Re: Torsten's theory reviewed

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > Not so fast.
> >
> > We know this:
> >
> > 1) In the Wetterau and more numerously in 'Central Germany'
> > (Thuringia?) there appears in a late Latène
> > environment elements of Przeworsk culture.
>
> ****GK: Correct. No need to put a ? after Thuringia,
> since the upper Leine valley points to it.****
> >
> > 2) We agree that this phenomenon has to do with the
> > Ariovistus incursion.
>
> ****GK: And its aftermath. The incursion itself= 72-58
> BCE, the archaeological evidence being of those
> settlements which remained in existence for the rest
> of the century (perhaps beyond in Thuringia).
> Subsequently all this dissolves into
> "Elb-Germanic".****

Nice judicious choice of words. The question was whether those
Przeworsk people mingled with Jastorf to become Elbe Germani, or the
Jastorf people changing without outer course into Elbe Germani overran
the Przeworsk people of Thuringia.

> > 3) According to Caesar, Ariovistus' troops included
> > Harudes,
> > Marcomanni, Triboci, Vangiones, Nemetes, Sedusii and
> > Suebi
> >
> > 4) According to 1) and 2) these tribes are either
> > Celtic (Latène) or
> > Przeworsk (no trace of Elbe Germani, according to
> > archaeologists),
>
> ****GK: Apparently no trace of Przeworsk in the area
> occupied by Ariovistus in Gaul?

It's not within neither Peschel nor Hachmann's brief, so to speak. But
it should definitely be looked into. Let's hope the 'mangelhafter
Forschungsstand'
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/55120
doesn't apply to this area.

> If so we must be careful not to exclude Elbe Germani.

If would be stupid to try, since Caesar explicitly mentions some.

> I realize this is
> tricky, but archaeology only proves (so far)

Theorizes. I have a hunch they should do their homework again.

> that the
> Elbe Germani did not appear as settlers in the
> Rhine/Lippe/Leine area until the beginning of the 1rst
> c.CE They may well have been in Gaul with Ariovistus,
> leaving, as stated,

By you. Argumentum e silentio.

> no archaeological trace there.I
> don't want to make too much of this,

Oh yes, you do ;-)

> but there it is:
> if we can't prove Ariovistus' presence in Gaul
> archaeologically, we certainly can't disprove Elbe
> Germanic presence there.

Isn't that the wrong time? Shouldn't you be saying Jastorf instead?

> The Przeworsk data of the
> Wetterau and Thuringia proves that substantial masses
> of eastern Germani settled there in the late 1rst
> c.BCE It does not prove that Elbe Germani did not
> participate in the Ariovistus expedition.****

I think it is strange that with that massive presence in the two areas
that none of the tribes Caesar mentions in Ariovist's army are
traditionally given a Przeworsk origin but they are everywhere else
later in the Germanic territory.

> > Judging by the name, the Triboci, Nemetes and
> > possibly the Sedusii are
> > Celtic, the rest of them therefore must be Przeworsk
> > (with possible roots further east).
>
> ****GK: The conclusion is not secure.****
> >

I find it strange that Przeworsk tribes should leave a big footprint
in the archaeological record at the correct time and the Jastorf none
if the Jastorf were active and not the Przeworsk people in Ariovistus'
expedition.

> > 5) But we know
> > the Harudes are found in Jutland and Norway
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harudes
> > the Marcomanni are supposed to be Elbe Germanic
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcomanni
> > the Vangiones are all over the place
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vangiones
>
> ****GK: This is where history supplements
> archaeology(if I may so put it)****
> >

You may indeed.

> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/48664
> >
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/48665
> >
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29871
> > and the Suebi themselves, are they not supposed to
> > be Elbe Germanic?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suebi
>
> ****GK: Partly, as to location. According to Tacitus
> Suebia is about 1/2 of his Germania, and includes the
> area of the Przeworsk culture and beyond (but not the
> Bastarnae). Ariovistus is presented by Caesar as a
> Suebian.****

I thought he married one?

> > It seems to me that your attempt to contain the
> > Przeworsk incursion to
> > Ariovistus' abortive mission fails here.
>
> ****GK: It does not fail at all. The archaeological
> evidence suggests that Przeworsk elements settled in
> the Hesse/Thuringia areas in the time frame of
> Ariovistus and afterwards. For all we know there could
> have been continuous infiltrations in the period 72ss.

72ss?

> Then they stopped, and the Przeworsk elements
> assimilated into Elbe Germanic(along with the
> Lippe/Leine groups among which they had settled)by the
> end of the 1rst c.BCE in Hesse,and a little later (not
> much) in Thuringia.****

Oops. Where did that come from? The Thuringians had their own kingdom
till it was destroyed several hundred years later by the Franks?

> > The only solution I can see that would match the above facts is
> > the one I proposed all along, namely that the Jastorf culture was
> > infiltrated with the Przeworsk remnants of Ariovistus' expedition,
> > and only then turned aggressively against the Romans.
>
> ****GK: This solution is precisely the one which does
> not match the facts. Unless you mean that it is
> Ariovistus' activism which prompted the Jastorf groups
> to militarize, some of them accompanying him to Gaul.
> There is no evidence of Przeworsk "cultural"
> infiltration of Jastorf, only of the Lippe/Leine
> populations.

But what happened to his 24.000 Harudes?

> According to Hachmann at any rate.****

And most other archaeological timelines I could find. But something's
got to give. Otherwise it's Caesar's statements we can't trust.


Torsten