Chronology of the breakup of Common Romance/CELTS

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

I wrote with regard to "Vlakhi", 'Vlachi', etc.:

<<Appearing as "Walh" or "Walah" in OHG, it has interpreted
as meaning "foreigner", sometimes Roman, but in usage it is closely
associated with Celts and regions of Celtic habitation - e.g., "Wales",
"Walloon".

In a message dated 7/13/99 6:16:38 PM, rmccalli at sunmuw1.MUW.Edu replied:

<<You'd have to account for the ending in Vlakh, WLochy, etc.>>

The -kh, -chy endings - as adj. affixes - appear to reflect variants anywhere
the Celt connection was made. E.g., 'Wilisc', 'Wylisc', 'Wielisc' (W. Saxon
7th Cent.) = Celt or Briton. Also, 'Waleis' (Anglo-French)> 'Wallace,' OHG
'walhisc,' 'walesc' = Roman, French, O.E. Chronicle 'wilsc', bryt-'wylsc'
(refering to the language).  By 1100, the forms 'Wylisca cing' and 'Wylsca
biscop' occur among the English. Also, 'Wallych', 'Walsche' and of course
'Welch'.  In MHG, 'walsch'.  Closer to the east, 'Valskr' (ON), (MSw) =
Gauls, Frenchmen.  The various Slavic endings I believe are in line with all
this.  (cf, B-T-W, 'Cornwall', 'Wellfleet', etc.)

The OED calls 'Vlach' a Slavic borrowing from the Germanic above.

I also have this note from the Hungarian scholar who annotated the Gesta
Hungarorum (1975 ed) re the Pannonia re a bad date in that chronicle:  "An
explanation of this erroneous record may have been the Slavic tradition which
held that the Hungarians ousted the Franks - the Volochs in the language of
the Slavs - from the area of the Danube."

Here is another indication that the term "vlach" was originally directed to
the west:  "The Slavic ethnic name of the 10th century, Vlach, was, in its
plural
form: vlasi, borrowed by the Hungarian language with the sense
'Neo-latin, Italian, French', in the form olasz(i); in the period of
Arpád, this was the Hungarian name of the Neo-Latin peoples, thus also
of the French, i.e., the Franks (cf. Latin Frankavilla > Hungarian
Olaszi) and this is also at present the Hungarian name of the Italians."

It is interesting to note that the Franks themselves considered their
original homeland - according to their official historian, Gregory of Tours -
not Germania, but Pannonia.  And when Constantine II founds a military colony
in Moesia at present day Fenehpusta, it is called 'Valcum'.  It will later be
the site of a Frankish fortress destroyed by the Maygars.

I wrote:
<<I seem to recall an suggestion that there may be a tie here to L.
vallum (fortified wall, the earliest meaning of "wall") and refer to the
Celtic or Romano-Celtic oppidum or walled town.>>

This was based I believe on L. 'vallatii', entrenchers, cf 'valla^tio, onis',
an entrenchment, from 'vallo -a^vi, -atum -' (see Cicero, Tacitus and Pliny)
to surround with a rampart.  Nothing I'm sure of, in the least.

<<It has long been proposed that the name Volcae, a Gaulish tribe,
was the source of Anglo-Saxon Wealh, Balkans Vlakh, Polish WLochy, etc.
The point I've generally seen is something to the extent that
supposedly the Volcae were the first Gaulish tribe to fall under Roman rule.>>

The BIG problem with this is that the Romans NEVER call the Celts/Gauls in
general 'Volcae' or anything quite like that.  Caesar does tell us the Volcae
Tectosages invaded Germania, so the contact between this group of Celts and
Germanics was probably direct.  Which may account for why the Romans did not
use the word as a name for other Celts, but the Germans perhaps did.  (B-T-W,
the first time anything like the word 'Volc/-' appears in Latin, it is in
connection with the Etruscans, whose town 'Volci' or 'Vulci' falls to the
Romans in 280 BC.  Velitrae is the town first associated with the Celtic
Volscae.)

<<My guess is that any Celtic element in the Balkan would have been
extremely thin.  The Celts raided the Balkans and stormed through the region
on the way to Galatia but my understanding is that they lived north of the
Balkans
in Galatia and Pannonia.>>

If the Danube is the northern line of the Balkans, then the Celts were right
on it all the way to the Black Sea.  In fact, they seem to be the only ones
on it that founded towns - Gorsium (attested to having been founded by Celtic
Eraviscans), Sungidium (Belgrade) Siscia (at the mouth of the Odra), and many
other sites show that originally Celtic settlers preceded Roman occupation.
Konjic, not far from Sarajevo, decribed as "Illyrian-Celtic" yielded evidence
of centuries of extensive Celtic occupation before the Romans came and some
of these were still present in the 1st Century AD.  Recently I saw a
catalogue with pages of Greek coins found in Thrace (2/1 century BC) that
were described as Celtic imitations.  And around 80 BC, when the Dacians
under Burebista make their move towards Greece and the Black Sea, they are
constantly warring with the Celts.  Even on the north bank of the Danube in
Dacia before the Roman withdrawal, there is still a Celtic presence in the
archaeology.

It seems that in this area, as in France, a significant Celtic cultural
presence seems to disintegrate when the Romans shows up.  And as in France
the obvious conclusion is that the Celts became Romanized on a wholesale
basis.  And one would think therefore there would be some substrate in the
remaining languages in this area.  (Even given the difficulty of finding such
substrates in everything from English and French to Spanish and Bohemian.)

It is odd, isn't it, that Celtic culture left such an 'thin' linguistic trail
across so much territory where its presence was not just attested, but even
dominant?

Regards,
Steve Long