"Celt" Conjecture

[Conal]

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.

I agree that the Rhine was not the cultural barrier between the Gauls and the Germans and I dont believe Ceasar did either, it was a convenient political border to illustrate that he can conquered all of Gaul. I dont take all he writes a verbatum statement of what he really believed. This does not prove that he was clueless to the reality.

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

Then please bash in these quotes attributed to Generals who said such things ... I am interested in who said what.

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 have made no claim to "omnipresent and unchanging" merely that the greeks called them Kelts, I suggest due to contact via southern France and because that name may have been given to the Greeks by them. That there were still those who called themseves Celts in Ceasars time. There is likely to be a cultural and linguistic shift. I myself believe that using the term Celt to cover those beyond this who speak a variant of the same language root is justifyable as these were the ones first noted as Keltic, despite the fact the Belgic Gauls may not have called the,mselves Celtic. Dialects and other variation can be used within this as we do with French, Italian and Spanish.

As for time dissipating identity there is still a country called Belgium today which has its route way back when, certainly longer that we are being asked to accept with the Massilia conection. Sure very different from back then but much more has happened in the interim.

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

I can't explain that one away... unless ....no :roll:

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?

It looks bad doesn't it ... but only if you take it literally rather than as allegorical, and propoganda at that. This, for me, is not evidence that the Romans did not know their enemy in reality. I cannot equate the Ceasar who achived what he did with a guy who did not know where Germania really started. As I have intimated before enthongraphy was not a science back then.