"Celt" Conjecture

[Rumo]

But not ethnographer.

As that "profession" as it may exist now did not exist then , no he was not but as has been pointed out he was intersted enough to point out cultural traits and differences in Gauls and Briton so he or his entourage did soem ethnographing for sure.

Was he? Did he? Let's see. For instance, Caesar described significant social, economic and cultural differences between people west (Gauls) and east (Germans) of Rhine. Generally the latter were more primitive, poor and savage than the Gauls. Should we believe that? Well, of course not.

Andrew Riggsby, Caesar in Gaul and Rome. War in words, p. 59-71

If that is too much to read, then try:

Peter Wells' "Iron Age", chapter 10 in European Prehistory. A Survey

• In the Late Iron Age, during the second and early first century BC, the archaeology in the lands west and east of the Rhine is very similar. The large and complex fortified settlements known as oppida dominated the cultural landscape, with intensive industrial production, long-distance commerce, and a developed money economy. The pottery, personal ornaments, tool technologies, and ritual practices on the two sides of the river show fundamentally similar societies, with the degree of regional variation that we would expect. The distinction that Caesar draws between complex Gauls west of the Rhine and simple Germans east of the Rhine is not reflected in the archaeology, at least not before Caesar's arrival in Gaul to begin his campaigns.

or

Nico Roymans, Ethnic Identity and Imperial Power. The Batavians in the Early Roman Empire. (read also the previous page for a Germanic identity constructed by Romans)

• The archaeology of the Late Iron Age argues for a north-south articulation of the northwest European continent, in which the Rhine does not function as a cultural boundary. However, as part of the new politico-geographic order, all emphasis in Roman Germani discourse came to lie on the east-west articulation, with the Rhine functioning as a boundary between the civilised world and a world of barbarism.

Telling for Caesar's interest in truth is his description of fauna beyond the Rhine. He wanted his readers to believe that in the Hercynian forest live animals with one horn (6.26), elks with no knees (6.27) and elephant-sized bulls (6.28). With such a poor record in fact checking, I think we should disregard Caesar's descriptions of lands, mountains or rivers, animals or plants, people, customs, languages. To me the differences between Caesar's Celts and Germans are as real as those unicorns.

How many American politicians know the ethnographic map of Iraq?

You tell me .... maybe enough of them to make a difference, but you bet your next meal that the Generals who invaded were briefed on it or found out prettry quickley for themselves. Pretty daft to compare todays politician with JC as they are not in the same league.

I prefer evidence instead of bets. Quote from some memoirs.

Have a think about it ... the Greeks knew the Keltae from their interactions via Massilia, which is at the southern end of the area said to be held by those calling themselves Celtae in Ceasars time. What is so difficult about that?

The more I think of it, the less verosimile it looks. That was a tribal society. Most tribes have small territories and disappear after a while. Many tribal identities shift, many tribal names change. These Celts however were omnipresent and unchanging. Can you identify archaeologically this vast and remarkably stable society?
Another important point of view comes from linguistics. (Spoken) languages change, languages have variety (dialects, topolects), language contact is not always the same. So why always the same name as if it was copied from author to author?

You may notice that verosimility for me includes change. Lack of change is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence.

I think if you are going to belive what you would rather believe rather than what the evidence (or lack of it shows) then a starting point would be to ask why you would rather believe that? I would suggest that ethnography is very useful to any general going to war, now as in the past, however you can persist in that stance if it suits you but please consider that getting reliable ethnographical information does not require presence in a partucular villiage by a general, he has guys who can help him. If you are not aware that the US has a large information gathering service please take this as notice that it has and so did Ceasar.

According to your interpretation, Caesar's "information gathering service" reported unicorns among several other things!

History showed that people in general (including military officers) are more often than not disinterested in having genuine ethnographic or even anthropologic information. And they replace the real information with stereotypes, post hoc justifications of their beliefs, decisions, actions. As Riggsby observed, Caesar's ethnography is supposed to show why Romans must conquer but also why they conquered Gaul and not Germany. And in Roman imagination, the frontier they set on the Rhine became a cultural frontier between two different types (ethnies) of people. Of course, after a while, it also became also a reality because of the real social, economic, cultural influence of Rome.

Here's a quote from Vegetius' De Re Militari, that is a late Roman military treatise:

• They tell us that all people that are near the sun, being parched by great heat, are more intelligent but have less blood, and therefore lack steadiness and confidence to fight at close quarters, because those who are conscious of having less blood are afraid of wounds. On the other hand the peoples of the north, remote from the sun's heat are less intelligent, but having a superabundance of blood are readiest for wars. Recruits should therefore be raised from the more temperate climes. The plenteousness of their blood supplies contempt for wounds and death, and intelligence cannot be lacking either which preserves discipline in camp and is of no little assistance with counsel in battle.

This is a Roman point of view coming from the military higher ranks (it's about recruiting)! Reading that, how can anyone argue the Romans (their military leaders in particular) were careful observers of the populations in and outside their empire?