Re: Clueless roolz...

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- 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.

On typography?

> I was wrong. Sorry. *****

Now that's a first. I think I'll cut it out and stick it on my wall. ;-)

> > 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 Wrocl/aw 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.*****

That is completely new information to me. Everywhere I look, they
stress the separate identity of the supra-tribal layer, based on their
graves. Could you supply an URL or two supporting your opinion?
The kurgan itself was hardly a Roman import or a local product, since
inhumation is a new tradition there, but of course well-known elsewhere.

> > >
> > > 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.

George, your typography.

> >
> > 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.****

Some URLs, please.

> >
> > > 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.****
> >

Kurgans? Grave chambers?

> > > We already know the answer for Lubieszewo proper (to repeat
> > > myself).

To repeat your own claim.

> > > 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.

I think you know I claim a more easterly origin for it.

BTW I've uploaded a map of the distribution of Lubieszewo graves. It
is interesting that they are not found in the Przeworsk area itself,
only north of it. Then it occurred to me that in order to get a
princely grave, you should die not too far from your domain,
preferably under somewhat ordered circumstances. Probably the whole
Przeworsk aristocracy perished in the Ariovistus debacle.

> > > 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
> > graves in Denmark; some pointed east, some west.

I think I have found something. I'll be back on that.

>
> ****GK: Torsten, you can "save" anything you like as
> long as you are willing to operate in an evidence-less
> environment.

You know very well what I have to do is construct a falsifiable
scenario. The evidence is there and is the same for both of us.

> You are constantly shifting your ground.

No, my scenario.

> 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.*****

Good point. I'll have to take account of that.


Torsten