First mentions of Basque

[mircea]

Basque people are probably the most enigmatic people of Europe. Although considered as some of the oldest inhabitants of the region, as far as I know, they are clearly mentioned only in I century AD by Strabo, under the name of Vascones. This late mentioning (although Romans were in the region form late 2nd century BC) isn't a factor that somewhat discredits the theory that they lived in the region before Roman conquest. Even more, this fact points toward a probable migration of Basque (or their ancestors) toward the their current homeland in the period of 1 century BC.

[Kagemusha]

Basque people are probably the most enigmatic people of Europe. Although considered as some of the oldest inhabitants of the region, as far as I know, they are clearly mentioned only in I century AD by Strabo, under the name of Vascones. This late mentioning (although Romans were in the region form late 2nd century BC) isn't a factor that somewhat discredits the theory that they lived in the region before Roman conquest. Even more, this fact points toward a probable migration of Basque (or their ancestors) toward the their current homeland in the period of 1 century BC.

Lol! Maybe also because its is possibility that Tacitus mentioned first possible Finno Ugric tribes around the Baltic Sea they had migrated to that area just before that? The currently accepted theory amongst scientist is that the Basque are the remnants of pre Indo European Europeans. So no your theory is completely wrong.

[DekuTrash]

Hey I have Basque heritage.

That is all.

[mircea]

Lol! Maybe also because its is possibility that Tacitus mentioned first possible Finno Ugric tribes around the Baltic Sea they had migrated to that area just before that? The currently accepted theory amongst scientist is that the Basque are the remnants of pre Indo European Europeans. So no your theory is completely wrong.

The mater is entirely different. While Tacitus wrote about a land far, far away, in the case of Basque, the Romans were in the region from early 2nd century BC (province Hispania Citerior), and yet, they failed to mention the Vascones (probably the ancestors of Basque people). So, how is possible that they failed to mention (for roughly 200 years) a people that was probably quite significant numerically.

Disclaimer. Is not my intention to offend anyone, I'm just trying to test a hypothesis. That why I would like more info about the first mentions of Basque people or their ancestors.

[Kagemusha]

The mater is entirely different. While Tacitus wrote about a land far, far away, in the case of Basque, the Romans were in the region from early 2nd century BC (province Hispania Citerior), and yet, they failed to mention the Vascones (probably the ancestors of Basque people). So, how is possible that they failed to mention (for roughly 200 years) a people that was probably quite significant numerically.

Disclaimer. Is not my intention to offend anyone, I'm just trying to test a hypothesis. That why I would like more info about the first mentions of Basque people or their ancestors.

The Basque language is an isolate so where could they have suddenly moved from during 2nd century BC? Do you have anything else to back your hypothesis other then that a Roman mentioned them? From Archeology it can be seen that at the area of Basque populations no sudden changes of culture can be found. And in the end we dont even have to bring up Archeology, Since them being a language isolate that still survives today shows us clearly that they must have been in Europe before IE cultures arrived in Europe. Which is quite few thousend years off with your hypothesis.

[mircea]

The Basque language is an isolate so where could they have suddenly moved from during 2nd century BC? Do you have anything else to back your hypothesis other then that a Roman mentioned them? From Archeology it can be seen that at the area of Basque populations no sudden changes of culture can be found. And in the end we dont even have to bring up Archeology, Since them being a language isolate that still survives today shows us clearly that they must have been in Europe before IE cultures arrived in Europe. Which is quite few thousend years off with your hypothesis.

What I find perplexing is the fact that although these people probably lived in the same area for centuries, yet, Romans forget to mention them, despite the fact that they lived in one (or at least near) one of their provinces. It is like they suddenly appear in history in 1st century AD, close to 200 years after the coming of the Romans in the region. I think that is quite a singular case in which populace is mentioned for the first time after a few centuries after their homeland was included in the area of influence of another civilized state.

[Kagemusha]

What I find perplexing is the fact that although these people probably lived in the same area for centuries, yet, Romans forget to mention them, despite the fact that they lived in one (or at least near) one of their provinces. It is like they suddenly appear in history in 1st century AD, close to 200 years after the coming of the Romans in the region. I think that is quite a singular case in which populace is mentioned for the first time after a few centuries after their homeland was included in the area of influence of another civilized state.

More likely reason is that they were so insignificant to Romans that they didnt get a mentioning before.

[Manco]

Basques aren't truly the oldest inhabitants per se, they just resemble the hypothetical original genetic make-up of the Iberian refugium the most.
Them being the 'oldest' doesn't necessarily mean their culture and language are the 'oldest'; both of which are social concepts that could have developed much later. (not saying Basque culture isn't ancient, I simply don't know, just that it doesn't automatically follow from their genetic make-up)

[Viking Prince]

Since you are making a supposition, why is it important or even surprising that the Romans did not mention them? The Basque people were not a coastal Mediteranean people. The Basques were not a military threat. They did not have a sophisticated technology or a system of cities. What was there to mention? They were an agricultural people with a language base differant from other language bases -- that is all there is to this.

There were people everywhere Rome established authority. Look at all of the ethnic groups in Britain, yet the Romans did nothing to differentiate between the groups.

Also -- your supposition of migration is flawed as well. To have migrated after the presence of Rome would have been noticed. There would also have been more people over a larger area involved as well. The simple explanation is they were much larger in geography and population earlier. The remains of a larger population base and not a result of migration seems easier to accept.

[mircea]

Well, according to certain historians, if a populace is mentioned in a area after a few centuries after the conquest of the area by a civilized state, than this is a powerful proof in favor of the idea of a probable migration of that populace.

[Kagemusha]

Well, according to certain historians, if a populace is mentioned in a area after a few centuries after the conquest of the area by a civilized state, than this is a powerful proof in favor of the idea of a probable migration of that populace.

But it doesnt apply to Basques as the language isolate is far more powerfull evidence of them being stationary there for a looong time, compared to mentionings of Romans.

[Txapelo]

But it doesnt apply to Basques as the language isolate is far more powerfull evidence of them being stationary there for a looong time, compared to mentionings of Romans.

Well, as you've said, our language has no known relations -apart from Georgian and some far nortern language- so it's probable that the ancient tribes stationed there could have migrated there before indo-european tribes (Romans, Celts, Iberians and all these), and we've remained relatively untouched due to our poor and difficult terrain (useless for agriculture, too hilly for that), and it remained like that until the castillian invaded our Northern provinces so that they could occupy the Pyrenees castles facing Aquitaine (English land in the late XII c). Then our language started to lose importance, but it wasn't until the XIV-XV centuries until it was banned (in places such as markets, courts, public meetings). It was then when problems started :S

So, as I said, it's really unlikely that our people migrated there from anywhere, not even Iberians -dating 1000 BC- were interested in going northwards to have relations with the hairy, savage men

[Dr. Croccer]

If I'm not mistaken, the closest languages to Basque are Caucasian languages which several linguistics view as some of the oldest languages. It also seems to suggests that Basque is pre-Indo-European.