--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- 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).
Cf.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/49433
and from Kuhn: Das Zeugnis der Namen, again, pp. 113-4
"
Die Grenze zwischen Galliern und Belgern, die Caesar nennt (Seine und
Marne), liegt noch etwa 100 km südlicher als die aus den Ortsnamen er=
schlossene. Auf der einen Seite soll man von Caesar in solchen Dingen
keine genauen Angaben fordern, und auf der anderen müssen wir mit
Schwankungen rechnen, und zwar hier mit einem Vordringen der Belger in
altkeltisches Land in der Zeit vor Caesars Kriegen, parallel dem der
Germanen in Süddeutschland. Die Remer, zwischen Marne und Oise (um
Reims), von Caesar den Belgern zugerechnet, aber in den Kriegen nicht
zu ihnen stehend, hatten, wenn er richtig erklärt wird (aus *Preimi, =
lat. primi "die Ersten"), einen keltischen Namen und sind dann wohl
früher Kelten gewesen, standen nun aber unter belgischen Herren. Ihr
Land gehört zu den an keltischen Ortsnamen reichsten, und es war auch
das Kerngebiet der sicher keltischen Marne=Kultur der früheren
Latènezeit (etwa 5. bis 3. Jh. vor Chr.) und damit einmal eins der
Kernländer dieses Volks. In so frühen Zeiten scheinen die keltischen
Namen dieses Raums gegeben und wohl auch ihr Grenzverlauf entstanden
zu sein.
"
Kuhn points out that NWBlock names seem to have survived the longest
in the more inaccessible regions, not the coast, of the NWBlock
region, which he explains by assuming that the area was germanicized
from the coast. I woould suggest that the Suebi/Elbe-Germani,
Thuringians expanded down (and also up) the Saal and Elbe rivers,
until they met the sea appr. at Hamburg, where they somehow induced
the old pre-Germanic people of Frisians to ally themselves with them
and switch to their language, and the conquest proceeded from there.
This since I feel (I can't do better than that) that for a river
people to take to the sea for conquest would require new expert
allies, also the Frisian language seems to contain the most and oddest
substrate material, more than Low German, which it wouldn't if
Frisians and Suevi had been one people.
> 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)
Thank you for the permission, George.
> 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).
It's also Kuhn's contention that this area became Germanic-speaking
around that time. One should bear in mind that the creating an
organised resistance necessitates a common language, which would have
induced many to switch to one of the two linguas francas, Germanic
(Suevian?) or Latin, as one's inclination was.
Torsten