Printable View
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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.Quote:
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.
Again, of the Boii Tacitus later says when speeking of the distant past...
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
The next may expound a bit more on Caesar's story.
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.Quote:
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’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.
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 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.Quote:
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].
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/imag...en_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.
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).
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/imag..._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.
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...lseburg-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/med...6585/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).
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.
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/wikiped...rg_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.
This is Strabo on the deportation of Celtic Germans
Quote:
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/wikiped...0px-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.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSleepyOne
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
I am, however, not entirely sure my german teacher appreciates me reading this during her lessons, so...
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. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
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.
I thought the whole point about Kuhn's Nordwestblock was that it wasn't supposed to be either Celtic or Germanic...?
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSleepyOne
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._age_house.jpg
Byre House
Thank you!Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
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...
What do we really know about Ario-uistos.
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.Quote:
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,
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Here we are also given a brief review of Ariouistos.
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.Quote:
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.
Another important section is found in chapter 47.
Quote:
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?
Finally we have this.
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.'Quote:
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.
Eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Well it would, if pigs could fly!
or do you deny...
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.Quote:
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
Although not mentioned by name this outlined the circumstances of Ariouistos rise to power in Gaul.
This more or less mirrors Ariouistos' statement to Caesar found in chapter 44.Quote:
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,
Quote:
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.