Re: Fw: Re: [tied] Re: Mid-first century BCE Yazigian prerequisites

--- On Mon, 8/3/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> >
> > GK: I said "Celtic stuff" as an abbreviation of a
> > previous post outlining the Celtic origins of this type of
> > object. The fact that it is named after Vimose is just a
> > matter of convenience. Here is Kulikov: "The Celtic material of
> > 100 BCE-> 100 CE etc., (as cited earlier)". He then continues:"In
> > all their areas [i.e. those of the Celts GK] at the end of La
> > Tene we find bronze chain type belts, predecessors of the details
> > of the Vimose type equine headgears.". .. "Among the finds
> > discovered in the camps of 1rst c. CE Roman legions ... are many
> > type Rh1 equine headgears predecessors of Vimose (called Proto-
> > Vimose [in the professional literature GK]) the originating
> > source of the Vimose equine headgear type prepared on such Celtic
> > models for Rome's auxiliary cavalry." Try not to choke
> > (:=)).>

I'll manage. Celtic, you said?
http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/27139
http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/27140

****GK: Yes. The Vimose type equine headgear (found in dozens of Germanic (and some Baltic) sites from Denmark to Lithuania) is definitely of Celtic origin.****

> > Thirty years ago [GK 1974. Unfortunately the K. online
> > version doesn't include the title of the sources]the most
> > authoritative (and heretofore the sole) investigator of the
> > burial ritual of the Aestii of Roman times, Jan Jaskanis,
> > had somewhat a priori noted the West Baltic origin of the
> > biritualistic tradition of the 1-4 cs. in southeastern
> > Baltia... But in fact we lack foundations for the assertion
> > of the West Baltic authenticity of the carriers of the
> > tradition of biritualism in the amber country of Roman
> > times. In the Przeworsk area to the south... the appearance
> > of inhumations. .. are interpreted as the appearance in the
> > north of some Marcomanni and Quadi (Nieweljowski, A., 1981).
> >
> >
> > That's a new one. But the Marcomanni and Quadi were
> > neighbors of the Yasigi, so why not.
> >
> > What is most likely though is
> > that this "appearance" (since the (earlier) inhumations are
> > principally female) is to be interpreted as the existence of
> > matrimonial relations between ethnically related
> > communities. "
> > >
> >
> > The appearance of inhumations should be interpreted as the
> > existence of matrimonial relations between ethnically
> > related communities? What does that mean?
>
> GK: Presumably that Lugians and Gutones took Marcomannian and
> Quadian wives who were buried according to their rite. Which partly
> adopted inhumations under Celtic influence.

I though the Przework inhumations were older than the southern Elbe Germanic ones?

****GK: The oldest ones are. That is why it would be useful to have a better description of these burials. All that one can say at present is that if they are "Przeworsk" they are automatically non-Sarmatian in the eyes of archaeologists, who, for example readily distinguish between Zarubinian burials, Scythian burials on Zarubinian territory, and Sarmatian burials on Zarubinian territory. No one has ever spoken of Sarmatian burials on Przeworsk territory. A Przeworsk inhumation grave means one which in every other respect is just as "Przeworsk" as the cremation burials. Which means Germanic.****

> > There were some relations through marriage between
> > ethnically related communities and then they decided they
> > should be interred in mounds without cremations? But in
> > Denmark there exist many relations through marriage between
> > ethnically related communities and yet they don't build
> > mounds and inter their loved ones in them. Why is that?
> >
> > Torsten
>
> GK: Who cares?

what happens among the Danes? I do, since I'm one of them.

****GK: Your usual red herring twisteroo. Pathetic. Or are you a time traveller. As I clearly stated:

> The important point is that professional archaeologists confirm
> time and again the essentially Germanic inventory of both cremation
> and inhumation graves in 1rst c. Germania.

Yes they do. They confirm the essential Germanicness of a suddenly appearing upper class which wanted to distinguish themselves by being buried in mounds or in inhumation graves separate from the common Germanic cremating riff-raff, and which seemed to be fond of horses.

> And no one sees any analogies between Sarmatian and Germanic
> inhumations

And evidence to the contrary are stray finds of straying weapons etc.

****GK: Just shows your hermeneutic incompetence. Stray finds are just that. If you want to know who is buried in a grave you have to study its shape, the body position, the ritual, the inventory. Stray finds of Persian goblets or Chinese swords in Alanic graves were never interpreted by professionals who know what they are doing to mean that a Persian or Chinese was buried there.****

> (which is why they don't bother to waste their time on
> refutations) .

They have families to support and know better than to do otherwise.

****GK: Yes. There is a vast global conspiracy against Snorrism.****

Torsten

--- In cybalist@... s.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:

Next, you'll probably claim Roman provincial origin for the ring-pommeled swords and lorica squamata. That won't work either.

****GK: Are these found in Germanic graves of that period? Oh right just another pathetic red herring... Sorry Torsten. Vimose type headgear are there. Celtic influence. No recorded Sarmatian headgears in Germanic graves. No migration. And everyone knows about the Sarmatian auxiliaries stationed in Britain.****