What are the Cimbri?

[Lvcretivs]

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]

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]

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]

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/origin...s_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.

[Phalanx300]

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.


That there are slight differences between Germanic and Celtic people isn't something I'm doubting. Their origins are different so there should be some difference when going genetically.

[paullus]

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]

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.

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. At this point the geographic meaning of Germania remained, but the ethnic application began to shift from east Celtic/Noric to west Germanic speaking. As for genes; I'm sure the rapid Swabian expansion out of the lower Elbe basin represents significant incorporation and conversion of native populations, be they Celtic or otherwise.

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. Thanks

In fact, I'm not at all sure what you're implying?

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. In other words the Romans didn't say the Belgae were Swabian, which is what you may thinking of as Germanic or German speaking. Its seems as time passed some Celtic tribes in Germania became more and more Swabian in culture except in speech. The Romans also removed by force or relocated most the population immediately east of, to west of the Rhine in the late 1st century BC. The Romans were directly or indirectly responsible for a lot of population change within Germania. People only make this subject more confusing than need be, by interjecting modern politics. Many are also confused by bad English translations made over 100 years ago, which have very strong Deutsches Kaiserreich political leanings.

[Cyclops]

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]

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.

We shall see.

[Frostwulf]

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/showt...=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/showt...=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/showt...=1#post2492033
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2493091
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2494704
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=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. Thanks

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.

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]

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]

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.