Re: Kossack's Conclusions

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
> Very good stuff. Thank you, Torsten.
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
> > <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Georg Kossack:

Oh, now I get it. Sorry for being so slow.

> > Archäologisches zur frühgermanischen Besiedlung
> > zwischen Main und
> > Nordsee, pp. 103-104
> > in Kossack, Hachmann, Kuhn:
> > Völker zwischen Germanen und Kelten
> >
> > "
> > CONCLUSIONS
> > The events in western North Germany must have taken a different
> > course. A uniform, all-extensive movement can hardly be assumed
> > here, nor can exclusively an Elbe-Germanic/Suebian
> > population as carrier of these enterprises.
>
> ****GK: Does Kossack agree with Hachmann that "Early
> Germanic" culture(=Elbe-Germanic?) spread into the old
> Jastorf area from a point further south in the last
> half of the 1rst c.BCE? Or did it spread there at the
> same time as in "western North Germany", viz., from
> ca. 0-> CE?****

It's very odd. He asserts that the culture in Bohemia which appears
abruptly in Bohemia, is strongly related to the continously developed
culture on the Lower Elbe, and that the Germanic layer appears
abruptly in Thuringia, but nowhere does he state that the influence
went physically one way or the other. It would be logically possible
that new features which changed Jastorf to Elbe-Germani came from the
new elewment in Thuringia. He doesn't mention the
Przeworsk/Oder-Warthe character of the new layer in Thuringia and
Wetterau at all. Would it a problem for him to fit that in?

>
>
>
> > They offer a palette of cultures partly prehistoric, partly
> > of early history, of which the former in the north no longer
> > participated in the core area of the Suebian Germani,
>
> ****GK: Are these the quintessential Germani for
> him?***

He starts with a tour of the history of the archaeology, and ascribes
to Kossinna (the 'father' of German archaeology, as you probably know)
such a view to him. He is not exactly outspoken on the subject himself.

> > while the others in the south no longer in all aspects belonged to
> > the oppida culture of the late Continental Celts.
>
> ****GK: This would be Hachmann's non-Celtic
> "Celticized" culture (also non-Germanic) where
> Przeworsk appears as a "foreign" element in the latter
> part of the 1rst c. BCE?****

Yes.

> > Seen archaeologically, this work of destruction is directed first
> > and above all against the native settler groups in the extent of
> > the Celtic oppida culture and its northern neighbors. Seen
> > linguistically, against communities, the name material of which is
> > not or not necessarily Germanic, although the written sources
> > themselves probably since Poseidonios call them Germani.
>
> ****GK: So his view is that Posidonius' "Germani" of
> 80 BCE would be in effect Nordwestblock et al.?****

Yes, and following him Caesar, Tacitus and Kossinna.

> > The occupation lines, denoted by temporary or permanent winter
> > camps for the troops, are remarkably consistent with those zones
> > where the Early Germanic layer is discernible at the earliest
> > time: in the Lippe valley and from the Wetterau towards the North
> > all the way to the river Weser ... . The question has therefore
> > been raised whether the Roman incursions in part were only a
> > response to those Germanic east-to-west movements.
> > But that would entail that the Early Germanic finds in North West
> > Germany should be dated in the time before Drusus,
>
> ****GK: I.e. to the period prior to 11/9 BCE.****
>
> > which however hardly would be possible in the chronology
> > represented here which has decisive importance for our
> > conclusions. It is however possible to see the expansion of our
> > finds as an indirect consequence of such movements, in the sense
> > that the Germani prevailed only when on the one hand the
> > autochthonous population was biologically and culturally
> > weakened, and on the other hand Varus' defeat not only
> > consolidates their reputation, but also gives them an opportunity
> > to seize power.
>
>
> ****GK: So the spread begins after 9 AD acc. to
> him.****

Yes. He argues for it archaeologically, which will probably interest
you, so I'll post it.

> > It seems consequently that this defeat, which traditionally has
> > been seen as a liberation of a country that was Germanic
> > since way back when, should be allotted much greater significance
> > for the early history of our fatherland. Apparently only then
> > begins all the way to the Rhine and the Main rivers a permanent
> > Germanic colonization, where the destructive force of the Roman
> > troops had created a vacuum, only now do Germanic cultural
> > phenomena achieve a breakthrough.
>
> ****GK: Is the implication that Przeworsk here was
> also a victim of the Roman pushes?****

I don't think so. The Roman colonization campaigns and later punitive
expeditions did not cross the Elbe, AFAIK

Torsten