[tied] Re: Cymerians?

Sorry I've been on the run lately and did not proof my earlier posts.
Had time to review a disk copy today and realized what a mess it was.
Here it is again...

I~{!/~}m sure that this discussion has caught you a bit off guard,
therefore you~{!/~}ve not been your typically charming self, and in
future I~{!/~}ll commit myself to provide a more amenable decorum.
With your background and experience I~{!/~}m sure you~{!/~}re aware of
much of this information. Still, as a foundation from which to
address the issue of Brythonic~{!/~}s use on the continent, it's
present
again.

The character of many of the major modern ethnicities of Europe are
directly tied to the formation of the Late Bronze Age Urnfield
Culture, as defined by distinctive ceramic, architectural, and burial
traditions. The later attribute consists of cremating the dead,
placing the remains in urns that are sealed with an inverted cover
vessel, and interning these in tightly clustered cemeteries called
urnfields. Because of the general temporal setting, linguistic
similarities, similar material assemblages, and initial concentration
of Urnfield Culture sites in north-central and eastern Europe
researchers have proposed the embryonic emergence of a series of
related yet discrete cultures. In the course of time each would
become representative of major language groups. These include the
historic Nordic, Baltic, Italic, Slavic, Illyric, Messapic, Doric,
and Phrygic language groups.

The Celtic linguistic family has been included within the Urnfield
Culture group, as well. However, herein lays one of the major
problems incorporated into some traditional views of the Urnfield and
European cultural development in general. The problem is that the
Urnfield is shadowed by another contemporary temperate European Late
Bronze archaeological complex, which is more-or-less a continuation
of Middle Bronze Age cultural patterns. Although provided a plethora
of regional names, some researchers collectively refer to this
complex as the Tumulus Culture. The Tumulus Culture is also defined
by distinct ceramic and burial traditions, the later based on
extended or flexed inhumation, interned in chambers enclosed by
Tumuli. In central Europe, bordering on the Urnfield culture area,
this construct is also defined by a very extensive and highly
stylized metallurgical tradition, often referred to as Hallstatt, the
seriation of associated diagnostic artifacts is the basis of its
chronological sequence.

Many researches have disregarded this issue, or have such a fleeting
understanding of the subject they do not recognize it as such. Thus,
a simplistic evolutionary model is provided to explain the transition
from the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age. Since both manifestations
did, at some point, shared a common metallurgical tradition, this
model affords that the Urnfield complex simply transformed into the
Hallstatt culture. However, one must question the wisdom of employing
an evolutionary model that proposes flip-flopping burial and ceramic
patterns for material assemblages that are poorly seriated and a
period with an absence of dendrochronological dates and a notoriously
unresponsive radiocarbon curve.

In fact some aspects included within the Hallstatt tradition, such as
specific types of axe heads, clearly relate to preexisting Middle
Bronze Age examples found outside of the primary Hallstatt production
area. Although, the Urnfield Culture is without doubt associated with
certain aspects of the Hallstatt tradition, such as certain weapon
types, this relationship may be associated more with exchange rather
than production. Additionally, the primary Hallstatt production areas
are all outside the primary Urnfield Culture area and well within the
region continuously dominated by the Middle Bronze Age Tumulus
Culture area (east central France, southern Germany, and Austria).
Recent analysis of burial populations, settlement patterns, and site
structure from within the Urnfield culture area also indicates that
the transition from Middle to Late Bronze Age was anything but smooth
and peaceful.

There are additional problems with the Urnfield evolutionary model.
Clearly the Hallstatt tradition, as is the Tumulus culture, is
associated with extended inhumation burials, occupational continuity,
and the subsequent movement of related Hallstatt populations from
southern Germany, and Austria to southeastern France. In contrast,
the Urnfield burial method remained, in one form or another and long
after the use of this taxon, the dominant pattern in northern
Germany, Poland, Denmark, southern Scandinavia, and the southern
Baltic. As an element of Urnfield Culture expansion, cremations also
replace preexisting inhumation burial patterns in Italy, Greece,
eastern Balkans, eastern Britain, and to a far lesser extent parts of
France and Spain.

Researchers have long recognized that the Hallstatt tradition is
directly related to the development of the common or proto-Celt
cultural expression to include this linguistic family. In retrospect,
this means that as the predecessor of the Hallstatt tradition, the
initial emergence of Common Celt may be extended back to the Middle
Bronze Age Tumulus Culture. Advancing along this line of thought the
Hallstatt tradition is generally seen as a further development of
what may be described as an early form of the Gallic Culture, with
later expressions typified by the Latene tradition. Although
utilizing differing avenues, I believe this is the same basic
argument presented as the Nordwestblock theory as provided by Hans
Kuhns, and critical evaluations by W. Meid, and Eric Hamp. While this
construct focuses more one identifying non-Indo-European survivals in
Celt Languages. Using the view developed for Lepontic by Prosdocini,
I would argue that it is exactly direct inclusion of these non-Indo-
European languages, as a substrata that differentiates Q-Celt from
the other western Indo-European languages.

The relationship of Gallic to the Gaulish Hispano-Celt, Lepontic-
Celt, and Galatic-Celt, on the one hand, and Goidelic, on the other
is in truth difficult to determine. The surviving examples of Hispano-
Celt indicate it was a Q-Celt type, and it is very probable that
Lepontic- and Galatic-Celt were as well. Again, as Prosdocini points
out, these languages are not singular in construct, rather these are
composed of multi-dimensional substrata, that include various
elements of differing forms of non-Indo-European and Celt linguistic
groups. Regardless, we know that many elements of Hispano-Celt,
Lepontic-Celt, and Galatic-Celt are directly tied to the form of
Gallic used in the Marne-Champagne, Moselle-Rhineland, and Bohemia
districts in the late 5th century BC, as these are where the
associated migrating populations originated.

With this in mind one may deduce that Gallic from the 6th to 4th
centuries BC also was a form of Q-Celt. Advancing this same course
into the past, it is apparent the Goidelic and Gallic had a common
ancestor and that the former only developed as a distinct language
after it became geographically isolated from the later. That is, at
one time Goidel and Gallic were a common language and that they did
not different until physically separated or modified through
circumstances and events not experienced by the language group as a
whole.

Returning to the main thrust of this discussion, it is widely
excepted that the Urnfield Culture is also associated with the
development of the Celt Culture. However, I've demonstrated this
association in primarily tied to the cultural continuum of the
Tumulus-Hallstatt culture complex, which in turn is associated with Q-
Celt languages. In fact, it's the strong contrast between the Tumulus-
Hallstatt and Urnfield cultures that makes this such a significant
point. Therefor, as the archaeological and historical evidence indeed
indicates there is a connection with the Urnfield Culture it must be
through early forms of P-Celt or Brythonic. This brings us to the
connection between the Belgae and the Urnfield Culture.

In the 4th century, the tribal Belgae not only originated from the
Urnfield culture area, but also appear to represent a very strong
localized late Urnfieldish complex with only peripheral associations
to the Latene tradition. It is obvious that many of the tribes that
composed the Belgae confederation were Brythonic speakers and
directly derived from the earlier Urnfield culture. Belgae urn
cremations begin replacing extended inhumations of the Marne Culture
(a prototypical Gallic tradition) in Belgium and northeast France
sometime in the 4th century BC. From the early 2nd century on,
cremation slowly spread south and west throughout France. By the time
of the Roman occupation cremation was becoming the dominant method of
burials in northern Gaul,

As recorded by Caesar in the mid 1st century BC, Belgaic oral
tradition related that the majority of the Belgae tribes had moved
from north central Germany and after crossing the Rhine settled in
territories occupied by Gallic tribes, whom they drove out. They also
assert that at least one tribe was formerly part of the Cimbric
confederation that had moved from northern Denmark around 120 BC.
Overall, the archaeological and historical evidence, indicates that a
mass movement of Belgic populations, form the heartland of the former
Urnfield culture area, occurred sometime in the early 4th century to
mid-1st century BC.

To advance the discussion further I must address the evidence that
indicates Belgic was a P-Celt language. First and foremost are
Caesar's comments in De Bello Gallico Book I; that the language, law,
and traditions of Gaul and Belgia were distinct. Again, this he
attributed to the later more recent German origin. This is followed
in Book IV, with a description of the southeastern Britons, who he
refers to as Belgae, in language, law, and tradition that had in the
recent past resettled in Britain. The only difference is that Britain
is use here in the same way Gaul or Belgae is used to define a
specific geo-political affiliation. Using these references, it may be
inferred that 1); the Belgic language was not the same as Gallic, and
2); Belgic was the same as the language used by the Britons.

As you noted in an earlier post that Tacitus, in the early 2nd
century AD expounds further on this point. He writes that the
Britions were most similar in language, traditions, and physical
appearance, to those people in the closest portion of Gaul. Of course
we know that Gaul was used here in a generic sense for France, and
that he was referring to the actual providence of Belgica, as opposed
to the Gallic Lugdunensis or Belgic Germania Inferior. Thus, Tacitus
statement about the southeastern Britons is the same as Caesar's made
about 150 years earlier. When examining the archaeological evidence
from the begging of the 1st century BC to the end of the 1st century
AD, it is clear that there is a convergence of the southeastern
British and Belgic culture, with the later being the dominant
partner. As there is also no question that the language used in
northeast France and western Belgium at this time was P-Celt, it is
reasonable that as it is the earliest form it is an early form of
Brythonic.

Now, to address some of the forms of Gallic and/or Gaulish recorded
in the 1st century BC and 1st century AD, that include Belgic
elements, I must summarize the political backdrop for Caesar's
evolvement in Gaul. However, to qualify the following statements,
when Gaul and German were used by the Romans in a generic sense, they
often do not reference any specific language and/or ethnic
affiliation. Rather, these terms were most often applied as
references to major cultural areas. Interestingly, these more-or-less
correspond to the home regions of the earlier Tumulus-Hallstatt-
Latene and Urnfield constructs respectively, as mentioned above. Back
on tract, the provocation for Caesar's evolvement in Gaul was
centered on Roman fears of Gallic political collapse amide civil war
and major demographic intrusions from Germany. The Romans feared that
this would result in another series of invasions similar to those
mounted at the beginning of the 1st century BC by the Cimbri. Even
more horrendous in the Roman historical psychic were the Celt
migrations of the 4th century BC, which succeeded in destroying the
Etruscan culture and capturing Rome itself.

Regardless, as Caesar entered the stage, Gaul proper was on the verge
of both political and cultural collapse. For Caesar to stabilize the
situation he addressed the most immediate military problem first.
This was the Gallic Helvetii, whom with a number of German-Celt
allies had crossed into south central France. Although not directly
mentioned, later entries in De Bello suggest that the inspiration for
this migration was the southward expansion of the Suevi (Swabians)
confederation into southern Germany. I believe Caesar wrote this
Helvetii migration involved about 350,000 of which 150,000 were
fighting men. Next, he moved to counter what amounted to a large
Suevi migration that claimed to have at least 250,000 people, of
which 120,000 were fighting men. This military force occupied east
central Gaul, and since it had decisively defeated a combined Gallic
army several years before, this region was in effect reduced to a
tributary status. It is important to note that at this time an
additional 100,000 Suebi people were assembling to cross, just east
of the Rhine. Based on the associated tribal names these all appear
to have been German-Nords and not Celts.

With these seemingly insurmountable situations in hand, Caesar now
turned his attention to the culturally dominant and only regionally
significant military threat to Roman authority in Gaul, the Belgae.
Caesar writes that as they had drove the Gauls from Belgium and
northeast France, and some 50 years before had soundly defeated the
Cimbric advance into there territory, they held an unequaled level of
prestige and influence in Gaul. As a side note the late 1st century
BC Cimbric migration, including various allies, was estimated at
between 650,000 to 850,000 people. In the military arena the Belgic
confederation was collectively able to assemble a fighting force of
about 300,000. Unfortunately for them, this force was slow to rally,
and Caesar was able to defeat the Belgaes decisively in a piecemeal
fashion.

Despite these remarkable achievements in arms, Caesar next faced a
still more potent and potentially decisive threat, again from
Germany. This was the huge migration of Usipetes and Tenchtheri, who
were most likely German-Celts. This migration, again the result of
Suevi expansion, crossed the lower Rhine near Cleves with about
450,000 people. By several strange twists of fate and good luck,
Caesar's easy route of this group resulted in the massacre of over
400,000 people. This was primarily done to send a message to both
Celts and Nords in Germany that further crossings would no longer be
tolerated. We know that these numbers were no exaggeration, as Roman
Lives reports this event, was soon after debated in the Roman senate.
Here certain members proposed that Caesar be arrested and handed over
to the surviving Usipetes and Tenchtheri in Germany, as reparation
for this unequaled act of brutality. Still this act, followed closely
by several preemptive strikes into Germany east of the Rhine, appear
to have achieved Caesar's aim.

The purpose of presenting this reconstruction the context of Caesar's
early activities in Gaul is to demonstrate that by the middle 1st
century BC, Gallic culture was in a state of rapid disintegration.
That the Gallic political, economic, and cultural crisis was the
direct result of internal civil war and the mass migration of Celt
and Nordic peoples from Germany. Of what remained of Gallic Culture,
to include language, had been significantly influenced by the
dominant Gaulish tradition, the Belgaes. This superpositioning of
some elements of the Belgae language as a strata, resulted in the Q-
Celt-Gallic, appearing more like a P-Celt language.



Pressed for time and have to run


Joseph