LL-L "Language history" 2009.08.01 (07) [EN-FR]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 01 August 2009 - Volume 07
lowlands at lowlands-l.net - http://lowlands-l.net/
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
===========================================

From: Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc. <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
Subject: LL-L "Language history" 2009.08.01 (03) [EN]

 It is a recurring item in literature over here in Belgium, *how it came to
that language border*, separating North and South.

I just found a new theory in a new book:
*Les Celtes aux racines de l'Europe*, *2009*, Musée royal de Mariemont.
It is a publication of the proceedings of a conference organized by the
government of the "Communauté française de Belgique".
p. 123-133  one finds an article (in French):

*Délimitation et spécificité du peuple celtique dans la partie occidentale
de la Gaule Belgique (IIIe - Ier siècle avant J.C.)*
by Germaine Leman-Delerive
The lady is a researcher at the *University of Lille in France*.

She did a comparative study of *archeological findings of furrniture,
funeral proceedings, pottery etc*. and she came to the conclusion that
Caesars' Gallia Belgica actually had *two clearly different cultural regions
*, al over the period from the *IIId century till the Ist century B.C.*

And the marvelous result is that the *dividing line is virtually coïncident
with the Northern language border*, as we are pretty sure it was positioned
around the 8th century (i.e. including the Boulogne area in the West).
She doesn't exactly say this explains the language border, but she admits it
is at least a curious coincidence.
A summarizing map with the splitted Gallica Belgica is on p. 133:
http://www.euro-support.be/tmp/lb/leman1.jpg

 A stupid question: since many tribes in pre-Roman UK were called or
associated with Belgae, where they all Celtic or could there already be some
Germanic among them?

That's it.

I thought is was good to add some maps concerning the administrative
structure of Roman Gaul, as generally accepted.
I have some problems with the correctness of the borders, since they are
based on the early bishoprics.
The Northern area started to be christianized in the *4th century AD* I
think, and the bishoprics may be consistent with the administative
borderlines at *that* time. I think it is dangerous to extrapolate to an
earlier past.
But who can do better? We have *lists* of the Roman Empire's subdivision, *no
(decent) maps*. So it is perhaps natural to use the oldest known borders of
the civitates as the best option.

Lemal herself gives (p. 124) a map for Caesar's time:
http://www.euro-support.be/tmp/lb/leman2.jpg

A series of the consecutive divisions can be found in:
Martial Monteil (University of Nantes) & Laurence Tranoy (University of La
Rochelle)
*La France gallo-romaine*, 2008, Paris, La Découverte
(This book as well as the previous one are in stock in the Fnac, City-2
shopping center in Brussels)

1 - Gaul at Caesar's time again
http://www.euro-support.be/tmp/lb/monteil1.jpg

2 - As to Strabo's description (around AD 0, on the left) modernized
http://www.euro-support.be/tmp/lb/monteila.jpg
This is very consistent with the subdivisions at emperor Domitianus' time
(AD 81-96):
with a *Lower and an Upper Germany*:
http://www.euro-support.be/tmp/lb/monteilb.jpg
with the civitates more delimited in detail:
http://www.euro-support.be/tmp/lb/monteil2.jpg
what gives a tribe in each (later) bishopric's border.

3 - The subdivisions (with Roman administrative dioceses added) in
Diocletianus time (284-305)
http://www.euro-support.be/tmp/lb/monteilc.jpg
*Germania* is now split in G *prima* and G *secunda*.

4. The subdivisions at the end of the 4th century:
http://www.euro-support.be/tmp/lb/monteild.jpg
(with nothing new at the North)

Do these administative divisions tell anything about the population?
(Were e.g. the "*Germania*" provinces the *germanic speaking* areas of the
empire?)

The authors write p. 19, quote:
"...  Ces limites ont-elles un sens pour les populations? *Aucun *si on
croit les sources "officielles", c'est-à -dire les inscriptions relatives à 
l'administration qui révèlent que les membres de l'élite gauloise *ne se
sentent pas* aquitains, lyonnais ou belges..... Ces grandes circomscriptions
sont donc *purement administratives, abstraites et lointaines..."*
In summary the authors conclude that *the administative districts did not
coincide with cultural identities*.

Regards,
Roger

•

==============================END===================================

 * Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.

 * Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.

 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.

 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l")

   are to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at

   http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20090801/21650347/attachment.htm>