--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "gknysh" <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@>, i.e.
> the master of the red herring, wrote:
>
> >
> > Is your false claim that Scandinavia used cremation exclusively
> > an argument, an observations or an experiment?
> >
> > I disabuse you of your ignorance of funeral types in Scandinavia
> > after a 30 second Google search and then I'm an ideologue?
>
> ****GK: I point out that you have misinterpreted your idol on a
> particular point,
That would have been that Snorri did not specifically say that
burials in mounds were inhumations? But archaeology shows they could
be.
> and you go berserk with irrelevant citations and incongruous as
> well as misleading accusations. Yes you are very much
> the ideologue.****
In
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64344
'To state that a mound is erected does not imply that this is done
over an inhumation. Whatever Odin was, he was no Yazig dictator from
the steppes.'
From this quote it is apparent that although what you criticize is my
reading of the Snorri quote as not stating that inhumation was used,
your aim is, since the presence if inhumation is a prerequisite for
Yasig presence, to show that inhumation was not used in Scandinavia.
Therefore I countered the latter, I'll concede the former; the Snorri
quote does not mention inhumation. The archaeology is pretty clear:
cremation is the only burial form in Pre-Roman Iron Age in Denmark,
inhumation arrives with the Roman Iron Age. And BTW why would a ruler
interfere with people's burial habits, unless that interference had
to do with facilitating ruling the country, eg. by forced
assimilation?
Torsten