Re: Celtic inhumations in the first c. BCE

--- On Sat, 7/25/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> 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.

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.

> >
> > 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.

Yes, that is the only thing that matters to you. Unfortunately Wozniak cites no reason and says 'probablement' .

****GK: You don't seem to understand French very well. Just read Kostrzewski's German article. Wozniak agrees with it. There is no feed for your Snorrism there, I'm afraid. Whatever "influence" exists on this enclave in Przeworsk did not come from your imaginary "men of the east".****