QuoteReplyTopic: Gotvandi (Dezfuli), Guti and Gothic Posted: 18-May-2009 at 14:05
King John, maybe you are right and I really don't understand the texts, would you please answer my questions about this text that you posted:
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 riches to the motherland areas.
I think by the east he means "Siberia and North China" here, am I wrong? What do the words "originate" and "spread" mean in this text? What is the motherland, the original land of a people? Doesn't the text talk about an Indo-European people who migrated to Scnadinavia and also a region in the north China and communicated with the Chinese?
I have no intention of getting into the discussion, but I went through the Swedish articles to provide you guys a summary.
The first one is a part of a discussion of classification of a few pieces of Scandinavian animal sculptures. It is merely arguing whether influences on the Scandinavian art pieces came from the east,continental Europe or both.
The second article concerns a finding of three types of objects from Gotland. The first object is identified as a wheel-shaped disc imported from Hungary. Then follows a few needles, of which some are identified as imports from Denmark and the others domestic copies of the former. The third type of objects, are some peculiar connected rings, speculated to be either used as "rope-dividers" or decorative pendants. According to the article, similar objects have been found in Germany, France, Bosnia, Mongolia, Persia and especially Caucasus. The author offered the explanation that they were originally invented in Luristan and from there spread eastward to Mongolia and over the Caucasus to Europe.
In short, neither article have anything to do with migrations; only types of objects and their spread. The two are not to be confused. It's usually quite easy to follow migrations, while cultural or technological diffusion is an entirely different matter. An example of the difference between migration and influence is for example: widespread
use of jeans in Iran. The jeans were invented in America, but jeans being used in Iran or China doesn't mean, imply or even suggest that any form of large-scale migration took place. Communications might be faster now than when those rings spread from Persia, but the phenomenon is identical.
Styrbiorn, thanks for the summary but we are talking about the bronze age not the satellite and the internet age, I mean the period that the most educated people were Babylonians who didn't know people who lived some kilometers east of Babylon, beyond the Zagros mountains, this is their world map:
Styrbiorn, thanks for the summary but we are talking about the bronze age not the satellite and the internet age, I mean the period that the most educated people were Babylonians who didn't know people who lived some kilometers east of Babylon, beyond the Zagros mountains, this is their world map:
That's exactly what I said. It might take hundreds of years instead of a few decades, but the process is still the same.
Middle English spreden, from Old English -sprǣdan; akin to Old High German spreiten to spread
Date:
13th century
transitive verb1 a: to open or expand over a larger area <spread out the map>b: to stretch out : extend<spread its wings for flight>2 a: to distribute over an area <spread fertilizer>b: to distribute over a period or among a group <spread the work over a few weeks>c: to apply on a surface <spread butter on bread>d (1): to cover or overlay something with <spread the cloth on the table>(2)archaic: to cover completelye (1): to prepare or furnish for dining : set<spread the table>(2): serve<spread the afternoon tea>3 a: to make widely known <spread the news>b: to extend the range or incidence of <spread a disease>c: diffuse, emit<flowers spreading their fragrance>4: to push apart by weight or forceintransitive verb1 a: to become dispersed, distributed, or scatteredb: to become known or disseminated <panic spread rapidly>2: to grow in length or breadth : expand3: to move apart (as from pressure or weight) : separate
— spread·abil·i·ty\ˌspre-də-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun
— spread·able\ˈspre-də-bəl\ adjective
Do these definitions work for you? In the quote above from the article there is no talk about the words "originate" and "spread" referring to people, rather the two words refer to goods.
What is the motherland, the original land of a people?
The motherland is a homeland in this case the term refers to Gotland and the Mälar valley.
Doesn't the text talk about an Indo-European people who migrated to Scnadinavia and also a region in the north China and communicated with the Chinese?
Not as far as I can tell, the text talks about goods that made their way from different areas to Scandinavia. Trade is what's being discussed in the article not migration, Nerman explicitly states this when he says
Originally posted by Birger Nerman
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.
I have put all references to trade in bold for you, as you can see trade is what's being discussed not migrations.
Would you please answer my points from my previous two posts–both found on page two? I have been responding to your questions, why do you refuse to answer my points and questions?
Styrbiorn, thanks for the summary but we are talking about the bronze age not the satellite and the internet age, I mean the period that the most educated people were Babylonians who didn't know people who lived some kilometers east of Babylon, beyond the Zagros mountains, this is their world map:
That's exactly what I said. It might take hundreds of years instead of a few decades, but the process is still the same.
What is this process? Even in the modern era it is somehow impossible that something is invented in a country and then is easily produced in another country without any connection between the peoples of these two countries, archaeologists have never found any Luristan type bronze objects in other regions of Iran, even the northern provinces, but these types have been found in Gotland, do you know why other peoples of Iran couldn't produce these things but Gotlanders could?
Other than it there are several other evidences which show there was a migration from Loristan to Lori province of Armenia (the Caucasus) and then Scandinavia, as I said anthropologists consider these peoples as belonging to a common Nordic-Iranian race, furthermore geneticists also say almost the same thing, in fact people of western Iran and Scandinavia are the most similar peoples genetically, you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_(Y-DNA) Haplogroup I has the greatest density in Scandinvaia and however is says "The haplogroup is almost non-existent outside of Europe" but in the Highest frequencies section you can see Iran after Norway.
What is this process? Even in the modern era it is somehow impossible that something is invented in a country and then is easily produced in another country without any connection between the peoples of these two countries, archaeologists have never found any Luristan type bronze objects in other regions of Iran, even the northern provinces, but these types have been found in Gotland, do you know why other peoples of Iran couldn't produce these things but Gotlanders could?
The process is called trade. Again, the article noted numerous places where similar things have been found. The most common foreign objects found on Gotland are Arab. Maybe the Gotlanders are actually Arabs then?
You completely misinterpreted the genealogical data. Stop looking for evidence of an invented theory and start working as a scientist, if you want to be one.
Styrbiorn, thanks for the summary but we are talking about the bronze age not the satellite and the internet age, I mean the period that the most educated people were Babylonians who didn't know people who lived some kilometers east of Babylon, beyond the Zagros mountains, this is their world map:
That's exactly what I said. It might take hundreds of years instead of a few decades, but the process is still the same.
What is this process? Even in the modern era it is somehow impossible that something is invented in a country and then is easily produced in another country without any connection between the peoples of these two countries, archaeologists have never found any Luristan type bronze objects in other regions of Iran, even the northern provinces, but these types have been found in Gotland, do you know why other peoples of Iran couldn't produce these things but Gotlanders could?
You keep confusing trade with migration. Since the Romans valued amber from the Baltic and Northern Europe are we to believe that the Romans were actually Northern Europeans? Under your logic this claim would be true, however it's false we find high frequency of Northern Amber in Roman areas not because of migration but rather trade. Being able to reproduce an object, again, is not the same as migration; all that is needed to reproduce an object is one person to share the method/idea. This is the same concept behind the spread of religions like Islam; one person talks to another and another, and so on until you have a religion that reaches thousands of miles from its point of origin to areas that are very remote. Trade does not equal migration. The article you posted talk about trade not migration, how does this help you?
Other than it there are several other evidences which show there was a migration from Loristan to Lori province of Armenia (the Caucasus) and then Scandinavia, as I said anthropologists consider these peoples as belonging to a common Nordic-Iranian race, furthermore geneticists also say almost the same thing, in fact people of western Iran and Scandinavia are the most similar peoples genetically, you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_(Y-DNA) Haplogroup I has the greatest density in Scandinvaia and however is says "The haplogroup is almost non-existent outside of Europe" but in the Highest frequencies section you can see Iran after Norway.
From what I have seen Haplogroup I has a higher density in Eastern Europe than Northern Europe for instance it has a higher density in Bosnian Croats, Herzogovinians, Croats, Sardinians, and Bosniaks than it does in Norwegians or any other Northern European group.
Where is this map from? What is the time period for these migrations? If these migrations happened in the last 2000 years maybe this map supports you if the time scale is closer to 10,000 years this map does nothing for you.
Actually I think he means anything east of the Mälar valley as he explains in the next few sentences.
You can see "the east" in two continuous sentences, it is clear both of them point to the same location.
Do these definitions work for you? In the quote above from the article there is no talk about the words "originate" and "spread" referring to people, rather the two words refer to goods.
Not goods but types, I should ask about these words too, their difference is similar to that between words and languages, words/goods are imported but types/languages originated from a source.
The motherland is a homeland in this case the term refers to Gotland and the Mälar valley.
But I think motherland means the original land here.
Not as far as I can tell, the text talks about goods that made their way from different areas to Scandinavia. Trade is what's being discussed in the article not migration, Nerman explicitly states this when he says ... I have put all references to trade in bold for you, as you can see trade is what's being discussed not migrations.
However it is clear that he talks about later periods in that paragraph and there is absolutely no mention of Persia or Luristan but we see he first mentions "conquests" and then "trading".
Would you please answer my points from my previous two posts–both found on page two? I have been responding to your questions, why do you refuse to answer my points and questions?
Which ones do you mean? My first post in this page was in response to you, about the book "A History of art", as Slayertplsko said, the author was just an artist, he found some important likeness between the animal figures of knife-handles in the ancient bronzes of Luristan and Sweden, of course as a professional artist, but he was not a historian, so it sounded impossible for him to be any direct connection between them.
I think we'd better look at what the Highest Frequency section really says:
Time of origin 25,000-30,000 years BP Place of origin Europe or Asia Minor
Bosnian Croats 73%,
Herzegovinians 70.9%,
Croats ~48.0%,
Sardinians 42.3%,
Bosniaks 42.0%,
Norwegians 40.3%,
Iran 10%-34%
Now how does this support you? What's wrong, I don't understand. Is it that difficult for you to correctly interprete a wiki article??
I don't talk about the time of origin but the current situation, as you repeated it again, we see after modern Norway is modern Iran, the interesting is that as Dr. Nerman says about the archaeological findings that these types originated in Iran and then spread both to Scandinavia and the North China, we see about Haplogroup Q: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q_(Y-DNA) that Q lineage is found in Norway in the west, Iran in the south, and northern China in the east.
Actually I think he means anything east of the Mälar valley as he explains in the next few sentences.
You can see "the east" in two continuous sentences, it is clear both of them point to the same location.
Not true, while the sentences would seem to be two continuous sentences they are broken by a big gap, they are in two different paragraphs and therefore two different thoughts. The first paragraph deals with goods/types like knives, bestial carvings, et al., which are said to have originated in the Caucasus and Persia and spread to the northwest and to the east; whereas the second sentence clearly talks about east in relation to the Mälar Valley as noted by the second sentence. These two uses of the word east are not pointing to the same location.
Do these definitions work for you? In the quote above from the article there is no talk about the words "originate" and "spread" referring to people, rather the two words refer to goods.
Not goods but types, I should ask about these words too, their difference is similar to that between words and languages, words/goods are imported but types/languages originated from a source.
What are knives and bestial carvings? When Nerman talks about affinities these goods have to goods in places like Annam, he is noting that the good that is being shared is a stylistic idea. Can't a stylistic idea be a good to be traded?
The motherland is a homeland in this case the term refers to Gotland and the Mälar valley.
But I think motherland means the original land here.
Exactly, and that original homeland is Gotland and the Mälar Valley as the article summary implies.
Not as far as I can tell, the text talks about goods that made their way from different areas to Scandinavia. Trade is what's being discussed in the article not migration, Nerman explicitly states this when he says ... I have put all references to trade in bold for you, as you can see trade is what's being discussed not migrations.
However it is clear that he talks about later periods in that paragraph and there is absolutely no mention of Persia or Luristan but we see he first mentions "conquests" and then "trading".
As a point of fact the reference to conquests has nothing to do with Persia or Luristan, it has to do with an early period. Nerman notes the expansion from Gotland and the Mälar Valley in a post that you made on page one. How does this help you? He mentions conquests then trading because that is how the article is laid out and it's the final paragraph of the text and by definition should be strong and lay out all that was argued; in the first section of the summary we see that he talks about the increase of population and its need for and subsequent expansion into areas east such as the Volga region, areas of modern Russia, Finland, and areas of the Baltic. Notice that all these places are to the East of Gotland and the Mälar Valley? He then goes on to discuss trade.
Would you please answer my points from my previous two posts–both found on page two? I have been responding to your questions, why do you refuse to answer my points and questions?
Which ones do you mean? My first post in this page was in response to you, about the book "A History of art", as Slayertplsko said, the author was just an artist, he found some important likeness between the animal figures of knife-handles in the ancient bronzes of Luristan and Sweden, of course as a professional artist, but he was not a historian, so it sounded impossible for him to be any direct connection between them.
Yes it was but not really to any point I made. Do you really want me to repost all the questions I asked you that have gone unanswered? Let's go back to my last two posts on page two, you haven't responded to a number of questions and points in those posts, while I have been responding to your points and questions in every post you have directed at me. I will place my second to last post from page two here and your response to it below:
Originally posted by King John
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.
And your response:
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri
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.
As you can see you haven't responded to any of the points in the above post, you just start talking about archaeologists talking about migration when they are actually talking about trade. How is this a response to my points and questions?
I don't talk about the time of origin but the current situation, as you repeated it again, we see after modern Norway is modern Iran, the interesting is that as Dr. Nerman says about the archaeological findings that these types originated in Iran and then spread both to Scandinavia and the North China, we see about Haplogroup Q: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q_(Y-DNA) that Q lineage is found in Norway in the west, Iran in the south, and northern China in the east.
So what that after Norway there's Iran?? OK, so mentioning Iran after Norway alludes a migration from Iran to Norway. Well, then according to the statistics provided there, the migrating people further moved to Bosnia, then to Sardinia, then to Croatia and so on. Let's agree that argument is invalid.
Why have you left out a whole part of the sentence you quoted in your last post about Haplogroup Q?? It says:
In the Old World, the Q lineage and its many branches is largely found within a huge triangle defined by Norway in the west, Iran in the south, and northern China in the east.
That's an important piece of information and your interpretation thereof implies three separate places rather than a huge area defined by those said places. Your (mis)interpretation implies that the Haplogroup Q originated in one of those places and that there was some kind of migration to the rest. But in fact, when we look at what the article really says, it comes as logical (not definite) that the origin should be sought for somewhere amidst the area - i.e. Siberia or Central Asia. And this is further confirmed by another statement from the same article:
Haplogroup Q Time of origin 15,000 to 20,000 BC Place of origin Ural or Siberia Ancestor P Defining mutations M242 Highest frequencies Native Americans, Kets & Selkups
No migration from Iran as you can see.
Edited by Slayertplsko - 19-May-2009 at 18:55
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
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.
Again, the article noted numerous places where similar things have been found.
and also explains why these similar things have been found there, would please translate it for us:
The most common foreign objects found on Gotland are Arab. Maybe the Gotlanders are actually Arabs then?
No, Gutians probably carried those objects to Gotland, isn't it a better explaination?
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.
Ideas, skills, and science are most certainly tradable. The tradable nature of ideas, skills, and science is shown by the spread of algebra, religion(s), metallurgy and other sciences. How do you think bronze working got from the Middle East to Northern Europe? It had to be through trade of ideas, this is the product of being taught, it is the same idea behind the spread of moveable type, gunpowder, the internet, and other technologies. In short ideas, skills, and science are in fact tradable goods.
Again, the article noted numerous places where similar things have been found.
and also explains why these similar things have been found there, would please translate it for us:
Do you actually read or speak Swedish, Cyrus?
The most common foreign objects found on Gotland are Arab. Maybe the Gotlanders are actually Arabs then?
No, Gutians probably carried those objects to Gotland, isn't it a better explaination?
For that to be a "better explanation" you first have to prove that Gutians are the ancestors of Goths. You haven't done this yet.
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.
Telephone was originally invented in the U.S.A. and later exported from the U.S.A. The buyers could not read the vendors' minds and the vendors could not read Bell's mind, correct. But Bell revealed his mind to the buyers/vendors and this is called trade with science.
Edited by Slayertplsko - 19-May-2009 at 19:33
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
"With respect to the type's spread both in Europe and Asia it appears to me probable, that it arose in the Caucasus, possibly Luristan, and from there it spread partly to the east to Mongolia, partly to west to central Europe. From the Hallstatt-culture it has come to northern Germany and Scandinavia; in every case we may own no testimony about that, it would have reached the latter areas via south Russia and the pole [Poland?]."
This is a very rough translation, but I think it gets the point across; if anybody who speaks Swedish would like to comment on the translation that would be greatly appreciated. How does this help you, Cyrus? As far as I can tell it is not talking about migrating populations but rather about the spread and diffusion of culture and goods. If you think that it is talking about people maybe you should provide more than just one paragraph that starts with: "with respect to the type's spread" that is a fairly ambiguous statement. What is the type that Nerman talking about? The quote is out of context and I don't think it exemplifies what you would like it to.
Which ones do you mean? My first post in this page was in response to you, about the book "A History of art", as Slayertplsko said, the author was just an artist, he found some important likeness between the animal figures of knife-handles in the ancient bronzes of Luristan and Sweden, of course as a professional artist, but he was not a historian, so it sounded impossible for him to be any direct connection between them.
He's not good enough to make a statement about connections between Scandinavian and Luristanian figures but he is good enough to note likenesses? How does that make sense? Either he's qualified to make both statements or he's not, you can't say he's qualified to note the similarities and then say he's not qualified to say there is no connection between them. The man, Lawrence Gowing, was a respected Professor of Fine Art and was also a self taught Art Historian; I think this more than qualifies him to make statements about connections between Scandinavian and Luristanian figures. Again, if he's good enough to be used as evidence for your claim then statements he made in the same quote you provide are good enough to be used against your claims.
We are not white European, Cyrus. Leave this master race alone and live in peace. It doesn't matter how hard you try (not to support all of your theories or the evidence which you use but to give you the hint about their attitude) they deny with any means. If you live in west then you know what I mean. Except some fair intellectual and smart people you can not change their way of thinking. Many of friendly religious people who live here does not care about those issues as well which makes life better for us (immigrants). Rest of population look at you differently, no matter how hard you try they are still dreaming about Ancient Roman empire or Alexander the great .... the rest of the world were all barbarian. It really pisses me off, but that's the way it is.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Gotvandi (Dezfuli), Guti and Gothic
(edited for good)
