PDA

View Full Version : Origin of the Ancient Bavarian People?



kgnju
Saturday, May 13th, 2006, 09:13 AM
Did ancient Bavarians originate from Germanic peoples(maybe Marcomanii,Quadi,Chattii),Celtic peoples(maybe Boi,Helvitii) or relatively later west Slav peoples?Is there a little bit possibility that there is ancient Bavarian blood in modern Czechs?Any comment?
And also,can we say that Suebii is the first known Germanic peoples which appeared in Central Europe only after Teutons and Cimbrii's invasion of Southern Alps?Thanks in advance!:)

Carl
Friday, February 16th, 2007, 11:23 PM
:)
Did ancient Bavarians originate from Germanic peoples(maybe Marcomanii,Quadi,Chattii),Celtic peoples(maybe Boi,Helvitii) or relatively later west Slav peoples?Is there a little bit possibility that there is ancient Bavarian blood in modern Czechs?Any comment?
And also,can we say that Suebii is the first known Germanic peoples which appeared in Central Europe only after Teutons and Cimbrii's invasion of Southern Alps?Thanks in advance!:)

I think that the Marcomanii were indeed a key tribal group of relevance and very powerful. I believe they were therefore important in the early formation. Bavaria was in any case in the Celtic region of the Hallstatt and la Tene cultures..... which has certain begun originally in the east (Bohemia) - ? with the Boii especially.

The (!Germanic) Suebii began early on (? 700 BCE) in the north - on the east Elbe region near to the Baltic coast....only, I think, after c.100BCE did they move south - along the Elbe and then West to the Rhineland - where some/they encountered the forces of Caesar. I believe the Quadii were part of their federation which was very extensive. IMO !!

"The Boii lodged themselves in the area that was thenceforth to bear their name, Bohemia, until ejected (eventually) in turn by the Marcomanni." (Malcolm Todd)

fareast
Sunday, March 11th, 2007, 07:55 AM
It's said that quadi is a celtic tribe.

Zyklop
Sunday, March 11th, 2007, 09:08 AM
It's said that quadi is a celtic tribe.According to.... ?

fareast
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007, 05:08 AM
accroding to an article written by Friedrich Engels.

Ocko
Sunday, November 1st, 2009, 10:39 PM
[ The discussion was moved from this thread: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=128962 ]


The german Bayern go back to the celctic tribe Boier. Just asked the members here from Bayern whether they see the difference.

As far as we can see, our ancestors were part of a tribe not part of a bigger group of Celts or Germans. Any tribe had differences to other tribes, any location had differences to other location. Any language had differences to the next tribe, but most understood each other. The mix between them through movements, wars, alliances, cultural interchange has been big.

If you think the celts drank beer with herbs and the germans didn't,e Or they had different herbs beside they obviously had a vivid exchange in everything.

'Celts' lived up to the north of Germany. And most likely they still live there. The customs, the lore, the fairy tales and so on is still there. Do you want to tell me that Germans are celtic because Germany was the homeland of 'Celts'?

Go back to the Bayern and tell me what is german and what is celtic in them.

Good luck



al

Thusnelda
Monday, November 2nd, 2009, 02:36 AM
The german Bayern go back to the celctic tribe Boier. Just asked the members here from Bayern whether they see the difference.
Well Ocko, I´m Bavarian and your story isn´t true. :| The history of the Bavarian tribe is different. There were Celtic tribes in our land, that´s right. I´ll just mention the Hallstatt culture. But that was long before Germanic tribes came from the north and settled there. In fact, most of the Celts have abandoned "Bavaria" before the Germanic tribes arrived.

The word "Bavarians" derives from the Germanic tribe "Bajuvarians". The old High German word is "Baio-warioz". You´ll detect a similarity to the word "warrior", and yes, that´s right. It means "Men/Warriors of Baio". "Baio" refers to the original settlement of that tribe in Bohemia. Bohemia is located some 10 to 150 km eastwards of current Bavaria and was later colonized by Slavs who make up the Czech Republic of today.

The current Bavarian tribe is a mix of predominantly Germanic tribes like the Bajuvarians and, to a smaller extend, the Langobards. These tribes incorporated the less remaining Celts in our region. Well, you need to know that Bavaria was a predominantly empty land after the retreat of the Roman Empire southernward of our Danube River. Bajuvarians took over that empty spot after the retreat of both Romans and Celts. It was an easy catch since Bohemia was (and is) just eastern of Bavaria.

To put it in a nutshell, the Celtic influence on Bavarians is overrated. There´s some influence but at the border to pettiness.


'Celts' lived up to the north of Germany. And most likely they still live there. The customs, the lore, the fairy tales and so on is still there. Do you want to tell me that Germans are celtic because Germany was the homeland of 'Celts'?
Northern Germany was never a homeland of Celts after Germanics from Scandinavia entered the scene of Central Europe. :) You mix up whole millenias.

Sigurd
Monday, November 2nd, 2009, 01:55 PM
In fact, most of the Celts have abandoned "Bavaria" before the Germanic tribes arrived.

And where they pervaded, during their time they founded relatively few settlements. I can here only speak for my own area of Tyrol, usually seen as the "most Celtic of all" which would soon linguistically show to be a heap of bollocks.

Of the six onymic patterns we find in Tyrol (East-Alpine-Indo-Germanic, Celtic, Rhaetian, Romanic, Slavic and Germanic), the Celtic substrate is relatively rare.

The few villages/parts thereof which derive from a Celtic root are few and far between: Axams (ouxam-ennā = village high up), Fritzens (fruti-ennā = village at the river), Ampass (amb-an-? = numerous brooks), and very few others worthy of mention.

However, Northern Tyrol for instance fails to show typical compositional names (i.e. we find only derivational names) which end on -dūnon (town), -brigā (place of elevated altitude), -ialon (field), duron (meaning unknown, perhaps market?), -magus (field), -bonā (settlement), -brīvā (bridge) or -raton (castle).

[Source: Anreiter/Chapman/Rampl, Die Gemeindenamen Tirols: Herkunft und Bedeutung, Wagner, Innsbruck 2009.]

Factually, they arrived before the Romans conquered the area around 15CE, and didn't stick around particularly long. One of the most conservative things are onymic patterns, because they are usually only adapted by newer populations to fit their tongues better, are thus more clearly indicative of ancient origin (i.e. where you find a Germanic village name, you can know that it was first settled by Germanics) than family names which typically appeared around 1200-1400 (and are almost exclusively of Germanic derivation), and also more clearly indicative than hydronymic patterns, because are too conservative and usually of pre-Celtic AND pre-Germanic origin.

The wide majority of these "village names" is of Germanic origin, only the Slavics which lived in East Tyrol approx. 600-1200 left nearly such a pervasive proof of their presence by founding new settlements. Celtic names are even rarer than pre-Celtic and pre-Roman names attributable to the East-Alpine Indo-Germanic groups of the Breuni, Genaunes and Focunates (in Latin terminology), this shows they weren't particularly active in founding villages, their numbers were thus perhaps fairly small.

Essentially, whilst they obviously were here, we can perhaps conclude that their settlement was by far not as pervasive as usually believed. You have a very short Celtic period before Romanisation and then a reasonably consequential Bavarian settlement in the 6th century CE. All that remains of Celtics in my area is of onymic importance, and those remains are few, basically they were potentially never really that important.

Ocko
Monday, November 2nd, 2009, 04:18 PM
People just don't 'leave' a fertile ground and others move in. People stay there and other tribes move in as conquerers, slaves or others.

it is safe to state that the original people, the megalithic stoneage people never left but stayed there. Other groups moved in stayed there and were conquered by other people who stayed there and so on.

I see that as many different layers whose cultures were somewhat retained.

Celtic lands went up north to the Harz.

Here is a map of their expansion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Celtic_tribes

Here is from wikipedia about germanic tribes:


Frankenstein and Rowlands (1978), and Wells (1980) have suggested late Hallstatt trade contact to be a direct catalyst for the development of an elite class that came into existence around northeastern France, the Middle Rhine region, and adjacent Alpine regions (Collis 1984:41), culminating to new cultural developments and the advent of the classical Gaulish La Tene Culture[15] The development of La Tene culture extended to the north around 200 to 150 BCE, including the North German Plain, Denmark and Southern Scandinavia

there has been intense interaction between those groups. Most likely because they have been so similar, in race, language and culture.


The book I mentioned before 'Die Pflanzen der Kelten' by Storl gives numerous references of celtic influences in middle age history up to modern times. He lives in the Allgaeu that is mainland celtic.

I for my part think that celtic people and germanic people mixed to an extend that you can tell them apart anymore. That of course is only for what today counts as Germany.

Méldmir
Monday, November 2nd, 2009, 04:25 PM
You keep saying the languages were som similar, based on what? I don't understand one single word of any Celtic language, why would the Germanics back then have done that unless they learned it?

Sigurd
Monday, November 2nd, 2009, 04:50 PM
People just don't 'leave' a fertile ground and others move in. People stay there and other tribes move in as conquerers, slaves or others.

They can also be pushed out of their ancestral homeland. We see that phenomenon in the Völkerwanderung, and we see it again in the systematic disowning of Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

It all depends on the size of the population which pushes in. If it is relatively small, it will seek to bring itself into the higher positions and essentially integrate into that collective whilst officially integrating that collective into theirs. We find that historically most characteristically to be the case with what happened in Ancient Mesopotamia, for instance.

Great numbers however have the tendency to push other groups out, as this group will often know that they will be subsumed - if they care about keeping their identity as it is, they will move there. This is where the village name thing comes in handy, because:

Down in the more accessibly valleys in North Tyrol, the names of villages are almost exclusively Germanic. Since village names are reasonably conservative, that means they were first founded by Germanics. However, when you go further towards the back valleys, or even upstream along the Inn river, you find other linguistic substrates in all types of place names.

This heightened incidence of non-Germanic place names could have two potential reasons:

1. Either, the Germanics did not pervade into that area because they were too numerous there ---> this is fairly unlikely, because we also find various Germanic place names towards the Upper Inn Valley - so when they arrived and fully Germanised the region, the Rhaeto-Romanic population had already multiplied and founded more villages.

2. Or, the Germanics initially pushed them into that area whilst they were everywhere beforehand. ---> this is fairly likely, because we find much more place names in the more accessible parts which are of Germanic origin, this essentially means that this is where they arrived in larger masses and pushed them out. This is also likely because a few place names are still of pre-Germanic origin, it is merely the vast majority in the Lower Inn Valley which is of Germanic origin.

Therefore, at the time of Germanic coming, the existing population in those parts was fairly small, and likely pushed out, or if mixing occured at such unimportant levels that it is negligible.

Therefore, we find that there was considerably little cohabitation and mixing initially, and since Germanics are known not to have arrived upstream but across the Mieming Plateau, resp. the Seefelder Sattel, we can essentially draw a line of essentially relatively unmixed Germanic population from approx. the Ötz valley eastward.

I did not hint towards the Celts here, but considering that the Celts became one with the Rhaeto-Romanic population (their relatively scarce village founding when compared to other groups show that) anyhow, anything that happened to what spoke a type of Vulgar Latin at the time of Germanic arrival, is also pertinent to what happened to the Celtic substrate: It was pushed westward.

These linguistic phenomena can, to some extent, be supported by architectural heritage. Linguistic and architectural heritage in the majority of Tyrol show that for the most part, no non-Germanic substrate existed after the coming of Germanics - it is only a small part over which we need to discuss to what degree other elements were subsumed into the dominant Germanic population.

Ocko
Monday, November 2nd, 2009, 06:56 PM
Look here at the languages, don't you think they are close?


Language Family Germanic Celtic

I (1st. Sg.) baíra /bɛra/ biru
You (2nd. Sg.) baíris biri
He/She/It (3rd. Sg.) baíriþ berid

We (1st. Pl.) baíram bermai
You (2nd. Pl.) baíriþ beirthe
They (3rd. Pl.) baírand berait


While similarities are still visible between the modern descendants and relatives of these ancient languages, the differences have increased over time.

Celtic belongs to the indo-european (aryan) language family. And looking at those words they are not that far apart. There is a strong possibility that they understood each other.

I also think they understood that they belonged to the same culture. Numerous elements of what is considered today germanic is celtic in essence.

Or even further down to the megalithic people.

I don't really understand what the hostility towards celtic people is. They forsure lived on the soil of what is now Germany. To assume they are all gone is not sensical to me. Regarding the language and customs there seems to have been a strong interaction. Which means they merged.

frippardthree
Monday, November 2nd, 2009, 07:09 PM
This is the best that I could find for now. I try not to use "Wikipedia", as they are not always very reliable. On the other hand, "Wikipedia" does have some very obscure information, that you can't find anywhere else.


There are numerous palaeolithic finds in Bavaria.

The earliest known inhabitants that are mentioned in written sources were a people, probably Celts, participating in the widespread La Tène culture, whom the Romans subdued just before the opening of the Christian era, founding colonies among them and including their land in the provinces of Raetia and Noricum. The Roman centre of administration for this area was Castra Regina, now and since the Middle Ages known as Regensburg.1

For the Roman history of the territory, see Vindelicia and Raetia.

Migrations and early medieval period
During the 5th century the Romans in Noricum and Raetia came under increasing pressure from an influx of foreign peoples.

One theory of the etymological origins of the name "Bavarian" is that Bai(o)arii was derived from Bai(a)haim (Boiohaemum in Latin), which is thought to be equivalent with the land of the antique tribe of the Boii and modern Bohemia (Reindel 1981).

The Bavarian name was first mentioned historically by the Franks in a list of peoples, prepared c. 520. The first document that also describes their location (east of the Swabians) is in the History of the Goths by the historian Jordanes dating from 551. Then follows a remark by Venantius Fortunatus in his description of his travels from Ravenna to Tours (565-571) in which he had crossed the lands of the Bavarians, referring to the dangers of travel in the region: 'If the road is clear and if the Bavarian does not stop you … then travel across the Alps.'

Archaeological evidence dating from the 5th and 6th centuries points to social and cultural influences from several regions and peoples, such as Alamanni, Lombards, Thuringians, Goths, Bohemian Slavs and the local Romanised population .2

Recent research (e.g. Wolfram and Pohl 1990) has moved away from searching for specific geographical origins of the Bavarians. It is now thought that the tribal ethnicity was established by the process of ethnogenesis, whereby an ethnic identity is formed because political and social pressures that make a coherent identity necessary.

Retrieved From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bavaria#Early_settlements_and _Roman_Raetia


In the pre-Roman geography of Europe, Vindelicia identifies the country inhabited by the Vindelici, a region bounded on the north by the Danube and (later) the Hadrian's Limes Germanicus, on the east by the Oenus (Inn), on the south by Raetia and on the west by the territory of the Helvetii. It thus corresponded to the northeast portion of Switzerland, the southeast of Baden, and the south of Württemberg and Bavaria. Its chief town was refounded by the Romans as Augusta Vindelicorum ("Augusta of the Vindelici", or Augsburg).

The material culture of its inhabitants the Vindelici was La Tène. The ethnic origin of the Vindelici is not sure. Whether they spoke a Celtic (i.e. Gaulish), Germanic, or other Indo-European language is unclear. (A possible etymology of their name includes a Celtic element *windo-, cognate to Irish find- 'white'.[1]) However, according to a classical source, Servius' commentary on Virgil's Aeneid,[2] the Vindelicians were Liburnians, themselves most probably related to the Veneti.[3][4] (A reference in Virgil[2] seems to refer to the Veneti as Liburnians, namely that the "innermost realm of the Liburnians" must have been the goal at which Antenor is said to have arrived.) Thus, it seems that the ancient Liburnians may have encompassed a wide swath of the Eastern Alps, from Vindelicia, through Noricum, to the Dalmatian coast.

Together with the neighboring tribes they were subjugated by Tiberius in 15 BC. The Augustan inscription of 12 BC mentions four tribes of the Vindelici among the defeated.

Towards the end of the first century AD, this region of the Vindelici was included in the province of Raetia. Horace alluded to them in his fourth book of Odes (iv. 4), describing the eagle's first flight, a long metaphor that reveals itself at last as a compliment to Drusus:

Retrieved From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindelicia


Raetia (so always in inscriptions; classical manuscripts usually use the form Rhaetia) was a province of the Roman Empire, bounded on the west by the country of the Helvetii, on the east by Noricum, on the north by Vindelicia, and on the south by Cisalpine Gaul. It thus comprised the districts occupied in modern times by eastern and central Switzerland (containing the Upper Rhine and Lake Constance), southern Bavaria and the Upper Swabia, Vorarlberg, the greater part of Tirol, and part of Lombardy. The northern border of Raetia was part of the Limes Germanicus, stretching for 166 km along the Danube. Raetia was linked to Italy across the Alpine Reschen Pass by the Via Claudia Augusta.

Retrieved From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raetia

Ocko
Monday, November 2nd, 2009, 07:26 PM
The name Bayern is based on the celtic word Boi after the celtic tribe Boi. Bohemian is another area where those guys came from.


That's what wikipedia writes about it. (I don't like the jewish background of that website either but it has good sources)


'Zur Zeit Kaiser Augustus wurde das keltisch besiedelte Gebiet Altbayerns südlich der Donau Teil des Römischen Reiches. Nach Zusammenbruch der römischen Herrschaft bildete sich aus Kelten, von Norden eingedrungenen Germanen und verbliebenen Romanen der Stamm der Baiern (siehe Bajuwaren).'

If germanic tribes, I guess you mean the Markomannen, pushed the celtic away why then would they keep the tribes name of the Boi? It doesn't make sense. it only make sense if a strong group of the Boi stayed and kept their name alive despite a strong mix with germanic tribes.

Peoples Observer
Monday, November 2nd, 2009, 07:54 PM
Look here at the languages, don't you think they are close?



Celtic belongs to the indo-european (aryan) language family. And looking at those words they are not that far apart. There is a strong possibility that they understood each other.

I also think they understood that they belonged to the same culture. Numerous elements of what is considered today germanic is celtic in essence.

Or even further down to the megalithic people.

I don't really understand what the hostility towards celtic people is. They forsure lived on the soil of what is now Germany. To assume they are all gone is not sensical to me. Regarding the language and customs there seems to have been a strong interaction. Which means they merged.

Actually Gallic, Gaelic and Latin were very similar languages back in the Roman Empire days.

In the book "Celtic Civilization" by Jean Markale, the researchers mention, for example when Caesar's army was in its initial stages of invading Gaul (France) in 101 BC, their spies infiltrated some of the Gallic tribes encampments and that even though the Roman spies spoke no Gallic that they could understand the Celtic language of the Gauls. If the Celts spoke a Germanic language, the Romans would not have been able to understand them.

So rather than Celtic being similar to Germanic languages, its more related to Latin, at least in those ancient times.

Sigurd
Monday, November 2nd, 2009, 09:34 PM
Look here at the languages, don't you think they are close?

1. Similarity doesn't immediately mean close relation. It could just be coincidence: cf. Korean man vs. English man; Persian hūri ("young woman") vs. German Hure ("whore" ---> derives from "anheuern", i.e. to "hire").

2. Similarity could be due to secondary contacts, for example take the Norman conquest of England, and the animal names derived therefrom (at least in their "cooked form": veau - veal, boeuf - beef, porc - pork, whilst all these all also have Germanic forms: cow - Kuh, swine - Schwein, calf - Kalb [though the latest is no longer used to mean that].

3. Similarity could be due to a proto-Indogermanic archaism, something which both Celts and Germanics know may also be known by Greeks, Romans or even Persians.

---> Similarity is only useful to establish not by single examples (that could be loan words), but by the similarity of similar vocabulary, systematic divergence of phonetic change between them without which they are "essentially the same", and common inhomogeneities.

Even with grammar you would have to be careful, compare Albanian, Greek and Serbo-Croat --- who lose one casus whilst not related to each other; this similarity in grammar is more likely one of secondary contact rather than primary relation.


And looking at those words they are not that far apart. There is a strong possibility that they understood each other.

Again, you need a wider sample. A single example could merely be a loan word, which occured due to close contact. Close contact we know to have existed; whilst a common ethnogenesis cannot definitely be proven or disproven, inhabitance of a similar area has been, potential cultural norms have been adapted, as well as loan words.

We have numerous words where I come from which originally came from a Romanic tongue --- this doesn't mean that there is a Romanic substrate to the area, it could - and is very likely so - just mean that this occured due to the proximity. At some point there will have been an influential person who first used a foreign word, which over time became a loan word (Grantn, Gspusi, etc.)

If you based similarity upon loan words, you'd have to say that French and German were closer to each other than English and German, because the English don't use words like portmonnaie or trottoir and even only use bureau (Büro in German) in one very specific sense.


I don't really understand what the hostility towards celtic people is.

There is no hostility towards Celtic people. I, and many others here, actually regard them very amicably. But just because I respect a folk doesn't mean that they are of my kin. You could stretch the proof for that to the absurd, I'm sure not few here respect the Japanese for one thing or the other... ;)


They forsure lived on the soil of what is now Germany. To assume they are all gone is not sensical to me.

Culture is not always conservative. Roman tradition essentially changed by the hour even though the ethnicity of the rulers did not change until very late; Sumerian tradition essentially didn't change for almost 2,000 years even though there was a change of system and hierarchy every odd century. It's something one cannot explain.


Regarding the language and customs there seems to have been a strong interaction. Which means they merged.

Strong interaction for sure, but this does not mean that they essentially merged. Interaction may occur with only minimal mixture, similar customs could be due to similar circumstances alone.

We now know that in East Tyrol at some point Germanics, Celto-Romanics and Slavics must have lived alongside each other, but there is very little indication for mixture, at least not one that pertains to the present day, because East Tyrolese dialect or custom doesn't deviate that far from that of South Tyrol, where we find very few to no proof of Slavic influence.


If germanic tribes, I guess you mean the Markomannen, pushed the celtic away why then would they keep the tribes name of the Boi?

Perhaps because they would have referred to themselves as being people of a certain geographical region, which may have already been named at that stage? Even if Bohemia took its name from the Boi (which could also have been the other way around), Bavarians may have taken the name from that already named land rather than directly from that tribe.


It doesn't make sense. it only make sense if a strong group of the Boi stayed and kept their name alive despite a strong mix with germanic tribes.

In a toponymic sense it actually makes a lot of sense, as I have already stated that place names tend to be rather conservative. Peoples, as seen from history, more commonly receive a label from the region or city than the other way around, the actual name of the region may be well more ancient and go back to a bygone civilisation.

Hauke Haien
Monday, November 2nd, 2009, 09:37 PM
there has been intense interaction between those groups. Most likely because they have been so similar, in race, language and culture.
I don't think that is the reason. Other Indo-European groups also interacted with those in their vicinity. The Tocharians, for example, mixed with Mongols, Chinese and Uyghur Turks and consequently ceased to exist as a people. The East Germanic tribes have been lost completely, the Franks in France have been dissolved.


Celtic belongs to the indo-european (aryan) language family.

And looking at those words they are not that far apart. There is a strong possibility that they understood each other.
At the Indo-European stage, certainly, but Celtic is parallel branch and the reason for its existence as a linguistic category is the decrease in mutual intelligibility.


I also think they understood that they belonged to the same culture.
I don't think so. Germanics called them Walha (foreigner, outsider).


Numerous elements of what is considered today germanic is celtic in essence.
Considering and integrating foreign ideas does not automatically mean that one tries to be a foreigner, although it does happen. There has been a craze throughout the last millenium with everyone trying to be Romano-European. The Nervii and Treveri are also reported to have been eager to claim a Germanic identity. But in most cases a people will try to defend and assert their identity and sense of belonging rather than recognising every layer or creating broader categories meant to contain them all.


I don't really understand what the hostility towards celtic people is.
It is not unusual for people to take their identity seriously and that includes hostility against attempts to distort their sense of self and sense of group.