Re: Taurisci and Przeworsk

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

>
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> 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.
>
> *****GK: That's today, and not entirely. But let's
> assume that Ptolemy's "ta Soudeta ope" is what is
> called "Sudety" by Poles and Czechs. It is a series of
> mountain ranges that extends for 300 kilometers along
> the border of Poland, Czechia, and Germany. "North"
> points to an area including southeastern Germany and
> southwestern Poland, between Elbe and Oder. Not
> Bohemia.*****

It seems you may be right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudeten_mountains
But they also call the matter of the location "not very clear".

> > > > 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.
>
> ****GK: Not necessarily "north of the Sudetes" . It
> may indicate that the "Teuri-homers" came from
> wherever the Teuri-home was, not that the Teuri-home
> was north of the Sudetan range where they were placed
> by Ptolemy. They could have been (by 160 CE)
> Germanized elements pushed from the old Tauriscan
> haunts south of the Danube by Burebista. They could
> have come from elsewhere also.

No, they came from somewhere where 'Teuri' used to live.

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

Boio-haim- is the former home of the non-Germanic Boii. Teurio-chaim-
must therefore be the home of the non-Germanic Teuri, not of the
Germanic Turingi.

> > 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.
>
> ****GK: Polish archaeologists think it was the Celts of Silesia.****

Polish archaeologists should be reading Ptolemy.

> > > >
> > > > 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.
>
> ****GK: You're avoiding the issue.

What issue?

> The "king of the Suevi" who contacted the Roman Governor of Gallia
> Cisalpina (in northern Italy) was in Germania, according to Pliny.
> His name is not given.

That's right. Ariovistus was in Germania, ie east of the Rhine at the
time, because he was not yet the ally of the Sequani and Arverni.

> > > > 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.
>
> ****GK: Torsten, the point is that the Romans did not
> react until approached by their Aedui clients after
> the Helvetian affair. Your imagination is not a
> substitute for recorded historical facts. No sense in
> getting irritated at history is there?****

You have a mirror?

> > > > 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".

On the road, not as an ally of Arverni and Sequani. Imagination, George.

> > 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.
>
> ****GK: With not very much success if so. There is no
> intimation in Caesar that Ariovistus had any
> territories under his control except his Gallic
> settlements.

He was expecting 24,000 Harudes which he had to settle. Why would he
have any obligation to do that if they were a foreign tribe? Why
didn't he tell them to get lost? Why would he share the hard-won
spoils of was otherwise?

> Only "home" which he had left 14 yrs. ago is mentioned. The
> mercenary activities with the Arverni and Sequani were repeated and
> of long duration.

George, your imagination.

> The big victory came rather late.

Your imagination, George.

> And only subsequently was he even recognized as "king".

Do I have to repeat myself?

> Dio Cassius also points out that Ariovistus had nothing to
> fall back on except his recent accomplishments in Gaul
> (38.45.1-4).*****

No, Caesar apud Dio points out that Ariovistus was generally hated
among the Germani, ie. on the east bank of the Rhine, because that is
how they defined it then.

> > > 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.
>
> ****GK: There is no proof either historical or
> archaeological that these colonies existed before
> Caesar came to Gaul.****

There is archaeological proof that they were founded at that time.

> >
> > 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.
>
> ****GK: Well they WERE mercenaries for 14 years.

Georg, your imagination.

> And they did get some rewards and were pleased with their
> lot (DBG 1.31), so that service with Ariovistus in
> Gaul became quite attractive to more and more. After
> the big win the rewards were even greater.*****

That's right, after four years. If you see fourteen years of alliance
with the Sequani and Arverni in that paragraph, tell me where.

> > > > 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.
>
> ****GK: Not very likely. Their traces are far more
> tenuous there than in Western Thuringia.****

You mean they are less numerous? But if that area was his supply base,
they would be.

> > > 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?
>
> ****GK: The Przeworsk culture peoples were Vandilic,
> and are not known to have become "Suebian" in a very
> loose sense before the time of Maroboduus.

And that is how things would look if the whole Western Germani thing
started with Ariovistus leading his tribe, the Suevi, out of Przeworsk.

> The Marcomanni were not Suebian in Ariovistus' time.****
> >
> > 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.
>
> ****GK: Let's have specifics.****

I'll try to find it.

> > > 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?
>
> ****GK: They are so recorded. Either before Maroboduus or earlier.
> We know the Romans struggled with the "Suebians" constantly in the
> latter part of the century.****

> > > and pressured the Romans constantly until Maroboduus led them
> > > into Bohemia.
> >
> > They did? The Marcomanni were with Ariovistus in
> > Gaul, says DBG.
>
> ****GK: Maroboduus became the leader in 8 BCE and led
> them out of territories subsequently occupied by the
> Hermunduri with Roman permnission (Thuringia).****

Yes, we know that. And they were in Gaul with Ariovistus. You can't
detach the two.


Torsten