Kicking Roman Butt

[Antonius Lucretius]

The question of who was a Celt and who was a German in the area around the Rhine river is a difficult one. One thing is sure: the "frontier" on the Rhine only existed in Julius Caesar's mind, and it was probably less the result of ignorance on his part than political calculation.
Let's not forget also that, at that time the celtic cultural area extended far into Germany and central Europe.
So, in Marius' times, those Cimbrii and Teutones actually came from an area close to the celtic cultural zone..
The name "Teutones" relates to the Celtic god Teutates, the divinity protecting an individual tribe. It seems, as far as we know and we know little, that each Celtic tribe had it's own personal Teutates.
Also: curiously, the "german" leader that Caesar defeated at the beginning of his conquest of Gaul was called Ariovistus, and that is a celtic name...
Ancient authors, however, described the Cimbi and Teutones as Germans.
I think, that, for once, the 19th century historians were right in describing these people simply as "barbarians nations from Northern Europe"
The difference that appeared later between Gallo-romans, i.e. romanized Celts, and Germans was in fact the result of the creation of that frontier on the Rhine by Rome. Before that the Rhine was what all great rivers are, a means of communication and exchange.

[ghandi]

@ Antonius

The question of who was a Celt and who was a German in the area around the Rhine river is a difficult one. One thing is sure: the "frontier" on the Rhine only existed in Julius Caesar's mind, and it was probably less the result of ignorance on his part than political calculation.

That´s right, when considering the propagandistic amount of Bellum Gallicum. When trying to differentiate cultures by archaeological means one get the impression that rivers like the Elbe where much like modern motorways! But this river was deep in germanic territory.
For that period, we have archaeological evidence that the celtic settlements in South and Western Germany were withdrawing or already gone. To make matters worse we hear of celtic tribes, who were poud of their germanic origin, does this mean that they kept any kind germanic cultural material or social behavior? Are there any archaeological traces of this?

Let's not forget also that, at that time the celtic cultural area extended far into Germany and central Europe.

As already said, when Caesar encountered the suebian (and other germanic) tribes under Ariovist it happened when large movements of germanic tribes have taken place and were still going on. The celtic domination of central Europe was long gone. Some of the last celtic areas in modern Czechia and Bohemia were about to be occupied with suebian tribes in the next 50 years. The archaelogical traces of celtic culture are vanishing more and more in the area in question.

So, in Marius' times, those Cimbrii and Teutones actually came from an area close to the celtic cultural zone..

It is an agreement by scientist that the area from which the Cimbri and Teutones originate from is lower and middle Jutland. When the roman navy explored the nothern sea coast in 5 AD they encountered tribes, who still bore these names. By then, the romans must have been sure from where they come a 100 years before. Jutland is far away from the most northern centres of celtic influence ( Glauberg, Hessia and maybe Snippenburg, Lower Saxony) other then some forms of cultural hardware (ceramic forms, earl weapons, fibulae).

The name "Teutones" relates to the Celtic god Teutates, the divinity protecting an individual tribe. It seems, as far as we know and we know little, that each Celtic tribe had it's own personal Teutates.
Also: curiously, the "german" leader that Caesar defeated at the beginning of his conquest of Gaul was called Ariovistus, and that is a celtic name...

Excuse me, but I never heard this theory, where did you get it?
Als far as I know, there is no hint that Ariovist is celtic name. Actually all names recorded by roman writers are romanized (like Arminius) and we do not know their exact germanic names. Especially Ariovist is shown as a germanic leader with uncommon authority among germanic tribes (he got the title "rex" by the roman senat) who emphazised racial differences of germanics and celts.

Ancient authors, however, described the Cimbi and Teutones as Germans.
I think, that, for once, the 19th century historians were right in describing these people simply as "barbarians nations from Northern Europe"

The ancient authors were regarding to the geographical facts, see above.
It is hard to say that there was any serious scientific work, beside of national interest in the 19th ct. Using the word "barbarian" is to use the roman point of view and does simplify things which are more complex.

The difference that appeared later between Gallo-romans, i.e. romanized Celts, and Germans was in fact the result of the creation of that frontier on the Rhine by Rome. Before that the Rhine was what all great rivers are, a means of communication and exchange.

The romans were well aware of the fact that the germanics were much different to the celts and Caesar obviously wanted warn the roman authorities (apart from his propagandistic aims).
There are great differences between contemporary german and celtic cultures. To name a few: The celts were able to build oppida with a sophisticated infrastructure, in and propably around them (hence oppida civilisation). They had centers of administrations and trade. They had a higly stratified society. Their habit of moving around on the search of new settlement areas was already a thing of the past (that´s why the helvetian decision of moving caused considerable annoyment).

The germanic, on the contrary, had no such centers of civilization (beside of Mattium, maybe a hillfort, of the Chatti). The only tribal federation who had a kingdom was that of te Markomanni and Quadi. On the whole, the germanic societies were quite primitive or at least proto-democratic (for the free men). Only by roman influence in later times there is developing an upper strata. The movements of tribes or tribal federations was going on right into the end of the roman western empire.

On thing is of great importance: Celtic and germanic languages are most different, even if they both originate from indogermanic (or indoeuropean) language. The consequences of this is obvious.


ghandi

[Antonius Lucretius]

[url:35w5w3jl]http://www.gaeltacht.info/gael_deutsch.html[/url]

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

Adrianople, Tracia, Dacia, Makedonia, Attica, Peloponese, Epirus, Illyricum, Venetos, Eugenius, Roma, &c...

Right, Claudius, Aurelian and Stilicho kicked some tervingii butts, but they were more than able to give them the kicks back, specially since they kept doing silly things among themselves (liking killing Stilicho, among many others).

Nod. Goths.

BTW, while many say Goths were Germanic, some mothern authors are defending the thesis that they were Baltics. One of those is Jurate Rosales. She presents some interesting historical and linguistic evidence defending that hipothesis, based on how latin evolved into spanish in old Hispania, and Jordanes's and Alphonse's X "The Wise" of Castilla accounts of Visigoths History.

As spanish and lover of languages, those arguments look pretty convincing, but you know, linguistics are fragile for some things. Balts had a long and ample culture, and I am sure they were intermixed with Germanic tribes, as they were mixed with others.

I'd love to setup a discussion about this, and see what we can find out and clarify.

ave atque vale!

[Robert Vermaat]

BTW, while many say Goths were Germanic, some mothern authors are defending the thesis that they were Baltics.

Well, no real surprise there because the Gothic tribes entered the Baltic region from Scandinavia and stayed there for quite a long time. There will have been some influence both ways I guess. But the first groups were Scandinavian, not Baltic. later on in their history, the Goth will have seen an influx of all kinds of groups, such as other germanic tribes, Huns and Romans. I have no doubt that there may have been Baltic influences, but to claim that all the Goths were really Baltic seems a bit over the top. If so, than the Baltic tribes spoke a germanic languange, as Gothis seems to be just that.

[Tarbicus]

Goths? Be afraid ....
[url:3grwia7s]http://fanboy.net/ushi04/P1310049.jpg[/url]

Be very afraid hock: Do you think Rome had a problem with them hanging out by the tombs along the Appian Way?

the Goth will have seen an influx of all kinds of groups,

Aye - the Cure, Sisters of Mercy, Marilyn Manson..... shocking.

[Robert Vermaat]

Scaaaaary! :x

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

BTW, while many say Goths were Germanic, some mothern authors are defending the thesis that they were Baltics.

Well, no real surprise there because the Gothic tribes entered the Baltic region from Scandinavia and stayed there for quite a long time. There will have been some influence both ways I guess. But the first groups were Scandinavian, not Baltic. later on in their history, the Goth will have seen an influx of all kinds of groups, such as other germanic tribes, Huns and Romans. I have no doubt that there may have been Baltic influences, but to claim that all the Goths were really Baltic seems a bit over the top. If so, than the Baltic tribes spoke a germanic languange, as Gothis seems to be just that.

I'd say that baltic tribes would have spoken a baltic language. We know that baltic languages are very ancient and distinct from other indoeuropean groups.

I am not pushing in favor of this thesis, but I am aware that there's a strong germanic-phile litherature behind our studies of the area. Modern Lithuanian authors are as likely to be biased as current and traditional German authors. With the difference that we understand proto-Indoeuropean cultures and have lots of archaeology those didn't have in the XIX and XX centuries...

The (in-)famous Ulfila's bible being the only historical source about a supposedly 'Goths' language, it's a very weak position to base a germanic origin of the Goths, despising all other possibilities based on geographical and historical accounts by Jordanes, Orosius, Zosimus or Alphonse X, to mention the most relevant...

[Robert Vermaat]

I'd say that baltic tribes would have spoken a baltic language.

Well, that settles it, Baltic languages are different from Gothic languages.

The (in-)famous Ulfila's bible being the only historical source about a supposedly 'Goths' language, it's a very weak position to base a germanic origin of the Goths

I would say it is an excellent position. You're mixing things up I'm afraid. This bible is not so much a historical source as it is a linguistical source, and as such it identifies the Gothic language clearly in favour of a Germanic-related language. Not similar, mind you, but as a related group. Baltic languages, afaik, are different. And besides the Ulfila bible, there are of course name, inscriptions, etc.

Apart from that, the said source is not used to pinpoint the geographical origin of the Goths. That's mostly done from Jordanes et al. All these sources all point to a Scandinavian origin in however mythical terms. I my opinion, other sources aopart from Ulfila are by no means ignored, and not in the least to 'hide' a baltic origin.

I am aware that there's a strong germanic-phile litherature behind our studies of the area

Be that as it may, I kinda resent such discussions. For mentioning such a thing immediately politicices the discussion and makes it impossible to exchange ideas on an impartial footing, "because the other party is such-and-such". Germano-phile or not, the discussion can only be scientifically sound if it's a good discussion. Apart from that, I think that these days, Gothic studies are not that tarnished any longer by germanophile or baltophile or hispanophile sentiments.

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

I'd say that baltic tribes would have spoken a baltic language.

Well, that settles it, Baltic languages are different from Gothic languages.

I think it's far from settled.

If Goths were from the Baltic and in the Baltic, Baltic languages were spoken (we know this because they were spoken until the XVIII Century in Prusia, and are spoken in Luthuania and Latvia even nowadays), then it's easier to see that the Goths would speak a baltic language, rather than suppose that the Goths were Germanic speaking people, and womehow the Baltic people weren't related to the tribes that lived there (and, somehow, magically happened to be there).

All I am saying is, to say that the Goths were German because some said so, ignoring other possibilities just because, is not a logically satisfying procedure.

The (in-)famous Ulfila's bible being the only historical source about a supposedly 'Goths' language, it's a very weak position to base a germanic origin of the Goths

I would say it is an excellent position. You're mixing things up I'm afraid. This bible is not so much a historical source as it is a linguistical source, and as such it identifies the Gothic language clearly in favour of a Germanic-related language. Not similar, mind you, but as a related group. Baltic languages, afaik, are different. And besides the Ulfila bible, there are of course name, inscriptions, etc.

Alright, I admit, I was meaning a linguistic source. The thing is, according to authors, the percentage of germanic-related words in only slightly higher than baltic-related words. I know I read that frequency analysis somewhere, but I cannot find the reference right now.

Apart from that, the said source is not used to pinpoint the geographical origin of the Goths. That's mostly done from Jordanes et al. All these sources all point to a Scandinavian origin in however mythical terms. I my opinion, other sources aopart from Ulfila are by no means ignored, and not in the least to 'hide' a baltic origin.

I distrust any source that hides others, be baltic or anything else.

I am aware that there's a strong germanic-phile litherature behind our studies of the area

Be that as it may, I kinda resent such discussions. For mentioning such a thing immediately politicices the discussion and makes it impossible to exchange ideas on an impartial footing, "because the other party is such-and-such". Germano-phile or not, the discussion can only be scientifically sound if it's a good discussion. Apart from that, I think that these days, Gothic studies are not that tarnished any longer by germanophile or baltophile or hispanophile sentiments.

i hope it is so. Not that discerning their origins with complete certainty would throw more knowledge to their culture, but different understandings of which cultural aspects can be considered, can allow to make connections from primary and secondary sources that may be disregarded as "fabulous" within the current (or late mid-XX) flow of thought about the subject.

I think the authors that propose a baltic cultural affiliation for the goths (with germanic connections, but with a different and distinct linguistical and cultural traits) present an interesting linguistic and historical case through many historical sources, and present an interesting hypothesis that may help to understand things that aren't well connected nowadays.

PS- as an aside, it's pretty clear that there was a pangermanic feeling about linguistics and indoeuropean studies, and it may be diminishing, but a host of linguists currently working on this subkect are from germanic-speaking languages, and have a big influence within the international community, even when throwing hypothesis... science is also made of these kind of "paradigms", it's part of the method... denying the humane dimension is vain, anyway. i just wish I knew more...

[Comerus Gallus]

This Forum lacks talk of "Nice Roman BOOTIES!!!"... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Chariovalda]

PS- as an aside, it's pretty clear that there was a pangermanic feeling about linguistics and indoeuropean studies, and it may be diminishing, but a host of linguists currently working on this subkect are from germanic-speaking languages, and have a big influence within the international community, even when throwing hypothesis...

Point here "there was"...if anything, archaeologists and linguists after WWII have sometimes been excessively cautious concerning "things Germanic" (or just partly Germanic).

As Jurate Rosales appears to have published only in Spanish (judging by a quick Google search), I find it hard to judge her arguments. The theory is interesting, but only if there are, indeed, undeniable Baltic elements in Gothic - they might just as well be completely absent, for all I know.

There is actually another interesting theory concerning the origin of the Goths that, while considering them a (mostly) "Germanic" people, feels that their actual ethnogenesis was a little more complicated than the old conventional view. One of the supporters of this theory is the Dutch historical linguist Frederik Kortlandt, who wrote an article "The Origin of the Goths", which can be read here:

http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art198e.pdf

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

As Jurate Rosales appears to have published only in Spanish (judging by a quick Google search), I find it hard to judge her arguments. The theory is interesting, but only if there are, indeed, undeniable Baltic elements in Gothic - they might just as well be completely absent, for all I know.

Agreed. As I am not an expret in neither baltic languages (just started slowly learning lithuanian) nor the gothic language presented in Ulfila's bible, I cannot provide. She does present some itneresting linguistic arguments that point in the baltic direction, but they may be accidental or even just linguistic loans or influx of words... however, I think it's a path to pursue, to see where it goes...

There is actually another interesting theory concerning the origin of the Goths that, while considering them a (mostly) "Germanic" people, feels that their actual ethnogenesis was a little more complicated than the old conventional view. One of the supporters of this theory is the Dutch historical linguist Frederik Kortlandt, who wrote an article "The Origin of the Goths", which can be read here:

http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art198e.pdf

I'll read it carefully, thanks a bunch.

OTOH, I have found places where connections with the Jatt, plus a PhD thesis that exposes that Jordanes's and Cassiodorus's accounts were mostly made up from greco-roman elements.

there are other results if you google for 'goths' and 'jatt' (or simply 'jat'), which apparently are/were of indo-iranian origins.

Here's the URI: http://p203.ezboard.com/fjattincboard30 ... D=77.topic

I'll keep searching, anyway...

best regards,

[Robert Vermaat]

Thanks Chariovalda, I knew I could trust you to shed some light on this!

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

Thanks Chariovalda, I knew I could trust you to shed some light on this!

well, the pictures are of dubious historical authenticity (at least for V Century Goths!) ;-) )

I've read Mr. (Dr?) Kortlandt's article about the origins. Some of his points do seem valid. I wish I could get a hand on the sources he cites. Does he have more articles available on the Internet that we can read about this subject?

thanks

Edit: OK, I have read it again, and some his points now seem *very* valid. Many of the connections ring true, however I'd love to be able to read his references. OTOH he also uses linguistic examples that, while very interesting, add little information beyond the anecdotical: the Comparative Method cannot validate linguistic arguments between closely (geographically, at least) languages, only between extremes. What is presented as proof of a common origin through a word may simply be a previous loan from one languages to others. Nevertheless, he poses some sounding proposals. I wish he would have elaborated further into the topic. Thx.