Login

03-31-2004, 02:12 AM

I don't claim to be an expert on Kalkriese, nor anything else that happened 2000 years ago, but this whole debate raised a series of questions in my mind, that I haven't seen answered. Let me say right off that I don't have an opinion either way as to what Kalkriese was. 
Firstly, if, as Dan believes , Kalkriese is the sight of a Rourke's Drift type skirmish/battle in 15AD, why wouldn't the same question apply as to why there are nor significant artifact finds beyond a few miles of the site. Presumably, if this was a strategically placed military outpost, regardless of size, then not only should there be a large amount of artifacts surrounding the site in many different directions, but shouldn't there also be evidence of this much talked about trail in this area as well? Presumably this post was reinforced and resupplied on a regular basis, which would indicate the presence of trails leading to and from it. It also seems likely, that if we buy into Dan's argument that this was a Rourke's Drift than there is a good chance that Germanicus's whole force marched past(or very close to) this post, which I assume would also require(or create) a significant foot trail. 
Secondly, if the Romans emerged victorious this encounter as Dan suggests by defending the post from behind earthworks: Why would there be so many artifacts outside the walls of the post? Even if some of these pieces of equipment had been left behind either because the wearers/bearers/owners of said equipment were killed or had to beat a hasty retreat, than why did the Romans not police up there gear after the battle was finished? Alternatively, why didn't the besieging Germans take the gear themselves? 
Thirdly, why do the presence of coins from 12-14 AD rule out that this was not a Varic Battlefield? Presumably Germanicus's forces could have dropped coins in the area of the old battlefield right? 
Lastly, why is the pro-Varus argument for Kalkriese based around the idea that the Kalkriese site has to be the spot of a large battle/ambush/choke point in the Varus battle. Couldn't it have been an area where a small unit(cohort, century, ala) was trying to escape from a larger battle to the east, north or south? Similarly, if Kalkriese was a Roman post in 15 AD then is it not a good bet it had been in 9 AD, as well, and that Germanicus's force used it as a march objective since it was a known outpost. Could this argument not be taken a step further, and one might theorize that some escaping Roman soldiers in 9AD tried to reach the post at Kalkriese, and were overcome, and that their bodies/equipment were later found by Germanicus's troops in 15AD? Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rufuscaius>RufusCaius</A> at: 3/31/04 4:14 am

Chariovalda · 03-31-2004, 05:44 AM

Quote:<hr>Thirdly, why do the presence of coins from 12-14 AD rule out that this was not a Varic Battlefield? Presumably Germanicus's forces could have dropped coins in the area of the old battlefield right?<hr> 
 
Rufus, there are no coins postdating 9 AD at Kalkriese. None. Nada. Nothing. Zilch. Zip. Dan's original post is confusing in this regard. 
The point is, the "Kalkriese Encounter" is more or less "securely" dated to 9 AD (OR EARLIER) on the basis of the absence of a specific series of copper coins, the so-called "Lugdunum II as", which is known to have been minted in 10 AD. No Lugdunum II, no date in 10 AD or later...But now Reinhard Wolters claims that the Lugdunum II may have been brought into circulation between 12 and 14 AD, rather than 10 AD. This means that it is conceivable (note: CONCEIVABLE) that Kalkriese postdates the Varus battle, though still antedates Germanicus' campaigns.

Vincula · 03-31-2004, 03:12 PM

Quote:<hr>Secondly, if the Romans emerged victorious ... as Dan suggests ... Why would there be so many artifacts outside the walls of the post? Even if some of these pieces of equipment had been left behind either because the wearers/bearers/owners of said equipment were killed or had to beat a hasty retreat, then why did the Romans not police up their gear after the battle was finished?<hr> 
 
Good question and we'll need to hear from Dan. 
May I just observe that it is extremely unusual for a Roman force to leave equipment lying around. 
Finds from Cremona came from a pit where they had been concealed; finds from Lyon came from a grave; finds from Krefeld-Gellep had been buried; ...

Daniel S Peterson · 04-02-2004, 04:54 PM

Vincula, 
Didn't notice this post right away, sorry. 
Most of the Kalkriese equipment finds are very small, and impossible to police up from a leave covered forest floor. Even a piece as large as the mask could be easily lost in woodlands as any military person on bivouac knows. 
 
The distribution of the artifacts suggests this could only have been a small skirmish. A large force would have covered a much larger area than where the artifacts were found. 
 
The Roman 'station' was along the trade route 'trail' where the objects were most concentrated (pottery, nails furniture fragements). The wall above was a 'last resort' defensive position which was not utilized. 
 
The buried Roman mule, in the very shadow of the so-called German 'ambush wall', indicates the wall must actually be Roman. Why would the Germans go to the trouble to bury a Roman mule?? Nor would Germanicus troops later, which would not have been possible as the skeleton was articulated, indicateing burial shortly after death. 
 
The absence of German equipment falsely suggest a German victory. In reality, the vast majority of Germans at this time would have virtually no metal possessions as the archaological record (contemporary grave goods) and tacitus' descriptions confirm. Most Germans were armed with clubs and sharpened sticks, and even used thorns to secure their short fur capes, which when the weather was not inclement, served as their only clothing. 
 
If the exact spot is found, and not washed away or covered by alluvial deposites, every battlefield will yield small bits of broken eqiupment. If fought in a forest, they are especially hard to find. Collectors find a vast array of belt buckles, bayonets, buttons, bullets etc, metal detecting the American Civil War battlefields. These battlefields were policed also, but it is almost impossible to find these things under the leaves without a metal detector. 
 
All of the evidence indicates this was a small skirmish between the garrision of a Roman 'station', probably a remount post for imperial messages, etc., and raiding Germans. 
Wishful thinking, and big buck grants has turned it into the romantic "last stand of Varus". I guess we can't blame them. 
If I were the arachaologist I'd want a guaranteed job for the next ten years too. 
 
Dan

raeticus · 04-05-2004, 03:29 AM

To add my 2 asses worth of experience: 
 
Numismatic evidence is limited in helping us to distinguish between 9 AD (Varus) and 15 AD (early Tiberius, e.g. Germanicus). 
 
Why ? 
 
Facts are 
 
1) the profile of coins found in Kalkriese is showing coins of Augustus but none of Tiberius' reign. Post 9AD coinage but still Augustus is a touchy field, the sequence of coinage is not always 100% clear. 
 
2) Many coins have the countermarks AVC and IMP lituus, quite a few the VAR countermark. But VAR is not likely for Varus but early Tiberian, see www.romancoins.info/CMK-V...ate.html). If VAR is really a Tiberian countermark, then 9 AD can be almost ruled out. The early Tiberian date for VAR is based on 2 Lugdunum Asses in French museums where VAR is clearly over two Tiberian countermarks TIBAVC and TIB in a square. And the attribution of VAR to Varus is mostly wishful thinking, no hard evidence, one numismatist copying the other since the 1900s. 
 
3) The lack of coins of Tiberius reign (after 14 AD) is in itself no proof in either direction. Coins were in circulation a long time, so the presence of older coins proofs nothing. New coins made in Rome or Lugdunum took their time to get to the border, and we have no clue how long. Thus the lack of Tiberian coins does not proof much either. Even if they did make it there already in 15 AD, they could have been rare still, and by coincidence we found none so far. And if we did find a couple of later coins ? That would not rule out 9 AD, as they could have been lost later by coincidence at the same site. 
 
Thus more numismatic evidence for an early Tiberian date of Kalkriese, but certainly none that would lock it in as Varus battle site. 
 
Feel sorry for 2009 ! 
Raeticus

Chariovalda · 04-05-2004, 02:14 PM

Raeticus, 
 
For some reason, the link you gave was dead. But I assume you mean this one: www.romancoins.info/CMK-V...ebate.html 
 
I stumbled onto this site a few weeks ago, very interesting. Good list of "Pro" and "Contra" arguments. Note, however, that the author himself concludes that "In summary it seems best to remain neutral with regard to the attribution of "VAR" to Varus. There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking and financial interests involved.". 
 
The financial interests, of course, refer to the people trading in coins with the "Var" countermark... 
 
Of course, should the "Var = Varus" theory ever be truly and decisively unproven, that would be the end of the Kalkriese / Clades Variana theory as well...but as far as I know, that hasn't happened yet.

raeticus · 04-07-2004, 01:24 AM

Chariovalda, 
Well, as a matter of fact I am the author of that page, and "neutral" means to me that it has to be proven that VAR stands for Varus, not the opposite. 
If one comes across a countermark as the early numismatists like Mattingly did in the early 1900s, and interprets it as VAR (as this countermark is in ligature, there are several ways to read it), and the makes a link from VAR to Varus, then this is a nice hypothesis, but there is no proof. And later numismatists copied from Mattingly, and copied, and copied, but there is still no proof. 
 
The two coins with VAR over Tiberian countermarks is on the other hand a strong argument against a 9 AD date of the VAR cmk. 
 
So the scales tip against an attribution to Varus, unless one wants to hypothesize that Varus started this countermark for whatever reason and it was later continued during Tiberius as a souvenir to his desaster :-). Romans very however not well known to have such masochistic personality treats. Rather they were likely trying to forget that unfortunate incident altogether. 
 
Probably that countermark means something else, and does not even stand for VAR.

Chariovalda · 04-07-2004, 07:34 AM

Quote:<hr>Well, as a matter of fact I am the author of that page, and "neutral" means to me that it has to be proven that VAR stands for Varus, not the opposite. <hr> 
 
Well, I took it as a "maybe, maybe not". Interesting site, though, my congratulations! 
 
Quote:<hr>later numismatists copied from Mattingly, and copied, and copied, but there is still no proof<hr> 
 
I recognise that, historians can be just as bad as numismatists...Many don't bother to go deeply into their subject matter and scrutinize the source material and the early interpretations, some of which are erroneous but nevertheless propagate themselves like some kind of evil weed... 
 
Quote:<hr>Probably that countermark means something else, and does not even stand for VAR. <hr> 
 
Any ideas yourself? I do get the impression from your site that "VAR" was contemporary to both Augustus and Tiberius, whoever or whatever it means. 
Assuming those two coins (the references) you found are genuine I think you're right. VAR ain't Varus. 
And that removes one of the few "undoubted" positive proofs for identifying Kalkriese as the location of (part of) the Clades Variana. 
 
If only they find something more conclusive...a legionary stamp or something...Anyway, they'll be busy for years to come...

raeticus · 04-07-2004, 12:20 PM

----------------------------------------------------------- 
"Any ideas yourself? I do get the impression from your site that "VAR" was contemporary to both Augustus and Tiberius, whoever or whatever it means." 
---------------------------------------------------------- 
 
I try to keep feeling apart from the facts. 
 
Facts: 
1 ) Fact is that various VAR exists in Kalkriese (thus the site in Kalkriese is contemporary to the date of VAR use or somewhat later) 
 
2) Fact are two coins from France showing VAR above TIB and TIBAVC (meaning either the countermark VAR is later or contemporary to TIB and TIBAUG (thus no attribution to Varus), or VAR could have been used over longer periods of time, thus before, during, and after TIB and TIB AVC (again no attribution to Varus, unless we assume a masochistic souvenir hypothesis) 
 
Conclusion: 
1) VAR is not Varus 
2) The fact that VAR countermarks show up in Kalkriese prove little, certainly not that it is the Varus battle site, and give only a weak evidence it is a Germanicus battle site. 
 
 
Is the logic making sense ? Or did I forget a possibility ? 
Andreas 
 
 
Now, what proof would be sufficient to definitely link Kalkriese to Varus without doubt ? A tough one, I guess several pieces of equipment with the number of the 3 legions lost, Varus' name on equipment,.... Such would be sufficient proof beyond doubt.

Bill Altimari · 04-19-2004, 03:22 AM

A man of Dan Peterson's knowledge and experience needs no defense from me, but allow me to weigh in here (briefly, I hope) on this contentious issue of the Varus battlefield. 
 
Though I am not a practicing archaeologist, my academic training is in archaeology. At the University of Pennsylvania, we were taught that it was not enough to learn the techniques of archaeology; the history of this discipline was, and is, regarded as important as the practicalities. So this is a topic with which I have more than passing familiarity. Anyone who believes this profession is innocent of political biases is living in Xanadu. Peterson is right--and right again--to point this out with regard to the ongoing controversy, and potential scholarly debacle, at Kalkreise. He has been scolded for not showing enough respect to the profession of archaeology. Neither archaeology nor any other profession deserves respect or disrespect. Either of those two qualities can apply only to the practitioners, not to the field itself. Some archaeologists cover themselves in glory, others in shame, but the profession stands aloof and is deserving of nothing. 
 
Anyone interested in a case study of how archaeology can be perverted for political ends is referred to the excavations at Masada, perhaps the most notorious case of evidence bending in modern archaeology. Sociologist Nachman Ben-Yehuda has written two compelling studies of this matter: The Masada Myth: Collective Memory and Mythmaking in Israel and Sacrificing Truth: Archaeology and the Myth of Masada. A dispassionate reading of Ben-Yehuda's work is a bracing corrective to the euphorics in all the social sciences so desperate to see only what they want to see. 
 
I have no opinion on the reality, or lack thereof, of the Kalkreise battlefield. I simply haven't examined enough of the data to speak with confidence. However, I am confident that Peterson has a better handle on the frailties of human nature than some of his detractors. He also has the proper dose of cynicism toward a culture that would celebrate--even now, in the 21st century--the expulsion of Classical civilization and the perpetuation of a thousand years of barbarism. Those who point to Tacitus to support the "glories" of Arminius are fooling only themselves. Tacitus was a decent man who evidently felt profound guilt for what he believed to be his silent complicity in Domitian's judicial murders. Ever after, he condemned Rome at every turn and looked outward and sought the noble savage, centuries before Rousseau. Those desperate to put a sheen on German barbarism can choose no worse polishing rag than Tacitus. The Varus disaster was one of the greatest catastrophes in the history of western civilization. How appalling that it should now be celebrated by anyone of any nationality. And yet how amusing that the picnic might very well be held in the wrong backyard. 
 
Bill Altimari 
author of Legion: A Novel of the Army of Rome

04-19-2004, 05:08 AM

My field is history, and like all of you, as a Roman army and Roman civilization buff, my sympathies when I analyze historical events are often tempted to fall on the side of the subject of my study, namely Rome. Being of Italian descent only adds to this pressure. Still, we must be more responsible when we study the past, and as painful as it is for me to say this, we must be careful not to make value judgments about past civilizations. I hear much about the "tragedy" of Varus, and how Arminius was no hero, but a thug who happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right alliance...etc. To those that make these judgments I would urge caution. Whatever the merits of Roman civilization, we must understand that simply because we in the West draw much of our civilization from that of Rome and Greece, does not mean that other civilizations are somehow cosmically unworthy in comparison. The Germanic and Gallic tribes, the Parthian/Persian empire, the Greeks, Seleucid Syria and Asia Minor, the Ptolemaic Egypt, Arabia all of these people and hundreds more had civilizations which in there own way were important and "advanced". I do not aim to sell Rome short(otherwise I would not study it so) and say that their accomplishments were some how based on fortune, not do I wish to be a hypocrite and suggest that all of us should study other civilizations as we do Rome. I simply would state that these value judgments that aim to belittle civilizations that were not as pervasive as Rome's are unhelpful and unprofessional in the extreme. Yes Arminius was an opportunistic who, for political reasons, has been glorified for generations of modern Germans. Yet the existence of this website for one, is in itself a glorification of brutal, opportunistic men. Those men that rose to prominence in Roman history were cut from much of the same cloth as Arminius(geez folks compare the careers of Arminius and J Caesar, if you don't believe me), yet we in the west do not hesitate to heap praise and years of study upon them, while at the same time mocking modern Germans for coloring Arminius in a heroic light because he dared to have the gall to interrupt what some of people believe to be a "better" course of history. 
 
The Romans were ever present in western culture my friends because, like Alexander in the east, they conquered such a large portion of it and ruled it for so many years..there was no cosmic superiority involved. Rome sought to Romanize others not for the good of the world but to make things easier for themselves. Much like the modern spread of democracy, Romans realized that by making others Roman in spirit, would make the world safer for themselves. No civilization or empire on earth is in the business of the betterment of mankind. When things are made better by empires, it is simply because we judge them to be so. Don't get my wrong, I'm not some extremist who justifies suicide bombers or advocates stopping modernization in the third world, but the judgments we must make in our world and in our lives today, must not color our analysis of ancient history. Most of the socio-political ideals and rights which we hold dear today were either rejected or simply never conceived of by the Romans and the rest of the then civilized world.And I doubt any of us today would relish living in either Varus or Arminius's worlds; nor, I suspect, would we find either of them particularly "advanced" or "civilized" when compared to our own. 
 
The fact is that Varus and Arminius have both shaped our civilization, and to imply somehow that the world would have been better off if the Romans had conquered another "unworthy" people, is ridiculous in the extreme. The failures of Rome and its Empire did not divert mankind from some grand cosmic path leading to a more perfect world and throw us into the "dark" ages as many modern scholars suggest. No, the failure of Rome and the rise of a more "Germanic" inspired civilization in the west was simply just another building block in the bastion in which we sit on top of today. Let the Germans glorify a flawed human being who helped lead a force that stopped the most powerful Empire in the world in its tracks, just as we glorify the flawed human beings who populated the Roman Empire and its Army for centuries. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rufuscaius>RufusCaius</A> at: 4/19/04 7:22 am

aitor iriarte · 04-19-2004, 05:48 AM

I was thinking of writing something like that, but you've done it earlier and, seemingly, better. 
My applause, Rufus 
 
Aitor

drsrob · 04-19-2004, 06:07 AM

Here speaks not mere knowledge, but wisdom! Greetings 
 
Rob Wolters

Goffredo · 04-19-2004, 06:45 AM

Rufus writes (and other acknowledge) 
"The Germanic and Gallic tribes, the Parthian/Persian empire, the Greeks, Seleucid Syria and Asia Minor, the Ptolemaic Egypt, Arabia all of these people and hundreds more had civilizations which in there own way were important and "advanced". 
 
Although I am willing, for tranquility's sake, to agree to some extent (e.g. that Romans were not good, just a big piece of OUR heritage), I would like to point out that you are overextending your relativism too much by placing (see above) the Germanic and Gallic tribes in the same list as the other true Civilizations. 
 
I accept the claim that the Celtic Culture in Gaul (Spain, Britain) were quite sophisiticated. But Culture and Civiliaztion are not the same thing! 
 
Another far from obvious topic of discussion is whether there was a culture (small C?) in Germania at Arminius' time. 
 
Jeff 
 
p.s. 
You are surely willing to admit that the banal claim that Romans were not necessarily good must be extended, to be fair on the intellectual level, to the Germans and Gauls. But maybe you will notice that your relativism is not necessarily "good", but just a popular and accepted behaviour that OUR social history and evolution gave origin to in recent times. Like most things in history (capital H), I fear it is not very scientific but ideological, just like there was nothing scientific in the dominant Ideology during European Colonial Expansionism. I am curious to read what future historians of social behaviour will say regards relativism.

drsrob · 04-19-2004, 06:50 AM

Goffredo, your PS is pure relativism Greetings 
 
Rob Wolters

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Kalkreise segmentata	Caius Fabius	23	6,195	02-03-2005, 07:42 PM Last Post: mcbishop