Re: Torsten's theory reviewed

> > > >
> > > > 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.
>
> ****GK: No. It rests on precisely the contrary
> assumption. It suggests here that the concept of
> "Suebi" is much wider in Tacitus than in Hachmann.****

I meant *your* objections. The Suebi are what, in your opinion?

> > It isn't, not quite at least, it is a confederation of tribes,
> > which over time becomes a tribe,
>
> ****GK: It never became a tribe.****

That is an odd thing to say. Not even in Portugal?

> > 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.
>
> ****GK: The Tacitus concept of "Suebi" cannot in any
> obvious sense be interpreted as a "confederation".****

Tribes are characterized as Suebian tribes by some Roman authors. That
makes the Suebi a tribe of tribes.

> > 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.
>
> ****GK: Try not to break down open doors,
> Torsten.(:=)))

Can you do that with questions?

> Of course it isn't and that, of course,
> isn't the point. The point is that the concept of
> "Suebian" differs in Hachmann, Tacitus, and Caesar.

Confederation.

> It is narrowest in Caesar, widest in Tacitus, in-between in
> Hachmann.****

And the time periods they describe follow the same sequence: Caesar <
Hachmann < Tacitus.

> > 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.
>
> ****GK: That is defensible.

Why are you willing to accede to the existence of a Suebian cult' when
you elsewhere deny any meaningful content to it?

> According to Hachmann, the
> Germanic tribes east of the Elbe would not have been
> "Suebian". According to Tacitus, they were.****
> >

Did Hachmann say that?

> > > 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.
>
> ****GK: Neither do I. Of course, not all of
> Ariovistus' collaborators were "Suebian". Caesar had a
> wider term for them: the Germani.****

Some were even Celts.

> > 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.
>
> ****GK:I'm not sure why Hachmann did what he did. He's
> entitled to his surmises. I'm just trying to make
> sense of his views in the context of those of
> classical writers.****

I think that if he had got the idea of the Ariovist/Wetterau Przeworsk
connection, he would have replaced 'Suebian' with 'Elbe Germani', like
everybody else does now, in an apparent attempt to separate things,
which actually didn't need separation.

> > > 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,

You seem to forget that Suebi was among Ariovistus' troops.

> > > Hachmann's arbitrary restriction notwithstanding.

Which?

> > > "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.
>
> ****GK: Surely you can't mean this.

But I do.

> Whatever Tacitus'
> "Suebians" were, they were not, all together at least,
> a political community (nor indeed, all together, a
> cult community). Anyone who reads through the Germania
> sects.39 to 45 can see this immediately.

How? Because they are different? So are the states of USA.

> Tacitus does
> recognize some religious associations among some of
> his "Suebians", but there is nothing "global",not even
> the hair style(!cf. sect,.39) "Suebia" is a purely
> geographical conception (?)****

I don't think it was a confederation about hairstyles. It was about
some political aim.


Torsten