Re: Mid-first century BCE Yazigian prerequisites

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 7/25/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, george knysh <gknysh@> wrote:
> >
> > --- On Fri, 7/24/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Why do you keep mentioning Wielbark?
> >
> > GK: Because that is another local culture where inhumations
> > appear "suddenly". And Wielbark replaces a cremation culture
> > (Oksywie). Wielbark is bi-ritual, and there is nothing in the
> > funeral inventory to suggest alien ethnic influx.
>
> Except that we know there was.
>
> ****GK: Not until the later 1rst c. AD and at that time the
> biritual system was already in place. There is no evidence it came
> from Scandinavia.***

Inhumation had started in Scandinavia at that time in a culture that till then was exclusively cremating.

> > That makes it similar to the 1rst c. BCE Przeworsk inhumations,
> > and to Eggers' and Lichardus' Elbe Germanic situation.
>
> Yes it does. It also, as your argument stands, gives us a
> precedence of a culture which we know has foreign influence,
>
> ****GK: It's really wonderful to see how addiction to a fantasy
> interferes with the most elementary mental processes. There is a
> big difference between "foreign influence" and "foreign influx",
> and normally you can appreciate this. But when your knee-jerk
> Snorrism activates the most obvious distinctions are forgfotten
> and/or jettisoned. As evidenced by your further comments below.***

That's how you usually behave to cover up shaky reasoning. The text you refer takes much pains to claim Scandinavian influence instead of Scandinavian influx and then goes on about the traces of the Scandinavians who supposedly weren't there.

> which changes to inhumation, and yet has no detectable foreign
> influence in the find material. Since it is similar to the 1rst c.
> BCE Przeworsk inhumations, and to Eggers' and Lichardus' Elbe
> Germanic situation they therefore also have non-detectable foreign
> influence. Own goal.
>
> ****GK: But they have a good argument for the source of this
> "foreign influence". You on the other hand, don't.****

But they don't. They don't point to a single structural similarity between the much earlier Celtic graves and those two (three) inhumation schools.

> Thank you, George, for providing me with this wonderful argument.
> BTW And you call *me* dense?
>
> ****GK: Snorrism seems to be not only a serious but apparently an
> incurable mental affliction...*****

Mattflykt, say the Swedes.

> > My view is that the Wielbark shift might have been influenced by
> > the earlier Marbod shift since the Gutones were part of his
> > empire.****
>
> My view is that Wielbark shift was influenced by the immigrating
> Goths who were an original people of Scandinavia leaving because of
> the invasion of inhumating Germani, but being lead by some of them,
> therefore the partial inhumation fashion.
>
> *****GK: Re-read this:
> http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/gazociag/title5.htm
>
> There is no evidence for "immigrating Goths" from Scandinavia until
> the second half of the 1rst c. The author surmises Wielbark
> biritualism was influenced from Pomerania. But he leaves the
> question open and assigns the choice to "family traditions". Your
> own "theory" is just a set of arbitrary assertions without a shred
> of evidence to back them up.

The fact that many cemeteries Oksywie cemeteries continued into Wielbark means the incoming Scandinavians didn't kill them or chase them off, at least not all of them. How that can be interpreted to mean that no one arrived is beyond me.

Here's your 'foreign influence' as opposed to 'foreign influx':
'Wielbark communities comprised mostly members of tribes already settled in this area with the addition of Scandinavian migrants'
Obviously, Mackiewicz is the one who can't distinguish properly between 'foreign influence' and 'foreign influx' which failure you then in your confused mind accuse me of.

I'll surmise another thing. The common language of much pre WWII archaeological research was German and since no one can read that these days, the archaeology of Scandinavia is a closed book to most researchers, and archaeologists like to keep presumed influences confined to areas within which they understand the research language.


Torsten