Re: Taurisci and Przeworsk

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

>
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> ****GK: A good example of Torsten barging into open doors...Of
> course "they came from somewhere where 'Teuri' used to live."

No, this pedestrian level is caused by George pretending not to
understand what I say.

> Which was not necessarily where the Norican Taurisci were.****

Aha. So there was another Teuri- people around. Which was it?

Here's an interesting fact: One of Ariovistus' wives was a Sueuan. The
other one was a Norican, in other words a Tauriska, sent by their king
Vocio, apparently for dynastic reasons. Caesar could be pleased that
no offspring survived of that union.

> > 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.
>
> ****GK: That's the logic.*****

Yes.

> > > > 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.
>
> ****GK: What makes you think they didn't? Przeworsk
> was formed in the course of the 3rd c. BCE with help
> from the "Celts of Silesia" known only by their
> material remains, and, possibly, by the name of the
> God "Lug" which was occasionally used as a Vandalic
> etiquette.****

?? How did the Celtic god Lug enter into this?

> > > > > > 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.
>
> ****GK: The Romans did not recognize Ariovistus as
> king until 59 BCE. Everything changed for him after
> Magetobria (61 BCE) Before that he was just a
> well-paid mercenary warlord. After that he became a
> conqueror with increasing appetites.****

Pliny mentions a king of the Suevi in Germania in 62 BCE. In 59 BCE
Ariovistus is king of the Germani. In 58 BCE he is the leader of the
Suevi. What happened? Did their king die and they decided to join
Ariovistus?

> > > > 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?
>
> *****GK: Because, Torsten, "l'appetit vient en mangeant".

The appetite for giving away stuff? You are not making any sense.

> Ariovistus' intentions were well-divined by
> Cicero's friend Divitiacus. Re-read DBG 1.31.****

Yes. All the Germans. Not Ariovistus' own men. According to you
Ariovistus was a petty warlord. Why should he suddenly acquire this
philanthropic outlook and share with people he had no say over?

What is this cause that you think Ariovistus felt he had in common
with the Harudes and 'all the Germani'?


Torsten