--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, 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.
This objections and several related ones in the following rest on the
assumption that the Suebi is a tribe. It isn't, not quite at least, it
is a confederation of tribes, which over time becomes a tribe, and at
Caesar's time we see it in statu nascendi. The two things are
different in purpose; the old tribes, cf the European nation states,
have a conservative purpose: it preserves the way we do things, this
new confederation exists for a purpose: go west, young man, take over
the land of the Celt wimps, and first of all: bring down Rome; cf.
USA, a confederation of people of old nations with the new purpose of
being the champion of rule by the people. That's why it's difficult to
pin down the extent of the Suebi 'tribe': new tribes joined the
confederation all the time.
The reason I think that was the purpose of the Suebi confederation is
Ariovistus' attitude during his negotiations with Caesar. I think
Caesar was surprised by and hadn't expected his intransigence; the
reason he reports all of Ariovistus' soliloquy is related to the
purpose of DBG, to defend before the Roman public this lengthy and
costly war. Caesar had probably expected to be able to reason with
Ariovistus, but he seems (to me, at least) to have had previous
experience with the Romans. Frankly, he sounds vindictive. Why?
> 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.
?? 'Elbe Germani' is not a term Caesar or Tacitus would use. It would
seem to me that 'the Suebian cult' was something one slowly converted
to (whatever its contents were) when one's tribe acceded to the
confederation.
> 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.
He calls the intruders Suebians. This would be impossible if there
were a sharp distinction between Ariovistus/Przeworsk and
Suebians/Elbe Germani. I don't think there is. I think what happened,
sciento-historically, is this:
1) Suebi, Przeworsk Germani and Elbe Germani are discovered and given
labels archaeologically. There seem to be some mixed forms in between,
but, what the heck. Influence is assumed to be from north to south,
since that has been the assumption since Kossinna.
2) Someone gets the idea to equate the Wetterau Przeworsk with
Ariovistus; this idea is recent, Hachmann is puzzled by the Wetterau
Przeworsk (I sometimes wonder if someone saw it here in cybalist)
3) Out of a vague feeling that it has been proven, people stick to the
Jastorf-becomes-Elbe-Germani-and takes-over-Germania idea. I suspect
it hasn't been.
> 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".****
Yup. It is a confederation. And at Tacitus' time it has grown to that
size.
Torsten