What are the Cimbri? [Archive]

View Full Version : What are the Cimbri?

BigJohn

03-05-2010, 04:56

Hi all! This is my first time posting, and I must say that EB is a HUGE improvement over vanilla Total War. I can't believe I just got started on EB and now there's an EB 2 being made!!:dizzy2: Just a quick question though, I have always thought that the Cimbri were germanic. But when my cousin flew in last week and the conversation turned to celtic and germanic tribes, which he is fanatical about, and I told him my opinion of there origins, he went into this deep conversation of proof that they were celtic. He then showed me a site... here's the URL

http://www.davidkfaux.org/Cimbri-Chronology.pdf

After reading it, my beliefs about the Cimbri have been shaken. What do you guys think, celtic, or germanic? :help:

Madoushi

03-05-2010, 05:43

I'm not really qualified to answer, though Wikipedia says:

Advocates for a northern homeland point to Greek and Roman sources that associate the Cimbri with the peninsula of Jutland, Denmark. According to the Res gestae (ch. 26) of Augustus, the Cimbri were still found in the area around the turn of the First Century AD:

My fleet sailed from the mouth of the Rhine eastward as far as the lands of the Cimbri, to which, up to that time, no Roman had ever penetrated either by land or by sea, and the Cimbri and Charydes and Semnones and other peoples of the Germans of that same region through their envoys sought my friendship and that of the Roman people.
The contemporary Greek geographer Strabo testifies that the Cimbri still existed as a Germanic tribe, presumably in the "Cimbric peninsula" (since they are said to live by the North Sea and to have paid tribute to Augustus):

As for the Cimbri, some things that are told about them are incorrect and others are extremely improbable. For instance, one could not accept such a reason for their having become a wandering and piratical folk as this that while they were dwelling on a Peninsula they were driven out of their habitations by a great flood-tide; for in fact they still hold the country which they held in earlier times; and they sent as a present to Augustus the most sacred kettle in their country, with a plea for his friendship and for an amnesty of their earlier offences, and when their petition was granted they set sail for home; and it is ridiculous to suppose that they departed from their homes because they were incensed on account of a phenomenon that is natural and eternal, occurring twice every day. And the assertion that an excessive flood-tide once occurred looks like a fabrication, for when the ocean is affected in this way it is subject to increases and diminutions, but these are regulated and periodical.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbri

Arthur, king of the Britons

03-05-2010, 13:50

They were germanic, you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

SFS2006

03-05-2010, 13:56

They were germanic, you shouldn't believe anything you read on the internet.
then i dont believe you^^

Arthur, king of the Britons

03-05-2010, 13:57

then i dont believe you^^
D'oh I meant to write everthing. Thanks for the heads up.

Ca Putt

03-05-2010, 15:29

afaik the cimbri themselves(thus those that lives in denmark) were germanic. yet the Cimbri that invaded roman territory had been wandering through central europe and took everyone who wanted to join with them and they thus became part of the "army"/"warband"/"mob". this made them Cimbri so It is probably correct that many(I'd guess 50-60%) of them were originally celts.

Elmetiacos

03-05-2010, 16:33

Phalanx300

03-05-2010, 18:02

There are more occasions of peoples moving such distances, just look at the later Germanic peoples.

I do think they are Germanic, many Celts might have joined them and that is probably the reason some think they were Celts but coming from the heartland of Germania from which the Germanics spread south they most likely were Germanic.

Elmetiacos

03-05-2010, 18:04

There are more occasions of peoples moving such distances, just look at the later Germanic peoples.
No, that's completely different.

Phalanx300

03-05-2010, 18:09

As in the Cimbri weren't forced away? First need to know the reason, perhaps the crops were low or something similar. I don't see how them not being forced away (in people migrations definately not all people of an certain tribe move away) makes them an Celtic tribe.

Who knows what reasons they had to search for new lands to settle on.

Ludens

03-05-2010, 18:33

Doesn't anyone think the story that the Cimbri all left their homes in Northern Denmark and then marched the whole length of Germany ( presumably being supplied with provisions by numerous other Celtic and/or Germanic tribes the whole way, with no objections from anyone) and then turned East into the Balkans before turning back and going for Italy is just a little far-fetched? Isn't it much more likely that these Cimbri were Celts who just happened to have the same or a similar name to the Danish ones?

That's actually an intriguing idea, and quite possible given how imprecise the names of barbarian tribes were recorded. But like Phalanx300, I wonder why you think the Cimbri migration different from the later ones.

Elmetiacos

03-05-2010, 20:50

You're talking about the Goths?

WinsingtonIII

03-05-2010, 21:34

You're talking about the Goths?

Or the Angles, Saxons, Franks, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, or Vandals... They all migrated into Roman lands, some of them (notably the Vandals and Visigoths) traveling just as far, if not farther, than the Cimbri did. These migrations do sound far-fetched, but that doesn't mean that they didn't happen.

At the same time, I agree that it is very possible that there were two similarily named tribes, one Germanic and one Celtic, that we are confusing as being one in the same. It's an interesting idea.

Madoushi

03-05-2010, 22:45

Found another interesting tidbit.

Since the Cimbri are known to have inhabited the northern part of the Jutland peninsula, and are therefore equated with the Jutes, it follows that the Teutons inhabited the area of Schleswig-Holstein, and are therefore to be equated with the Angles. Between 120 and 114 BC the territory of the Cimbri and Teutons suffered extensive flooding, and much land was permanently submerged in what is known as the Cimbrian Flood, forcing the tribes to seek new living space.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kings_of_the_Angles

bobbin

03-06-2010, 04:04

Doesn't anyone think the story that the Cimbri all left their homes in Northern Denmark and then marched the whole length of Germany ( presumably being supplied with provisions by numerous other Celtic and/or Germanic tribes the whole way, with no objections from anyone) and then turned East into the Balkans before turning back and going for Italy is just a little far-fetched? Isn't it much more likely that these Cimbri were Celts who just happened to have the same or a similar name to the Danish ones?

I'm not sure about their journey from jutland but, don't we know they came into conflict with the Boii and other tribes and were driven back westward.

Also given their extensive movement all over gaul and nothern iberia, is it not too hard to imagine them making the journey from jutland to noricium, where the romans first encountered them?
I do believe celts made up a significant part of the numbers though.

cmacq

03-06-2010, 09:24

The Cimbri were indeed Germanic, in that their homeland was east of the Rhine and north of the Danube. And... as far as far-fetching, they did leave a somewhat significant archaeological footprint across the face of western Europe. There has been a great deal of research and debate concerning the Cimbri and related peoples of greater Germania, concerning the who, where, and when of what they were. But quite frankly, if I may, I’m simply not willing to share this informaion and these data at this particular instant. However, I will promise, that at the proper time, many may well be, entirely overwhelmed.

I’ll drop several small scraps to fight over. The first is that the Cimbric migration was a water-shed event for pRIA Europe. Second the archaeological evidence is very clear that the Cimbric migration broke the military back of the Boii, in their homeland. This eventually caused most of the people of the tribes that composed the Boii confederation to abandon much of southwestern Germania, which was all but completed, about forty years later. Finally, directly and as a provocation, the Cimbric migration was instrumental in what can only be called 'the coming change;' assisting the final disintegration of Rome's fragile republic and ushering in elements that ultimately would fundamentally transform the political and ethnic landscape of Europe.

Aye, food for thought.

BigJohn

03-07-2010, 02:33

I'm sorry, but all I'm really hearing is people saying that they were German, and couldn't possibly be anything else, without any proof.:inquisitive:

That site that I first mentioned makes some very strong arguments in favour of there being Celtic. I was looking for an answer that could put
my mind at ease about there origins. I've gone through many forums where they just go on and on about how because they lived east of the Rhine that's
proof enough that there germanic. Yet as Dr. Faux points out, they do not have any problem putting the Galatians in modern day Turkey, far from the Celtic homeland.:inquisitive:

It's not that because of my celtic origins I'm trying to prove they were celtic, in fact I'm almost all German. I'm just not seeing proof in favour of there being Germanic.:wall:
Read some of Dr. Faux's report, see what you think.:juggle2:

Oh, and thank you Madoushi, for your information. :beam:

cmacq

03-07-2010, 04:18

OK, please reread my post above, I didn't actually say they were ethnic Germanics. I slimply pointed out that they were Germanic because early on, that term was only used by Classical authors as a geographic qualifier. Therefore, greater Germania was 'east of the Rhine and north of the Danube,' and those that lived there were seen as Germans. Even the most causal observer will note that the Boii, who were eastern Celts, lived 'east of the Rhine and north of the Danube.' Again a cursory review will clearly demonstrate that the Celtic Boii, who were considered Germans, because they lived in greater Germania, yet they were not unique. However, on the other hand in the paper cited above, which I've looked over, some of the information, primarily outside Faux's particular field, is not well research. Nonetheless, that is not to say that Faux's theory has no merit. Overall, at this time I'm simply not at liberty to; nor do I care to offer up, much more than that.

geala

03-07-2010, 16:51

That is not entirely correct because no ancient author made a difference between north and south of the Danube, as far as I know. The Greeks in addition usually did not differ between Celts and Germanics, for the most Greek authors there were the Celts and the Skythic people as the "barbarian" world. The term Germanic was first used simply as a name for a certain tribe. The term became more common after the Suebic intrusion in Gallia for the intruders.

The river Rhine as a border between Celts and Germanics however was Caesars idea, caused by inner Roman political affairs. In reality it seems to have been more a north-south distinction than a west-east one. Even then the problem is, when you have archaeologic findings, you have difficulties to judge correctly to what ethnicity the people who left them belonged to. In the second century BC it is even difficult to speak of a Germanic or Celtic culture for every settlement. There were for example the Nordic Group, the Jastorf culture, the Przeworsk culture, the Latene culture and so on. Wether they were Celts or Germanics in the ancient sense is difficult to decide. There was a mixed zone in middle Germany around the river Main (that is far north the river Danube) where you find oppida like settlements but also many "Germanic" findings. Ade/Willmy in their little book "Die Kelten" gave a nice example for that: a village where you find many baseball caps, jeans and Coca-Cola bottles must not be inhabitated necessarily by North Americans.

To the Cimbri, Teutones, Ambrones and Harudes : I believe at least the Cimbri came to a large part from what is now Denmark or North Germany and could be understood as Germanic people, although all known kings had Celtic names. Poseidonios, an educated and well informed jouneyman and scientist visited Gallia shortly after the Cimbric wars and searched for the origin of the people, identifying them as Celts. On the other hand Strabo tells us that the Cimbri and Harudes sent envoys to Augustus and begged for pardon for what their forefathers did to the Romans, and these Cimbri came from the North Sea.

At the time when it counted in battle however, I believe the "barbarian" hosts of the Cimbric Wars were a conglomeration of Germanic and Celtic groups.

Macilrille

03-07-2010, 19:47

I have some expertise in this field, though as a historian I am probably bested in it by Cmaq who is an acheologist. Good to see you back :-) and now I can guess why you went silent.

In any case, I have written some posts on this in the EB Forum (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?121433-Less-Civilized-Factions&p=2333984&viewfull=1#post2333984).

If you are at liberty to publicize no more, can I get a copy in private?

cmacq

03-07-2010, 23:17

NikosMaximilian

03-08-2010, 05:18

Let's not forget that "Celt" and "Germanic" are constructs applied by the Greco-Roman historians and writers looking to qualify these peoples. What's my point? That those historians didn't have the knowledge or the evidence to correctly describe the mentioned tribes, the texts they wrote were created more than two thousand years before ethnography. At best, they used second or third hand sources and many times they made up the information they lacked. The vast majority of material dealing with "barbarians" was written by authors who watched them through their Greek or Roman eyes. And those two cultures were clear-cut in terms of dealing with who was a Greek/Roman and who wasn't, but they shouldn't have applied that same razor on tribal confederations, which were absolutely more loose in their ethnic make-up and had a completely different social structure.

The Cimbri and the Boii are some of the clearest examples of this in the EB timeframe. In the late days of the Roman Empire, the steppe nomads fell into this way of classification too, when they were treated as a single kind of people, rather than a confederation which assimilated tribes that they had conquered.

Of course, that doesn't mean that we should neglect all sources from that time, but it means that a critical reading should be made and don't accept it as hard facts. In some cases, anthropological evidence support those ancient texts, and in many others they refute them.

cmacq

03-08-2010, 06:01

Strange, that you wrote Razor?

Phalanx300

03-08-2010, 18:44

cmacq

03-08-2010, 20:10

That is not entirely correct

Actually, I was entirely correct, and I suggest you review all of the early Latin and Greek texts, in Latin and Greek, that address this issue. I've done that many times here, and simply will not take the time to do it again.

CmacQ

cmacq

03-10-2010, 20:27

OK, I'll give you this.

In 'Germania' Tacitus provided the general geographic setting for greater Germania.

Chapter 1
[1] Germania omnis a Gallis Raetisque et Pannoniis Rheno et Danubio fluminibus, a Sarmatis Dacisque mutuo metu aut montibus separatur: cetera Oceanus ambit, latos sinus et insularum immensa spatia complectens, nuper cognitis quibusdam gentibus ac regibus, quos bellum aperuit.

My Rendering
[1] The Rhine and Danube rivers separate Germania from all of Gaul, Rætia, and Pannonia; as are Sarmatæ and Daci by mountains or mutual fear. The Ocean encompasses the remainder, an expanse embraced by broad bays and great islands, with some peoples and kingdoms only recently discovered; due to war.

From this we understand that in the Classical sense, Germania was primarily a Geographic term, which covered an extremely large region. In total area, this would account for about a third of modern Europe. Within this area would be Holland, nearly all of modern Germany, the Czech Republic, part of Austria, Slovakia, Poland, Belorussia, part of Romania, part of Hungría, part of the Ukraine, Scandinavia, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and part of the Russian Federation.

Macilrille

03-10-2010, 21:17

You have a Danish keyboard!!

MeinPanzer

03-10-2010, 22:52

Nice post, I agree with it, sounds logically to me with the small portion which went away picking up some Celts which influenced them.

Don't forget that we hear from an inscription in Lycia that the Galatians brought Agrianians with them from the Balkans when they invaded Asia Minor, so there is certainly a near-contemporary precedent for this kind of incorporation of foreign ethnicities into migratory movements.

cmacq

03-10-2010, 23:03

You have a Danish keyboard!!

A keyboard no, yet some say, I read Dansk, well enough. How was the Beowulf?

Megas Methuselah

03-10-2010, 23:03

You guys are so cool. It's like discussing class topics with my history prof once class is over.

Macilrille

03-10-2010, 23:05

The example we know in most detail is Alaric's Goths. Their "Giro d'e Italia" included both other Germans, other barbarians and even Italians.

cmacq

03-10-2010, 23:06

And as water from the jug, what would the Goths be???

Macilrille

03-10-2010, 23:08

A keyboard no, yet some say, I read Dansk, well enough. How was the Beowulf?

But... you have "æ" I only just noticed.

Was I doing anything about Beowulf last we spoke? I forgot. I PM-ed you BTW and when I necro the debate about Gallic vs Roman manpower I suspect you might have something to contribute with there as well- for or against my point.

The Goths as example of how migrations, as they move, picked up others than those who set out. The Viking armies in the British Isles had quite a few non-Scandinavians.

cmacq

03-10-2010, 23:15

With both the Goth and Viking, their names might say more, than one would ever think? They say; one 'raids on' while the other 'pours forth.' As for the latter, the same may be said of the Jute, with only a slightly different tongue.

sorry have run for now.

Urg

03-11-2010, 22:02

I'm sorry, but all I'm really hearing is people saying that they were German, and couldn't possibly be anything else, without any proof.:inquisitive:

I completely agree. There are some excellent historical and archaeological sources on this question. The Wikipedia article on the Cimbri actually has an excellent summary of the historical texts, with some very pertinent quotes.

How about people give some evidence in support of their arguments, rather than arguments alone. I'll start:

Florus, I:38, writes:

The Cimbri, Teutones and Tigurini, fugitives from the extreme parts of Gaul, since the Ocean had inundated their territories, began to seek new settlement throughout the world, and excluded from Gaul and Spain, descended into Italy

By the way, is the distinction between Germanic and Celtic peoples as clear as we like to think? For example, a tribe living on the banks of the Rhine may have both germanic and celtic/gallic traits.

cmacq

03-12-2010, 01:08

As for what is called German, in the late EB era, there may be those that find Line 5, Chapter 2 of Tacitus' 'Germania,' of some interest.

Chapter 2
[5] ceterum Germaniae vocabulum recens et nuper additum, quoniam qui primi Rhenum transgressi Gallos expulerint ac nunc Tungri, tunc Germani vocati sint: ita nationis nomen, non gentis, evaluisse paulatim, ut omnes primum a victore ob metum, mox et a se ipsis invento nomine Germani vocarentur.

My Rendering
[5] On the other hand, the name German, is recent and newly used, whereas when those now the Tungres, somehow first crossed the Rhine and expelled the Gauls, they were called Germans, as explained a national (regional), not a tribal name, gradually became more popular, due to fear and success it surpassed, thus moved to this contrived name, and first began to call themselves Germans.

By AJ Church
[5] The name Germany, on the other hand, they say, is modern and newly introduced, from the fact that the tribes which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls, and are now called Tungrians, were then called Germans. Thus what was the name of a tribe, and not of a race, gradually prevailed, till all called themselves by this self-invented name of Germans, which the conquerors had first employed to inspire terror.

Here Tacitus didn’t say that the Tungri were the first to used the name Germani. Rather he points out that when the Tungri first crossed the Rhine into Gaul they were called Germani. Its very subtle, but he didn’t say they called themselves Germani, instead its implied the Gauls and Romans called them that. Next, he tells us these so-called Germans later became known as the Tungri. Finally, he reminds, that it was around this time, that the people east of the Rhine first began to call themselves by the contrived name; Germani. The reason Tacitus provided was because the Germani title had a reputation to invoked success and fear.

In other words, 'Germani' was actually a form of the well attested Latin 'Germane,' meaning 'real, true, original, seed,' or 'germ.' This particular usage is referenced in Strabo's Geographica. The Roman military applied this term to the opposition forces situated east of the Rhine and north of the Danube because they viewed the largely Celtic tribes there as similar to those found in adjacent areas under their control, yet in a much ‘less evolved’ or ‘original’ state. Later, in the very late 1st century BC or early 1st century AD, the events behind Tacitus’ story about the name being adopted by the natives, occured.

Elmetiacos

03-12-2010, 15:41

In other words, 'Germani' was actually a form of the well attested Latin 'Germane,' meaning 'real, true, original, seed,' or 'germ.'[/I]
Doesn't follow does it? The Latin is germen meaning a bud or shoot.

cmacq

03-13-2010, 17:27

Doesn't follow does it? The Latin is germen meaning a bud or shoot.

Actually it makes perfect sense. Look at a map that shows the extent of the Latene Culture and you'll find its center and homeland situated in the southern half of modern Germany. And, 'germen' as a variant of 'germane' or 'germana,' is early Latin, and was used by the Romans to suggest this was the region form which the Celts (as they and the Greeks defined them) arose.

Elmetiacos

03-14-2010, 15:26

You'll find it's basically the Rhine and Upper Danube rather than Germany... I'm not rejecting it as a possible etymology; it's more convincing than the usual "Shout-land" <*gar-sman- that's usually put forward, but I don't see that it follows logically from all that about the Tungri.

cmacq

03-14-2010, 20:59

Again, it seems to make perfect sense, so please reread. Plus, read Strabo's comment about the Latin origin and Roman use of the term Germania as found in his 'Geographica.' Here you’ll see its not so much my idea; rather its what Tacitus and Strabo actually wrote, about two thousand years ago, about a near contemporary subject. You also might want to take a look at all the late latene oppida and intense Celtic occupation (as in residential settlements) scattered throughout Bohemia, running directly west into modern southwest Germany (north of the Danube) to the Rhine, then north in a wide path along the river to the sea, and extending back including Westphalia to northeast Hesse down to the Danube. Overall, very dense, very complex; with the largest Celtic oppidum, found anywhere, located in central Hesse, with other huge ones in Bavaria and central Bohemia.

Elmetiacos

03-15-2010, 13:18

cmacq

03-15-2010, 15:50

Late La Tene - by definition - sheds no light on the original region, unless your argument is just that the Romans mistakenly thought Celtic culture originated further East than it actually did because it seemed feasible in Caesar's time?

Actually, an ethnically Celt Latene southern Germany is not my argument, its rather well established in the literature, so apparently you're not very well read. I suggest you crack a few things...

2007 Baitinger, H. & FR Herrmann,
Der Glauberg am Ostrand der Wetterau. Arch. Denkmäler Hessen 51.

1985 Feger, R. and M. Nadler
Beobachtungen zur urnenfelderzeitlichen Frauentracht. Vorbericht zur Ausgrabung 1983-84 in Grundfeld, Ldkr. Lichtenfels Oberfranken.

2000 Harding, A.F.
European Societies in the Bronze Age, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2000 Kristiansen, K.
Europe before History (New Studies in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press.

1999 Probst, E.
Deutschland in der Bronzezeit, Bertelsmann, München.

1965 Reinecke, P.
Mainzer Aufsätze zur Chronologie der Bronze- und Eisenzeit, Habelt.

2005 Ullrich, M.
Das urnenfelderzeitliche Gräberfeld von Grundfeld/Reundorf, Lkr. Lichtenfels, Oberfranken, Materialhefte zur Bayrischen Vorgeschichte, Reihe B, Band 86.

1985 Herrmann, F.
Der Glauberg am Ostrand der Wetterau. Arch. Denkmäler Hessen 51.

1998 Herrmann, F.
Keltisches Heiligtum am Glauberg in Hessen. Ein Neufund frühkeltischer Großplastik. Antike Welt 29, 1998, 345—348.

1990 Herrmann, F.
Ringwall Glauberg; in: Die Vorgeschichte Hessens, Herrmann, F. and A. Jockenhövel (eds.); Stuutgart: Theiss, p. 385-387.

2005 Roymans, N.
Ethnic Identity And Imperial Power: The Batavians In The Early Roman Empire, Amsterdam University Press.

1985 Maier, F.
Das Heidetrank-Oppidum: Topographie Der Befestigten Keltischen Hohensiedlung Der Jungeren Eisenzeit Bei Oberursel Im Taunus, Deutsches Archaologisches Institut.

1986 Dehn, W.
Dünsberg. In J. Hoops (Ed.), Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, pp. 260-263.

1977 Jacobi, G.
Die Metallfunde vom Dünsberg, Volume 2 of Materialien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte von Hessen. Selbstverlag des Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege Hessen.

1999 Rittershofer, K.
Ausgrabungen Dünsberg.

1999 Schlott, C.
Zum Ende des spätlatènezeitlichen Oppidum auf dem Dünsberg, Gemeinde Biebertal-Fellinghausen, Kreis Gießen, Hessen, Volume 2 of Forschungen zum Dünsberg. Editions Monique Mergoil.

2000 Herrmann, F.
Der Dünsberg bei Gießen: Führungsblatt zu dem Keltischen Oppidum bei Biebertal-Fellingshausen, Kreis Gießen (2 ed.), Volume 60 of Archäologische Denkmäler in Hessen. Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen.

1977 Jacobi, G.
Die Metallfunde vom Dünsberg, Volume 2 of Materialien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte von Hessen. Selbstverlag des Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege Hessen.

2004 Maier, F.
Das nordmainische Hessen im Randbereich der keltischen Oppida-Kultur, in Berichte der Kommission für Archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen, Heft 4, 1996/1997. Herausgegeben von Kommission für Archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen.

1980 Mildenberger, G.
Die germanische Besiedlung des Dünsbergs. Fundberichte aus Hessen 1977/78 17/18, 157-163.

1999 Rittershofer, K.
Ausgrabungen Dünsberg.

1999 Schlott, C.
Zum Ende des spätlatènezeitlichen Oppidum auf dem Dünsberg, Gemeinde Biebertal-Fellinghausen, Kreis Gießen, Hessen, Volume 2 of Forschungen zum Dünsberg. Editions Monique Mergoil.

1998 Schulze-Forster, J.
Noch einmal zu den latènezeitliche Grabgärten am Dünsberg. Berichte der Kommission für archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen 5, 49-64.

1996 Verlag, A.
Siedlungen der Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Butzbach und seinen Stadtteilen, in: Butzbacher Hefte 5.

1940 Gotze, A.
Führer auf die Steinsburg bei Römhild.

1998 Peschel, K.
The Steinsburg Hillfort, in The Celts (edit); Moscati, S., O. Frey, V. Kruta, B. Raftery, and M. Szabó; Rizzoli International Publications.

1982 Keiling, H.
Archäologische Funde vom Spätpaläolithikum bis zur vorrömischen Eisenzeit aus den mecklenburgischen Bezirken. Museumskatalog 1. Schwerin: Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte.

1988 Keiling, H.
Die Herausbildung der germanischen Stämme (ab etwa 6.Jahrhundert v.u.Z.): Die Entstehung der Jastorfkultur und zeitgleicher Kulturen im Rhein-Weser-Gebiet und deren geographische Verbreitung. In: B.Krüger (ed.), pp. 86–105.

1995 Künnemann, W.
Jastorf: Geschichte und Inhalt eines archäologischen Kulturbegriffs, Die Kunde N. F. 46, 61-122.

1986 Krüger, B. (ed.)
Die Germanen. Geschichte und Kultur der germanischen Stämme in Mitteleuropa. Vol. II: Die Stämme und Stammesverbände in der Zeit vom 3.Jahrhundert bis zur Herausbildung der politischen Vorherrschaft der Franken. Veröffentlichungen des Zentralinstituts für Alte Geschichte und Archäologie der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

1991 Reinecke, A.
Studien zur vorrömischen Eisenzeit im Umland der südlichen Ostsee. Forschungsstand-Chronologie-Kulturhistorische Beziehungen. Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 21, 129-146.

1988 Voigt, T.
Die germanischen Stämme bis zum Beginn unserer Zeitrechnung: Kult- und Bestattungswesen. In: B.Krüger (ed.), pp. 182-191.

Elmetiacos

03-16-2010, 17:09

cmacq

03-16-2010, 19:32

What do any of those links have to do with ethnicity? They all deal with material culture, ranging mainly across Northern Germany, from Holland down to Hesse to the Baltic Sea. It's almost like you posted them to obfuscate on the basis that if they're in German I wouldn't understand any of the titles. A bit like a certain other poster used to do. Ich hab' Angst, dass wir noch eine Sockenpuppe haben.

Actually most deal with central Germany. Most, not all, were written by Germans, only because they are, German speakers. If one has no want, then there is not hope, of education.
In der Tat, alle wir sehen, was ist im 'Der Spiegel.'

Willkommen zu das Sturmgeschütz der Wissen

oudysseos

03-16-2010, 20:18

Na Männer, die Kartoffeln werden nicht heiss gegessen.

cmacq

03-16-2010, 20:29

Noch sind wir unerfahren essen

Elmetiacos

03-16-2010, 20:31

The first person to say that they need new towels in their room loses...

gamegeek2

03-17-2010, 03:13

That's it - I need to get somewhat of a hold on Deutsche.

I weigh in on cmacq's side here; the "bud/sprout/germ" etymology fits absolutely perfectly with the fact that southern Germany is the origin of the Celts.

Elmetiacos

03-17-2010, 12:01

I'd have to know more about Latin morphology to agree or disagree.

geala

03-30-2010, 12:43

As for what is called German, in the late EB era, there may be those that find Line 5, Chapter 2 of Tacitus' 'Germania,' of some interest.

Here Tacitus didn’t say that the Tungri were the first to used the name Germani. Rather he points out that when the Tungri first crossed the Rhine into Gaul they were called Germani. Its very subtle, but he didn’t say they called themselves Germani, instead its implied the Gauls and Romans called them that. Next, he tells us these so-called Germans later became known as the Tungri. Finally, he reminds, that it was around this time, that the people east of the Rhine first began to call themselves by the contrived name; Germani. The reason Tacitus provided was because the Germani title had a reputation to invoked success and fear.

In other words, 'Germani' was actually a form of the well attested Latin 'Germane,' meaning 'real, true, original, seed,' or 'germ.' This particular usage is referenced in Strabo's Geographica. The Roman military applied this term to the opposition forces situated east of the Rhine and north of the Danube because they viewed the largely Celtic tribes there as similar to those found in adjacent areas under their control, yet in a much ‘less evolved’ or ‘original’ state. Later, in the very late 1st century BC or early 1st century AD, the events behind Tacitus’ story about the name being adopted by the natives, occured.

I concur, but does this not contradict a little bit what you said in post No. 18, that "Germani(a)" was only used as a term for a certain region west of the Rhine and north of the Danube by the classical authors? Ok, it's more or less splitting of hairs.

athanaric

03-30-2010, 16:02

Fixed a few of your quotes. Sorry for being such a Grammar Nazi.

In der Tat, wir alle sehen, was im 'Spiegel' ist.

Willkommen zum Sturmgeschütz des Wissens

I'm afraid "Der Spiegel" is not the most reliable news source. They are sensationalist and maintain a constant "derisive" attitude towards everything.
Unless you were referring to Elmetiacos' "sock puppet" hypothesis :dizzy2:

Noch sind wir unerfahren im Essen

Regarding cmaq's books:

The Glauberg fortress is a well-known Celtic hill fort in what is EB's Mrog Arctagone region (!). Quite interesting if you ask me. And we have more of these.

By the way, thanks for the book titles. They'll be useful for my studies.

Huene

03-30-2010, 19:40

can anyone translate all that gibberish posted above?

athanaric

03-30-2010, 19:46

can anyone translate all that gibberish posted above?
No. It's called bilingual bonus ^^

Plus those sentences don't really add anything of importance to the thread. Just talkin' metaphors.

oudysseos

03-30-2010, 20:50

Na Männer, die Kartoffeln werden nicht heiss gegessen.

@ Huene

"Guys, don't eat hot potatoes" means in this context, 'Calm down and stop sniping at each other'.

cmacq

04-01-2010, 02:27

They are sensationalist and maintain a constant "derisive" attitude towards everything.
Unless you were referring to Elmetiacos' "sock puppet" hypothesis :dizzy2:

Indeed, thanks for getting my poor attempt at word-play, as the Mirror has often called itself 'the assult gun of Free-Speech.' Although, not in so many words.

Regarding cmaq's books:

The Glauberg fortress is a well-known Celtic hill fort in what is EB's Mrog Arctagone region (!). Quite interesting if you ask me. And we have more of these.

By the way, thanks for the book titles. They'll be useful for my studies.

Sir, you're welcome

As well, yes I now see my errors, thanks again.

cmacq

04-01-2010, 02:43

I concur, but does this not contradict a little bit what you said in post No. 18, that "Germani(a)" was only used as a term for a certain region west of the Rhine and north of the Danube by the classical authors? Ok, it's more or less splitting of hairs.

A good question.

Yes it was the formal Latin usage applied to a given region, as well as a collective title provided all the nations and peoples that lived therein. It was also sometimes used to classified those groups that claimed a history of once having lived within this region. I hope that clears up that point.

cmacq

04-01-2010, 03:05

One more thing about the Cimbri, that some may find of interest. It seems that the Imperial Roman government removed and relocated a large percentage of the Celto-Germanic population, from west and southwest Germania, roughly between 30 BC and AD 50. However, at nearly the same time they also appear to have recruited a large number of foreign troops, some of whom called themselves Cimbriani and Toutones. Collectively all these troops were quartered in military settlements established throughout those portions of west and southwest Germania controlled by the Romans.

Additionally, a large unit titled the 'Cimbriani Auxiliary' operated in southeast Europe between AD 20 and 60. Based on a number of monuments, the Cimbri seemed to have made up a large portion of the field force concentrated in the Main area, where they trained to serve as auxiliaries designed to hold and help protect the frontier. Overall, evidence that large number of Cimbri warriors severed in the Roman army in the Greinberg area can be conclusively dated from before AD 191 to 283. However, additional evidence indicates that Cimbri military units continued to be part of the Roman army well into the 5th century AD.

Macilrille

04-01-2010, 10:11

Hey Joe, what are the sources for this? I want to see it ;-)
If we assume that Cimbrii were from N Jutland it sort of fits (though the Romans would probably have labelled anyone from Jutland Cimbrii). Most of Jutland seems to imitate Roman ruler-ideology, etc. Except for an area roughly corresponding to the Eudosi (jyder?) here in Aarhus-bygden; most populous, wealthy and fertile in Jutland, which seem to have resisted and stuck to old ways for the first (half? I cannot recall) of the 1st Century AD, then they too follow the trend. Coincidentally there is one other area with the same characteristic; the Cherusci, their reasons are obvious (though the written sources shows a more varied and detailed picture than the archeological evidence with the tribal aristocracy of the Cherusci splitting over it, and even Arminus eventually growing too like a sovereign for his people's liking).

cmacq

04-02-2010, 01:31

Hallof, L. and U. Lehmann 1989
Inscriptiones urbis Romae Latinae, Volume 6, Page 265.

You can look here as well:

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
Epigrafia monumentale gallo-romana

Mercurius Cimbrianus / Cimbrius

[CIL xiii 6402]
[CIL xiii 6604]
[CIL xiii 6605]

As well

LVGOVES (followers of Lugus)

[CIL xiii 3023]
[CIL xiii 1125]

Plus in the same general area there are many other inscriptions that simply say 'Mercurius.'
Therfore Lugus may have been suggested.

Also see 'Notitia Dignitorium.'

cmacq

04-04-2010, 17:34

I believe that the Cimbri's latter or 2nd exodus (not the 1st which occured in the 2nd century BC and ended in defeat) and employment with the Romans was most likely similar to that of the Jutes among the Frisians and early Danes. Herein the Fight at Finnsburg Fragment and Beowulf's Finnsburg stories may prove instructive.

The Fight at Finn's Town
There was sound and song, made as one, before the Half-Dane thanes, with harp strummed, a story often passed, to occupy the court, as Spear-Fame's seer, faced mead-benches, and recited thus.

When Finn’s heir, was seized by fear, and the Half-Dane hero, the Shield-ling Hnaef, whereupon a Frisian battle-field, were both fated to be killed. Not in truth did Hideburh, need to praise the Jutes good-will, she so-honored without guilt, yet deprived of those beloved, by war-play her son and borther, their lot to fall spear-wounded, whereby she became, the grieving wife. Not without good-reason, did Hoc’s daughter, bemoan Fate’s decree, when morning came, she thereafter, could clearly see great slaughter, where just-before was held, a joyous world. However now the fullmoon, wanders through cloudy-skies, thus evil should be felt among this gathered folk, for bitter deeds would soon be delt. This place burns not cried out a king, one new to war, it’s not the dawn, here no dragons fly, nor do the pitched-roofs of these halls burn, yet we hear the war bird’s song, grey wolves howl, and spears rattle as shafts on shields resound. Battle swept Finn's thanes near all away, but only few was he able, to gather for a final-fight, with the prince's retainer, the Stallion, nor had the dead, been pulled from sight. So to them, a truce was offered, to make ready another house, for hall and throne, and there allow the men of Stallion, to once again half-share, the payment due the sons of Jute. Therefore Folk-Leader's son honored the Danes, the next day just the same, as Stallion's troops, by giving rings, as likewise the Frisians were treated, in the Beer-Hall that was built. Here was sworn both sides, a firm cessation; by Finn and Stallion with boundless zeal, declared as oath, to those wretched few, an agreement upheld with honor, that no man by word or deed, would break by way of folly, or deceit. Although the killer of their ring-giver complied, they were leaderless, so-whether one forgot what had happened, that if any Frisian, spoke rashly of revenge, they thereafter, would be reminded, by the sword's cruel edge. With this resolution a pyre was prepared, and Ing’s gold image was brought from hoard, and Fighting-Shield's best warriors, were made ready, for the fire. As keen to be upon the pyre, in bloodstained battle-shirts, all golden swine these iron-hardened boars, that many wounds took away; these great ones, noblemen felled duly-slain. By Hildeburh's order on Hnæfe's pyre, her son she commited to the fire, at his uncle's shoulder a body laid, to be devoured by the flames. This Lady mourns with dirge laments these warriors rise: then curl as smoke to the clouds, as the great blaze roars over this wooden heap; heads melt, wounds bust forth, then blood springs, from this loathsome bite. Fire consumed all with spirit most eager, both kin that war had swept away; and with this in turn her good-fortune, would soon be gone.

cmacq

04-05-2010, 06:14

Coincidentally there is one other area with the same characteristic; the Cherusci, their reasons are obvious (though the written sources shows a more varied and detailed picture than the archeological evidence with the tribal aristocracy of the Cherusci splitting over it, and even Arminus eventually growing too like a sovereign for his people's liking).

Right, the Cherusci over time became Swabians.

Yet the Chauci, Teutons, and Cimbri were called Ingvaeones and not Ingvaeonic.

geala

04-08-2010, 13:34

The Cherusci became Swabians? That is a personal insult of all the people in northern Germany. :laugh4:

But honestly: Never heard of this, it's new to me (that does not mean much). The Cherusci probably settled roughly between Elbe and Weser and the Harz mountains, far north of later Swabia. As far as I know they were thought to have become a part of the Saxons in the 4th c. AD, but that can be outdated info.

Macilrille

04-08-2010, 14:03

Current day landscape names does not reflect ancient location- or even medieval. AFAIK the Saxons grew from the Chauci and others living N and E of the Frisians (who has been pretty stationary but ranged far from there trading- later colonising) and S of the Angles in "Anglen" in S Jutland, those two with the Jutes later raided-mercenaried in and invaded Roman Britain to form the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Meanwhile the Cherusci seem to disappear from the historical view. I do not know what became of them and have always assumed they they and other tribes of the area merged into the Franks as tribal confederations became nations, later to (migrate and) form states. I would also love the irony of the German nationalists' main hero's people becoming their main enemy :-D

cmacq

04-08-2010, 15:52

Sorry I mentioned the Cherusci becoming Swabian, as Caesar and Tacitus used the term, as a catch-all for the early west Germanic speaking anti-Roman and anti-Celt faction centered in the lower Elbe. However, in Caesar's generation the Cherusci were also clearly anti-Swabian. For a short period in the 1st century AD they became the leader of a confederation of tribes that included elements of the Bructeri, Marsi, Sicambri, Chauci and Chatti. We know that elements of the Bructeri, Marsi, and Sicambri latter became part of the Franconic confederation or 'Freemen.' Likewise the Chauci were incorporated into the Saxonic confederation, while elements of the Chatti later became aligned with both the Swabians and Franks.

As for the tribal name Cherusci, I've seen a proposed etymology as Xeruskōz, but there may be a good argument made for the Gaulish ‘Cei-rusco’ meaning ‘those who incite battle.’ For a number of reasons I think many of the tribes of western and southwestern Germania were converted to west Germanic speakers between the late 1st century BC and the 2nd century AD. The nature of the early Swabians may be suggested by its west Germanic tribal name. Like many early Germanic tribal names Swef-/Sweb-/Swep- seems to represent both an appellation for Odin 'the sleep/death bringer,' and a functional title 'those that swoop/sweep up, up-sweepers,' or the 'usurpers.' As the leader of the Cherusci confederation used the west Germanic Irmin (another appellation for Odin) the process of acculturation seems to have been underway by the early 1st century AD.

I know much of these theories may appear to be quite a ways out of the box, but on closer examination they are not.

geala

04-12-2010, 12:53

Ok, I see, thank you. Nobody knows for sure what happened to the Cherusci. Mentions after the 1st c. AD might have had no actual context, they could have been just romantizising. If the Cherusci later became part of others than the Saxons, they must have moved away from their old places of settlement. Possible for the elusive old tribes but without evidence.

... I would also love the irony of the German nationalists' main hero's people becoming their main enemy :-D

That's such an unhistorical point of view, you must be joking. BTW it would be an irony which needed a very very long time to develop, about 14 centuries at least. :smug2:

cmacq

04-12-2010, 16:48

you must be joking. BTW it would be an irony which needed a very very long time to develop, about 14 centuries at least. :smug2:

I'm sure it was meant as a joke.

Macilrille

04-12-2010, 18:20

Yes and no I can see the irony in the 19th century national romantics hating France and worshipping Arminus as a true German, father of the German nation and whatnot- while in the meantime what had been the Cherusci had become the Franks, who again had become the hated French.
Puts rabid nationalistic antipathy a bit in perspective does it not? I am a bit of a cynic, so I love that sort of thing.
And make no mistake, I love Denmark and would risk my life for it, and I am damn proud to be Danish, and I am even somewhat right-wing. But that does not mean I hate people because they have other nationalities (apart of course from Swedes TiC) or political convictions (apart of course from Nazis and Commies, and here I am serious not TiC).

cmacq

04-13-2010, 00:26

Right, I also view that most of the Cherusci collapsed within the Sicambri who became the core tribe of the 'Freemen,' Confederation; the 'Franks.' It seems the Romans wanted to make the Cherusci extinct after the Varus Battle.

geala

04-14-2010, 08:47

I don't see real irony because it's not based on facts. And even when, I don't think one of the fatuous nationalists of the late 19th c. would have seen irony, cause the theories were not based on real facts, so any historical deployment was of no great importance. BTW, the French are not the descendants of the Franks alone and the Germans are not the descendants of the Teutons/antique Germans/Germanic people alone. :wink3:

Arminius was used as a medium for nationalistic feelings by German humanistic scholars from the 16th c. onwards. It was the time of reformation and anti-German propaganda in Italy, so the old victory of a Cheruscan person, who had had no nationalistic Germanic feelings at all, was used against the "welsch" people from beyond the alps. Later that was transferred to the French by some scholars, especially after the first half of the 17th c., from when on France had a very aggressive attitude against the weak German states and was trying for some centuries to reach the River Rhine as the border. But there were no broad anti-French feelings, on the contrary the French were admired as Europes most distinguished people. That changed a little bit in and after the Napoleonic wars when great parts of Germany were occupied. But until the 1870s the prevalent form of German nationalism was one of unity, freedom and democracy, and it was felt as a great burden by many politicians that the obnoxious militaristic Prussia was the leader on the way to a unified German state.

cmacq

04-15-2010, 19:03

I think he may have meant the period between 1870 and 1970.

Frostwulf

04-29-2010, 00:32

Second the archaeological evidence is very clear that the Cimbric migration broke the military back of the Boii, in their homeland. This eventually caused most of the people of the tribes that composed the Boii confederation to abandon much of southwestern Germania, which was all but completed, about forty years later.Do you consider Strabo wrong when he says the Boii repulsed the Cimbri? Or was it a mutual destruction in which the Boii could not recoup from? Something else?
What archaeological evidence are you referring to, is there a book, website, papers that can be read about this? Any information you provide would be appreciated.

Taliferno

04-29-2010, 12:50

Do you consider Strabo wrong when he says the Boii repulsed the Cimbri? Or was it a mutual destruction in which the Boii could not recoup from? Something else?
What archaeological evidence are you referring to, is there a book, website, papers that can be read about this? Any information you provide would be appreciated.

I dont have any references to hand but if I remember right archaeological evidence suggests that the Cimbri pierced quite far into the Boii heartlands. This is demonstrated by evidence of widespread burning and destuction occuring during the period of the cimbri migration. Although the Boii eventually defeated and repulsed the Cimbrii, they never really recovered from the damage done.

geala

05-12-2010, 07:22

I think he may have meant the period between 1870 and 1970.

1970? Why this date? From the 1950s there was no longer enmity between France and Germany (officially). The French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Robert Schuman (in my opinion a real hero in the best sense of the word), who had been imprisoned by the Gestapo in 1941, acted for an European community as early as 1950, a felling that was welcomed in Germany, even if it was rejected in France until 1957, perhaps for understandable reasons, as the war was over just for 5 years. Or do you mean that there were still hostile feelings in many individual people which changed after 1970?

I would say the prime time of official anti-French feelings in Germany were the years 1870 to 1945 (ok, apart from 1806 till 1815). German nationalism after the 1870s became more and more unreal and very aggressive which led sooner or later to the war. All the main nations were guilty for the outbreak of WW I but the German Empire was more guilty than the others.

Phalanx300

05-12-2010, 12:51

For fighting when their ally starts a war?

athanaric

05-13-2010, 00:14

I would say the prime time of official anti-French feelings in Germany were the years 1870 to 1945 (ok, apart from 1806 till 1815). German nationalism after the 1870s became more and more unreal and very aggressive which led sooner or later to the war.
I'm sorry to say this but the French had it coming for them (excluding the Third Reich period, of course).
Anti-French sentiment is still strong in some parts of German society (and I suspect it's the same vice versa), but it's more of a verbal thing than anything else now. The worst part of this entirely unnecessary and stupid German-French conflict is over, hopefully never to return.

but the German Empire was more guilty than the others.
That's an interpretation, and I'd venture to say it's inaccurate.

Hannibal Khan the Great

05-13-2010, 04:42

German Empire was more guilty than the others.

It was a group of Serbian and Bosnian terrorists that assassinated Franz Ferdinand, provoking Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia. Russia declares war on Austria-Hungary, and only then does Germany enter. The war itself was in no way Germany's fault, and its magnitude was due to all the major European powers, not one nation in particular.

Macilrille

05-13-2010, 09:04

This thread should probably get back on topic.

The Cimbrii...

Not that I have time to participate. But it should.

Phalanx300

05-13-2010, 11:44

Weird though how geala is coming from Germany, are they tought some kind of self blaming? Oh well, we should probably get on topic.

Cimbri, most likely Germanic. Maybe Celts went with them as they moved around but them being Celtic?

athanaric

05-13-2010, 16:40

Weird though how geala is coming from Germany, are they tought some kind of self blaming?
It's a path... typical German trait.

Cimbri, most likely Germanic. Maybe Celts went with them as they moved around but them being Celtic?
I think we should start over and first define some categories. If "Celtic" and "Germanic" are such ill-defined words, how about re-defining them? Or using substitutes?
Then we should discriminate between ethnic and linguistical categories.

All this "you can't really tell, because those terms are inaccurate and everybody mixed with one another" is all fine and well, and likely true, but it's practically a given and doesn't get us any further in terms of science. We need to move beyond that point.

Phalanx300

05-13-2010, 17:31

Well I always like to see it ethnically, otherwise it kind of hard to talk about peoples if you only look at the culture they are having.

I mean the Nervii had Celtic culture but claimed Germanic descent. How to classify them?

Power2the1

05-16-2010, 15:38

As brought out already, 'Germanic' means, to a Roman around Caesars time and afterward, anyone east of the Rhine, north of the Danube. Celts lived there for centuries, but would be Germans if one follows Caesar's misguided terminology. There are strong indications, due to burial patterns found only in eastern and Belgian areas, that portions of the Danubian Celts came westward sometime around 250 B.C. If they were eastern originated, and came west in Belgium, then they'd have crossed the Rhine's east bank to make it to the west bank. In other words they be called Germans due to having originated from the east bank of the Rhine although they were Celts. This is most likely why the Belgae boasted of Germanic roots as they came from well beyond the eastern bank. Thank Caesar for the confusion....

Boii

05-16-2010, 20:42

This will be porbably most accurate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbri
From my opinion Cimbri were germanic tribe maybe mixed with celts.

Mediolanicus

05-16-2010, 21:56

This will be porbably most accurate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbri

And why would that be accurate? (Not saying that it isn't or anything, but calling wiki the most accurate is probably not... very accurate.)

Apázlinemjó

05-16-2010, 22:24

And why would that be accurate? (Not saying that it isn't or anything, but calling wiki the most accurate is probably not... very accurate.)

Maybe he was joking.

Frostwulf

05-19-2010, 06:53

As brought out already, 'Germanic' means, to a Roman around Caesars time and afterward, anyone east of the Rhine, north of the Danube. Celts lived there for centuries, but would be Germans if one follows Caesar's misguided terminology.Not necessarily the case, you have to remember the Germani cisrhenani; the Boii and the Volcae Tectosages who were east of the Rhine were certainly considered "Celts" by the Romans. Tacitus brings up different peoples including the Bastarnae(he considers them German) which would not fit in to this situation.

For him "Germanicity" was certainly more than a matter of geographic location. For he can point out that certain peoples living to the right of the Rhine, among the so-called "Germans", are really Gauls, and the Nervii and Treveri who lived among the Gauls were, or at least themselves claimed to be, of Germanic descent. Moreover Tacitus thought that some peoples occupying the left bank, that is the Gallic bank of the Rhine were certainly Germani. So he did distinguish between "Germans and Galus and others whom he though non-"Germans". pg.60

There are strong indications, due to burial patterns found only in eastern and Belgian areas, that portions of the Danubian Celts came westward sometime around 250 B.C. If they were eastern originated, and came west in Belgium, then they'd have crossed the Rhine's east bank to make it to the west bank. In other words they be called Germans due to having originated from the east bank of the Rhine although they were Celts. This is most likely why the Belgae boasted of Germanic roots as they came from well beyond the eastern bank. Thank Caesar for the confusion....Both Kruta and Cunliffe speak of the Champagne region where the Danubian Celts settled, not all of Belgium and certainly not north eastern Belgium.

In this survey, only those groups who lived within the areas later corresponding to the provinces of Germania Inferior and Germania Superior or in areas tangential to these provinces will be discussed. Gaul north of the Seine was the territory of the Belgae, who Caesar claimed in the distant past to have migrated to Gaul from beyond the Rhine. Belgic Gaul consisted of a mixture of peoples who were Celtic, as well as others north of the Somme who were either of mixed Celtic and Germanic character or even primarily of Germanic origin. These latter on the lower Rhine were known to Caesar as Germani Cisrhenani (west-bank Germans). Along the middle Rhine, Germanic and Gallic population groups inhabited both banks of the river, but on the upper Rhine Celtic peoples held sway and formed a bulwark against the Germans in the east. Pg.17

And why would that be accurate? (Not saying that it isn't or anything, but calling wiki the most accurate is probably not... very accurate.) Generally I agree with this statement, but in this particular case I do not. Wiki did a fairly good job on this article to present both cases though there is more information that would attest to both sides not presented in the article. For me if the Cimbri did indeed come from the Denmark area, then they would be considered Germani.

Power2the1

05-19-2010, 12:50

[QUOTE]Not necessarily the case, you have to remember the Germani cisrhenani; the Boii and the Volcae Tectosages who were east of the Rhine were certainly considered "Celts" by the Romans. Tacitus brings up different peoples including the Bastarnae(he considers them German) which would not fit in to this situation.You know what I mean. :smash:

Caesar picked and chose who he wanted to play up as the 'threat' to the civilized world. Celts who had originated and had been coming from the east bank were automatically labeled as Germans so as the Seubi came along, no doubt bringing east bank Celts and Celto-Germanic with his, they were all 'Germans' so he had a reason to give 'aid' to the Aeduoi. The oppida dwelling Germano-Celtic/Celto-Germanic tribes on the east bank were umped in with his group of 'Germans', only due to their location and nothing more but, as you brought out, further to the east still we have the Celtic Volcae hanging out as they had for centuries. So what is it Caesar, are their Celts, Germans, or both east of the Rhine and north of the Danube? This doesn't add up of course, readers who are into all this will know he certainly doesn't stick with his own geographical claims either, which calls into question some of his other claims of tribal and cultural affiliations.

From Echoes of the Ancient World The Celts Irish, Scots, Welch & Bretons by Kruta and Foreman

According to evidence found mainly in present-day Champagne, the formation of the Belgic peoples of Gaul must be bound up with the arrival, in the mid 3rd century B.C., of fairly large but disparate groups, originally from Celtic territories along the Danube, between the Erzebirge of Bohemia and the western part of the Carpathian basin. They belonged to a demographic network the density of which had become significantly lowered since the late 5th century. They founded new cemeteries which were characterized in particular by the frequency of quadrangular or circular enclosures around the graves and by the sporadic, but significant, practice of cremation in a milieu where inhumation had hitherto been the absolute rule. The newcomers brought with them object with forms unknown in the region but widespread in the Danubian zone, as well as articles of dress such s ankle-rings worn by well-to-do women, which were quite alien to local traditions. The newcomers retained some of their their customs, abandoning others to conform to local practices and, one or two generations after their arrival, formed with the native an apparently homogeneous group of populations. The peoples whom Julius Caesar found settled in Belgic Gaul sprang directly from the fusion, at the time relatively recent, of a conglomerate of Celtic speaking groups, both native and foreign.

The Belgae were part 'Danubian' Celt and part Belgian/native Celt. These were boasting of their origination beyond the Rhine in the Danubian and Carpathian territories, one could argue, and not their origination with the Jasdorf Germanic tribes who had not came close to the Rhine yet by the time these Danubian migrations occurred.

gamegeek2

05-19-2010, 16:29

Right, to the romans, "Germani" simply meant east of the Rhine and north of the Danube. it wasn't really an ethnolinguistic identity to them as it is to us nowadays.

Cyclops

05-20-2010, 08:10

Frostwulf

05-20-2010, 11:04

Caesar picked and chose who he wanted to play up as the 'threat' to the civilized world.I absolutely agree with this, and also how he doesn't stick with his geographical claims. But if I remember correctly he begins in a simple statement that Germani are on the east side and then he refines this situation later on.

Celts who had originated and had been coming from the east bank were automatically labeled as Germans so as the Seubi came along, no doubt bringing east bank Celts and Celto-Germanic with his, they were all 'Germans' so he had a reason to give 'aid' to the Aeduoi. The oppida dwelling Germano-Celtic/Celto-Germanic tribes on the east bank were umped in with his group of 'Germans', only due to their location and nothing more but, as you brought out, further to the east still we have the Celtic Volcae hanging out as they had for centuries. So what is it Caesar, are their Celts, Germans, or both east of the Rhine and north of the Danube? This doesn't add up of course, readers who are into all this will know he certainly doesn't stick with his own geographical claims either, which calls into question some of his other claims of tribal and cultural affiliations.Unfortunately this comes down to the ill-defined term of ethnicity. Culiffe for one states that if it comes down to a factor, that factor would be language. Others tend to go with material culture and there are a myriad of other criteria. I believe this is why for simplicity most archaeologists/historians have just come down to using grossgrupen(macro-cultures). In this particular situation they use the Roman view of ethnicity for determining who is "German" and who is "Celt".

What is now the equivalent of France, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany west of the Rhine was known as Gaul (Gallia), despite the fact that Germanic and mixed Celtic and Germanic peoples lived there. Carved out of the eastern fringes of Gaul were the German provinces where Celtic and Germanic groups also lived side by side. The indigenous peoples under consideration, however, categorized their ethnic ascription on a specific tribal level, identifying themselves as belonging to a particular group and not using a collective name. In using, mainly for the sake of simplicity, the names 'Celt' or 'Gaul' (which I do interchangeably) and 'German' I am using the standard terminology of antiquity which also has an established tradition in modern archaeological and historical research. That there is a great diversity in this generalized unity is absolutely clear, and this is taken into account in many ways in the individual chapters of the book. Pg. 10-11In her book she does go further into detail on this situation dealing with particular tribes, mainly the Ubii.
The spoiler below are also quotes that show it was not just about geography.

Rome's dealings with 'the Germani' start, as with so many things, with Julius Caesar. He is usually credited with the very invention of the term: having come across the word Germani in a way which remains unknown to us, he used it to identify a distinct non-Celtic, population, made up of various tribes (gentes) living for the most part east of the Rhine. pg. 12.

"From 61 B.C. onwards, the name "Germani" began to be used to refer to non-Celtic tribes east of the Rhine, a term that probably derived from northern Gaul." pg. 35As I put in my above post:

For him "Germanicity" was certainly more than a matter of geographic location. For he can point out that certain peoples living to the right of the Rhine, among the so-called "Germans", are really Gauls, and the Nervii and Treveri who lived among the Gauls were, or at least themselves claimed to be, of Germanic descent. Moreover Tacitus thought that some peoples occupying the left bank, that is the Gallic bank of the Rhine were certainly Germani. So he did distinguish between "Germans and Gauls and others whom he thought non-"Germans". pg.60Caesar, Tacitus and other classical authors may not have had the training or the refinement of anthropology, but they were intelligent enough to tell that there were certain aspects of tribes(language, culture, etc. though not greatly defined) which enabled them to distinguish between "Celt" and "German". In the spoiler below is an example by Carrol of the Ubii tribe.

The Matronae names of the second and third centuries also reflect both the latest Germanic language influx introduced to the area by the Ubii and the mixed Germanic and Celtic language which pre-dated the Ubian Migration. Pg.119

Traces of settlements on the Rhine at Neuwied and the mouth of the Lahn near Braubach can, on the other hand, very probably be attributed to them. Cemetery finds indicate a material culture similar to that of the Treveri, although Caesar and Tacitus group the Ubii with the Germans. The close contacts with the Treveri in the Neuwied basin on either side of the confluence of the Rhine and Moselle could explain some cultural similarity. pg.23

The persistence of ethnic traditions is also reflected in the German language of the Ubii (but also of the indigenous population or Germani cisrhenani) which continued to be spoken throughout the Roman period. Significantly, this is more recognizably detectable amongst those members of the group who did not live in an urban environment, and it is in the countryside that non-Roman names predominate over Roman names with tria nomina. It is also here in Cologne's hinterland that more traditional Germanic timber architecture survived in the context of farmsteads (see chapter 4). Pg.130

Germanic dress, in particular that worn by the Ubii, continued to be depicted well into the third century, although images of Ubian women in purely Roman clothing outnumber those in traditional costume. pg.119German language,traditional Germanic timber architecture, German style clothing, at what point do we go from one classification of people to a mixed people? A lot of the southern Gauls were using Roman materials, are they now Romano-Celts?I'm stating that is was more then just geography in which the classical authors classified peoples.

The Belgae were part 'Danubian' Celt and part Belgian/native Celt. These were boasting of their origination beyond the Rhine in the Danubian and Carpathian territories, one could argue, and not their origination with the Jasdorf Germanic tribes who had not came close to the Rhine yet by the time these Danubian migrations occurred. As Kruta points out it is in the Champagne area, and the Remi could be caught up in that. But lets look at another quote:

The situation is particularly clear in Champagne, where the areas that became depopulated around the end of the 5th century BCE were gradually reoccupied, starting in the south, the Senones’ historic territory. Small groups began to arrive around 270 BCE, and founded new necropolises or reused the bruial-sites that had lain abandoned fro two centuries. They can be differentiated from indigenous inhabitants - the Remi to the north and the Senones in the south - by typically Danubian female jewellery, which is quite unusual in the region:pg.86
He uses the Remi particularly, who are the northern most part of this influx. Yes the Remi were part of the Belgae, but among the southern most part of them. Again when you go further north and north east this influx does not apply.

The possibility that Celtic groups from the Balkans may have moved westwards through Europe and settled in the west is suggested by archaeological and literary evidence. In the Marne region, for example, a new range of warrior burials accompanied by well-furnished female graves makes a sudden appearance towards the middle of the third century. New cemeteries were established and old burial sites reused. It is now that areas long abandoned are reoccupied. The implication is that new Celtic groups had moved into the Champagne region to augment the thinly scattered indigenous Celtic population. That these new settlers may have come from the Carpathian Basin is suggested by similarities in dress between the two areas, in particular the use of anklets by women, and by the prevalence of small funerary enclosures which now appear.
In southern Gaul there is also evidence suggestive of an influx of new people from the Danube region. The southern Gaulish historian Pompeius Trogus, quoted by Justinus, records that a number of the Tectosages, who were involved in the retreat from Greece, moved west eventually to settle in the vicinity of Toulouse, bringing with them treasure from the sack of Delphi which they deposited in sacred lakes. Pg.87
Both of these authors are specific in the territories(Champagne/Marne) they mention, which does not include the northern/north eastern Belgae.

In this survey, only those groups who lived within the areas later corresponding to the provinces of Germania Inferior and Germania Superior or in areas tangential to these provinces will be discussed. Gaul north of the Seine was the territory of the Belgae, who Caesar claimed in the distant past to have migrated to Gaul from beyond the Rhine. Belgic Gaul consisted of a mixture of peoples who were Celtic, as well as others north of the Somme who were either of mixed Celtic and Germanic character or even primarily of Germanic origin. These latter on the lower Rhine were known to Caesar as Germani Cisrhenani (west-bank Germans). Along the middle Rhine, Germanic and Gallic population groups inhabited both banks of the river, but on the upper Rhine Celtic peoples held sway and formed a bulwark against the Germans in the east. Pg.17

Right, to the romans, "Germani" simply meant east of the Rhine and north of the Danube. it wasn't really an ethnolinguistic identity to them as it is to us nowadays.These guys would disagree with that:

Rome's dealings with 'the Germani' start, as with so many things, with Julius Caesar. He is usually credited with the very invention of the term: having come across the word Germani in a way which remains unknown to us, he used it to identify a distinct non-Celtic, population, made up of various tribes (gentes) living for the most part east of the Rhine. pg. 12.

"From 61 B.C. onwards, the name "Germani" began to be used to refer to non-Celtic tribes east of the Rhine, a term that probably derived from northern Gaul." pg. 35

For him "Germanicity" was certainly more than a matter of geographic location. For he can point out that certain peoples living to the right of the Rhine, among the so-called "Germans", are really Gauls, and the Nervii and Treveri who lived among the Gauls were, or at least themselves claimed to be, of Germanic descent. Moreover Tacitus thought that some peoples occupying the left bank, that is the Gallic bank of the Rhine were certainly Germani. So he did distinguish between "Germans and Gauls and others whom he thought non-"Germans". pg.60

gamegeek2

05-21-2010, 04:13

What an interesting thread.

So from my woolly amateur undestanding:

There was a tribe who used the name Cimbri. They probably (like many peoples in Europe) adopted/inherited/had imposed on them some or most of the fashionable and burgeoning "Celtic" language and material culture, which we associate with La Tene material cultures.

As the "germanic" group of language/culture/tribal entities spread from what is now Jutland the Cimbri adopted/had imposed on them/returned to this cultural/linguitic identity (is there an identified material culture we can associate with "germans"? More than one? Less than one?).

Is it fair to say those termed Germani may have earlier been considered a group within the Keltoi, and later some Keltoi may have been consider groups within the Germani?

A bit like the way a 4th century CE Roman could say "oh the Franks a faction of the Germans" whereas a 1th century CE Muslim Arab might say "oh the Germans are a faction of the Franks".

Germani collectively refers to all groups east of the Rhine and North of the Danube. The Baltic Lugiones were Germani, the Celtic Ingaevones were Germani, and the "Germanic" Sweboz were Germani as well. To the Romans, it was a term based on geography and not ethnolinguistic identity. It's just like "Middle Easter" - anyone who dwells within that geographic area is often called a "Middle Easterner" yet there are Persians, Arabs, Turks, Assyrians, Armenians, Pashtuns, and many other ethnolinguistic groups living within the middle east - yet they are often all lumped under "Middle Easterners."

It seems that the Germanic and Baltic tribes share a common origin in the Germano-Balto-Slavic family, a branch of IndoEuropean (identified by common characteristics - http://ninitalk.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/indoeuropean20language20family20tree.jpg - this tree is good for illustrative purposes, though it seems to have garbled the Celtic family). What seems to have happened is that a group of GermanoBaltoSlavs migrated to Scandinavia and their language began to significantly differ from the GermanoBaltoSlavic parent language around 500 BC via a series of sound shifts. By this time, BaltoSlavic had become distinct from GermanoBaltoSlavic via satemization, and Baltic and BaltoSlavic tribes had spread out all over Eastern Europe - some of these tribes were the Lugiones, Venedi, Budini, and Neuri. Some of these would later develop dialects that would become Proto-Slavic, but this apparently didn't happen until well into the centuries CE.

Cyclops

05-21-2010, 06:30

Thanks Gamegeek for the ideas about Germani. Obviously the word has changed its meaning over time a bit like Kelt/Celt. Am I close to the mark? Would the Cimbri likely have been identiified by a Mediteranean person as Keltoi at one time, then later as Germani? Perhaps even they saw themselves as part iof that group we call Celts?

This possible process of "Germanisation" is fascinating to me. I see aspects of it in the Anglicisation of Britain and I would interested to se if there is an early wave of groups seen as Celtic becoming groups identifying as Germanic.

Nice tree. Is the scrambled bit because they give British a thick trunk and Gaulish a thin trunk, and make it the ancestor of Irish, rather than a common ancestor to all the Celtic tongues? IIRC Gallic was the La tene lingua franca but surely there are regional variations across the massive Celtic world, even in the first onrush of the Iron Age, with modern descendents fronds of those twigs.

Macilrille

05-21-2010, 08:11

geala

05-21-2010, 10:30

Weird though how geala is coming from Germany, are they tought some kind of self blaming? Oh well, we should probably get on topic.

...

Hehehe, do you think I have to get rid of my ability to interpret historical events only because my own country was involved? Very strange. :wink3: That Germany was guilty more than other nations is of course interpretation, that of some of the most senior German scolars. If you look at the events and the prior history (for example the decision of the emperor and the military to start war in the year 1912) closely, it's a reasonable interpretation.

But you and Macilrille are of course right, it's really off topic (albeit very interesting). Unfortunately I 've already offered my opinion about the Cimbri (= Germanic), so I have to keep my mouth shut. :nice:

gamegeek2

05-22-2010, 04:35

GG, we will take this in the internal when my exam is over. I would very much like to see the argument why the Cimbrii, assuming they originated in Jutland, are assumed to be Celts. Could you, Joe or Jasper, point me to where you deduct that the population of Jutland was Celtic?

But for public purpose, suffice it to say that in Denmark they, presuming they originated here, are seen as Germanic, but that as they sojourned through Europe they gathered up locals, from individuals to whole tribes, who decided to follow them, while other decided to go home again, pretty much jumbling their ethnicity as such. The same thing happened to the migrations 500 years later and Viking armies when they went on conquest.

At the very least, their material culture more closely resembles that of the Celts than that of the Jastorf. We also find that the Cimbri have lots of Celtic names - such as Boiorix (funny, a Cimbric leader who appears to be called "king of the Boii" - though perhaps it's better translated as "king of warriors/strikers"), as well as Gaesorix and Lugius. This could represent a Celtic elite of sorts, but it would also fit with the Belgae claiming to be from over the Rhine - with the celtic Ingaevones who were not Cimbri or Teutones migrating west of the Rhine - either as a result of the large Germanic migrations to jutland that resulted after the Cimbric migration, or at the same time due to the same event that triggered the Cimbric migration.

Joe can probably explain this much better, though.

Nice tree. Is the scrambled bit because they give British a thick trunk and Gaulish a thin trunk, and make it the ancestor of Irish, rather than a common ancestor to all the Celtic tongues? IIRC Gallic was the La tene lingua franca but surely there are regional variations across the massive Celtic world, even in the first onrush of the Iron Age, with modern descendents fronds of those twigs.

As I said, it garbles the Celtic language family, but does a good job on most of the others.

Gaulish was not the La Tene lingua franca - though it and a pair of similar sisters constituted the most spoken Celtic tongues. At this time, the language of the Britons, Gauls, and Boii was similar, but there were of course regional variations. The Irish and Celtiberians spoke q-celtic languages, very different from the p-Celtic languages of the Gauls, Boii, and Britons. The common ancestor to all Celtic tongues is Proto-Celtic. There was a proto-celtic dictionary easy to find online for a while, IIRC from the University of Wales, but I can't find it anymore.

Frostwulf

05-22-2010, 07:56

Germani collectively refers to all groups east of the Rhine and North of the Danube. The Baltic Lugiones were Germani, the Celtic Ingaevones were Germani, and the "Germanic" Sweboz were Germani as well. To the Romans, it was a term based on geography and not ethnolinguistic identity. It's just like "Middle Easter" - anyone who dwells within that geographic area is often called a "Middle Easterner" yet there are Persians, Arabs, Turks, Assyrians, Armenians, Pashtuns, and many other ethnolinguistic groups living within the middle east - yet they are often all lumped under "Middle Easterners."I don't agree that the Ingaevones were a "Celtitc" grouping, and the Lugiones as far as I know while still up for debate the majority consider them "Germanic".

Beginning with J.Caesar we have the known(to the Romans) "Celtic" peoples of Volcae Tectosages, Boii, and Helvetii living within the geographical area that by your definition should label them as Germani, yet they are not. These people still retain their "Celtic" ethnic tag, not the Germani one. One the other side we have the Germani cisrhenani and by using the geographical model they should be called Belgae, Gauls or something other then Germani, yet Caesar refers to them as Germani.
Moving on to Tacitus you have other tribes by the geographic model your using the Contini and Osi should be Germani, yet they are labled as non-Germanic. If the Ingaevones were "Celtic" as you claim, that really wouldn't have much bearing because Tacitus would have believed them to have the same language and culture as the rest of the Germani. He distinguishes those who do and those who don't.
But I believe in Tacitus these sentences go entirely against your geographic model:

As for the nations of Peucini, Veneti, and Fenni, I am unsure whether I should assign them to the Germani or the Sarmations. To be sure, the Peucini, whom some call Bastarnae, are like Germani in speech, way of life, mode of settlement, and habitation;....46,1

The Veneti have taken a great many customs from the Sarmatians, for in plundering forays they roam through all the forests and hills that rise between the Peucini and Fenni. Still, they are more properly classsed as Germani, because they have fixed homes and have shields and take pleasure in moving fast by foot: all these things are at odds with the Sarmatians, who live..... 46.2
Now how can one claim that the Romans used the term Germani for geographical people when there is Caesar and Tacitus saying things that don't widely fit into this model. The Bastarnae aren't even near the region.

Right, to the romans, "Germani" simply meant east of the Rhine and north of the Danube. it wasn't really an ethnolinguistic identity to them as it is to us nowadays.
Tacitus talks of language and culture when classifying the Germani in the above quotes, not of geography. Caesar talks of geography at the beginning and then refines it more.

At the very least, their material culture more closely resembles that of the Celts than that of the Jastorf.Where can I read about this? Is your source Freibe?

Macilrille

05-22-2010, 08:15

This should really be in the internal, and I will elaborate more after the exam, but if material culture = ethnicity, how much of the world today would be labelled American? How large would the Roman Empire be in 150 AD? Would the heavy influence of Rome in the RIA make the inhabitants of Denmark then Romans?
Or me for that matter, my name (Palle) is derived from Roman Paullus and has been used in Denmark since at least GIA; see what I mean? I will get back to you guys, and I will try to get in touch with the absolute leading expert on CIA in Denmark. And the lenghty debate does actually belong in Internal.
No Cimbrii faction anyway, so yeah...

gamegeek2

05-23-2010, 23:52

This should really be in the internal

Agreed, but there are some severe misconceptions here that need addressing.

Where can I read about this? Is your source Freibe?

Again, speak to Joe/cmacq about this. He knows more about the Ingaevones' culture in the EB time period than I do. He can almost certainly better explain this. Though, IIRC the Belgae purportedly came from over the Rhine, from Germania, and that has something to do with it.

Now how can one claim that the Romans used the term Germani for geographical people when there is Caesar and Tacitus saying things that don't widely fit into this model.

As a generalization, they used it to refer to people in a certain geographic area - East of the Rhine and North of the Danube. There are certainly other boundaries of general "Germania" - such as the Carpathian mountains and the Sarmatian steppe (you wouldn't classify Dacians as Germani).

The Bastarnae aren't even near the region.

Not to nitpick, but:

To be sure, the Peucini, whom some call Bastarnae, are like Germani in speech, way of life, mode of settlement, and habitation

he says they are like Germani, not that they are Germani.

Tacitus talks of language and culture when classifying the Germani in the above quotes, not of geography. Caesar talks of geography at the beginning and then refines it more.

The word language doesn't seem to be in your above quotes. However, he does indeed talk about language. For example:

But whether the Araviscans are derived from the Osians, a nation of Germans passing into Pannonia, or the Osians from the Araviscans removing from thence into Germany, is a matter undecided; since they both still use the language, the same customs and the same laws.

From the Gallic language spoken by the Gothinians, and from that of Pannonia by the Osians, it is manifest that neither of these people are Germans; as it is also from their bearing to pay tribute.

So, he says that the Osians both are and aren't Germani. What's with that? However, we do know that the Araviscians were Celts. So thus, we can infer than the Osians were Celts as well - and yet they were Germani. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

If the Ingaevones were "Celtic" as you claim, that really wouldn't have much bearing because Tacitus would have believed them to have the same language and culture as the rest of the Germani.

WTF? The Germani did not all speak the same language. Tacitus even says this himself. Assuming Tacitus is correct, and the Osians, who were Germani but shared the same language as the Celtic Aravisci, the Germani can't have all spoken the same language - because we have the Suebi speaking a Proto-Germanic language (I think we agree on that) and the Osians speaking a Celtic tongue. Unless, of course, you're saying that the Aravisci spoke Proto-Germanic, or the Suebi spoke a Celtic tongue?

Also, we have this from Tacitus (stipulating that he is correct):

Upon the right of the Suevian Sea the Aestyan nations reside, who use the same customs and attire with the Suevians; their language more resembles that of Britain.

What I can agree on is that the Germani shared a relatively similar material culture and methods of fighting - largely on foot, with shield and several spears for both throwing and melee, and that ethnicity does not equal material culture (though we can often infer something about ethnicity via material culture).

I'll have more on this later.

Frostwulf

05-25-2010, 10:22

Again, speak to Joe/cmacq about this. He knows more about the Ingaevones' culture in the EB time period than I do. He can almost certainly better explain this. Though, IIRC the Belgae purportedly came from over the Rhine, from Germania, and that has something to do with it.
I'm thinking Kuhn, but this is also a time frame issue as well which I should have spoken of.

As a generalization, they used it to refer to people in a certain geographic area - East of the Rhine and North of the Danube. There are certainly other boundaries of general "Germania" - such as the Carpathian mountains and the Sarmatian steppe (you wouldn't classify Dacians as Germani).

Not to nitpick, but:

Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus
To be sure, the Peucini, whom some call Bastarnae, are like Germani in speech, way of life, mode of settlement, and habitation
he says they are like Germani, not that they are Germani.
What do you think Tacitus meant and the end of that paragraph when he says "debased by mixed marriages, they are starting to look like Sarmatians".? He is talking of one group beginning to look like another group, and the two groups mentioned in this paragraph are Germani and Sarmatians. So I'm very confident that he is calling the Bastarnae Germani.

The word language doesn't seem to be in your above quotes. However, he does indeed talk about language. For example:Tacitus does say the "Bastarnae, are like Germani in speech, way of life, mode of settlement, and habitation;....46,1" here is the link to where I put this down:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126772-What-are-the-Cimbri&p=2493091&viewfull=1#post2493091

Quote Originally Posted by Tacotus
But whether the Araviscans are derived from the Osians, a nation of Germans passing into Pannonia, or the Osians from the Araviscans removing from thence into Germany, is a matter undecided; since they both still use the language, the same customs and the same laws.
Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus
From the Gallic language spoken by the Gothinians, and from that of Pannonia by the Osians, it is manifest that neither of these people are Germans; as it is also from their bearing to pay tribute.
So, he says that the Osians both are and aren't Germani. What's with that? However, we do know that the Araviscians were Celts. So thus, we can infer than the Osians were Celts as well - and yet they were Germani. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.When speaking of "[a Germanic tribe]"28.3, according to Bruhn and Lund they say that this is equivalent to Germaniae natio, 'a tribe of Germania' as opposed to Germanorum natio 'a tribe of the Germani'(this is considered by some to be forced) . Others say that it was "a later marginal note mistakenly incorporated into the text". Apparently the later seems to be the consensus.

Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
If the Ingaevones were "Celtic" as you claim, that really wouldn't have much bearing because Tacitus would have believed them to have the same language and culture as the rest of the Germani.
WTF? The Germani did not all speak the same language. Tacitus even says this himself. Assuming Tacitus is correct, and the Osians, who were Germani but shared the same language as the Celtic Aravisci, the Germani can't have all spoken the same language - because we have the Suebi speaking a Proto-Germanic language (I think we agree on that) and the Osians speaking a Celtic tongue. Unless, of course, you're saying that the Aravisci spoke Proto-Germanic, or the Suebi spoke a Celtic tongue?
I should have been more detailed here, as of course there were different dialects and culture. What I was trying to say that the tribes at the time of Tacitus had adopted a German culture and therefore would have been appropriate to call them Germani. I don't believe there to be a point at this time to debate the North Sea Group, though it is an interesting topic, but for this discussion it has no relevance.

Also, we have this from Tacitus (stipulating that he is correct):

Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus
Upon the right of the Suevian Sea the Aestyan nations reside, who use the same customs and attire with the Suevians; their language more resembles that of Britain.
What I can agree on is that the Germani shared a relatively similar material culture and methods of fighting - largely on foot, with shield and several spears for both throwing and melee, and that ethnicity does not equal material culture (though we can often infer something about ethnicity via material culture).

I'll have more on this later. Having a "British" language is unlikely, a Germanic or Baltic is most probable. Glesum is a Germanic word, but there are many variables in this situation. While he does say the language is different he still considers the culture similar/same as the Suebi(Suevi,Swabians).

I just don't agree(along with Dr.Dobesch, Dr. Drinkwater, Dr.Liebeschuetz and there are many others)that the term Germani is a geographical term, even if as you say its a generalization. Tacitus' book "Germania" is of the geographical area known to the Romans as Germania. He distinguishes between those he calls Germani and those of other groups, all within this area called Germania. They knew of Celtic tribes(and others) within your defined borders but they did not call them Germani. They also called peoples living outside of your defined borders Germani. I guess we will just have to disagree.

gamegeek2

05-25-2010, 19:47

What I was trying to say that the tribes at the time of Tacitus had adopted a German culture and therefore would have been appropriate to call them Germani

Again, we have this:

But whether the Araviscans are derived from the Osians, a nation of Germans passing into Pannonia, or the Osians from the Araviscans removing from thence into Germany, is a matter undecided; since they both still use the language, the same customs and the same laws.

IIRC, the Aravisci were Celts with a Celtic culture. And Tacitus says that the Osians are Germani, but have the same customs and laws as the Aravisci. Therefore, if what I recall is correct, then the Osians had a Celtic culture, as opposed to (what you call) a "German culture."

Glesum is a Germanic word, but there are many variables in this situation.

Note Old Prussian (a Baltic, not Germanic language) glesis, "amber" - which, along with PGmc *glasō both potentially fit with Tacitus' word. It's undeniable that they're cognates - but the question is, which one loaned the word to the other at this stage - early Baltic tongues or early Germanic tongues? (To make myself clear - I am not suggesting that Old Prussian was spoken at this time)

According to Tacitus, the Aestii were the primary harvesters of glaesum/amber - and the Aestii inhabited the area known as East Prussia (now part of Lithuania) - the primary area where Old Prussian was spoken (and was the dominant language until its Germanization). To me, it seems more reasonable to assume that the Aestii spoke a Baltic language, as opposed to a Germanic one, than the opposite.

Frostwulf

05-28-2010, 09:56

Quote Originally Posted by Frostwulf
What I was trying to say that the tribes at the time of Tacitus had adopted a German culture and therefore would have been appropriate to call them Germani
Again, we have this:
When I said the above quote, it was in relation to the North Sea group(Ingaevones) having a "Germanic" culture by the time of the meeting with the Romans. This is talking of the Frisians, Saxons and others in this group, not of the Osi, Boii or others that are considered "Celtic".

IIRC, the Aravisci were Celts with a Celtic culture. And Tacitus says that the Osians are Germani, but have the same customs and laws as the Aravisci. Therefore, if what I recall is correct, then the Osians had a Celtic culture, as opposed to (what you call) a "German culture."Tacitus also says the Osi were non-Germanic in 43.1 and he was basing this on language. Here is what I wrote in my post above:

When speaking of "[a Germanic tribe]"28.3, according to Bruhn and Lund they say that this is equivalent to Germaniae natio, 'a tribe of Germania' as opposed to Germanorum natio 'a tribe of the Germani'(this is considered by some to be forced) . Others say that it was "a later marginal note mistakenly incorporated into the text". Apparently the later seems to be the consensus. Again Bruhn and Lund think the term tribe of the Germani was wrong, they say it was a tribe of Germania. But most seem to say that Germanorum natio should not have been in the text, that it being there was a mistake. Therefore when he says Germanic tribe, that is in error.

Note Old Prussian (a Baltic, not Germanic language) glesis, "amber" - which, along with PGmc *glasō both potentially fit with Tacitus' word. It's undeniable that they're cognates - but the question is, which one loaned the word to the other at this stage - early Baltic tongues or early Germanic tongues? (To make myself clear - I am not suggesting that Old Prussian was spoken at this time)

According to Tacitus, the Aestii were the primary harvesters of glaesum/amber - and the Aestii inhabited the area known as East Prussia (now part of Lithuania) - the primary area where Old Prussian was spoken (and was the dominant language until its Germanization). To me, it seems more reasonable to assume that the Aestii spoke a Baltic language, as opposed to a Germanic one, than the opposite.I'm under the impression that Old Prussian is gentars and Lithanian is gintaras. As for the rest of what your saying, it could very well be correct.

This is the end of Suebia. As for the nations of the Peucini, Veneti, and Fenni, I am unsure whether I should assign them to the Germani or the Sarmatians. 46.1Why should he be unsure? If the term Germani was a geographical term as you say, both the Veneti and Fenni should be classified as "Germani". Yet Tacitus is unsure. He then goes on to talk of why they should be properly classified as Germani, because of customs, shields etc., nothing of of geography.
You have the Boii, Contini, Helvetii,Aravisci,Volcae Tectosages and others living within the geographical area you describe, yet they are called "Celts" by the Romans. By your definition they should be called Germani. You also have others the Romans call Germani(Vangiones, Eburones, Condrusi, etc.) living outside the geographical boundaries you describe, should they not be called "Celts" or something else by the Romans?

gamegeek2

05-28-2010, 15:34

I've conceded that it isn't entirely geographical. It also refers to a general set of customs.

I'm under the impression that Old Prussian is gentars and Lithanian is gintaras.

Yes, indeed - this is also correct. There can be multiple words with the same meaning, no?

Phalanx300

06-10-2010, 12:05

Just found this interesting site: http://igenea.com/index.php?c=43&lp=67

Seems that genetically Celtic and Germanic peoples weren't alike, seen some people claim that just the culture was different.

Lvcretivs

06-11-2010, 18:15

I can't help but to strongly express my doubts about the scientific credibility of an commercial genetic genealogy firm, which claims to have isolated a 'specific celtic genome/genetic markup' ... from a sample of presumably just 'over 2000 saliva probes'...that's methodologically highly questionable and this site seems quite plainly aimed towards well-paying, right-leaning 'ethnic pride' advocates of every description ('germanic'/'celtic'/'jewish', ...) ...

Phalanx300

06-11-2010, 19:26

Usually claiming facts can be consideren racist by some.

They seem to be credible.

What does this has to do with ethnic pride? You asking your grandfather of his grandfather is also ethnic pride?

Also something else I've always said. Humans are one species, but funny thing, dogs are also of a single species. People are just different, which can be hard to accept for some.

Lvcretivs

06-11-2010, 20:48

They seem to be credible.
To me they seem not - there are several flaws in their methods and their stating of clearly identifiable 'Germanic'/'Celtic', ... genome types is very questionable...

What does this has to do with ethnic pride? You asking your grandfather of his grandfather is also ethnic pride?
Inquiring about your individual family history has nothing to do with individually constructing an supposedly 'ancient genetic heritage' probably ripe with 19th century ethnic stereotypes ('Look, I'm a typical descendant of mighty and ferocious, barbaric Celtic warriors, ...') - a service, which this site seems at least inclined to offer and which could foster exactly such 'ethnic pride' mentality/attitudes.

Maybe I'm a bit harsh in my critique, but I'd rather see people interested in their family history resort to serious genealogical research services than to pay dearly for an quite meaningless genetic analysis, which has no really solid scientific footing (cf. the issues, problems and controversies of European population genetics in general) and no real relevance if it comes to categorization of ancestors into ancient 'ethnic groups'.

Also something else I've always said. Humans are one species, but funny thing, dogs are also of a single species. People are just different, which can be hard to accept for some. Human diversity isn't hard to accept - it's hard to accept if someone attempts to root mankind's immense ethno-cultural differences in it's genetic makeup...

Excuse my probably too confrontative and rather sharp statements, I'm far from criticizing you personally - it's really only an issue with the site you linked.

Phalanx300

06-12-2010, 12:15

To me they seem not - there are several flaws in their methods and their stating of clearly identifiable 'Germanic'/'Celtic', ... genome types is very questionable...

Yet certainly possible.

Inquiring about your individual family history has nothing to do with individually constructing an supposedly 'ancient genetic heritage' probably ripe with 19th century ethnic stereotypes ('Look, I'm a typical descendant of mighty and ferocious, barbaric Celtic warriors, ...') - a service, which this site seems at least inclined to offer and which could foster exactly such 'ethnic pride' mentality/attitudes.

Maybe I'm a bit harsh in my critique, but I'd rather see people interested in their family history resort to serious genealogical research services than to pay dearly for an quite meaningless genetic analysis, which has no really solid scientific footing (cf. the issues, problems and controversies of European population genetics in general) and no real relevance if it comes to categorization of ancestors into ancient 'ethnic groups'.

So when someone is simply curious of his ancestors it must and should always be because of ethnic pride? Thats basicly what its coming down to here. People don't pay such high amounts of money because of that, they want to know who their ancestors are.

Human diversity isn't hard to accept - it's hard to accept if someone attempts to root mankind's immense ethno-cultural differences in it's genetic makeup...

Excuse my probably too confrontative and rather sharp statements, I'm far from criticizing you personally - it's really only an issue with the site you linked.

...? If someone wants to know of their ancestors and tests their DNA then it shows they do accept the differences between people.

Lvcretivs

06-12-2010, 17:10

Yet certainly possible.
Europe is the probably most genetically homogeneous area of all Eurasia - an relative uniformity caused by countless migrations -and its extremly farfetched and scientifically unsound to 'identify' certain genetic traits as specific for distinct, ancient 'ethnic'/cultural groups - after more than 2000 years passing by - while ignoring basic criteries of academical research (eg. representative sample size, clear definition of 'Celtic'/'Germanic' genome types, only peer-reviewed results published,...)

I'm merely arguing that this site with it's grossly exaggerated and scientifically unfounded claims regarding ancient 'ethnicities' and their relationship to individual genetic markup of modern individuals encourages people to readily identify with right-wing 'ethnic pride' stereotypes of ancient people. There is simply no scientific method by which we could identify a specific 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' genome exclusive to members of this 'ethnic' group ... because it never existed! 'Ethnicity' in it's ancient and modern sense is a primarily socially determined construct (which is, by the way, one of the fundamental issues discussed in this thread) and in no way linked to individual genetics - which is exactly what this pseudo-scientific site is claiming.

So when someone is simply curious of his ancestors it must and should always be because of ethnic pride? Thats basicly what its coming down to here. People don't pay such high amounts of money because of that, they want to know who their ancestors are.
...? You've must have misunderstand me - rather than to identify the most probable geographic provenance of your ancestors (which is perfectly possible and genealogically reasonable to trace ancestry/descent from a specific population) they are categorically stating an entirely hypothetic 'ethnicity'/cultural identity for your ancient relatives, which is not only completely irrelevant for 'knowing who your ancestors were' (which is in a 'ethnic'/cultural sense quite frankly impossible) but intentionally misleading and dangerous because it entices people to embrace an 'ethnic pride' mentality based on completely false assumptions about their genetic makeup and it's illusory implications for their 'ethnicity'. If people are curious about who their ancestors were, they should stick to conventional, proved genealogical methods, recognize the limited value of such genetic analyses and restrain themselves from speculating about their ancestors cultural self-identification.

...? If someone wants to know of their ancestors and tests their DNA then it shows they do accept the differences between people.
...?

Frostwulf

06-13-2010, 08:43

While I find the use of genetics in history interesting, at this point I'm very leery of its results. I have seen several conflicting analysis of genetic testing and I think there is more to be done in this area to get things ironed out.

On another note:

We have in this paper elected first and foremost to focus on finds showing connections to areas east of the "Celtic world" or near the eastern boundaries of this world. It should, though, in no way be understood that we reject the idea of connections to the Celtic world, both in the east (e.g. the bronze belts, ball neck-rings) and in the west. Our objective has, however, been a different one: to show that in the late Pre-Roman Iron Age there existed a corridor of contact between Denmark and the Baltic area in the north-west and the northwestern Black Sea arca in the south-east.
As may be seen from above, a large number of finds may be indicated as attesting connection of this kind: e.g. the non-Celtic gold torques, various types of pendants, the emergence of highly developed goldsmith's art with Hellenistic elements around the transition to the Early Roman Iron Age, the silver beakers from Mollerup, the crown neck-rings with their peculiar distribution pattern, various brooch types, certain striking similarities between the pottery in Jutland and among the Germanic cultures in East Europe, a couple of unique vessels from north Jutland, and similarities in the grave ritual of north Jutland and central Poland.
Continuing on with the main point of this post:

We believe that the amount and not least kind of northwest German foreign forms in East Europe attest so strong a cultural influence in a relatively limited zone that everything speaks for migration through the area by folk from Northwest Europe. In the very period when these influences were strongest, the migrations of the Cimbri, according to the historical sources, took place. Precisely which route they chose to follow before they reached the borders of the Roman Empire and the limelight of history is not known. They may have chosen the one across Poland, east of the Carpathians and the Celtic world. The west Germanic foreign elements in East Europe may be manifestations of this. The Cimbri have, however, not been the only people to use this route. The finds suggest an extremely complex body, or several waves. The time during which these migrations must have taken place is marked by major cultural and demographic changes over large parts of Europe (including the north Pontic steppes), which on the one hand may have caused, and the other been a product of, this migration.

bobbin

06-14-2010, 02:31

Europe is the probably most genetically homogeneous area of all Eurasia - an relative uniformity caused by countless migrations -and its extremly farfetched and scientifically unsound to 'identify' certain genetic traits as specific for distinct, ancient 'ethnic'/cultural groups - after more than 2000 years passing by - while ignoring basic criteries of academical research (eg. representative sample size, clear definition of 'Celtic'/'Germanic' genome types, only peer-reviewed results published,...)

I'm merely arguing that this site with it's grossly exaggerated and scientifically unfounded claims regarding ancient 'ethnicities' and their relationship to individual genetic markup of modern individuals encourages people to readily identify with right-wing 'ethnic pride' stereotypes of ancient people. There is simply no scientific method by which we could identify a specific 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' genome exclusive to members of this 'ethnic' group ... because it never existed! 'Ethnicity' in it's ancient and modern sense is a primarily socially determined construct (which is, by the way, one of the fundamental issues discussed in this thread) and in no way linked to individual genetics - which is exactly what this pseudo-scientific site is claiming.

...? You've must have misunderstand me - rather than to identify the most probable geographic provenance of your ancestors (which is perfectly possible and genealogically reasonable to trace ancestry/descent from a specific population) they are categorically stating an entirely hypothetic 'ethnicity'/cultural identity for your ancient relatives, which is not only completely irrelevant for 'knowing who your ancestors were' (which is in a 'ethnic'/cultural sense quite frankly impossible) but intentionally misleading and dangerous because it entices people to embrace an 'ethnic pride' mentality based on completely false assumptions about their genetic makeup and it's illusory implications for their 'ethnicity'. If people are curious about who their ancestors were, they should stick to conventional, proved genealogical methods, recognize the limited value of such genetic analyses and restrain themselves from speculating about their ancestors cultural self-identification.

...?

Basically I agree 100% with what he said, there is no "celtic" or "germanic" gene, what you do get is people assigning ethnicities to regional genetic markers that have been present for millenia before said ethinicities even existed.
At absolute best, from looking at haplogroups you can say that your ancestors have western (R1b), eastern (R1a) or vaugely southern european (I) roots and even that won't be very accurate as most can be commonly found outside europe too.

geala

07-01-2010, 13:21

I concur absolutely. The study of haplogroup dispersion is very interesting but the connection of gene with culture is, at least from Iron Age onwards, in my opinion not possible.

What do you think of this page? http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml

The discussion about the Cimbri as Celtic or Germanic people seems to have stopped. I had the feeling that, if it will start again, firstly a common base should be found what it a) meant for the ancient authors and b) should mean for us when we speak of Germanic or Celtic ethnicity.

Perhaps different interpretations about it hampered the discussion? For me it would be a problem to f.e. speak of Germanic people when they do not speak a Germanic language but have a more or less Germanic material culture. The ancient authors acted not very systematically in this, as can be seen with the Germani cisrhenani who speak presumably a Celtic language. In Germany usually no longer is spoken of Germanic ethnicities or people but of Germanic cultural and speech communities.

cmacq

07-04-2010, 00:47

Its good to be skeptical of some so-called science predisposed and armed with extremely small and mixed sample groups. Its very easy to mask by manipulating a samples composition. For example I believe this has been knowing done by not excluding members of historic colonial populations from African studies. This to demonstrate greater genetic diversity? If not knowingly, then its due to incompetence. Yet, I digress.

In this way, the strict classical use, Celtic ethnogenesis was centered on southwest Germania. Furthermore, within this concept there were the west and east Celts. These were similar yet discrete ethnos. The modern usurpations and perversions of the words Celt and German have certainly caused a great deal of confession, death, and pain. Overall, I stay away from the bio-gen stuff as it’s extremely flaky and filled with what may be con-arts worst of the worst. In truth, genes have very little to do with culture. As defined its learned, not inherited behavior.

I'm merely arguing that this site with it's grossly exaggerated and scientifically unfounded claims regarding ancient 'ethnicities' and their relationship to individual genetic markup of modern individuals encourages people to readily identify with right-wing 'ethnic pride' stereotypes of ancient people. There is simply no scientific method by which we could identify a specific 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' genome exclusive to members of this 'ethnic' group ... because it never existed! 'Ethnicity' in it's ancient and modern sense is a primarily socially determined construct (which is, by the way, one of the fundamental issues discussed in this thread) and in no way linked to individual genetics - which is exactly what this pseudo-scientific site is claiming.

Pseudo-scientific site? Given a context, a very strange use of words? But, I believe you're repeating an effort made countless times. You simply see a tired old cat brought here from outside, not one that calls this home. Pseudo-history, maybe so? However, we attempt to weed our Pseudo-science as it seems fit, as does the world at large.

Phalanx300

07-04-2010, 10:25

paullus

07-04-2010, 22:26

ah but usage changes over time. you could talk about germans originally in a geographic sense, and over time develop a cultural-ethnic distinction

cmacq

07-07-2010, 20:37

Cyclops

07-09-2010, 03:51

Thank you Cmaq, that really clarifies my thinking on the issue.

I wonder to what extent the province buildings, religion and culture elements of M2TW engine will represent these interesting shades of culture, identity, eisen und blut.

cmacq

07-11-2010, 05:42

Frostwulf

07-13-2010, 21:34

Frostwulf already pointed out that the Romans themselves differentiated between Germanics and Celts. And not only looking at the Rhine but as he pointed out also at culture. As the Romans pointed out Germanic tribes in Gaul and Celtic tribes in Germania.

So it wasn't an regional assignment.This statement is correct, the classical authors (as well as many modern) made a distinction between the two peoples based on language and culture, not on region.

ah but usage changes over time. you could talk about germans originally in a geographic sense, and over time develop a cultural-ethnic distinction But in this case we are talking of Romans and from what I have read Germani was not used as a geographic term. The first author who possibly recognized the term "Germani" was Poseidonius, then clearly Sallust when speaking of the Spartacus revolt. The Roman authors did not use Germani as a geographical qualifier. This is what was written which prompted me to respond:

OK, please reread my post above, I didn't actually say they were ethnic Germanics. I slimply pointed out that they were Germanic because early on, that term was only used by Classical authors as a geographic qualifier. Therefore, greater Germania was 'east of the Rhine and north of the Danube,' and those that lived there were seen as Germans. Even the most causal observer will note that the Boii, who were eastern Celts, lived 'east of the Rhine and north of the Danube.' Again a cursory review will clearly demonstrate that the Celtic Boii, who were considered Germans, because they lived in greater Germania, yet they were not unique. However, on the other hand in the paper cited above, which I've looked over, some of the information, primarily outside Faux's particular field, is not well research. Nonetheless, that is not to say that Faux's theory has no merit. Overall, at this time I'm simply not at liberty to; nor do I care to offer up, much more than that.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126772-What-are-the-Cimbri&p=2444499&viewfull=1#post2444499

As brought out already, 'Germanic' means, to a Roman around Caesars time and afterward, anyone east of the Rhine, north of the Danube. Celts lived there for centuries, but would be Germans if one follows Caesar's misguided terminology.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126772-What-are-the-Cimbri&p=2489854&viewfull=1#post2489854

The statements that were made above were saying that "Germani"/Germanic was a geographical term, and as I pointed out in these posts:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126772-What-are-the-Cimbri&p=2492033&viewfull=1#post2492033
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126772-What-are-the-Cimbri&p=2493091&viewfull=1#post2493091
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126772-What-are-the-Cimbri&p=2494704&viewfull=1#post2494704
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126772-What-are-the-Cimbri&p=2496601&viewfull=1#post2496601
Germani was not a geographical qualifier as also pointed out by Dobesch, Drinkwater and Liebeschuetz.

What Frostwulf already pointed out was that as the culture within Germania became increasing more influenced by the Swabians the Romans qualified the term by explaining the difference between what was Celtic and what Became Swabian. When Italic or Tuscian merchants first established trade with this region the Swabian ethnos had no yet formed. They may have only become aware of them by the end of the 2nd century BC. Nevertheless, by the mid 1st century BC they were well on the way to becoming the dominant (still not the only) ethnos in southwestern Germania. In the 2nd century AD the west Germanics (of whom the Swabians were one element) had converted all of southwest, while the east Germanic (of whom the Goths were one element) controlled but never converted all of southeast Germania.For the most part I agree with this, taking into consideration that there were Germanic speaking peoples prior to the arrival of the Suebi and Ubii.

If Frostwulf didn't point this out, I'm sorry but he was wrong. A devil can always be found in the details. If you can find a classical Greek or Latin text that says that the term Germani actualy means Deutsche please present it with a good English rendering. ThanksFind me a classical Greek or Latin text that says that the term Germani actually means a geographical qualifier. Germania is the geographic term, Germani is the people who the Romans referred to as being a non-Celtic people. From reading Tacitus you can tell that he was using language and culture as the basis for the term Germani.

OK, what the Romans actually say, is some Celts, such as the Belgae, claimed to have crossed the Rhine into Gaul. Thus they had onced lived in Germania and could be called Germans. However, they didn't actually say they were Germanic vs. Celtic. Caesar does make a "Belgae vs. Celt" in this case. Caesar from book 2,4 of the Gallic war-"This is what I discovered. Most of the Belgae were of German origin; they had crossed the Rhine long ago, driven out the Gauls they found living there and settled in that part of Gaul because its soil was fertile". He is distinguishing between Gauls and Belgae(which he also does at the beginning stating " In language, customs and laws these three peoples are quite distinct".). In book 2,4 Caesar learns that most of the Belgae are of German origin, but he continues to call them Belgae. Yet if you look at the West Bank Germans, he calls them Germans. In book 6,32 Caesar says "The Segni and Condrusi, who live between the Eborones and the Treveri but are of German origin and so count as Germans,..". Why would he persist in calling the Belgae who are "mostly of German origin" Belgae, yet differentiate with the West bank Germans? If Germani was a geographical term, then why isn't the Volcae Tectosages or the Boii considered Germani?
Also another factor to consider is Caesar's chapter 6 "to describe the customs of the Gauls and the Germans, and the differences between the two nations". Also the Ubii who have adopted Gallic customs, these go to show it's simply not a geographical term.

cmacq

07-18-2010, 03:23

Caesar does make a "Belgae vs. Celt" in this case. Caesar from book 2,4 of the Gallic war-"This is what I discovered. Most of the Belgae were of German origin; they had crossed the Rhine long ago, driven out the Gauls they found living there and settled in that part of Gaul because its soil was fertile". He is distinguishing between Gauls and Belgae(which he also does at the beginning stating " In language, customs and laws these three peoples are quite distinct".). In book 2,4 Caesar learns that most of the Belgae are of German origin, but he continues to call them Belgae. Yet if you look at the West Bank Germans, he calls them Germans. In book 6,32 Caesar says "The Segni and Condrusi, who live between the Eborones and the Treveri but are of German origin and so count as Germans,..". Why would he persist in calling the Belgae who are "mostly of German origin" Belgae, yet differentiate with the West bank Germans? If Germani was a geographical term, then why isn't the Volcae Tectosages or the Boii considered Germani?
Also another factor to consider is Caesar's chapter 6 "to describe the customs of the Gauls and the Germans, and the differences between the two nations". Also the Ubii who have adopted Gallic customs, these go to show it's simply not a geographical term.

I can't at this point address everything you have above. What I can tell you is you have several issues mixed and/or ill-matched. Its important to address each time frame as each culture and individual situations were not static. I will suggest that if you understand Latin and/or Greek as I do; please investigate copies of the original documents. You will find that often they don't actually say what you think. Important phases occurred before 300 BC, another between 300 and 120 BC, followed by another between 120 to 50 BC, followed by the great Romano-Germanic wars which were finally settled by about AD 90.

However as far as the Belgae, we have long understood Caesar’s differentiation of language and custom implied the difference between Gaulish and Brythonic. This is witnessed by their respective material cultures and the simple fact the same Belgic tribes of northeast Gaul also occupied nearly all of Britain. Nonetheless, I will not address how far east of the Rhine this cultural expression extended. Its enough to say, that in fact it did. As for the Belgae, we have a good idea where they came from within Germania and when, as well as why they migrated to Gaul.

Still, I believe your understanding of the culture of southwest Germania, as Greater Germania was defined by Tacitus, dates back to the 1920s. It has been rather well established that the center of Noric Celt culture was in modern Germany north of the Danube, east of Rhine, extending well past the Main into northern Hesse and east to include all of Bohemia. The Ubii were centered on the Main, with their oppidum the largest Celtic settlement was also a major minting center. As of the 1950s this has been widely excepted, due to the fact that some of the earliest and largest Hallstatt and Latene settlements are found in this region. Regardless, I've covered all this in above postings.

cmacq

07-18-2010, 05:05

Find me a classical Greek or Latin text that says that the term Germani actually means a geographical qualifier. Germania is the geographic term, Germani is the people who the Romans referred to as being a non-Celtic people. From reading Tacitus you can tell that he was using language and culture as the basis for the term Germani.

As for what is called German, in the late EB era, there may be those that find Line 5, Chapter 2 of Tacitus' 'Germania,' of some interest.

Chapter 2
[5] ceterum Germaniae vocabulum recens et nuper additum, quoniam qui primi Rhenum transgressi Gallos expulerint ac nunc Tungri, tunc Germani vocati sint: ita nationis nomen, non gentis, evaluisse paulatim, ut omnes primum a victore ob metum, mox et a se ipsis invento nomine Germani vocarentur.

My Rendering
[5] On the other hand, the name German, is recent and newly used, whereas when those now the Tungres, somehow first crossed the Rhine and expelled the Gauls, they were called Germans, as explained a regional, not a tribal name, gradually became more popular, due to fear and success it surpassed, thus moved to this contrived name, and first began to call themselves Germans.

By AJ Church
[5] The name Germany, on the other hand, they say, is modern and newly introduced, from the fact that the tribes which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls, and are now called Tungrians, were then called Germans. Thus what was the name of a tribe, and not of a race, gradually prevailed, till all called themselves by this self-invented name of Germans, which the conquerors had first employed to inspire terror.

Here Tacitus didn’t say that the Tungri were the first to used the name Germani. Rather he points out that when the Tungri first crossed the Rhine into Gaul they were called Germani. Its very subtle, but he didn’t say they called themselves Germani, instead its implied the Gauls and Romans called them that. Next, he tells us these so-called Germans were also known as the Tungri. Finally, he reminds, that it was around this time, that the people east of the Rhine, the subject of his book, first began to call themselves by the contrived name; Germani. The reason Tacitus provided was because the title 'Germani' had a reputation to invoked success and fear.

In other words, 'Germani' was actually a form of the well attested Latin 'Germane,' meaning 'real, true, original, seed,' or 'germ.' Additionally, there is a Middle English form of a Latin usage that indecates a much earlier expression. This found in the terms 'Brother-, Sister-, and Cousin-German.' This goes to the double Latin form and usage as in Germanus, which means both 'brother' and a 'younger' or 'original, elemental,' or 'less developed/evolved seed' or 'spawn.' This particular usage is referenced in Strabo's Geographica.

The Roman military applied this term to the opposition forces situated east of the Rhine and north of the Danube because they viewed the largely Celtic tribes there as similar to those found in adjacent areas under their control, yet in a much ‘less evolved’ or ‘original’ state. Later, in the very late 1st century BC or early 1st century AD, the events behind Tacitus’ story about the name being adopted by the natives, occured.

OK, after I issued the challenge Frostwulf didn't comply, he simply issued his own. So I've meet his challenge, its past high-time he meets my challenge.

A devil can always be found in the details. If you can find a classical Greek or Latin text that says that the term Germani actualy means Deutsche please present it with a good English rendering. Thanks

cmacq

07-18-2010, 08:22

Then we have this...

Strabo, Geographica
Book 7, chapter 1
[2]εὐθὺς τοίνυν τὰ πέραν τοῦ Ῥήνου μετὰ τοὺς Κελτοὺς πρὸς τὴν ἕω κεκλιμένα Γερμανοὶ νέμονται, μικρὸν ἐξαλλάττοντες τοῦ Κελτικοῦ φύλου τῷ τε πλεονασμῷ τῆς ἀγριότητος καὶ τοῦ μεγέθους καὶ τῆς ξανθότητος, τἆλλα δὲ παραπλήσιοι καὶ μορφαῖς καὶ ἤθεσι καὶ βίοις ὄντες, οἵους εἰρήκαμεν τοὺς Κελτούς. διὸ δὴ καί μοι δοκοῦσι Ῥωμαῖοι τοῦτο αὐτοῖς θέσθαι τοὔνομα ὡς ἂν γνησίους Γαλάτας φράζειν βουλόμενοι: γνήσιοι γὰρ οἱ Γερμανοὶ κατὰ τὴν Ῥωμαίων διάλεκτον.

My Rendering
[2]Therefore straightaway, after the Celts and beyond the Rhine, at first sight we turn towards the Germans who are a bit dispersed. They differ from the Celtic people, particularly because they are more savage and have greater stature, as well as lighter hair. Yet in all other ways, their appearance, customs, and habits; I must say are related to the Celts. Thus, I believe that the Romans sought to give them a name that implied they were the true Celts, because they say the Germans belong to that race.

Hamilton
Next after the Keltic nations come the Germans who inhabit the country to the east beyond the Rhine; and these differ but little from the Keltic race, except in their being more fierce, of a larger stature, and more ruddy in countenance; but in every other respect, their figure, their customs and manners of life, are such as we have related of the Kelts.1 The Romans therefore, I think, have very appositely applied to them the name ‘Germani,’ as signifying genuine; for in the Latin language Germani signifies genuine.

Its important to note that Strabo wrote after Ceasar, but before Tacitus.

cmacq

07-18-2010, 22:47

Now as for Posidonius' use of the term Germani, this come from Athenaeus' Deipnosophistae. Book IV line 154. However this was written in the 3rd century AD, so we aren't sure if Posidonius wrote the word Germani or if Athenaeus inserted it. We do know Posidonius wrote extensively of the Cimbri who were later considered both Celts and Germani. With Sallust use of Germani, he actually wrote after Caesar.

cmacq

07-19-2010, 07:18

If Germani was a geographical term, then why isn't the Volcae Tectosages or the Boii considered Germani?
Also another factor to consider is Caesar's chapter 6 "to describe the customs of the Gauls and the Germans, and the differences between the two nations". Also the Ubii who have adopted Gallic customs, these go to show it's simply not a geographical term.

Now to address the Boii. Early on, the Romans knew them very well, as Celts that lived in northern Italy. In Caesar's generation the last of the ethnic Boii that lived in Bohemia quite this region for Noria and some to central Gaul.

C. Julius Caesar, De bello Gallico
Book 1, chapter 5
[3]Persuadent Rauracis et Tulingis et Latobrigis finitimis, uti eodem usi consilio oppidis suis vicisque exustis una cum iis proficiscantur, Boiosque, qui trans Rhenum incoluerant et in agrum Noricum transierant Noreiamque oppugnabant, receptos ad se socios sibi adsciscunt.

My rendering
[3]They persuaded the neighboring Rauraci, Tulingi, and Lato-Brigantes, to do the likewise, follow their example, burn their homes and capitals, and marched forth with them. The Boii who dwelt over the Rhine [Danube] that had crossed over into Norican lands to attack Noreia, they received and joined with them in treaty, as well.

Holmes
[3]They persuade the Rauraci, and the Tulingi, and the Latobrigi, their neighbors, to adopt the same plan, and after burning down their towns and villages, to set out with them: and they admit to their party and unite to themselves as confederates the Boii, who had dwelt on the other side of the Rhine, and had crossed over into the Norican territory, and assaulted Noreia.

OK, here Caesar says that the Boii had at some point lived east of the Rhine. Now because he continues with they 'crossed over into Noria, I think he actually meant to write 'who dwelt over the Danube.' I don't know why he wrote Rhine, but I've found he made a similar mistake when addressing the Tectosages of Bavaria. However, Caesar did state that the Boii had lived in Germania, yet they had moved south into Noria and attacked the oppidum of Noreia. Nevertheless, in this context nowhere did he call them Germans per se, and neither did he call them Celts.

cmacq

07-19-2010, 08:58

Again, of the Boii Tacitus later says when speeking of the distant past...

Tacitus' Germania, chapter 28
igitur inter Hercyniam silvam Rhenumque et Moenum amnes Helvetii, ulteriora Boii, Gallica utraque gens, tenuere.

My Rendering
The region therefore between the Hercynian Forest and the rivers Moenus (Main) and Rhine, was occupied by the Helvetians; as was that beyond it by the Boii, these being Celtic peoples.

Church
Accordingly the country between the Hercynian forest and the rivers Rhine and Mœnus, and that which lies beyond, was occupied respectively by the Helvetii and Boii, both tribes of Gaul.

Tacitus clearly didn't say they were Germans, instead he calls them Celts. However, its very important to understand several points. First Tacitus says that the people east of the Rhine didn't give themselves the invented Roman name until after Caesar's time. Second, when addressing the former homes of the Helvetii and Boii, Tacitus was speaking of a time before Caesar. As well, in Tacitus’ generation these tribes had not lived in Germania for at least some 120 years. Finally, the meaning of the term German had begun to shift as the Celtic principalities collapsed and the Swabian confederation began to dominate much of southwestern Germania.

From what we know of the Helvetii they lived in this area before 110 BC, because when the Cimbri moved through the region they met them controlling the passes from the Rhine and Danube, farther south. Also it seems they were part of the same general disturbance of tribes within Germania that brought the Belgae into northeast Gaul and the Bastarnae into the Ukraine. This resifting of the deck seems to have occurred around 300 BC. So the Helvetii’s occupation of the narrow strip east along the Rhine basin, south of the Main, may have happened roughly between 300 and 130BC. Maybe 120BC at the very latest? It also seems that when the Cimbri passed through the Helvetii were not well rooted as some were convinced to join this ill-fated adventure. As well, they shift south again as in Caesar’s generation we found them even farther south. Then of course, there is the Helvetii/Helvaeonae connection, but that brings us too far afield so we won’t dwell on this, at the moment.

I’ll say again one must guard against mixing and ill-matching the context of the classical texts and this must be cross-referenced with the archaeological material culture. Now I have not addressed the Swabians, which are clearly the other side of the coin. The Swabians were what I believe most English speakers think of as Germans. This may be clear to even the most causal observer when we look at the confederation name. Despite what one may read in Wiki, in an early form of west Germanic it seems to mean 'Sleep/Death-bringers.' The reason this is important is because its an idiom or kenning of the west Germanic 'Odin.' Thus indirectly Swafen seems to imply 'Followers of Odin.' This is also reflected in the confederation name 'Irminones' who preceeded the early Swabian confederation. Here Irminones seems to mean 'War-Minded.' Again, this is another Kenning for Odin.

cmacq

07-19-2010, 15:49

As for the Belgic Segni and Condrusi, they were mentioned as coming from east of the Rhine, thus German. This was part of the general statement concerning the Belgic tribes. They are listed along with the Eburones, Caeroesi and Paemani. Again, the term 'German' was used in this case to indicate that they had long before migrated from east of the Rhine into Gaul.

cmacq

07-24-2010, 22:15

Caesar's offhand comment can be realized as so simple, yet so meaningful. When you compare his statement about the Volcae with the other sources, it actually means is there were two types of Gauls; those in eastern France or western Gauls and the Volcae between the Danube and Alps. The Volcae included the Boii, Textosages, and several others.

Caesar's Gallic War
Book 6, Chapter 24
Ac fuit antea tempus, cum Germanos Galli virtute superarent, ultro bella inferrent, propter hominum multitudinem agrique inopiam trans Rhenum colonias mitterent. [2] Itaque ea quae fertilissima Germaniae sunt loca circum Hercyniam silvam, quam Eratostheni et quibusdam Graecis fama notam esse video, quam illi Orcyniam appellant, Volcae Tectosages occupaverunt atque ibi consederunt; [3] quae gens ad hoc tempus his sedibus sese continet summamque habet iustitiae et bellicae laudis opinionem. [4] Nunc quod in eadem inopia, egestate, patientia qua Germani permanent, eodem victu et cultu corporis utuntur; Gallis autem provinciarum propinquitas et transmarinarum rerum notitia multa ad copiam atque usus largitur, [6] paulatim adsuefacti superari multisque victi proeliis ne se quidem ipsi cum illis virtute comparant.

My rendering
Alltogether in the past, with vigor the Celts rose above the Germans, to whom they brought war, this because their people grew-great in number and for the want of fertile land; they sent settlers across the Rhine [Danube]. They went to the most fuitful lands in Germany, which are located around the Hercynian Forest, whom Eratosthenes and other certain Greeks bore witness to and recorded, although they called this place Orcynia. Thus the Volcae Textosages sized and settled there, which in those days was a race that held higher the law and was pronounced preeminent in war. Now as Germans they continue to suffer want and necessity, the same life enjoyed by the greater culture. However, these Celts proximity to our Province and much celebrated shipping enterprises, as well as preoccupation with ample and lavish trade, they by degree grew accustomed and many have transented the life of combat and with others never compare strength.

De Quincey
And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively, and, on account of the great number of their people and the insufficiency of their land, sent colonies over the Rhine. Accordingly, the Volcae Tectosages seized on those parts of Germany which are the most fruitful [and lie] around the Hercynian forest (which, I perceive, was known by report to Eratosthenes and some other Greeks, and which they call Orcynia) and settled there. Which nation to this time retains its position in those settlements, and has a very high character for justice and military merit: now also they continue in the same scarcity, indigence, hardihood, as the Germans, and use the same food and dress; but their proximity to the Province and knowledge of commodities from countries beyond the sea supplies to the Gauls many things tending to luxury as well as civilization. Accustomed by degrees to be overmatched and worsted in many engagements, they do not even compare themselves to the Germans in prowess.

One may find above that the Volcae were called both Germans and Celts. But again Caesar says they crossed over the Rhine, where he should have said the Danube.

cmacq

07-25-2010, 00:00

The next may expound a bit more on Caesar's story.

Titus Livius, Ab urbe condita
Book 5, chapter 33
[1] de transitu in Italiam Gallorum haec accepimus: Prisco Tarquinio Romae regnante, Celtarum quae pars Galliae tertia est penes Bituriges summa imperii fuit; ii regem Celtico dabant. [2] Ambigatus is fuit, uirtute fortunaque cum sua, tum publica praepollens, quod in imperio eius Gallia adeo frugum hominumque fertilis fuit ut abundans multitudo uix regi uideretur posse. [3] hic magno natu ipse iam exonerare praegrauante turba regnum cupiens, Bellouesum ac Segouesum sororis filios impigros iuuenes missurum se esse in quas di dedissent auguriis sedes ostendit; [4] quantum ipsi uellent numerum hominum excirent ne qua gens arcere aduenientes posset. tum Segoueso sortibus dati Hercynei saltus; Belloueso haud paulo laetiorem in Italiam uiam di dabant. [5] is quod eius ex populis abundabat, Bituriges, Aruernos, Senones, Haeduos, Ambarros, Carnutes, Aulercos exciuit. profectus ingentibus peditum equitumque copiis in Tricastinos uenit.

My Rendering
[1] Of Gaul’s passage into Italy this [account] is reliable. When Tarquinius Priscus was king of Rome, in Gaul a third of Celtae was possessed by the Bituriges who held supreme authority as they furnished kings for the Celts. [2] One such was Ambigatos of whom vigor and fortune followed, as at this time his nation surpassed all others in power. During his reign the domain of the Gauls was fruitful, and as human-kind’s fertility became evident he sensed difficulty in ruling such a huge multitude. [3] When in old age, he decided to free his realm of this turbulence, so he instructed his sister’s sons, Bellouesos and Segouesos, to observe the omens and determine what the gods reveal, [4] and to rouse as great a number of those that wished to assure their arrival that no nation could block their advance. When Segouesos drew, his lot was the Hercynian forest, while Bellouesos was more than pleased, as the gods gave him the road to Italy. [5] He stirred up the excess population of the Bituriges, Averni, Senones, Aedui, Ambarri, Carnutes, and Aulerci. Starting out this vast body of foot and horse came onto the Tricastini.

Roberts
About the passage of the Gauls into Italy we have received the following account. Whilst Tarquinius Priscus was king of Rome, the supreme power amongst the Celts, who formed a third part of the whole of Gaul, was in the hands of the Bituriges; they used to furnish the king for the whole Celtic race. Ambigatus was king at that time, a man eminent for his own personal courage and prosperity as much as for those of his dominions. During his sway the harvests were so abundant and the population increased so rapidly in Gaul that the government of such vast numbers seemed almost impossible. He was now an old man, and anxious to relieve his realm from the burden of over-population. With this view he signified his intention of sending his sister's sons Bellovesus and Segovesus, both enterprising young men, to settle in whatever locality the gods should by augury assign to them. They were to invite as many as wished to accompany them, sufficient to prevent any nation from repelling their approach. When the auspices were taken, the Hercynian forest was assigned to Segovesus; to Bellovesus the gods gave the far pleasanter way into Italy. He invited the surplus population of six tribes--the Bituriges, the Averni, the Senones, the Aedui, the Ambarri, the Carnutes, and the Aulerci. Starting with an enormous force of horse and foot, he came to the Tricastini.

Livy tells us that between 616 and 578 BC large groups of Bituriges, together with groups from several other Gaulish tribes migrated to northern Italy. The leader of this group, which was listed in detail, was called Bellovesus. At the same time Livy says a second large group, who's composition was not listed, migrated into southern Germania. The leader of the second group was called Segovesus. Based on the list of tribes the point of departure for the first group appears to have been eastern and southeastern central France. Livy's account never actually states from where the second migration originated, he just points out that the leader of the second group was a brother of the leader of the first group. Livy also stated that at this time Bituriges furnished kings for other Celtic tribes. So Livy’s account seems to supplement Caesar’s story, and may suggest the second group was the Volcae led by a Biturigian king named Segovesus, that migrated into southern Germania near the end of 7th or beginning of the 6th century BC, from the upper Danube.

cmacq

07-27-2010, 04:27

Livy’s story has additional implications. First, the archaeology of the region Livy claimed Segovesus’ Celts settled seems to confirm his assertion. A number of large eastern Hallstatte settlements, necropolis, shires, and oppidum were established, or greatly expanded in HaC or early preRIA (in the late 7th century BC). Some of the better know settlements are Glauberg, Gickelsburg, Heidetränk (one of the largest of all oppidia), Brulerberg, Stoppelberg, Dunsberg, and Hausberg of the Ubii. Altenburg of the Chatte-Batavi as well as Dornburg, Wilzenberg, and Sigiburg of the Sicambri. Within greater Germania I would add the Boii, Duri/Buri, Textosages, Osi, Cotini, and Didunoi within the Volcae ethnos. Outside of Germania the Volcae would include an even larger number of tribes.

Again, these are found in and around that part of the historic Hercynian Forest outlined by Livy and Caesar added that this ethnos was called the Volcae. Today we refer to the Volcae as the Noric or eastern Celts. In early west Germanic and OHG the Celtic Volcae/Uolkos was rendered as Walhisk. Thus, like many terms the meaning changed over time, where initially Walhisk seems to refer to the Celtic Volcae (eastern Celts). This would have been the initial Swabian (early west Germanic) point of cultural contact upon expanding south out of the lower Elbe Basin. Later it came to mean foreigner, but only if a given ethnos was Celto-Latin in nature.

Second, by extension Livy’s Segovesus story suggests that the Noric branch of P-Celt would have been fully developed at the beginning of HaC or the 9th century BC. If so, in turn this hints that HaA actually represents the formation of proto P-Celtic Gaulish, Noric, and Gallic Hallstatt polities, as opposed to the much earlier Q-Celtic complex found farther west and south. It might take some a little time to work out the mechanics and wrap your heads around this, so please talk amongst yourselves. This conclusion goes a long in explaining the Urnfield/Hallstatt dichotomy. Nevertheless, I invite everyone to please run the numbers.

The third point is if the conclusion above is correct, given the current excepted dates for early Proto-Germanic sound-shifts, its unclear how much it had differentiated itself of other Centum and Satem types by HaA, or even HaC. In other words its extremely unclear if any form of early Proto-Germanic was in use outside northern Scandinavia, at that time. When backtracking the classical references with material assemblages, I simply can not devise an adequate test that would support such a cultural affiliation. However, so we don’t run ourselves off the tracks I won’t discuss this Fortress of Solitude issue further, at this time. What I will offer is by backtracking convergent archaeological lines we can only find evidence of an early west Germanic (not Proto-Germanic) presence, in the Ripdorf phase (Latene B-C), of Jastof Culture. Still, I must admit this evidence is very meager. Herein, the Ripdrof phase seems to represent the Irminones, while the Seedorf phase (Latene D) the Swabian confederation.

Again, from what came historically later (the few kenning, personal, and tribal names), these polities seem the have been early west-Germanic in nature. However, before the Ripdrof phase the Jastof Culture can only be seen as a local variation of the Pomeranian or Face Urn Culture. Therefore, we seem to have the Ripdrof phase (Irminones) forming in the lower Elbe Basin around the time of the Belgae (west into northeastern Gaul), Helvetii/Helvaeonae (southwest into what would much much later become Swabia), and Bastarnae (south and east into the Ukraine) migration. Hope everyone is staying up to speed and I’m not moving too fast? I can discuss the timing and significance of the late 4th century Belgae, Bastarnae, and Helvetii/Helvaeonae migration if needed? However, I suggest against this as it will cause a can of worm to open, and I’m sure many are not ready to see that can nor those worms.

cmacq

07-27-2010, 07:43

Celtic Hesse in the Hallstatt and Latene Periods: Part II

An Overview of the Ubii Chiefdom

Introduction

Gaius Julius Caesar mentioned the Ubii in connection to the Swabian’s expulsion and exodus of the Usipetes and Tenchteri, which occurred between 58 and 55 BC. He provides a basic description of this tribe and mentioned that he met with their ambassadors on several occasions. Furthermore, Caesar inferred that he had concluded an alliance with them and after crossing over the Rhine conducted a joint punitive campaign against the Swabians and Sicambri.

Caesar's Gallic Wars
Book 4, Chapter 3
Ad alteram partem succedunt Ubii, quorum fuit civitas ampla atque florens, ut est captus Germanorum; et paulo, quamquam sunt eiusdem generis, sunt ceteris humaniores, propterea quod Rhenum attingunt multum ad eos mercatores ventitant et ipsi propter propinquitatem quod Gallicis sunt moribus adsuefacti. Hos cum Suebi multis saepe bellis experti propter amplitudinem gravitatem civitatis finibus expellere non potuissent, tamen vectigales sibi fecerunt ac multo humiliores infirmiores redegerunt.

My Rendering
In the other direction are the Ubii, as ample and prosperous a state as Germany may provide. Although only a small nation they are civilized. This is because they largely border the Rhine where merchants regularly come and through proximity have become directly familiar with the Gaulish manner. Often the Swabians severely test them in battle. Despite a great weight in numbers they are unable to expel this nation from its homeland. Nonetheless they are subject to tribute and are much weakened, reduced, and humbled.

McDevitte and Bohn
On the other side they border on the Ubii, whose state was large and flourishing, considering the condition of the Germans, and who are somewhat more refined than those of the same race and the rest [of the Germans], and that because they border on the Rhine, and are much resorted to by merchants, and are accustomed to the manners of the Gauls, by reason of their approximity to them. Though the Suevi, after making the attempt frequently and in several wars, could not expel this nation from their territories, on account of the extent and population of their state, yet they made them tributaries, and rendered them less distinguished and powerful [than they had ever been].

Caesar continued to outline the allance between Rome and the Ubii, and mentioned their conflicts with the Swabians and Celtic Sicambri. Strobo and Cassius Dio tell us that in 39 BC Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa removed them, only to be resettled at Cologne and Bonn. This was due to the Chatti being forced to establish their tribal headquarters farther south, and in the course of Roman reorganization in the modern German state of Hesse. Thus, we understand that from the later Hallstatt though the Latene periods, the Celtic chiefdom identified in southwestern Hesse, represents the Ubii, with their capital at the Heidetränk Oppidum.

The Heidetränk Oppidum

The huge Heidetränk Oppidum spans the Heidetränkbaches valley within the Taunus Highlands located about 16 km northwest of Frankfurt am Main. Overall, the settlement extends from the fortress situated on the Altenhöfe (50°13'43.66"N 08°30'35.97"E) in the southwest to the Goldgrube on the northwest (Figure 1). Furthermore, the main Oppidum is surrounded by a number of small fortified settlements, the largest of which are the Altkönig and Gickelsburg fortresses. Smaller fortress settlements include the Hunerberg, Heidengraben, Blerbeskopf, and Rosskopf sites; as well as five even smaller fortified farmsteads. Unfortunately, almost no systematic archaeological investigations have been conducted at any of these important sites (Maier 1985).

http://www.oberurseler-forum.de/images/kelten_lage_01.jpg
Figure 1. General Plan of the Heidetränk Oppidum Fortifications.

The Heidetränk site appears to been founded in the 3rd century BC as two discrete middle LaTene fortresses on the Altenhöfe and Goldgrube ridges. These forts were expanded and later linked by extensive bank and ditch murus gallicus type walls in the 2nd century BC. The main gate appears to be located in the northeastern wall of the site. Numerous secondary gates are found along the entire walled parameter of the settlement. A graphic reconstruction of the main gate is provided below (Figure 2). When completed, the length these fortifications eventually reached approximately 10 kilometers and enclosed an area of about 130 ha, which is even larger that most medieval towns. Within the enclosed area are literally hundreds of terraces and platforms that supported thousands of residential structures (Maier 1985). For satellite and ground photos of the Altenhöfe Locus see the link provided below.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5360679#comment

The Heidetränk site seems to have been a flourishing hub for trade of a polity that extended northeast nearly 100 miles to the frontier of Celtic Germany. Intrusive artifacts also demonstrate the importance of trade in Baltic amber, Italian wine, bronze toiletry items and jewelry manufacted along the lower Rhine (Roymans 2005), as well as a large number of coins minted throughout central Europe. Although located in an area many researchers consider a cultural backwater, this community is recognized as the fourth largest Celtic settlement in all of Europe. For a map showing the extent of the greater Heidetränk community, see the link below (Maier 1985).

http://www.teutatesnet.de/portal/images/iupload/taunus.jpg

The Heidetränk Oppidum in the 2nd and early 1st centuries BC, appears to represent a major regional center. Extensive collections of locally made ceramics, weapons, coins, and jewelry indicate that this settlement was an important manufacturing focal point. Some have proposed that this settlement controlled the important iron and salt deposits in the Taunus Mountains and Bad Nauheim respectively. However, by the middle of the 1st century the site appears to have gone into a rapid decline until it was abandoned in 10 BC, with the beginning of Roman occupation (Maier 1985).

http://www.oberurseler-forum.de/images/kelten_zangentor.jpg
Figure 2. Reconstruction of the Heidetränk Oppidum main gate.

The Altkönig and Gickelsburg Fortresses

Atop a steep hill situated about half a kilometer southwest of Heidetrank, are the massive stone walls of the Altkönig fortress (50°12'41.65"N 08°28'56.81"E). This site was founded as a contemporary of late Hallstatt and early LaTene (5th and 4th centuries BC) tumulus tombs found at Glauberg (Ferdinand 1985). For satellite and ground photos of the Altkönig fortress see the link provided below.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5365253

Several kilometers northeast of Heidetrank is the Gickelsburg fortresses situated on a southeast trending ridge (50°16'18.49"N 08°35'36.93"E). Based on the limited evidence recovered from this site, it appears to have had a history very similar to that of the Altkönig Fortress. Although both settlements declined in importance in the 2nd century, they continued to be occupied into the 1st century BC. Their abandonments in the late 1st century BC seemed to have corresponded to the general pattern of Celtic withdraw from Hesse as witnessed in the archaeological record.

References Cited

Roymans, Nico 2005
Ethnic Identity And Imperial Power: The Batavians In The Early Roman Empire, Amsterdam University Press.

Maier, Ferdinand 1985
Das Heidetrank-Oppidum: Topographie Der Befestigten Keltischen Hohensiedlung Der Jungeren Eisenzeit Bei Oberursel Im Taunus, Deutsches Archaologisches Institut.

Fortified Settlements of Lesser Celtic Nobles in Hesse

The Hausberg Fortress

Similar to the Gickelsburg and Altkönig loci near the Heidetrank Oppidum, another small Keltic fortress settlement is situated on the Hausberg hilltop located several miles southwest of Butzbach. The settlement actually consists of two loci, of which the larger northern settlement is called Hausberg (50°24'44.46"N 08°36'57.49"E), while the southern locus is known as Brülerberg (50°24'16.82"N 08°36'18.46"E). This settlement appears to have been positioned near an important agricultural area located immediately to the east. Archaeological investigations were conduced at these sites by Ferdinand Kutsch in 1911 and 1912 (Verlag 1996).

The Hausberg fortifications consist of two concentric bank and ditch enclosures with walls built with dry-laid stone, using murus gallicus construction. Weaker fortifications appear to have been extended in two phases to the north. A main gate was indentified in the east wall while several secondary gates are found at intervals along the alignment of the central enclosure. Overall, these features enclosed an area of about 12ha (Figure 1). To the south the Brülerberg fortifications included a central bank and ditch enclosure. Again the walls displayed elements of murus gallicus construction and the fortified area was later increased to the north with the addition of two bank and ditch based walls. The main gate and a secondary gate were found in the eastern and southern walls, respectively (Verlag 1996).

http://www.bfbag.de/plan2.gif
Figure 1. Plan of the Hausberg Fortifications.

The hilltop was initially occupied in the 9th century, as indicated by the presence of ceramics associated with the late Urn Field Culture. However, the Hausberg Locus was not apparently fortified until the Hallstatt Period between 650 and 475 BC. This settlement reached its greatest extent in the early LaTene Period in the 5th and 4th centuries BC. The discovery of a number of Keltic coins, including one minted by the Mediomatrices, indicates that the Hausberg locus was occupied until 150 BC. In contrast, artifacts recently recovered including ceramics, a brooch, and a fragment of a bronze belt buckle indicates the Brülerberg locus was occupied in the Late LaTene Period from 150 to 80 BC. Examples of this site type dot the hilltops throughout the Wetterau area and appear to have functioned as the residence of lesser Keltic nobility (Verlag 1996).

The Dünsberg Oppidum

The Dünsberg Oppidum (50°39'4.52"N 08°35'14.86"E) is located northwest of Gießen within the Lahn River valley. The site appears to have been situated near several important trade routes and can be characterized as a large fortified hilltop. The first excavations were conducted by Ritterling and Brenner between 1906 and 1909. These excavation recovered a large collection that included ceramic and metal artifacts. Limited excavations associated with salvage or research projects also were conducted in 1951, 1965, 1974, 1977, and 1999.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/2507074

The fortification consists of three concentric bank and ditch bands. Interestingly, upslope of the each bank was a shallow trough from where material was removed to build the walls. The walls atop the banks were faced with dry-laid stone, using murus gallicus construction. The wall interiors were filled with the rock and soil removed from the troughs located behind the banks. Numerous formal gates were identified, however a series of main gates appear to be located in the eastern walls. A photo of a reconstructed main gate is provided in the link above. Scattered throughout the interior of the enclosing walls were about 800 house platforms, as well as, several cisterns and reservoirs.

About 1 km west of Dünsberg a Late Bronze Age tumulus cemetery was identified within the Krodorfer Forest. Nearby, a Late LaTene (phase D2) cemetery was found, which consisted of several low rectangular or circular earthen-banked enclosures that each housed a cluster of urn cremations. About twelve cremation burials were recovered from this cemetery, which fits well the current view of small late LaTene funerary patterns (Schulze-Forster 1998). Several additional late LaTene cemeteries were found throughout the Krodorfer Forest as this is a common occurrence within the Lahn drainage and the nearby section of the Rhine River valley.

The First settlement established on the Dünsberg hill top dates to the Late Bronze Age. The ceramic assemblage and copper axe heads indicate this settlement was associated with the Urn Field Culture (Dehn 1986). The Hallstatt period is represented only by a small number of sherds and it is uncertain if Dünsberg was actually occupied at this time. The settlement was reestablished in the early LaTene period (B2). Although this occupation was relatively small, it seems to represent the first Oppida settlement, and may have been an important center for iron mining and production (Jacobi 1977).

While it is unclear if Dünsberg was continuously occupied, the settlement experienced massive growth in the middle LaTene period (C2 190-130 BC). The old walls were remodeled and expanded as extensive new fortifications were erected. The artifacts include an extensive ceramic assemblage while metal artifacts associated with this occupation include imported bronze vessels, a diverse set of tools, and a very large number of weapons and associated military gear (Figure 2)(Schlott 1999). Mildenberger (1980) concludes that many of the weapons date to LaTene D1 (130-80 BC) and were related with Kelto-Chattian war, while the remainder that date to D2 (80-30 BC) were associated with a later Romano-Chattian conflict. Others suggest the weapons were votive in nature and indicate the Kelts and Swabian confederates intermixed (Schlott 1999).

http://www.dainst.de/medien/de/duensberg3_k.jpg
Figure 2. Examples of Military Gear Found at Dünsberg.

Although the site was greatly reduced in importance by the middle of the 1st century BC, the presence of Swabian pottery and occurrence of a variant of the Forrer 352 coin type indicate the site was occupied very late in the 1st century BC. In fact, the recent excavation of a battlefield in front of gate 4 indicate that Dünsberg was abandoned in 10 or 9 BC (Herrmann 2000; Rittershofer 1999, 2000). The Dünsberg Battlefield will be revisited below.

The Milseburg Oppidum

Located east of Fulda, Milseburg (50°32'48.57"N 09°53'54.11"E) had a history similar to other Oppida communities found witin the Hesse region. The site was initialy investigated by Vonderau Joseph between 1900 and 1906. His excavation recovered a very large ceramic assemblage and metal artifacts that included; iron spearheads, arrow points, and other tools. More recent excavations were conducted between 2003 and 2004 by Matthias Mueller (Maier 2004).

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/337180

The site consists of a large fortified hilltop that enclosed an area of approximately 33 ha. The exterior wall was built of dry-laid stone, using murus gallicus construction. On the northern, east, and southern slope of the hilltop the wall appears to have been about four to twelve meters wide (Figure 3). Because of rock outcrops and steepness, most of the western slope remained largely unwalled (Maier 2004).

http://www.rhoenline.de/uploads/pics/oppidum_milseburg-01.jpg
Figure 3. Photo of the Milseburg Oppidum.

The Rohn valley, Milseburg settlement was initially established in the Late Bronze Age as an Urnfield complex hilltop settlement. Later it became an important demographic and economic center on the Hallstatt and LaTene cultural frontier. The site was intensely occupied in the 2nd century, yet was abruptly abandoned at some point in the 1st century BC (Maier 2004).

References Cited

Dehn, W. 1986
Dünsberg. In J. Hoops (Ed.), Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, pp. 260-263.

Herrmann, F. 2000
Der Dünsberg bei Gießen: Führungsblatt zu dem Keltischen Oppidum bei Biebertal-Fellingshausen, Kreis Gießen (2 ed.), Volume 60 of Archäologische Denkmäler in Hessen. Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen.

Jacobi, G. 1977
Die Metallfunde vom Dünsberg, Volume 2 of Materialien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte von Hessen. Selbstverlag des Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege Hessen.

Maier, Ferdinand 2004
Das nordmainische Hessen im Randbereich der keltischen Oppida-Kultur, in Berichte der Kommission für Archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen, Heft 4, 1996/1997. Herausgegeben von Kommission für Archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen.

Mildenberger, G. 1980
Die germanische Besiedlung des Dünsbergs. Fundberichte aus Hessen 1977/78 17/18, 157-163.

Rittershofer, K. 1999
Ausgrabungen Dünsberg.

Rittershofer, K. 2000
Dünsberg 2000 Website Textbeitrag.

Schlott, C. 1999
Zum Ende des spätlatènezeitlichen Oppidum auf dem Dünsberg, Gemeinde Biebertal-Fellinghausen, Kreis Gießen, Hessen, Volume 2 of Forschungen zum Dünsberg. Editions Monique Mergoil.

Schulze-Forster, J. 1998
Noch einmal zu den latènezeitliche Grabgärten am Dünsberg. Berichte der Kommission für archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen 5, 49-64.

Verlag, Afra 1996
Siedlungen der Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Butzbach und seinen Stadtteilen, in: Butzbacher Hefte 5.

The Steinsburg Oppidum

The Kleiner Gleichberg or Steinsburg Oppidum (literally in English, Stone Fort), is situated on a steep hill top in the southwestern corner of Thuringia, near the headwaters of the Wasser drainage just east of Römhild (50º 24' 39" N 10º 35' 33" E). The site was partially excavated between 1900 and 1940 by A. Götze (1940).

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1276572

The Steinsburg settlement was initially established in the Neolithic period and continued into the Bronze Age. The large Late Bronze Age settlement was associated with tumulus burials and overall this occupation appears typical of the Urn Field Culture between the 10th and 8th centuries BC. The site was abandoned and reoccupied in the 6th century BC. This Pre Roman Iron Age community was incorporated into the Hallstatt and LaTene cultural spheres as it experienced intense population growth until the 4th century BC. At this point it appears to have become a district capital of a minor Celtic chiefdom (Peschel 1998).

The site was briefly abandoned then reoccupied to quickly reach its greatest extent by 200 BC. The settlement went into decline in the early 1st century BC until it was finally abandoned for the last time shortly after 50 BC. The Pre Roman Iron Age fortifications consist of a large upper enclosure surrounded by dry-laid stone walls that were built in the 2nd century BC. These walls appear to be of core-veneer or murus gallicus construction with dressed facing walls filled with rubble. The weaker outer walls enclose an area of about 78 ha and may have been built very late in the 2nd century BC. The main entry was located on the west side of the site as indicated by a formal gate (Peschel 1998).

http://static2.bareka.com/photos/medium/1276585/blick.jpg

A large number of artifacts were recovered in the course of Gotze’s (1940) excavations. These included an array of ceramic, ground stone, and metallurgical types. Analysis of the large ceramic assemblage from Steinsburg and other contemporary sites investigated in the general Mittelgebirg area, suggest a very strong connection with major LaTene production centers located further south. Nearly all of this particular assemblage was locally manufactured and of this about 25 percent were wheel-made types. Due to the homogeneous nature of the ceramic assemblage differentiation between distinct local manufacture loci are difficult to establish. However, a particular type of pottery, made from a graphite clay and tempered with a crystalline material, appears to have been made in the area inhabited by the historic Vindelici and Boii tribes, to the southeast and west, respectively(Peschel 1998).

Additionally, Gotze excavated a large number of metal artifacts (Götze 1940). These include Celtic coins, agricultural tools, keys, and items of personal adornment. Over 150 wire or sheet bronze fibula could be dated to the early LaTene Period (5th century BC). This was based on a cross-dated typological seriation that demonstrates a developmental relationship to the late Hallstatt Twin-Disc fibula types. The large numbers of this artifact type and specific design traits indicate that these were of local manufacture. Also of importance were the large numbers of solid and filiform bird-headed fibulae found at Steinsburg. In fact more have been collected from this site than any other, in the region, of comparable size (Peschel 1998).

The zonal pattern of artifact distribution across the site suggest that specific industries and crafts production areas were concentrated within particular neighborhood precincts. For example, ground stone and metal production appears to have been focused in the lower portion of the settlement between the outer wall and the fortified hill top (Peschel 1998). Again, based on excavations conducted at other Oppida the enclosed area once housed a village or town with several thousand residents. This settlement would have been composed of streets, workshops, warehouses, and numerous single-story residential houses.

The Steinsburg Oppidum was situated along the north central frontier of the Celtic Oppida network. Taken in its entirety this site and its environs provided a direct east-west connection between Celtic settlements in Hesse and those in Bohemia. Based on the material assemblage this community had been fully integrated first into Hallstatt, and later the LaTene cultural spheres. However, it is also clear that although Steinsburg displayed a certain level of specialization, this community did not share the degree of sophistication witnessed at similar type sites located further south and west.

Evidence of a large Late Bronze to late Pre Roman Iron Age settlement system, consisting of hamlets and farmsteads, has been found surrounding the Steinsburg hill. The Oppidum itself is situated immediately adjacent to an important north-south road that was used until the Late Medieval Period. Peschel (1998) notes that the location of the Steinsburg Oppidum is consistent with the site of Ptolemy's Βικούργιον (Bikourgion, Bicurgion, or Bicurgium). Peschel (1998) also speculates that the 1st century BC abandonment was probably due to tribal movements from the Elbe region. I may add that Peschel's tribal movements appear to closely correspond to the temporal and geographic setting proposed for a Swabian southern expansion scenario.

For those of more discerning consideration, it may prove insightful to note that the Steinsburg Oppidum together with those outlined in Hesse and Bohemia, in effect formed a frontier zone. This frontier delineated those communities integrated within the Hallstatt and LaTene spheres from those that were not. The importance of this line of demarcation is a theme we shall revisit when discussing its significance for later economic, political, and cultural developments.

References Cited

Gotze, A 1940
Führer auf die Steinsburg bei Römhild.

Peschel, K 1998
The Steinsburg Hillfort, in The Celts (edit); Moscati, S., O. Frey, V. Kruta, B. Raftery, and M. Szabó; Rizzoli International Publications.

Ptolemy, C
The Geography of Book II, Chapter 10: Greater Germany (Fourth Map of Europe).

cmacq

07-27-2010, 09:05

Celtic Hesse in the Hallstatt and Latene Periods: Part I

Introduction

This overview deals with the formation of Celtic Culture in southwestern Germania as defined by Tacitus. Because of its geophysical location east of the Rhine River and somewhat duel, core and periphery relationship to the Hallstatt and LaTene cultures, we will focus on the modern German state of Hesse. First, the Celtic Hallstatt occupation of central Hesse is outlined, followed by an overview of the Late LaTene Chiefdom of the tribal Ubii. Next the nature of the fortified settlements of lesser nobles and the frontier settlements in northern Hesse are explored. Finally, the Latin and Greek textual data and archaeological evidence of warfare, collapse, and abandonment of Celtic Hesse are discussed.

The Glauberg Oppidum

Following a review of the Urnfield complex and a discussion of the Keltic ethnogenesis we readjust our attention to the modern German state of Hesse, and the site of Glauberg, located approximately 33 kilometers northeast of Frankfurt am Main (50º 18' 35" N 09º 00' 33" E). Although this region was inhabited by the Neolithic era, we will focus on the Late Bronze Age and Pre-Roman Iron Age occupation. Established around 1000 BC, the Urnfield occupation on the Glauberg hilltop represented a significant, yet ill-defined settlement.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/265819

Some time after 750 BC this area was absorbed into Hallstatt cultural spheres. By the 6th and 5th centuries BC, the Glauberg settlement became a district center of regional importance. At this time, it has been hypothesized that Glauberg was the seat of a 'Keltenfürst' or 'Celt prince,' as its size and extensive fortifications indicate it functioned as an oppidum (Herrmann 1990). The Pre-Roman Iron Age settlement initially consisted of a massive ditch and bank hilltop fortification. The south and north edge of the hill top was walled using dry-laid stone, murus gallicus, and mudbrick. Within this structure a small reservoir was built to supply defenders a source of water. At some point in the 5th century BC the fortifications were extended to the north and here a much larger reservoir was built (Fig 1).

At this time the Glauberg Oppidum covered an area of approximately 8.5 ha. Entry was gained through the main gate on the northeast and a smaller secondary gate to the south. The gates were designed to make access for an attacker as difficult as possible. Another weaker outer wall was built beyond the northeast edge of the oppidum (Herrmann 1985; 1998). Based on excavations conducted at the Manching Oppidum the enclosed area was filled with structures that once housed several thousand residents. Collectively, these formed a large village or town with streets, stockyards, workshops, warehouses, and numerous single-story residential houses.

http://www.keltenfuerst.de/plateau/images/karte01.jpg
Figure 1. Map of the Oppidum at Glauberg.

An apparent high-status burial precinct was identified immediately south of the fortifications. This area included a processional way, four complete or fragmentary ritual statues/stele (Fig. 2), a possible shire/temple structure, numerous ditch and bank features, and two large tumulus tombs, one of which was surrounded by a circular ditch. As this tomb was excavated an empty central burial pit, a wood-lined burial chamber that contained an inhumation, and a cremation placed within a wood container were found. The inhumation burial had not been looted and herein a gold torc and tubular bronze jug were recovered. Both burials appear to have been warrior burials as funerary items included swords and other weaponry. The second tomb contained another warrior inhumation burial complete with weapons, a fibula, a belt, and gold ring. At least two additional inhumation burials were recovered from this area.

During its heyday Glauberg was not a temporally or geographically isolated community. Other important population centers or fortifications are known in the general Rhein-Main and Central Hesse region. Extentively fortified sites have been recorded at Dünsberg near Giessen and Feldberg within the Taunus mountain range. Both are visible from Glauberg. One of the largest urban centers in Celtic Europe is the Heidetränk Oppidum located near Oberursel-Oberstedten, while the center of Keltic salt industry is found at Bad Nauheim.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Keltenf%C3%BCrst_Glauberg_Gesicht.jpg/300px-Keltenf%C3%BCrst_Glauberg_Gesicht.jpg
Figure 2. The head of the 'Prince of Glauberg' sandstone statue or stele.

The regional importance of the Glauberg Oppidum appears to have waned in the 4th century, yet the settlement may have remained the seat of a lesser Celtic noble until the late 2nd century BC. The gradual decline of Glauberg appears to correspond closely to the rise of the Heidetrank Oppidum near Oberursel-Oberstedten. Although greatly reduced, the Pre-Roman Iron Age oppida within southwestern Germania and the greater Glauberg community remained intact until they it was abandoned sometime in the late 1st century BC. This abandonment appears to closely correspond to the period of Swabian expansion; possibly associated with the Chatti expulsion of the Ubii as recorded by Cassius Dio.

References Cited

Herrmann, F 1985
Der Glauberg am Ostrand der Wetterau. Arch. Denkmäler Hessen 51.

Herrmann, F 1998
Keltisches Heiligtum am Glauberg in Hessen. Ein Neufund frühkeltischer Großplastik. Antike Welt 29, 1998, 345—348.

Herrmann, F 1990
Ringwall Glauberg; in: Die Vorgeschichte Hessens, Herrmann, F. and A. Jockenhövel (eds.); Stuutgart: Theiss, p. 385-387.

cmacq

07-27-2010, 22:22

This is Strabo on the deportation of Celtic Germans

Strabo, Geography
Book 7, chapter 1
[3]ἔστι δὲ τὰ μὲν πρῶτα μέρη τῆς χώρας ταύτης τὰ πρὸς τῷ Ῥήνῳ μέχρι τῶν ἐκβολῶν ἀπὸ τῆς πηγῆς ἀρξαμένοις: σχεδὸν δέ τι καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὸ ἑσπέριον τῆς χώρας πλάτος, ἡ ποταμία πᾶσα. ταύτης δὲ τὰ μὲν εἰς τὴν Κελτικὴν μετήγαγον Ῥωμαῖοι, τὰ δ᾽ ἔφθη μεταστάντα εἰς τὴν ἐν βάθει χώραν, καθάπερ Μαρσοί: λοιποὶ δ᾽ εἰσὶν ὀλίγοι καὶ τῶν Σουγάμβρων μέρος. μετὰ δὲ τοὺς παραποταμίους τἆλλά ἐστιν ἔθνη τὰ μεταξὺ τοῦ Ῥήνου καὶ τοῦ Ἄλβιος ποταμοῦ,

My Rendering
[3]However, in truth there are those in the fore of this land beside the Rhine, starting at its source as far as the outlet; the length of this river on the west is nearly the entire width of this country. Indeed, of these the Romans relocated to Celtae, while prior others departed far into the interior of this place, as did the Marsi; but farther there is a remnant of the Sicambri. After those beside the river are other people between the Rhine and Elbe.

Hamilton and Falconer
The first parts of this country are those that are next to the Rhenus, beginning at its source and extending a far as its outlet; and this stretch of river-land taken as a whole is approximately the breadth of the country on its western side. Some of the tribes of this river-land were transferred by the Romans to Celtica, whereas the others anticipated the Romans by migrating deep into the country, for instance, the Marsi; and only a few people, including a part of the Sugambri, are left. After the people who live along the river come the other tribes that live between the Rhenus and the River Albis,

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Ubiens.jpg/350px-Ubiens.jpg
This map outlines the district occupied by the Ubii after they were removed
some 100 miles downstream from Hesse, along the Rhine and Main rivers.

Clearly the Romans moved the Ubii from Hesse into the territory that had been occupied by the Eburones. This would have placed them directly west, as before they had been directly south of their archenemy; the Sicambri. Likewise, the Ubii appear to have been more than eager to quite their homeland given the pressure of increasing attacks by the Sicambri and Swabians. About this time the Romans also settled the Baetasii, Cugerni, Sunuci, and Sopeni along the Rhine north of the Ubii.

http://www2.rgzm.de/Transformation/Deutschland/EntstehungProvinz/Provinz_Niedergermanien/Hambach.JPG

The models and map provided below are of the Late La Tène settlement of Niederzier-Hambach (HA 382) located near Aachen. This site was thoroughly excavated between 1977 and 1982. It was occupied from the La Tène C2 to La Tène D2a, which covers the period between 110 to 50 BC. This settlement was established after the Cimbri Migration. In design and construction it was similar to others fortified settlement found throughout the Rhine valley, both east and west of the river, to include the area occupied by the Ubii before their removal. The occupation and location of HA 382 indicate it was a town (not an oppidum) of the Eburones. The reason this type of settlement is being addressed is because its structure and architecture is rather typical of examples found throughout the Rhineland, Hesse, Bavaria, and Bohemia. Remember, the Eburones were Belgic and actually said to have been Germans.

cmacq

07-28-2010, 04:34

Returning to the Belgae, we can indeed use the Eburones as an example.

• The names of their kings, Ambiorix and Catuvolcus, are undoubtedly Celtic.
• The tribal name is clearly the Celtic, eburo- meaning 'yew(-tree)', which is widely attested in personal names and place-names such as Eburacium (York) and Eburobrittium. This etymology might lend Caesar's story of King Catuvolcus’ suicide another layer of meaning.
• The Eburones second king Catuvolcus united with Ambiorix, the other king, in the insurrection against the Romans in 54 BC. However, after Caesar devastated the Eburones territory in 53 BC, Catu-volcus (Volcae Warrior), who was advanced in age and unable to endure the hardships of war and stress of battle, poisoned himself, after imprecating curses upon Ambiorix. The poison he used was taken from the Yew.
• There are clues that suggest the local peoples in former Eburonian territories spoke a form of Celtic similar to Gaulish. One of the basic influences on the pronunciation of Dutch is a so-called Gallo-Romance accent. This means that in the Gallo-Roman period, when the Eburones had officially ceased to exist, the Latin which was then spoken was strongly influenced by a Celtic substrate.

Personnally I think that the Belgae used a form of Brythonic, the forth type of P-Celt. I might also suggest it was used by much of the population east of the Rhine, north of the Ubii, running along the coast of the Wadden Sea to include the Κιμβρικὴ Χερσόνησος, within the early EBII time frame. However, with that said although the Eburones were Belgae they may have used some type of Noric Celt.

TheSleepyOne

07-28-2010, 12:05

Gah, cmacq! That's a whole lof of information. It'll take me days to get through that!

cmacq

07-29-2010, 01:23

Gah, cmacq! That's a whole lof of information. It'll take me days to get through that!

Well, its good to see someone will read this. I've found thats always been a big problem. You see, everything I've posted on the last two pages, I had posted In vastly abbreviated form, with citations on the opening pages of this thread. However, it seems some didn't bother to look into that information.

TheSleepyOne

07-29-2010, 08:54

Well, its good to see someone will read this. I've found thats always been a big problem. You see, everything I've posted on the last two pages, I had posted In vastly abbreviated form, with citations on the opening pages of this thread. However, it seems some didn't bother to look into that information.

Indeed. I just hope there wont be a test after I'm done reading - still trying to make heads and tails of it all. Anyway, since I'm to study history starting from this september, I'm sure this will be helpfull at some point.
I am, however, not entirely sure my german teacher appreciates me reading this during her lessons, so...

Mediolanicus

07-29-2010, 09:39

Well, its good to see someone will read this. I've found thats always been a big problem. You see, everything I've posted on the last two pages, I had posted In vastly abbreviated form, with citations on the opening pages of this thread. However, it seems some didn't bother to look into that information.

I always read your stuff, because it is so damn interesting. But I'm only interested in history as a hobby, so I'm not going to start an argument with you if I should read something I have my doubts about. :p

Elmetiacos

07-29-2010, 11:03

Personnally I think that the Belgae used a form of Brytonic, the forth type of P-Celt. I might also suggest it was used by much of the population east of the Rhine, north of the Ubii, running along the coast of the Wadden Sea to include the Κιμβρικὴ Χερσόνησος, within the early EBII time frame. However, with that said although the Eburones were Belgae they may have used some type of Noric Celt.
Brythonic specifically? Why? What suggests the Belgae used, for instance, Insular rather than Continental verb forms, perhaps complete with that conjectural particle that makes modern Celtic languages so peculiar?

cmacq

07-29-2010, 14:43

The reason can only be found in the nature of the Northwestblock Complex, to include Denmark which more or less falls within the purview of the Urnfield Phase of the Elp Culture. Given the developmental trends of the east Hallstatt culture to Noric with its ties to Galatian, and the west Hallstatt culture to Gaulish, as well as both of their contributions to Lepontic, one can conclude that the general Northwestblock region was the source area for Brythonic. As far as the general trends of linguistic flow there is a much later example that supports this conclusion. Nonetheless, in this case we have the historic super positioning of west Germanic over Brythonic. We do understand that the cultural ties between southeastern Britain and the Northwestblock area were extremely pronounced throughout the Middle and Late Bronze ages. Now if I’m correct, the developmental trends found in the Northwestblock Complex indicates that Brytonic very unlikely to have evolved directly from either Gaulish or Noric. One can only suggest that all of these developed out of some eastern form of Q- or Proto-Celtic.

I suggest that if one is indeed interested, please conduct an in-depth research into the nature of the Northwestblock Complex. As far as the early structure of this Brythonic, given the absence of any contemporary documentation I would think its impossible to say. Still, in truth the same can be said for Germanic at this time.

Elmetiacos

07-29-2010, 16:22

I thought the whole point about Kuhn's Nordwestblock was that it wasn't supposed to be either Celtic or Germanic...?

cmacq

07-30-2010, 00:35

If we lived in a perfect world, yes I would like to follow Kuhn with Venetic. Or with Gysseling we could have something between Celtic and Germanic.

Heres a little cut and paste.

Kuhn noted that since PIE /b/ was very rare, and since this PIE /b/, via Grimm's law, is the only source of regularly inherited /p/'s in words in Germanic languages, the many words with /p/'s which do occur must have some other language as source. Similarly, in Celtic, PIE /p/ disappeared and in regularly inherited words only reappeared in p-Celtic languages as a result of the rule /kW/ -> p. All this taken together means that any word in p- in a Germanic language which is not evidently borrowed from either Latin or a p-Celtic language must be a loan, and these words Kuhn ascribes to the Nordwestblock language.

Linguist Peter Schrijver speculates on the reminiscent lexical and typological features of the region, from an unknown substrate whose linguistic influences may have influenced the historical development of the (Romance and Germanic) languages of the region. He assumes the pre-existence of pre-Indo-European languages linked to the archeological Linear Pottery culture and to a family of languages featuring complex verbs, of which the Northwest Caucasian languages might have been the sole survivors. Although assumed to have left traces within all other Indo-European languages as well, its influence would have been especially strong on Celtic languages originating north of the Alps and on the region including Belgium and the Rhineland.

Not sure if I abide with all of this, but it may have some merit. Nevertheless, it may be pointing in the right direction. Again I'm suggesting a primitive form the P-Celtic Brythonic as the top strat in the EBII time frame.

cmacq

07-30-2010, 06:50

Indeed. I just hope there wont be a test after I'm done reading - still trying to make heads and tails of it all. Anyway, since I'm to study history starting from this september, I'm sure this will be helpfull at some point.
I am, however, not entirely sure my german teacher appreciates me reading this during her lessons, so...

Feel free to use whatever you see fit. As you are Dansk you may notice how similar the pre-RIA material culture of Denmark and the Northwestblock area are. The reason is because they are part of the same very conservative cultural complex. In this respect the Nordic Bronze Age is a myth. You see most of the material assemblage that make up this complex was actually made in Denmark or were local copies of artifacts made in Denmark. More or less, this pattern continued into the pre-RIA. The only diagnostic feature that differentiates northern Scandinavia is the Nordic Long House, which is a hold over of the Neolithic Long House. In contrast, in the Hallstatt Denmark and Northwestblock area, then in the LaTene northeast Gaul we have the Byre Houses.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Denmark-reconstructed_iron_age_house.jpg
Byre House

TheSleepyOne

07-30-2010, 08:28

Feel free to use whatever you see fit.

Thank you!

As you are Dansk you may notice how similar the pre-RIA material culture of Denmark and the Northwestblock area are. The reason is because they are part of the same very conservative cultural complex. In this respect the Nordic Bronze Age is a myth. You see most of the material assemblage that make up this complex was actually made in Denmark or were local copies of artifacts made in Denmark. More or less, this pattern continued into the pre-RIA. The only diagnostic feature that differentiates northern Scandinavia is the Nordic Long House, which is a hold over of the Neolithic Long House. In contrast, in the Hallstatt Denmark and Northwestblock area, then in the LaTene northeast Gaul we have the Byre Houses.

Indeed, it's one of the reasons I became interested in this. So far, the few pictures of artefacts I've found on the internet, looks remarkably alike.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-30-2010, 19:48

Thank you cmacq for the huge volumes of information you've provided here - and also the references to the sources. I've got the weekend now to try and digest some of it...

Once one gets even slightly under the surface of the generalised and summary distinctions made by various contemporary writers, it becomes clear that the Celtic/Gaul/German cultures were not so easily and clearly seperate and definitive entities...

cmacq

07-31-2010, 06:30

What do we really know about Ario-uistos.

Julius Caesar, De bello Gallico
Book 1, chapter 31
[10] Sed peius victoribus Sequanis quam Haeduis victis accidisse, propterea quod Ariovistus, rex Germanorum, in eorum finibus consedisset tertiamque partem agri Sequani, qui esset optimus totius Galliae,

My Rendering
However, it was worse for the victorious Sequani than what befell the vanquished Aedui, because Ariovistus, a German king, on the east settled into a third part of their land, which was the best in all of Gaul,

Bohn
But a worse thing had befallen the victorious Sequani than the vanquished Aedui, for Ariovistus the king of the Germans, had settled in their territories, and had seized upon a third of their land, which was the best in the whole of Gaul,

OK, from this we know he had a Celtic name. We also are told he was a king of the Germans or a German king.

cmacq

07-31-2010, 19:31

Next, we learn that a group called the Harudes have crossed into the territory of the Aedui and at this point Ariouistos was unwilling or unable to control them. The Harudes are clearly Ptolemy’s Charoudes found in eastern Denmark (within their traditional district of Hardsyssel), the OE Hæredas of southern Norway (AKA the Horder of Hordaland), and Arochi of Jordanes. Furthermore we’re told that a huge collection of Swabians had collected on the east bank of the Rhine and were waiting to cross in masse. Finally, Caesar says he was deeply alarmed by these events, and feared that the Harudes and Swabos would join up with Ariouistos’ German army.

Julius Caesar, De bello Gallico
Book 1, chapter 37
Haec eodem tempore Caesari mandata referebantur et legati ab Haeduis et a Treveris veniebant: [2] Haedui questum quod Harudes, qui nuper in Galliam transportati essent, fines eorum popularentur: sese ne obsidibus quidem datis pacem Ariovisti redimere potuisse; [3] Treveri autem, pagos centum Sueborum ad ripas Rheni consedisse, qui Rhemum transire conarentur; his praeesse Nasuam et Cimberium fratres. Quibus rebus Caesar vehementer commotus maturandum sibi existimavit, ne, si nova manus Sueborum cum veteribus copiis Ariovisti sese coniunxisset, minus facile resisti posset. [4] Itaque re frumentaria quam celerrime potuit comparata magnis itineribus ad Ariovistum contendit.

My Rendering
At this time and place ambassadors came from the Aedui and Treviri and delivered thus to Caesar: the Aedui complained about the Harudes, who had recently crossed over into Gaul, pillaging their easten frontier; indeed even with hostages they could not buy back peace from Ariouistos; In contrast the Treviri claimed that Swabians from 100 districts were encamped on the banks of the Rhine, attempting to cross, lead by the brothers Nasuos and Cimbrios. Of this Caesar was greatly shaken, thinking he should act quickly, in fact, if this recent force of Swabians joined with the former army of Ariouistos, he would be less able to resist. Therefore, as soon as supplied with grain, he forced marched to draw close to Ariouistos.

Bohn
At the same time that this message was delivered to Caesar, embassadors came from the Aedui and the Treviri ; from the Aedui to complain that the Harudes, who had lately been brought over into Gaul, were ravaging their territories; that they had not been able to purchase peace from Ariovistus, even by giving hostages: and from the Treviri , [to state] that a hundred cantons of the Suevi had encamped on the banks of the Rhine , and were attempting to cross it; that the brothers, Nasuas and Cimberius, headed them. Being greatly alarmed at these things, Caesar thought that he ought to use all dispatch, lest, if this new band of Suevi should unite with the old troops of Ariovistus, he [Ariovistus] might be less easily withstood. Having therefore, as quickly as he could, provided a supply of corn, he hastened to Ariovistus by forced marches.

So far there is no statment that Ariouistos was a Swabian. Also of interest are the names of the Swabian leaders ‘the brothers Nasuos and Cimbrios.’ Therefore, it seems that at the time Caesar was writting, the Harudes nor the Swabians in general, were actually a part of Ariouistos’ army.

cmacq

07-31-2010, 22:13

Here we are also given a brief review of Ariouistos.

Julius Caesar, De bello Gallico
Book 1, chapter 44
[1]Ariovistus ad postulata Caesaris pauca respondit, de suis virtutibus multa praedicavit: [2] transisse Rhenum sese non sua sponte, sed rogatum et arcessitum a Gallis; non sine magna spe magnisque praemiis domum propinquosque reliquisse; sedes habere in Gallia ab ipsis concessas, obsides ipsorum voluntate datos; stipendium capere iure belli, quod victores victis imponere consuerint. [3] Non sese Gallis sed Gallos sibi bellum intulisse: omnes Galliae civitates ad se oppugnandum venisse ac contra se castra habuisse; eas omnes copias a se uno proelio pulsas ac superatas esse. [4] Si iterum experiri velint, se iterum paratum esse decertare; si pace uti velint, iniquum esse de stipendio recusare, quod sua voluntate ad id tempus pependerint.

My Rendering
[1]To Caesar’s demands Ariouistos answered a few things, to publicly state his virtue; [2] that he crossed over the Rhine not by his choice, rather he was summoned by the Gaul’s petition; that not without great expectations of reward did he leave kith and kin; that he was entertained in Gaul by their own concession, an occupation freely rendered; that tribute as a right of war, was traditionally imposed by victors upon the vanquished, [3] that the Gauls made war upon him, rather than the revise, as all the states of Gaul came to fight, encamped against him; that in a single battle he defeated all those forces. [4] That if they wished another test, he was ready to fight, yet if they wanted peace, it is not right to contest tribute, which had been freely paid until then.

Bohn
Ariovistus briefly replied to the demands of Caesar; but expatiated largely on his own virtues, "that he had crossed the Rhine not of his own accord, but on being invited and sent for by the Gauls; that he had not left home and kindred without great expectations and great rewards; that he had settlements in Gaul, granted by the Gauls themselves; that the hostages had been given by their good-will; that he took by right of war the tribute which conquerors are accustomed to impose on the conquered; that he had not made war upon the Gauls, but the Gauls upon him; that all the states of Gaul came to attack him, and had encamped against him; that all their forces had been routed and beaten by him in a single battle; that if they chose to make a second trial, he was ready to encounter them again; but if they chose to enjoy peace, it was unfair to refuse the tribute, which of their own free-will they had paid up to that time.

This tells us that indeed Ariouistos was the character that brought the Germans into Gaul fourteen years prior, at the request of the Sequani. This seems to be yet another case of ‘De Excidio Britanniae,’ whereby a barbarian faction is invited as the wolf to watch over the Hen House. What followed is Ariovistos’ reasons for his actions in Gaul and thinly veiled threats against the Gauls and Romans. None of this has any real bearing on his ethnicity.

cmacq

08-01-2010, 02:55

Another important section is found in chapter 47.

Julius Caesar, De bello Gallico
Book 1, chapter 47
[4]Commodissimum visum est C. Valerium Procillum, C. Valerii Caburi filium, summa virtute et humanitate adulescentem, cuius pater a C. Valerio Flacco civitate donatus erat, et propter fidem et propter linguae Gallicae scientiam, qua multa iam Ariovistus longinqua consuetudine utebatur, et quod in eo peccandi Germanis causa non esset, ad eum mittere, et una M. Metium, qui hospitio Ariovisti utebatur. [5] His mandavit quae diceret Ariovistus cognoscerent et ad se referrent. Quos cum apud se in castris Ariovistus conspexisset, exercitu suo praesente conclamavit: quid ad se venirent? an speculandi causa? Conantes dicere prohibuit et in catenas coniecit.

My Rendering
[4]The son of Gaius Valerius Caburus who had been granted citizenship, Gaius Valerius Procillus was seen appropriate, a youth of most excellent qualities, due to integrity and knowledge of the Gualish language, which through long practice Ariouistos now used most, and because against him the Germans had no cause for offense, Marcus Mettius was also sent, as once he availed himself of Ariouistos’ hospitality. [5] He ordered them to learn and report what Ariouistos said. Yet, when in camp they were seen by Ariouistus, and before his army he cried out: ‘Why do they come to me?’ Is this a chance to spy? Trying to answer he silenced them, then they were thrown into chains.

Bohn
It seemed [therefore] most proper to send to him C. Valerius Procillus, the son of C. Valerius Caburus, a young man of the highest courage and accomplishments (whose father had been presented with the freedom of the city by C. Valerius Flaccus), both on account of his fidelity and on account of his knowledge of the Gallic language, which Ariovistus, by long practice, now spoke fluently; and because in his case the Germans would have no motive for committing violence; and [as his colleague] M. Mettius, who had shared the hospitality of Ariovistus. He commissioned them to learn what Ariovistus had to say, and to report to him. But when Ariovistus saw them before him in his camp, he cried out in the presence of his army, "Why were they come to him? Was it for the purpose of acting as spies?" He stopped them when attempting to speak, and cast them into chains.

This passage has been taken to mean that Ariouistos was originally a Deutsch –speaker; because he learned Gaulish only through long practice. But, upon closer inspection this passage may actually be hinting at something else. In this respect we need to take a look at Gaius Valerius Procillus. As stated Gaius Valerius Procillus was a son of Gaius Valerius Caburus, who was granted Roman citizenship by Gaius Valerius Flaccus during his governorship of Gallia Transalpina around 83 BC. Gaius Valerius Procillus was said to be a native of the Helvii, a Celtic polity with the status of a city-state that occupied the Rhône valley. Based on what we know, the father Caburus was a Celt, as was the son Procillus or Troucillus. Caesar called Procillus a ‘princeps Galliae provinciae’ while his father was the ‘princeps civitatis Helvii.’ Procillus was also listed amoung the legates and envoys in 58 BC. However, in 60 BC the Roman senate sent a small delegation to the Aedui, to oppose the threatened invasion of the Helvetii. One of the emissaries was Lucius Valerius Flaccus, a nephew of the Gaius Valerius Flaccus, who had granted Gaius Valerius Caburus's citizenship 23 years before. As there seems to have been a close family relationship, its very likely that Procillus accompanied the younger Flaccus on this mission, as an interpreter. Now if Procillus was a Celt, and clearly he was, why would Caesar take such pains to state that he had an extensive knowledge of the Gaulish language?

cmacq

08-01-2010, 05:22

Finally we have this.

Julius Caesar, De bello Gallico
Book 1, chapter 53
[4] Duae fuerunt Ariovisti uxores, una Sueba natione, quam domo secum eduxerat, altera Norica, regis Voccionis soror, quam in Gallia duxerat a fratre missam:

My Rendering
Of these were Ariouistos’ two wives, one was Swabian, who he educed from his native home, the other a Norican, a sister of king Vocian, who he married while in Gaul, she being sent there by her brother:

Bohn
Ariovistus had two wives, one a Suevan by nation, whom he brought with him from home; the other a Norican, the sister of king Vocion, whom he had married in Gaul, she having been sent [thither for that purpose] by her brother.

Again, these passages tell us only so much. Here one of his wives was called a Swabian, but when the text says 'educed at home,' only a placed situated east of the Rhine is suggested. Nowhere did Caesar actually call him a Swabian. However, another problem is 'quam domo secum eduxerat' could also mean 'who he acquired through conquest.'

Elmetiacos

08-01-2010, 19:51

However, another problem is 'quam domo secum eduxerat' could also mean 'who he acquired through conquest.'
Eh?

cmacq

08-01-2010, 21:54

Well it would, if pigs could fly!
or do you deny...

that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Kipling

Just wanted to see if you were sleeping. Domo can only mean 'conquest' as a verb, which in this case it was clearly a noun. In the passage above domo most likely was used in a wider sense to mean 'native place.' Thus, 'quam domo secum eduxerat' meant 'who he educed from his native place.' This was part of the contrasting statement where he was married one wife 'here,' and the other wife 'there.' Or that he married one before the fact, and the other thereafter. Regardless, none of this implies that Ariouistos was actually a Swabian. In fact it only says he was a German, and that could mean membership in one of three major ethnicities. Thus far we've only covered two of these.

cmacq

08-03-2010, 05:27

Although not mentioned by name this outlined the circumstances of Ariouistos rise to power in Gaul.

C. Julius Caesar, De bello Gallico
Book 1, chapter 31
[4] Hi cum tantopere de potentatu inter se multos annos contenderent, factum esse uti ab Arvernis Sequanisque Germani mercede arcesserentur. [5] Horum primo circiter milia XV Rhenum transisse; postea quam agros et cultum et copias Gallorum homines feri ac barbari adamassent, traductos plures; nunc esse in Gallia ad C et XX milium numerum. [6] Cum his Haeduos eorumque clientes semel atque iterum armis contendisse; magnam calamitatem pulsos accepisse, omnem nobilitatem, omnem senatum, omnem equitatum amisisse. [7] Quibus proeliis calamitatibusque fractos,

My rendering
[4 ] Concerning who was the greater authority they fought between themselves many years, then there occurred a deed whereby for pay the Arverni and the Sequani summoned the Germans. [5] At first about fifteen thousand crossed over the Rhine; because of the wealth of fields and farms these untamed and barbarous men became enamored, more were lead across and now in Gaul they numbered 120,000. [6] Then with the Aedui and their clients they twice clahed with arms, to be routed and suffer vast loss; their nobles, their senate, and their knights all swept away. [7] They were broken by this catastrophic defeat,

Bohn
After these had been violently struggling with one another for the superiority for many years, it came to pass that the Germans were called in for hire by the Arverni and the Sequani. That about 15,000 of them [i.e. of the Germans] had at first crossed the Rhine : but after that these wild and savage men had become enamored of the lands and the refinement and the abundance of the Gauls, more were brought over, that there were now as many as 120,000 of them in Gaul: that with these the Aedui and their dependents had repeatedly struggled in arms-that they had been routed, and had sustained a great calamity-had lost all their nobility, all their senate, all their cavalry. And that broken by such engagements and calamities,

This more or less mirrors Ariouistos' statement to Caesar found in chapter 44.

Julius Caesar, De bello Gallico
Book 1, chapter 44
[1]Ariovistus ad postulata Caesaris pauca respondit, de suis virtutibus multa praedicavit: [2] transisse Rhenum sese non sua sponte, sed rogatum et arcessitum a Gallis; non sine magna spe magnisque praemiis domum propinquosque reliquisse; sedes habere in Gallia ab ipsis concessas, obsides ipsorum voluntate datos; stipendium capere iure belli, quod victores victis imponere consuerint. [3] Non sese Gallis sed Gallos sibi bellum intulisse: omnes Galliae civitates ad se oppugnandum venisse ac contra se castra habuisse; eas omnes copias a se uno proelio pulsas ac superatas esse. [4] Si iterum experiri velint, se iterum paratum esse decertare; si pace uti velint, iniquum esse de stipendio recusare, quod sua voluntate ad id tempus pependerint.

My Rendering
[1]To Caesar’s demands Ariouistos answered a few things, to publicly state his virtue; [2] that he crossed over the Rhine not by his choice, rather he was summoned by the Gaul’s petition; that not without great expectations of reward did he leave kith and kin; that he was entertained in Gaul by their own concession, an occupation freely rendered; that tribute as a right of war, was traditionally imposed by victors upon the vanquished, [3] that the Gauls made war upon him, rather than the revise, as all the states of Gaul came to fight, encamped against him; that in a single battle he defeated all those forces. [4] That if they wished another test, he was ready to fight, yet if they wanted peace, it is not right to contest tribute, which had been freely paid until then.

Bohn
Ariovistus briefly replied to the demands of Caesar; but expatiated largely on his own virtues, "that he had crossed the Rhine not of his own accord, but on being invited and sent for by the Gauls; that he had not left home and kindred without great expectations and great rewards; that he had settlements in Gaul, granted by the Gauls themselves; that the hostages had been given by their good-will; that he took by right of war the tribute which conquerors are accustomed to impose on the conquered; that he had not made war upon the Gauls, but the Gauls upon him; that all the states of Gaul came to attack him, and had encamped against him; that all their forces had been routed and beaten by him in a single battle; that if they chose to make a second trial, he was ready to encounter them again; but if they chose to enjoy peace, it was unfair to refuse the tribute, which of their own free-will they had paid up to that time.

geala

08-03-2010, 08:19

cmacq, thank you very much for the infos and your statements. Some of the places I've visited, it's nice to see it again on the forum. :happy:

A possible hint (the only one) that Ariovist could have been from a Suebic gens is Plinius report (stated by Nepos) about the embassy of an unknown Suebic king in Rom in the year 62 BC. It is tempting but not sure to assume that Ariovist could have been this king.

I'm still a bit irritated by your term "Swabian". Isn't it better to speak of "Alemanni" and "Suebi" when referring to the development of the group settling in south-western Germany from the 3rd c. AD onwards?

As far as I know the direct line from "the" Suebi to the Alemanni (and therefore Swabians) is very much in doubt in recent theories. The people later known as Alemanni were a mixtum compositum of different small groups that settled in the south-west after the agri decumates were abandoned by the Romans. Evidence for a long-lasting movement of small groups from the Elbe-Saale area into the south-west comes from archaeological findings. We cannot speak of Alemanni before 289 AD, the first reliable account of these people. Arguments for this unspectacular late and new "nation-building" are also the name (meaning "all people") and the total absence of a traditional core and myths of origin of the Alemanni. The word "Suebi" was related to the Alemanni first in the late 5th c. AD.

cmacq

08-03-2010, 12:16

I'm still a bit irritated by your term "Swabian". Isn't it better to speak of "Alemanni" and "Suebi" when referring to the development of the group settling in south-western Germany from the 3rd c. AD onwards?

As far as I know the direct line from "the" Suebi to the Alemanni (and therefore Swabians) is very much in doubt in recent theories. The people later known as Alemanni were a mixtum compositum of different small groups that settled in the south-west after the agri decumates were abandoned by the Romans. Evidence for a long-lasting movement of small groups from the Elbe-Saale area into the south-west comes from archaeological findings. We cannot speak of Alemanni before 289 AD, the first reliable account of these people. Arguments for this unspectacular late and new "nation-building" are also the name (meaning "all people") and the total absence of a traditional core and myths of origin of the Alemanni. The word "Suebi" was related to the Alemanni first in the late 5th c. AD.

Walafrid Strabo, writing in the 9th century AD stated, concerning the people of Switzerland and surrounding regions, that only foreigners said they were Alamanni. While in their native tongue they called themselves the Suevi. Asinius Quadratus around 550 AD said the same.

Hannibal Khan the Great

08-04-2010, 05:30

Walafrid Strabo, writing in the 9th century AD stated, concerning the people of Switzerland and surrounding regions, that only foreigners said they were Alamanni. While in their native tongue they called themselves the Suevi. Asinius Quadratus around 550 AD said the same.

IIRC the term "Alamanni" was originally used to refer to the freemen warriors of the Suebi ("Suabiske Allamanne").

cmacq

08-04-2010, 11:36

IIRC the term "Alamanni" was originally used to refer to the freemen warriors of the Suebi ("Suabiske Allamanne").

Not sure, but is interesting as that seems to be the same as the Fra- or Fre- in Frank meaning 'freeman.'

cmacq

08-04-2010, 12:14

I'm still a bit irritated by your term "Swabian". Isn't it better to speak of "Alemanni" and "Suebi" when referring to the development of the group settling in south-western Germany from the 3rd c. AD onwards?

No, I think its important to address the Alemanni as Swabian; just as the Marcomannii were Swabians; both users of forms of a very early west Germanic, that later became OHG.

cmacq

08-05-2010, 03:23

A possible hint (the only one) that Ariovist could have been from a Suebic gens is Plinius report (stated by Nepos) about the embassy of an unknown Suebic king in Rom in the year 62 BC. It is tempting but not sure to assume that Ariovist could have been this king.

Thank you for providing Pliny, as we know this has been the link between the Swaboz and Ariouistos. But maybe we should look a bit closer, as they say, 'the devils in the detail?’ What exactly, did Pliny write?

cmacq

08-06-2010, 02:06

OK, this what Pliny wrote concerning the gift of a Swabian king.

Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia
Book 2, chapter 67
idem nepos de septentrionali circuitu tradit quinto metello celeri, afrani in consulatu collegae, sed tum galliae proconsuli, indos a rege sueborum dono datos, qui ex india commercii causa navigantes tempestatibus essent in germaniam abrepti.

My Render
Likewise, about a northern passage Cornelius Nepos cites Quintus Metellus Celer, a consular colleague of Lucius Afranius, yet in fact when proconsul of Cisalpine Gaul, a Swabian ruler gave a gift made by of Hindi, as when shipped sailing from India as to trade, it they wrecked upon Germany, due to storms.

Bostock
The same Cornelius Nepos, when speaking of the northern circumnavigation, tells us that Q. Metellus Celer, the colleague of L. Afranius in the consulship, but then a proconsul in Gaul, had a present made to him by a king of the Suevi, of certain Indians, who sailing from India for the purpose of commerce, had been driven by tempests into Germany.

As we deconstruct Pliny it quickly becomes apparent that he was using this antidotal information to support a world view proposed by Hecataeus, Eratosthenes, Posidonius, Strabo, and Pomponius. See below. Using this view, one would think that a ship might sail from India, northwest around the globe to arrive along the northern coast of Germania. Thus, more or less a direct sea voyage.

However, we know a direct northern sea passage is very unlikely. So right off we must decide if the account is real or fabricated. So that we may advance this line of evidence, lets say that the story Pliny accredited to Nepos, who in turn cites Metellus Celer is not a fabrication. However, in order to do this, we must outline it and then consider if what the story says, could possibly have happened.

The outline is as follows:
• A statement that the event occurred between 62 and 60 BC, but no latter than 59 BC, when Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer was proconsul of Gallia Cisalpina.
• The event concerned the gift from a Swabian prince given to Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer.
• The gift was present to Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer in Gallia Cisalpina and not Gaul.
• The gift had been manufactured in India.
• The gift was a number individuals from India.
• The gift as trading cargo had been shipped from India.
• These Hindi had been on a trading mission from India.
• The ship that carried the gift was shipwrecked due to storms.
• The ship that carried the Hindi was shipwrecked due to storms.
• The shipwreck occurred along the coast of Germania.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Worldmaphedo.jpg

Lvcretivs

08-06-2010, 05:02

Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia
Book 2, chapter 67
idem nepos de septentrionali circuitu tradit quinto metello celeri, afrani in consulatu collegae, sed tum galliae proconsuli, indos a rege sueborum dono datos, qui ex india commercii causa navigantes tempestatibus essent in germaniam abrepti.

My Render
Likewise, about a northern passage Cornelius Nepos cites Quintus Metellus Celer, a consular colleague of Lucius Afranius, yet in fact when proconsul of Cisalpine Gaul, a Swabian ruler gave a gift made by the Hindi, as when shipped from India as trade, it wrecked upon Germany, due to storms.

That's an interesting take on this apocryphal little story, but allow me just a little bit of constructive criticism ..., your translation seems to me a bit contorted and geared towards a rather specific interpretation ;) Don't misunderstand me, but I'd rather accept the conventional reading that the - supposedly enslaved - stranded Indians themselves were presented to Quintus Metellus Celer as a gift ('quinto metello celeri[...]indos[...]dono datos, qui ex india commercii causa navigantes tempestatibus essent in germaniam abrepti.') - there seems to have been no exotic trading cargo involved ('qui [...] navigantes' and 'tempestatibus [...] abrepti' cannot really grammatically refer to 'dono', but must refer to 'indos[...]dono datos').

cmacq

08-06-2010, 11:47

All I can say is, I've been very tired lately. And yes, I see my errors, now. Thanks for correcting me, with a much clearer head, I must agree with you.

Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia
Book 2, chapter 67
idem nepos de septentrionali circuitu tradit quinto metello celeri, afrani in consulatu collegae, sed tum galliae proconsuli, indos a rege sueborum dono datos, qui ex india commercii causa navigantes tempestatibus essent in germaniam abrepti.

My Render
Likewise, about a northern passage Cornelius Nepos cites Quintus Metellus Celer, a consular colleague of Lucius Afranius, yet in fact when proconsul of Cisalpine Gaul, a Swabian ruler gave a gift of Hindi, as when sailing from India to trade, they wrecked upon Germany, due to storms.

Sorry for the mistake. I will admit when I make mistakes they are typically big. Now Nepos' Hindi-gift story becomes even stranger. Still, given the complex nature of Classical commerce, it is concevable that several Hindi, on a trade mission to procure amber in the Baltic, were indeed shipwrecked on the northern shore of greater Germania. However, for this to have occurred, regarding the statement about a northern passage, we must conclude that Pliny, Nepos, or Celer assumed these Hindi had sailed directly from India.

Although, using a southern route, it could have happened, but it would have been somewhat unlikely. Nonetheless, if they had, I believe this trading mission would represent the longest recorded voyage in antiquity. Another, yet slightly more likely possibility would be that the Hindi traveled overland, from the Indus to the Baltic, and somehow procured passage on an unknown type of trading vessel, where thereafter they were shipwrecked.

However, cutting to the chase and gift-giver, Pliny seems to be referring to a Swabian ruler who lived within Germania, somewhat near the coast and what was known as the Suevi Sea. This would be near the center of the Swaboz/Jastorf culture in the lower Elbe basin area. This would also be somewhat supported by the nature of the overland trade network, or Amber Roads, leading south from the Baltic, the Elbe basin south into Bohemia, to Noria, and farther to Gallia Cisalpina.

At the time Nepos' Hindi-gift story is said to have occurred Ariouistos had been living in southeast Gaul for about a decade. Although possibly an argument could be made for a route from the Baltic, to the Elbe, Main, Rhine, Alsace, Rhone and on Gallia Transalpina. But, from the Alsace to Gallia Cisalpina would have been out-of-the-way. Thus, its unlikely he was the ruler mentioned in the story. So we're still having trouble finding a contemporary, or near contemporary source, that specifically says he was a Swaboz. Yet in contrast, Caesar makes it quite clear he was a king of Germans.

I'll make the corrections on the above post, but for now must run.