--- 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/archaeolo gia-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. Wozniak is reporting the main conclusions of Kostrzewski's "Skellettgraeber" article (note 37). Perhaps you should read it...****
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. But this linguistic/historical notion comes closer to being a guess, as is what follows below. One can take it or leave it. It doesn't affect the main conclusion.*****
You probably saw what I think of the provenance of that name.
http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/64400
http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/64401
/etc./
Torsten