Re: Clueless roolz...

--- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

The 6 L.type

> graves
> > of Lubieszewo itself are clearly a part of the
> Gustow
> > group, which is NOT PRZEWORSK but something
> > intermediary between Wielbark and Elbe. This is
> the
> > conclusion of professional archaeologists.
>
> They ARE SITUATED in the Gustow group.
> Are you beginning on the capital letter thing too
> now?

****GK: I thought it would help focus your attention.
I was wrong. Sorry. *****

> Tell me what's wrong in this paragraph then (from
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_in_Antiquity ):
> 'The evolution of the power structure within the
> Germanic societies in
> Poland and elsewhere can be traced to some degree by
> examining the
> "princely" graves - burials of chiefs, and even
> hereditary princes, as
> the consolidation of power progressed. Those appear
> from the beginning
> of the Common Era and are located away from ordinary
> cemeteries,
> singly or in small groups. The bodies were inhumed
> in wooden coffins
> and covered with kurgans, or interred in wooden or
> stone chambers.
> Luxurious Roman-made gifts and fancy barbarian
> emulations (such as
> silver and gold clasps with springs, created with an
> unsurpassed
> attention to detail, dated 3rd century CE from
> Wroc³aw Zakrzów), but
> not weapons, were placed in the graves. 1st and 2nd
> century burials of
> this type, occurring all the way from Jutland to
> Lesser Poland, are
> referred to as princely graves Lubieszewo type,
> after Lubieszewo,
> Gryfice County in western Pomerania, where six such
> burials were found'

****GK: I repeat another piece of information you have
left out:

http://pl.wikipedia .org/wiki/
Lubieszewo_(powiat_gryficki)

We have inhumations in wooden chambers, covered or

> > circled by stones, under kurgans. The mentioned
> > objects are bronze wine goblets, silver and glass
> > vases (with depictions of gladiatorial contests in
> > Rome) and "many local products" (presumably of the
> > type which would be found in non-princely graves).
> A
> > "local Germanic dynasty" they say.

Note the reference to "many local products". What this
means is that the inventory of the six Lub. "princely
graves" is composed of (1) Roman imports or
emulations; and (2) items belonging to the Gustow
group culture. The "princely graves" differ from those
of the rank and file only by their location and by the
presence of luxurious items. Otherwise they represent
the Gustow culture as much as the sumptuous barrows of
Scythian monarchs represent Scythian culture. There is
nothing else here which points to racial, cultural, or
linguistic heterogeneity. And, of course, nothing
which points to Przeworsk. Social differentiation yes.
But that's it.*****

>
> >
> > There is apparently nothing in the L.type graves
> of
> > other areas which can allow us to construe them as
> a
> > unified archaeological culture, let alone a
> > development of Przeworsk, EXCEPT IN THE AREA OF
> > PRZEWORSK ITSELF.
>
> That's not what I read in the sources. They say
> there was a remarkably
> uniform upper class (relatively to the local
> culture) but that it was
> heterogenous within itself.

****GK: You've misread the sources. The only
"uniformity" is the burial area separation plus the
luxurious objects aspect. Which are pretty standard
ruling class indicators. Similarity of certain ruling
class characteristics do not prove ruling class
uniformity or unity of provenance. More is required.
There is nothing.****

>
> > If the situation of the standard
> > area (Lubieszewo) is repeated elsewhere, then the
> > "local element" would be defining in each
> particular
> > area. This can be checked.
>
> I don't understand that paragraph. Could you
> rephrase?

****GK: See above. If the only cultural identifiers
(other than location and Roman imports) are "local"
then there are no grounds for asserting a foreign
origin to these dynasts without additional
evidence.****

>
> > We already know the answer
> > for Lubieszewo proper (to repeat myself).
> > Your universal Przeworsk scenario is simply not
> true.
>
> It's a universal upper crust scenario.

****GK: This is meaningless. You have no evidence for
(a) common origin of this "upper crust" or (b)
Przeworsk origin for it.

>
>
> > But here is something for you, says the devil's
> > advocate:
> >
> > "in Siemiechów [Central Poland GK]a grave of a
> warrior
> > who must had taken part in the Ariovistus
> expedition
> > during the 70-50 BC period was found; it contains
> > Celtic weapons and an Alpine region manufactured
> > helmet used as an urn, together with local
> ceramics."
> > (Poland in Ant. website)
> >
> > This is a convincing argument for Przeworsk
> > participation in the Ariovist saga, of course, but
> the
> > "return" of the participant is to Przeworsk
> itself.
> > Can you find such graves in the other areas where
> the
> > L.type ones later emerge?
> >
>
> I am not sure I can save a putative 'Ariovistus goes
> to Denmark'
> scenario, given the time frame of the appearance of
> those graves, but
> I might save something like 'An Ariovistus successor
> goes to Denmark
> with the northern part of the upper crust a century
> later'. I recall
> vaguely we dicussed the provenance (eastern or
> western) of Rome-origin
> grave goods of princely gravces in Denmark; some
> pointed east, some west.

****GK: Torsten, you can "save" anything you like as
long as you are willing to operate in an evidence-less
environment. You are constantly shifting your ground.
What's this "northern part of the upper crust a
century later"? A century later is what? It's later
than Maroboduus' Suebian empire which included the
Goths.*****

>
>
> Torsten
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ