|
English
Jul 25, 2007 19:28:49 GMT -1
Post by Tegernacus on Jul 25, 2007 19:28:49 GMT -1
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 20:33:24 GMT -1
Post by Heron on Jul 25, 2007 20:33:24 GMT -1
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 20:42:56 GMT -1
Post by arth_frown on Jul 25, 2007 20:42:56 GMT -1
It's a shame(or maybe not) that there's no archaeological proof for ethnic cleansing, you would think there would be mass graves. The maths just don't add up it would take a lot of warriors to kill most of Britain, then you would have replace the workforce. It would be a lot easier to knock off the elite.
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 20:45:58 GMT -1
Post by exprocella on Jul 25, 2007 20:45:58 GMT -1
So where does this information leave the orthadox view that the British Isles were inhabitied solely by Celts?
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 21:05:52 GMT -1
Post by arth_frown on Jul 25, 2007 21:05:52 GMT -1
It seems more complementary to the archaeological evidence.
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 21:21:33 GMT -1
Post by Tegernacus on Jul 25, 2007 21:21:33 GMT -1
It's a shame(or maybe not) that there's no archaeological proof for ethnic cleansing, you would think there would be mass graves. The maths just don't add up it would take a lot of warriors to kill most of Britain, then you would have replace the workforce. It would be a lot easier to knock off the elite. exactly. There is evidence, however, of aparthide and slavery. Saxons had laws for their British slaves, and the further west you go, the more slavery you find. This is interesting: "Finding Britons in Anglo-Saxon graves Large numbers of native Britons have never yet been recognised in the archaeological record. My own research, however, suggests that evidence for the Britons can in fact be found, and in places where archaeologists have hitherto rarely looked - that is, in Anglo- Saxon settlements and cemeteries. It should not really be a surprise to find them there, as the 7th century laws of King Ine of Wessex contain regulations for Britons, in a way that implies their close co-existence with Anglo-Saxons, often as slaves or serfs. So how do we recognise them? First, we can assume they had fewer grave goods than their Anglo-Saxon masters, and no weapons; and second, we can recognise them through skeletal traits.
Evidence of this sort suggests two distinct phases of interaction between native Britons and Anglo-Saxons - immigration in the 5th/6th centuries resulting in ethnically divided communities and regions; and increased mixing of the two groups in the 7th/8th centuries, leading to the assimilation of the natives into Anglo-Saxon society.
In the first phase, about half the male adults in Anglo-Saxon inhumation cemeteries were buried with weapons; and where there are enough skeletal data, it appears the men with weapons were, on average, one to two inches taller than their weaponless brethren. Other skeletal evidence suggests this was probably not the consequence of different diet and health. There is also strong evidence that the men of post-Roman Germanic populations on the Continent were one to two inches taller than Romano-British men. We may, therefore, accept the stature difference in post-Roman England as evidence that about half the male population in `Anglo-Saxon' communities was of native British stock.
A closer look at individual sites, using this type of evidence, suggests two different patterns of immigration and settlement in southern England. The cemetery of Berinsfield, Oxfordshire, is an example of the `community model' where immigrants had arrived in complete kin-groups, and did not intermarry with Britons despite living close together. In the cemetery, distinct plots contained skeletons with two different genetic patterns, suggesting separate communities of Britons and Anglo-Saxons several generations after the Anglo-Saxon immigration.
The `warband model', on the other hand, is exemplified by the cemetery at Stretton-on- Fosse in Warwickshire, where almost all male burials contained weapons, and where genetic skeletal traits and textile techniques continued from the Romano-British phase to several generations after the Anglo-Saxon immigration. This suggests that an all-male group had settled there and taken native women as wives.
Historical evidence and place-names point in addition to the existence of a third pattern in the south - wholly British enclaves - for instance in the Chilterns and in places such as Walcot and Wallingford (derived from the Old English word wealh for `foreigner', indicating Britons).
This situation changed gradually throughout the 7th and 8th centuries. A drop in average male stature by one inch in `Anglo-Saxon' cemeteries in Wessex suggests that more native groups, previously buried in cemeteries that cannot be identified, were now adopting Anglo-Saxon culture and burial practices. In addition, in existing Anglo-Saxon settlements the disappearance of the stature differential between men with and without weapons suggests more intermarriage between ethnic groups. The appearance of Celtic names in the Wessex royal house (for instance, the 7th century king Ceadwalla) suggests that the elite too became mixed.
In the transition from an ethnically-divided conquest society to an early state, social differences of rank and status were becoming more important than ethnic origins. Biology and culture were moving in opposite directions. The common culture created in the 7th and 8th centuries was Anglo-Saxon, but Anglo-Saxon skeletal traits gradually became submerged in those of the Britons; and together the Anglo-Saxons and Britons became the English.
Dr Heinrich Harke is a Lecturer in Archaeology at the University of Reading" Thing is, this interweaving and intermarriage stopped at the Dyke - the Welsh hated the Anglo-Saxons (still do on match day lol) - and that would explain the genetic difference, rather than the ethnic cleansing model. But there was a cultural cleansing, unintentional or not. How many Brythonic words exist in modern English?
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 21:43:02 GMT -1
Post by Tegernacus on Jul 25, 2007 21:43:02 GMT -1
I don't know, I'm not sure about the "there are no Brittonic inscriptions outside Wales and Cornwall, therefore those people didn't speak it" argument, sounds flawed to me.
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 21:44:47 GMT -1
Post by arth_frown on Jul 25, 2007 21:44:47 GMT -1
But there was a cultural cleansing, unintentional or not. How many Brythonic words exist in modern English? 6 according to the last link plus too many to count place names. Maybe old English was just as infectious as modern English.
|
|
|
English
Jul 25, 2007 21:59:56 GMT -1
Post by Tegernacus on Jul 25, 2007 21:59:56 GMT -1
there you go then. If the people of England didn't orginally speak Brythonic, why are a lot of the places given Brythonic names? Its kind of like the African slaves in America. Or the victorian mine workers. Or people working for Thomas Cook . If your masters/lords/ tell you that you have to speak their language or else, you speak it. Personal experience: when my g-g-g-g-grandfather brought his family from Carmarthen to Merthyr for work, the whole household spoke Welsh. A generation later, Welsh and English. A generation later, just English.* And thats just the course of 100 years or so. How long was the Saxon period? 500 years? Its hardly surprising there is anything left of the language, or the culture, just a few dimly remembered "fairy tales" and some funny dances. * happy to say we're reversing that trend now. Take that, Mr Imperialist Victorian Mine-owner! Hurrah! lol
|
|
|
English
Jul 26, 2007 19:50:39 GMT -1
Post by Heron on Jul 26, 2007 19:50:39 GMT -1
It is a problem for this analysis that there are so many Brythonic names around the place outside of the areas where it suggests they should be prevalent, but of course there are lots of 'anglo-saxon' names scattered around Wales today (where did 'Skanda Vale' come from?). Could it be that both the Celtic and the Germanic tribes that invaded and became dominant were essentially warrior elites who determined the subsequent cultural archaeology but were in fact in the minority in terms of the whole population? This is one possible conclusion of Oppenheimer's analysis. Who might these aboriginal people have been? The legendary Gwyddl-Fichti? Attecothi? Oppenheimer suggests genetic markers; if they were culturally invisible after the Bronze Age we can't know. But the genetic evidence seems to bust this debate wide open and throw into question what has been called the 'orthodox' view of Saxons displacing Celts westward, which has long been in dispute anyway.
|
|
|
English
Jul 27, 2007 5:56:45 GMT -1
Post by Craig on Jul 27, 2007 5:56:45 GMT -1
What celts?
I suspect that if we look to those areas not entirely overcome by the Saesnegs we may see the original Britons, the west of Wales and Ireland, the Caledones and the Pictii.
|
|
|
English
Jul 27, 2007 8:19:07 GMT -1
Post by littleraven on Jul 27, 2007 8:19:07 GMT -1
So where does this information leave the orthadox view that the British Isles were inhabitied solely by Celts? For people here, who are geerally aware that 'Celt' is a 18th century catch all term, who generally know that the Keltoi referred to a tribe living along the Northern coast of Gaul it makes no difference whatsoever. Just a load ot tribes kicking the crap out of each other. LR, (son of the Deceanglii, kin of Ordovices and Cornovii).
|
|
|
English
Jul 27, 2007 13:20:15 GMT -1
Post by Tegernacus on Jul 27, 2007 13:20:15 GMT -1
Celtic is useful for describing an area/era to the general public who doesn't know/doesn't care about the specifics. Mostly used these days by Americans... "My g-g-g-great-grandmothers-second-cousin's-sister was Irish, therefore I'm Celtic". Yeah right. *pet peeve*
Al (offspring of the Demetae and Silures, who's ancestors never raided LR's ancestor's cattle. Honest...)
|
|
|
English
Jul 27, 2007 14:24:56 GMT -1
Post by littleraven on Jul 27, 2007 14:24:56 GMT -1
Al (offspring of the Demetae and Silures, who's ancestors never raided LR's ancestor's cattle. Honest...) Yaah, but we got the pigs hahahahaha!
|
|
|
English
Jul 27, 2007 14:52:47 GMT -1
Post by arth_frown on Jul 27, 2007 14:52:47 GMT -1
Celtic is useful for describing an area/era to the general public who doesn't know/doesn't care about the specifics. Mostly used these days by Americans... "My g-g-g-great-grandmothers-second-cousin's-sister was Irish, therefore I'm Celtic". Yeah right. *pet peeve* Al (offspring of the Demetae and Silures, who's ancestors never raided LR's ancestor's cattle. Honest...) Some of my ancestors(from both sides) come from the land of silures.
|
|
|
English
Jul 27, 2007 15:18:30 GMT -1
Post by Tegernacus on Jul 27, 2007 15:18:30 GMT -1
brilliant, kinsman!. Now, about Littleravens' pigs *whispers conspiratorially*
|
|
|
English
Jul 27, 2007 16:19:06 GMT -1
Post by exprocella on Jul 27, 2007 16:19:06 GMT -1
If celtic is just a generic term used for the ignorant public, such as myself, I take it the term Brythonic relates to the tribes of a particular era within Britain, regardless of their specific cultural origins?
If this is the case, why the concern about the notion that old-english being spoken prior to the roman occupation?
I am also curious as to how or where you have traced your ancestry to the tribes mentioned.
I ask out of genuine curiousity and regard for knowledge and mean no insult to your respective kinsmen.
|
|
|
English
Jul 27, 2007 16:37:42 GMT -1
Post by Tegernacus on Jul 27, 2007 16:37:42 GMT -1
Never said you were ignorant, you at least have an interest, unlike most of the public. Brythonic is the language that the people of mainland Britain spoke before they had to learn Latin. Its not a people (Welsh, Scottish, Irish) or even a tribe, it describes EVERYONE. There would have be en regional differences, probably, and accent differences, but more or less everyone spoke it (as far as we can make out). We use the term Brythonic to describe the people who lived on mainland Britain before the Romans came. It, in itself, is a catchall term, like "Celtic", but its a bit more specific and descriptive. The main contention about Old-English being spoken before the legions came, is that, by inference, Brythonic WASN'T spoken. Or was closer to Anglo-Saxon than the Welsh/Cornish/Cumbrian languages it developed into. Not really a widely accepted view, infact its a minority within a minority, but its important to discuss all avenues in our history. As for tracing our ancestory, well.. I can't speak for others, but I did an old-fashioned family tree. OK, this doesn't go back to the Iron Age, but if you can get back to just before the industrial revolution, people didn't move about that much. Is it important? Well, a large part of the religion we aim to follow and reconstruct involves the ancestors, honoring and communing with them, so you should have an understanding of where you're from, however vague. Geneology is a fascinating hobby, thoroughly recommend it, only don't let it get into any of that "pure blood" rubbish. Ultimately, its who you are now that matters - if you were born and raised in Devon, feel a part of the land, you can honor the Durotriges, and if they are willing, they will call you one of their own
|
|
|
English
Jul 27, 2007 17:39:07 GMT -1
Post by exprocella on Jul 27, 2007 17:39:07 GMT -1
Many thanks Tergernacus, thats made things a lot clearer and gives me a good basis to understand further reading from.
Personally I've never been a fan of the "its this way" or "its that way" view. All too often I've found its "this and that way".
Know what you mean about geneology, traced much of my tree back to the late 1700's so far (before that it gets distinctly dificult). So I could call on the Corieltauvi, Dumnonii, Dubunni or Atrebates, given my lines come from these areas, but (and I apologise if this hijacks the thread some what) how does someone go about relating to these distant ancestors?
|
|