Belgae

[Frostwulf]

There seems to be at least 3 main theories and depending on who you read is what you get for an answer. Most of these theories are based on archeology, toponymic evidence and written evidence. It seems depending on the authors predisposition is what leads to a particular conclusion.

The "Celtic" historian see's the Belgae as "Celtic" claiming the toponyms as being "Celtic" as are the names and most of the archaeological finds. The written evidence, especially by Caesar is usually seen as political and has no bearing on the reality of the situation.

The "Germanic" historian see's the toponyms as being early German and agreeing with the writings of the Romans of the time(Caesar, Tacitus, etc.) while the archaeological and some of the names as being "Celtisized".

The third is that being of the Nordwest block which is similar to the "Germanic" view except they say the Belgae were neither "Germanic" nor "Celts".

Without siting wikipedia, is there any books (post the year 2,000) or good links that discuss the origins of the Belgae?

[Marja]

As far as I understand the theoretical issues:

Apart from inscriptions, archaeological evidence doesn't show language, and the extent of archaeological cultures don't necessarily correspond with the extent of linguistic communities.

Tribal names can be inherited from communities with another language, so that the old English kingdom of Kent retained the name of the British civitas of the Cantiaci, or borrowed from ruling groups with another language, so that Bulgaria uses the name of the Bulgars. Personal names can be borrowed piecemeal. Both personal names and tribal names can be borrowed piecemeal, and may be open to multiple reconstructions from multiple language families, and beyond that there are many borrowings from the Celtic languages into the Germanic ones and a few the other way.

River names tend to be retained longer than other place names, and much longer than personal names. Cities, towns, and tribal federations may come and go, and the rivers remain.

If more sources record the same name, or better yet variations on the same name, then they allow better reconstructions than with one source recording one version of the name, transcribed into another language. So there are probably better reconstructions of river names and tribal names, recorded many times, than personal names, rarely recorded more than once.

[Marja]

So apparently there are enough altars to the Matronae in the territories of the Belgae and [west of the Rhine] Germani that these can be useful direct clues to the language.

I'm not familiar enough to evaluate the arguments. Vennemann argues that the Ubii spoke an upper Germanic/high Germanic language (apparently showing signs of the second sound shift, which is specific to Germanic, and is usually dated to late antiquity) on a proto-Italic substrate (I am not familiar with the Celtic languages, but Italic is usually supposed to be close to Celtic and to Lusitanian).

Unfortunately, while Italic, Celtic, and some of their sister language groups have left inscriptions, and it's controversial whether Venetic, Daco-Thracian, or Baltic and Slavic are even close relatives - for the first two, because there isn't much evidence, for the last two, because there is too much contact before either is written down to distinguish a common origin from a sprachebund. I am not a linguist, but an outgroup of Italic and/or Celtic should be recognizable, and an outgroup of Germanic could be quite confusing compared to what's known of the subfamily.

[Frostwulf]

Thanks for the replies Marja. I have read that the Ubii began in Scandinavia and moved down, that the Belgae were simply "Celts" of a variant language and as you put down the proto-Italic substrate theory. It seems to me that there are many variables inside of each of the three "camps" and none seem to be on sure ground. The material and theories are very interesting, unfortunately there seems to be personal bias involved in this debate. Thanks again for the input.