The new Asterix comic, Le Papyrus de César, will be released on October 22, 2015. Christian Goudineau is an honorary professor at the College de France. He held the chair of National Antiquities. He is the author of numerous books, including the fascinating Par Toutatis!, What's left of Gaul? ed. du Seuil, 2002, or The Emperors of Rome , ed. Wandering, 2004. On the occasion of the release of the new Asterix Le Papyrus de César , we are publishing this interview he gave in 2007 to Sciences et Avenir. Interview by Bernadette Arnaud and Dominique Leglu.
Science and Future:How did Gaul become Roman?
Christian Goudineau:If you read certain books and textbooks, you will see that it continues to be written there that there was a "break" with the Roman conquest. Gaul was Gallic, Julius Caesar arrived and Gaul became Roman. However, for a long time, I have been fighting to show that this is not at all how things happened! I disagree with the idea of a breakup. If romanization worked, it is because the Gallic world was ready for it. He had already approached the Mediterranean world, contrary to what we are told most of the time. The idea of a fierce, resistant Gaul, unrelated to the Romans who would suddenly arise with the villainous Caesar at their head, is totally false.
Gaul, what was it then?
It is true that in geographical terms, it is a bit complicated. The Romans called Gallia what the Greeks called Keltike, in other words a space that went from the Atlantic to the great Hungarian plain. There lived a series of autonomous peoples, independent or bound together by alliances. But when Caesar arrived, he proceeded like many conquerors, such as Brazza or Lyautey after him, who said:this is the Congo, this is the Niger, this is Morocco… by placing borders coinciding with mountains or rivers . Caesar made Gaul stop at the Rhine in the east, at the Pyrenees in the south... In his day, Greek geographers admitted that they no longer understood anything, but they could not contradict him.
In this Gaul "invented" by Caesar, how many peoples were there?
About sixty. The territory of some of them could correspond to the equivalent of half a French department, as sometimes two or three. If today we talk about Auvergne, it is because there was the Arvernes. If we say Rennes, it is because of the Redones, Paris because of the Parisii, etc. Most of the current names, either of regions or of towns, date back to this period. Let the toponyms do the talking.
LANDMARKS.
58 BC:arrival of Julius Caesar and his legions in Gaul.
52 BC:capture of Alesia by Caesar.
52-51 BC:Caesar writes Commentaries on the Gallic Wars.
27 BC-middle of the 3rd century:Gallo-Roman period (at least from a “theoretical” point of view).
406:the great invasions in Gaul begin and last for decades. The surge of the Vandals, Franks, Huns, Burgundians and other Visigoths definitively dislocated the Roman Empire....
How to support the idea that there was no "break" during the Roman conquest?
In my opinion, three major reasons have moved theories:the understanding of the wine trade, thanks to underwater archeology; the alignment of the currency, spotted by numismatists; finally, the mode of development of agriculture.
What does underwater archeology say?
Along our coasts, archaeologists have discovered shipwrecks loaded with amphorae containing Italian wine dating back to the 150s or 130s BC. J.-C., that is to say a century before the Caesarean conquest. Then, these same amphorae were found on sites in inner Gaul, and it was understood that an immense traffic had been established between Italy and Gaul. It consisted of exporting wine on the Italian side and, on the Gallic side, metals, some agricultural products, and especially slaves! Some great peoples, such as the Aedui, Allobroges, Arvernes, etc., in contact with the province of Transalpine, maintained very strong relations with Rome and began to enter the Mediterranean orbit. These exchanges, a century before Caesar's conquest, which have continued to grow since then, should already completely change our perception of Romanization.
What's going on with the currency?
Numismatists have shed light on the phenomenon of the "Gallic denarius". Around 120 BC. AD, some peoples of independent Gaul transform their coinage. They move from a gold standard to a silver standard and align their coins with the Italian coinage, their "denarius" corresponding exactly to half a Roman denarius. It is not nothing to carry out such a transformation. We who have experienced the changeover to the euro know that it means strong political will, but also technical means as well as real understanding. This monetary system was established throughout the South as well as among the peoples in contact with the province of Transalpine, such as the Eduens, Allobroges, Arvernes, in particular on the main axis of the Rhône and the Saône. It made it possible to "count" without it being a headache at each toll or granting, or during any transaction.
What has aerial archeology discovered?
That Gaul was covered with farms, not an immense forest. And also that many of them adopted plans and practices clearly inspired by Italy before the Caesarean conquest. Preventive archeology excavations during the construction of roads or TGV lines have put our noses on this. We found slave shackles… in the Roman style, a Roman length standard that dated back to thirty or forty years before the conquest during a very large rescue excavation under the parking lot of the Besançon town hall. We were then among the Séquanes, an independent Gallic people. Animal bones, notably of oxen, unearthed during excavations of certain farms, even of town houses, showed that they were not Gallic species - the Gallic ox was small - but coming from Italy , where the oxen were much larger. I am wondering if there was not a kind of precolonization! Before the arrival of Caesar, would there not have been Italian settlers in inner Gaul who had bought land and found themselves there, among the Gallic peoples? Moreover, if we reread Caesar's Gallic Wars or the historian Dion Cassius (155-235), we see that certain passages suggest a foreign presence among these Gallic peoples who have been claimed to be so attached to their independence. One can even imagine that the children of great Gallic chiefs went to study in Rome. Archeology will never be able to prove it, but that wouldn't surprise me.
How did this novelization go?
My opinion is very simple:it was through the aristocracy that Romanization took place and succeeded. And it happened very quickly, in thirty or forty years. There were old alliances between the Gallic aristocrats and the Senate or the Roman magistrates. At his side, Caesar had the leaders of the most important peoples and he proceeded a bit like the English in India. The children of the aristocracy left to study in Rome, and once returned, became magistrates in a now Roman structure. To rise in society, they had to pledge allegiance to the emperor. To become Roman citizens, which represented absolute prestige, they had to be loyal. And it is this kind of mechanism that led to the Romanization of Gaul.
This aristocracy represents what percentage of the population?
We do not know anything. It is already very difficult to know how many inhabitants Gaul had. Thanks to aerial archaeology, which has shown a veritable scattering of farms, I think it is better to imagine a well developed and densely populated territory, perhaps with 8 to 10 million inhabitants. As for the share occupied by the aristocracy, one must imagine a few oligarchs, as in the 16th or 17th century. I give you the example of Saintes, where there is a large arch erected in honor of Tiberius and his sons, and which is called the arch of Germanicus. We have the civil status and the genealogy of the one to whom we owe it. We see that his great-grandfather has a completely Gallic name, that his grandfather, who lives at the time of Caesar, becomes a Roman citizen, but keeps his Gallic name. And then, suddenly, his father adopts a Roman name, Caius Julius Otuaneunus, etc. We can say that in twenty-five or thirty years, the aristocracy speaks Latin, the schools teach it as well as Greek. These are the phenomena that trigger romanization.
And next to the aristocrats, at the time of independence, there are the people?
Yes, there are the people, of whom Caesar himself says that they are almost slaves (whether artisans or peasants). This, like some Third World countries today. The aristocracy holds trade. Perhaps there is an intermediate class of warriors of a certain rank, who form the close guard of the aristocrats. Aristocrats who spend their time making war on each other.
Why these wars?
This is probably a phenomenon linked to slavery. Gaul being a big supplier of slaves, they had to be procured. First the criminals are sent, then the prisoners. Then, we make raids on the neighboring people… This raw material brought in a lot. If you read Suetonius, you see that everyone who revolts with Spartacus has Celtic names. Slavery was at the heart of the functioning of Gallic society.
Finally, what did novelization bring?
The city (civitas) , which is first defined by a capital organized in the Roman style. By law, aristocrats wishing to exercise responsibilities are obliged to have a house "in town". Then, she made of the "Roman monument" what the aristocrat is supposed to bring to the people to be well seen and elected. While he previously gave banquets and distributed money, he built theaters, amphitheatres, temples. This in materials such as stone or brick, and no longer in perishable wood... The fact remains that if you were a peasant's wife in deep Gaul, your way of life must not have changed much. What must be understood is that Rome never sought to kill particularisms. Take the example of religion. As long as the official cults of Rome and the emperor were respected, the Gauls could keep their bizarre gods. A kind of syncretism has taken place. The only thing that Rome seems to have suppressed was Druidism, but it doesn't seem like much was left of it by Caesar's time.
What makes the Gallo-Roman?
The Gallo-Roman is an invention of the 19th century, it is pure nationalism! We wanted to bring back "our" Gallic funds, when Gaul had become Roman. At this moment, what are we doing, if not speaking in Latin? We don't speak Gallic. We are Romans. The main thing, in my opinion, is the language. It is what structures us.