Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 4th, 2013, 04:21 AM   #1
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: USA
Posts: 107
Cimbri and a rebuttal to David Faux


I had seen this paper by Mr. Faux sometime around 2008 and was somewhat interested. I didn’t feel the need to delve into his paper until I saw Mr. Faux’s paper referenced in the book “The Crisis of Rome” by Gareth C. Sampson. I was actually surprised to find this paper by Mr. Faux as the source for the ethnicity of the Cimbri cited by Mr. Sampson. Mr. Sampson didn’t go into any detail on this subject other then listing the web site and saying that the paper by Mr. Faux leans towards the Cimbri being Celtic. It is at that time that I decided to do some research, most of it coming from Mr. Faux’s sources. Here is the link to the paper written by Mr.Faux:
The Cimbri Tribe_ jutland Denmark-Chronology

Mr. Faux proposes that there was a “Celtic” enclave in Jutland (Himmerland to be more exact) Denmark and that the Cimbri were the “Celts” who immigrated there around 500 BC. I plan to divide this rebuttal into two sections, the first dealing with the “Celtic” enclave theory. most of my rebuttal is based on the sources used by Mr. Faux. The second part of the rebuttal will deal with the written(classical authors) and the aspects they bring up on the ethnicity of the Cimbri. This will be written at a later time.

I plan on skipping much of what Mr. Faux has written to shorten this rebuttal (this is meant to be short) and will begin with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Faux-“The Cimbri of Denmark...”
Kristiansen (1998), speaking of the Nordic Bronze Age to 750 BC, reports that, we can observe a general Nordic cultural tradition from the Neolithic onwards that encompasses present-day Denmark, northern Germany and southern Sweden(pp. 67-68). Furthermore, The Nordic tradition emerged during the Bronze Age around 1500 BC and is recognizable until 500 BC. Pg.13
Mr. Faux continues on to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Faux-“The Cimbri of Denmark...”
In other words the first hypothesis of an early
arrival of the Cimbri who were Celtic speaking and, as will be seen below, very much embedded in a classic Celtic cultural matrix from at least the 1st Century BC to the 3rd Century AD, is not supported with convincing evidence. Kristiansen is very clear that certain similarities with Central European cultures at this time can be explained in full by a tendency of those in Nordic regions to accept valued prestige goods and their stylistic elements – but there is no need to posit a mass migration at this period in time. Hence it is not likely that the bulk of the progenitors of the Cimbri, other than indigenous groups integrated with later migrants, arrived much before about 800 BC – although some limited Central European introgression is entirely possible and even likely. Pg.13
Mr. Faux seems to be satisfied that there was no large scale immigration prior to 800 BC, though he seems to focus on the year around 500 BC, so I will continue with his arguments from that time frame. It matters little if at all were these “Celts” came from in this discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Faux-“The Cimbri of Denmark...”
Jensen (1982) states that, In the five centuries preceeding the birth of Christ, a wave of settlement expansion swept over Denmark. The introduction of new types of land management created in the course of a few centuries countless changes in the old settlement pattern which had endured for almost 2000 years (p. 198). This is echoed by Kristiansen who noted that by 500 to 450 BC a change in social organization, settlement and production had taken place, reflected in the appearance of Celtic fields. Also small villages with family farms keeping stalled cattle appeared (p. 306).An example of a village of this era is Grontoft in Western Jutland, complete with urnfield cemetery and a paucity of grave goods. Recently there have been unique extensive excavations here, at what has been termed a “ wandering village”, surrounded by Celtic fields in West Jutland. The settlements moved about once every generation within a “resource territory”, beginning about 500 BC when house styles underwent a dramatic change. Sometime around 250 BC it was fenced and a generation later abandoned. Some of the buildings, longhouses, are 20 meters in length. Pg.27
Mr. Faux seems to believe this supports the Cimbri and Teutons bringing to Denmark their “Celtic culture and language”(Pg.27-28).
Here is where we need to look deeper into these subjects. First we should take Jensen’s and Kristiansens statement about this new change. First lets explore the “Celtic fields”. The “Celtic fields” or as Hedeager calls them “boundary banks” were around well before 500 BC, nor were they just in “Celtic” territories.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audouze/Buchsenschutz-“Towns, Villages and Countryside of Celtic Europe”
The main areas of ‘Celtic fields’ are to be found in countries bordering the North Sea - Britain, the Netherlands, northern Germany, Sweden and Denmark. Pg160
The boundary banks are not simply “Celtic”, but exist in multiple areas where non-Celtic speakers lived as well as other areas where Celtic speakers live. In the next quote you will see that the ‘Celtic fields’ existed as early as 1200 BC, but came into much heavier used near the beginning of the Iron Age in Denmark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotte Hedeager-“Iron-Age Societies”
Fixed field systems surrounded by low boundary banks (Celtic fields) first appear at the beginning of the Iron Age. The form of cultivation which was practiced in association with boundary banks began, according to the most recent studies, as early as the middle of the Bronze Age, around 1200 BC, but the establishment of permanent fields defined by boundary banks first took place at the beginning of the Iron Age, around 500 BC (V.Nielsen 1984). Here they are contemporary with the major shift from the large ‘halls’ of the Bronze Age to the smaller longhouses of the Iron Age, in which for the first time the cattle were installed. The field systems were an element in a re-creation of productivity of exhausted fields.Pg.201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritian Kristiansen-“Europe before history”
During the Late Bronze Age the ecological balance had changed towards less productive open pastures, characterised by soil degradation (Figure 166). Settlement clustered, and the houses became smaller, adapted to individual families. By 500/450 this change in social organisation, settlement and production had taken place, reflected in the appearance of Celtic fields all over northwestern Europe (Muller-Wille 1965). At the same time small villages with family farms keeping stalled cattle appeared (figures 167 and 168), allowing the collection of dung for fertilising the fields. It was a means of restoring productivity after 2,000 years of unregulated crop rotation and overgrazing by large free-roaming herds, which had degraded the soils. Pg.306
As shown above the reason for these boundary banks (Celtic fields) was due to soil exhaustion, which is also mentioned here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotte Hedeager-“Iron-Age Societies”
Some shifting in settlement does, however, take place. Finds from the earliest Iron Age are distinctly linked to the light soil in west and central Jutland - just as in the Bronze Age - while finds from all other periods cluster most densely on heavier soil (Mathiassen 1948, pl. XXVII: N.H. Andersen 1976; Jensen 1980a) (figure 4.5). We may therefore conclude that the Iron-Age population of the centuries around the beginning of our era could settle on all kinds of soil - which means, in principle, anywhere in the country - because the form of agriculture was especially flexible and adaptable. When the land was so heavily exploited that new areas could no longer be found, agricultural and technological changes were the only answer to population pressure and soil exhaustion. Pg.192
Going on to the other changes we shall now look at the new housing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotte Hedeager-“Iron-Age Societies”
In constructional terms, the buildings of the earlier Iron Age as a whole (fifth centry BC to second century AD) belong to one type (figure 4.7). The wall construction, however, can vary from region to region, apparently dependent upon the availability of suitable material. Pg.193
So the changing of the housing wasn’t just in the area where this Cimbri/Teuton “Celtic” enclave would be, but all over Denmark. This would be uncharacteristic considering the Sântana de Mures,–Chernyakhov culture and the various ethnic housing in that culture or that of the Treveri where you come across the same situation:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony King-“Roman Gaul and Germany”
There must have been considerable mixing of populations along the frontier region, as Caesar recorded when he described the Belgae as claiming Germanic descent. Tribes like the Treveri were, to judge from the archaeological record, Gaulish to a large degree, although historically they claimed German ancestry. The villas within Treveran territory quite frequently display mixed traits, and the distribution of hall-type villas overlapped with those of more Gallic type. Pg.155
But foregoing this, you will find where the origins of this new housing comes from:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorgen Jensen-The prehistory of Denmark
The houses of the Grontoft village are of the three-aisled construction which is found at all of the Danish Iron Age settlements (Figure 64). This construction has roots far back in time, to the middle of the second millennium BC (see p.146ff). Around 500 BC it evolved into a rectangular house shape, unvaryingly oriented east-west and with a roof supported by two parallel rows of interior posts. Pg.205
This is not from some kind of foreign influence but an evolution for the new needs of these people.

Mr.Faux goes on about a flourishing culture:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Faux-“The Cimbri of Denmark...”
In contrast to what is reported above, it is interesting that about 500 BC there is a sudden and dramatic flourishing of “culture” in Jutland. Jensen (1982) noted that, The few central and southern European wealth objects which did manage to reach Denmark in the period after 500 BC often remained in circulation all the way up to the first century BC. One example of this long circulation is a series of Campanian and Etruscan bronze products from the fifth to the third centuries BC which have been found in graves from the first century BC. These wealth objects must have circulated for three or four hundred years (p. 236). pg.27
Mr. Faux says there was a dramatic flourishing of culture and produces a quote again from Jensen. Here is what Jensen said prior to what Mr. Faux put down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorgen Jensen-The prehistory of Denmark
For an area like Denmark, which was utterly dependent upon imported metal, this state of affairs had a profound impact. The scarcity of wealth objects must have made it difficult to maintain the earlier hierachization, and this situation lasted until the first century BC. The extravagant sacrificial rites by which the elite had previously converted surplus into status were modified. Certainly, status symbols continued to be sacrificially deposited in Danish peat bogs, but now the sacrifices consisted almost exclusively of single sets of neck-rings, pins, brooches or other accessories of local fabrication. The metal quantities which went into making these objects come nowhere near the enormous quantities of metal which had been withdrawn from circulation in the first half of the first millennium BC. The few central and southern...... pg.236
On the next page Jensen says this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorgen Jensen-The prehistory of Denmark
The first indications of this new situation in Denmark date from the first century BC. Once more wealth objects were deposited in the earth as a part of ritual sacrifices. This held true of such objects as precious cauldrons, which had originated in central or south-east Europe. Pg.238
Jensen writes of the Gundestrup cauldron and Bra cauldron. The Bra cauldron was made in the 3rd century, but probably not buried until the 1st century. Jensen goes on:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorgen Jensen-The prehistory of Denmark
At the same time this socio-economic development also curtailed the circulation time of foreign wealth objects, which were now deposited in the graves. Pg.238
None of this has to do with the “flourishing of culture” as much as a loss of trade routes until around the 1st century BC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorgen Jensen-The prehistory of Denmark
These finds, which plainly indicate an intensified exchange of goods, continued after the birth of Christ, when Roman luxury wares were now dispersed over the entire northern part of the continent as a result of the intimate interaction of at least three different economic systems. Pg.238
Mr. Faux writes this in his next point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Faux-“The Cimbri of Denmark...”
Again, a reasonable hypothesis is that it was at this time, about 500 BC, that the bulk of
Cimbri and possibly the Teutones arrived for the first time in Denmark, bringing with them their Celtic culture and language (although a large exodus appears to have occurred between circa 400 and 200 BC–the next two finds perhaps supporting this hypothesis). Pg.27-28
The two finds he is referring to are the bog bodies of Haraldskaer and of Borremose. How these two finds help his theory he doesn’t explain, he just writes of what they were buried with and how they possibly died. Now as far as if these were “Celts” which I assume that is what Mr. Faux is trying to state, they were wearing local (Denmark) clothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulla Mannering, Margarita Gleba and Marianne Bloch Hansen-“Textiles and Textile production in Europe: From Prehistory to AD 400"
One such example comes from Tornebuskehoj in west Jutland, dated to the 1st century AD (Hald 1980). All of them are found in graves with special features and grave goods imported from the Roman sphere. While these textiles are characterized as local products, they demonstrate a clear influence from contemporary Roman and Central European cultural spheres. Pg.113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulla Mannering, Margarita Gleba and Marianne Bloch Hansen-“Textiles and Textile production in Europe: From Prehistory to AD 400"
Thorough analyses of the textiles from the Pre-Roman Iron Age have further demonstrated that, in spite of the fact that they are all produced within local and individual households, they represent a strong, uniform and widespread craft tradition. At the same time, it is definitely a periods when new techniques were tested and experimented upon The raw material were exchanged over long distances. Pg.115
The first quote I used for context(Jutland) as well as to show there were influences, but they were local products. The second quote I want to strongly point this out:
“that they are all produced within local and individual households, they represent a strong, uniform and widespread craft tradition.” No indication of these in clothing, jewelry, manner of death(bog bodies have been around well before 500 BC), and anything else that would be considered “Celtic”.

Next up is iron in the Iron-Age:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Faux-“The Cimbri of Denmark...”
It was in 400 BC that iron making arrived in Denmark, and a profusion of new fortified settlements and evidence of warfare appear. Lauring (1957) speculates that iron technology was imported via “new intruders” from the Celtic south, ... Pg.28
Below are more recent quotes(1998, 1982) from Mr. Faux’s sources that he did not include in his theory:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritian Kristiansen-“Europe before history”
Thus the suggestion may be made, and can be supported by empirical evidence, that iron was produced in situation where bronze was lacking. This can be seen to be the case in several instances, from Greece to Scandinavia. After the collapse of the centralised palace economy, with its heavy demand for bronze (Snodgrass 1989 refers to a stock of 800 kg recorded on a palace tablet), long distance exchange of bronze came to a partial halt, and iron technology developed to replace it. The same situation was repeated 600 years later in the Nordic region, where iron was known for at least 200 years before it was finally adopted at the time when supplies of bronze ceased. Pg.211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorgen Jensen-The prehistory of Denmark
The gradual advance of iron technology from central Europe can be illustrated with a distribution map of iron objects from the archaeological finds prior to c.500 BC. The finds are seen to be concentrated along the central Elbe and the central and lower Oder. Pg.228
Not an instantaneous jump to iron technology but a gradual advance that can be seen in the archaeological record.

Next we discuss burials:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Faux-“The Cimbri of Denmark...”
It is noteworthy that during the Pre–Roman Iron Age cremation was universal in Denmark–there were no inhumation graves(Kaul, p. 42). Pg.34
I don’t understand why this would be noteworthy. If there was a enclave in Denmark wouldn’t this new type of burial be mostly in that one enclave and not the entire area? Furthermore cremation was not new to Denmark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Faux-“The Cimbri of Denmark...”
In the last phase of the Bronze Age in Jutland the graves in are less ornate and might just include for example a dagger. The aristocracy appears to disappear–or are invisible in the burial record. Inhumation burials are replaced by urnfields. Pg.26
Before 500 BC cremation was already around, and it came and went throughout the centuries in Denmark, which you can read about in the sources provided by Mr.Faux.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorgen Jensen-The prehistory of Denmark
Towards the end of the second millennium BC, a new mortuary practice can be discerned. Status symbols are now rarely invested in the graves. Instead the metal objects are laid in sacrificial deposits, the so-called ‘hoards’. This shift coincides by and large with a transition from inhumation graves to cremation. Pg.174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorgen Jensen-The prehistory of Denmark
From the Bronze Age, c. 1800-500 BC, about 4000 graves are known. More than 1000 of these date from the Early Bronze Age. Most of these early graves are inhumation graves, whereas the graves from the Late Bronze Age are all Cremation graves. Pg.182
Once again this shift from inhumation to cremation began prior to 500 BC when this supposed immigration happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.V.Glob-“Denmark”
The whole of the Early Iron Age from about the year 400 B.C. to the birth of Christ is known as the Celtic Iron Age, because the Scandinavian cultural area was at that time strongly under the influence of the great Celtic empires of Central Europe. Towards the end of this period inhumation appears again and the graves are more richly furnished. The first four centuries A.D. come under the influence of the Roman Empire, which had gradually extended its frontiers to the Rhine. This period is therefore known as the Roman Iron Age, when cremation falls very much into disuse, though without completely disappearing. Pg.168
Please note the word influence in both Roman and “Celtic” iron age.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Faux-“The Cimbri of Denmark...”
It is also at the beginning of the Pre-Roman Iron Age one can see striking shifts in the cultural picture at many other levels than the bog finds, including iconography, the settlement pattern and the burial custom. In addition the transition from Bronze Age to Iron Age were followed by other striking changes in the sacral use of bogs and wetlands. One sees a renewed occurrence of ‘bog pots’, i.e. earthenware vessels deposited in bogs which are presumed to have contained food. Furthermore, it is striking against the background of the extremely few finds from the latest period of the Bronze Age that the Early Iron Age is so strongly represented(Kaul, 2003, p. 32).
Yes society was changing, but what about these new changes, were they foreign, brand new? I placed this quotation out of order due to the inhumation/cremation mentioned by Mr.Faux is involved in the below citations:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotte Hedeager-“Iron-Age Societies”
In the earliest part of the Iron Age, ritual activities were normally a continuation of later Bronze-Age practice: that is, under-emphasized funerary ritual and votive offerings of bronze rings in the bogs. Large, uniform cemeteries played a part in emphasizing the common identity of individual local communities. The grave inventory was uniform and spare, and no one had special status or pre-eminence marked through burial practice. Pg.78
”ritual activities were normally a continuation of later Bronze-Age practice: ”

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.V.Glob-“Denmark”
In burial customs, there is no break in the transition period from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, only an extension and more general acceptance of cremation. Urns containing simply the burnt bones are deposited now, as previously, under low mounds surrounded by circles of smallish stones. Pg.165
”no break in the transition period from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotte Hedeager-“Iron-Age Societies”
In the EpRIA the public rituals have a conservative function, as they emphasize continuity back into the Bronze Age. The grave rites display commonality and conformity. The changes which take place in the LpRIA must be an expression of individual families or persons separating themselves from this commonality and aligning themselves with the gods through their burial rites. Pg.80
“they emphasize continuity back into the Bronze Age. “
What of religion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders Andren-“The Oxford Handbook of The Archaeology of Ritual & Religion”
Old Norse and Germanic religion has predominantly been discussed in relation to the archaeology of the Iron Age in Northern Europe, i.e. 500 BC-AD 1000. Possible links to rituals and iconography in Bronze Age Scandinavia (1700-500 BC) is much more disputed, but not totally unreasonable. The iconographical world of rock carvings and bronze objects coincides spatially with the much later sacral place names. Recently a specific Scandianian bronze Age religion has been outlined, centered around the daily cycle of the sun and the twin motif of men, warriors, riders, or horses (Randsborh 1993; Kaul 1998; 2004). This religion is supposed to disappear around 500 BC at the end of the Bronze Age. However there seems to be an overlap since some of the Bronze age symbols, such as the wheel cross, is known from later on. Besides the solar cycle and the twin motifs are clearly present on the early picture stones on Gotland during the third to fifth centuries AD. Even in the early thirteenth century AD, Snorri can describe how the sun was drawn over heaven by a horse, in a way very similar to the famous sun chariot from Trundholm, dated to the fifteenth century BC (Gelling and Davidson 1969). Pg.856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorgen Jensen-The prehistory of Denmark
Throughout the second and most of the first millennia BC, religious symbolism was surprisingly uniform, as was, no doubt, the mythology which integrated each farming community. This homogeneity applied both geographically and chronologically. Many mythological motifs of the north European Bronze Age, such as the ship, the chariot of the sun, the fish and the horse (Figure 61), survived largely unchanged for more than a thousand years. Their dissemination throughout the north European lowland exemplifies the lively communication which existed from region to region. Pg.176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotte Hedeager-“Iron-Age Societies”
The village society of the earlier Iron Age was something new, and it was an innovation to bury the dead in large cemeteries. Community and unity must have been of vital importance for those generations which lived in the watershed between the clan-based society of the Bronze Age and the family - and village-based society of the Iron Age. The rituals and traditions of the late Bronze Age played their part as a spiritual sheet anchor which prevented the world from going entirely off course in a phase in which thoroughgoing change and reformation in daily life were taking place. Pg.240-241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotte Hedeager-“Iron-Age Societies”
It is, however, necessary to distinguish at this point between collective and individual rituals. Sacrifices with their sources in the Bronze Age have the character of collective offerings to the gods, while funerary rituals are grounded in the kindred and the village. The use of scarce bronze in communal rituals also reveals the ancient traditions; the bronze represented contact with the outside world in a time when these lines of contact had largely ceased to function. The Earlier pre-Roman Iron Age is characterized instead by strong regional groupings in material culture, especially clearly so in Jutland but also in north Germany. In spite of this, a living ritual tradition concerning distant contacts and exotic metals carried on.
What capacity for change was there in this early Iron-Age society? Although social organization in the EpRIA must be regarded in its origins as a re-organization of society in crisis, the new individualized form of production nevertheless had essential potential. In the longer view, it formed the basis both for an increase in production and for individual families eventually to appropriate for themselves the right of use of substantial tracts of land, as the right of disposal belonged to the clan. Pg.241

The next subject Mr.Faux talks of “a sudden influx of Danubian artifacts”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Faux-“The Cimbri of Denmark...”
The archaeological record supports the historical record in that there is a sudden influx of Danubian artifacts (in other words a back migration) during the 3rd Century BC in the west as far as southern France, the territory of the Belgae–and north to Jutland. Hence it is likely that both the Tectosages of Toulouse and the Cimbri and other unnamed tribes headed west shortly after 279 BC to establish themselves in other locations or those previously vacated. Pg.33
Mr. Faux claims this goes north to Jutland, yet:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venceslas Kruta-“Celts History and Civilization”
The situation is particularly clear in Champagne, where the areas that became depopulated around the end of the 5th century BCE were gradually reoccupied, starting in the south, the Senones’ historic territory. Small groups began to arrive around 270 BCE, and founded new necropolises or reused the burial-sites that had lain abandoned for two centuries. They can be differentiated from indigenous inhabitants - the Remi to the north and the Senones in the south - by typically Danubian female jewellery, which is quite unusual in the region: pg.86
They can be differentiated from the Remi who are to the north of them, meaning the Danubian people didn’t go even as far as the Remi. This is also taken up by Barry Cunliffe:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cunliffe-“The ancient Celts”
The possibility that Celtic groups from the Balkans may have moved westwards through Europe and settled in the west is suggested by archaeological and literary evidence. In the Marne region, for example, a new range of warrior burials accompanied by well-furnished female graves makes a sudden appearance towards the middle of the third century. New cemeteries were established and old burial sites reused. It is now that areas long abandoned are reoccupied. The implication is that new Celtic groups had moved into the Champagne region to augment the thinly scattered indigenous Celtic population. That these new settlers may have come from the Carpathian Basin is suggested by similarities in dress between the two areas, in particular the use of anklets by women, and by the prevalence of small funerary enclosures which now appear.
In southern Gaul there is also evidence suggestive of an influx of new people from the Danube region. The southern Gaulish historian Pompeius Trogus, quoted by Justinus, records that a number of the Tectosages, who were involved in the retreat from Greece, moved west eventually to settle in the vicinity of Toulouse, bringing with them treasure from the sack of Delphi which they deposited in sacred lakes. Pg.87
He mentions exactly the same area as does Kruta, nothing “north to Jutland” but going only as far at the Belgic Remi.

Now we go into duration of transition from Bronze-Age to Iron-Age:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Faux-“The Cimbri of Denmark...”
In a recent article in Antiquity, Daniel discussed the work of Conrad Engelhardt, who excavated many of the important Danish Iron Age sites and published a book on the subject in 1866. According to Engelhardt the “Danish Early Iron Age” began in 250 BC. He discussed whether the changes implicit in the Early Iron Age were the result of pacific intercourse or commercial relations with nations of higher civilization, rejects these, and says ‘the higher state of civilization was the result of an invasion, for in no other way can the sudden appearance of damascened weapons, of materials hitherto unknown, of
horses, arts and letters, be satisfactorily explained’ (p. 137). Since then there have been
opinions for and against this invasionist view. Other archaeologists attribute all the evidence as relecting cultural diffusion (e.g., Klindt–Jensen). What this does not explain, however, is the suddenness with which this full Celtic “package” or “ensemble” appears in Jutland. Importantly, there is no gradual transition as would be expected if there was a cultural exchange slowly radiating north. Pg.36-37
Engelhardt wrote from an 1866 point of view where the knowledge of archaeology was not as great as those of Klindt-Jensen and many others. Many more finds especially in the 1970's were well beyond what Engelhardt knew and therefore skewed his view.


If these changes were brought in by immigration, as Mr. Faux quotes above, one would tend to think allot of these happenings would be a fairly quick change, like that of other immigration situations(Sântana de Mures,–Chernyakhov culture). Mr.Faux’s quote from Jensen (several citations above) says these changes happened in the course of a few centuries. Yet now Mr. Faux cites a source from 1866! First here is a partial quote I cited from Mr.Faux earlier in this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Faux-“The Cimbri of Denmark...”
Jensen (1982) states that, In the five centuries preceeding the birth of Christ, a wave of settlement expansion swept over Denmark. The introduction of new types of land management created in the course of a few centuries countless changes in the old settlement pattern which had endured for almost 2000 years (p. 198). This is echoed by Kristiansen who noted that by 500 to 450 BC a change in social organization, settlement and production had taken place, reflected in the appearance of Celtic fields. Also small villages with family farms keeping stalled cattle appeared (p. 306)
If you look at the bolded part, Jensen says in the course of a few centuries, not a quick change.
Also in the above quote where Mr.Faux quotes Jensen, you can find the citation below in the next paragraph of the book by Jensen:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorgen Jensen-The prehistory of Denmark
Indications of this lengthy process must be sought first and foremost in the new methods of production of the agrarian communities. Pg.198
There is also these quotes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotte Hedeager-“Iron-Age Societies”
The village society of the earlier Iron Age was something new, and it was an innovation to bury the dead in large cemeteries. Community and unity must have been of vital importance for those generations which lived in the watershed between the clan-based society of the Bronze Age and the family - and village-based society of the Iron Age. The rituals and traditions of the late Bronze Age played their part as a spiritual sheet anchor which prevented the world from going entirely off course in a phase in which thoroughgoing change and reformation in daily life were taking place. Pg.240-241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorgen Jensen-The prehistory of Denmark
A study of the village societies offers a glimpse of some of the changes which the agrarian society underwent in the period up to the agricultural expansion of the Viking Age and early Middle Ages. At this late time another agricultural revolution took place, probably provoked by the population growth in the last centuries of prehistory. What lay ahead of this seemingly radical change was an agricultural system with roots all the way back to the third millennium BC- a system which through the Iron Age had slowly increased productivity by embracing ever more production-stimulating technological methods. This change seems to have occurred extremely slowly and also at different times in various regions in Denmark. Pg.222
If a large population enters a new area, the changes are going to be relatively quick, not a lengthy process, extremely slow changes or generations between the change from bronze to Iron age.

So what was the cause of this big change from the Bronze-Age to the Iron-Age? I leave this to Kristiansen:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritian Kristiansen-“Europe before history”
Finally, the northwest European sequence exemplified the transformation of a Bronze Age chiefly, tribal settlement into individual family farms and villages with a regulated land use. It was a response to two millennia of ecological transformation and the degradation of land by free-grazing herds of cattle/sheep and crop rotation. The new organisation of production provided more labour to feed the stalled animals and to fertilise the fields, as well as the development of new agrarian technologies, including the formation of hay meadows to replace forest products. This new organisation represented the beginning of a long-term sequence of settlement expansion, intensification and a gradual development of political centralisation from the 1st century BC. The northwest European sequence further shows how a decentralised settlement system without fortifications may support the development of a centralised political organisation, which culminated only in the 1st millennium AD, and which came to characterise much of Europe north of the Rhine/Danube. Pg.310
As stated earlier in this it was soil degradation and other things that triggered this new way of life, not an immigration of new peoples.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritian Kristiansen-“Europe before history”
With reference to the Grontoft sequence, I also suggest that if control can be maintained by other means, e.g. strong retinues of mobile warriors, there is less need for fortified settlements, as in lowland northern Europe and in Central Europe during Hallstatt C and Early La Tene. In such a social environment only small chiefly residences can be fortified. It probably reflected an ability to mobilise warriors in critical situations, along chiefly lines of kinship and clientship. Celtic migrations were never directed towards northern Europe, perhaps for the very same reasons, although others were equally strong, as we shall see in the next chapter. Pg.311
I threw this one in for fun-“Celtic migrations were never directed towards northern Europe”.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritian Kristiansen-“Europe before history”
Thus, prior to the Celtic migrations, large-scale changes in settlement organisation, economy and social organisation had taken place throughout northern Europe, as a response to a demographic and ecological crisis, which in combination with the decline of long-distance prestige-goods exchange and a worsening of the climate led to the collapse of Bronze Age society and its ritualised chiefly organisation in the lowland zone of northern Europe. It represented the culmination of processes that had been under way for several generations, and which had now reached the land’s social and ecological carrying capacity. During the 5th century BC norther Europe saw a new social and economic organisation based on land ownership and mobile armies. It meant there was less need for fortified central places, just as tribute was paid to local chiefs rather than to a centre. As there was little industrial production and trade beyond local and regional needs, none of the conditions for fortified settlements was present. Pg.312-313
My assumption is that Kristiansen is also including Denmark as a lowland zone.
And finally the genetic research:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Faux-“The Cimbri of Denmark...”
Pozzato et al. (2001) compared the rates of haemochromatosis (an iron storage disease-HFE), and the presence of two genes known to be associated with the condition, in two populations assumed to share a common ancestry–Celts from Denmark and from Italy. They reported that, The Cimbri, a Celtic tribe originating from Denmark, settled on the Asiago plateau, the Celts were defeated by the legions of the Roman Republic........ (p.449). The authors found significant similarities in the prevalence of HFE mutations inboth peoples “of Celtic origin”. Pg.47
This is simply trumped by this, in the conclusion of this paper:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders D. Břrglum, Cristiano Vernesi, Peter K.A. Jensen, Bo Madsen, Annette Haagerup, and Guido Barbujani-“No Signature of Y Chromosomal Resemblance Between Possible Descendants of the Cimbri in Denmark and Northern Italy”
While ‘‘Cimbri’’ from Himmerland resembled their geographical neighbors from Denmark for the Y-chromosome markers, ‘‘Cimbri’’ from Italy were significantly differentiated both from ‘‘Cimbri’’ from Himmerland and from Danes. Therefore we were not able to show any biological relationship for uniparentally transmitted markers. Pg.283
http://class.csueastbay.edu/anthropo...8rglum2007.pdf


Conclusion:
The cause of this change from the Bronze-Age to the Iron-Age was due to “a demographic and ecological crisis, which in combination with the decline of long-distance prestige-goods exchange and a worsening of the climate led to the collapse of Bronze Age society “. The “Celtic” fields had been around since 1800 BC but gained in use due to the soil degradation, this in turn caused lifestyle changes. If this was due to immigration it would have been a quick process but it was not. The changes of field production, housing, religion , bog bodies and burial customs have their origins in the Bronze-Age, and as previously mentioned it was over a long period of time. There are no “Celtic” place names or any finds other then prestige items that suggest any kind of immigration, especially that of a tribal level. Could there have been “Celtic” peoples in Denmark? Of course, and there probably was. The problem with the theory of Mr. Faux is that the amount of “Celtic” people in Denmark at this time would most likely be minuscule at best, for there is no indication for their existence anywhere in Denmark let alone Jutland.


Mr.Faux mentions the wagons later in his paper, another one for fun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotte Hedeager-“Iron-Age Societies”
Doubts have been expressed as to the Celtic origins of the wagons, and it has been suggested instead that the wagon might have been locally made (Jensen 1980b, p.213). pg.82
footnote 2 dealing with the “large Celtic display wagons” from Dejbjerg bog, also from Langa and Kraghed in north Jutland.
Frostwulf is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 4th, 2013, 04:36 AM   #2

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 13,710

That he uses DNA "evidence" should ring the alarm bells. It simply shows,that he doesn't understand the things he is talking about. Modern Himmerland has 2785 sq.km, the greater Nordjylland has 7910 sq.km. We don't know how great the cimbric land was, but we shouldn't really expect much more. So how many people do we expect, especially for a migration? They had maybe not more than 10-20.000 people. On their way to Italy they crossed different territories, those of the Jastorf-culture, those of the Przeworsk-culture. And especially the later had a strong celtic influence. They went on thru the land of the Skordiski, Norici and as well helvetians joined the migraton. We don't know, how large the number of the invaders was, but it should be clear, that only a small percentage could have been of nordjyllandish origin. So how does one want to find such DNA?
beorna is offline  
Old October 5th, 2013, 01:33 AM   #3
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: USA
Posts: 107

@beorna,
I do agree that the DNA testing would be difficult to figure for ancient peoples and who would be who in the skeletons found. As far as the populations are considered:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Salmons-“Accentual Change and Language Contact: A Comparative Survey and a Case Study”
The population of north central Europe at the time of the Iron Age was still quite low in density but dramatically increased during the period of Celtic and Germanic ethno- and glottogenesis. McEvedy and Jones (1979:50) estimate the entire population of Scandinavia in 500 B.C.E. 150,000 with 100,000 of those in Denmark. By 200 B.C.E. they estimate and increase to 400,000, with roughly half of those living in Denmark. That would amount to roughly 2.5 persons per km in Denmark, ‘increasing to 5 persons per km by about 200 B.C.E. For the area encompassing contemporary Germany, they estimate a total population of one million in 700 B.C.E. (ca. 2.8 per km) and three times that in Julius Caesars era (1979:62). Pg. 89
This is not the first time I have seen these kind of numbers, which fit with J.B. Bury:

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.B.Bury-“The Invasion Of Europe By The Barbarians”
East German nations varied from 80,000 to perhaps 120,000, while that of the smaller peoples varied from 25,000 to 50,000. Now from these totals, which included women and children, the Germans could put a much larger fraction in the field than a civilized state. The military age began somewhat earlier and lasted much longer. A German host could number a quarter or a fifth of the population. And so we find that an army of one of the big East German peoples like the Visigoths, or Ostrogoths, or Vandals, would be as a rule about 20,000, or 25,000, or at most 30,000. Pg.42
So around the migration of the Cimbri there was about 200,000 people living in Denmark and how many of those were of the Cimbri tribe? As you pointed out they did travel through those areas and I agree they would have picked up more people, later on this would include "Celtic" people such as the Helvetti, though most would in my opinion be "Germanic" speakers. At this point what was their population? There have been speculations on this question which I will address in a thread hopefully later this year.
Frostwulf is offline  
Old October 5th, 2013, 03:14 AM   #4

Edgewaters's Avatar
Contrarian
 
Joined: Jul 2007
From: Canada
Posts: 8,472

DNA should not have much to do with anything. Celtic culture was just that - culture. They consisted of a bunch of different groups and weren't united by blood (except in the sense that any continental grouping might be). They were not, by any means, some monolithic ethnic group controlling all of Western Europe. They were just a bunch of tribes in that area who shared some cultural features, particularly in terms of material culture.

There was apparently some degree of cultural exchange in the Belgium/Frisia area. Also in Britain which seems to have been colonized by waves of Germano-Celtic types like the Belgae before the Romans arrived.

This isn't really surprising considering neither group really thought of themselves as "Celts" or "Germanics" ... their identities were very local, and these groupings were just labels used by the Romans because of the huge number of small groups. That there should be a grey area in some places isn't at all surprising. Tribes living in close proximity are going to pick up regional habits from one another given enough time.

As far as Jutland, it's a bit far from Gaul, however, the Celts were known to be prolific traders and right along that coast we do have the Veneti fleets and other traffic. They had tin and bronze, for which there were few sources in Europe outside Britain and Spain. They also had plenty of iron, wool, agricultural produce, and access to Meditteranean luxury goods. Likewise the Germans had valuable commodities, especially amber. It's not inconceivable that there would've been trade - and thus cultural exchange - as far as Jutland. It's not really very far from the Channel which was apparently bustling with activity just prior to the Roman invasion of Britain.

So we don't really need population movements to explain a few Celtic habits among the Cimbri, or even things like Celtic names or familiarity with the Gallic tongue (which spies and negotiators of the Romans seemed to be able to use with the Cimbri). They don't need to be Celts at all, for the Romans to be a bit confused about who they were. My 2 cents is that they were probably just Germanics who had picked up some Celtic culture ... probably some clothing items (perhaps wool from Britain) maybe some tools and weapons and a familiarity with the language. Mostly just from trade I would think. That would be sufficient to confuse the Romans.
Edgewaters is offline  
Old October 5th, 2013, 04:58 AM   #5
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: SF bay area
Posts: 1,266

I am a believer in the premise that Celts were much more widespread than most historians seem to believe. I'm also in agreement with Edgewaters that DNA (at the current state of the art) is unlikely to tell us whether a past group were Celts or Germanics, they both seem to have come from the same group of people.

What caught my attention was the statement apparently by Jensen and echoed by Kristiansen which used the phrase "complete with urnfield cemetery."

An "urnfield cemetery" seems to me to be a compelling indicator of there having been Celtic people about.

Frostwulf, you have presented an enormous amount of information to digest; Ill have to look at this a step at a time as my time allows.
Dzung is offline  
Old October 5th, 2013, 08:07 AM   #6

Sumrbrez's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: South Carolina, USA
Posts: 245
Cimbri


I picked up some interesting info off the internet.

From Scribd., The worlds leading digital library.
The following reasons imply that the Cimbri were Celtic.

The Cimbri were associated with other Celtic tribes like the Helvetii, the Ambrones, and Tiguri. The name Teutones is enigmatic, but most commonly assumed to imply "the people,tribe or race" in Celtic languages. All the known Celtic chiefs had Celtic names. Boiorix (Chief of the Celtic Boii, Gaisorix, chief of the Celtic Gaesatae, and Lugius, after the Celtic god Lugh.

A classical scholar Posidonius of Aparmae(135-51 BC), who about a generation after the Celtic defeat in 101 BC, interviewed Celtic leaders at Marselles and viewed battle sites and concluded that the Cimbri, Teutones and Ambrones were from the Germanic north, but were related to the Helvetii Celts of Switzerland.
Peter Ellis in "The Celtic Empire"(1990), reviewed the available evidence and came to the conclusion that "The contemporary evidence seems clear enough. The Cimbri and the Teutones spoke the Celtic language. They were Celtic. They formed alliances with other Celtic tribes creating a large Celtic army which nearly brought about the downfall of Rome.

Pliny the Elder in 77AD said the Cimbri spoke a Celtic language and gives numerous examples of Celtic words the Cimbri spoke.

From Reference.com.
The Romans enlisted Gaulish Celts to act as spies and infiltrate the Cimbri camp prior to the final showdown with the Roman army in 101 BC.
It is highly doubtful that these Gaulish spies spoke a Germanic language.
Sumrbrez is offline  
Old October 5th, 2013, 11:08 AM   #7
Archivist
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 225

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumrbrez View Post
I picked up some interesting info off the internet.

From Scribd., The worlds leading digital library.
The following reasons imply that the Cimbri were Celtic.

The Cimbri were associated with other Celtic tribes like the Helvetii, the Ambrones, and Tiguri. The name Teutones is enigmatic, but most commonly assumed to imply "the people,tribe or race" in Celtic languages. All the known Celtic chiefs had Celtic names. Boiorix (Chief of the Celtic Boii, Gaisorix, chief of the Celtic Gaesatae, and Lugius, after the Celtic god Lugh.

A classical scholar Posidonius of Aparmae(135-51 BC), who about a generation after the Celtic defeat in 101 BC, interviewed Celtic leaders at Marselles and viewed battle sites and concluded that the Cimbri, Teutones and Ambrones were from the Germanic north, but were related to the Helvetii Celts of Switzerland.
Peter Ellis in "The Celtic Empire"(1990), reviewed the available evidence and came to the conclusion that "The contemporary evidence seems clear enough. The Cimbri and the Teutones spoke the Celtic language. They were Celtic. They formed alliances with other Celtic tribes creating a large Celtic army which nearly brought about the downfall of Rome.

Pliny the Elder in 77AD said the Cimbri spoke a Celtic language and gives numerous examples of Celtic words the Cimbri spoke.

From Reference.com.
The Romans enlisted Gaulish Celts to act as spies and infiltrate the Cimbri camp prior to the final showdown with the Roman army in 101 BC.
It is highly doubtful that these Gaulish spies spoke a Germanic language.
I already wrote in another thread that the field of Linguistics does not support the Cimbri or Teutones speaking neccesarily a Celtic tongue. Especially the latter tribe seems to be non Celtic

Also, I cannot find those supposedly Celtic words in the works of Pliny.
He may have called them Celts, but prior to the emergence of the term Germani there either Celts, Scythians or Celto-Scythians liing in Central Europe. The Romans only later realised there were more than those three living in Central Europe. Some later Greek scholars later even used keltoi as an archaism for Germanic people.
Regarding Celtic spies: There are a number of bilingual Barbarians known, the most famous would be Ariovistus, wo spoke both a Geranic and a Celtic tongue. Celtic and Germanic history is deeply interwoven, with groups of different ethnolinguistic affiliations often forming alliances. Keep in mind that the Cimbri, Teutones and Ambrones migrated for over a decade through Celtic land, had Celtic allies and mos likely attracted quite a few Celts to join their journey. In the lack of traitors from the CTA, a Celtic spy would have been the most logical choice.

Concerning Poseidonius: Here he is somewhat misqouted(or mistranslated),
indeed he relates the Cimbri to the Helvetii, but not because of a common origin but because of the simple fact that they were allied and both fought againt the Romans in the Cimbrian war.

Here is a little summary of what I can say:
The dating of Grimms law is a big question, the first clearly shifted names are from the last decades of the 1st Century BC, right after the collapse of the Celtic world. The case of unshifted -t- and -c- have not been seen as a problem in the last decades, an there are multiple works on that ( In General I would recommend to read the works of Udolph, Wolfram, Van Coetsem


Teutones surely is not a Celtic form, All known Celtic languages hace changed the sound -eu- to -ou- (I am sorry that I cannot properly display phonemes on this board), which must have happened sometimes prior to 800 BC, most likely even earlier. Now beforee someone argues that Romans substituted -eu- for -ou- as it happened in one text for Toutatis, the Teutones were fist attested by Greeks, who do not have a problem with -ou-.
Also, the Tacitean tribe at the Elbe is called Teutonoari(Teutonic men) and not Toutonuiroi
Teutobod has a clear etymology in Germanic: -bod is cognate with the German words Bote (messenger/bringer/bearer) and Büttel/Old English bydel (bailiff/upholder of law/ etc...)

Now, for the name of the Cimbri:
Rix is a Celtic loan into Germanic languages, so it is not an indicator for Celticity. I doubt anyone would consider Ermanareiks or Costa Rica Celtic.
Same for the Caeso in Caesorix, (Ignoring that it is basically the same as the Vandalic king Geiserich), the PGmc term for spear is *gaizaz, is inherited from PIE.
Boio is an attested olf Frisian name, of unknown meaining, but there is East Frisian boi "Young Gentleman", and the OE personal name Baio and ME boi (cf. boy)
Now, Lugio could mean anything, from Lugian (The Lugiones lived along the presumed route of the migration), the Liar, the swampy etc.)

Concerning Urnfields:
This is a burial rite that arose from the Urnfield culture and that spread over wide areas of Europe. While this rite most likely originated from people speaking Celtic or a related language, to associate it only with Celts is wrong.
For example, the Jastorf Culture, without doubt Germanic or pre-Proto Germanic, uses Urnfields. But more on that later.
Einharja is online now  
Old October 5th, 2013, 12:15 PM   #8

Comet's Avatar
Jedi Master
 
Joined: Aug 2006
From: IA
Posts: 7,837
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf View Post
The purpose of this thread is for a rebuttal to David Faux’s “ The Cimbri of Denmark, the Norse and Danish Vikings, and Y-DNA Haplogroup R-S28/U152-(Hypothesis A)”. I had seen this paper by Mr. Faux sometime around 2008 and was somewhat interested. I didn’t feel the need to delve into his paper until I saw Mr. Faux’s paper referenced in the book “The Crisis of Rome” by Gareth C. Sampson. I was actually surprised to find this paper by Mr. Faux as the source for the ethnicity of the Cimbri cited by Mr. Sampson. Mr. Sampson didn’t go into any detail on this subject other then listing the web site and saying that the paper by Mr. Faux leans towards the Cimbri being Celtic. It is at that time that I decided to do some research, most of it coming from Mr. Faux’s sources. Here is the link to the paper written by Mr.Faux:
The Cimbri Tribe_ jutland Denmark-Chronology

Mr. Faux proposes that there was a “Celtic” enclave in Jutland (Himmerland to be more exact) Denmark and that the Cimbri were the “Celts” who immigrated there around 500 BC. I plan to divide this rebuttal into two sections, the first dealing with the “Celtic” enclave theory. most of my rebuttal is based on the sources used by Mr. Faux. The second part of the rebuttal will deal with the written(classical authors) and the aspects they bring up on the ethnicity of the Cimbri. This will be written at a later time.

I plan on skipping much of what Mr. Faux has written to shorten this rebuttal (this is meant to be short) and will begin with this:

Mr. Faux continues on to say:

Mr. Faux seems to be satisfied that there was no large scale immigration prior to 800 BC, though he seems to focus on the year around 500 BC, so I will continue with his arguments from that time frame. It matters little if at all were these “Celts” came from in this discussion.

Mr. Faux seems to believe this supports the Cimbri and Teutons bringing to Denmark their “Celtic culture and language”(Pg.27-28).
Here is where we need to look deeper into these subjects. First we should take Jensen’s and Kristiansens statement about this new change. First lets explore the “Celtic fields”. The “Celtic fields” or as Hedeager calls them “boundary banks” were around well before 500 BC, nor were they just in “Celtic” territories.

The boundary banks are not simply “Celtic”, but exist in multiple areas where non-Celtic speakers lived as well as other areas where Celtic speakers live. In the next quote you will see that the ‘Celtic fields’ existed as early as 1200 BC, but came into much heavier used near the beginning of the Iron Age in Denmark.





As shown above the reason for these boundary banks (Celtic fields) was due to soil exhaustion, which is also mentioned here:


Going on to the other changes we shall now look at the new housing:


So the changing of the housing wasn’t just in the area where this Cimbri/Teuton “Celtic” enclave would be, but all over Denmark. This would be uncharacteristic considering the Sântana de Mures,–Chernyakhov culture and the various ethnic housing in that culture or that of the Treveri where you come across the same situation:

But foregoing this, you will find where the origins of this new housing comes from:

This is not from some kind of foreign influence but an evolution for the new needs of these people.

Mr.Faux goes on about a flourishing culture:
Mr. Faux says there was a dramatic flourishing of culture and produces a quote again from Jensen. Here is what Jensen said prior to what Mr. Faux put down.

On the next page Jensen says this:

Jensen writes of the Gundestrup cauldron and Bra cauldron. The Bra cauldron was made in the 3rd century, but probably not buried until the 1st century. Jensen goes on:
None of this has to do with the “flourishing of culture” as much as a loss of trade routes until around the 1st century BC.


Mr. Faux writes this in his next point:

The two finds he is referring to are the bog bodies of Haraldskaer and of Borremose. How these two finds help his theory he doesn’t explain, he just writes of what they were buried with and how they possibly died. Now as far as if these were “Celts” which I assume that is what Mr. Faux is trying to state, they were wearing local (Denmark) clothing.



The first quote I used for context(Jutland) as well as to show there were influences, but they were local products. The second quote I want to strongly point this out:
“that they are all produced within local and individual households, they represent a strong, uniform and widespread craft tradition.” No indication of these in clothing, jewelry, manner of death(bog bodies have been around well before 500 BC), and anything else that would be considered “Celtic”.

Next up is iron in the Iron-Age:
Below are more recent quotes(1998, 1982) from Mr. Faux’s sources that he did not include in his theory:



Not an instantaneous jump to iron technology but a gradual advance that can be seen in the archaeological record.

Next we discuss burials:
I don’t understand why this would be noteworthy. If there was a enclave in Denmark wouldn’t this new type of burial be mostly in that one enclave and not the entire area? Furthermore cremation was not new to Denmark.
Before 500 BC cremation was already around, and it came and went throughout the centuries in Denmark, which you can read about in the sources provided by Mr.Faux.



Once again this shift from inhumation to cremation began prior to 500 BC when this supposed immigration happened.

Please note the word influence in both Roman and “Celtic” iron age.

Yes society was changing, but what about these new changes, were they foreign, brand new? I placed this quotation out of order due to the inhumation/cremation mentioned by Mr.Faux is involved in the below citations:

”ritual activities were normally a continuation of later Bronze-Age practice: ”

”no break in the transition period from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age”.

“they emphasize continuity back into the Bronze Age. “
What of religion?










The next subject Mr.Faux talks of “a sudden influx of Danubian artifacts”.
Mr. Faux claims this goes north to Jutland, yet:
They can be differentiated from the Remi who are to the north of them, meaning the Danubian people didn’t go even as far as the Remi. This is also taken up by Barry Cunliffe:

He mentions exactly the same area as does Kruta, nothing “north to Jutland” but going only as far at the Belgic Remi.

Now we go into duration of transition from Bronze-Age to Iron-Age:
Engelhardt wrote from an 1866 point of view where the knowledge of archaeology was not as great as those of Klindt-Jensen and many others. Many more finds especially in the 1970's were well beyond what Engelhardt knew and therefore skewed his view.


If these changes were brought in by immigration, as Mr. Faux quotes above, one would tend to think allot of these happenings would be a fairly quick change, like that of other immigration situations(Sântana de Mures,–Chernyakhov culture). Mr.Faux’s quote from Jensen (several citations above) says these changes happened in the course of a few centuries. Yet now Mr. Faux cites a source from 1866! First here is a partial quote I cited from Mr.Faux earlier in this post:

If you look at the bolded part, Jensen says in the course of a few centuries, not a quick change.
Also in the above quote where Mr.Faux quotes Jensen, you can find the citation below in the next paragraph of the book by Jensen:

There is also these quotes:




If a large population enters a new area, the changes are going to be relatively quick, not a lengthy process, extremely slow changes or generations between the change from bronze to Iron age.

So what was the cause of this big change from the Bronze-Age to the Iron-Age? I leave this to Kristiansen:
As stated earlier in this it was soil degradation and other things that triggered this new way of life, not an immigration of new peoples.


I threw this one in for fun-“Celtic migrations were never directed towards northern Europe”.


My assumption is that Kristiansen is also including Denmark as a lowland zone.
And finally the genetic research:

This is simply trumped by this, in the conclusion of this paper:

http://class.csueastbay.edu/anthropo...8rglum2007.pdf


Conclusion:
The cause of this change from the Bronze-Age to the Iron-Age was due to “a demographic and ecological crisis, which in combination with the decline of long-distance prestige-goods exchange and a worsening of the climate led to the collapse of Bronze Age society “. The “Celtic” fields had been around since 1800 BC but gained in use due to the soil degradation, this in turn caused lifestyle changes. If this was due to immigration it would have been a quick process but it was not. The changes of field production, housing, religion , bog bodies and burial customs have their origins in the Bronze-Age, and as previously mentioned it was over a long period of time. There are no “Celtic” place names or any finds other then prestige items that suggest any kind of immigration, especially that of a tribal level. Could there have been “Celtic” peoples in Denmark? Of course, and there probably was. The problem with the theory of Mr. Faux is that the amount of “Celtic” people in Denmark at this time would most likely be minuscule at best, for there is no indication for their existence anywhere in Denmark let alone Jutland.


Mr.Faux mentions the wagons later in his paper, another one for fun.

footnote 2 dealing with the “large Celtic display wagons” from Dejbjerg bog, also from Langa and Kraghed in north Jutland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgewaters View Post
DNA should not have much to do with anything. Celtic culture was just that - culture. They consisted of a bunch of different groups and weren't united by blood (except in the sense that any continental grouping might be). They were not, by any means, some monolithic ethnic group controlling all of Western Europe. They were just a bunch of tribes in that area who shared some cultural features, particularly in terms of material culture.

There was apparently some degree of cultural exchange in the Belgium/Frisia area. Also in Britain which seems to have been colonized by waves of Germano-Celtic types like the Belgae before the Romans arrived.

This isn't really surprising considering neither group really thought of themselves as "Celts" or "Germanics" ... their identities were very local, and these groupings were just labels used by the Romans because of the huge number of small groups. That there should be a grey area in some places isn't at all surprising. Tribes living in close proximity are going to pick up regional habits from one another given enough time.

As far as Jutland, it's a bit far from Gaul, however, the Celts were known to be prolific traders and right along that coast we do have the Veneti fleets and other traffic. They had tin and bronze, for which there were few sources in Europe outside Britain and Spain. They also had plenty of iron, wool, agricultural produce, and access to Meditteranean luxury goods. Likewise the Germans had valuable commodities, especially amber. It's not inconceivable that there would've been trade - and thus cultural exchange - as far as Jutland. It's not really very far from the Channel which was apparently bustling with activity just prior to the Roman invasion of Britain.

So we don't really need population movements to explain a few Celtic habits among the Cimbri, or even things like Celtic names or familiarity with the Gallic tongue (which spies and negotiators of the Romans seemed to be able to use with the Cimbri). They don't need to be Celts at all, for the Romans to be a bit confused about who they were. My 2 cents is that they were probably just Germanics who had picked up some Celtic culture ... probably some clothing items (perhaps wool from Britain) maybe some tools and weapons and a familiarity with the language. Mostly just from trade I would think. That would be sufficient to confuse the Romans.
Like Edge mentions, DNA has nothing to do with historical cultures. There is a reason why we aren't allowing such threads anymore because DNA jargon clouds the real discussion of culture and the past.

If you want more clarification on why I'm closing this thread, you can message me.

Thread closed
Comet is offline  
Old October 5th, 2013, 08:37 PM   #9

Comet's Avatar
Jedi Master
 
Joined: Aug 2006
From: IA
Posts: 7,837
Blog Entries: 1

I'm reopening this thread on the premise that the discussion of DNA will be forbidden. Any discussion of DNA will result in the closing of this thread.
Comet is offline  
Old October 5th, 2013, 09:23 PM   #10
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: USA
Posts: 107

Thank you for the replies, this portion is simply a rebuttal against the "Celtic" enclave proposed by Mr. Faux. The other things written by the classical authors I will bring to light in another thread dealing with such things as the names, the spy, weapons & armor, etc.
When I do present this other thread, I would hope that I will get these responses or some like them. I'm hoping to get this next thread by next week.
Frostwulf is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
cimbri, david, faux, faux or cimbria, rebuttal


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there a review/rebuttal to Faux-Cimbri? Frostwulf Ancient History 9 August 18th, 2013 08:22 AM
David Irving Tilemachos General History 18 December 5th, 2008 07:13 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.