) where ancient Gutians lived to Gotland and other parts of Scandinavia.
 You state that there is almost no doubt among the great Swedish archaeologists regarding migration from Luristan to Gotland, you say that this can be found in the work of Nerman and Arne that you provided on page one.  I have not seen this, all I have seen is you misrepresenting what Nerman says and apparently taking arguments for trade to be arguments for migration.  This is not the first thread in which you have done this, I speak of other threads in which you provide a map or other information that you clearly don't understand or you do understand and choose not to accurately represent said map and other information.  Don't say I didn't read your posts; from the lack of addressing my points I would assume that you haven't read my posts.  I know you have, though, just as I have read your posts.    


Finally, don't take my lack of posting on the first page to mean lack of reading.  
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 9>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.129 seconds.