Romans In Denmark.

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — Archaeologists have discovered a Roman cemetery from about 300 A.D. in suburban Copenhagen with about 30 graves, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

"It is something special and rare in Denmark to have so many (ancient Roman) graves in one place," archaeologist Rune Iversen was quoted as saying by the Roskilde Dagblad newspaper.

The graveyard's exact location in Ishoej, southwest of downtown Copenhagen, was being kept secret until the archaeologists from the nearby Kroppedal Museum have completed their work, the newspaper wrote. No one at the museum could be immediately be reached for comment.

Archaeologists found necklaces and other personal belongings, as well as ceramics for containing food.

"It shows that we're dealing with the wealthy segment of that population," Iversen was quoted as saying. The objects were buried with the deceased "to show that one could afford it, show one's social status."

Excavations are due to be completed in early November, according to Roskilde Dagblad.

More info:
http://clioaudio.com/2007/10/10/roma...in-copenhagen/

I had no idea that there were Romans even in Denmark.

If you read the whole thing, you realize that there probably weren't; one commentor notes that Scandinavian archaeologists tend to use "Roman" to designate a time period in which their finds fall, not a culture to which they belong. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's unlikely that these were infact Romans as opposed to Roman-era Scandinavians.

Cheers.

All they really know is that the place was full of obviously Roman artifacts. Whether that means it was a cemetery for Roman expatriates or for natives who just happened to have loads of Roman stuff is a matter of interpretation...

Here's an article about it in one of the bigger Danish newspapers, unfortunately in Danish:
http://politiken.dk/videnskab/article401616.ece

Apparently there are about 30 graves overall, one of them for a nobleman.
They found a gold ring, some sort of clothes pin of silver (which according to them is otherwise usually only found much further south during that period) and what the article calls a "circus cup" - the first image is of a copy of one - in his grave. They also found 58 glass pieces used for a game like checkers.
The nobleman's body is well preserved, so they hope to find out whether he was of native ethnicity or not - and perhaps find a coin in the mouth for the ferryman.

The 30 other graves are from the generations after the nobleman.

not really sure the danes were in denmark then either?

well most peoples of these days are the descendents of whoever has settled in a country, and with all the of the migration of the steppe and germanic tribes, thats no surprise really. all the same, was scandinavia ever affected by the migrations?

:birthday2:


This means everything hasn't been wiped out by the rains. I'm still looking for that Phoenician colony on the Finnish isles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thaatu

:birthday2:


This means everything hasn't been wiped out by the rains. I'm still looking for that Phoenician colony on the Finnish isles.

---

Ahvenmaa? :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

Ahvenmaa? :wink:

---

Ahvenanmaa. That's supposedly Troy, although I'm 50% sure it's not.

Anyone interested in the finds in Denmark should get their hands on:

"The spoils of victory - The North in the shadow of the Roman Empire".

It's a reassessment of old and new archeological finds and basically concludes that the Romans supported client kingdoms in present day Denmark. Supposedly to keep them in check and to use them as allies against the tribes along the northern Rhine border.

rgds/EoE

I would be suprised if there had been no Romans living in important trading centers outside their Empire. That must not always have been native Italians but can also be traders from Gallia or Roman Germania who are not so easy to be distinguished from the local population, if they had been buried there.


On the other hand, we have a lot of graves from nobles everywhere in Germany (and I suppose also in Southern Scandinavia) that are full of Roman artefacts, even so these are evidently non-Romans buried there. Those people were made for Roman stuff.

You think thats crazy? I have a friend from Brazil who has told me one of the tribes there has connections to to the Greek language, meaning they had traveled to South America way before the medieval period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long lost Caesar

well most peoples of these days are the descendents of whoever has settled in a country, and with all the of the migration of the steppe and germanic tribes, thats no surprise really. all the same, was scandinavia ever affected by the migrations?

---

Yeah it was, and Denmark possibly more than the rest because it's a bit easier to get here.

According to the Goth Jordanes, the Danes (Dani) took over the area that is now Denmark + Southern Sweden from the Heruli.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Yeah it was, and Denmark possibly more than the rest because it's a bit easier to get here.

According to the Goth Jordanes, the Danes (Dani) took over the area that is now Denmark + Southern Sweden from the Heruli.

---

On that note, take a look at Walter Goffart's article or Jordanes, the Getica, and the legitimacy of his claims about the Scandinavian origins of the Goths. I didn't pay a huge amount of attention to that part, because I was mostly interested in what he had to say about Jordanes' motives for writing the Getica in the first place, but I think the gist of it was that Jordanes was full of crap. ~;)

Cheers.

So it's false to assume Rome was never concerned with geographic knowledge beyond her borders, even in the Principate period. They at least knew a lot about the North, more than we would expect.

The Romans were trading in India as well, so I wouldn't be that suprised if someday there are Roman cemetaries discovered over there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

So it's false to assume Rome was never concerned with geographic knowledge beyond her borders, even in the Principate period. They at least knew a lot about the North, more than we would expect.

---

We've known that for quite some time. Even Late Antique authors knew about placed like Scandinavia and even Iceland (typically called Thule), not to mention the areas far to the east of the empire's borders.

Cheers.

Yes, and a trader was sent to China during the time of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, AFAIK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Landwalker

On that note, take a look at Walter Goffart's article or Jordanes, the Getica, and the legitimacy of his claims about the Scandinavian origins of the Goths. I didn't pay a huge amount of attention to that part, because I was mostly interested in what he had to say about Jordanes' motives for writing the Getica in the first place, but I think the gist of it was that Jordanes was full of crap. ~;)

Cheers.

---

I suppose. But still, I don't see why there would not have been a lot of migration affecting Denmark just like the rest of Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Landwalker

On that note, take a look at Walter Goffart's article or Jordanes, the Getica, and the legitimacy of his claims about the Scandinavian origins of the Goths. I didn't pay a huge amount of attention to that part, because I was mostly interested in what he had to say about Jordanes' motives for writing the Getica in the first place, but I think the gist of it was that Jordanes was full of crap. ~;)

Cheers.

---

the problem with that is Walter Goffart's (of Yale) article may be full of crap as well. And there are many reasons for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Landwalker

We've known that for quite some time. Even Late Antique authors knew about placed like Scandinavia and even Iceland (typically called Thule), not to mention the areas far to the east of the empire's borders.

Cheers.

---

right, the romans sent an expedition there but failed due to high seas. the hebrideans went there all the time, once took a greek merchant, they stoped off in denmark on the return trip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

the problem with that is the Walter Goffart's (of Yale) article may be full of crap as well. And there are many reasons for this.

---

I'd love to hear them. And I mean this in all sincerity, not be snarky or sardonic. After all, the man's a pretty big deal in early medieval history, and since I'm using a few of his books and articles in my own research, I'm always interested in hearing particular problems people might take with his (or anyone's) research.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Landwalker

I'd love to hear them. And I mean this in all sincerity, not be snarky or sardonic. After all, the man's a pretty big deal in early medieval history, and since I'm using a few of his books and articles in my own research, I'm always interested in hearing particular problems people might take with his (or anyone's) research.

Cheers.

---

great, but can't respond in detail now, will get back to this soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Internet

You think thats crazy? I have a friend from Brazil who has told me one of the tribes there has connections to to the Greek language, meaning they had traveled to South America way before the medieval period.

---

Brazil huh? Well, that is another one for the "Where did ancient greeks go?" para-psychology classes.

-Alpha Centauri,
-Japan
-Easter island.
and now... Brazil.

Now, the reason I find this all very uglee to say the least is that Ancient greeks did travel a lot, from Norway to S. vietnam (the furthest greek finds are in S. Vietnam in the location of Oc eo), but people tend to disbelieve it because of wackos like the one above.

After IG state was formed a big emporion (comercial colony) was built in Taprobane state - present day Sri Lanka, from which Periplous documents all the places Ancient Greeks, then Romans, (basically greek crewed greek speaking vessels) went. This is how we know of Malaisia (golden coast) and other far away places.

In Oc eo, S. Vietnam is the furthest place greek trades have been found. I have no more knowledge of this excavation, unfortunately.

Preface Rant

First, remember this is all in good cheer, so please don’t misinterpret the bearing of my comments, as my subtle nature is often misconstrued as sledgehammer-ish, cutting, or by the truly clueless; mean-spirited? Must, be my heritage coming through, as I typically call it, as it lies. A far as US Archaeology and Historiography are concerned, my personal experience is as follows; method is great as an outline, but as much as possible, your research/project must always be based on direct evidence, and all direct evidence must be field checked if possible. You can do this by establishing a set of simple yet rigorous tests. You must always personaly know the provider of all indirect evidence you use. If you do not know them, don’t trust them, and if for some reason you do trust them, triple check and test everything, if you don’t trust them don’t use this type of evidence, except prefaced as a cautionary tale. Also, learn to render Latin, and Greek texts yourself, as you will find many well-worn translations are not at all what they should be.

To understand Goffart’s works, one must first understand the history of US Archaeology and Historiography from the 60s on, to some degree, Yet,let’s just cut the crab and get straight to the chase? First, Archaeology is not an exact science; rather it’s more a scientific-art. The study of history beyond textural evidence, on the other hand, relies directly on the former discipline, and thus is even more an art than is Archaeology. In this vain, I believe many archaeologists from this era (60s to 90s) have sort of an Oedipus complex, in that they seek to kill the father of their art, and 'do' their respective mother-discipline. Yes strange but true, as they try to trash their predecessors, not based on merit, but for the sake of their career. That is, to stand out, apart, or above? Again, sad but very true, as it’s all wrapped in the various guises of Marxist, Processual or so-called New, Behavioral, and Post-processual, or good god, feminist, gender-based, and neo-Marxist Archaeological approaches/methods. Today we have the neo-Darwinism, cognitive science, phenomenology, postmodernism, agency theory, Functionalism, and System theory. From this god awful mess Historiography and its method have taken its own buss words and then we have our revisionists and minimalists, of which vat the works of Mr Goffart are well known to fall. In the end these works serve only to foster the recent and more modern antagonisms of the major enthno-political complexes that be, that want what all good collectives always want; a long and glorious past for the so-called ‘pure’ or ‘master race.’

If you'r in school now, post-grad, I hope you’ve heard all this before, yet I know many are treated as mushrooms. Kept in the dark and feed only bull.

The direct textual and archaeological evidence from Denmark (and modern Germany) are very clear on this point. There was significant cultural and demographic change between the 1st century BC and 3rd century AD. There also is significant evidence of similar changes between the 4th and 7th centuries in Denmark. Much of this has to do with why radiocarbon dating doesn’t work as it should.

If you want more detailed information please outline the specifics.

Interesting stuff, cmacq. I have to say I'm not very familiar with the history of American archaeological academia, so I haven't run across the conflicts of different "theories" of scholarship yet. I'm only a senior undergraduate, though, so I'm sure I'll encounter plenty of theoretical stuff in graduate school. Unfortunately, since I'm not familiar with them, I can't really comment or respond to most of what you said about them.

I do agree that migrations, in and out of Scandinavia, certainly took place. I think the issue at hand (in Goffart's article, at least) is whether or not the Goths were one of them. Naturally, Jordanes claims that they were, but Jordanes is a Byzantinized Goth writing with the agenda of glorifying the reconquests of Justinian, including through such means as building up the "enemy" to make the victories all the greater. I don't know, however, whether or not Scandinavian origin was considered some keyword for 6th Century Romans that somehow conveyed power and nobility--if it wasn't (or if the Romans simply didn't care), then there obviously would be no other reason for Jordanes to include this other than because he believed it to be the case.

In any case, it's interesting to get a little insight into what's going on "behind the scenes" of the secondary sources I read for my thesis. Even if I don't know what most of the labels mean. ~;) Thanks for the "rant".

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Landwalker

We've known that for quite some time. Even Late Antique authors knew about placed like Scandinavia and even Iceland (typically called Thule), not to mention the areas far to the east of the empire's borders.

---

Did they? I though Iceland was uninhabited until the Vikings colonized it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Labrat

Did they? I though Iceland was uninhabited until the Vikings colonized it.

---

It's pretty common academic belief that the Vikings already knew about Iceland before they "found" it, by way of the Irish. The reason for this foreknowledge is that Irish monks had a tradition of traveling into solitude, and one of their most popular destinations was Thule/Iceland. The Vikings in the British Isles found out about this, and eventually made the trip themselves. Obviously, being hermits, the Irish monk population on Iceland by the time of the Viking settlement was so low and sparse as to be unmentionable, but the point was that Iceland was known to exist long before the Vikings ever settled there.

Cheers.

All points well taken. My current research deals with the period just before and during the American southwest abandonments and migrations, 12th to 15th century. So I'm somewhat familiar with the subject. Without writing the old were an ancient culture's history, and when an ancient culture moved, the old were abandoned, as was their past.

Personally, I think goffats argument against Jordanes holds little water. Remember Justinian's world was greek not latin. The history between Rome and Denmark were at that point a dead subject. Yet as far as Jordanes was concerned, many of the foreign peoples Justinian's armies fought in italy, north afica, and spain claimed descent from those who came from southern Scandinavia in a not too distant past. In a recent post about EB's use of Sakas and Scyths, I explained one as the name given an eastern and the other a western manifestation of a single ethnos. Yet, each represented a separate polity. If Jordanes was following a traditional view on the subject, he likely referred to all non-Suetidi groups, as Guti, as a general ethnos (of many separate polities). They were Gothic-like, just not like his Gothics. In this vain he would have been correct, yes?

@ Landwalker

Thanks for the clarification. I am not an archeologist, just someone with an interest in history.

Yeah there's a theoretical quagmire lurking under the page in very history and Archeology book.

Whats a Dane? Whats a Goth? I've just read an account of the battle of Chalons. The Hun (aka Skythians according to the Byzantines aka the Hsung Nu (who knew?)) horde (which contained Alans, who were Sarmatians after they were Skythians but before they were Sauromatae) was fighting the Goths (who were Skandinavian tribesmen, you know burly spearchucking blonde footmen, excpet on their way through the Skythian (that is Saka) homeland to the Slavic homelands they adopted Roxolani tactics to escape the Huns (remember they're Skyths but not Saka) and as they traversed the Roman Empire picking up Germans) and the Romans (whose army was composed of Burgundians, various Franks and even Armoricans who may or may not have been Gauls, but quite possibly not a single actual Roman, aside from Aetius (although he spent 10 years as a Hun hostage so he may be considered naturalised)) not to mention Alans, which is curious because the Alans were supoposed to be in the Hun horde.

Anyway, thats when I came to the confusing bit...:sweatdrop:

As for the migrations, well I think they were more a matter of fighting elites being driven hither and thither. I imagine they took some ladies with them but like the Vikings in Ireland I think generally shopped locally rather than carry wife and kids a thousand miles. I know the Goths had family in camp at Adrianople, but I can't imagine Attila organising a little nomad creche.

I on the other hand think in many cases the numbers were huge. Its just more connivent to think otherwise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

I on the other hand think in many cases the numbers were huge. Its just more connivent to think otherwise?

---

And why is that? Surely, particularly given the nature of the Scandinavians to glorify conquest and exploration, the preexisting population of Iceland would have been mentioned in the epics if it had been significant enough to need forcible displacement, or this displacement would have been mentioned in one of the non-Scandinavian sources that so loved to demonize the vikings and would no doubt jump upon any opportunity to condemn them for forcibly overcoming an island of Irish monks. Is there some archaeological evidence to the contrary?

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keravnos

Brazil huh? Well, that is another one for the "Where did ancient greeks go?" para-psychology classes.

-Alpha Centauri,
-Japan
-Easter island.
and now... Brazil.

Now, the reason I find this all very uglee to say the least is that Ancient greeks did travel a lot, from Norway to S. vietnam (the furthest greek finds are in S. Vietnam in the location of Oc eo), but people tend to disbelieve it because of wackos like the one above.

After IG state was formed a big emporion (comercial colony) was built in Taprobane state - present day Sri Lanka, from which Periplous documents all the places Ancient Greeks, then Romans, (basically greek crewed greek speaking vessels) went. This is how we know of Malaisia (golden coast) and other far away places.

In Oc eo, S. Vietnam is the furthest place greek trades have been found. I have no more knowledge of this excavation, unfortunately.

---

Well i'm certainly not an expert on where they did and didn't go but from what i was told, the tribe has a few words that are the same as the Greeks and that word is for wrestling if i remember correctly. I know that my friend (studying theology/psychology masters) told me that one of his professors had a daughter who was a linguist and who had studied some of the tribal languages from the tribes in Brazil and found that they held this particular word in common. Unfortunately i have no more information on it and thought it would be an interesting theory to bring up i don't totally believe it but i certainly don't pass it off straight away either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Landwalker

And why is that?
Cheers.

---

was commenting about this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

As for the migrations, well I think they were more a matter of fighting elites being driven hither and thither. I imagine they took some ladies with them but like the Vikings in Ireland I think generally shopped locally rather than carry wife and kids a thousand miles. I know the Goths had family in camp at Adrianople, but I can't imagine Attila organising a little nomad creche.

---

right, there was an monastery, not sure if it was irish? may have been hebrideans, no one knows for sure? We do have fragment from an ancient greek report of a merchant that was taken there by the hebrideans.

The Icelanders themselves claim they brought irish wifes? But this in part may suggest the presence of a small hebridean population? Remember this all happened during the Med. Warm period, which is again partly why radiocarbon dating doesn't work well. That and the little ice age, both of which Mr al gore managed to leave off his charts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Internet

Well i'm certainly not an expert.

---

I remember something about a roman period shipwreck found in the Bay of Guanabara, near Rio de Janeiro. The amphorae appear to have been made at Kouass, on the west coast of Morocco, sometime in the 3rd century A.D. I guess many a roman were actually greeks? This may explain why tabaco turns up in Europe well before the 15th century?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

was commenting about this

---

Ah, my mistake. Carry on, then.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Anyway, thats when I came to the confusing bit...:sweatdrop:

---

O rly? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

I remember something about a roman period shipwreck found in the Bay of Guanabara, near Rio de Janeiro. The amphorae appear to have been made at Kouass, on the west coast of Morocco, sometime in the 3rd century A.D. I guess many a roman were actually greeks? This may explain why tabaco turns up in Europe well before the 15th century?

---

He did mention the word was the same in Roman too but since a lot of the Roman world was influenced by the Greeks i didn't see it as important since this subject came up in a discussion we were having about history and the Greek language, which he had to learn as part of his studies in theology while he was still in Brazil. It was a very intresting chat, the only problem being that his English isn't brilliant and so having an indepth convo with him about anything (especially this) can be difficult.


I know that the Romans used many greeks in their fleets but i'm not sure if this remained true in the 3rd Century A.D. I'd like to read more about the ship wreck if possible because this sort of thing is really intresting to me. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Internet

I'd like to read more about the ship wreck if possible because this sort of thing is really intresting to me. :yes:

---

The International Shipwreck Conference

Underwater archaeological survey conducted in Baia de Guanabara, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, under auspices of the Naval Museum, on what is believed to be a possible Roman amphora carrier from the 2nd century BC. Three other shipwrecks found and surveyed on this site (16th, 17th and 20th centuries). September 1982 - February 1983.

see

Treasure Lost at Sea: Diving to the World's Great Shipwrecks By Robert F. Marx, Jenifer Marx

The above Robert Marx (a treasure hunter) was the one who collected sherds from the Rio wreck. I also remember something about another possible Roman period wreck off the coast of Maine? However, I think the problem with these wrecks is that they are marked by amphora, which the Spanish also used in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries. Additionally, neither were investigated by archaeologists or actually written up. I'm not sure if these finds are legitimate or not?

That certainly sounds very interesting, i just wish they had done a more detailed survey and study of the wreck(s). Thanks for the info. :)

Please note that I'm from Denmark and the article in danish says that it was a wealthy lord who had trade connections to the romans. The other roman styled graves were later lords who tried to blend in with that lords traditions.

No romans, just people who thought they were cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir-S-Of-TURBO

Please note that I'm from Denmark and the article in danish says that it was a wealthy lord who had trade connections to the romans. The other roman styled graves were later lords who tried to blend in with that lords traditions.

No romans, just people who thought they were cool.

---

Exactly.

rgds/EoE

It's highly probable that a bunch of roman expats would have lived in Denmark though. It's near enough the amber sources to be a good base for merchants.

The romans knew probably FAR MORE of the outside world than what surviving sources tells us. We use writers like Suetonius, Flavius Josephus, Jordanes as the reference as to what they knew, but these guys, were they really good?

By example, they were trading in Britain a long time before they conquered it. And they knew it very well even if the sources we know were sketchy when they talked about Britain.

I have trouble imagining a Roman Trader revealing all his roads and contacts to a nerdy writer for the sake of history. Scandinavia and the Baltic sea was important for ivory, amber, furs, mercenaries and such. The Romans were go-getters, they would not have been sitting on their bums waiting for the good stuff to come by mail. Denmark was what? 300 klicks from the roman borders? Romans knew enough of Denmark, it's no challenge!


Of course, we need proof. But we interpret proof as CMACQ demonstrated brilliantly earlier. So when we find a tomb full of Roman artefacts in Denmark, guess what people think?

Ah I don't know. But I can tell you there's an american college in Paris, an american cemetary too, but France ain't no part of USA!

I find it hard to believe that there wasn't ONE roman who didn't find himself that far north in over 1000 years of history.

The ancient world did not exist in bubbles....if roman merchants existed in Gaul, I think it would be rather foolish to just assume that no Roman ever set foot in the area just because some historian didn't tell us.

Merchants go where the money is....they have little care for statecraft and warfare unless it affects said money.

Also, to think that no Roman warez made it here (and that the original inhabitant's nobility didn't want to be associated with the most powerful state in the world) is just not feasible IMO.

Honestly, I find it (equally) difficult to imagine that the extant sources would be so vague or sketchy when discussing places like Denmark if they had consistent and reliable knowledge of the geography. Just because Denmark was a good area for amber and furs doesn't mean that the Roman merchants went straight there to pick it up--it's equally (and perhaps more) likely that German merchants got the amber/furs/whatever from Denmark, and that they brought them down a ways into the areas of Germania relatively near Roman territory, and that Roman merchants bought the goods from Germans, in Germania, rather than from {whoever} in Denmark. Consequently, they would probably know of places like Scandinavia through conversations with German merchants, but they wouldn't necessarily know a whole lot about those places. Which is, incidentally, more or less what the extant sources reveal--knowledge of, rather than extensive knowledge about. Besides, if you were a fat, wealthy Roman merchant, would you want to drive your caravan a few hundred miles through the dark forests of barbaric Germany and back?

Sure, we can speculate all we want about what might have been the case. Maybe there's some lost Roman geographical treatise that offers in-depth detail of Scandinavia and the Baltic regions. But we don't have it, and we can only work with what we have, not with what we would like to have but don't. And since we have sketchy-at-best accounts of Baltic/Scandinavian geography, we have to assume that the Romans' general knowledge of the area was equally sketchy.

(Edit: And, sure, one Roman guy might have been stupid/lucky/brave enough to make the trip up to Denmark, but if he didn't write about it or if his journal is lost to history, we aren't going to know about it and so can't formulate interpretations based on evidence we don't have. In any case, just because one or two Italian merchants hoofed it up to Denmark doesn't by any stretch denote detailed knowledge of the area by the general Roman populace.)

As far as explaining the presence of Roman "artifacts" in a Danish-area cemetary, it's basically the same sort of phenomenon you see when you find, well, amber and furs in Italy. The merchants had to give the Germans something, and if Late Antiquity is any indication, German nobles considered Roman goods very "chic". As Sir S of Turbo pointed out above, the cemetary is just a north-Germanic chieftain who, because of trade connections (note: Not direct contact, just connections. He'd probably never been to Italy, either) had lots of Roman goods that he would have loved decking himself out in to make a statement about his prestige--those who could ornament themselves in exotic goods scored big-time in the prestige category.

Cheers.

Good points, Landwalker.

Surely, though, the romans were aware of these areas....Gaul and Denmark are not that far apart, nor is Britian for that matter. All that it would take would be a usual channel storm to blow a ship off course a'la the spanish armada....

That being said, no factual evidence does make my argument somewhat moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

Good points, Landwalker.

Surely, though, the romans were aware of these areas....Gaul and Denmark are not that far apart, nor is Britian for that matter. All that it would take would be a usual channel storm to blow a ship off course a'la the spanish armada....

That being said, no factual evidence does make my argument somewhat moot.

---

They very well could have been, but like I said, being aware of a region is quite different from having familiar knowledge of it. In fact, we already know they were aware of the regions, thanks to the sketchy extant evidence. But it's the sketchiness that makes that knowledge stop at awareness rather than continue into familiarity. If anybody ever uncovers a manuscript from the Roman republican or imperial period that does provide detailed knowledge of Baltic geography, you can bet every classicist in the world will do a backflip at the excitement of it all.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir-S-Of-TURBO

Please note that I'm from Denmark and the article in danish says that it was a wealthy lord who had trade connections to the romans. The other roman styled graves were later lords who tried to blend in with that lords traditions.

No romans, just people who thought they were cool.

---

That's just their guess. The article quite clearly says they really have no idea who he is; and only later will they find out if he is native to the area or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

That's just their guess. The article quite clearly says they really have no idea who he is; and only later will they find out if he is native to the area or not.

---

Actually the article says that these are the graves of the rich part of the population. It corresponds very nicely with other finds in Denmark and with the Roman practice to establish favourable relationships with tribal leaders through gifts and commerce.

It is not impossible that it actually is a Roman burial ground, it's just unlikely.

rgds/EoE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Landwalker

If anybody ever uncovers a manuscript from the Roman republican or imperial period that does provide detailed knowledge of Baltic geography, you can bet every classicist in the world will do a backflip at the excitement of it all.
Cheers.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pytheas

600 years before they found the wares in Denmark, he explored what is probably Scandinavia.

From the artice for those who don't want to go through the article.


Pytheas says that the Gutones, a people of Germany, inhabit the shores of an estuary of the Ocean called Mentonomon, their territory extending a distance of six thousand stadia; that, at one day's sail from this territory, is the Isle of Abalus, upon the shores of which, amber is thrown up by the waves in spring, it being an excretion of the sea in a concrete form; as, also, that the inhabitants use this amber by way of fuel, and sell it to their neighbours, the Teutones.

And by the way, back in Marius time, when the Cimbri and the Teutones arrived, the Romans knew very well from where they came.

Anyway, as some history teachers back in college tried to bunk in my head, the classical writers aren't good references as to what was known and what was really going on when we compare their writing to the material proofs. By example, when you read what the classical authors wrote about Gaul, and what the archeologists found in Entremont, there's a gap like the niagara here. They talked about savage tribes, they found several thousand people cities.

But at the time Strabo was writing his Geographika, by exemple, there was that greek town called Massilia in Gaul, full of traders who knew very well the country since they were trading in the country for a couple hundred years. How come Strabo's off chart like that?

We have two options:

-Or Strabo was the best geographer back then and knew ALL the information available back then. Which means that people in Massalia were dumb about their immediate surroundings. Entremont is a two day's ride from Marseille and was a 30'000 people Gallo-Ligurian city. Strabo doesn't even mention it.

-Or Strabo was a ordinary greek intellectual from Pontus who's work show what people knew in Pontus back then. His work was considered important in the middle ages because it talked about the holy lands, so it was copied and handed down to us.

But no! We consider the work of a greek from Hillbillyland as the ultimate proof as to what Greek and Romans knew from their world. We have material proof that there's roman ware in Denmark. We assume automatically that it was some petty noble who bought some cheap ware in the Ikea-um... If there were romans, we would have known, somebody would have wrote about it.

I don't buy it. Romans were go getters. There were roman traders in India, in Britain (long before Claudius invaded it), all over the place. They wouldn't have gone to Denmark, not even a week trip in a ship from Germania Inferior?

Bottom line
There's no scientific article about the finds yet. But I'll check it out. In my own opinion, it's probable that it's a roman grave, but the archaelogist, not wanting to have an OOPA on his resume will curve the facts a little so it match his career. :dizzy2:

Cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

I find it hard to believe that there wasn't ONE roman who didn't find himself that far north in over 1000 years of history.

The ancient world did not exist in bubbles....if roman merchants existed in Gaul, I think it would be rather foolish to just assume that no Roman ever set foot in the area just because some historian didn't tell us.

Merchants go where the money is....they have little care for statecraft and warfare unless it affects said money.

Also, to think that no Roman warez made it here (and that the original inhabitant's nobility didn't want to be associated with the most powerful state in the world) is just not feasible IMO.

---

Having merchants present in the region does not equal a Roman presence like you'd find in a place taken over by the military. You might find a few graves of some Roman merchants but that doesn't mean much because merchants of all races were everywhere. When you find the remains of a Roman fort/camp/supply base then we can start to talk. :yes:


Just thought, if the merchant was rich enough he'd probably have his remains taken back to Rome for burial there, which only decreases the chances.

I Hope my Latin rendering of these lines from PLINI SECUNDI NATURALIS HISTORIAE, book 4 are of some help, regarding this denmark subject?

Landwalker you also may find this of some interest?

I did this rather quick, so if someone finds errors, sorry.


[Chapter 13]

[Line 95]

Philemon Morimarusam a Cimbris vocari, hoc est mortuum mare, inde usque ad promunturium Rusbeas, ultra deinde Cronium. Xenophon Lampsacenus a litore Scytharum tridui navigatione insulam esse inmensae magnitudinis Balciam tradit, eandem Pytheas Basiliam nominat. feruntur et Oeonae, in quibus ovis avium et avenis incolae vivant, aliae, in quibus equinis pedibus homines nascantur, Hippopodes appellati, Phanesiorum aliae, in quibus nuda alioqui corpora praegrandes ipsorum aures tota contegant.


Rendering

Philemon claims the Cimbri's word Morimarusam, means the Dead Sea, there upwards towards the Rusbeas promontory, opposite of Cronium. There, Xenophon Lampsacenus sailed three days along the coast of Scytharum (error as it should be Scatinavum) to obtain a measurement of the distance to the Balciam Isle. Pytheas mentioned the very same names, the Basiliam and Oeonae isles, on whose wild coasts dwell sheep and wild-oats, according to the populace they produce a device called Hippopodes (horseshoe?) for the feet of their houses, from Phanesiorum, another report that someone stripped an ancient entombed corpse that was entirely over laid in gold.

[Line 96]

Incipit deinde clarior aperiri fama ab gente Inguaeonum, quae est prima in Germania. mons Saevo ibi, inmensus nec Ripaeis iugis minor, inmanem ad Cimbrorum usque promunturium efficit sinum, qui Codanus vocatur, refertus insulis, quarum clarissima est Scatinavia, inconpertae magnitudinis, portionem tantum eius, quod notum sit, Hillevionum gente quingentis incolente pagis: quare alterum orbem terrarum eam appellant. nec minor est opinione Aeningia.

Rendering

Now to clearly begin recounting the fame of the nations of Inguaeonum (followers of Ing?), which are the closest of Germany. Recently, the area between Mount Saevo and Ripaeis has not been continuously surveyed. All the way up to the promontory of Cimbrorum where the facing tide has caused a bowl shaped curve, that is called Codanus (The Tail). This is a place crowded with islands, that are distinct from Sweden, where except for that which is known, is a region of undefined magnitude, as likewise is much of its shape. In this district dwell the Hillevionum nation of 500 cantons, where formerly not as subordinates they acquired land in this territory from those believed to be the Aeningia.

[Line 97]

quidam haec habitari ad Vistlam usque fluvium a Sarmatis, Venedis, Sciris, Hirris tradunt, sinum Cylipenum vocari et in ostio eius insulam Latrim, mox alterum sinum Lagnum, conterminum Cimbris. promunturium Cimbrorum excurrens in maria longe paeninsulam efficit, quae Tastris appellatur. XXIII inde insulae Romanis armis cognitae. earum nobilissimae Burcana, Fabaria nostris dicta a frugis multitudine sponte provenientis, item Glaesaria a sucino militiae appellata, barbaris Austeravia, praeterque Actania.

Rendering

Certain of these dwell from the River Vistlam up to the Sarmatis, Venedis, Sciris, and Hirris given, the bay called Cylipenum and in the middle the Island of Latrim, which is next to another bay called Lagnum, a region bordering the Cimbri. The promontory of Cimbrorum extends far into the sea causing it to be a peninsula, from that place Tastris solicited 23 Roman swords to train with. The most noble Burcana, offered to give freely to Fabaria our spokesmen, a great multitude of beans, and likewise Glaesaria for amber solicited military support, for the savage Austeravia, against the Actania.

[Line 98]

Toto autem mari ad Scaldim usque fluvium Germaniae accolunt gentes, haud explicabili mesnura: tam inmodica prodentium discordia est. Graeci et quidam nostri |XXV| oram Germaniae tradiderunt, Agrippa cum Raetia et Norico longitudinem DCXXXV, latitudinem CCXVIII, Raetiae prope unius maiore latitudine sane circa excessum eius subactae; nam Germania multis postea annis nec tota percognita est.

Rendering

However, all the men from up in Sweden stream continuously into Germany to become neighboring clans: no doubt an expansion by force: nevertheless for-ivory tribute they restrain conflict. A certain Greek-person provides them 25 degrees of coastal Germany, Agrippa included the longitude 636 and latitude 248 degrees from Reatia and Norico. Near Raetia was once the ancestral boundary however this boundary withdraws as they compel; thus with this multitude in Germany the future years are in doubt.

[Line 99]

si coniectare permittitur, haut multum ora deerit Graecorum opinioni et longitudini ab Agrippa proditae. Germanorum genera quinque: Vandili, quorum pars Burgodiones, Varinnae, Charini, Gutones. alterum genus Inguaeones, quorum pars Cimbri, Teutoni ac Chaucorum gentes.

Rendering

If conjecture is permitted, the Greeks insist that much but not all of the coast was abandoned along the route of Agrippa's advance. From Germany arose five nations: Vandili, of who the Burgodiones, Varinnae, Charini, and Gutones are members. Another people the Inguaeones, of whom the Cimbri, Teutoni, and Chaucorum nations are members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EoE

Actually the article says that these are the graves of the rich part of the population. It corresponds very nicely with other finds in Denmark and with the Roman practice to establish favourable relationships with tribal leaders through gifts and commerce.

It is not impossible that it actually is a Roman burial ground, it's just unlikely.

rgds/EoE

---

From the article:
"Henover fyrsten stod en gravhøj, som for længst er væk. Men fyrsten, som arkæologerne ikke ved, hvem var, lå to meter under jorden med alle sine skatte og er derfor uskadt.

Hans skelet og tænder er i god stand, og det giver arkæologerne håb om at kunne bestemme, om han er dansker eller indvandrer, og om der også skulle ligge familie i gravene rundt om ham."

Translation:

"Above the lord stood a burial mound which has long since gone. But the lord, who the archaeologists do not know who is, lay two meters below ground with all his treasure and is therefore intact.

His skeleton and teeth are in good condition, so the archaeologists hope to be able to determine whether he is a Dane or an immigrant, and whether his relatives are buried in the surrounding graves."

Too bad they haven't posted a follow-up story, because it says they should have gotten more info by thursday last week.

Okay, we are talking about two different articles. I was referring to the one linked in the first post.

But while we're at it, I guess you also read the last part of the article, you're refering to? The part where the archeologists speculate that either the buried lord or his sons fought as allies for the Romans?

It's Occam's razor really: The simple explanation, is the likely explanation. And the simple explanation is that it's a Danish tribal lord with contacts to the Romans.

rgds/EoE

Yeah, it is most likely a tribal lord. And I agree the likelihood that he is Roman is low. But until we know, we don't know. :sweatdrop:

then we have: P CORNELI TACITI DE ORIGINE ET SITV GERMANORVM


[chapter 2]

Ipsos Germanos indigenas crediderim minimeque aliarum gentium adventibus et hospitiis mixtos, quia nec terra olim, sed classibus advehebantur qui mutare sedes quaerebant, et inmensus ultra utque sic dixerim adversus Oceanus raris ab orbe nostro navibus aditur. Quis porro, praeter periculum horridi et ignoti maris, Asia aut Africa aut Italia relicta Germaniam peteret, informem terris, asperam caelo, tristem cultu adspectuque, nisi si patria sit?

Rendering

The real German natives, are believed very little changed by tribal invasion and even hospitable mingling, as formerly not by land, those questing for a change of home were brought there by ships, which have but to sail beyond into a hostile Ocean, which is a region our ships rarely go. Formerly, who else would risk frightful and unknown seas, abandon Asia, Africa, or Italy to reach Germany, a hideous place of harsh climate, to see its gloomy manner, but those who were native to the region?


[Chapter 37]

Eundem Germaniae sinum proximi Oceano Cimbri tenent, parva nunc civitas, sed gloria ingens. Veterisque famae lata vestigia manent, utraque ripa castra ac spatia, quorum ambitu nunc quoque metiaris molem manusque gentis et tam magni exitus fidem.

Rendering

Near the ocean reside the Cimbri, in the same curved bay of Germany, now a small community, yet vast in past glory. In saying no, tradition's vestige holds permanency, for over a wide space in this far place, fortified encampments, now measured heaps disserted by this historic race, were so broadly abandoned, yet with honor.

I allow to re-quote the first post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power2the1

[I]COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — Archaeologists have discovered a Roman cemetery from about 300 A.D. in suburban Copenhagen with about 30 graves, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

---

When we are talking about a "Roman" cemetary of the 4th Century AD we have set straight before what is considered to be Roman in this periode. We have millions "Romans" living north of the Alps that did not even come close to Italy in all their live. We have a full migration going on along all of the Rhine with masses of Germanic crossing the border peacefully and setteling on Roman lands.

On the other side of the border there were large parts of the land living for centuries in very close contact with the superior Roman culture. And there was also always large movements going on within the Germanic population that effected their entire area of living.

And we have, of course, the hughe number of Germanic mercenaries that served for the Romans, and became more or less Romanized.

That means:

- It would be more or less impossible to distinguish a Germanic (for example a warlord or a trader) of the 4th Cent. who has lived all his live in Denmark but collected a lot of Roman stuff for some reason from a Germanic (for example a mercenary or trader) who was born in Cologne or Treverorum and happened to die in Denmark for what reason ever simply by the content of his grave.

- It is absurde to assume that, given the hughe number of Germanics that were living in the Roman Empire, the Romans didn't know a lot of details on Northern Europe. That is just random of the remaints, considering how few writen sources have survived at all.

It seems more likely romans may be found early on, and very much less likely later in time. It seems rome had a better relationship with the kelto-germans than the nordic-germans. And....as the keltos seem to have lost the struggle for dominance east of the rhine, o'well?

dumb question (i'm no historian)

where the hell are all the corpses frm 10,000 casualty battles? gone? disappeared beneath developed cities? moved to pyres and burnt after battle? simply degraded?

Anyway, we argue when we have very little information on this.

It's probably a salvage operation, on a contaminated site (a bulldozer turned out bones and bowls: oops! We need an archeologist here like now!), so the team is reluctant to give info (there's a possible OOPA, remember) and we are here and we chit chat on this on like gossipers with a rumor and sharpened knives!

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runes

dumb question (i'm no historian)

where the hell are all the corpses frm 10,000 casualty battles? gone? disappeared beneath developed cities? moved to pyres and burnt after battle? simply degraded?

---

ask the black birds?

ah yes, the famous bone and iron eating crows of norther italy.

thats why they call them maniples, they feed the black birds.

Manipulus de Mandibūla

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runes

dumb question (i'm no historian)

where the hell are all the corpses frm 10,000 casualty battles? gone? disappeared beneath developed cities? moved to pyres and burnt after battle? simply degraded?

---

Depends, they were usually put into mass funeral pyres and burnt to a crisp, for a lot of people back then, it is what their religion called for. As for the armour, well that was taken as part of the spoils of war, if it were an army of Gauls (for example) that had won they'd probably take the best bits for themselves and sell the rest and for the Romans they'd take them for victory parades afterwards (especially if the general was given a triumph). I don't doubt that some of the soldiers also went through the dead to see if anything caught their eye as well, everyone loves a bargin. :beam:

even the late bronze age greeks may have known about and went to denmark?


Ὁμήρου Ὀδύσσεια
Homer's ODYSSEY

BOOK 11

ἡ δ᾽ ἐς πείραθ᾽ ἵκανε βαθυρρόου Ὠκεανοῖο. ἔνθα δὲ Κιμμερίων ἀνδρῶν δῆμός τε πόλις τε, ἠέρι καὶ νεφέλῃ κεκαλυμμένοι· οὐδέ ποτ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἠέλιος φαέθων καταδέρκεται ἀκτίνεσσιν, οὔθ᾽ ὁπότ᾽ ἂν στείχῃσι πρὸς οὐρανὸν ἀστερόεντα, οὔθ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἂν ἂψ ἐπὶ γαῖαν ἀπ᾽ οὐρανόθεν προτράπηται, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ νὺξ ὀλοὴ τέταται δειλοῖσι βροτοῖσι. νῆα μὲν ἔνθ᾽ ἐλθόντες ἐκέλσαμεν, ἐκ δὲ τὰ μῆλα εἱλόμεθ᾽· αὐτοὶ δ᾽ αὖτε παρὰ ῥόον Ὠκεανοῖο ᾔομεν, ὄφρ᾽ ἐς χῶρον ἀφικόμεθ᾽, ὃν φράσε Κίρκη.

rendering

Each day the sail stretched out to make us race the sea in stride, and out-run the shadow of the sun as we sped across an endless way. In short measure by this means we came to the wave-fill ocean stream and to the Kimmeri kith, kin, and town all wrapped in a mist that never parts to let the sun shine on. This budged not when starry heaven comes around, neither rising from the ground, nor when urged sinks back down. Likewise by design thrust in deathly darkness cower mortal men bound aboard a driven craft, that as goats grasped in hand, yanked aside the ocean’s flow and run aground, ... all as Circe had fore-said.

Lol, no wonder the odyssey took so long if they went all the way to Denmark. Way to get lost in the Aegean and end up in the North Sea. :inquisitive:

...and how the Hell would one of those ships actually have survived the sea-trip through the rather... unwelcoming Bay of Biscay and North Sea ? The vast majority of Mediterranean vessels were teh suck for Atlantic sailing; the Phoenicians and Greeks going beyond the Pillars of Hercules AFAIK used designs rather heavier and more robust than was the norm for Med shipping.

we all know how much those greeks loved going beyond the pillars of hercules.

Merchants go where there's profit to be made, and the British Isles were known as "tin isles" for a reason. You gotta hand that to merchants everywhere; they don't give up easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

...and how the Hell would one of those ships actually have survived the sea-trip through the rather... unwelcoming Bay of Biscay and North Sea ? The vast majority of Mediterranean vessels were teh suck for Atlantic sailing; the Phoenicians and Greeks going beyond the Pillars of Hercules AFAIK used designs rather heavier and more robust than was the norm for Med shipping.

---

More likely they would have gone upriver. But you'd have to be more than a little lost to think a river was part of the Aegean and that Ithaca was just around the corner. :dizzy2:

Granted, given the way Odysseus' lot failed to find their way home in a pond as easily navigated as eastern Med, it can be assumed they're guilty of repeat offenses of "sailing under the influence"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

"sailing under the influence"...

---

then there is

Στράβων Γεωγραφία
STRABO's GEOGRAPHY
BOOK 7

[Chapter 2]

[1]
περι δε Κιμβρὀν τα μεν ουκ ευ λεγεται· τα δ᾿ εψηει πιτηανοτὑτασ ου μετριασ, ουτε γαρ τὑν τοιαυτὑν αιτιαν του πλανὑτασ γενεστηαι και λὑιστρικουσ αποδεχαιτ᾿ αν τισ· ηοτι ψηερρονὑσον οικουντεσ μεγαλὑι πλὑμμυριδι εχελατηειεν εκ τὀν τοπὀν; και γαρ νυν εψηουσι τὑν ψηὀραν ηὑν ειψηον προτερον· και επεμπσαν τὀι Σεβαστὀι δὀρον τον ηιερὀτατον παρ᾿ αυτοισ λεβὑτα· αιτουμενοι πηιλιαν και αμνὑστιαν τὀν ηυπὑργμενὀν· τυψηοντεσ δε ηὀν ὑχιουν απὑραν; γελοιον δε τὀι πηυσικὀι και αιὀνιὀι πατηει δισ ηεκαστὑσ ηὑμερασ συμβαινοντι προσοργιστηεντασ απελτηειν εκ του τοπου, εοικε δε πλασματι το συμβὑναι ποτε ηυπερβαλλουσαν πλὑμμυριδα; επιτασεισ; επιτασεισ μεν γαρ και ανεσεισ δεψηεται· τεταγμενασ δε και περιοδιζουσασ· ηο ὀκεανοσ εν τοισ τοιουτοισ πατηεσιν, ουκ ευ δ᾿ ουδε ηο πηὑσασ ηοπλα αιρεστηαι προσ τασ πλὑμμυριδασ τουσ Κιμβρουσ· ουδ᾿ ηοτι απηοβιαν ηοι Κελτοι ασκουντεσ κατακλυζεστηαι τασ οικιασ ηυπομενουσιν· ειτ᾿ ανοικοδομουσι· και ηοτι πλειὀν αυτοισ συμβαινει πητηοροσ εχ ηυδατοσ ὑ πολεμου· ηοπερ Επηοροσ πηὑσιν, ηὑ γαρ ταχισ ηὑ τὀν πλὑμμυριδὀν και το τὑν επικλυζομενὑν ψηὀραν ειναι γνὀριμον ουκ εμελλε τοιαυτασ τασ ατοπιασ παρεχειν, δισ γαρ ηεκαστὑσ ηὑμερασ τουτου συμβαινοντοσ το μὑδ᾿ ηαπαχ αιστηανεστηαι πηυσικὑν ουσαν τὑν παλιρροιαν και αβλαβὑ· και ου μονοισ τουτοισ συμβαινουσαν αλλα τοισ παρὀκεανιταισ πασι· πὀσ ουκ απιτηανον" ουδε Κλειταρψηοσ ευ; πηὑσι γαρ τουσ ηιππεασ ιδοντασ τὑν επηοδον του πελαγουσ απηιππασαστηαι και πηευγοντασ ενγυσ γενεστηαι του περικαταλὑπητηὑναι, ουτε δε τοσουτὀι ταψηει τὑν επιβασιν ηορμὀμενὑν ηιστορουμεν· αλλα λελὑτηοτὀσ προσιουσαν τὑν τηαλατταν; ουτε το κατη᾿ ηὑμεραν γινομενον και πασιν εναυλον ὑδὑ ον τοισ πλὑσιαζειν μελλουσι πριν ὑ τηεασαστηαι· τοσουτον εμελλε παρεχεστηαι πηοβον ηὀστε πηευγειν· ηὀσ αν ει εχ αδοκὑτου προσεπεσε,

Rendering

On one hand some information about the Kimbri, is not well validated, while other reports are more convincing, although not without limits. Unacceptable is the explanation that some attribute the origin of their wandering and piratical nature. That when residing on the peninsula, they were driven out by a great random wave from the sea (a) and yet still hold this territory as it was in earlier times. As a gift they sent to Sebastoi, who is the same self Augustus, a divine caldron, asking that if deemed worthwhile a new start, amnesty, and friendship with bygone transgressions removed to last a lifetime in natural laugher. It was agreed that if perchance one was provoked by aggression the other would in haste be likewise obligated to respond.

They departed this place the very image of harmony at a time not to overshoot the tide that was extended in slack and ready to recede, as perarranged, into the ocean in the manner that it normally happens. Thus it is incorrect to say the sea tides were the tool that caused the Kimbri to rise up and move, nor that anyone as fearless as the Kelts fashion homes that are dashed by deluge, the remains only to be rebuilt.

Nor those that claim this phenomenon results in more death from water than battle, as Ephoros says. The order of the sea tides and extent of tidal flows are well known and not held as extraordinary. That this phenomenon occurs not once, but twice is seen as the natural and harmless daily reflux of water, and not an isolated event that likewise happens everywhere, in a way by no means unlikely. Nor is Kleitarchos right, in declaring that when horsemen seeing the sea’s advance rode away in full flight only to be nearly consumed by the water.

Critically, it could not to be so high and swift in approach, as otherwise its advance would be imperceptible. Nor would the calm of the receding tide be a pleasure to be near in thought or view, as being so large one is held in readiness to flee in flight, if thus so undecided that it may unexpectedly strike.

[2]
ταυτα τε δὑ δικαιὀσ επιτιμαι τοισ συνγραπηευσι Ποσειδὀνιοσ και ου κακὀσ εικαζει· διοτι λὑιστρικοι οντεσ και πλανὑτεσ ηοι Κιμβροι και μεψηρι τὀν περι τὑν Μαιὀτιν ποιὑσαιντο στρατειαν· απ᾿ εκεινὀν δε και ηο Κιμμεριοσ κλὑτηειὑ Βοσποροσ· ηοιον Κιμβρικοσ· Κιμμεριουσ τουσ Κιμβρουσ ονομασαντὀν τὀν Ηελλὑνὀν, πηὑσι δε και Βοιουσ τον Ηερκυνιον δρυμον οικειν προτερον· τουσ δε Κιμβρουσ ηορμὑσαντασ επι τον τοπον τουτον· αποκρουστηεντασ ηυπο τὀν Βοιὀν επι τον Ιστρον και τουσ Σκορδισκουσ Γαλατασ καταβὑναι· ειτ᾿ επι Τευριστασ και Ταυρισκουσ· και τουτουσ Γαλατασ· ειτ᾿ επι Ηελουὑττιουσ· πολυψηρυσουσ μεν ανδρασ ειρὑναιουσ δε; ηορὀντασ δε τον εκ τὀν λὑιστὑριὀν πλουτον ηυπερβαλλοντα του παρ᾿ ηεαυτοισ τουσ Ηελουὑττιουσ επαρτηὑναι· μαλιστα δ᾿ αυτὀν Τιγυρινουσ τε και Τὀυγενουσ· ηὀστε και συνεχορμὑσαι, παντεσ μεντοι κατελυτηὑσαν ηυπο τὀν Ρηὀμαιὀν αυτοι τε ηοι Κιμβροι και ηοι συναραμενοι τουτοισ· ηοι μεν ηυπερβαλοντεσ τασ Αλπεισ εισ τὑν Ιταλιαν ηοι δ᾿ εχὀ τὀν Αλπεὀν,

Rendering

Because of the observed well order and precise nature of this, value is given to the correct presentation of Poseidonius, that as piratical and migrant the Kimbri even as far as the vicinity of Lake Maeotis made an expedition to move away from the place called the Cimmerian Bosporos (cattle-ford?), since the Kimbri, as the Greeks also called them Cimmeri(b). The Boii of the Hercynian Forest say when they inhabited the sacred oak groves (Bohemia)(c), the Kimbri moved on this place, to be beaten off by the Boii (d), only to come down upon the Gallic Scordisci, along the Danube, with the Teuristae and Taurisci, these also being Gallics. When they came on to the Helvetii, peaceful men rich in gold, they saw this band of robbers alongside such amassed wealth, that the Helvetii rose up, particularly the Tigurini and Toygeni, to follow on. All these were put down by the Romans, both the Kimbri and those who had followed them, some in one instance over the Alps in Italy, and the others before the Alps.

Note (a) Apparently Strabo didn't understand the very frequent North Sea quakes and tsunami effect.
Note (b) Herodus and Poseidonius reported that the Cimmerians (the Novocerkassk archaeological culture), in the approach of the Scyths, abandoned the Ukraine and migrated to Denmark to become the Cimbri. Urartian and Neo-Assyrian sources date the southern migration of the Cimmeri between 720 and 710/709 BC, initially ending with the destruction of the Phrygia and foundation of the Lydian kingdoms of Anatolia. This has a bearing on the Homeric story about Odysseus' trip to Denmark.
Note (c) In Strabo's life the Boii had abandoned Bohemia, due to their being weaken by the Cimbric invasion and later Swabian attackes. In the mid 1st century BC the Boii migrated to Gaul.
Note (d) Although the Boii claimed to have defeated the Cimbric host, it appears the opposite was true and they were forced to ransom themselves as did the Teuristae and Taurisci.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Note (b) Herodus and Poseidonius reported that the Cimmerians (the Novocerkassk archaeological culture), in the approach of the Scyths, abandoned the Ukraine and migrated to Denmark to become the Cimbri. Urartian and Neo-Assyrian sources date the southern migration of the Cimmeri between 720 and 710/709 BC, initially ending with the destruction of the Phrygia and foundation of the Lydian kingdoms of Anatolia. This has a bearing on the Homeric story about Odysseus' trip to Denmark.

---

Oh my, the greeks and romans particularly sucked at ethnogenesis...

Anyway, the Cimbri and Teutones are still a mystery to us. What were they?

Germans?

Why they had Celtic names?

Cimbri could be related to Cymru
Boiorix, Gaesorix, Morimarusa are all celtic names
Teutones from the root Teut- (people) as in Tuatha, Toutatix...

The Gundestrup Cauldron was found in Cimbria. And it's definitely Celtic.

BUT

Celts?
They were not recognized as such by the Gauls and the Romans. But even there, Romans were pretty bad in that domain.

Anyway, what we now is that they weren't Danes, since they didn't bring havarti with them in their migrations. :laugh4:

there is no way the Danes would be anywhere near modern Denmark before the Fall of the Roman Empire... the English, Angles are thought to have inhabited the Danish islands, while Jutland by the Jutes and a whole mixture of those Low Germanic peoples (Frieslanders and Saxons too, oh my!), the Danes (this is fact) came from Skane, the southern tip of Sweden: that's why they speak East Norse rather than West Norse dialect. now when they exactly started to migrate, that is open to debate, Heorot in Beowulf could easily be based on a powerful cheiftain of which there has been found a large hall (at Lejre on Zealand) dating to the Dark Ages, but it's also still the islands and not England (Denmark) proper, as the Anglo-Saxons were continually migrating, while the Danes conquered more and more, taking a lot of land abandoned for whatever reasons, flooding or population pressure, or prospect in the British frontier.

whats Herodus say about the Cimbri/Cimmeri?

Ἡροδότου Μοῦσαι
Ἱστοριῶν τετάρτη ἐπιγραφομένη Μελπομένη

HERODOTUS HISTORIES
BOOK 4

[Chapter 11]

Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἄλλος λόγος ἔχων ὧδε, τῷ μάλιστα λεγομένῳ αὐτός πρόσκειμαι, Σκύθας τοὺς νομάδας οἰκέοντας ἐν τῇ Ἀσίῃ, πολέμῳ πιεσθέντας ὑπὸ Μασσαγετέων, οἴχεσθαι διαβάντας ποταμὸν Ἀράξην ἐπὶ γῆν τὴν Κιμμερίην (τὴν γὰρ νῦν νέμονται Σκύθαι, αὕτη λέγεται τὸ παλαιὸν εἶναι Κιμμερίων), [2] τοὺς δὲ Κιμμερίους ἐπιόντων Σκυθέων βουλεύεσθαι ὡς στρατοῦ ἐπιόντος μεγάλου, καὶ δὴ τὰς γνώμας σφέων κεχωρισμένας, ἐντόνους μὲν ἀμφοτέρας, ἀμείνω δὲ τὴν τῶν βασιλέων· τὴν μὲν γὰρ δὴ τοῦ δήμου φέρειν γνώμην ὡς ἀπαλλάσσεσθαι πρῆγμα εἴη μηδὲ πρὸ σποδοῦ μένοντας κινδυνεύειν, τὴν δὲ τῶν βασιλέων διαμάχεσθαι περὶ τῆς χώρης τοῖσι ἐπιοῦσι. [3] οὔκων δὴ ἐθέλειν πείθεσθαι οὔτε τοῖσι βασιλεῦσι τὸν δῆμον οὔτε τῷ δήμῳ τοὺς βασιλέας· τοὺς μὲν δὴ ἀπαλλάσσεσθαι βουλεύεσθαι ἀμαχητὶ τὴν χωρῆν παραδόντας τοῖσι ἐπιοῦσι· τοῖσι δὲ βασιλεῦσι δόξαι ἐν τῇ ἑωυτῶν κεῖσθαι ἀποθανόντας μηδὲ συμφεύγειν τῷ δήμῳ, λογισαμένους ὅσα τε ἀγαθὰ πεπόνθασι καὶ ὅσα φεύγοντας ἐκ τῆς πατρίδος κακὰ ἐπίδοξα καταλαμβάνειν. [4] ὡς δὲ δόξαι σφι ταῦτα, διαστάντας καὶ ἀριθμὸν ἴσους γενομένους μάχεσθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους. καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἀποθανόντας πάντας ὑπ᾽ ἑωυτῶν θάψαι τὸν δῆμον τῶν Κιμμερίων παρὰ ποταμὸν Τύρην (καί σφεων ἔτι δῆλος ἐστὶ ὁ τάφος), θάψαντας δὲ οὕτω τὴν ἔξοδον ἐκ τῆς χώρης ποιέεσθαι· Σκύθας δὲ ἐπελθόντας λαβεῖν τὴν χώρην ἐρήμην.

Rendering

There is yet another telling, thus told so well that I particularly relay upon it. The Scyths were nomads that occupied Asia, when squeezed tight by war with the Massagetae, they passed over the river Axartes (Syr Darya? possible error as this should be the river Tanaïs [Don] or Rha [Volga]) (1) and into the Cimmerians, whom at this time dwelt in Scythia, the ancient abode of the Cimmerians. Then the Cimmerians deliberated the Scythian advance, as the enemy encamped army drew near, on the one hand they decided to depart, because they were well-strung. Yet, on the other hand the princes prevailing against the said choice of the nation, to undo that which was done, not to risk being stirred as embers in the wind. Now as the princes’ wish clashed against the nation, they could not persuade upon the noblemen, whom in assembly had decided to withdraw without giving fight and hand over everything. Thus, the princes decided to lay dead rather than flee the land, as reckoned by the number of those with honor to receive the blow from those that in shame would flee from ancestral holdings. With this resolution, as rivals they tore apart and began to fight one another. The greater wiped-out the fewer and still honored these with funeral rites, then the nation of the Cimmerians crossed the river Tyras (Dnister), their funeral mounds yet seen there, made upon their departure to venerate the dead. Then the Scyths rushed in to take an empty land.

[Chapter 12]

Καὶ νῦν ἔστι μὲν ἐν τῇ Σκυθικῇ Κιμμέρια τείχεα, ἔστι δὲ πορθμήια Κιμμέρια, ἔστι δὲ καὶ χωρῇ οὔνομα Κιμμερίη, ἔστι δὲ Βόσπορος Κιμμέριος καλεόμενος· [2] φαίνονται δὲ οἱ Κιμμέριοι φεύγοντες ἐς τὴν Ἀσίην τοὺς Σκύθας καὶ τὴν χερσόνησον κτίσαντες, ἐν τῇ νῦν Σινώπη πόλις Ἑλλὰς οἴκισται. φανεροὶ δὲ εἰσὶ καὶ οἱ Σκύθαι διώξαντες αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐσβαλόντες ἐς γῆν τὴν Μηδικὴν, ἁμαρτόντες τῆς ὁδοῦ· [3] οἱ μὲν γὰρ Κιμμέριοι αἰεὶ τὴν παρὰ θάλασσαν ἔφευγον, οἱ δὲ Σκύθαι ἐν δεξιῇ τὸν Καύκασον ἔχοντες ἐδίωκον ἐς οὗ ἐσέβαλον ἐς γῆν τὴν Μηδικήν, ἐς μεσόγαιαν τῆς ὁδοῦ τραφθέντες. οὗτος δὲ ἄλλος ξυνὸς Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ βαρβάρων λεγόμενος λόγος εἴρηται.

Rendering

Now to this day here and there in Scythia one finds an earthwork, a ford, a route of passage named Cimmeria, and a place called the Cimmerian ox-crossing: this peninsula discovered and settled as the Cimmerians fled the Scyths into Asia, and presently here the Hellas have founded the colonial city of Sinope. Its clear that the Scyths, in hot-pursuit flung themselves into Media, their dubious export missing its mark: As at this point the Cimmerians continued to flee along the sea, yet the Scyths held Mount Caucasus on the right hand and in hot-pursuit fell upon Media, into the heart of this country wkere their horrid trade congealed. Except for one other barbarous lullaby this telling is the common Greek impression.

Note: Chapter 11 outlines the migration of Cimmeri into Europe and Twelve the Cimmerian invasion of the Near East.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

there is no way the Danes would be anywhere near modern Denmark before the Fall of the Roman Empire... the English, Angles are thought to have inhabited the Danish islands, while Jutland by the Jutes and a whole mixture of those Low Germanic peoples (Frieslanders and Saxons too, oh my!), the Danes (this is fact) came from Skane, the southern tip of Sweden: that's why they speak East Norse rather than West Norse dialect. now when they exactly started to migrate, that is open to debate, Heorot in Beowulf could easily be based on a powerful cheiftain of which there has been found a large hall (at Lejre on Zealand) dating to the Dark Ages, but it's also still the islands and not England (Denmark) proper, as the Anglo-Saxons were continually migrating, while the Danes conquered more and more, taking a lot of land abandoned for whatever reasons, flooding or population pressure, or prospect in the British frontier.

---

As far as I know, the Angles are believed to have lived south of the Jutes, at the base of the peninsula of Jutland, at least at this point in time.
Prehistoric items from that area from the 4th and 5th century show resemblance to items found in graves in England.

It may as well be that the Danes lived in Scania and perhaps the Danish islands, and then were able to expand west when the Jutes went to England along with the Angles, Saxons etc.
And since this is what other sources tell us, I think it's not entirely implausible.

It would fit the migration pattern.

The XXX (Iutii Anglii) pushed the Cimbri-Teutones off Denmark.
The Danes pushed the Iutii/Anglii off Denmark.

Like the Slavs/Goth/Vandals etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

Heorot in Beowulf

---

What about Heorot in Kent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

that is open to debate, Heorot in Beowulf could easily be based on a powerful cheiftain.

---

I find OE a bit more work than Latin, still i've not seen a really good translation of Beowulf, yet?


[Line 64]

þa wæs Hroðgare here-spēd gyfen, wiges weorð-mynd, þæt him his wine-magas georne hyrdon, oðð-þæt seo geogoð geweox, mago-driht micel. Him on mod be-arn þæt heal-reced hatan wolde, medo-ærn micel, men gewyrcean þonne yldo bearn æfre gefrunon, ond þær on innan eall gedælan geongum ond ealdum, swylc him God sealde, buton folc-scare ond feorum gumena. Da ic wide gefrægn weorc gebannan manigre mægþe geond þisne middan-geard, folc-stede frætwan. Him on fyrste gelomp, ædre mid yldum, þæt hit wearð eal-gearo, heal-ærna mæst; scop him Heort naman se þe his wordes geweald wide hæfde. He beot ne aleh, beagas dælde, sinc æt symle. Sele hlifade, heah ond horn-geap, heaðo-wylma bad, laðan liges; ne wæs hit lenge þa gen þæt se ecg-hete aþum-sweoran, æfter wæl-niðe wæcnan scolde.


Rendering

Then was Hrothgare, given success in battle, and insight of war's-fame, so that his kin and friends obeyed him gladly, and his ban grew great, this large troupe of young retainers. Then from mind to mouth a hall-raising order rushed out, a great mead house, master built as man has never known. That there inside to young and old was given, as God gave him, except the common-lands and lives of men.

Then wide I heard this work was decreed to many nations throughout the middle-earth, to fashion this folkstead. Yet on them time happened, instantly from start to finish, til it was all-ready built, this greatest of all hall-houses; and the name Heort was made for it, and with this word might was widely swung. Here was promised no deceit, that rings be given, at the treasure feast. Towering hall high and wide-gabled, whose heated surge bids not the loathsome flame; as not yet near at hand, was oath-sworn sharp-edged hate, thus soon mortal malice would awake.


Note:
This is the end of a discussion from down below between Blitz and myself; Him on fyrste gelomp, ædre mid yldum, (them on time happened, instantly together with old age) informs the later segment, þæt hit wearð eal-gearo/gearu/géara/gearwe (so that it made all ready) does this mean 'they built it in an instant, that which was already old, and this was how the hall was made entirely ready?' otherwise what does it mean? Well Blitz, after looking at it for a bit... maybe your right and the line should be changed? I'ii change it from 'Yet time fell- fast on this human undertaking, as it had ready-stood' to 'Yet on them time happened, from start to finish in an instant, til it was all-ready built'. I hope this fix debugs the poem enough for it to still work? Much thanks to Blitz for all the help in correcting my misstake.

Heort was 'finished in an instant' as the poem emplies, because it was a late romano-british villa, no? I've seen a trailer for the new movie... it looks very 300-ish. "THIS IS SPARTA" and "I AM BEOWULF"

Kent?

no, that translation is off... hold on. My translation of same text, I use literal language most of the time rather than conversion to Modern slang, btw:

"Then success in war was given to Hrothgar, glory of battle so that his retainers obeyed him until the youth, the young retainers grew up to a great band of retainers.

It occurred in his mind that he would command men to build a hall-building, a great mead-hall which the sons of men should hear of forever, and there within to share out everything to the young and old such as God gave him except public land and the lives of men.

Then I heard the work commanded to many peoples throughout the earth, the place of the people. It happened most swiftly among men that the hall-building in expected time became entirely prepared.

He created the name Heort for it, he who had power of his words far and wide, he did not fail to perform a vow and dispense rings and treasure at the banquet. The hall towered high and wide-gabled, and awaited the surgence of fire, the hostile flame, it was not then yet at hand that the sword-hate should be born of son-in-law and father-in-law after the murderous hostility."

This is exactly from the Old English... I don't know where you got some of the flowery prose, no offense. You DID comment nobody has bothered to give a good translation, so this is not really targeting you, but those who claim to be doing it right:
þæt hit wearð ealgearo = 'that it became fully prepared,' ealgearo is literally "all-ready"... and the verb wearð is 'become' so where is 'stood'? Believe it or not, in Old English there are conjunctions and such, so it's easy to know when "as/so/thus" should be included.


yeah, the new movie looks like crap, with terrible actress Angelina Jolie to seal the deal for total Hollywood sellout- yeah, Grendel's mom was hot- RETARDS!

A somewhat independent but more accurate Icelandic film coincidently with Gerald Butler (Leonidas in 300- he did that after this film) called Beowulf and Grendel, is the best we'll ever see, imo... I don't like how they did Grendel based on that idiot who wrote a book called Grendel (that book sucks- i tried to give it a chance)

I can't believe they have PLATE MAIL on Beowulf in the trailer of the new one- i mean WTF... and Anthony Hopkins as a king? I'm sorry, you have to be larger than a hobbit to be a successful warrior, nonetheless Germanic king ~;) I'm so sorry for Ray Winstone who has really sold out... it's not even his body?! it's some model- WTF! a model!? yeah right, Beowulf was a large and fleshy fellow, he carried 30 mailshirts in tow when he swam away from a failed raid in the Netherlands- no pansy model can do that!