From: george knysh
Message: 64591
Date: 2009-08-03
--- On Mon, 8/3/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
--- In cybalist@... s.com, "gknysh" <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, george knysh <gknysh@> wrote:
> > And evidence to the contrary are stray finds of straying weapons
> > etc.
> >
> > GK: Just shows your hermeneutic incompetence.
The above fancy words serve to express George's exasperation that after so many years Torsten still hasn't learned to fetch.
****GK: Yes. If by "learn to fetch" is meant the capacity to understand the ABC of archaeological literature in so far as it combats your Snorrist idiocies. You simply turn off the intellect and turn on the snarky vituperations. The true believer syndrome. *****
> Stray finds are just that. If you want to know who is buried in a
> grave you have to study its shape, the body position, the ritual,
> the inventory. Stray finds of Persian goblets or Chinese swords in
> Alanic graves were never interpreted by professionals who know what
> they are doing to mean that a Persian or Chinese was buried there.
Yes, and if George calls something a stray find, it becomes by that very speech act a stray find.
****GK: George is nerely reporting the conclusions of professional archaeologists, and not involving himself in dilettantic analytic exercises attempting to twist these conclusions towards Snorrism. That would be intellectually dishonest, and that I leave to true believers.****
Why can't Torsten learn that? Some strange kind of brain damage?
****GK: Apparently self-analysis doesn't seem to help much (:=))****
> GK: The above is just one meaning of "stray find". There is of
> course another meaning: objects found independently of a formal
> burial (just "lying around" or as part of a hoard or something
> similar). Some such objects may be evidence of something concrete
> depending on the context of the find. For instance a Yazigian arrow
> imbeded in the defense walls of a Zarubinian fortress is properly
> interpreted as proof of a military assault (esp. because there are
> many such in such positions. A single arrowhead might have proved
> very little. Dozens in many places with accompanying evidence
> (burnings) is another matter.) One has to analyze such stray finds
> carefully.
Yes, let's do that. What does a Sarmatian dragon standard and a Sarmatian ring-pommeled sword mean in a Danish bog together with supposedly Celtic equine headgear?
****GK: I don't know, but I'm willing to listen to the experts. What I do know is that Celtic influenced equine headgear in Germanic area graves does not indicate a Sarmatian presence.****
> A sword lying on the ground could mean many things.
A sword lying a a Danish bog means just one thing if you are a professional who knows what he's doing. Weapon sacrifice.
****GK: Fine if that's the consensus of learned opinion. What's that got to do with the absence of Sarmatian graves in Germania and of any evidence for the kind of Sarmatian presence required to indicate a Snorrist scenario? Answer: zilch. Another Torsten red herring.****
> The more vague possibilities the less secure the conclusion.
And that's why since you don't want this secure conclusion you delivered in the last paragraph a number of vague possibilities.
****GK: For an ideologist his unproven thesis is ever the "secure conclusion". Instead of wasting everybody's time with these inanities, why don't you provide further particulars about the Przeworsk inhumations you made so much of (since they are the only ones in line with your Ariovistus variant of Snorrism)? That's what you were supposedly looking into. Instead we get a lot of the usual Torsten red herring nonsense (the theme about "stray finds" you raised years ago. It was part of your bla bla which led to your being asked to put up or shut up.)*****