Re: Taurisci and Przeworsk

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

>
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > We know from Ptolemy that in 160 CE the
> > Teuriochaimai were somewhere in Bohemia
> > http://tinyurl.com/3dmufs
> > (this author is led to move Ptolemy's placement of them from
> > 'north of the Sudeten range', ie. in today's Czech lands,
>
> ****GK: Actually, "north of the Sudeten range" in
> Ptolemy (2.10) points towards southeast Germany
> (Zwickau, Dresden, Bautzen)****

Nope, the mountain range that's north of is the Erzgebirge.

> > to 'north of the Erzgebirge', ie in Saxony or Thuringia, by his
> > desire to explain the name of the Hermunduri/Thuringi; let's stick
> > to what Ptolemy actually says.
>
> ****GK: Let's by all means ****
>
> > Now, if Boiohaim- is the now Germanic former home of the Boii,
> > then Teuriochaim- must be the now (160 CE) Germanic former home of
> > the Teuri-. Which means at some time before that we would have the
> > Taurisci in Bohemia
>
> ****GK: According to Ptolemy the "Teuriochaimai" NOW
> live where they live, "north of the Sudetes".
> According to your logic the former home of the "Teuri"
> is wherever the "Teuriochaimai" came from.

No, *Teurio-chaim-, Germanic "Teuri home", the toponym that the
ethnonym Teuriochamai is formed from, which is north of the Sudetes,
must be a place where some *Teuri- once lived.

> We don't know where that is.****

The name tells us they were there.

> and the Przeworsk in Silesia.
>
> ****GK: And what does this have to do with the Taurisci?****

I was wondering if the indirectly documented *Teuri- in the Czech
lands might possibly be the same people as the Taurisci in Carinthia?
If so, those Taurisci were the nearest Celtic people to Latènicize
Przeworsk.

> >
> > The first we hear of Ariovistist is his encounter
> > with Q. Metellus Celer in 62 BCE.
>
> ****GK: Wrong. Pliny only speaks of a "king of the
> Suebi" in Germania, who has dealings with the Roman
> governor of Gallia Cisalpina.

Ariovistus at that time had been without a roof over his troops
consisting also of Suevi, ie on a war footing, for ten years, he was a
Suevi, and so was his wife. I think we can safely assume he was the
guy the Romans wanted to do business with.

> > That is four, not fourteen years before he meets
> > Caesar. It seems unreasonable to assume that he
> > became the ally of the Sequani and Arverni much before that time,
> > there is no reaction from the Romans before that
>
> ****GK: Why should there be? They only reacted when
> the Aedui approached them for help.*****
>

Oh, come on. The Aedui controlled an area important to northern trade.
The Romans would have reacted sooner.

> > and fourteen years seems an excessive time for
> > Ariovistus to have run his racket in Gallia,
>
> ****GK: But that's what he says: "fourteen years" with
> "no roof over his head".

But he doesn't say: "as an ally of the Sequani and Arverni", or "in
Gaul". He has been on the warpath for fourteen years is all he tells
Caesar.

> Probably constant skirmishes
> as a mercenary on behalf of the Arverni before his
> "big break". A "no roof" leader seems hardly implied
> in the Pliny tale about the Indian merchants.****

Exactly. The colonies he left behind in Thuringia and the Wetterau he
probably still was the master of.

> > after so long time, colonization would have forced the Arverni and
> > Ardui out.

> *****GK: But that started after Ariovistus won his big
> victory. The Romans did not yet view him as a threat
> in 59 BCE when they established friendly relations
> with him.****
>

You can keep an army on the march with a promise of a reward for four
years. You can't keep an army on the march with a promise of a reward
for fourteen years. After less than half a dozen years they want their
reward, so they can settle down and procreate.

> > So I think, given the also small timespan of the appearance of
> > the Thuringia (Central Germania) and Wetterau Przeworsk expansions
> > that
>
> ****GK: All we can say is that these sites were
> occupied in the latter half of the 1rst c. BCE by
> Przeworsk culture populations. In 72-58 BCE
> Ariovistus' people (the original 15,000 plus those
> invited shortly before 58 BCE) were in Gaul.

No, that is your interpretation. They might have been colonizing the
path through the Wetter valley.

> In 58 BCE masses of Suevi were at the border. None of this left
> a trace in terms of material remnants.

Unless that was the Wetterau Przeworsk culture? Alternatively, I
recall reading somewhere in Peschel, I think it was, that sites had
been found which pointed a habitation with a very limited timespan,
say, an overnight camp.

> The Przeworsk settlers were likely Marcomanni, in the period after
> Ariovistus, when they became "Suebi"

Why would Marcomanni become Suebi after Ariovistus, when they already
had separate identities in his army?

> and pressured the Romans constantly until Maroboduus led them into
> Bohemia.****

They did? The Marcomanni were with Ariovistus in Gaul, says DBG.

> > it is a reasonable assumption that Ariovist led the Suevi
> > etc all the way from Przeworsk to Thuringia to Wetterau to Gallia.
>
> ****GK: He may have taken that route (though I think
> he was rather an Elbe Suebian). His trek was a fast
> one, sometime around 72 BCE. It left no archaeological
> traces.****

So Ariovistus came from Lower Saxony and assiduously avoided the
Wetterau Przeworsk on his way to Gaul? Where do you get that from?
Occam won't be happy.

BTW, my story can accomodate some more facts: PGerm. *kuningas is
"king" in Germanic, but "prince" in Slavic. If Ariovistus took his
title among the Przeworsk Germani, he would only be one prince among
several there, the one that led a contingent of them on adventure, but
he would be king of them once they were alone among the enemy.


Torsten