Re: Mid-first century BCE Yazigian prerequisites

--- On Sun, 7/26/09, 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.
>
> GK: You have offered no evidence as to this for the period
> prior to the formation of Wielbark (which emerged in the first
> decades of the 1rst c.)

Yawn.
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.) One might even argue from this text that it is the Wielbark 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.*****

> and no evidence that the inhumation burials
> 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.****

> The opinion of professional archaeologists seem to me to be
> preferable to those of ideological Snorrists.

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" (:=)))*****

> > > 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.****

> 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. Cf. BTW your "yawn" source: ....
"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-)" (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? (:=)))****

> > 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.
>
> 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.****

> > 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.
>
> GK: Probably because there is no material evidence proving
> Scandinavian presence at this early formative period (1-ca.40/50)
> of Wielbark. Snorrist ideology doesn't seem to cut it with
> professional archaeologists. 

People tend to die at the end of their lives decades after having done interesting other things.

****GK: There is no evidence that Scandinavians were buried in the early Wielbark (prior to 50 CE) cemeteries. There is no evidence of "influx". All you keep returning to are mindless (increasingly mindless) assertions which are contradicted by the facts.****

> 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.
>
> GK: Pablum for Torsten: M. accepts Scandinavian "outside"
> influence for the formative period of Wielbark.(The Polish text is
> actually less yielding on this point. It says "at the most" for the
> English version's "possibly": that's how far M. is willing to go
> with the "traditional" view (now rejected) of Gothic invasionism) .

So he is willing to go further with his home audience in rejecting the old paradigm than with a foreign one?

****GK: When you reject something as 98% inadequate and then translate it as 97% inadequate does this really matter? "Outside influences at the most" vs. "possible outside influences". Others might not even see the Polish  text as less yielding. What is emphatic is the 100% rejection of influx in either case.****

I don't trust this guy.

****GK: Are you saying he is falsifying the evidence? That he is "anti-scientific" (:=)))*****

> He also accepts a Scandinavian influx in the latter part of the
> 1rst c. CE. There is sound archaeological evidence for it. And the
> words you have cited above refer to the situation which developed
> after that influx.
>

So first the Scandinavians influenced the Wielbark culture, and then they arrived, some decades later? Amazing how much nonsense you can write in one paragraph.

****GK: You've never heard of trade relations or other types of temporary presences? Poor Torsten... How can Matkiewicz be so "anti-scientific" (sigh...). Incurable indeed. *****