Re: Celtic inhumations in the first c. BCE

From: tgpedersen
Message: 64416
Date: 2009-07-25

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> --- On Fri, 7/24/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, gknysh@ wrote:
> >
> > --- On Fri, 7/24/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:

> >
> > > But as to inhumation practicing Celts involved with the
> > > Przeworsk culture and with Ariovistus' campaign see:
> > >
> > > http://www.iaepan.edu.pl/archaeologia-polona/article/162
> > >
> > > esp. section X at p. 146 and the notes.
> >
> > Quote from there (p. 30):
> >
> > 'Il semble que ce territoire fut peuplé, dans la seconde moitié
> > du IIe siècle, par une nouvelle population. Mais probablement une
> > partie des Celtes locaux y resta, ce que suggère le fait qu'au
> > Ier avant n.è., et aussi plus tard, apparaissent des tombes à
> > squelette qui indiquent une trace de la tradition religieuse
> > celtique et qui, peut-être, contiennent les depouilles mortelles
> > des descendants des Celtes.'
> > (TP)It sembles and suggères and appears probablement. Obviously
> > pure guesswork.
> >
> > GK: The expression "le fait qu'au Ier avant n.è., et aussi plus
> > tard, apparaissent des tombes à squelette qui indiquent une trace
> > de la tradition religieuse celtique" hardly indicates pure
> > guesswork. "Appears" and "probably" is also considerably stronger
> > than "pure guesswork". Even the "peut etre" is in the milder
> > "guesswork" category, hardly "pure" since it relates to firmer
> > evidence.
>
> Call it guesswork then. Obviously Wozniak draws his conclusion of
> Celticity faute de mieux, since he lists no particular reason for
> it.
>
> > Wozniak is reporting the main conclusions of Kostrzewski' s
> > "Skellettgraeber" article (note 37).
>
> He is?
>
> ****GK: That is the noted source of his comment.****
>
> > Perhaps you should read it...
>
> You would like me to read this article on Skelettgräber for you?
> I'll see what I can do.
>
> ****GK: Not for me. For yourself. I don't need to read it to
> appreciate Wozniak's point. I don't doubt him. If you do, check out
> his source before disparaging him.****

Erh, excuse me? I'm the one who believes Wozniak's words up to and including 'probablement' which you leave out and believe the rest.

> >
> > Another quote:
> > 'On peut donc présumer que c'est ici justement que la population
> > de la civilization de Przeworsk adopta du substratum celtique son
> > nom probablement celtique (Lugii).'
> >
> > GK: The archaeological evidence is solid enough.
>
> The evidence is tangible. The interpretation of it is not, as
> Wozniak indicates.
>
> ****GK: The only thing that matters here is that traditional Celtic
> rite inhumations still existed in this area in the first c. BCE.
> He's not absolutely sure the skeletons were Celtic (they could have
> been those of Celticized individuals). But the influence is what is
> important.****

Yes, that is the only thing that matters to you. Unfortunately Wozniak cites no reason and says 'probablement'.

> > But this linguistic/historic al notion comes closer to being a
> > guess, as is what follows below.
>
> Erh, notion?
>
> ****GK: That Lugii is probably of Celtic origin.****

Okay so you're saying that the linguistic/historical notion that Lugii is probably of Celtic origin comes closer to being a
guess, as is what follows below? Would you care to try to explain yourself once more?

> Would you mind being more precise when you proclaim one of your
> final conclusions? What exactly are you saying, apart from that you
> don't like the conclusions I draw?

> ****GK: Try not to be denser than necessary.

The reason I can't make sense of the sentence in the former paragraph is I'm denser than necessary?

> I realize how difficult this must be for a Snorrist.****

I just learned a new Swedish expression in a discussion:

MATTFLYKT
Många diskussioner kommer så småningom så långt, att en
av deltagarna inte längre kan eller vill bemöta de
argument som riktas mot hans. Det kan bero på att
argumenten i fråga är fåniga, vederlagda eller faktiskt
riktigt bra. Oavsett vilket är det ett kraftfullt typiskt
irritationsmoment när man, i stället för att i tysthet
lämna argumenten obesvarade, lämnar dem obesvarade under
(ibland högljudda) protester. Det innebär alltså att man
börjar diskutera något annat, vanligtvis terminologi,
personliga egenskaper eller debatten som sådan. Detta
beteende kallas med en brottningsterm "mattflykt".

Many discussions by and by get so far that one
of the participants no longer can nor wants to meet the
arguments directed against his. It might have to do with
that the arguments in question are silly, refuted or
actually pretty good. No matter what it is a powerful
typical irritation factor when one instead of silently
leaving the arguments unanswered leaves them unanswered
under loud protestations. This implies thus that one
begins to discuss something else, usually terminology,
personal qualities or the debate as such. This behaviour
is called with a wrestling term "mattflykt" ("fleeing the
mat").


Torsten