Re: Torsten's theory reviewed

Additional clarifications.
--- george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Aha. So 'the Suebian cult community and the "Elbe
> > Germanic" culture
> > are to a large extent identical'? How does that
> > rhyme with the 'fact'
> > that the Elbe Germani are Jastorf? The Suebi
> aren't
> > Jastorf.
> >
> >
> > Torsten
>
> GK: Since Hachmann cites Tacitus about the Suebi
> he should be aware that Tacitus' Suebia included not
> only the tribes which lived in the basin of the
> Elbe,
> but also those further east (except for the
> Bastarnians). The Suebians (in the view of Tacitus)
> would hence be identifiable with more than one
> archaeological culture, in space as well as in time.
> The view that 'the Suebian cult community and the
> "Elbe
> > Germanic" culture
> > are to a large extent identical' is strictly
> Hachmann's, and clearly conflicts with Tacitus as
> well
> as with Caesar. Hachmann also confuses geographical
> and archaeological categories. Clearly in the time
> of
> Caesar most of the Elbe Germani were not of "Elbe
> Germanic" but of Jastorf culture. This did not
> prevent
> them (or Przeworsk culture Germani for that matter)
> from being "Suebians". When the Jastorf culture
> disappeared, it merely meant that those Suebians who
> had previously been associated with it had adopted a
> new culture, that of their southern "Elbe Germanic"
> relatives. It did not mean that they were not
> Suebians
> before. Nor did it mean that the groups which
> continued to be of Przeworsk or indeed of Wielbark
> culture had ceased to be Suebians, Hachmann's
> arbitrary restriction notwithstanding. "Suebi" is a
> large ethnic identifier. It refers to all Germanic
> populations east of the Chatti, Chauci, and Cimbri.
> It
> is a label, as Tacitus states, which applies to more
> than one "nation", indeed to more than one half of
> "Germania".

****GK: Caesar's view of the Suebi, as mentioned
above, certainly differs from Hachmann's, but also
from Tacitus. Caesar considers the Suebi " by far the
largest and the most warlike nation of all the
Germans. They are said to possess a hundred cantons"
(De Bello Gallico, IV, 1). He locates them just east
of the Ubii, Sigambri, Usipetes, Tencteri. In other
words, they begin (in 55 BCE) in the area where
archaeology has discovered the "colonizing" Przeworsk
culture elements (the Lippe/Leine area). These are the
most dangerous and active "Suebi" of that particular
year. He is vaguer about their eastern boundaries. He
does make a most interesting comment in DBG IV.3: "on
one side of the Suevi the lands are said to lie
desolate for about six hundred miles. On the other
side they border on the Ubii". I would argue that this
"six hundred miles" (the extent need not be that
precise) refers to the vacated haunts of the Western
Przeworkers, since the territory in between, from the
Leine to the Elbe and beyond retained its population.
I would further argue that, since Caesar distinguished
"Suebi" from "Marcomanni" (DBG I, 51) it is the
Przeworkers who, to him, were the prime identifying
"Suebi" at that time. But the Jastorfers, Lippe/Leine
Celtisized elements and ElbGermani who cooperated with
Ariovistus and his successors were also "Suebi"
(territorially speaking). The concept was extended
still further by Tacitus. I would therefore slightly
amend my earlier comments, while continuing to claim
that Hachmann's views are too restrictive.****

> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________

> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs