From: tgpedersen
Message: 64434
Date: 2009-07-26
>This is one of the earliest ones
>
> --- 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 WielbarkIt is interesting to see you agreeing with Snorri:
> 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 burialsWhy does Makiewicz then say:
> > 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 beMakiewicz seems to be a pro alright.
> > preferable to those of ideological Snorrists.
> I could of course invent the word 'anti-Snorrist' , stick it ontoAs 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. And you insist on misrepresenting me. Don't do that.
> 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 PrzeworskOK.
> > > > 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 inIt *is* my contention.
> > 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: ....I forgot to translate Danish 'herimod', which is not a Christian name but means "against this".
> "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 situationThat he agrees with me, obviously.
> 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 foreignWozniak says 'probablement'. Albrectsen say 'perhaps'. That means the sources they refer to deliver no compelling evidence. Checking them all is a wild goose chase.
> > > 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.****
> > > > My view is that the Wielbark shift might have been influencedExcept for Makiewicz' maybe-Scandinavians. Perhaps they were, like elementary particles, a probability distribution?
> > > > 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 fromThe choice of the till then unknown inhumation was the result of the family tradition? You are a strange man.
> > > Pomerania. But he leaves the question open and assigns the
> > > choice to "family traditions".
> > > Your own "theory" is just a set of arbitrary assertions withoutDo you feel I should replace them with 'family tradition'?
> > > a shred of evidence to back them up.
> > The fact that many cemeteries Oksywie cemeteries continued intoThe maybe arrived in small groups and left no material evidence?
> > 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 professionalMisrepresentation of other peoples' stated point of view doesn't cut it with me.
> > archaeologists.
> People tend to die at the end of their lives decades after havingI suggest you take that up with Makiewicz.
> 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)Makiewicz' probability distribution is contradicted by the facts?
> assertions which are contradicted by the facts.****
> > Here's your 'foreign influence' as opposed to 'foreign influx':If it doesn't really matter, why did you bring it up?
> > '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".?? How did it get from 97% to 98% to 100%?
> 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.No, that he has his thumb on scale. And so do you.
>
> ****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 theInhumation arrived with trade? How much did they charge for it?
> > 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 Makiewicz be so "anti-scientific" (sigh...).Why do you call him that?
> Incurable indeed. *****No, I think there is still hope for him.