Re: Torsten's theory reviewed

From: tgpedersen
Message: 55145
Date: 2008-03-14

> > > Is the other "foreign phenomena" drive (this is what I may have
> > > 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.****
>

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.

2) We agree that this phenomenon has to do with the Ariovistus incursion.

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),
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).

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
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

It seems to me that your attempt to contain the Przeworsk incursion to
Ariovistus' abortive mission fails here. 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.

Refs.:
As proof of continuity of Jastorf they offer a grave field in
continuous use 6th cent BCE - 1st cent CE (Mühlen-Eichsen). But that's
compatible with a discontinuity caused by arrivals in the 1st cent.
BCE. Re supposed mixture of Elbe and Przeworsk, see the section on
'Zwischen Kelten und Germanen'.
http://www.kah-bonn.de/ausstellungen/archaeologie/pr_wandtexte.pdf


Torsten