From: george knysh
Message: 58002
Date: 2008-04-25
>clearly a part of
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
>
> > > The 6 L.type graves of Lubieszewo itself are
> > > the Gustow group, which is NOT PRZEWORSK butsomething
> > > intermediary between Wielbark and Elbe. This isthe conclusion
> > > of professional archaeologists.*******************************************
> > Tell me what's wrong in this paragraph then (fromAntiquity ):
> > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Poland_in_
> > 'The evolution of the power structure within theGermanic
> > societies in Poland and elsewhere can be traced tosome degree by
> > examining the "princely" graves - burials ofchiefs, and even
> > hereditary princes, as the consolidation of powerprogressed.
> > Those appear from the beginning of the Common Eraand are located
> > away from ordinary cemeteries, singly or in smallgroups. The
> > bodies were inhumed in wooden coffins and coveredwith kurgans, or
> > interred in wooden or stone chambers.emulations (such as
> > Luxurious Roman-made gifts and fancy barbarian
> > silver and gold clasps with springs, created withan unsurpassed
> > attention to detail, dated 3rd century CE fromWrocl/aw Zakrzów),
> > but not weapons, were placed in the graves. 1stand 2nd century
> > burials of this type, occurring all the way fromJutland to
> > Lesser Poland, are referred to as princely gravesLubieszewo type,
> > after Lubieszewo, Gryfice County in westernPomerania, where six
> > such burials were found'or
>
> 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
> > > circled by stones, under kurgans. The mentionedglass
> > > objects are bronze wine goblets, silver and
> > > vases (with depictions of gladiatorial contestsin
> > > Rome) and "many local products" (presumably ofthe
> > > type which would be found in non-princelygraves).
> > > A "local Germanic dynasty" they say.this
>
> Note the reference to "many local products". What
> means is that the inventory of the six Lub."princely
> graves" is composed of (1) Roman imports orthose
> emulations; and (2) items belonging to the Gustow
> group culture. The "princely graves" differ from
> of the rank and file only by their location and bythe
> presence of luxurious items. Otherwise theyrepresent
> the Gustow culture as much as the sumptuous barrowsof
> Scythian monarchs represent Scythian culture. Thereis
> nothing else here which points to racial, cultural,or
> linguistic heterogeneity. And, of course, nothingyes.
> which points to Przeworsk. Social differentiation
> But that's it.That is completely new information to me. Everywhere I
> > >of
> > > There is apparently nothing in the L.type graves
> > > other areas which can allow us to construe themas a
> > > unified archaeological culture, let alone aGeorge, your typography.
> > > development of Przeworsk, EXCEPT IN THE AREA OF
> > > PRZEWORSK ITSELF.
> >there was a
> > That's not what I read in the sources. They say
> > remarkably uniform upper class (relatively to thelocal
> > culture) but that it was heterogenous withinitself.
>ruling
> 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
> class characteristics do not prove ruling classSome URLs, please.
> uniformity or unity of provenance. More is required.
> There is nothing.
> >(Lubieszewo) is repeated
> > > If the situation of the standard area
> > > elsewhere, then the "local element" would bedefining in each
> > > particular area. This can be checked.rephrase?
> >
> > I don't understand that paragraph. Could you
>Kurgans? Grave chambers?
> 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).To repeat your own claim.
> > > Your universal Przeworsk scenario is simply nottrue.
> >I think you know I claim a more easterly origin for
> > 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'swarrior
> > > advocate:
> > >
> > > "in Siemiechów [Central Poland GK]a grave of a
> > > who must had taken part in the Ariovistusexpedition
> > > during the 70-50 BC period was found; itcontains
> > > Celtic weapons and an Alpine region manufacturedceramics."
> > > helmet used as an urn, together with local
> > > (Poland in Ant. website)but the
> > >
> > > This is a convincing argument for Przeworsk
> > > participation in the Ariovist saga, of course,
> > > "return" of the participant is to Przeworskitself.
> > > Can you find such graves in the other areaswhere the
> > > L.type ones later emerge?goes to Denmark'
> > >
> >
> > I am not sure I can save a putative 'Ariovistus
> > scenario, given the time frame of the appearanceof those graves,
> > but I might save something like 'An Ariovistussuccessor
> > goes to Denmark with the northern part of theupper crust a
> > century later'. I recall vaguely we dicussed theprovenance
> > (eastern or western) of Rome-origin grave goods ofprincely
> > graves in Denmark; some pointed east, some west.I think I have found something. I'll be back on that.
>evidence-less
> GK: Torsten, you can "save" anything you like as
> long as you are willing to operate in an
> environment.You know very well what I have to do is construct a
> You are constantly shifting your ground.No, my scenario.
> What's this "northern part of the upper crust aGood point. I'll have to take account of that.
> century later"? A century later is what? It's later
> than Maroboduus' Suebian empire which included the
> Goths.*****