Horthmen as 'mGall'

[Eduard Selleslagh]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

-----Original Message-----
From: X99Lynx at aol.com <X99Lynx at aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 9:25 AM

[snip]

>In the amazing complexities of Irish myth, the Fir Bolg, the Tuatha de Danann
>and the Milesians are all successive invaders of Ireland - and not
>surprisingly all are associated with Gaul or Gaulish tribes.  The Fir Bolg
>are also called "Belgi" and are sometimes subdivided into "men of Domnu, men
>of Gaillion, and men of Bolg." (The Dumnonii are Celts who figure who heavily
>in both Gaulish and British history.  The Belgae are the northern most
>'Gauls' in Ceasar's "Omne Gallia...")

[Ed Selleslagh]

Please note that J. Caesar actually mentions the Belgae as distinct from the
Galli.: "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae,
aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. Hi
omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se diifferunt. Gallos ab Aquitanis
Garunna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit." [Gaul is divided in three
parts, the first of which is inhabited by the Belgae, the other one by the
Aquitani, and the third one by those are called in their own language Celtae,
in ours Galli. These all differ in language, institutions and laws. The Galli
are separated from the Aquitani by the River Garonne, and from the Belgae by
the Rivers Marne and Seine.]

I'm absolutely no specialist in all things Celtic, but I strongly suspect - as
many others - that the Belgae were Brythonic (their name seems related to Welsh
'balch', Eng. 'proud' - maybe another candidate for the origin of 'walch', as a
name for the Belgae, I mean???). What is the presently favored classification
of Gaulish? Goidelic? 'Common'?  The Aquitani are generally classified as
Vasconic.

The most intriguing thing in Ceasar's account is that 'Galli' is the name given
by foreigners, in casu the Romans, which might be of Germanic origin,
'(g)walch' or '(h)walch' vel sim. Cf. Gascogne, Guasconia (< Eusko-, i.e.
Basque)

>The Tuatha de Danaan also are associated with 'France' as the Laighi.  They
>are often dated to 300 or 100 BCE.  They are defeated by the Milesians.

>The Milesians, the last of the mythic invaders, are often associated with the
>coming of the Goidelic.  These "sons of Milidh... are said to have come from
>either Spain or France to the island of Ireland, and to be the ancestors of
>the Gaels."

>In terms of hard evidence, there isn't a lot of it.  LaTene has been found in
>Ireland, but not very much.  The question of when Celts actually got to
>Ireland is not settled.  But Mallory in ISOIE (see p 274  n 19) suggests that
>the evidence points to a series of late arrivals, all presumably with
>contacts to continental Celts.

[Ed]

Geography seems to suggest that the Goidelic Celts belonged to an earlier wave
than the Brythonic Celts, if they all came from the continent that is..

>And even St Patrick apparently complains
>about late-arriving pagan "rhetorici" arriving from the continent.   The
>Irish monks who "preserve Western Civilization" are often described as exiles
>from the continent.   Medieval scholars like "Zimmer and Kuno Meyer contend
>that the seeds of that literary culture, which flourished in Ireland of the
>sixth century, had been sown therein in the first and second decades of the
>preceding century by Gaulish scholars."   I see here also that "Dr. Meyer
>answers the objection" [that "if so large and so important an invasion of
>scholars took place we ought have some reference to the fact in the Irish
>annals"] "...was in part due to the fact that their presence was in no way
>exceptional but for their newly acquired Christianity."

[Ed]
This is obviously a totally different time frame.

>All of the above is exactly what bothers me about the "mGall".  Ireland and
>Scotland were filled with folk who could very well identify themselves as
>Gauls or descendents of Gauls or of settlers from Gaul/Gallia.  Not only
>because of this kind of folk origins history, but also because of the simple
>established Pan-Celtic connection.  And whatever the origins of the word, the
>affinity with "Gael" (which occasionally appears as "Gal-") would also have
>been a clue.  Did the multiple usages of "Gall" over time create so many
>semantic versions that we would expect serious loss by collision?  In which
>case, it wouldn't be impossible that a Germanic usage in some form, being the
>most current, slipped in ahead of all the older meanings.  "Gallia" itself
>would have been a "learned" word and would have had a better chance of
>co-existing without collision with that new import.

>Of course going back to the original quote, if these Northmen happened to be
>from "Valland", that is, Gallia - the term may have referred to nothing more
>than their place of origin.  The connection with "outlander" or even
>"invader" may be unnecessary.

>Regards,
>Steve

[Ed]
Could that be 'Hwalland' or 'gualland' vel sim.?

Ed.