Re: [tied] Belgians and Gauls

The general opinion about the Celts is that they originate

in the area North of the Alps (Present day Austria and Bavaria)

probably occupying all the area from the Eastern bank of the Rhine to Lituania

If these "Belgians" come from the eastern bank of the Rhine

they just are Celtic.

My point of view about these "Belgians" is that they either are

a pre-celtic substrate or they just don't exist as a "particular" people.

On what basis can one speak of "Belgian" invaders ?

The Gauls too are invaders !

And their expansion toward west and south was not stopped by Roman occupation.

----- Original Message -----

From: george knysh

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:31 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Belgians and Gauls

Sorry for the prior truncated message!
--- george knysh <gknysh@... com> wrote:

>
> --- Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@ yahoo.com>,
> continuing a discussion between Torsten and Arnaud
> wrote:
>
> > Hmmm,
> > Doubs & Deule look quite different to me but, yes,
> I
> > know that N & S France have different linguistic
> > histories and that Deule is probably a diminutive.
> > BUT
> > maybe the difference between Gaulish & Belgic is
> not
> > P-Celt vs Q-Celt but rather akin to that between
> > Briton vs Pictish or English vs Scots, etc.
> Perhaps
> > the major difference is that Belgic had a Germanic
> > adstrate nd perhaps a different substrate.etc. ..
>
> *****GK: Caesar seems actually quite useful. If you
carefully analyze DBG 1:1 and 2:4 it would seem that
the "Belgic complex" contains at least three (perhaps
more if we add the pre-Gaulic substrate) populations:
(1) The "Belgae" proper, descendants of trans-Rhenic
invaders (the Belgic characteristics mentioned in 1:1
are primarily applicable to the Nervii and their
allies in the second phase of the war); (2) the
descendants of pre-Belgic Celtic groups not
dispossessed by the Belgic invaders [Caesar states
that "very many" Belgae (in the comprehensive sense
i.e. "members of the Belgic alliance") originally came
from Germania,which is to imply that not all did]; (3)
Germanic groups even more recently arrived (some in
connection with the Cimbro-Teutonic saga /the
Atuatici/. There is no reason to disbelieve Caesar
when he notes that the dominant group (the Belgae
proper) were not Celtic-speakers (in the sense of
Gaulish-speakers) . It's difficult to identify their
language. The argument that it was Germanic is not
conclusive. Since the Gauls are assumed to have
dominated the area before the Belgic invasion, it is
hardly surprising to find that many hydronyms,
toponyms etc.. are reflective of their speech.****

> > --- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@ wanadoo.fr>
> > wrote:
> > > So the conclusions are very simple :
> > >
> > > The "Belgian" Hypothesis is USELESS,
> > > The assignement of so-called "GAllia BElgica" to
> > > some other language than standard "p-celt"
> GAulish
> > > is falsified.
> > >
> > > I don't know if place-names in the
> Belgique/Belgie
> > > country have undergone the same etymological
> study
> > > as in France,
> > > but as far as Northern France is concerned,
> there
> > is
> > > not a hint of a shadow of a doubt :
> > > "P-celt Gauls win and take all".

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink. yahoo.com/ gmrs/yahoo_ panel_invite. asp?a=7