---
x99lynx@... wrote:
> --- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...>
> wrote:
> > > "In phase C the Wielbark culture expanded
> southward
> > > into areas previously
> > > occupied by the Przeworsk culture which it
> replaced
> > > there. This expansion
> > > occurred ca. 50 AD,...
>
> But earlier George wrote:
> > george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
> > "In phase B the Wielbark culture expanded
> southward into areas previously
> > occupied by the Przeworsk culture which it
> replaced there. This expansion
> > occurred ca. 50 AD,and was accompanied by the
> appearance of indubitably
> > Scandinavian elements within Wielbark,...
>
> George, not only did you change your own quote, but
> you changed my quote of
> your quote!!! Is this standard procedure?
*****GK: The original "B" was an error for "C". In the
Wolongiewicz/Kaliff map (which I referred to) A+B
stands for the Pomeranian coast and the basin of the
Lower Vistula, and C stands for the earlier Przeworsk
area to the south of B and west of A. There's no need
to be disingenuous in your argumentation. But since
you're not familiar with this map, I guess you
couldn't point out that in fact there are no
"Scandinavian" elements at all in the A+B phase of
Wielbark.*****
>
> (SL)The switch from B to C does not help anyway.
The
> Scandinavian element
> simply arrives too late. Wielbark has originated
> and expanded before the
> stone circles, etc., show up in a limited part of
> Wielbark.
*****GK: You seem to be talking to yourself here. I
won't bother repeating after this one last time that I
am not a proponent of some "mass migration" of Goths
from Scandinavia to Poland. Of course I can't stop you
from distorting this over and over to make me say what
I am not saying. But that is your problem not mine.All
that I have argued and continue to maintain is that
there are sufficient "Scandinavian" elements in
certain phases of developing Wielbark to justify and
explain the eventual rise of a theory (based on the
traditions of certain ruling families) contending that
the Goths all came from Scandinavia. We no longer
accept this theory, even if Jordanes and his
contemporaries did, and after them many generations of
readers and scholars.******
(SL)(George also
> wrote: "I am talking about the territory of
> Wielbark phase C as per the map of Wolongiewicz,..."
> The name is Wolagiewicz
> and it's his map updated by Scukin (accents omitted)
> that was used in
> Heather.)
*****GK: I can't help it of you don't know how to
pronounce the name of the archaeologist in question.
It's not Wolagiewicz because the "a" has the little
tail indicating that it stands for "on". Since I don't
have this special sign I adopt the phonetic
spelling.*****
>
>(SL) George also wrote:
> "What I wrote above is perfectly in synch with the
> opinion of a majority of
> contemporary Polish field archaeologists, who see
> Wielbark as essentially
> autochtonous,.... So much of the remainder of
> Steve's latest message is
> beside the point."
>
>(S.L) Now, George. That's not a very nice way to
sidestep
> my main argument. What
> those archaeologists say did NOT answer my question.
******GK: Your main argument was that I accepted the
theory that the Goths mass migrated from Scandinavia.
Since I do not there was little incentive to discuss
the issue.*****
>(SL) The evidence Kossina used is still there, it
just
> doesn't say Scandinavian.
> And it doesn't say "autochtonous" either.
*****GK: Well that is what it says to professional
field archaeologists. Until they say otherwise that's
the ball game I'm afraid. You may not like it. It may
interfere woth some pet theory of yours. But your
authority is clearly insufficient to overturn the
consensus of professionals.*****
>(SL) As far as saying that later Scandinavians were
some
> kind of aristocratic
> elite among the Wielbark, I don't see how that makes
> any sense, either.
> Polish archaeologists agree there were very few of
> them. And I've seen
> nothing archaeologically that says they were elite.
> That's just Jordanes and
> Kossina again.
*****GK: I see nothing objectionable in such a
reinterpretation of Jordanes. There is archaeological
support and no archaeological evidence to the
contrary.******
> But, in terms of credibility, Jordanes' origin
> theory is that it happened
> before 1000 BC. And its supposed to account for the
> Gothic nation, including
> Ulfila's poor folk and not just an Odin-style ruling
> family.
*****GK: The ancient date is of course untenable, and
due to Jordanes/Cassiodorus incorporation of
non-Gothic material (Getan and Scythian) into Gothic
history. BTW how many people were two ships supposed
to hold (:=))??? Perhaps... the Amali and Balti and
their households? Note that this is actually far more
credible than the Biblical account of Israel's
migration from Egypt to the Holy Land... Or the coming
of "Polanian" Slavs to the hills of Kyiv...******
>
>(SL) We do have evidence of a mass migration out of
> Scandinavia or anywhere along
> the Baltic at the time of Wielbark. But there was
> one that happened about
> 250 BC. That works with my theory about how the
> East Germanic languages got
> to the eastern Danube and the Ukraine.
*****GK: BTW it's no longer "the" Ukraine, but just
plain and simple "Ukraine". You first sentence is
confusing. But you's better correct it yourself rather
than accuse me again of tampering with the evidence if
I make any clarifying adjustments. Are you talking
about the Bastarnae? If you are, and if Shchukin is
your authority, keep in mind that very few if any
archaeologists and historians in the FSU accept his
idiosyncratic interpretations. The man sees
"Bastarnae" everywhere.******
General Note: For those who are confused by Steve
Long's hop skip and jump method of argumentation,
viz., completely ignoring certain points (such as my
comprehensive response to his demand that evidence be
provided that Goths and Getae appeared simultaneously
as different categories in classical sources), raising
new issues in mid-stream, red herrings, etc., please
be advised that this is nothing new. Have a look at
message 280 on the European Archaeology list (November
29 2000). Let's hope we're not in for more of the same
here...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards�
http://movies.yahoo.com/