Kalkriese the Battle of the Angrivarii Wall ?

[Tom]

Schwagstorf certainly would have fit in nicely as a potential location of the last march-camp. I thought it would be pretty neat if that camp could be found, with the evidence of burning, mentioned in one source.
I didn't realize that the formal claim of the Kalkriese site being part of the Varian Battlefield wasn't made until 1991. I first only heard of it, by word of mouth, in late 87 or early 88 and it wasn't until 92-93 when I got my first computer that I began to be able to see articles and such.

My first thought when the Kalkriese site was said to be part of the Varus Battlefield, was "Darn! now I won't get to find it! lol

My second was that Delbrook was wrong after all, and Mommsen nailed it. It is to Delbrook I am indebted for having my interest in the subject really peaked. I enjoyed his passion and very advanced approach to unlocking the mysteries of the period, and he really made it come alive for me.

I wonder now if Delbrook's locating the battle in the Westphalian Gate, not very far from the Arminius monument might prove accurate after all. To be honest, I didn't think his theory very strong. The ground, specifically the lack of a known ancient swamp, and the lack of any finds make it mostly a location deduced by logic, but without any evidence. But I do not dismiss local traditions lightly, and if such exsist for that area in general, would once again be examining it, in light of the newer interpretations of Kalkriese.

Conversely, the location of a credible swamp (I forget the name... was it 'Grossen Mere' ?) opposite Kalkriese was one of it's strong points as a possible location of the final episode of the Varian disaster. Though perhaps I give too much weight to a single source mentioning it. The image of a Roman standard bearer going off into the swamp with the third eagle (the tribesmen captured the other two) is such an evocative story. Perhaps it is just that, a story.

But even if not the Varian battlefield, the swamp still is an important feature as it would make the site a more likely ambush location.

[Simplex]

Tom,
....there has been a great deal of "rowing back and forth" in the public discussion.
I also had my feelings "roller-coastering" with that topic in the past.
Yes, it is a battlefield
yes, its an "early" battlefield
yes it's a battlefield with roman participation
and
yes, this place is suitable for an ambush. ( The "Großes Moor" is indeed very impressive
and was even more so in past times !)
(O.K. -- a lot of places in "Germania Magna" were probably as suitable for this as here -- or even more)
As far as I am concerned, I was told that philosopher Carl Popper taught us to keep a proposal "foddered" with good points as the valid one until someone other comes along with a better one -- with more valid arguments -- and so I'm keeping it.
But let's face the fact:
The surface has only been scratched when it comes to battlefield archeology.
It's a matter of time and money.
Modern ways of prospection/excavation/ research can only compensate for a part of the fundings that have gone unavailable through the last 20 years.
This may also be an explanation for archeological sites being marketed in a "loud" way.
BTW Kalkriese ( > ca.! 9 AD) bears another analogy to the harzhorn (>ca 235 AD):
Its quite near to ancient trading routes.
Last but not least: The "Schwagstorf-Problem" has been solved -- and not in favour of a
finding-spot of antiquity.
Maybe Mommsen will be proven wrong in the future -- but then he has "eternal" merits and a Nobel Prize for writing his Roman History.

Greez

Simplex

P.S. Of course it's Carl Popper ! Sir Carl, please do forgive me -- wherever you may be.

[Tom]

Hey Siggi,
Yes I too think of each explanation, in investigative/interpretative subjects, as more of a 'place holder' then the last chapter. Although it's not bad to defend a theory, it is probably not a good idea to abandon flexibility. But I think this uncertainty is also part of what draws some of us to the subject as there remains room for discovery or improvement in understanding.
Yeah, Mommsen was something else! What is funny is I had got the impression, that he had not actually focused on the hunt for the Varus Battle site, but just in an almost offhand way said 'oh, it's probably at the foot at Kalkriese'. He didn't use those words of course, but indicated the farm fields that had yielded coin finds in the 1700's (now lost), where later Tony Clunn would start the ball rolling again.
It is unfortunate that historical research and preservation is usually on the back of the back burner as far as public funding goes. Though I am afraid the opposite interest, that is the looting of such sites (such as mentioned in another thread here), will see increased activity if financial distress continues to grow, and/or if criminals simply see it as easy (and profitable) pickings.
You do see the connection often of Archeology with Marketing, which is I suppose inevitable, or necessary to some extent. And sometimes it seems the Marketing is actually the prime motive, as when only very sensational or popular subjects are involved (The dig to uncover and DNA test the person believed to be model of the Mona Lisa, comes to mind). I don't think the Kalkriese site has been handled as a 'Tourist Trap' and think the participants have been giving it there best shot. I can see myself in there shoes, doing no better and maybe a lot worse. It may be just a case of going to far out on the branch too soon, and now its swaying.
It's been a Pipe Dream of mine... well actually a Pipe Dream of a Pipe Dream, to go there and participate in some digging as a volunteer. I'm sure I'd find the missing Eagle the first day... probably before lunch. Lol.

[Robert Vermaat]

It is unfortunate that historical research and preservation is usually on the back of the back burner as far as public funding goes.

Not always. I visited Xanten recently (to visit that great new museum) and discovered that not only had the buy-back of lands proceeded, but the park boundaries had been reset to double the park - no doubt large parts of this 'lost' city will eventually be excavated. Remaining farms and businesses are fenced off - quite a strange site, it's as if they are now trespassing in Roman times. Roads had been cut and diverted around the park as well. A major redevelopment that must have cost quite a bit of public money. The local government can be proud.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Robert, yes, that is an excellent thing, in Xanten. Especially the dead end of the road is funny. You probably, jus as me, drove that way, because you were used to do so? ^^

Siggi:

As far as I am concerned, I was told that philosopher Carl Poper taught us to keep a proposal "foddered" with good points as the valid one until someone other comes along with a better one -- with more valid arguments -- and so I'm keeping it.

I would like to point out two things:
In the context of giving historical sense or meaning to a certain archaeological site I do not think that falsificationism is the right method. We had the very long Tübingen / Troja discussion in our disciplina, as a reminder. And as a model to look at. Even IF we were using falsificationism, we should follow Popper, as you quoted him:

keep a proposal "foddered" with good points as the valid one

, as you see I boldened "good".
There are no "good" arguments to see Kalkriese in connection with the Varus Battle. Every single argument that has been brought forth so far does not hold up to critical investigation.

I would rather see a positivistic approach in the realm of hermeneutic logic the right method to further our knowledge about the site. If you carefully apply logic rules to the whole construct of arguments brought forth by the pro-Kalkriese-faction, you will quickly see the whole thing fall apart in your own head.

Just, basically: It is not necessarily the job of archaeologists to give archaeologic sites or objects meaning. That is the job of historians. Each discipline teaches the right methods and approaches to do this or that. In this case obviously archaeologists tried to do something they were apparently not educated to do, thus made some severe mistakes. Already right in the beginning: First you have to excavate the whole thing, identify context and learn from the find and findings. Only when the whole documentation is done as far and as well as possible, including the context, then you can start to think about applying meaning. That is how serious archaeologists work. If you find some items, apply meaning e.g. in form of a label, and then do the work, the label will influence then all your interpretations and all your thoughts about problems. Then suddenly things will fit in a network which normally wouldn´t, and they appear to be evidence. But what in fact happens, is that you are constructing - not necessarily cognitively - a network of circular reasoning. That is what IMO happened at Kalkriese.

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert, yes, that is an excellent thing, in Xanten. Especially the dead end of the road is funny. You probably, jus as me, drove that way, because you were used to do so? ^^

No, we had a guide (Jurjen). So as not to hijack the tread, I opened a new thread about our recent visit:
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...&id=308107

[Simplex]

@Tom, @Christian
If you want an idealistic affair thoroughly ruined -- let the marketing people take over !
@Christian : I faintly remember that Troja "affair" -- wasn't the an open letter by some Tübingian scholars about 7-8 years back that went to greater recognition through the internet ?
It seems some aspects "behaviour" you criticise has become more prominent in science of all
sorts. Plagiarism, falsification etc etc , but seriously, this has happend before and
it's likely to happen again. :roll:
But I'm really happy that discussion on Kalkriese seems to have opened up.
A quick glance over the link you posted:
http://www.clades-variana.com/beurteilun...kriese.htm
...showed interesting views, points and aspects, but one or two things become moot
if you doubt the correct reconstruction at the Kalkriese site. :wink:
(I won't go into discussion about the "earth walls " unless this is requested here.)

Thanks and good night so far.

Greez

Simplex