Re: Side issue: the Yastorf Gubin group

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> . . .
> >
> > "It would probably also be wrong to take
> > overpopulation in the central
> > European area as explanation for these events. In
> > the course of the
> > last pre-Christian century a number of landscapes in
> > central Europe
> > lost almost their entire population, thus the area
> > between the mouths
> > of the Weser and Elbe, the Altmark [around Stendal],
> > southern Mark
> > Brandenburg, the Lausitz and Lower Silesia 82;
> > overpopulation can not
> > have been the reason for that. Also exhaustion of
> > the fields cannot
> > have been the case at least in those cases where
> > settled areas in the
> > neighborhood, comparable wrt their character and
> > quality, kept their
> > population constant. Also the label Wanderlust is
> > probably imprecise.
> > Many population groups only took to wandering due to
> > calamity. Their
> > expressed wish for areas to settle, again and again
> > remarked on by the
> > Romans, sounds genuine, their permanence in newly
> > won areas of
> > settlement testifies against any inborn impulse to
> > wander. Finally
> > also a "Drang nach Süden" have played an although
> > minor role. While
> > namely on the Rhine Suebian and Lugian groups
> > appear, while central
> > Germany becomes riddled with Lugian Settlers, while
> > in Northeast
> > Bohemia and even in Eastern Romania groups from the
> > North settle and
> > while Marbod transfers his Marcomanni to Bohemia,
> > begins slowly in
> > Scandinavia a settling of the country, progressing
> > from the South
> > towards the North, and from the coast to the
> > interior 83.
> >
> >
> Wouldn't the presence of the Roman Empire be an
> obvious magnet --trading and raiding possibilities,
> the chance to be intermediaries between the city
> slickers and the exotic goods they desire such as
> amber, furs, slaves, etc,?
> Something similar happened in Mesoamerica where time
> and time again groups moved south to centers of
> civilization --from Teotlalli (the desert) to Anahuac,
> from Campeche to Guatemala and Yucatan
> from Chiapas to El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guanacaste

Here's another good reason from Tacitus' Germania 33

'Contiguous to the Tencterians formerly dwelt the Bructerians, in
whose room it is said the Chamavians and Angrivarians are now settled;
they who expulsed and almost extirpated the Bructerians, with the
concurrence of the neighbouring nations: whether in detestation of
their arrogance, or allured by the love of spoil, or through the
special favour of the Gods towards us Romans. They in truth even
vouchsafed to gratify us with the sight of the battle. In it there
fell above sixty thousand souls, without a blow struck by the Romans;
but, what is a circumstance still more glorious, fell to furnish them
with a spectacle of joy and recreation. May the Gods continue and
perpetuate amongst these nations, if not any love for us, yet by all
means this their animosity and hate towards each other: since whilst
the destiny of the Empire thus urges it, fortune cannot more signally
befriend us, than in sowing strife amongst our foes.'

Not that there's a real contradiction there. But Ariovistus did not
have any Roman Empire to plunder, most likely he wanted to emulate the
Cimbri, and as soon as the Romans are established in the area, the
Suevi etc got the hell out. They knew better than to tangle with the
Romans, later Marbod explicitly said so. Those that caused the Romans
grief, Arminius et al. were local, non-Germanic tribes (Cherusci,
Marsi, Chatti, Bructeri, Chauci and Sicambri).




Torsten