Real Celtic names?

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Ave

On reading Roman accounts of Celts and Germans, we often come across proper names that sound a little too Latin to sound really authentic.

I really wonder what people like Caractacus, Vercingetorix, and Ariovistus would have been called in their own tongue?

The Greeks, for one, had this really nasty habit of Hellenizing foreign names. For example Jesus, James, and Peter are all Greek derivatives of Aramaic/Hebrew names.

I have no reason to assume the Romans did not do the same thing. Does anyone know the answer to this question? Thanks in advance

[Primus Pilus]

Ave

On reading Roman accounts of Celts and Germans, we often come across proper names that sound a little too Latin to sound really authentic.

I really wonder what people like Caractacus, Vercingetorix, and Ariovistus would have been called in their own tongue?

The Greeks, for one, had this really nasty habit of Hellenizing foreign names. For example Jesus, James, and Peter are all Greek derivatives of Aramaic/Hebrew names.

I have no reason to assume the Romans did not do the same thing. Does anyone know the answer to this question? Thanks in advance

 

Yes, the Romans Latinized most everything, as could be expected. All cultures do it with naming, just look at English as an example (proper individual names, cities, places, etc.).

 

Caractacus is often associated with Caradoc.

 

Vercingetorix is actually quite close to it's original Celtic form... The prefix Uer is essentially "super",

cingeto: "warrior" and rix: "king".

 

The William Smith Dictionary offers an explanation for Ariovistus in this entry. This is obviously dated, and not being a linguist I cannot comment on it's accuracy, but others here may be able to offer some insight.

[caldrail]

The latin names weren't always conversions, they were often original names applied because the barbarian names were too rustic or inelegant to be used in polite company, so they simply gave them another name. Arminius for instance, has no connection with that persons germanic name (which is a matter of debate in itself). It was given to him because he served in the roman army, and any soldier must be given a latin name both to promote esprit-de-corps and to make darn sure he understood he was a roman soldier now, not some barbarian from barbar land looking for citizenship. Gladiators and charioteers received stage names. Spartacus is a good example - we simply don't know what his original name was. The owner simply walked up to his latest acquisition and asked him where he was from, and usually made up a latinised name to cover it. The more famous performers might receive a name suggesting heroism or danger such as 'Hercules'. Interestingly some were given soft names like 'petal' (The mind boggles!!!).

[DecimusCaesar]

I believe that Boudica might have been 'Buddug'. Which is pronounced as 'bith-eeg'. The Caradoc or Caradog mentioned by PP is also correct. Both Buddug and Caradoc are as about as close as we'll ever get to the real names of Boudica and Caractacus.

[Andrew Dalby]

The latin names weren't always conversions, they were often original names applied because the barbarian names were too rustic or inelegant to be used in polite company, so they simply gave them another name. Arminius for instance, has no connection with that persons germanic name (which is a matter of debate in itself). It was given to him because he served in the roman army, and any soldier must be given a latin name both to promote esprit-de-corps and to make darn sure he understood he was a roman soldier now, not some barbarian from barbar land looking for citizenship. Gladiators and charioteers received stage names. Spartacus is a good example - we simply don't know what his original name was. The owner simply walked up to his latest acquisition and asked him where he was from, and usually made up a latinised name to cover it. The more famous performers might receive a name suggesting heroism or danger such as 'Hercules'. Interestingly some were given soft names like 'petal' (The mind boggles!!!).

In British Burma, Burmese who went to British-style schools were given English names. Probably in other parts of the Empire, too, but that's an example I happen to know. But, as Caldrail will understand, I'm not going to say that their Burmese names were "too rustic or inelegant to be used in polite company"! This is just to point out that such attitudes continued into modern times.

[The Augusta]

I believe that Boudica might have been 'Buddug'. Which is pronounced as 'bith-eeg'. The Caradoc or Caradog mentioned by PP is also correct. Both Buddug and Caradoc are as about as close as we'll ever get to the real names of Boudica and Caractacus.

 

Interesting, Decimus. Have you any idea, then, where Manda Scott the author got the name Breaca from for Boudica? I have always assumed it is her own interpretation, of course - but wondered if it had any basis in truth. (Scott gives it as a form of Briga, the goddess).

 

I should add, of course, that as far as I have always understood it, the name Boudica meant 'bringer of victory' and was a title given to the Queen, rather than her given name at birth. Would be interested to hear what you think.

Edited January 12, 2007 by The Augusta

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I believe that Boudica might have been 'Buddug'. Which is pronounced as 'bith-eeg'. The Caradoc or Caradog mentioned by PP is also correct. Both Buddug and Caradoc are as about as close as we'll ever get to the real names of Boudica and Caractacus.

 

Interesting, Decimus. Have you any idea, then, where Manda Scott the author got the name Breaca from for Boudica? I have always assumed it is her own interpretation, of course - but wondered if it had any basis in truth. (Scott gives it as a form of Briga, the goddess).

 

I should add, of course, that as far as I have always understood it, the name Boudica meant 'bringer of victory' and was a title given to the Queen, rather than her given name at birth. Would be interested to hear what you think.

 

I too was under the impression that the name Boudica was given to her by the Britons meaning 'bringer of victory' as for her birth name, that i think we will never know.

 

As for Vercingetorix, i thought that 'cingeto' was his gaulish(birth) name and 'ver' meaning 'the' and 'rix' meaning 'king' was added to his name after he united the gallic tribes and lead them to war against Caesar.

[DecimusCaesar]

Buddug has it's origins in Old Welsh (which was a language that was descended from Brittonic or Brythoneg). It is true that Buddug also means victory. The modern Welsh word for Victory or conquest is Buddugoliaeth, according to the Welsh lexicon:

 

Welsh Lexicon

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Ave Decimus

I am glad you brought that up. I was just going to suggest that we might have to delve into Welsh or Gaelic or the dialect spoken in Brittany in France, whatever that is called, to come up with clues to ancient Gallic names. As for German, we might have to look into High German for some ideas. Primus Pilus's post about Ariovistus does not sound too far off the mark

Incidentally, for those familiar with Josephus's works, I had very little trouble understanding his Greco Roman rendering of Arabic names as Arabic is a language that I understand and speak. For example, mention is made in Jewish Wars of the king Malchus, which is nothing but Malik - meaning king, and the chieftain known as Aretas is actually Harith in the original, meaning guardian. The Idumean usurper that is known to us as Herod the Great is a bit of a puzzle for me though. It does not sound like any Arab name that I am familiar with

[caldrail]

The question of Boudicca is interesting to me. When I was but a lad, trying desperatley to stay awake and not fidget during history class, she was aleways known as Boudicaea, which surely is the greek version. Now - is Boudicca an original name or simply a modern 'celticised' version of the greek version?

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

The question of Boudicca is interesting to me. When I was but a lad, trying desperatley to stay awake and not fidget during history class, she was aleways known as Boudicaea, which surely is the greek version. Now - is Boudicca an original name or simply a modern 'celticised' version of the greek version?

 

If you type 'Buddug' into the welsh lexion search engine provided by DC then it does actually come up with the translation 'Boadicea ; Victoria'

 

Strangely though if you enter 'Caradoc' which we believed to be the proper name for Caratacus then no match comes up so maybe we're barking up the wrong tree with that one??

 

Edit:

 

Sorry guys(and gals) my mistake :bag: if you type in Caradog not caradoc then it does infact come up with Caratacos ; Caratacus.

Edited January 13, 2007 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[Ursus]

Probably the best place to ask would be IMBAS, a Celtic revivalist organization that has several noted linguists.

[DecimusCaesar]

According to what i've read Brythonic or Brittonic was a direct descendant of the Gaulish language. Is there any truth to this? Considering that there is very little linguistic evidence to provide for Gaulish (considering that Breton is a Brythonic language) then It seems to me to be a guess on the behalf of some scholars. The Brittonic-Gaulish link becomes murkier when you consider that some archaeologists and historians consider that the ancient Britons were not the descendants of Gaulish immigrants from the continent. It is therefore likely that the Gallic tounge might have had only a small influence on the languages of Britain. According to other sources Gaulish, Hispano-Celtic and Lepontic are placed seperately in a larger Celtic section, which is just one part of the Indo-European languages.

[Andrew Dalby]

According to what i've read Brythonic or Brittonic was a direct descendant of the Gaulish language. Is there any truth to this? Considering that there is very little linguistic evidence to provide for Gaulish (considering that Breton is a Brythonic language) then It seems to me to be a guess on the behalf of some scholars. The Brittonic-Gaulish link becomes murkier when you consider that some archaeologists and historians consider that the ancient Britons were not the descendants of Gaulish immigrants from the continent. It is therefore likely that the Gallic tounge might have had only a small influence on the languages of Britain. According to other sources Gaulish, Hispano-Celtic and Lepontic are placed seperately in a larger Celtic section, which is just one part of the Indo-European languages.

 

I haven't heard that Brythonic was a direct descendant of Gaulish -- indeed, I've usually heard otherwise.

 

It's clear enough if you look at the issue geographically. You have a continent and two large islands on which early Celtic languages were developing. Stretches of sea tend to lead to the separation of dialects; stretches of contiguous land tend to lead to mutual influence and not much separation (unless political boundaries intervene).

 

Take as a hypothesis that the Brythonic languages were the dialects of Celtic that developed on the biggest island (Britain). The Goidelic languages were those that developed on the second biggest island (Ireland). What's usually called 'Continental Celtic' (including Gaulish) is a third group, parallel with the other two, that developed on the continent.

 

At first sight the pattern looks not quite so neat today, but actually we have historical evidence to tell us exactly why this is.

 

1. In the early medieval period, the Scotti (Goidelic speaking, from Ireland) invaded western Scotland. Their language survives today: it is Scottish Gaelic, which is very similar to, but not quite identical with, Irish. Thus a Goidelic language, for recorded reasons, migrated to Britain.

 

2. A couple of centuries earlier, some of the Britons (Brythonic speaking, from south west England), fleeing Saxon invasion and instability, migrated to Brittany. Their language survives today: it is Breton, extremely similar to Cornish and fairly similar to Welsh. Thus a Brythonic language, for recorded reasons, migrated to the continent.

 

3. Meanwhile, according to the best evidence available, the Gaulish language (which was Continental Celtic) had ceased to be spoken. There is quite a lot of evidence for it in Latin sources and in inscriptions, but the latest evidence (the medical writings of Marcellus of Bordeaux) is dated around 400 AD. It is possible, certainly, that Gaulish survived in Armorica (Britanny) long enough to influence Breton, but Breton is (as I said above) very similar to Cornish and Welsh, so the Gaulish influence on it, if any, was not crucial.

 

That's how the three subdivisions of Celtic arose, and that's the explanation of their current geographical locations. I think.

[The Augusta]

Although it may be slightly off-topic - does anyone know which is the right term: 'Gaulish' or 'Gallic'. I have seen both used in history to describe the peoples, language, customs etc. of Gaul.