Apparently it has written the Göttingen Academy of Sciences on their banners, to going astray colleagues at the University of Osnabrück due to the path of scientific virtues. Even the foreword to the anthology: ". Roman presence and domination in the Germania of the Augustan age of Kalkriese The site in the context of recent research and archaeological findings", Göttingen 2007, has what it takes. There, writes Professor Wiegand, carries the varus down Kalkriese largely responsible: "On the discussion of probabilities and weight Evidence should be here at least not forget that must be considered by the strictly methodological-critical approach the question remains as open which military operations of the late Augustan phase of the find site of Kalkriese in the context of varus-battle [is the original] reflects " .
Not only Wiegels ate chalk, and Dr. Susanne Wilbers-Rost, wife of Dr. Rost and by their own self-chief Ausgräberin the Varus battle in Kalkriese, which has recently been contentious always, if you someone her favorite toy . wanted to take it comes under the watchful eyes of the Academy of Sciences and Humanities "to the revealing conclusion:" Maybe arising in this way is also evidence to identify the battlefield with the traditional in the ancient sources hostilities in late Augustan / early Tiberian period "(p. 27). There should not be surprised, after the author over a decade the keyword of her foster father Dr. Schlueter has repeated mantra that she digs the Varus battle in Kalkriese and that all highway and street signs too. Well, then Tiberius, 14 AD ff?
is adventurous as Privatdozent Dr. Boris Dreyer manages to In his later added item "On the development of Varus defeat" the arch of the ancient text sources point to the excavations beating of Kalkriese. First, one is amazed that after a repetition of the assertion that "it is not methodologically correct, look for the slaughter by literary sources" (this is the favorite theme of Zitierkartells Kalkriese), then just to have the incriminating sources the way: from the Weser Detmold about as far away as Kalkriese - in four days, allegedly under the heaviest bombardment of Horn-Bad Meinberg 80 km across the Wiehengebirge!
But what can you expect from a performer who can Varus "northwest along the Teutoburg Forest" march, if he thinks northeast of the Teutoburg Forest - but the north-west. Then the critics of the attacks Dreyer Kalkriese-Zitierkartells To: [!] The company, classified on the basis of archaeological findings, the conflicts in Kalkriese in the attested by literary sources, the total disaster of Varus army posts, lately undertaken efforts against [hear, hear!], the available source material "re-interpret (p. 373).
How does it actually together when it forwards on p. 366 all "literary sources" (his favorite phrase) rejects because they are "different interpretation", then the same interpretive uses and then incriminate other interpretations? And what it has to do with scientific fact, when he last sentence of his contribution to the Detmold again correctly states: "If the reflection of the progress of the Varus defeat [his first convulsive voices made interpretations said], it remains as a conclusion to be noted that the statue of Arminius / Hermann Detmold so far in the wrong place, is that not there - as assumed by the builders of the monument and many others - the Varus army went down, but rather that the north-west [! no, Mr. Dreyer, northeast] of which their downfall began, the completed just west of Kalkriese.
from such a generous person who argues historian can not expect accuracy even in every geographic detail. Perhaps Dreyer wanted with the quality of his Essay revenge, that he was asked later by Wiegand (p. 89) for a contribution of the text sources and Kalkriese should bring back into line: To sum up, do not belong together. This paper has since written until later, do not pass the inspection of the Göttingen Academy of Sciences and falls over the other contributions in terms of quality and differentiation capacity, decreasing considerably. It merely serves the purpose that into perspective later in the conference findings to Kalkriese as the site of Varus battle by not participating in the meeting individual opinion in the proceedings.
Wiegels even balanced similar to Dreyer in the balance. He reads at the mouth of a metal scabbard that there is LPA - and he knows that since the discovery in Kalkriese 1992nd Only now he puts out with the knowledge that he his English colleague, Paz García-Bellido in 1996 (!) Mediated that it is clearly an abbreviation for (L) Egio (P) rima (A) ugusta that had to do so in any way with the First Legion Kalkriese, which lay but first in Spain and varus in Mainz and later as Legio I Germanica was available.
Since all previous finds itself Wiegels with the identifier I of a first cohort and his associates Mrs Franzius led to proceed in such a way is found the image funny findings that there verify louder I. cohorts (or only a first cohort), but found no identifications were legion. Despite intensive search nothing was found by a XVII, XVIII and XIX legion of Varus, but now suddenly several references to the First Legion? This could not be true and are certainly not scientific knowledge, which until this could be prevented at a meeting in June 2004 not in Osnabrück.
Basically, it's scandalous that a find from 1992, since its interpretation by a foreign expert in 1996, it is clear only now, a decade later, the public will be made available. It is nonetheless one of the few empirical indicators to check the varus hypothesis at all. Thus the outside observer may not be surprising that Wiegels in time to the joint session, in 2004 the scientific director of the excavations in Kalkriese to Dr. Moos, a now gave about the camp Regensburg habilitation staff of his department.
finds and colleagues provided critical for continued concern, so that now so painfully Wiegels trying to struggle through a half-truth. So it is not surprising to the reader that Wiegels now a "new Dislokationsgeschichte "Invents: Not the Legion I was in Kalkriese, but only a few cohorts of the same Varus were allocated thus with the Varus defeat in Kalkriese might translate but still a victory for the cartel, and so put off with the last sentence of the reader.." What remains is the hope of further significant discoveries. "Yes, yes, hope dies last, Mr. Wiegand! now so blithely invented a new branch of research, the" Dislokationsgeschichte the Roman Army "(p. 110). Also
Wilber rust rust already has for her husband, a new internationally acclaimed research field, Battle Field Research found after both realized that Varus was not to keep in Kalkriese "battlefield research."
After it was dug so intensely and without any success after the identifications XVII, XVIII and XIX, but only finds the Legion came to light I should be clear to all unbiased scientists that Varus was never in Kalkriese, but Germanicus or Caecina.
for the "Ancient History of the University of Osnabrück" the saying still applies: "If the only ruined reputation, life is unabashedly twice!
And Dr. jur. Joseph Rottmann, the full-time manager of Kalkriese-GmbH, must of course continue the marketing business of promoting tourism operate instead of scientific research.
Yours Sincerely,
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Siegfried G. Schoppe
Source:
Lehmann, GA, Wiegand, R. [Ed] " Roman presence and domination in the Germania of the Augustan age. The site of Kalkriese in the context of recent research and archaeological findings. Reviews of the meeting of the Ancient History of the University of Osnabrück and the Commission, Empire and barbarian 'of the Göttingen Academy of Sciences in Osnabrück on 10 to 12 June 2004. Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen. Philological and Historical class: third episode, 279th Band Presented by Prof. G. A. Lehmann at the meeting of 9 December 2005. ", Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2007 (449 pages with 102 illustrations and maps, 196 €, ISBN 978-3-525-82551-8).
0 comments:
Post a Comment