From: tgpedersen
Message: 64416
Date: 2009-07-25
>Erh, excuse me? I'm the one who believes Wozniak's words up to and including 'probablement' which you leave out and believe the rest.
> --- 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/archaeologia-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.****
> >Yes, that is the only thing that matters to you. Unfortunately Wozniak cites no reason and says 'probablement'.
> > 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 aOkay so you're saying that the linguistic/historical notion that Lugii is probably of Celtic origin 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 yourThe reason I can't make sense of the sentence in the former paragraph is I'm denser than necessary?
> 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.****I just learned a new Swedish expression in a discussion: