From: tgpedersen
Message: 64449
Date: 2009-07-28
>Frankly I don't care much one way or the other. The interesting question is where those two schools of inhumation, Przeworsk / Central Germany and Elbe Germanic / Lubieszewo / Scandinavian / Wielbark came from.
>
> --- On Sun, 7/26/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> .
> > http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/11540
> >
> > GK: There is nothing here for the period I mention except a
> > reference to the Przeworsk inhumations you are supposedly
> > investigating. And it is also difficult to draw conclusions from a
> > text which speaks of the period 0-200 en bloc with no micro-
> > differentiations (whereas it is now established that the earliest
> > Wielbark inhumations appear in 0-40/50 CE.)
>
> This is one of the earliest ones
> http://tinyurl.com/lnwr6o
>
> ****GK: This is contemporaneous to earliest Wielbark. It has no
> relevance to your Gothic invasion thesis.*****
> > One might even argue from this text that it is the WielbarkYawn.
> > inhumations which influenced those north of the Baltic, esp.
> > since we know there were constant south-north and north-south
> > "influences" between Polish and Swedish territories in the first
> > millenium BCE (as Tore Gannholm pointed out on this list years
> > ago, or mentioned a recent work which did). Further below on your
> > "yawn" source.
>
> It is interesting to see you agreeing with Snorri:
>
> 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. Therefore men
> think that they can perceive, from their forefathers' names which
> are written down, that those names belonged to this tongue, and
> that the Æsir brought the tongue hither into the northern region,
> into Norway and into Sweden, into Denmark and into Saxland.'
>
> ****GK: I disagree with this lock stock and barrel as you well
> know. Your mind is slipping again. Another Snorrist fever
> attack?*****
> > > and no evidence that the inhumation burialsNo, that's the logic other people use. 'Maybe' means "maybe, maybe not", tertium non datur.
> > > of this early Wielbark came from Scandinavia.
> >
> > Well, those newcomers did, and they probably wanted to be buried
> > like in the old country.
> >
> > GK: There is no archaeological evidence for such newcomers
> > before the second half of the 1rst c.
>
> Why does Matkiewicz then say:
> 'This is evidenced primarily by the fact that in its initial phase,
> the Wielbark Culture had exactly the same territorial extent as the
> Oksywie Culture, many cemeteries having been kept in continued use
> by these two societies. Wielbark communities comprised mostly
> members of tribes already settled in this area with the addition of
> Scandinavian migrants, who maybe arrived here in small groups.'
>
> ****GK: He is saying that initial Wielbark was made up of the
> descendants of those locals who had created Oksywie (and BTW in the
> case of Oksywie you do have archaeological evidence of Jastorf
> intrusion from the start), who were later joined etc.. How much
> later? About 50-70 years. The Wielbark of the late 1rst century was
> thus composite. Is this so difficult for you to grasp?*****
>
> So Wielbark consists of the previous Oksywie people plus some
> Scandinavians who maybe arrived and maybe didn't?
>
> ****GK: The "maybe didn't" is in your feverish Snorrist mind
> Torsten.****
> Would I buy a used car from this man?You tell me.
>
> ****GK: I appreciate the politically incorrect term, rather than "pre-owned" or "pre-loved". It redeems you a bit (:=)).****
>
> > > The opinion of professional archaeologists seem to me to be
> > > preferable to those of ideological Snorrists.
>
> Matkiewicz seems to be a pro alright.
>
> ****GK: The rest of your comments are simple vituperations so there
> is no need to respond. I confess that I was puzzled for some time
> at your apparent denseness in understanding Matkiewicz. My view of
> his position was shaped by the Polish text, and when I reread the
> English version I saw no difficulty in the translation except for
> some minor points. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, in
> appreciation of your own translating efforts in the past. Most of
> the English text is adequate though at times it might appear
> ambiguous to someone not versed in the Polish rendition. I don't
> know whether it is Matkiewicz hiumself who translated it. His point
> is this: (1) that originally Wielbark was the exclusive creation of
> the local tribes, Germanic already, who descended from those who
> had created the Oksywie culture. Hence the original biritualism is
> to be explained by choices made by these locals, not by a northern
> Gothic invasion which is archaeologically undetectable. That leaves
> open the issue of origin. Now whatever he meant by "outside"
> Scandinavian influence he certainly did not associate with the
> grave ritual. I assume it must ave something to do with the
> inventory. (2) M. is primarily interested in the origin of the
> Wielbark culture in "Great Poland" (that is after all the title of
> his article), which begins in the 2nd half of the 1rst century CE,
> and which is the first expansion of Wielbark from its Oksywie
> heartland. (3) In this connection the English translation needs to
> be corrected. In the final paragraph of his article, where he sums
> things up, M. states (English text):
>
> "The Wielbark Culture is thought to have reached Greater Poland
> from Pomerania, displacing the local Przeworsk culture. Whether the
> Wielbark Culture was really of Gothic ethnic origin or made up of a
> number of different tribes (including Goths) we cannot say."
>
> The Polish version, prior to translation, says something quite
> different (and this is where his translator went off the rails). M.
> had argued that BEFORE the Wielbark movement into Greater Poland,
> the Scandinavian Goths had arrived, and had established their
> settlements in the Kashubian lakelands area. They then began to
> integrate with the locals. The Polish text rendered in English
> above actually reads:
>
> "The Wielbark Culture etc.. (as above up to "Przeworsk culture").
> And then: "We are not however in a position to decide whether these
> Wielbarkers [i.e. the ones who moved into Greater Poland from
> Pomerania and expelled the Przeworkers GK] were genuine Goths or
> also other tribes which constituted the Wielbark culture along with
> the Goths".****
> > I could of course invent the word 'anti-Snorrist' , stick it onto
> > you by repetition until it stuck and then smear your character
> > with it, but I don't have much experience in that line of
> > reasoning.
> >
> > GK: Well since Snorri is your "science" you can always try
> > "anti-scientific" (:=)))
>
> As I have said all the time to no avail is that I want Snorri and
> other Medieval chroniclers to be seen as sources like all others,
> with whatever errors they may contain.
> ****GK: Well, what errors DO they contain? (:=)))
> It would help if you would realize that everything concocted byThat's a lie and you know it. Accept that or point out the posting in which I insist everything Snorri wrote is gospel truth.
> mediaeval authors (whether Snorri, or Vincent Kadlubek, or Nestor
> of Kyiv) does not necessarily represent "popular tradition", i.e.
> that quite a bit in all cases is their own imagination at work. One
> hermeneutic problem is to disentangle these elements. Were you
> ready to do this with Snorri you would have been treated
> differently.*****
>And as soon as George heard that, he includes four counts of 'Snorrist' in lieu of argument in his next posting. His mother must have loved him very much.
> And you insist on misrepresenting me. Don't do that.
> ****GK: Well then stop being a knee-jerk Snorrist.*****Some months back I analysed here the name Wodan as *n,Woda-an-, "leader of a *n,Wod-, a troop", which BTW is an old idea, found already in Grimm's etymological dictionary. With that in mind I have proposed several historical leaders with the title of *n,Wod-an-, of which the first was *Harja-Gist-. Pay attention.
>
> > > > > 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 forgotten 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.
> > >
> > > GK: You seem to have as much difficulty in understanding
> > > English texts as French ones. The author accepts the fact of
> > > Scandinavian influx after the mid- 1rst c. AD (he even gives
> > > you the precise location of the incoming communities. ) The
> > > Wielbark culture of the 2nd c. is a fusion of Continental and
> > > Scandinavian ethna.
> >
> > He thinks is.
> >
> > GK: And he is obviously right. Or do you have evidence that the
> > population which left the Kashubian lakelands stone circles etc..
> > departed en masse after just a few years? Is this another one of
> > your fanciful insights (:=)))? Later on the Goths of Ukraine were
> > also a fusion of various ethna. Even more complex than Wielbark.
>
> OK.
>
> > > Not so the earlier Wielbark. And biritualism already existed in
> > > this pre-Scandinavian arrival Wielbark.
> >
> > No matter whether inhumation arrived in Wielbark from Scandinavia
> > or from Pomerania it is a new and till then unknown custom.
> >
> > GK: Agreed. But this does nothing for your mainline
> > contentions.
>
> It *is* my contention.
>
> ****GK: I thought your latest contention was that the "men of Asia"
> brought (or now "brought about") Germanic speech and religion
> to(in) the West from somewhere beyond the Don, and that Ariovistus
> was a good candidate for the role of Odin.****
> > Cf. BTW your "yawn" source: ....Yawn.
> > "on the continent can be indicated areas, where the
> > graves of the beginning of Early Roman Iron Age have connection
> > with constructions [anlaeg] from the la Tène Time. With respect
> > to Silesia such a contact seems to be present, and here perhaps
> > the inhumation grave has been transferred from Celtic to Germanic
> > cultural substrate (
> > Jahn, Mannus 22, p. 85. -
> > Almgren u. Nerman, ÄEG, p. 141. - Brønsted, D. O. III, p. 146. -
> > Klindt-Jensen, Foreign Influences, p. 177. -
> > Herimod Preidel, Die germ. Kulturen, pp. 328-)"
>
> I forgot to translate Danish 'herimod', which is not a Christian
> name but means "against this".
>
> > (That's the Wozniak area) And at the very end: " as the situation
> > is, it is reasonable to assume that the custom of burying the
> > dead unburnt has not arisen in the North, but arrived here by a
> > cultural influence from the south." What do you think Albrectsen
> > means by this? (:=)))****
>
> That he agrees with me, obviously.
>
> ****GK: You think he is a Snorrist? (:=)))*****
> > > > which changes to inhumation, and yet has no detectableYawn.
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > GK: You've read the article Wozniak cites? It seems to point
> > > out precisely that. You're dissatisfied with Lichardus' and
> > > Eggers' analyses? You've read the sources they cite for their
> > > opinion on the Przeworsk inhumations you place so much hope in?
> >
> > No, but I'm going to, since you can't.
> >
> > GK: And add the sources cited by Albrectsen, which support the
> > Wozniak thesis.
>
> Wozniak says 'probablement' . Albrectsen say 'perhaps'. That means
> the sources they refer to deliver no compelling evidence. Checking
> them all is a wild goose chase.
>
> *****GK: Much less so than the attempt to find proof for Snorri's feverish imagination in Heimskringla...(:=)))*****