Login

Daniel S Peterson · 03-17-2004, 06:22 PM

As I speculated on serveral previous threads on this subject, it is now established that Kalkreise is NOT connected to the Varus battlefield. In addition to the overwhelming evidence that is was a Roman military outpost and not a "battlefield" as evidenced by post holes, pottery, furniture fragments, nails etc., experts have dated several of the coins to be definately later than 9AD but before 15 AD, conclusively dating it to the campaign of Germanicus. 
 
It was absurd from the beginning to believe this small site with an isolated pocket of artifacts could be conected with an Army numbering tens of thousands of men, in a column which stretched for miles, but German hero worship of Arminius outweighed common sense a logic, (not to mention the tourism potential and the multi-million dollar museum dedicated to nothing more now than a forgotten Roman outpost). 
 
As per Tacitus original description, the engagements all had to have occured much closer to the Weser, though important finds are being made near another river in the area, which Tacitus may have confused. This is being done professionally and more will be revealed later. 
 
Apparently because of the scandal of spending millions of Euros on a museum having nothing to do with the real Varus battle, (and having little more to show than about a shoebox ful of military artifacts), this revelation was given quite a big article in the 11 March edition of Der Spiegel. It seems no one was willing to reveal the truth until outside experts spoke out. 
 
Dan

**Robert Vermaat** · 03-17-2004, 06:41 PM

Der Spiegel proves that Kalkriese was not connected to the Varus battlefield? 
 
Bwahahahaha! 
I would not believe one letter of that scandal-piece which dares call itself a magazine.. 
 
Ok, and about these finds..you would have to come with a pretty laaaarge shoebox to put them all in. there have been hundreds and hundreds of finds, of all kinds of stuff, raled and directly from the military. I know forts which have yielded less than a percentage of the finds which have come to light and are still coming to light at Kalkriese. I know forts, I've seen forst, and this, dear sir, was never a fort. There's not even evidence of an enclosure. 
 
Come on, Dan! We've been there before, Dan, PLEASE come up with something better than "more will be revealed later", "we know that..." or "it is evident that".... 
 
We want the names of the 'professional' excavators, we want places, items, pictures. 
 
If you come up with a real scoop, I will eat my shoes - promise! But until then, if you have nothing better than the 'authorithy' of Der Spiegel.. 
 
Been there. 
Done that. 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

Wagnijo · 03-17-2004, 07:14 PM

This is what you get if you search the spiegel site from march 8: 
 
"Che Guevara im Nebelland 
 
Ein GroÃƒÆ’Ã…Â¸museum feiert Kalkriese bei OsnabrÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¼ck als wahren Ort der Varus-Schlacht. Nun zweifeln ArchÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¤ologen daran. Neu entdeckte MassengrÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¤ber und Holzkasernen belegen: Das Gemetzel war nur der Auftakt fÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¼r einen jahrelangen Guerillakrieg. 50 000 rÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶mische Soldaten kamen dabei um." 
 
Che Guevara - newly discovered massgraves - 50.000 dead Roman soldiers -- And then only doubts about the site :-) 
 
I think I'll be needing some real evidence! 
 
Cheers 
Wagnijo

03-17-2004, 08:13 PM

What about these coins? Any pics of them? Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" 
Niagara Falls, Canada

03-18-2004, 11:28 AM

CAn you tanslate in English your post? I did'nt understand the part about Che Guevara. It seem funny! 
 
Germanicus

03-18-2004, 12:05 PM

In reply to the original post. Coins dating to c. AD 10-14 do not necessarily prove that Kalkriese was not the site of the Varian Disaster. The coins could have been deposited when Germanicus' troops were at the Teutoburg battle site in AD 15 (Tac. Ann 1.61).

Daniel S Peterson · 03-18-2004, 05:24 PM

Robert, 
I never said it was a fort. And you will recall from Tacitus that Varus rather foolishly 'trusted' the Germans, billeting his troops penny packet into the German villages. The Kalkreise site was in all likelihood a remount station for imperial couriers along an important trade route, much like the 'pony express' stations of the old west. It was probably garrisioned/guarded by a mere century. 
 
I believe I have all the catalogs, and have seen most of the Kalkreise exhibits, and save for the mule skeleton, still say virtually everything would fit in a shoebox. Those "hundreds and hundreds of artifacts" amount to things like tiny nails and pottery chips, each bit considered an artifact to make it sound much more impressive than the finds really are. We all know the important military finds, and there aren't many. And as said before, everything peters out as one leaves the immediate environs of the Kalkreise 'station'. Nothing at all to indicate a harried march column in any direction despite thousands of hours of fervent metal detecting to find such traces which are the only thing that could make the Varus connectgion plausible. 
 
It is absurd to think Germanicus' troops would have conveniently lost the big copper Asses (the post 9 AD coins) on top of the supposed Kalkreise Varus battlefield. In one of the largest Roman fort sites in Germany, the fort at Marktbriet for two legions (dating from virtually the same time period), I believe only one or two coins were found, period. And you think these soldiers are going to coincidentally lose these numbers of these large copper coins right on top of the nonexistant 'Varus' battlefield? 
 
Spiegel is a somewhat sensationalist magazine, but the basic facts are real. Knowledgable experts in the Numismatic field have proven that coins on the site date it later than 9AD. period. Get over it. This is not the "Germannic Holy Ground" everyone first thought it was, despite the rather bizarre torchlight shows, and the millions and milllions more Euros being spent to turn a tiny skirmish at a remount stable into "the Greatest Moment in German History". 
 
Dan 
PS.I was asked not to say more about the new excacavations yet, but may be able to shed some light after this weekend.

Uwe Bahr · 03-18-2004, 06:10 PM

Dan, 
 
will You be in Herne this sunday at the 'KunststofffigurenbÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶rse' and does Your new knowledge have to do with the new theory about Halberstadt and Quedlinburg (Quiddilingaburgi)? 
 
Uwe 
 
PS: Please, say 'Kalkriese' finally.

aitor iriarte · 03-18-2004, 06:34 PM

Avete, 
I am not going to talk about Kalkriese, but about another more obscure battle fought in the Basque country during Augustus's reign. 
The place is now called Andagoste, in the Alava province. A marching camp has been excavated and battle traces in the form of many lead sling-shot, and some pila heads, arrow and catapult bolts of two sizes have been unearthed. 
It seems as if the Romans were routed (it was a typical ambush place, a steep valley without exit) but they left the place still in order, because a 'trail' of hobnails have been traced leaving the camp until it has been lost below a modern road (if I remember well). 
The only thing I wanted to recall in connection to Kalkriese is that perhaps such a trail should have been discovered... 
 
Aitor Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=aitoririarte>Aitor Iriarte</A> at: 3/18/04 7:36 pm

Daniel S Peterson · 03-18-2004, 08:07 PM

Uwe, 
Yes I plan to be at Herne. I will be talking to someone about the new finds on Saturday, and therefore may know more on Sunday. 
 
Aitor, 
I agree. If Kalkriese truly was the terminus of a Roman march column, there must be a trail of evidence, but there is absolutely none, and just think how hard this has been sought without success. The area has been carefully combed by metal detectors for miles around with scarcely any Roman finds at all. This, plus the structure features and encampement evidence clearly suggests this cannot be a sudden ambush/battle of a marching column. I do believe that the Roman station had been attacked by the Germans as the scattered broken bits of military equipment and coins suggest. The notion that this could be the Varus 'battlefield' is surely one of the greatest cases of 'wishful thinking' in the history of Archaeology. It is only because this battle is so important to the German mentality that it has gotten so far out of hand. Did you see the "Triumph of the Will" type torchlight show set up there shown in the German National Geographic article? 
 
Dan

Daniel S Peterson · 03-20-2004, 06:49 PM

Uwe, 
the site I am referring to is the newly discovered Roman fort near the confluence of the Werra and Fulda Rivers, far, far, further east than Kalkriese. Many other Augustan period finds have been found in these more easterly regions that far better fit Tacitus' description of the Varus engagements. I believe long before the mass celebrations scheduled for Kalkriese in 2009, we will have a much better understanding where the Varus disaster actually occurred, and it WON'T be at the site of their new multi-million Euro museum. 
 
Dan

**Robert Vermaat** · 03-21-2004, 11:28 AM

Dan, 
 
Why should the battle sitre be at a Roman fort? Or are you referring to a marching camp, which would agree with the description of the three-day battle? An Augustan fort (very welcome!) would only confirm the presence of the Romans east of Kalkriese, which is where they were for a few years until 9 AD. Please clarify: is this a normal fort or a temporary marching camp? That would malke all the difference. 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

**Robert Vermaat** · 03-21-2004, 11:33 AM

Aitor, Dan, 
 
There are traces of trails leaving the battle field, one SW and one NW, but both peter out after a few miles (as would be expected). Here's a map (from 1998, so not with all the finds on it) which shows that clearly. Sorry, it's a big one: 
<img src="http://www.geschichte.uni-osnabrueck.de/projekt/images/kartefundstellen.jpg" style="border:0;"/> 
 
I am of the opinion that this finds map shows not a single fort a some stray finds around it, but a pattern that could very well represent an ambush site and a battlefield. Let me be clear on this, I was not there so I don't know, but until similar finds and publications become known of a better candidate, this is the nr. 1 candidate. 
 
Dan, maybe you've seen hundreds of finds which we have not, or maybe you have only been told by a third, convincing, party. However, I'm a scholar and I need to see something, before believeing it. 
 
One thing, though. I would welcome a better spot for the Varus battle any day, if only to get rid of that Kalkriese eye-sore! For we agree on that - it's uuuuugly! 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vortigernstudies>Vortigern Studies</A> at: 3/21/04 6:31 pm

**Robert Vermaat** · 03-21-2004, 05:40 PM

OK, I finally managed to read the article (it took a bit of time because Der Spiegel wants money for it which I won't pay), and it is not quite what you wrote, Dan.. 
 
Summarising, Spiegel names a lot of names but no references, so I can't check any of their claims. However, what they say is roughly this: after the defeat of Varus, Rome took a year to regroup and them launched years of revenge-attacks, bloody slaughter and scorched earth, countered by Arminius, who led an enemy who would not be drawn into a battle. They mention other battles, very costly defeats for the Romans, and have Orosius say that the rel battle took place later. 
 
But Orosius, of course, wrote much much later

Chariovalda · 03-21-2004, 05:52 PM

You're forgetting the "coin finds" Dan is probably referring to, Vorty. 
In short: one of the "negative" proofs for the dating for the "Kalkriese encounter" (neutral enough for you, Dan?) is the fact, that most numismatists believe that the so-called "Lugdunum II" as was coined in 10. Its absence at Kalkriese would indicate that the encounter took place BEFORE 10 AD. 
Now there's a numismatist attached to the University of TÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¼bingen, Reinhard Wolters, who argues that the Lugdunum II was coined between 12 and 14 AD, not 10 AD as commonly thought. If this is true, the article and Wolters argue, it's possible that the "Kalkriese encounter" took place after 9 AD - which would mean that it might not have anything to do with the "clades variana" at all. 
Frankly, Dan, all the article seems the say that it is possible that one of the negative proofs for the dating of the "Kalkriese Encounter" MIGHT be wrong. 
Not exactly very strong stuff... 
 
 
For the rest, the article was tendentious, badly researched and not very well written. I've read more articles by this author, and this guy popularises history and archaeology to such a degree that he's a genuine "non-information hazard".

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Kalkreise segmentata	Caius Fabius	23	6,191	02-03-2005, 07:42 PM Last Post: mcbishop