Cimbric Names

[Conal]

Hi

I would appreciate oppinions on the extent to which we can use the named leaders of the Cimbri tribe to identify ethnicity (Celtic/Gaulish/German).

What we have is a potentially Germanic tribe with leaders who have on the face of it Gaulish names but I have read theories that ;

(a) they have been Celticised, adopting customs and names.
(b) that they are names which can have German origins via common IU languages.
© the Romans got the names mixed up and Gallified German names.

cheers

[Gundwulf]

Well, I think that there could be two possibilities:

- As Cimbrians and Teutons were higly influenced by Celtic warfare, I think that they cuold be influenced even in names, due to some marrieges between Germanic and Celtic peoples.
- romans wrote Germanic names in Celtic language because none at that time could speak Germanic langages.

[The Alexandrian]

I think four or five Cimbric names are known, but the only two I can think of off the top of my head are "Boiorix", Gaulish for "King of the Boii", and Claodicos, which sounds Gaulish but I'm not sure what it means.

I really wonder about the name Boiorix. Shouldn't "Cimbrorix" be more appropriate? Were there an influential contingent of Boii amongst the Cimbri?

But anyways...

I myself have seen a number of Gaulish names given for apparently Germanic individuals. Mallovendus, Maroboduus, and Cruptorix (most or all of those are in Tacitus) are some that particularly stand out. Where, I wonder, is the line to be drawn between Celt and German, when we have "Germanic" tribes like the Nervii living in Gaul, yet "Celtic" personal and place names being applied to Germans?

[Gundwulf]

In fact, in may opinion, those names are not the real name germans give themselves, but names that were "difficult" to understand to Romans and then they translate them in Roman laguages (like Arminius which perhaps in Germanic was Irmin) and when it was not possible they translated it in Celtic language. But yet this is only my own opinion.

[cagwinn]

Well, I think that there could be two possibilities:

- As Cimbrians and Teutons were higly influenced by Celtic warfare, I think that they cuold be influenced even in names, due to some marrieges between Germanic and Celtic peoples.
- romans wrote Germanic names in Celtic language because none at that time could speak Germanic langages.

If by "Romans" you mean Italian Latin speakers, they couldn't understand Gaulish any better than they could Germanic, so it's unlikely that they would have been able to translate the names into Celtic.

Still, I think you have come close to what most Celticists and Germanists now think are the best scenarios:
1) The Cimbri were influenced by Celtic culture and willingly Celticized their names, or adopted Celtic names outright (just as the medieval Italians, French and Spanish ended up widely adopting Germanic name).
2) The seemingly-Celtic names that were recorded are not Celtic at all, but purely Germanic - however, they may have been transmitted to the Romans via Celtic speakers (or transmitted directly to Latin speakers who were not familiar with Germanic spelling conventions, but did have some familiarity with Celtic personal names and spelling conventions), thus a Celticized spelling was adopted for them.

[Gundwulf]

Cagwinn you're right......This is exactly what I was thinking.....Perhaps I wrote incorrectly but the two points you wrote are the same I thought....

[Conal]

Or ... they could be Celtic name because they were in fact BCeltic? Gaulish speakers were hired by the Romans to spy in their camp, this would indicate that if they were Germanic they had either adopted Gaulish or were by this time all but Gauls.

[Gundwulf]

But Gaulish speaker were hired to spies because there were a lot of celtic people together with Cimbrian and Teutons, mercenary or other migrating populations....

[Conal]

But Gaulish speaker were hired to spies because there were a lot of celtic people together with Cimbrian and Teutons, mercenary or other migrating populations....

There were allies but to what extent? I would expect that the smaller part were allies and that if the Cimbri spoke German then it would be more efficient to send in a German speaker .

[Gundwulf]

But for Romans were more easy to find someone speaking Gaulish then someone speaking Germanic, beacuse that was the forst time they saw Germanic People.

[Conal]

I find it hard that the Romans could not find a German speaker ... they had been fighting these guys for 5 years at this point ... time enough to get a friendly on board or at least have someone learn the language.

[Rumo]

Is it safe to hold the assumption that ethnic identity and linguistic identity is one and the same?

I guess group (ethnic in particular) identity is a much more complex phenomenon. It may be different to outsiders and insiders (not only in labeling and imagining, but also the two perspectives do not always refer to the same group of people - i.e. for outsiders such an identity may be an "umbrella term", like the ancient concepts of Scythian, and why not, Germanic and Celtic). It also may be multi-layered and situational, so that a certain individual has different identities in different contexts. For instance I'm at the same time European, Romanian, Wallachian, English speaker (even if not native) etc. For someone not knowing much about the world I live in (so it's the case of these Cimbri, but also of many other quasi-obscure ancient "barbarian" tribes), it will be hard if not impossible to tell the real dimension of my identities. I hope you will pardon my anachronic analogy - I don't want to suggest a close parallelism, but to make a point on the potential complexity of such questions.

[Conal]

Is it safe to hold the assumption that ethnic identity and linguistic identity is one and the same?

No it is not safe to do so. However, ther were differences noted betweeb Germanic and Gaulish culture and if the Cimbri spoke Gaulish, had Gaulish names and Gaulish wepaons, equipment and customs then to deem them German is equally unsafe.

The subjective boundries put in place by the Romans (particularly J Ceasar) have given us a distorted viedw of who might actually be a German (ethnic or linguistic). The main pointer for the Cimbri being German is that they supposedly came from Jutland ... well into German lands. As David Faux points out out we are happy that a Gaulish enclave exised in mid Turky but find it hard to accept that there might be one just up the coast in Jutland.

The Beglic Gauls suggest that they originated beyond the Rhine.

[authun]

I find it hard that the Romans could not find a German speaker ... they had been fighting these guys for 5 years at this point ... time enough to get a friendly on board or at least have someone learn the language.

This is quite possible. Boii haemum, home of the Boii, is derived from germanic, cf modern german heim, and not latin domus, possibly when the romans enquired of the Marcommani who dwelt beyond their frontiers.

Boiorix could be a title given to the man who conquered the Boii. Even Idi Amin styled himself Conqueror of the British Empire.

We also have the Marcomannic prince, Catualda with a very celtic sounding name, or at least one which could be recorded in such as way that it looked as if it was celtic. Both elements have PIE etymologies though.

best
authun

[authun]

Is it safe to hold the assumption that ethnic identity and linguistic identity is one and the same?

No it is not safe to do so. However, ther were differences noted betweeb Germanic and Gaulish culture and if the Cimbri spoke Gaulish, had Gaulish names and Gaulish wepaons, equipment and customs then to deem them German is equally unsafe.

The subjective boundries put in place by the Romans (particularly J Ceasar) have given us a distorted viedw of who might actually be a German (ethnic or linguistic). The main pointer for the Cimbri being German is that they supposedly came from Jutland ... well into German lands. As David Faux points out out we are happy that a Gaulish enclave exised in mid Turky but find it hard to accept that there might be one just up the coast in Jutland.

Caesar may have described all the tribes beyond the Rhine as Germans to exaggerate the threat or to simplify a complex mix for the benefit of his audience. Tacitus attempts to clarify the situation:

"That the Gauls were in times past more puissant and formidable, is related by the Prince of authors, the deified Julius [ie Julius Caesar] and hence it is probable that they too have passed into Germany. For what a small obstacle must be a river, to restrain any nation, as each grew more potent, from seizing or changing habitations; when as yet all habitations were common, and not parted or appropriated by the founding and terror of Monarchies? The region therefore between the Hercynian Forest and the rivers Moenus [ie Main] and Rhine, was occupied by the Helvetians; as was that beyond it by the Boians, both nations of Gaul. There still remains a place called Boiemum, which denotes the primitive name and antiquity of the country, although the inhabitants have been changed."

Regarding the Cimbri in Jutland however, there is very little archaeological evidence that it was in the Celtic sphere of influence and no hydronyms or toponyms exist that I know of. Koch's Atlas of Celtic Studies, [url:eq9n2z1b]http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/82503//Location/Oxbow[/url] gathers just about every element that is seen as Celtic and produces many maps for each, [url:eq9n2z1b]http://www.oxbowbooks.com/pdfs/books/TableOfContents.pdf[/url]. Jutland is well outside of the Celtic world and there is nothing which allows comparison with the evidence from Galatia.

best
authun