Horthmen as 'mGall'

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 9/1/99 11:45:25 PM, Ed Selleslagh wrote:

<<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....>>

Yes.  But note that all three live in "Gallia."  And are "Gallorum" - of the
Gauls.

Plus there's something else that Caesar does that is apparently meant to tell
us something.  He uses two different forms in referring to "Gauls"   See,
e.g., in the same segment, Gallic War 4.5:
"His de rebus Caesar certior factus et infirmitatem *Gallorum* veritus,..."
But, "Est enim hoc *Gallicae* consuetudinis,... "
While Cicero and others make a further distinction, calling the inhabitants
of the Roman province of Gallia, "Gallicani."

So it may be that the Belgae and Aquitani are of Gaul, but not Gallicae.
Sort of the effect we can observe in the specific names, "America" and
"Americans" and much larger general geographic names, "the Americas" and
"North America."  It's worth noting that "Americans" did not give their name
to "the Americas."  But by an odd twist, it worked the other way around.

This is all a bit tricky, because Caesar signals the shift in name
designation from the "Keltoi" to the "Galli" or "Gallici".  Pausaunias, I
think, also notes it also in a matter of fact way, also without explanation.
Why the name change?

<<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???). >>

This points to a bit of a hole in the Volcae > walha hypothesis.  The Belgae
and various other more northern Celtic/Gaulish tribes are much closer to
where we should expect first contact with Germanic.  (Caesar: "proximique
sunt Germanis, qui trans Rhenum incolunt...") In fact, the Belgae occupy
lands by Caesar's time that would have given them full exposure not only to
Rhineland Germanics, but also to Scandinavians.

The Volcae, except for Caesar's note about the incursion of some across the
Rhine where they are "Germanized", always show up in Gallia Narbonensis,
between the Pyrenees and the Rhone.  There it seems Volcae represents
coalitions.  The Volcae Arecomici.  The Volcae Tectosages.

Whether the Belgae spoke Brythonic is logical enough.  But of course there's
no proof.  In fact there is in archeaological circles a rather strong
reaction against making these kind of language to Iron Age cultures
comparisons.

You wrote:
<<What is the presently favored classification of Gaulish? Goidelic?
'Common'?...
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..>>

There's a pretty strong dispute about the classification "Common Celtic" in
general.  (The new breed of archaeologists don't like it at all.)  One of the
odd things about the P-Q distinction is the interesting conclusions it has
generated.  This is an example I picked up from an official Irish website:

<<The Goidelic and Brythonic groups of Celtic languages differ in
that Goidelic preserves the velar element of the Indo-European
labiovelar qu sound (later written c), whereas Brythonic renders this
sound as p. Thus Irish cuig or coo-ig (or cuig), "five" corresponds to
Welsh pump.>>  Some might think the /p/ in five is closer to the original(!)

Goidelic, viewed as the oldest version of Celtic, creates other problems,
particularly with regard to Gaulish, where the apparent language habits
(e.g., /v/ versus /f/) either represent something closer to the original or a
Latin influence.

(One can however compare the attested -pe ending in the early continental
Lapontic Celtic, equivalent to -que in Latin.  This might actually bring
Goidelic closer to Latin than Lapontic on the p/q scale.)

Brythonic, being somewhere in between the two, has its own claim to being
closest to Common Celtic.

You wrote:
<<The Aquitani are generally classified as Vasconic.>>

Boy, does that open a whole 'nother can of worms.

You wrote:
<<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)>>

I wrote:
<<if these Northmen happened to be from "Valland" [Gaul, modern France]>>

You wrote:
<<Could that be 'Hwalland' or 'gualland' vel sim.?>>

I had an intern working for me who seemed to know how to do research spend
two days a major school library and she could not find one serious reference
to anything but Volcae as the origin of 'walh' - but she was limited to
English.

Some consideration of the relation between "walh" and either the Celtic or
Germanic forms of Gaul or Belgae would seem worth considering.

Regards,
Steve Long