Wolfhard
Heathen Theologian
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 462
Strength: +7
Location: The Netherlands
|
 Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 3:44 pm Post subject: Examining: Germanic Endonym |
 |
|
From the Wikipedia entry for the Germanic peoples:
Apparently, the Germanic tribes did not have a self-designation ("endonym") that included all Germanic-speaking people but excluded all non-Germanic people. Non-Germanic peoples (primarily Celtic, Roman, Greek, the citizens of the Roman Empire), on the other hand, were called *walha- (this word lives forth in names such as Wales, Welsh, Cornwall, Walloons, Vlachs etc.). Yet, the name of the Suebi — which designated a larger group of tribes and was used almost indiscriminately with Germani in Caesar — was possibly a Germanic equivalent of the Latin name (*swē-ba- "authentic").[6]
The generic *þiuda- "people" (occurring in many personal names such as Thiud-reks and also in the ethnonym of the Swedes from a cognate of Old English Sweo-ðēod) is not a self-designation. However, the adjective derived from this noun, *þiudiskaz, "popular", was later used with reference to the language of the people in contrast to the Latin language (earliest recorded example 786 CE). The word is continued in German Deutsch (meaning German), English "Dutch", Dutch Duits and Diets (the latter referring to Dutch, the former meaning German). Danish tysk (meaning German). Trying to identify a contemporary vernacular term and the associated nation with a classical name, Latin writers from the 10th century onwards used the learnèd adjective teutonicus (originally derived from the Teutones) to refer to East Francia ("Regnum Teutonicum") and its inhabitants. This usage is still partly present in modern English; hence the English use of "Teutons" in reference to the Germanic peoples in general besides the specific tribe of the Teutons defeated at the Battle of Aquae Sextiae in 102 BCE.
6. L. Rübekeil, Suebica. Völkernamen und Ethnos, Innsbruck 1992, 187-214.
A review of the book of the note:
THE ORIGINS OF THE GERMANS
LUDWIG RÜBEKEIL: Suebica. Volkernamen und Ethnos. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 68.) Pp. 261. Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck, 1992. ÖS 560.
A doctoral dissertation which aims to reconstruct the earliest stages of German history principally from the linguistic/onomastic evidence can hardly inspire hopes of an easy read. I began Rübekeil's book with great misgivings, but was pleasantly surprised to find it much more accessible than I had feared. Though a learned and enthusiastic champion of his discipline, R. always shows himself conscious of its limitations and potential pitfalls; his frequent and clear Auswertungen and Zusammenfassungen are of great help to the layman in following his (often very) technical arguments; and he has things to say which are of interest and value to the general historian of the Roman west. As such, I will here attempt no detailed assessment of R.'s methodology or his conclusions, but will instead concentrate on providing a summary of his chief arguments, as I understand them, and on offering some broad observations and suggestions.
His main points are very straightforward. The names which primitive peoples call others and call themselves reflect their place in and their attitude to the world at large (Introduction: 'Einleitung und methodische Vorbemerkungen'-with, as might be expected, much on self-definition through definition of 'the Other'). Analysis (Chapter 1: 'Kontrasterlebnis in der Germania') of the names used by the early German-speaking tribes of their immediate neighbours - in particular, the Fenni, the Veneti and the Volcae - both locates these tribes geographically and suggests that they were under pressure to the south-west, where they found themselves coming into conflict first with Celts and then with Romans. These Rhenish tribes, compelled to work together, strengthened their union by stressing its family-closeness and hence exclusivity: they called themselves 'the Related Ones'/'the True People'- *swēbaz.
*Swēbaz was translated, via Gallic (and perhaps through the agency of Ariovistus and Diviciacus), into Latin as ' Germani' just before Caesar came into direct contact with, as he heard the name, 'the Suebi'. It was Caesar's continued employment of 'German' as the generic, and the rapid acceptance of this usage in Italy and Gaul, that effectively then down-graded ' Suebian' (Chapter 3: ' Sueben und Germanen', see esp. pp. 21 lff.). However, a proper understanding of the word ' Suebi' now allows us to see that it was to the east of the upper Rhine, and as a result of the need to confront potentially dangerous foreigners, that German self-awareness first sprang into life. The current communis opinio, which locates the spawning-ground of Germanentum in southern Scandinavia, is badly mistaken: though it has managed to shake off National Socialist influences, it is still no more than a product of out-dated archaeology, flawed history and faulty linguistics (Chapter 2: 'Vagina Gentium: Skandinavien und die Germanen').
It is unlikely that debate as to the origins of the Germans and German culture will ever reach a complete and satisfactory conclusion. However, I must say that I find R.'s suggestions more convincing- because more positive - than those contained in, say, Lund's recent Zum Germanenbild der Römer (see CR 42 [1992], 467-8). With regard to events of a somewhat later period of German history, 'Ethnogenesis' is currently very much a live issue in the study of the movement and re-settlement of Germanic peoples from the third century A.D. In his Introduction R. makes a number of good points about the process in general (see e.g. pp. 25ff., on the Deszendenzprinzip and its relationship to myth and religion - an issue taken up and developed in respect of the Suebi/Germans in Chapter 4: 'Auswertung: Kosmogonie, Ethnogonie und der Name der Germanen'); and in subsequent chapters he frequently introduces material and ideas from the later period to support his arguments concerning the earlier which it would be profitable for those working in this field to ponder. For example, his views on the Heruls (pp. 109ff.) are of interest to the historian of the third-century ' Crisis'; and his criticism of Jordanes' treatment of the early development of the Goths (e.g. pp. 90ff., 136ff., 145f.) deserves to be read alongside that of Heather (see CR 43 [1993], 118-20). Finally, in a Europe where - to use R.'s terms (see p. 13) - peoples who are ' functionally' practically the same have recently established' intentional' identities so radically dissimilar as to cause them to wage unremitting war against each other, a book on ancient Ethnogenesis and Ethnozentrismus is not without significant contemporary relevance.
J.F. Drinkwater
University of Nottingham
- Wolfhard |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
