From: tgpedersen
Message: 55145
Date: 2008-03-14
> > > Is the other "foreign phenomena" drive (this is what I may haveNot so fast.
> > > misunderstood), the one towards the area to the north,
> > > also associated with a "Przeworsk" push?
> > >
> > That is what Hachmann's text say, as far as I can see. I repeat
> > the relevant part:
> > "
> > Innerhalb dieses Gebietes treten - vielleicht gegen Mitte des
> > letzten vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts oder etwas früher vereinzelt
> > Fremderscheinungen auf, nämlich einige wenige Gräber in der
> > Wetterau, /etc. cut for economy/
> >
> > So 'nächstverwandtes', ie "something which is the most closely
> > related" (translated clumsily), to the 'Fremd-erscheinungen', ie.
> > "foreign (out-of-place) phenomena/objects" that is suddenly found
> > in the Wetterau, is found in Central Germany, but more numerously,
> > and also there appearing foreign in the environment; only all the
> > way east in Przeworsk do we find something which matches perfectly
> > (and presumably here not foreign in the environment).
> >
> > Now literally all we can interpret from that is that the Wetterau
> > group (presumably Ariovist, the short lifetime of the incursion
> > would explain the relative scarcity of finds here relative to
> > Central Germany) disappeared, and a more dense group (or more
> > long-lived) stayed in Central Germany (that must include
> > Thuringia). I can't find anywhere that he directly says that this
> > group moved north and *became* Elbgermanen.
>
> ****GK: I think this is basically right. The important
> point is that the "Przeworsk intrusions" occurred into
> the archaeological area Hachmann earlier described (in
> the first of your erstwhile translations) as a heavily
> Celtic-influenced territory east of the Rhine, south
> of the Lippe, and West of the upper Leine valley (the
> latter obviously in Thuringia). In order to get there,
> these "Ariovist contingents" <72-58 BCE> clearly had
> to cross the Elbe and move through territory which did
> not belong to this "Lippe-Leine" culture, and which
> rather seemed to be Jastorf or (pre)-Elb-Germanic. The
> influence this push-through had is undeniable,but it
> reminds one of the Roman influence, or of the Gothic
> influence on the Alans as they pushed through to the
> Crimea. What it seems to have accomplished is to help
> reorganize and "militarize" the Jastorf and other
> middle groups (middle between the original Przeworsk
> area and the newly 'colonized' territories in
> Thuringia and further west), and in that way
> (indirectly) were a factor in the emergence of the
> Elb-Germanic culture. This, of course, is quite
> different from the way in which Przeworsk itself was
> created. That is to say,there is no evidence at all of
> any direct Przeworsk contribution (no settlements or
> artifacts) to the emergence of Elb-Germanic in areas
> north and east of the "Lippe-Leine" territory. And
> while the original Przeworsk culture continued to
> thrive for centuries in the east (it did not disappear
> there until the 5th century CE), Hachmann seems to say
> that within a couple of generations at the most the
> Przeworsk elements in Hesse(I'm not sure about
> Thuringia)were absorbed by an expanding Elb-Germanic
> culture which was not the outcome of Przeworsk
> cultural activism. If that is so, and let me know if
> I've missed something in Hachmann which militates
> against it, there is no need to continue the
> discussion, since Przeworsk can hardly be taken as the
> context for the emergence of the "proper" Germanic
> language and literature. These processes (the
> Przeworsk invasions, the Elb-Germanic expansion)
> rather seem to indicate a reshuffling of groups
> already "Germanic" (in the widest sense). I had
> originally thought that you would suffer your Cannae
> at the Swedish border(:=))),but I see now that the
> battle was already lost at the Elbe.****
>