From: george knysh
Message: 64414
Date: 2009-07-24
--- 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/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.
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.****
>
> 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.****
> 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.****
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. I realize how difficult this must be for a Snorrist.****
> One can take it or leave it. It doesn't affect the main
> conclusion.
If you leave it it doesn't. If you take it it does.
****GK: Nope. The Celtic rite inhumations Wozniak recognizes are not dependent on "Lugii" being a Celtic origin term.****
Of course if you leave it you'd have to come up with some other etymology for the name. One thing is certain that it's not particularly Celtic.
****GK: Apparently better linguists than you think it is. But as mentioned that is not particlarly relevant.****
> 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