03-31-2004, 05:44 AM
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Thirdly, why do the presence of coins from 12-14 AD rule out that this was not a Varic Battlefield? Presumably Germanicus's forces could have dropped coins in the area of the old battlefield right?<hr><br>
<br>
Rufus, there are no coins postdating 9 AD at Kalkriese. None. Nada. Nothing. Zilch. Zip. Dan's original post is confusing in this regard.<br>
The point is, the "Kalkriese Encounter" is more or less "securely" dated to 9 AD (OR EARLIER) on the basis of the absence of a specific series of copper coins, the so-called "Lugdunum II as", which is known to have been minted in 10 AD. No Lugdunum II, no date in 10 AD or later...But now Reinhard Wolters claims that the Lugdunum II may have been brought into circulation between 12 and 14 AD, rather than 10 AD. This means that it is conceivable (note: CONCEIVABLE) that Kalkriese postdates the Varus battle, though still antedates Germanicus' campaigns.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
Rufus, there are no coins postdating 9 AD at Kalkriese. None. Nada. Nothing. Zilch. Zip. Dan's original post is confusing in this regard.<br>
The point is, the "Kalkriese Encounter" is more or less "securely" dated to 9 AD (OR EARLIER) on the basis of the absence of a specific series of copper coins, the so-called "Lugdunum II as", which is known to have been minted in 10 AD. No Lugdunum II, no date in 10 AD or later...But now Reinhard Wolters claims that the Lugdunum II may have been brought into circulation between 12 and 14 AD, rather than 10 AD. This means that it is conceivable (note: CONCEIVABLE) that Kalkriese postdates the Varus battle, though still antedates Germanicus' campaigns.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Andreas Baede
