Southern Britain was German in pre-Roman times ?

[caiusbeerquitius]

That wouldn´t surprise me at all. It´s only Ceasar who says that on the right side of the Rhine there are only Germans and on the left side only Gauls. All archaeological sources clearly contradict that statement...

That's right but it's modern interpretations that Gaul = gallic speaking and Germania = germanic speaking which are wrong.

I wasn´t talking about languages at all.

Caesar writes in terms of geographic areas, not linguistic areas. He writes that three languages are spoken in Gaul. We shouldn't conclude that everyone in Germania spoke a german language.

I didn´t conclude this. For comparison Caesar:

I. All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws. The river Garonne separates the Gauls from the Aquitani; the Marne and the Seine separate them from the Belgae. Of all these, the Belgae are the bravest, because they are furthest from the civilization and refinement of [our] Province, and merchants least frequently resort to them, and import those things which tend to effeminate the mind; and they are the nearest to the Germans, who dwell beyond the Rhine , with whom they are continually waging war

As far as I can see, Caesar says that all the tribes he is talking about differ in culture, and then he names where the geographical limits of their territories are. The Germans dwell beyond the Rhine.
When reading this it is also useful to remember when Caesar wrote this, and what his political goals were at that time.

It might be interesting to know what these "Germans" spoke, however. If you suggest they didn´t speak Germanic languages, what would you suggest instead?

[authun]

DNA studies actually can tell you if a group of population entered Britain 10.000 years ago or just 2.000 years ago, even if they shared the same haplogroup in 8.000 years for sure they have developed into different subclades, for instance R1b1c4 developed some 3.000 years ago and is probably a good marker of Basque population.

It is still somewhat optimistic to hope that dating is that precise. Hurles' date for R1b1c6 is 1650-3450 yrs bp. There's a lot of history between 1450 BC and 350 AD. You are correct that it is becoming possible to separate R1b1c into regions and dates, but there's still a long way to go. It is terribly frustrating but, all we can do is wait.

Robert's point however is that these studies rely on inferring population movements in the past by studying the frequency of markers in modern day populations. We think this works, but we can't be sure. The whole out of Iberia/Basque yDNA hypothesis is based on 3 assumptions, none of which is anything to do with yDNA. One of the assumptions is that the mtDNA component of the Basques has the lowest neolithic component of any western european population. This suggests a large paleolithic component remains. However, as we can now start to study ancient mtDNA, this theory can be checked. In 2006, González proudly announced that 'It has been demonstrated, for the first time, that Basques show the oldest lineages in Europe for subhaplogroup U8a. Some like to conclude that this shows the hypothesis is true, other point out that it is actually only 1% of population. It all depends on how optimistic the reader feels.

... the problem for historical research is in the sample, it is very difficult to select a large one that is also representative.

Yes, with such small samples, the quality of the sample is everything.

best
harry A

[Conal]

I. All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws. The river Garonne separates the Gauls from the Aquitani; the Marne and the Seine separate them from the Belgae. Of all these, the Belgae are the bravest, because they are furthest from the civilization and refinement of [our] Province, and merchants least frequently resort to them, and import those things which tend to effeminate the mind; and they are the nearest to the Germans, who dwell beyond the Rhine , with whom they are continually waging war

As far as I can see, Caesar says that all the tribes he is talking about differ in culture, and then he names where the geographical limits of their territories are. The Germans dwell beyond the Rhine.
When reading this it is also useful to remember when Caesar wrote this, and what his political goals were at that time.

It might be interesting to know what these "Germans" spoke, however. If you suggest they didn´t speak Germanic languages, what would you suggest instead?

My interpretation of that passage is that the Belgae are the same culture but less affected by contact with the Med. My interpretation is that these were conferderations of tribes rather than differing cultures.

The language thing is puzzling as it could be down to dialect

also interesting is;
Strabo says this ;

"Now the parts beyond the Rhenus, immediately after the country of the Celti, slope towards the east and are occupied by the Germans, who, though they vary slightly from the Celtic stock in that they are wilder, taller, and have yellower hair, are in all other respects similar, for in build, habits, and modes of life they are such as I have said the Celti are. And I also think that it was for this reason that the Romans assigned to them the name "Germani," as though they wished to indicate thereby that they were "genuine" Galatae, for in the language of the Romans "germani" means "genuine.""

Put simply they were saying that they were the genuine Celts ... the originators, the Celti di tutti Celti. Its not possible to say this side of the Rhine Celts that side Germans. So the term Germani when used by the ancients may have meant an entirely different thing that one might suppose.

[Aryaman2]

According to Pliny the Elder there were some "Germanici" living in Southern Spain (NH III, 25), there was something that make them clearly different from the Celtic populations of their entourage.

[authun]

I wasn´t talking about languages at all.

No, but you were talking about the polarised interpretation of Caesar, Gauls to the left, Germans to the right.

We know La Tene archaeology for example transcends the Rhine, but it tells us little about the language, which is what this thread is about. Oppenheimer's suggestion is the that Belgae spoke a germanic language and offers, as evidence, Caesar's statement that some of the Belgae were 'sprung from the Germans'. I suggest that here, Germans means someone from Germania and not necessarily a speaker of a germanic language.

As far as I can see, Caesar says that all the tribes he is talking about differ in culture, and then he names where the geographical limits of their territories are. The Germans dwell beyond the Rhine.

No, Caesar also writes of 'Germans, who dwell on this side of the Rhine' (Book II, Ch. 3) as well as 'Germans, who dwell beyond the Rhine'. In Chapter 4 he writes that the greater part of the Belgae were sprung, from the Germans, and that having crossed the Rhine at an early period, on account of the fertility of the country, and had driven out the Gauls who inhabited those regions;'

This is what Oppenheimer uses to state that the Belgae may have spoken a germanic language. My point is that just because they crossed the Rhine from Germania, it doesn't mean that they spoke german, as celtic languages too were spoken in Germania. According to Tacitus, Caesar thought Gauls too lived in Germania:

'That the Gauls were in times past more puissant and formidable, is related by the Prince of authors, the deified Julius [ie Julius Caesar] and hence it is probable that they too have passed into Germany.' and 'The region therefore between the Hercynian Forest and the rivers Moenus [ie Main] and Rhine, was occupied by the Helvetians; as was that beyond it by the Boians, both nations of Gaul.'

It might be interesting to know what these "Germans" spoke, however. If you suggest they didn´t speak Germanic languages, what would you suggest instead?

Place name evidence and accounts such as the above would suggest Celtic languages were spoken in the south, possibly as far north as the Main. There may have been another language group, now lost, between the celtic speaking areas and the germanic speaking areas in the north. There are many theories such as Kuhn's Nordwestblock - Hypothese.

best
Harry Amphlett

[caiusbeerquitius]

We know La Tene archaeology for example transcends the Rhine, but it tells us little about the language, which is what this thread is about.

Ahh. O.K. I though it was about

Southern Britain was German in pre-Roman times ?

as proposed by Oppenheimer, and what we would make of it. It wasn´t clear to me, that this was only about language-historical argumentation.

I was referring only to Caesar´s statement in book I, which I quoted above in English. Should have clarified that. The rest appeared to me as wild speculation, since I was always thinking: "How could Caesar know? That is just an explanation made up by him for something he´s not - nor can be - actually sure about."

And, as I said above:

When reading this it is also useful to remember when Caesar wrote this, and what his political goals were at that time.

Which is an answer to:

No, Caesar also writes of 'Germans, who dwell on this side of the Rhine' (Book II, Ch. 3) as well as 'Germans, who dwell beyond the Rhine'

As far as languages are useful for the definition of tribes and / or cultures:

IMO we should define what we are talking about: Tribes? Genetically "pure" groups of peoples? Sounds very Kossinna-esk to me.
And as we see from the "Celtic" world alone, starting in the Hallstatt-period: The "Celts" are not a genetically or culturally homogeneous group. So where is this leading to? And do we really want to use languages as a means for identifying which culture is which? Isn´t it possible that two groups share all aspects of a culture but the language? It nowadays certainly is, and it was so in many cases throughout history.

We know La Tene archaeology for example transcends the Rhine, but it tells us little about the language, which is what this thread is about. Oppenheimer's suggestion is the that Belgae spoke a germanic language and offers, as evidence, Caesar's statement that some of the Belgae were 'sprung from the Germans'. I suggest that here, Germans means someone from Germania and not necessarily a speaker of a germanic language.

For all I can say it appears to me that Caesar is simply making a lot of this stuff up while writing to explain any statements he made somewhere else, and which were also made up. IMO these staements should not be seen as valid sources for such questions. (I mean statements where C. is trying to explain how something came into being, how peoples moved around during their history, etc.). Even if C. met an old Batavian who told him"Oh, once upon a time we moved here from the other side of the river where now the Germans dwell", that statement mustn´t have necessarily been true. Maybe it was just an individual a long time ago who then happened to become a tribal leader or so, an event which could have influenced the memory of the whole tribe. I´d say for people´s migrations we should rather stick to archaeology, to archaeology, and to archaeology. If we THEN find parallels with some Ancient writer, well, fine. And if we can´t explain something with archaeology right away, I don´t see why we should start to evade to other theories which are far from being provable. Sometimes it is sufficient to wait, and things resolve themselves through findings or methods one hasn´t thought of.

So:
1. The language a tribe speaks does not make the tribe "Celtic" or "German".
2. What makes a tribe "Celtic" or "German"?
3. Are these sensible terms for investigation of the problem?
4. Isn´t just each tribe a cultural entity, and shouldn´t we just stop thinking in such narrow mental limits as "Celts" and "Germans"?
5. What good is it to speak of "Germans" and "Celts" in these matters? Does it enlighten us in any way, or is it just an anachronistic question raised by early modern minds to be answered by modern minds as ars gratia artis?

IMO the nationalistic pre- and 19th c. theories still have far too much influence on the historical sciences of our days. What was then used to justify national states, is now becoming a question that seems worthwhile to be answered, but, in fact, isn´t. It might be more interesting to investigate the movement of the different tribes as cultural entities, and then maybe many similarities and differences between the tribes might explain themselves.
That would make the initial question:

Southern Britain was German in pre-Roman times ?

superfluous. We could then ask

Southern Britain was Batavian in pre-Roman times?

which would remove a lot of tension from the question, and make it more worthwhile to answer. And more interesting, since a lot of unnecessary ballast would not have to be taken along the road of finding an answer.

[authun]

Perhaps some of us have made short cuts because we are familiar with Oppenheimer's argument.

There has been a debate for some years now about the nature of the transition from roman britain to anglo saxon england. How much was due to immigration and how much was due to cultural influences. You see this argument everywhere.

One problem has always been the language. How did english replace brythonic if only a few germanic speakers came? Those who favoured the low numbers model used to claim that a dominant male elite could have forced this upon the brythonic speaking britons. However, the dominant male elite model doesn't really explain this. Why for example are most of the placenames english?

Oppenheimer's proposal is that the language didn't need to change because when the romans came, the population were already speaking english. Part of his argument is that the belgae spoke a germanic language.

best
Harry Amphlett

[authun]

It might be more interesting to investigate the movement of the different tribes as cultural entities, ...

We still have the same problem when we do this. The current debate is often portrayed as a celtic - anglo saxon debate, but in reality, we see it for earlier periods too. It goes back to the neolithic and the debate whether the introduction farming or the indo european languages were demic or cultural.

We have it with the celtic speakers too. The Brigantes in the north of england for example, show a good deal of continuity with the bronze age, but also show some la tene features. Their neighbours to the east are the Parisii of east Yorkshire. The archaeology of this area shows a sudden discontinuity around 450BC and we see the introduction of square ditch barrow burials, chariot burials and other features which are shared on the Continent. They also share the name of a continental tribe.

But we have the same arguments with archaeologists like Higham suggesting that the Parisii of east yorkshire are not necessarily immigrants but simply adopted the practices of their continental counterparts.

best
Harry Amphlett

[Conal]

1. The language a tribe speaks does not make the tribe "Celtic" or "German".
2. What makes a tribe "Celtic" or "German"?
3. Are these sensible terms for investigation of the problem?
4. Isn´t just each tribe a cultural entity, and shouldn´t we just stop thinking in such narrow mental limits as "Celts" and "Germans"?
5. What good is it to speak of "Germans" and "Celts" in these matters?

Does it enlighten us in any way, or is it just an anachronistic question raised by early modern minds to be answered by modern minds as ars gratia artis?

IMO the nationalistic pre- and 19th c. theories still have far too much influence on the historical sciences of our days. What was then used to justify national states, is now becoming a question that seems worthwhile to be answered, but, in fact, isn´t. It might be more interesting to investigate the movement of the different tribes as cultural entities, and then maybe many similarities and differences between the tribes might explain themselves.

These are exactlly the arguement being put forward now by those who say that there was no overarching Celtic or German culture in Europe, merely "tribes".

As far as i am concerned pearing matters down to each tribe may mask a broader picture as there is no doubt that the La Tene "culture" spread... is it wrong to consider that this may have initially happend via those with a similar language group and common culture ... and then call these Celtic?

We are quite happy to accept that whole tribes could migrate though the balkans to end up in Asia Minor but have trouble with them getting to Britain and Ireland :?

[Conal]

But we have the same arguments with archaeologists like Higham suggesting that the Parisii of east yorkshire are not necessarily immigrants but simply adopted the practices of their continental counterparts.

Why would they do this unless there was a specific cultural link which overode those of more local tribes? Surely this kind of stuff didn't get picked up on holiday or by twinning :wink:

Just picked up a book ;

Hand of History, Burden of Pseudo History; Touchstone Of Truth , by Tom OConnor.

It apparently contends that there are extensive Belgic defensive earthworks in Ireland, which indicate more than the mere gift of the Turoe Stone. I think they are saying that there was a large migration.

[Conan the Barbarian]

I bet that if certain right-wingers in the US thought they could pull it off, they'd claim that European were present in the Americas before the first Asian set foot in Alaska, 20.000 BC.

I've never heard of any American "right wingers" talk about a possible European migration to America before Asian migrations but there might be evidence of something like that;

www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

[Aryaman2]

On the question of Language/culture relations:
Ancient writers like Ptolemy, pliny the Elder and Strabo talk about Celtic populations in Iberia, however as the La Tene culture didn´t spread down to Iberia the existence of those Celts was regularly dismissed by modern scholars. However, epigraphic evidence showed that those populations actually spoke a celtic language, and they are now considered Celts.
IMO Ancient writers had their resons to differenciate beween Celts and Germans even those living in a territory mostly inhabitated by Celts, and the more likely reason I see, as was clearly the case for the Iberian penynsula, is their language.

[authun]

Why would they do this unless there was a specific cultural link which overode those of more local tribes? Surely this kind of stuff didn't get picked up on holiday or by twinning :wink:

I don't find it a convincing argument. I simply mention it as an example that if we don't talk about tribes and talk about cultures instead, we still end up with the same argument. Do languages, burial practices, weapons, fashions, animal husbandry, agrarian prractices etc move by demic diffucion, the movement of people, or cultural diffusion, the movement of ideas.

Personally I can't see burying people in a barrow surrounded by a square ditch as an idea which just somehow caught on.

best
Harry Amphlett

[Paullus Scipio]

Some Random shots:-

1) In 1066, the Normans, who spoke a form of french, successfully'took over' southern Britain, but the language did not displace Angl-Saxon/proto-English...instead, a composite language arose, largely anglo-saxon but including elements of Norman-French....thus in English we often have two words for an animal...cow, but beef ( fr:boeuf) when it is on the table; or sheep and mutton ( fr: mouton). Modern English has many influences on it. ( this is one of the arguments used by Oppenheimer et al to suggest the same was true of Anglo-Saxon; ergo the 'Britons' language wasn't replaced and must have 'germanic' origins).......Doubtless ancient languages were the same - complex and coming under many influences...who you traded with, what your neighbours spoke etc....the swirl and mix of migrations and invasions...and if this is a complex problem in isolated Southern Britain, how much more so on the continent ?

2) Same for DNA...swirl and mix of migrations and invasions.....trade...etc

3) Spread of the "Celts" ( digression: there is a whole firece debate on trying to define 'Celt' - for my purpose, any one of a group of peoples originating in central Europe aprox)....this really began in Bronze Age times, continued through the Hallstat culture, and then La Tene...and in all directions...north, south, east and west in a number of waves - so the existence of 'Celts' in Iberia not of LaTene culture is no surprise....nor that they existed north of the Rhine...etc

4) As has been noted 'Celt/Galli' and 'Germani' were merely "labels of convenience" applied by the Romans....in fact the people of one tribe or valley would have indignantly identified themselves from those of the next.......blissfully unaware that Caesar had labelled them all 'Galli', 'Belgae' or 'Germani'...........

[Theodosius the Great]

Ancient writers like Ptolemy, pliny the Elder and Strabo talk about Celtic populations in Iberia, however as the La Tene culture didn´t spread down to Iberia the existence of those Celts was regularly dismissed by modern scholars. However, epigraphic evidence showed that those populations actually spoke a celtic language, and they are now considered Celts

Over a year ago, I posted something about genetic testing results that seem to show that the Celts first came to Britain from northern Spain around 5,000 BC. Here's the original thread with reactions from RAT readers.

They're said to have been fisherman from parts of the Basque country and other northen parts of the Iberian peninsula.

~Theo