I wrote:
> The evidence Kossina used is still there, it just
> doesn't say Scandinavian.
> And it doesn't say "autochtonous" either.
George wrote:
*****GK: Well that is what it says to professional
field archaeologists. Until they say otherwise that's
the ball game I'm afraid."
Again, that's not true, George. I'm aware of no such claims (thankfully)
being made by Polish archaeologists.
As far as I am aware no "professional field archaeologists" currently claim
that Kossina's "proving elements" - serpent-headed bracelets, characteristic
pear metal pendants, the s-shaped clasps, inhumation, etc. - are autochtonous
to Wielbark.
They may call Wielbark in general of local origin. But those "key elements"
as Heather calls them are NOT autochtonous.
So, once Kossina and a whole generation of your "professional field
archaeologists" used these items to establish Scandinavian origins for
Wielbark. Now - what? - these former major measures of origin mean nothing?
Just because they now point in the opposite direction?
I don't blame field archaeologists for this. After all, the traditional
Anglo-American processual school I was once trained in would say it's not
their job. That point-of-view says archaeologists have better,
scientifically-verifiable things to do then screwing around matching
ambiguous old texts with subjective pottery style critiques.
If I blame anyone, it would be historians like Peter Heather who can
acknowledge that the origin does not point to Scandinavia anymore, but fail
to ask where that evidence DOES now point to.
George also wrote:
"But your authority is clearly insufficient to overturn the
consensus of professionals."
Well, I don't think you're correct about the consensus.
But in any case, as you noted yourself, consensus may fall. (George wrote:
"We no longer accept this theory, even if Jordanes and his contemporaries
did, and after them many generations of readers and scholars.") What goes up,
must come down. The brilliant Stephen Jay Gould once wrote; "If there is one
thing we scientists can honestly say about our current theories, it is that
they will be proven wrong."
Besides, it's should not be a matter of authority, right. It's should be a
matter of truth, right, George? So, that although my professional authority
may be teeny-weeny (do you know that George? do you really know who you are
talking to?), I'm sure you'll agree that the truth will triumph. Sometimes,
at least.
Steve Long