Re: Torsten's theory reviewed

--- 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".****

>
> 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? If so we must be
careful not to exclude Elbe Germani. I realize this is
tricky, but archaeology only proves (so far) 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, no archaeological trace there.I
don't want to make too much of this, but there it is:
if we can't prove Ariovistus' presence in Gaul
archaeologically, we certainly can't disprove Elbe
Germanic presence there. 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.****

> 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.****

>
> 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)****

>

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.****

>
> 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.
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.****

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

>
> 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

****GK: I'll have a look at this. So far I've been
arguing on the basis of your Hachmann citations and
your own earlier comments.****

>
>
> Torsten
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping