|
English
Jul 6, 2007 19:24:31 GMT -1
Post by Tegernacus on Jul 6, 2007 19:24:31 GMT -1
Are you familiar with this argument? Apparently, Win Scutt argues that from studying Roman and post-Roman placenames, that the people of iron-age "England" actually spoke a germanic language, more like old English than old Welsh. I don't see it myself, but take a look: www.archaeology.ws/language.htmlwww.archaeology.ws/roman.html
|
|
|
English
Jul 7, 2007 12:47:14 GMT -1
Post by littleraven on Jul 7, 2007 12:47:14 GMT -1
I saw the Newsnight piece on that. and it didn't wash at the time either.
|
|
|
English
Jul 7, 2007 17:37:33 GMT -1
Post by arth_frown on Jul 7, 2007 17:37:33 GMT -1
I find the English language a strange one There's a river near me called the river bourne. Bourne meant river in Anglo Saxon so the river is actually called river river. There seems to be a lack of understanding of Anglo Saxon maybe by the natives, or I could be completely wrong.
|
|
|
English
Jul 8, 2007 11:25:32 GMT -1
Post by jez on Jul 8, 2007 11:25:32 GMT -1
I find the English language a strange one There's a river near me called the river bourne. Bourne meant river in Anglo Saxon so the river is actually called river river. There seems to be a lack of understanding of Anglo Saxon maybe by the natives, or I could be completely wrong. The word 'river' didn't come into the language until the Norman conquest, so, yes, the River Bourne is named in two languages, as are the various River Avons etc. [Middle English rivere, from Anglo-Norman, from Vulgar Latin *rpria, from Latin, feminine of rprius, of a bank, from rpa, bank.] Also, places like Bryn Hill and Mount Fujiyama... -- Jez
|
|
|
English
Jul 24, 2007 11:52:43 GMT -1
Post by exprocella on Jul 24, 2007 11:52:43 GMT -1
Although being a rather sweeping statement, it could be further evidence towards what we (generally speaking) have always known. The British Isles have been a melting pot of various cultures and as a result languages for millennia.
There is archaeological evidence to indicate that trading between the Britain Isles and mainland Europe has been occurring since Neolithic times. It is also possible that migration occurred especially as the world population is believed to be only around 76 million around 1200 bce.
Given this, then is it really a huge stretch of the imagination to believe that "Celtic" and "Germanic" cultures existed along side each other for some time before becoming organised into large regional tribes?
|
|
|
English
Jul 24, 2007 12:38:01 GMT -1
Post by Tegernacus on Jul 24, 2007 12:38:01 GMT -1
Well, apparently, a lot of Germanic words were borrowed from the celtic languages, so when the Saxons did arrive its not surprising that there would be some similar terms for places. Like the Gothic word "reiki", kingdom (the source of the modern German "Reich"), was borrowed from the Celtic "rigion". * Doesn't mean we spoke "English", more like the other way around, the Saxons had a smattering of Celtic. Depends on which way you want to interpret the data, and to what end. * source: www.summerlands.com/crossroads/celticlanguage/labara1.html
|
|
|
English
Jul 24, 2007 12:46:42 GMT -1
Post by littleraven on Jul 24, 2007 12:46:42 GMT -1
Although being a rather sweeping statement, it could be further evidence towards what we (generally speaking) have always known. The British Isles have been a melting pot of various cultures and as a result languages for millennia. There is archaeological evidence to indicate that trading between the Britain Isles and mainland Europe has been occurring since Neolithic times. It is also possible that migration occurred especially as the world population is believed to be only around 76 million around 1200 bce. Given this, then is it really a huge stretch of the imagination to believe that "Celtic" and "Germanic" cultures existed along side each other for some time before becoming organised into large regional tribes? That sounds like you are trying to justify 'English' in the 'Celtic' context. Germanic and 'Cetic', more specifically Brythonic, were tribal long before any kind of larger cultural identity was established. What you suggest seems back to front. LR
|
|
|
English
Jul 24, 2007 13:26:37 GMT -1
Post by exprocella on Jul 24, 2007 13:26:37 GMT -1
Forgive me, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Could you explain further?
I think I can see what you mean by the back to front. I was coming from the idea that were several waves of cultural movement from mainland europe, so it doesn't seem so incredulous that, in some areas, old english may have predated the roman occupation.
Or do I have the stick by the muddy end?
|
|
|
English
Jul 24, 2007 16:08:10 GMT -1
Post by megli on Jul 24, 2007 16:08:10 GMT -1
There were almost certainly no germanic speakers here before the Roman occupation. there is some evidence that there were saxons settling - at least for the summer - in the late fourth and early fifth centuries i believe. (I.e. the Romans didn't leave and suddenly the Saxons poured in: there may have been very small numbers of Saxons in the eastern seaboard of late Roman Britain anyway.) But pre-Roman Germanic speakers in Britain won't wash, really. All the evidence points to Celtic speakers.
|
|
|
English
Jul 24, 2007 23:20:27 GMT -1
Post by exprocella on Jul 24, 2007 23:20:27 GMT -1
Ok. I've given this a little more thought. Taking the evidence presented at face value, I'm left with (for now) 3 conclusions:
1) the author is misguided or just plain wrong.
2) small groups of germanic speaking people were living along side the brythonic speaking people prior to the roman occupation. Archealogically this could be compared to trying to identify a polish family living in england, without any written evidence, 2000 years from now.
3) there were strong links between the two cultures, so when the Angles and Saxons settled, they used the names that the locals used, but in their own tongue. This is just as likely given the amount of trading that seemed to be occuring across europe.
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 6:00:56 GMT -1
Post by Craig on Jul 25, 2007 6:00:56 GMT -1
I have always been wary of the 'pouring in' theory of invasions popular with illogical historians.
On the continent, where it is relatively easy for large population migration to occur it can hold up (though genetic evidence over there is beginning to challenge it).
However, with at least 22 miles of treacherous water to cross it becomes increasingly unlikely. The ships of the time were small traders (i.e. Knorrs) carrying a dozen at most and larger warships (langskipps) most of which did not exceed eighty men).
Take Guthrum and his nasty Danish horde - I do this because we have potentially accurate numbers for the first time in British History). When he fought Alfred his great army may have numbered 6,000. Allowing for a reasonable number of camp followers, perhaps another 10,000, and the people he left in his camps near the coast, perhaps another 10,000 we get a total close to 25,000.
Given that as a conservative estimate the Kingdoms of Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria had a population of 3-5 million (some of the wealthiest and most successful in Northern Europe at the time), that is hardly a full obliteration of the natives is it. Even if we say Guthrum in subsequent years allowed his men to each bring over 10 of their family to invest the Danelaw, that is still only 250,000 people.
This same 'formulae' can be applied to earlier saxon and roman invasions.
A simple rule of conquering territory in ancient times, especially territory that is relatively difficult to get to: You don't bring your own peasants with you (especially as they didn't have RO-RO ferries or a tunnel). They are at home bringing in the harvest for your dad who has to hold onto the land he already has.
You, and all the best lads of your land (normally the ones everybody wants to bugger off as they are nothing but trouble, aka 'the Viking theory'), get together and go off to conquer. When you succeed you take the best farms, all the senior positions in society and the best women.
If your dad is bright he will follow on later to inspect 'his' new land and congratulate you by letting you keep it, on condition of fealty (and thus money) to him.
Thus the native population is not displaced. It just loses one bunch of idle warrior princes and gains another.
A very small group of men can control a huge territory if it is ruthless and can lock down all the key positions of the state - for example the British in India. At most there were 100,000 British over there in the 19th Century ruling 100 million Indians.
This requirement to control of the keys of the state was brilliantly exemplified by William and his Domesday Book survey. I don't think his predecessors were any different.
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 9:31:53 GMT -1
Post by Tegernacus on Jul 25, 2007 9:31:53 GMT -1
yeah, this seems to be more like the current accepted theory. Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans - these were all "regime changes" rather than full-scale mass invasions. Francis Pryor argues exactly this point, most recently in his "Britain AD" book (not without controversy, btw).
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 10:43:33 GMT -1
Post by megli on Jul 25, 2007 10:43:33 GMT -1
It seems logical enough to me.
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 13:06:21 GMT -1
Post by arth_frown on Jul 25, 2007 13:06:21 GMT -1
One theory is when the Romans left they took the wealth, what do all the skilled craftsman do? They follow the money. You are then left with a vacum of craftsman, as a leader you advertise "skilled craftsmen needed ". I'm sure that these Germanic craftmen saw a huge market waiting for them in Britain.
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 13:29:43 GMT -1
Post by littleraven on Jul 25, 2007 13:29:43 GMT -1
One theory is when the Romans left they took the wealth, what do all the skilled craftsman do? They follow the money. You are then left with a vacum of craftsman, as a leader you advertise "skilled craftsmen needed ". I'm sure that these Germanic craftmen saw a huge market waiting for them in Britain. And by this time the lions share of the legions were drawn from the local native populations, so the army went with them too leaving simple militia to defend the population. The effect of a relatively small warband on an undefended population would be devastating and why the Sais were seen to 'invade' is not difficult to understand.
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 13:30:57 GMT -1
Post by littleraven on Jul 25, 2007 13:30:57 GMT -1
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 13:36:09 GMT -1
Post by arth_frown on Jul 25, 2007 13:36:09 GMT -1
One theory is when the Romans left they took the wealth, what do all the skilled craftsman do? They follow the money. You are then left with a vacum of craftsman, as a leader you advertise "skilled craftsmen needed ". I'm sure that these Germanic craftmen saw a huge market waiting for them in Britain. And by this time the lions share of the legions were drawn from the local native populations, so the army went with them too leaving simple militia to defend the population. The effect of a relatively small warband on an undefended population would be devastating and why the Sais were seen to 'invade' is not difficult to understand. OK I'm going to have to say it. Bloody Romans what have they ever done for us?
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 14:02:01 GMT -1
Post by Tegernacus on Jul 25, 2007 14:02:01 GMT -1
the way I understand it, old Vortigern gave Hengest and Horsa lands in Kent as reward for their services against the nasty Picts. Having nice farmsteads, but not being farmers, these Sais warriors sent across the channel for their families. And obviously, other people would come, with the promise of a "better life" (remember, the Saxons were refugees at this point, on the run. All they wanted was a place to settle).
So you have maybe a thousand or so Saxons turning up in Kent, and all was well. Until the harvest, when they didn't have enough food. So they... aquired... surrounding farms too, just so they wouldn't starve. And more... and more... Of course, the Britons fought back, but what you have is more like a small Saxon warband rolls into the village and takes over, rather than swathes of Saxons coming in, massacring the natives, and colonising. The warband marries with the local girls, have kids with Saxon names, gradually Saxon culture takes over. Thats not to say that there wasn't mass-colonisation in places - the Vikings certainly took over Lincolnshire en-mass. But its not all black and white, its very compilicated, badly recorded.
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 14:08:00 GMT -1
Post by arth_frown on Jul 25, 2007 14:08:00 GMT -1
I remember that there is some evidence of Saxon villages next to Briton villages living quite happily together.
|
|