+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Allies & Enemies of Rome (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: The English and the Celts - no genocide? (/showthread.php?tid=7936)
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - authun - 01-21-2007
Quote:The Anglo-Saxons evidently did not adopt Brittonic as Franks adopted Gallic.
Hi Ambrosius,
How do you know that the Franks spoke Gallic?
Quote:And as a consequence, when discussing the period around the year 500AD, that comment is 400 years out of date!
Quote:So you see, that Vindolanda Tablet - when read with a little background knowledge, actually reinforces the Germanic attitude towards Celts which we see expressed 400 years later in Britain.
Firstly, I did write if that comment is typical.
However, I don't understand your reasoning when you firstly argue that it probably does not apply because it is too early and then follow this by claiming that it is applicable but attributable to germanic troops.
Or have I missed something?
best
Harry Amphlett
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - Aryaman2 - 01-22-2007
Quote:But Aryaman, that's hardly surprising, now is it. After 1,500 years ofI don´t know the size of modern poblational movements in Britain, but they don´t have any effect on the whole picture, even if you had a higher genetic West/East cline, it is among populations with a very similar genetic pool as a whole, and the general picture is that East England is, like Noerthern France, a border province of the Western European Genetic Region.
intermingling due to aculturation between Britons and Anglo-Saxons
living in England and (especially in the last 200 years, since the industrial
revolution) economic migration for better jobs within the British
Isles, you should not be expecting to see the regional genetic variation
between East and West which would originally have existed, should you.
There might conceivably have been an enormous genetic cline between
East and West in the year 500, which, due to the above factors of
evening-out, might be scarcely visible today. Which is what you are
saying is the case.
Ambrosius / Mike
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - ambrosius - 01-23-2007
Quote:authun:1x2r4q5s Wrote:Eccles itself is a brythonic word borrowed into latin hence english uses a latinised welsh word to denote a community of british christians.
Actually, Harry, I was under the impression that 'eccles' ultimately
derived from Latin 'Ecclesia', meaning a church - whether its attribution
in Britain makes it Brythonic or Old English - and that Latin originally
borrowed it from Greek. :?
Quote:The survival of Christian communities in Kent, ánd the (eccles-)names for them, is one of those signs that for me speak against a mass migration in the early days of the Anglo-saxon arrival and a total population replacement in the east, as Coates advocates.
Actually, Robert, there is only one 'eccles' placename in Kent. That's
not a lot, really, when there are many more further West and North. In fact, when you take the dozens on Eccles and Eccles-derivative placenames in the more Brythonic regions further away from the initial Anglo-Saxon landings in Kent, I would disagree with your opinion that
this speaks against a mass-migration of Britons away from Kent in the
early days after the Adventus Saxonum. To me, the fact that this is the
only one in Kent indicates exactly the opposite: that there indeed
was a mass migration of British Christians away from the Anglo-
Saxon landings in Kent. But whereto? Why, the most logical answer
would of course be further West & North, where the abundance of
'Eccles' placenames indicates a more extensive British Christian
community surviving far longer, before being conquered by the later
emerging Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. 8)
Interestingly - as you know - this Eccles in Kent is a modern village
neighboring the town of Aylesford, which lies on the East bank of the River Medway. And Aylesford is, of course, one of the three main
battle-sites in Kent where Vortigern's two sons fought against the two
Jutish brothers, Hengist & Horsa after the Adventus.
Quote:authun:1x2r4q5s Wrote:Härke suggests that a population crash occured in the immediate post roman period but that the romano british population remained stable from the mid 5th cent onwards.Does he really? How strange - that would mean that the population took a sharp dive after Britain became independent (Gildas saw that as a happier time, I believe), and that is stabilised when the Anglo-Saxons arrived in (according to Härke, right?) a mass migration, driving all the British before them? I find that hard to believe.
Oh so do I, Robert. But then I read what Harke says slightly differently
than you do. :lol: You assume that the population crash takes place
before the Anglo-Saxon arrival. On the other hand, if it took place
after the Anglo-Saxon arrival, then that would actually corroborate
what Gildas tells you, wouldn't it. 8) After all, you favour a much earlier
date for the Adventus Saxonum than most of us, taking it as being long
before the traditional date of c.450. Thus, if you were right (and I'm
not saying you are) and the Adventus took place much earlier in the
5th c. than 450, then this would not allow any time for the Romano-
British population to crash before the Anglo-Saxon arrival. :lol:
Therfore, we could easily attribute this population crash to the actual
arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. And the subsequent stabilization of
the British population would undoubtedly be far more likely due to the
recorded resistance of the British to the Anglo-Saxons in the form of
the three battles in Kent, dated - oh, let's see, now - from the mid
5th century onwards... :wink: That is, from 455-465 in Kent. 8)
Quote:I think current thought has the British population already diminishing since the 3rd c.,
I don't know about that (except for Faulkner et al). From the 1970s it
has been widely accepted that the Romano-British population c. 400
was between 2 & 6 million, with most scholars taking the average of
4 million to work with. The fact that it's only listed as being 2 million
again in the Domesday Book, after 600 years of Anglo-Saxon rule,
only serves to imply the loss of a stable and prosperous economy and
the 'forgetting' of once widely known skills such as personal hygeine
and medicine - under the Roman administration - which probably led
to vastly increased rates of infant mortality.
Quote:...a curve that i could well accept becoming a bit steeper during the 5th c., with all the raids, civil wars and Anglo-Saxon migration starting.
:!: Wow! "... raids (by Anglo-Saxons, of course, as well as Picts) and
Anglo-Saxon migration starting." Keep it up, Robert; I like your style!
8)
Quote:authun:1x2r4q5s Wrote:Another major consideration is the late roman marine transgression which altered the landscape considerably.Yes, we know that already startyed during the Roman period. It must have been very problematic for the low-lying areas.
Indeedy! Harke thinks that's why the Anglo-Saxons came here in such
large numbers - deluging of their coastal farmlands. And although some
may claim that not as many as 1-2 million could have come here in
the 5th & 6th centuries, if you include all the coastal farmland in a zone
from the Pas de Calais up through Holland and Denmark and include
Sweden and Norway as being likely origins of some migrants, that is an
enormous area. As Harke, himself points out: We know that these
regions became depopulated at this time. If they weren't all coming to
Britain, then there must be many thousands of longboats lying at the
bottom of the North sea! :lol:
Ambrosius / Mike[/quote]
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - Robert Vermaat - 01-23-2007
Quote: Actually, Robert, there is only one 'eccles' placename in Kent. That'sActually Mike, there are two, there’s also an Eccleshill (on the List of Names from the 6 inch O.S. Maps of Kent (revised 1905/08)).
not a lot, really, when there are many more further West and North.
Not a lot, indeed. But the point was not their number, but their existence in the first place – if (according to Härke and Coates) the Anglo-Saxons entered an empty landscape, then why would such a name exist at all? No Britons were apparently talking to the newcomers according to that model, let alone that these pagans would allow Christians to exist? If there was a mass migration of British Christians away from the Anglo-Saxon landings in Kent, why would there be such names at all?
Quote: You assume that the population crash takes place before the Anglo-Saxon arrival.Not at all. I see no population crash at, never have. I see a decline that set in during Late Roman times, as in much of the West, causing all kinds of trouble to the Roman tax-gatherers. It’s very difficult to see how fast or slow this decline actually was, so I don’t presume to say anything about ‘population crashes’ or things like that. But there were for sure a good deal less Britons by 600 AD than there were in 300 AD, for all kinds of reasons, war, climate, plague being surely among them.
Quote: :!: Wow! "... raids (by Anglo-Saxons, of course, as well as Picts) and Anglo-Saxon migration starting." Keep it up, Robert; I like your style! 8)Thought you would Mike, thought you would. Mind you, I never claimed this did not happen – my problem is just with the intensity, period and the circumstances of these events. Some theories are far too extreme in my view, as you’re aware, but I would never dream of denying them.
Quote: Indeedy! Harke thinks that's why the Anglo-Saxons came here in such large numbers - deluging of their coastal farmlands. And although some may claim that not as many as 1-2 million could have come here in the 5th & 6th centuries, if you include all the coastal farmland in a zone from the Pas de Calais up through Holland and Denmark and include Sweden and Norway as being likely origins of some migrants, that is an enormous area.I find it odd that all those who see these folks taking to their ships when their fields get wet, never even assume that these folks would look for higher ground first, instead of seeking out a hostile island that was even more prone to flooding! :lol:
After all, we see the first traces of these migrants all along the coast – not just British, but also Gallic shores. Strange, if you’re fleeing from the flood. Aren’t we just looking at migrants who seek out new shores for altogether different reasons, as the Vikings did later?
Quote: As Harke, himself points out: We know that these regions became depopulated at this time. If they weren't all coming to Britain, then there must be many thousands of longboats lying at the bottom of the North sea! :lol:
“There must beâ€
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - authun - 01-23-2007
Quote:Actually Mike, there are two, ... if (according to Härke and Coates) the Anglo-Saxons entered an empty landscape, then why would such a name exist at all?
Hi Vortigern,
Härke doesn't argue for empty landscapes throughout the east, just in some areas.
Von Kalben makes the point that the two eccles sites in Kent indicate a continued presence during the AS period. However, christian burials suggest that it was more heavily christianised during the roman period. The question is, what happened to the others?
If the church moved, many Britons in Kent may have just ceased to remain christian, without the guiding hand of the church. Some obviously did remain practicing christians, and were noted as such, hence the name, but there could have still been lapsed christians around.
best
Harry Amphlett
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - authun - 01-23-2007
Quote:Harke thinks that's why the Anglo-Saxons came here in such large numbers - deluging of their coastal farmlands. And although some may claim that not as many as 1-2 million could have come here in the 5th & 6th centuries, ...
Hi Ambrosius,
Härke doesn't suggest these large numbers. He's at the upper end of the minimalist debate suggesting between 150,000 and 250,000.
2002 "Kings and warriors: Population and landscape from post-Roman to Norman Britain", in: Paul Slack--Ryk Ward (eds.), 145-175.
2003 "Population replacement or acculturation? An archaeological perspective on population and migration in post-Roman Britain", in: Hildegard L.C. Tristram (ed.), 13-28.
Does Härke really suggest flooding as the sole cause for the migration? The area of modern day Angeln is a glacial moraine landscape, rolling hills. They deserted that area during the 4th cent. It seems unlikely that it was due to outside threats as it was not repopulated. It may have been climatic, but without flooding.
The coastal area of Jutland immediately to the north of the Elbe, Dithmarschen does show some evidence of abandonment due to flooding, Terps which had been raised from around 200 AD were finally abandonned around 300 AD, but it is still too early to explain a mid 5th cent. invasion.
Robert van de Noort makes the point that, in Yorkshire at least, the germanic settlers did not exploit the wetlands created by the late roman north sea transgression and attributes this to a change in animal husbandry practices. However, if the 'Angles' in England did in fact come from Schleswig along with others from the danish islands and southern Norway, they had no history of exploiting wetlands anyway. This might explain the early settlements on higher ground in the wolds.
best
Harry A
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - Martin Wallgren - 01-23-2007
Quote:I find it odd that all those who see these folks taking to their ships when their fields get wet, never even assume that these folks would look for higher ground first, instead of seeking out a hostile island that was even more prone to flooding! :lol:
After all, we see the first traces of these migrants all along the coast – not just British, but also Gallic shores. Strange, if you’re fleeing from the flood. Aren’t we just looking at migrants who seek out new shores for altogether different reasons, as the Vikings did later?
I see your Irony, but...
And I don´t think they fled from a flood.
In fact it is quite resonably for this people to take to the sea. The inland of scandinavia was Taiga forrest. Not fun to get into. Not even today. It´s huge! Goes on for hundreds of hundreds of miles. And the connection to neighbours where quite often only by sea. That´s why Finland and Sweden have more in common in many ways than Sweden and Norway.
Just a pointer but not a statement in the ongoing discution...
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - Robert Vermaat - 01-23-2007
Quote:In fact it is quite resonably for this people to take to the sea. The inland of scandinavia was Taiga forrest. Not fun to get into. Not even today. It´s huge! Goes on for hundreds of hundreds of miles. And the connection to neighbours where quite often only by sea. That´s why Finland and Sweden have more in common in many ways than Sweden and Norway.
Most of the immigrants to Britain during the 5th and 6th c. are reckoned to have come from Denmark, Northern Germany and The Netherlands. Quite a different landscape from taiga forests.
A Rat\'s tail - ambrosius - 01-23-2007
Quote:authun:7esi6vfq Wrote:The germanic speakers in the east were unaffected by the plaguePlease explain why you think this would be the case. Were the rats afraid of the Germanic language?
Well, one possible reason might be that the plague was brought by
Byzantine trading ships into Romano-British ports in the West of Britain.
This would explain why the Britons caught the disease. The fact that
Anglo-Saxons did not catch it implies that there was no contact between
the two ethnic groups, does it not? 8) This might be corroborated by
the fact that Anglo-Saxons did not learn to speak Brittonic - or any
words of Brittonic, appart from the three accepted as being Brittonic.
It might also be corroborated by Gildas's claim that the Britons became
refugees from the Anglo-Saxons. It might further be corroborated by
Ine's Law stating that Britons were a separate ethnic group from
Anglo-Saxons. It might yet still be corroborated by the English place-
names within English territory denoting wholly British enclaves. :wink:
Ambrosius / Mike
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - ambrosius - 01-23-2007
Quote:ambrosius:34sibfvs Wrote:Perhaps initially, yes. Certainly moreso under Caesar than Augustus.
But by the time of Claudius, you see him wanting to introduce Gallic
senators, to widen the enfranchisement of the Empire. You can hardly
claim to see the same kind of evidence of enfranchisement being
extended from Anglo-Saxon kings towards native Britons, certainly
not within a century of the initial conquest, c. 450. :lol:
...
Well, ten times as much lexical copying took place as in Britain.
Give it up, Robert. No matter what spin you put on the figures,
40 is still at least ten times more than 3. 8) And it is surely important
what words are being adopted. If they are more commonly
used words, or of more prestige, then they carry more weight.
Hardly the things I am adressing Mike.
Well, here we see one of the limitations of language. I can only answer
the questions you ask me. I'm not telepathic. :wink:
Quote:Of course the Romans treated the Celts different than the English did, but that may also provide an answer.
Nice to see you acknoweldge this.
Quote:For one, the Romans had been in touch with Celtic people for centuries even before Caesar conquered Gaul. And during those centuries and the centuries that followed, 'just' a few hundred (let's be generous) words enetred Latin. One would expect a much higher number, even when we totally disregard any comparison with the British situation.
Well Romans had been in touch with Germanic peoples for centuries
as well, except that Celtic society was, originally, more organised and
prestigious than Germanic society; until that position became reversed
in the centuries AD. And why do you not express equal surprise that
'just' three Brittonic words enter english after 600 years of the
Anglo-Saxon 'occupation' of England - always presuming that you are
right, and there were many Britons speaking Brittonic, still alive in the
East of England, and in contact with Anglo-Saxons?
Quote:Why so few? Maybe Coates' answer, that the Romans did not need 'new' words, applies here?
Yet they still did adopt both Gallic and Brittonic words, didn't they, in
spite of not needing them. That's only polite, when you are living in
close proximity with another people for centuries. Yet your Anglo-
Saxons evidently saw no need for such social niceties. Really, Robert,
you seem unwilling to discuss Romans and Anglo-Saxons on a level
playing-field; always avoiding the fact that there was ten-times as
much linguistic borrowing by Romans than by Anglo-Saxons. What you
don't seem to realise is that - if you would just once acknowledge this
fact - there would be no need for me to keep repeating it to you. :lol:
Quote:I just don't know. I hope the linguists find an answer to that, because it will certainly be an aid to (in part) tell why hardly any British words entered English.
I thought we'd already answered that question, many times... 8)
Ambrosius / Mike
Re: A question of etymology - ambrosius - 01-24-2007
Quote:ambrosius:2gan6mxg Wrote:Well this is precisely the point, isn't it. :lol: What Coates is comparing
is the adoption of the native Celtic language by the conquerors.
What he compares is how Franks and Romans in Gaul adopt Gallic with how Anglo-Saxons in Britain adopt Brittonic. It's the relative hostility towards (or disinterest in) the native population by the invader which
is being quantified, here; using linguitsics as a measuring-stick. You
introduce the question of Gauls not being required to forego their native
tongue and speak Latin (exclusively, you mean). But that's not the
question being asked by Coates. It's the hostility of the invader
towards the natives. 8) There's a difference, you know. So, clearly,
there was less hostility from Romans to Gauls (as measured by this linguistic paradigm) than from Anglo-Saxons to Britons.
No no no, I'm not talking about that, I talk indeed about the invader and their adoption of words from the language of the conquered people.
No, really, Robert. You did try including the question of whether the
Gauls adopted Latin (or the Britons English) when what we (and Coates)
have been discussing has been the relative adoption by Roman and
Anglo-Saxon invaders of Gallic and Brittonic, respectively.
Quote:And then I ask why there were still so few words from Celtic (and I add the Celts from Italy and Spain and other areas to that) entered Latin.
Still ten times as many as the Brittonic words adopted into English! :lol:
Quote:When you see less hostility from Romans to all these Celts, over a much longer period, then why not even 200 Celtic words in Latin.
:lol: But it isn't a much longer time (for Roman rule in Gaul, as
compared to Anglo-saxon rule in England) is it. :lol: Anglo-Saxon rule
in England lasted 600 years from the Adventus (c. 450) till the
next external conquest by the Normans - 1066! :lol:
Quote:What percentage are we even speaking of?
Okay. Well a total of three British words adopted into English
over 600 years works-out to about half a word a century! 8) :wink:
Quote:A very low one.
You're darn tootin'! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote:That it's more that tenfold the amount of British words that made it to English is ceratinly true
I like this new Vortigern. He makes a lot of sense! 8)
Ambrosius / Mike[/quote]
Re: A question of etymology - ambrosius - 01-24-2007
Quote:[When you see less hostility from Romans to all these Celts [than from Anglo-Saxons to Britons] then why not even 200 Celtic words in Latin. What percentage are we even speaking of? A very low one. That it's more that tenfold the amount of British words that made it to English is ceratinly true - but it's still a very very low number IF you say that the reason for the latter is something as drastic as population replacement and near-invisiblity of the conquered language.
No, that's not what I say. What Coates and I say is that when language
exchange does not occur, that is usulally because there is no
'projeceted gain' (as Coates words it) or gain of prestige (as Aryaman
words it) for the Anglo-Saxons. In other words, one very likely scenario
is that Anglo-Saxons looked-down on Britons as inferior, both culturally
and racially. There may indeed have been a slaughter of Britons or
mass exiling to the West or to Brittany. But, again, as in the case of the
lack of adoption of British words into English, what is the real reason for that. Slaughter and exile may explain why there were no
Britons around for the Anglo-Saxons to learn British words from, but
why aren't there any around in the first place? If Anglo-Saxons
weren't hostile to the Britons, then why slaughter or exile them? And
so the lack of British words in English becomes merely a symptom
of the hostility of Anglo-Saxons towards Britons.
Quote:And THEN the comparison fails, for the Romans did not replace the Celts from all thes e areas.
No it doesn't fail. :lol: Both slaughter of Britons by Anglo-Saxons and
failure of them to adopt British words into English are symptoms
of hostility towards Britons by Anglo-Saxons. Do you see? 8) What you
say, above, merely replaces one paradigm for understanding the hostility
from anglo-Saxons towards Britons with another. It doesn't matter
whether you choose to say that Anglo-Saxons slaughtered Britons or
refused to speak Brittonic. Either way, they were hostile to Britons. :wink:
Quote:So, there must be something else going on that caused so few word of Celtic entering Latin, and even fewer words of British to enter English.
Yes, Robert. It's called conquest and assimilation. And however hostile
Romans were towards Gauls, it seems that this attitude was magnified
when it comes to how Anglo-Saxons regarded Britons.
Quote:ambrosius:3e5rcwup Wrote:Hmmm. I'm not sure who is misunderstanding whom, here. But Coates
seems to be making the point that the Anglo-Saxons even went to the
trouble to adopt an Irish word for something that no longer even existed in mainland Britain - a druid' - rather than adopt any Brittonic words, which were closer to home, and described still extant objects. Coates is making the same point as yourself, you just don't realise it.
No, I don't think so, but that's my interpretation. I don't see Coates making the point of the Anglo-Saxons avoiding existing British vocabulary, I think he just used the wrong example here.
Well whatever example he uses, he is making the point which I
mantioned above. Perhaps if you were to re-read the article, it might
become clearer what he is saying. 8)
Quote:Although I wonder where the Anglo-Saxons came into contact with Irish people speaking about druids, I thought Ireland was already well-baptised when the English came into full contact with them.
Yes, it was (baptised by Romanised British Christians, by the way,
like St. Patrick - whose name was actually Patricius, by the way. But
we still use the word 'druid', today, even though there are precious few
druids around. And even those who choose to call themselves 'druids'
in a New-Age-sort-of-way, don't know what druidism was all about.
Few even realise that Stonehenge wasn't built by druids (and in all
probability, was never used by them, either).
Quote:ambrosius:3e5rcwup Wrote:But to say that Anglo-Saxons' vocabulary sufficed is to introduce an element of special-pleading on their behalf, surely.You mean by me? NOt my words, it's Coates who brought that up.
I'm afraid the same goes for both Romans and Anglo-Saxons equally
on that score, Robert, since neither would have found anything that
unusual in the environment anywhere in Western Europe - unlike
Europeans going to Australia or Africa. So we're back to square one,
again, I'm afraid. Given that the situation is equal for both Romans and
Anglo-Saxons in this regard - why do Anglo-Saxons so conspicuously
choose not to speak any British.
Quote:ambrosius:3e5rcwup Wrote:As an invading Anglo-Saxon, your vocabulary may suffice for everdayLike what? Bag-pipes?
things, but it would still be polite to adopt at least some native words for
things, just to show you aren't completely anti-British. 8)
Actually, according to David Marshall, bagpipes were likely a Roman
import to Britain, and the Scots probably first heard them being played
by Roman troops on Hadrian's Wall. 8)
Quote:Coates argues that Anglo-Saxons saw nothing much new in Britain, so they did not need new words. Sorry Mike, you can't stick that on me - blame Coates! :lol:
Coates argues that the Romans wouldn't have seen anything new in
Gaul, either. I'm afraid that this argument reduces to zero, on this
point, Robert - see above. Yet Romans still adopted ten times
as many words from Gauls, didn't they. :lol:
Ambrosius / Mike
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - ambrosius - 01-24-2007
Hi Aryaman,
Quote:Mike
As I posted, Coates claims that Britons were not visible because of "emmigration, annhilation or enslavement" page 18, and I disagree with that explanation, I think social and cultural considerations could explain it without resorting to genocide or ethinic cleansing explanations.
Sure, I agree with you. And Coates also outlines that argument, himself
(even if he doesn't make a point of suggesting that as another
possible explanation). But ultimately, of course (as I mention to Robert)
it doesn't really matter whether we're using 'emigration, annihilation or
enslavement' or 'lack of prestige' to explain the lack of linguistic
borrowing from Brittonic to English. Either way, it is equally clear that
Britons were not exactly held in the highest esteem by Anglo-Saxons.
This, then, mitigates against the idea of a peaceful assimilation between the two cultural groups (which idea is one of my pet hates).
Ambrosius / Mike
Re: A question of etymology - Robert Vermaat - 01-24-2007
Quote: Both slaughter of Britons by Anglo-Saxons and failure of them to adopt British words into English are symptoms of hostility towards Britons by Anglo-Saxons. Do you see? 8) What you say, above, merely replaces one paradigm for understanding the hostility from anglo-Saxons towards Britons with another. It doesn't matter whether you choose to say that Anglo-Saxons slaughtered Britons or refused to speak Brittonic. Either way, they were hostile to Britons.
Oh I see, but that’s your point of view, which you are entitled to have. But I have mine, and your arguments have not convinced me on this point. Your main cause for the extremely low number is the hostility of the Anglo-Saxons towards the Britons. Surely they did not come for High Tea!
But I’m more with Coates here, when he offers that Anglo-Saxons had less of a need for Celtic new words. Quote: Coates argues that the Romans wouldn't have seen anything new in Gaul, either. I'm afraid that this argument reduces to zero, on this point, Robert - see above. Yet Romans still adopted ten times as many words from Gauls, didn't they. :lol:You’re wrong there Mike. I for sure don’t know all the Celtic words that entered Latin, but Philip Rance wrote an article about at least one that survived into Byzantine times, a technical word used in horse training. The Romans did learn from the Celts, which is nothing new.
(Btw we’re not speaking about Gallic words here, from what I read: these Celtic words could have come from the Italic Celts, the Gauls, the Celtiberians or the British Celts for all I know).
Quote: Given that the situation is equal for both Romans and Anglo-Saxons in this regard - why do Anglo-Saxons so conspicuously choose not to speak any British.Your guess is as good as my guess, I guess
.You say hostility, some say an empty landscape, some say Apartheid, some say no linguistic reason.
My guess would be all of these and maybe others.
That vague? Of course, I wasn’t there. But I don’t the signs of an empty landscape and enough remains to suggest hostility was not the rule.
My hypothesis is that once more words did exist in English but they vanished over time.
The main difference is that while the Romans’ (like the Anglo-Saxons) first contact with almost every Celtic group was one of conquest, but that afterwards, for centuries, that relationship was neutral to benevolent. The Anglo-Saxons fought the British/Welsh until this very day.
Hostile? Of course! I agree with you! (Again? I must be ill
). But unlike you (I think at least that’s your position) this hostility did not start on day one – I see too many signs of co-operation and living next-to each to assume that. I just don’t think the Saxons all arrived on some beach, guns blazing, leaving burning farms behind them, and the relation never got better. In my view, the big split between Us English/You Welsh did not develop until later, 6th-7th c.
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - Aryaman2 - 01-25-2007
Quote:Hi Aryaman,To me, it is clear that genetic evidence doesn´t support any idea of genocide, so other explanations should be looked after. I used "social prestige" because it is a notion well established in sociology. It derives from enjoying status and superior position in hierarchical organizations, so Briton language, linked to no social prestige, made little impact (as Robert says probably larger than the surviving examples in modern Engilsh though) on early English. You say you are against the idea of peaceful assimilation because all that proves (and here I agree with you) Britons were not held in high esteem by Anglo-Saxons, but that doesn´t mean war to death, it means simply that conquered Britons had good reasons to forget Britonic and become Anglo-Saxons.
Sure, I agree with you. And Coates also outlines that argument, himself
(even if he doesn't make a point of suggesting that as another
possible explanation). But ultimately, of course (as I mention to Robert)
it doesn't really matter whether we're using 'emigration, annihilation or
enslavement' or 'lack of prestige' to explain the lack of linguistic
borrowing from Brittonic to English. Either way, it is equally clear that
Britons were not exactly held in the highest esteem by Anglo-Saxons.
This, then, mitigates against the idea of a peaceful assimilation between the two cultural groups (which idea is one of my pet hates).
Ambrosius / Mike