From: george knysh
Message: 64777
Date: 2009-08-17
> > GK: The Aestii could have been a Celtic group (Tacitus speaks****GK: Not even by Caesar's time? If your Armorican theory (below) is true****
> > of their "British"-like language) /he knew nothing of British
> > Veneti/
>
> There is nothing Celtic about them, AFAIK.
> But the Aestii, as related here****GK: Have you checked this in Caesar, Pliny, and Strabo? Why would Tacitus' spelling differ ?****
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Aestii
> might be related to the Osismi/Ostimoi
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Osismi
> who lived next to and allied with the Veneti****GK: Have you checked the exact reference? Why would Caesar (who knew the area much better than Posidonius) not make this point?****
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Veneti_%28Gaul% 29
> in Armorica
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Armorica
> the inhabitants of which according to Posidonius were Belgae
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Belgae****GK: You know that my view is that Caesar referred to the Belgae as having a language distinct from that of the Gauls and Aquitanians because he identified them with their Germanic-speaking component as of 58 BCE. The following year (if he wrote his books year by year as reports without some eventual general editorial review) he may have modified this perception somewhat. But if most of the Belgae spoke Celtic in his time, would those of Britain not also have? Which might explain Tacitus as to the Aestii?****
> (who were also settled in Britain)
> just like the Aestii in the Baltic lived next to and probably****GK: Which was also "like the British"? I.e. a form of Celtic by then? OTOH what if "Venedic" (Baltic and in the interior) was a language exhibiting both "Celtic" and "Illyrian" traits? I'll have a look at and make a list of some "Celto-Illyrian" names associated with the Zarubinians (who largely stemmed from the Pomorians/Lusatians).****
> borrowed the language of the Baltic Veneti