From: gknysh@...
Message: 64441
Date: 2009-07-27
--- On Sun, 7/26/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
.
> 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.)
This is one of the earliest ones
http://tinyurl. com/lnwr6o
****GK: This is contemporaneous to earliest Wielbark. It has no relevance to your Gothic invasion thesis.*****
> 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.
It is interesting to see you agreeing with Snorri:
http://www.sacred- texts.com/ neu/pre/pre03. htm
'The Æsir took wives of the land for themselves, and some also for their sons; and these kindreds became many in number, so that throughout Saxland, and thence all over the region of the north, they spread out until their tongue, even the speech of the men of Asia, was the native tongue over all these lands. Therefore men think that they can perceive, from their forefathers' names which are written down, that those names belonged to this tongue, and that the Æsir brought the tongue hither into the northern region, into Norway and into Sweden, into Denmark and into Saxland.'
****GK: I disagree with this lock stock and barrel as you well know. Your mind is slipping again. Another Snorrist fever attack?*****
> > 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.
Why does Makiewicz then say:
'This is evidenced primarily by the fact that in its initial phase, the Wielbark Culture had exactly the same territorial extent as the Oksywie Culture, many cemeteries having been kept in continued use by these two societies. Wielbark communities comprised mostly members of tribes already settled in this area with the addition of Scandinavian migrants, who maybe arrived here in small groups.'
****GK: He is saying that initial Wielbark was made up of the descendants of those locals who had created Oksywie (and BTW in the case of Oksywie you do have archaeological evidence of Jastorf intrusion from the start), who were later joined etc.. How much later? About 50-70 years. The Wielbark of the late 1rst century was thus composite. Is this so difficult for you to grasp?*****
So Wielbark consists of the previous Oksywie people plus some Scandinavians who maybe arrived and maybe didn't?
****GK: The "maybe didn't" is in your feverish Snorrist mind Torsten.****
Would I buy a used car from this man?
****GK: I appreciate the politically incorrect term, rather than "pre-owned" or "pre-loved". It redeems you a bit (:=)).****
> > The opinion of professional archaeologists seem to me to be
> > preferable to those of ideological Snorrists.
Makiewicz seems to be a pro alright.
****GK: The rest of your comments are simple vituperations so there is no need to respond. I confess that I was puzzled for some time at your apparent denseness in understanding Matkiewicz. My view of his position was shaped by the Polish text, and when I reread the English version I saw no difficulty in the translation except for some minor points. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, in appreciation of your own translating efforts in the past. Most of the English text is adequate though at times it might appear ambiguous to someone not versed in the Polish rendition. I don't know whether it is Matkiewicz hiumself who translated it. His point is this: (1) that originally Wielbark was the exclusive creation of the local tribes, Germanic already, who descended from those who had created the Oksywie culture. Hence the original biritualism is to be explained by choices made by these locals, not by a northern Gothic invasion which is archaeologically
undetectable. That leaves open the issue of origin. Now whatever he meant by "outside" Scandinavian influence he certainly did not associate with the grave ritual. I assume it must ave something to do with the inventory. (2) M. is primarily interested in the origin of the Wielbark culture in "Great Poland" (that is after all the title of his article), which begins in the 2nd half of the 1rst century CE, and which is the first expansion of Wielbark from its Oksywie heartland. (3) In this connection the English translation needs to be corrected. In the final paragraph of his article, where he sums things up, M. states (English text):
"The Wielbark Culture is thought to have reached Greater Poland from Pomerania, displacing the local Przeworsk culture. Whether the Wielbark Culture was really of Gothic ethnic origin or made up of a number of different tribes (including Goths) we cannot say."
The Polish version, prior to translation, says something quite different (and this is where his translator went off the rails). M. had argued that BEFORE the Wielbark movement into Greater Poland, the Scandinavian Goths had arrived, and had established their settlements in the Kashubian lakelands area. They then began to integrate with the locals. The Polish text rendered in English above actually reads:
"The Wielbark Culture etc.. (as above up to "Przeworsk culture"). And then: "We are not however in a position to decide whether these Wielbarkers [i.e. the ones who moved into Greater Poland from Pomerania and expelled the Przeworkers GK] were genuine Goths or also other tribes which constituted the Wielbark culture along with the Goths".****
> 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" (:=)))
As 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.
****GK: Well, what errors DO they contain? (:=))) It would help if you would realize that everything concocted by mediaeval authors (whether Snorri, or Vincent Kadlubek, or Nestor of Kyiv) does not necessarily represent "popular tradition", i.e. that quite a bit in all cases is their own imagination at work. One hermeneutic problem is to disentangle these elements. Were you ready to do this with Snorri you would have been treated differently.*****
And you insist on misrepresenting me. Don't do that.
****GK: Well then stop being a knee-jerk Snorrist.*****
> > > > 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.
OK.
> > 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.
It *is* my contention.
****GK: I thought your latest contention was that the "men of Asia" brought (or now "brought about") Germanic speech and religion to(in) the West from somewhere beyond the Don, and that Ariovistus was a good candidate for the role of Odin.****
> 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-)"
I forgot to translate Danish 'herimod', which is not a Christian name but means "against this".
> (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? (:=)))****
That he agrees with me, obviously.
****GK: You think he is a Snorrist? (:=)))*****
> > > 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.
Wozniak says 'probablement' . Albrectsen say 'perhaps'. That means the sources they refer to deliver no compelling evidence. Checking them all is a wild goose chase.
*****GK: Much less so than the attempt to find proof for Snorri's feverish imagination in Heimskringla...(:=)))*****
> > > > 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.