This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The arcticle contains errors claiming wrong ethnic background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.106 ( talk) 08:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
On the bearers of the Przeworsk Culture according to written and archaeological sources
by Marek Oledzki (Lodz)
According to the written sources of the early Roman Iron Age (Strabo, Tacitus, Ptolemaios, Cassius Dio) most areas of the Przeworsk Culture were settled by the people of the Lugians or - as some scientists put it - by the association of the Lugians tribes (Tac., Germ. 43). In the light of recent research work, its German ethnic character is undoubted, although in this connection some authors underline also its Celtic component. At the beginning of the Roman Iron Age this Latène component was assimilated by the Przeworsk Culture; since then, there is certainly no doubt that the Lugians despite, the Celtic sound of their name, have a German character. At the turn from the early to the late Roman Iron Age, the two tribes formerly named the Lugians are now referred to by the same name, the Vandals. As the sources clearly show, the identity of the Lugians and the Vandals is proven by the identity of the territories in which they appeared. This allows us to state that the extension of the Przeworsk Culture is the same as the settlement area of the Vandals, in particular, the northern, the eastern and the southern borders. The exception of the western border is explainable, as according to the written sources the Burgunds and the Siligans were located in the western area of the Przeworsk Culture and they, although closely related, can not be equated with the Vandals.
http://www.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/bereiche/ufg/heft40_1_en.html#oledzki
The final phase of the Przeworsk Culture
by Magdalena Maczynska (Lódz)
In the 4th century and the first half of the 5th century - in the stages C3-D - the Przeworsk Culture, which lasted in south and central Poland for nearly 500 years, went through a period of strong economic development. The region was relatively densely populated; however, the majority of settlements - nearly exclusively ceramics were found on the sites can not be dated more precisely than into the stages C2-D. The material from settlements is concentrated in Silesia and Minor Poland. In comparison to the earlier phases there are more settlements in the west Carpathians. This relatively stable condition broke down at the turn of the 4th to the 5th centuries, that is in the final phase of the stage Dl.
From the first half of the 5th century within the area of the Przeworsk Culture sites with finds of a so-called nomadic character as well as settlements of the North Carpathian Group are known. In the second half of the 5th century this area provided little material. There is only a small concentration of finds in central Poland. In the Jurassic area north of Kraków it is worth mentioning late metal objects from caves and from a refuge on a limestone rock. It seems that remnants of the early German population sought refuge there. On the other hand, no traces have been observed of contacts with the Slavic population which from the late 5th century onwards successively occupied the virtually deserted area of the Przeworsk Culture.
http://www.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/bereiche/ufg/heft39_1_en.html (contributed by FourthAve)
Southern and central Poland was occupied by the Przeworsk Culture, which gained its name from the village of Przeworsk, situated in Lesser Poland (Maűopolska), where the first cemeteries typical of this culture were discovered. This culture emerged at the beginning of the second century bc and continued to thrive for several hundred years, right up until the Migration Period. The regions of Warmia and Mazuria (Mazury) were inhabited by representatives of the Western Balt Culture, which developed independently of its neighbours, and differed from them distinctly, bearing, however, a clear relationship to Baltic peoples. In contrast, during the first decades ad, an entirely new culture began to take shape in Pomerania. Archaeologists dubbed it the Wielbark Culture, after the site at Wielbark (currently Malbork-Wielbark), where the first cemetery of this culture was found. This area of Poland had previously been occupied by the Oksywie Culture, closely related to the Przeworsk Culture, but differing in many aspects from the subsequent Wielbark Culture.
The article gives the impression that this culture is quite old. It's the title that interests me though. When did the term Pzeworsk culture first make its debut? I see that it's named after a town several hundred kilometers from the area designated on the article's map. Can anyone tell us the original author of the "name", and a date that it first appeared in some source? Thanks. Dr. Dan 03:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence of the lead now reads "Assigns the Goths to the Przeworsk culture inland, but this culture was Vandalic with the Celtic culture in southern Poland was also influenced by the local Przeworsk culture[2]." (sic) Can someone work out what this is suppposed to mean, and if possible if it is correct? Johnbod ( talk) 14:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
https://www.academia.edu/4115218/ -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 13:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
For future reference I have removed this map, which seems not to correspond either with any of our other maps, or with the maps found in published sources.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Attempt to list the key changes caused by the big reversion:
"part of an Iron Age archaeological complex"without ever defining any such complex. Which complex?
The earliest form of the culture was a northern extension of the
Celtic
La Tène material culture which influenced much of continental Europe in the Iron Age, but it was also influenced by other material cultures of the region, including the
Jastorf culture to its east and northeast, which is associated with the
Suevian peoples known to classical authors, and early
West Germanic languages.
Later manifestations of the culture are associated with both the Lugii and Vandals, mentioned in classical sources. |
Andrew Lancaster version | E-960 revert/deletion |
---|---|
In its earliest form it was located in what is now central and southern Poland, in the upper Oder and Vistula basins. It later spread southwards, beyond the Carpathians, towards the headwaters of the Tisza river, and eastwards, past the Vistula, and towards the headwaters of the Dniester. | It was located in what is now central and southern Poland - the upper Oder to the Vistula basin, later spreading to parts of eastern Slovakia and Subcarpathia ranging between the Oder and the middle and upper Vistula Rivers and extending south towards the middle Danube into the headwaters of the Dniester and Tisza Rivers. |
Andrew Lancaster version | E-960 revert/deletion |
---|---|
Scholars view the Przeworsk culture as an amalgam of a series of localized cultures. Although there is no evidence of an actual migration, the Przeworsk culture appears relatively suddenly, manifested as an adaptation of the Celtic La Tene culture technology from the southwest, and was quite distinct from the preceding Pomeranian culture and Cloche culture. [1] To its northwest, the Przeworsk culture also shows significant contact with the Jastorf Culture, associated with the spread of early Germanic languages, and the early Suevian peoples who were reported by Roman authors. | Scholars view the Przeworsk culture as an amalgam of a series of localized cultures. Continuity with the preceding Pomeranian culture is observed, albeit modified by significant influences from the La Tene and Jastorf cultures. |
References
Przeworsk culture is connected->associated->connected with the Zarubintsy culture. "Connected" seems a very vague word. Why is this so important though? To me it looks like this was not really considered, but just happened because of the way this revert was done without detailed consideration.
The Przeworsk culture was probably not a single ethnic or linguistic group. In classical ethnography, it is likely that it corresponds to the group of peoples known as the Lugii.
The Przeworsk culture is often associated with the Vandals, however the culture has also been linked to the early Slavs,[8] and most likely was of mixed Slavic and Germanic nature.which I had changed to
Among specific Germanic peoples known to later written history, the Przeworsk culture is often associated with the Vandals, although these were probably only one element within the culture. The culture has also been linked to the early Slavs.
To me it seems you have deleted quite a bit of sourced material and much of this was specifically clarifying both the likely connection to the Vandals and also the probable linguistic and cultural mixture represented by this archaeological culture. Concerning content, I am also concerned that we are giving such undue weight, and vague wording, concerning the old idea that this culture was linguistically Slavic. We need more specific explanation and good sourcing for that. Which archaeologists are still really arguing this?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The arcticle contains errors claiming wrong ethnic background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.106 ( talk) 08:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
On the bearers of the Przeworsk Culture according to written and archaeological sources
by Marek Oledzki (Lodz)
According to the written sources of the early Roman Iron Age (Strabo, Tacitus, Ptolemaios, Cassius Dio) most areas of the Przeworsk Culture were settled by the people of the Lugians or - as some scientists put it - by the association of the Lugians tribes (Tac., Germ. 43). In the light of recent research work, its German ethnic character is undoubted, although in this connection some authors underline also its Celtic component. At the beginning of the Roman Iron Age this Latène component was assimilated by the Przeworsk Culture; since then, there is certainly no doubt that the Lugians despite, the Celtic sound of their name, have a German character. At the turn from the early to the late Roman Iron Age, the two tribes formerly named the Lugians are now referred to by the same name, the Vandals. As the sources clearly show, the identity of the Lugians and the Vandals is proven by the identity of the territories in which they appeared. This allows us to state that the extension of the Przeworsk Culture is the same as the settlement area of the Vandals, in particular, the northern, the eastern and the southern borders. The exception of the western border is explainable, as according to the written sources the Burgunds and the Siligans were located in the western area of the Przeworsk Culture and they, although closely related, can not be equated with the Vandals.
http://www.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/bereiche/ufg/heft40_1_en.html#oledzki
The final phase of the Przeworsk Culture
by Magdalena Maczynska (Lódz)
In the 4th century and the first half of the 5th century - in the stages C3-D - the Przeworsk Culture, which lasted in south and central Poland for nearly 500 years, went through a period of strong economic development. The region was relatively densely populated; however, the majority of settlements - nearly exclusively ceramics were found on the sites can not be dated more precisely than into the stages C2-D. The material from settlements is concentrated in Silesia and Minor Poland. In comparison to the earlier phases there are more settlements in the west Carpathians. This relatively stable condition broke down at the turn of the 4th to the 5th centuries, that is in the final phase of the stage Dl.
From the first half of the 5th century within the area of the Przeworsk Culture sites with finds of a so-called nomadic character as well as settlements of the North Carpathian Group are known. In the second half of the 5th century this area provided little material. There is only a small concentration of finds in central Poland. In the Jurassic area north of Kraków it is worth mentioning late metal objects from caves and from a refuge on a limestone rock. It seems that remnants of the early German population sought refuge there. On the other hand, no traces have been observed of contacts with the Slavic population which from the late 5th century onwards successively occupied the virtually deserted area of the Przeworsk Culture.
http://www.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/bereiche/ufg/heft39_1_en.html (contributed by FourthAve)
Southern and central Poland was occupied by the Przeworsk Culture, which gained its name from the village of Przeworsk, situated in Lesser Poland (Maűopolska), where the first cemeteries typical of this culture were discovered. This culture emerged at the beginning of the second century bc and continued to thrive for several hundred years, right up until the Migration Period. The regions of Warmia and Mazuria (Mazury) were inhabited by representatives of the Western Balt Culture, which developed independently of its neighbours, and differed from them distinctly, bearing, however, a clear relationship to Baltic peoples. In contrast, during the first decades ad, an entirely new culture began to take shape in Pomerania. Archaeologists dubbed it the Wielbark Culture, after the site at Wielbark (currently Malbork-Wielbark), where the first cemetery of this culture was found. This area of Poland had previously been occupied by the Oksywie Culture, closely related to the Przeworsk Culture, but differing in many aspects from the subsequent Wielbark Culture.
The article gives the impression that this culture is quite old. It's the title that interests me though. When did the term Pzeworsk culture first make its debut? I see that it's named after a town several hundred kilometers from the area designated on the article's map. Can anyone tell us the original author of the "name", and a date that it first appeared in some source? Thanks. Dr. Dan 03:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence of the lead now reads "Assigns the Goths to the Przeworsk culture inland, but this culture was Vandalic with the Celtic culture in southern Poland was also influenced by the local Przeworsk culture[2]." (sic) Can someone work out what this is suppposed to mean, and if possible if it is correct? Johnbod ( talk) 14:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
https://www.academia.edu/4115218/ -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 13:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
For future reference I have removed this map, which seems not to correspond either with any of our other maps, or with the maps found in published sources.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Attempt to list the key changes caused by the big reversion:
"part of an Iron Age archaeological complex"without ever defining any such complex. Which complex?
The earliest form of the culture was a northern extension of the
Celtic
La Tène material culture which influenced much of continental Europe in the Iron Age, but it was also influenced by other material cultures of the region, including the
Jastorf culture to its east and northeast, which is associated with the
Suevian peoples known to classical authors, and early
West Germanic languages.
Later manifestations of the culture are associated with both the Lugii and Vandals, mentioned in classical sources. |
Andrew Lancaster version | E-960 revert/deletion |
---|---|
In its earliest form it was located in what is now central and southern Poland, in the upper Oder and Vistula basins. It later spread southwards, beyond the Carpathians, towards the headwaters of the Tisza river, and eastwards, past the Vistula, and towards the headwaters of the Dniester. | It was located in what is now central and southern Poland - the upper Oder to the Vistula basin, later spreading to parts of eastern Slovakia and Subcarpathia ranging between the Oder and the middle and upper Vistula Rivers and extending south towards the middle Danube into the headwaters of the Dniester and Tisza Rivers. |
Andrew Lancaster version | E-960 revert/deletion |
---|---|
Scholars view the Przeworsk culture as an amalgam of a series of localized cultures. Although there is no evidence of an actual migration, the Przeworsk culture appears relatively suddenly, manifested as an adaptation of the Celtic La Tene culture technology from the southwest, and was quite distinct from the preceding Pomeranian culture and Cloche culture. [1] To its northwest, the Przeworsk culture also shows significant contact with the Jastorf Culture, associated with the spread of early Germanic languages, and the early Suevian peoples who were reported by Roman authors. | Scholars view the Przeworsk culture as an amalgam of a series of localized cultures. Continuity with the preceding Pomeranian culture is observed, albeit modified by significant influences from the La Tene and Jastorf cultures. |
References
Przeworsk culture is connected->associated->connected with the Zarubintsy culture. "Connected" seems a very vague word. Why is this so important though? To me it looks like this was not really considered, but just happened because of the way this revert was done without detailed consideration.
The Przeworsk culture was probably not a single ethnic or linguistic group. In classical ethnography, it is likely that it corresponds to the group of peoples known as the Lugii.
The Przeworsk culture is often associated with the Vandals, however the culture has also been linked to the early Slavs,[8] and most likely was of mixed Slavic and Germanic nature.which I had changed to
Among specific Germanic peoples known to later written history, the Przeworsk culture is often associated with the Vandals, although these were probably only one element within the culture. The culture has also been linked to the early Slavs.
To me it seems you have deleted quite a bit of sourced material and much of this was specifically clarifying both the likely connection to the Vandals and also the probable linguistic and cultural mixture represented by this archaeological culture. Concerning content, I am also concerned that we are giving such undue weight, and vague wording, concerning the old idea that this culture was linguistically Slavic. We need more specific explanation and good sourcing for that. Which archaeologists are still really arguing this?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)