>
> *****GK: Note that the Przeworsk culture was
> constituted in the 3rd c. BC and evolved from the
> fusion of various elements: Jastorf + "local"
> (varieties of Late Lusatian) + La Tene. The prevailing
> view today is that Przeworsk was fundamentally an East
> Germanic (eventually Vandalic) complex, in which the
> Celtic and "local" components dissolved. So both of
> your possibilities ( (1) and (2) above) seem to
> involve Germanic influencing Germanic.******
>
First, let me say that I appreciate that you have chosen to use
arguments this time like a grownup, Western European style instead of
demanding I be silenced.
Second, now although I don't know much about archaeological method,
it seems to me, that in order to identify the remains of a culture
with a particular historical ethnicity one would have to show that
there is a temporal and spatial continuity between them.
There is temporal continuty between the later Germanic speaking areas
and the culture that replaces Jastorf in the last century BCE.
However, only in the southern part of the Jastorf area is there an
uninterrupted continuity with that culture and the earlier Jastorf
itself. And in exactly that area and that time you find intrusive
Oder-Warthe elements, which appear "foreign", according to
Peschel: "Anfänge germanischer Besiedlung in Mittelgebirgsraum:
Sueben - Hermunduren - Markomannen".
So what I would like to know is: in what way does "the prevailing
view" construe a path of continuity from the Przeworsk culture to the
later Germanic speaking ones? I don't think it can be denied that
Przeworsk was _a_ root of Germanic culture, but it seems those roots
were widely divergent.
Torsten