Re: Torsten's theory reviewed

--- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> 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.

****GK: I gathered from your sources that
"Elb-Germanism" is what the Jastorfers turned into
when they "militarized" after the Przeworsk incursion.
The basic culture was just a continuation of Jastorf
with no particular evidence of Przeworsk cultural
influence. Whether Przeworsk cultural remnants are
still discernible in the Przeworsk groups which became
"ElbGermanics" in Hesse and Thuringia your sources do
not say. The general thrust of their account suggest a
scenario closer to your second option.****

>
>
> > > 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.

****GK: But they (or at least Hachmann) do know what
archaeology has discovered west of the Rhine
(='Celtic' nature of the material culture). The
implication is that nothing "Przeworsk", "Jastorf" or
otherwise Germanic has been discovered there. Yet we
know from history that the Suebians and their allies
were there.****

But

> it should definitely be looked into.

****GK: It seems to have been looked into...(how can
you find what isn't there? There's not much incentive
to dig and redig and redig in the hope that somehow
you'll find what you already know from history...)

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.

****GK: Perhaps proto-ElbGermanics (Jastorfer variety)
is better. But isn't that exactly what you did?****

>
> > I realize this is
> > tricky, but archaeology only proves (so far)
>
> Theorizes. I have a hunch they should do their
> homework again.

****GK: How are they supposed to do that?****

>
> > 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.

****GK: Only archaeologically (as with the
Przeworkers), certainly not historically, since you
can't prove the Jastorfers weren't also involved in
the events of 58 BCE., as Marcomanni and Suebians for
instance****

>
> > no archaeological trace there.I
> > don't want to make too much of this,
>
> Oh yes, you do ;-)

****GK: I don't have to (:=))Caesar is good enough.
And again, archaeology does not confirm Ariovistus in
Gaul..So what?****

>
>
> > 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?

****GK: Indeed. Sorry.****

>
>
> > 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.

****GK: It's not that easy to distinguish Przeworsk
Suebians and Jastorf Suebians in Ariovistus' army. Or
to decide which group exactly is Przeworsk.****

>
>
> > > 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.

****GK: Perhaps because the Jastorfers mostly went
back to their territories while the Przeworkers stayed
in Hesse and West Thuringia.****

>
>
> > > 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?

****GK: He did, and also a Norican. But he himself was
Suebian acc. to Caesar.****

>
>
> > > 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?

****GK: 72 BCE and following (=ss.)

>
>
> > 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.
>
>

=== message truncated ===

The rest of your post was cut.



____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs