Talk:Ubii

Untitled

"They seem to have been so thoroughly Romanized that they adopted the name Agrippenses in honour of their “founder”.." So why does Tacitus (Annales 12,27) say that Cologne was named after Agrippina, Agrippa's granddaughter??? You use absolutely fabricated info and don't check facts. This is not the first case, when I see such blunders on Wikipedia. Centrum99 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. I've now corrected the page.Anna Lowenstein (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that it is Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensis, colony of the happy fields of Agrippina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.151.253 (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Many of the Rhine tribes were Celtic

What is the specific evidence showing this tribe was one of the Germanic Germani, as opposed to the Celtic Germani? 74.96.53.210 (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is purely anecdotal. Late in life Julius Caesar added the word "German" to his vocabulary after misconstruing a Gaulish word that meant "neighbor" for some kind of ethnic mass. There is no real evidence proving that the Ubii, the Sicambri, the Tancteri, the Usipetes or the Batavi were ethnic/cultural Germans. In each case the national names and the names of the leaders resonate clearly in Gaulish and attempts to read them in "proto germanic" fall short. The geographic region that produced Frankish and Saxon cultures was predominantly La Tene "Celtic" and much the same can be said for other regions of Germany and "Germanic" peoples such as the Allomani, the Marcomanni, the Teutons and the Cimbri. Big and small, north and south the entirety of Germania is in question not just the Rhine.

In the past there have been concentrated efforts to extend German ethnic/cultural heritage to a point prior to 400 AD with more modern political needs being the clear motivator. Acknowledging that by and large all German peoples were conquered, absorbed or simply derivative of Hallstatt peoples in the centuries prior to the Gallic Wars runs against the desired narrative. Bloody Sacha (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, except for the fact that most of the altars errectect by the Ubii clearly show that they were linguisticallly at least partially Germanic. You make the wrong assumption that material culture = ethnolinguistic affiliation. And were are is the land of Saxons (Rising partially from partially from both populations that had their roots in the earlier Harpstedt Nienburger and Jastorf Cultures) Hallstatt/La-Tene Celtic? How is the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Denmark derived from Hallstatt populations? And how is the migrations of Allamanni(who pretty much were Suevii) and Marcomanni into land previously inhabited by Celts(and absorbing them) changing their Ethnolinguistic affilition? You are also clearly lieing, those tribal and personal names have etymologies in Germanic(Should I mention that Germanic before Grimms Law would be pretty similar to Celtic?), maybe you should read some actual literature on that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.202.17.202 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Autosigned What alters, where? Lets see some sources for these "errectect" altars lol. At no point in time did I mention "material culture" or any culturally distinctive artifacts lol. "Where are is the land of the saxons" That has the dubious distinction of not being a question or a statement, very good lol. Now I can see that I've run against the desired narrative and you've taken it very personally but you're statements are unsourced/unsourceable, factually inconsistent and you planted an entire premise into my initial statement that isn't actually there. Finally, they became unintelligible.

Cimbri = Comrades aka The Comrades. Cognate of the Welsh Cymru, Led by Boiorix/King of the Boii (Because the Boii very obviously ruled over the Cimbri following their failed invasion of Pannonia) Other leaders include Lugius (reference to Celtic god Lugus) Claodicus and Caesorix (also Celtic names) Teutones = Peoples aka The Populous Ones. Cognate of the Gaelic Tautha De Dannan. Led by Teutobod/The Peoples Penis (The Celts were not modest in the names they took see similarly named Noric Celt "Art Bundz" or Bear Penis for details.) Marcomanni = Horse men. Marco, cognate of Trimarcasia Led by Maroboduus/Great Raven Franks: Formerly Sicimbri aka Southern Comrades. Led by Ascaric, (Asca-King) Merogais, (Mero-Spear) Mallobaudes (Mallo-Victory) Genobaud (Knows Victory) It goes on and on and on.

Sorry dude but you've got to read the factually physically existent Gaulish version before the hypothetical reconstructionist (nonexistant) proto Germanic version. Of course thats not going to happen because acknowledging that by and large all German peoples were conquered, absorbed or simply derivative of Hallstatt peoples in the centuries prior to the Gallic Wars runs against the desired narrative. Bloody Sacha (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahem, are your statements about me not a bit preemptive, especially regarding that some of your proposed etymologies are highly imaginative.? Please answer my question,how is the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Denmark(and aslo from Scandinavia), derived from(or conquered by) Hallstatt You also seem to lack basic comprehension of IE languages, otherwise you would not have made the statment that Tautha De Dannan(I guess you mean the Túatha Dé Danann) are a cognate with "Teutones". "Tautha" has the same stem as teut, but cognates are also found in other IE languages, so you point is basically not existant. "Sicimbri" obviously is absolutely dishonest. Where did you get that form from? I can go on and give Germanic etymologies for all those tribes and individuals(some names actually might be Celtic, but my own name is derived from Hebrew, so I am?), aswell as later Germanic forms that actually have bee attested, but to what avail?

And seriously, what desired narrative? Have you read what some "official" German sources state? Things like that Germanics never existed in the traditional form, and that there only were numerous different tribes. So I guess you have a desired narrative, but I have not. At least you can amuse yourself about typos. And what actual Gaulish forms? What you wrote is no Gaulish but at best a non descript from of Celtic, so a reconstruction itself. Oh, and if you change your style how you address people, whe can have civilized discussion and I can provide sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.202.17.202 (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

We can dance around each other all day but the inescapable fact is that we are pitting Gaulish against an unattested reconstructed proto language. Nonfiction versus fiction.

An example I already mentioned above the "Marcomanni" means "Horse men" in Gaulish. Conversely in Proto Germanic (A hypothetical extrapolation of a language which has no proven bases) Marcomanni may mean "Men of the Mark" (which might hypothetically mean something within the context of that culture) Their leader Maroboduus' name means "Great Raven" in Gaulish conversely In proto Germanic his name may mean "Famous boduus"... because there is no known definition for the word "bod" or "boduus" in ancient Germanic... That is to say that in what is essentially a fictitious interpretation of a language that may or may not have existed "scholars" still came up empty and that's the reoccurring theme that feeds back into my original post. So whats it going to be? "The Horsemen" led by "Great Raven" or "Men of the Mark" Led by "Famous.... thing..." To a real historian not out to perpetuate a narrative the answer is obvious.

Now we've gone full circle.

1: “We should use a very loose interpretation of 9th century Germanic languages to read 2nd century BC/4th Century Ad words"

No, actually no we shouldn’t. You have to start with the puzzle pieces and look outward, you can't start with a contrived narrative and then force the pieces to conform.

2: “Germanic was a lot like Celtic back then!”

Point of order. If Germanic was a lot like Celtic and Celtic came first it then falls on someone to prove that the two where divisible at all. As it is the only evidence pointing to a difference is anecdotal and runs against the conclusions clearly present in etymology and archeology.

3: "You’re a liar!"

No, you!

4: "Id cite sources if you were nice!"

Yep and if I had wheels I’d be a wagon.

Besides anecdotes and the sheer force of willpower used by volkist theologists masquerading as historians there is no meritable proof separating early medieval German and late Iron Age Celtic peoples. Bloody Sacha (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd definitely like to see evidence one way or the other. I lean towards the idea that the Ubii, like many other Germani, were Gallic not Germanic. But you mention a Gallic reconstruction of their name?

Also, Marcomanni is intelligible as Germanic as "people of the borders," which fits the context between the Boii and the Elbe Germanic peoples. Teutones is intelligible in either language family as "the tribe." Personal names and tribal names don't always correspond with spoken languages. The Bavarians and Bohemians don't speak east Celtic any more. The first king of Wessex has a Celtic name. And so on. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you're neutral point of view, you're tone and you're involvement in this discussion. To say that "Marcomanni" is intelligible in Germanic as "People of the Borders" is hypothetical. There is a double extrapolation on the word "Marco." The logic is as follows. "Marco is probably Germanic for 'marked' ae the 'March/Marcher' lords from the later medieval era. The Marcomanni shared a border with the Roman Empire, therefor Marcomanni might mean Men of the Mark/Men of the Marche/Borders. In terms of conjecture it is built on sound logic but it is still an extrapolation based on later use of the same phonetics. The problem is that this double if not triple conjecture is competing against the absolutely 100 percent beyond a shadow of a doubt factual statement that Marcomanni means "Horse Men" in Gaulish and Gaulish is the nearest point of reference both chronologically and geographically. Lateral evidence such as the phonetics of "Maroboduus" should drive the comparison home. Point by point it is categorically apparent that the Marcomannii were more likely to have been a Celtic peoples then a Germanic peoples. You can apply the same principles I have and determine that the entirety of Germania is in question. Bloody Sacha (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sacha for staying factual, and not resorting to personal attacks. Also a lot of thanks for qouting me correctly. (I hope the sarcasm is obvious) Oh, an you are lying again, the suffix -bod or even -bodus can be reconstructed, take a look at Old High German "boto". You call me out for using reconsructed languages (which were reconstructed using actual, attested languages), while you yourself use Gaulish while the attested names clearly defy Gaulish sound Laws. Kinda hypocritical, don´t you think? BTw, here is a source, and I hope it can be used for this article:

VENNEMANN, THEO :

EIN UBISCHES LAUTGESETZ Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur

I guess those Celtic Ubians then must have taken some of their grammar ( like ablative -m-) from Germanic or Balto-Slavic speakers.

I do not know what for an axe you have to grind... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.202.17.202 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again you've leveled the claim that i've lied without mentioning the inconvenient details of how and where. I assume you intended to duplicate or link to an actual article, if so this attempt was a failure. All you've presented is the name of a man and a book. The scholar you've mentioned appears to major in the theoretical. Which is the nice way to put it. The unfortunate reality is that he believes, presumably as you do, that Old High German existed in 100 BC. Which is bunk, given that the verifiable time frame for that language starts in the middle of the 8th century AD. In any event, I did not say that using Gaulish as a point of reference is a fundamentally different practice from using middle German. What I say is that Gaulish, being chronologically closer and contextually closer is the better point of reference. and I have documented so pretty thoroughly.

You're devious attempt to port the credibility of "Old High Germanic" (750AD+) onto the wholly speculative and entirely unattested "Proto Germanic" is unacademic and damages any sense of trust that an outsider could give you but for the sake of this example I'll humor you.

Example: Teutobod 105 BC

"Boto" is a word with similar phonetics that has a context as thoroughly associated with delivering the mail as it does with battles and leadership. "Boto" is associated with a language that cant be consistently verified prior to the middle of the 8th century AD. Logically "Boto" it is not a realistic competitor for the Celtic word/name component "Bod" which is both phonetically identical and a verifiably popular surname/surname component during the period specified. This can be verified by Gallo Roman inscriptions and personal names all throughout the period, used most famously by the goddess Cathubodua and the queen Boudicca. In Celtic "Bod" and similar variants are thoroughly associated with "battle fury," "sexual vitality," "victory" and a myriad of mythological connections with ravens/raven goddesses. Once again Gaulish is clearly the better fit chronologically and contextually.

This circular dialogue is getting tedious. You can't offer any realistic evidence or alternate etymologies because the language you are using as a point of reference doesn't exist in the period you wished it did. You're favored scholar claims that Old High Germanic existed a thousand years before its point of attestation. Thats wonderful, I rarely stand between a man and his prophet and I wont now but I don't take my queues on history from faith. Respect that you're faith is not my evidence. If you have evidence, beyond mere speculation and anecdotes that proves that there was a fundamental difference between Celtic and the proposed Proto Germanic civilizations during the classical period. I'd like to see it. Its a shame that you never expanded on you're initial claim that most Ubii altars showed evidence of Germanic etymology. If such altars actually existed that would carry a lot of weight with me. However you have failed to follow through with that claim and provide a source but in all probability thats because you made them up. Bloody Sacha (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read the source in its entirety and try to understand what the author actually states, and maybe you should read his earlier work If you read it, you may also find the names of the Ubian matrones, and if you delve further into the matter, you will see that most of them date to the second century AD, and nod BC as you wrongly imply. May I ask you what your stanpoint is? Do you think that Germanic developed out of Celtic? I also would like to remind that I offer academical sources, while you offer Ad Hominems, strawmen,accusations and Etymologies that you made yourself. And you do not read or misqoute the sources I post. What a pity.

Unless you can offer something of substance, this debate is over for me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.202.17.202 (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 

Another post that changes nothing. You're statements are predicated around an unprovable theory that Old High Germanic existed a thousand years before its point of attestation. Juxtaposing a linguistic and cultural identity onto a region across an evidence gap of 800 years is utterly laughable. Conversely for the Celtic language claim to be feasible, we have to believe that peoples living within 50 miles of each other spoke the same language... as evidenced by virtually all personal and national names used in the area at the time... My claim is fundamentally more feasible then yours.

Your lies about most Ubii alters having Germanic linguistic characteristics, or that "Boto" was an ancient Germanic word and equivalent to the Celtic "bod" are instantly disprovable. A small number of Matrones have characteristics that don't comfortably work in any known etymology, so naturally certain people will seize upon their existence, twist and purposely misconstrue the evidence to be "absolute proof" of an early Germanic language. Predictably there is no evidence that this is the case. There's merely no evidence that it isn't the case and that is quite sufficient for "proto germanic" scholars. The reality is that the Matrones are consistently found in Gaul, Spain, Ireland, Briton, Northern Italy, Pannonia and Galicia (Turkey) and finally the Rhineland. Once again the implication is clear. Once again the claim that these alters are Celtic is by an order of magnitude more feasible then the claim that they represented an early Germanic culture.

The challenge initially posed was "What is the specific evidence showing this tribe was one of the Germanic Germani, as opposed to the Celtic Germani?" My response was that there is only anecdotal evidence. In five months time you have misrepresented Ubii altars, misrepresented Proto Germanic and wrote down the name of an author who presumably does the same. You make accusations out of one side you're mouth and claim to be the victim with the other, which has become something of a metaphor for you're contributions here. Bloody Sacha (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

To qoute myself: Unless you can offer something of substance, this debate is over for me.

You offer nothing but cheap ad Hominem and your own asumptions which are published nowhere. Only some words so rthat you do not misrepresent my standpoint. And were did I say that Boto is the same as "Celtic" -bod? you only offered some similar words for it ( buntz, Boudicca) The Language written on the Ubii altars were through Grimms Law and already show some features found in late languages, if this is due to convergence or a real link is disputed, though probably the former has a better chance of being true. High German sensu Vennemann is different than the treaditional meaning, it is a proposed early split from Low German. So please read the sources and do not misqoute. Everyone can read the sources and see what they really say, so do not make yourself a joke. Alagabiae means what in your version of Celtic? I can also show you sources that show that there were people with suprisingly Germanic sounding names on the left bank of the Rhine, among a mayority of Celtic names. The Ubii came from east of the Rhine, but their exact location is unknown. And Old High German starten in 1000-1100 AD? By the latter date it was mostly extinct. o´nt fool yourself. So what do you actually claim speaker of Germanic languages come from? Space? Did they develop out of Celts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.202.17.202 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

To quote you - "Alagabiae means what in you're version of Celtic?"

The operative logic - "If its not Celtic it therefor has to be Germanic!"

Conveniently neglected facts - Object is a Matronae a religious device celebrated across the entire Celtic world. Dedicated between 300-399 AD centuries after the Ubii cease to exist as an independent ruling body. Dedicated by: Parties Unknown. Language used: Unknown probable composite.

To quote myself "A small number of Matrones have characteristics that don't comfortably work in any known etymology, so naturally certain people will seize upon their existence, twist and purposely misconstrue the evidence to be absolute proof of an early Germanic language. Predictably there is no evidence that this is the case. There's merely no evidence that it isn't the case and that is quite sufficient for "proto germanic" scholars." You have judged an entire regions ethnic and linguistic presence across a period of time as wide as 500 years as being Germanic because of an inscription under a Matronae (a predominantly Celtic religious device) that cant be read in any conventional language.

The initial request was "What is the specific evidence showing this tribe was one of the Germanic Germani, as opposed to the Celtic Germani?" I responded "The evidence is purely anecdotal" and admonished volkist historians who distort and misrepresent evidence to mold history to conform to a preconceived narrative. You came in and said "most of the altars errectect by the Ubii clearly show that they were linguisticallly at least partially Germanic." Which is a blatant distortion and misrepresentation of the facts.

"Unattested proto languages" don't fall within the purview of "specific evidence." A man who interprets "unattested proto languages" has the same credibility here as a man who claims to have used a time machine. You claimed that you had specific evidence in the form of Ubii altars. Specifically you said that *most* of them have Germanic components. After much fanfare you loosely referenced one. A regional equivalent of Dea Matrona. Unsurprisingly it did not have the Germanic component you claimed it did and now minus the credibility you've lost along the way we are back to square one. Since you are now demanding that I disprove the evidence you do not have and have voluntarily admitted that the people who might have been Germanic, were among a "mayority" of people with Celtic names you have effectively conceded the point and I welcome you're well earned departure from this "debate" Bloody Sacha (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)