--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 9/28/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
> >
>
> What is the earliest occurrence of the plough that you know of in that
> general area?
>
> ****GK: I'll check my sources tomorrow.****
>
> And you did notice that Markey is toying with the idea of mr.
> Harigasti as the inventor of the Germanic runes, which is odd since we
> all know who is supposed to have invented them?
>
> ****GK: "Toying" is indeed the operative word. In an area where
historical information is at a premium (I'm talking about the Negau
helmets, but one can easily tack on the entire Ariovistus story of
72-58 BCE/in fact I'll briefly comment on the inadequacy of your
esrlier posted synthesis in that light shortly/) there is always a
strong urge to make highly arbitrary connections which superficially
fit the known facts but hardly dispose of many other similar and
equally if not even more plausible connections or putative "facts".
The Boirebista event is a possible context for the Negau burials. But
so is the Cimbric onslaught. And we have no real idea about other
times and situations in the period of the 5th through the 1rst
centuries, since we have no extant documentation.****
>
You'll find it difficult to move this event around to serve various
purposes, the inscription is dated epigraphically to 55-50 BCE
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/60404
s the Cimbri campaign is out of the question.
There is always the possibility the deposit was nothing fancier than a
hoard: king Voccio knows his brother-in-law has been defeated by the
Romans and this is a good time to be friendly with the Romans; on the
other hand A. might come back, no one knows where he is, better play
it safe and hide his and his retinue's priestly accoutrements where
they can be recovered but not found.
BTW, do you have a fixed date on Boirebista's elimination of the Boii
and Taurisci, and of Decenaeus' 'rule'?
Torsten