--- Rick McCallister <
gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> My understanding of the "known historical facts" of
> the lower Rhine area is that it was originally
> Celtic
> and then was invaded by Germanic speakers.
****GK: This is compatible with what Caesar says in
DBG 2. However, since Caesar did not distinguish
between Germanic-speakers and NWB-speakers, the
Torsten-Kuhn thesis seems equally compatible. The
notion that the Belgic invaders from "earlier times"
(in any case prior to the Cimbri-Teutones saga) were
also Celtic-speakers depends on whether the
distinction between Celtic languages was already so
great that Caesar might consider "Belgic" and
"Gaulish" to be mutually incomprehensible or nearly
so. My own view is that the Somme-Marne boundary of
"Gallia Belgica" (DBG 1:1) was basically political
rather than ethnic or linguistic. Immediately north of
it resided tribal groups just as "Celtic" or "Gallic"
(if you will) as those of Gallia Celtica, but
politically associated to, and frequently subordinate
to the northern "invaders" (which explains to me
Caesar's wording in DBG 1:1). At least half and
perhaps more than half of the population of Gallia
Belgica was Gaulish, from the Bellovaci, Remi, and
Suessiones to the Viromandui and Atrebates. My view
(which Torsten is welcome not to share) is that
everything north and east of the Atrebates/Viromandui
was Germanic-speaking in Caesar's time. That, BTW, is
also what one can gather from the author of DBG 8
(Aulus Hirtius, Caesar's Continuator). I don't think
there is anything either in historical linguistics
(AFAIK) or in archaeological data which contradicts
Caesar's famous dictum (in DBG 1:1). But further
evidence is of course always welcome.****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz