+- 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 - 01-26-2007
One thing that has puzzled me for a long time is the lack of evidence for Britons in Elmet.
Elmet is east of the pennines and regarded, from written sources, as British kingdom until about 616/617 AD. It should therefore be an example of the continuity of British culture in the east of the country. Early Anglo Saxon artefacts are limited to 3 beads and a handful of graves (Yorke), although a couple of grübenhäuser were discovered more recently, supporting the notion that germanic influence in Elmet was very limited in the 5th, 6th and much of the 7th cents. However, there is little archaeological evidence for the continued existence of Britons either. This contrasts sharply with early AS archaeology in neighbouring Deira, directly to the east, though physically separated by wetlands. In this area, north of the Humber, I don't see much opportunity for the brittonic language to influence the language of the early angles.
best
Harry Amphlett
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - Robert Vermaat - 01-26-2007
Quote:grübenhäuser
Noo no no, the political correct word today is SFB's!
(SFB=sunken featured building).
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - ambrosius - 01-27-2007
Hi Authun,
Quote:Quote:All this would actually tend to suggest that there was more archaeological evidence for christianity in the South West of 4th/5th c. Britain than in the South East!
Von Kalben is not suggesting that no christianised families existed at all, but that Christianity in the south west wasn't widespread amongst the population. The evidence presented is in the number of christian graveyards or christian burials in mixed graveyards that have been found.
Actually, I think we have better preserved Romano-British Christian
graveyards in the South West than the South East from the 4th through
the 5th c. Cemeteries at Dorchester (Dorset) and Cadbury Congresbury
(Somerset) contain hundreds of W-E facing rows of burials with little or
no grave-goods, that date through the 4th c and into the 5th. There
isn't actually so much large-scale Romano-British Christian cemeterial evidence in the East (except for odd survivals like at the Police-Station
site in Colchester). Interestingly, the Colchester cemetery (surrounding
a nice 4th c. Church) seems to go out of use c. 450 (the Adventus?).
What happens at Dorchester and Cadbury-Congresbury is that long
after these cemeteries have likely ceased to be used by the native,
Christian Britons (after the Saxon expansion Westwards from 530
onwards) we see overtly pagan burials being added to the peripheries
of these graveyards containing knives, etc of Anglo-Saxon manufacture, as if the pagan Anglo-Saxons in the 6th & early 7th c. have taken over
what they perceive to be hallowed ground. That's not surprising, as the
same practise takes place in East & West, where they get buried inside
the mounds of Bronze-Age burials.
Then, of course, in the 5th-6th c. we get thousands of Christian grave
stones in the West Country & Wales which show the same patterns of
inscriptions as in Roman Gaul - including the same spelling mistakes
in the Latin (showing continued trade & cultural contact with the rest of
the Roman World - in additon to Byzantium).
Ambrosius / Mike
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - ambrosius - 01-27-2007
Quote:authun:1glfh3y4 Wrote:... If the germanic speaking areas are to get the plague, they have to either trade with the Mediterranean world directly, or trade with those infected British areas. The lack of plague, mediterranean imports or other british goods in the germanic speaking areas suggests neither.
I had thought that the North did have noticeable Roman imports - the deposits in Illerup Adal showing Roman manufactures, as well as other bog sites. So the lands the germanic invaders came from would have possibly been exposed to plagues (do we know that this disease really was bubonic plague?). Were the Angles and Saxons really isolated from their Continental brethren?
Yes, Roman items from the Western Empire still seem to get to the
German/Danish areas, in a South-North trade network from Italy, which
goes across land. But at the same time (mid-5th to mid-6th c.) there is
a separate network of trade going East-West from the Eastern Empire
to Britain, Spain & Western Gaul by sea. Hence we get imports of
Byzantine pottery & coins in Western Britain all the way from Bantham
in Devon and Tintagel in Cornwall up the coast of Wales to Lancashire
and even Whithorn in Dumfries & Galloway in Scotland. This is the
likely result of Eastern Emperors like Justinian trying to retain/resume
trade/political contacts with the provinces in the West, as part of his
reconquest of the lost parts of the Empire. Hence the term 'Justinian
Plague' for this epidemic. :wink:
It seems that the Byzantines had become the real inheritors of the
Empire, by this point, whereas Rome itself had been sacked so many
times and supplanted by Ravenna, etc, that it was no longer in any
fit state to conduct either a resurgence of Romanitas or a reconquest
of the territories already lost. Interestingly, the types of pottery which
we find at Tintagel etc are exactly the same kind of amphorae which
the Byzantine Emperors are using to supply the Eastern frontier fort
garrisons with their 'Annona'. So it looks like Justinian was politically
supporting the survival of Romanitas in the British West. 8)
Ambrosius/ Mike
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - ambrosius - 01-27-2007
[quote]Plague has been known to rage through Norway in winter - apparently, temperatures do not hold back the plague. Infected people can spread the disease as well, besides rodents.[quote]
Now that's just the point.
[quote=Vortigern]
So you're practically suggesting that the Germanic speakers in Britain and elsewhere were not/less affected by plague because they were completely isolated from traders with the Mediterranean and thus escaped infection.[/quote]
Yes, he is. And so am I. :lol:
[quote]I can't agree with that hypothesis - did they not trade with other people who traded with the Mediterranean (such as Franks and Goths)?[/quote]
But - and here's the kicker - as you so eloquently point out, yourself,
above, it wasn't just rats bringing the plague here, it was people.
Thus, arriving Byzantine sailors, bringing imports from the Eastern
Empire, also infected the native Britons they had contact with. Especially so if those trading ships bere actually bringing Byzantine passengerswith them, as diplomats (even military advisers :lol: ) But the kind
of trade which any Anglo-Saxons in Britain would have had with the East would - as you point-out again - have been several times removed.
That is, via the Frankish, Gothic, Hunnic etc middle-men who would
have insulated Anglo-Saxons from the effects of the plague, as it would
have passed through many different hands going overland (if there was
any signifficant trade in Byzantine goods by Anglo-Saxons at this time,
in any case. Direct contact with ship's rats or crews/passengers, on the
other hand, would easily explain the higher incidence of the Justinian
Plague among Romanised Britons in the West.
[quote] Besides, the amount of trade between Irish/British and the Med is not shown to reach such volumes either.[/quote]
Oh, Robert. There you go again. Always talking in absolute terms, when
the debate is on the relative amount of trade. :lol: Anyway, you find me any sites on the Eastern coast of England which have the kind of 'Tintagel' ware which is imported all up the West coast of Britain in the period 450-550. That's what we're talking about, here.
Ambrosius / Mike
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - Robert Vermaat - 01-27-2007
Mike Mike, you’re doing it again, just when I thought you had began to discuss in a more pleasant way.
First of all, PLEASE get your [quotes][/quotes] right, you’re not making yourself more clear by muddling who actually said what.
Secondly, I was talking in absolutes as we were discussing an absolute issue.
I’ll explain my point again, because I see you did not grasp that. I’m not talking about relative trade, but about absolute trade. Absolutely!
The point under discussion was the theory (not necessarily one supported by either of us) that the British were affected by the Justinian plague, whereas the Anglo-Saxons were not, because the British traded with the Byzantines and the Anglo-Saxons did not. That was a theory already heard of in the 1970s, but recently this was expanded into a new theory. In this theory the Anglo-Saxons were not hit by this plague because they did not only not trade with the Byzantines, but the also did not come into contact with the British.
My point is that this does not stand when built on the theory that the plague was the Justinian plague.
The points:
1) The Anglo-Saxons did not trade with the Byzantines directly. I agree to that.
2) The British did trade with the Byzantines directly. I’m not sure about that (much Byzantine goods does not prove direct Byzantine trade), but it seems highly likely.
3) The plague was the Justinian plague because the dates fit. I disagree.
Why?
Look at the other trading partners of the Byzantines, and see if the Justinian plage spread to them.
The Byzantines in Italy or North Africa? No.
The Ostrogoths? No.
The Lombards? No.
The Visigoths or other Spanish peoples? No.
The Franks? No.
So why should I accept that only the Irish and the British were affected by the Justinian plague, only because they suffered from a plague during the same time (roughly)? I fail to see that there is a scientific base for that theory, as we can’t see any other trading partner in between those regions being hit by that Justinian plague.
With that, the argument of the plague not reaching the Anglo-Saxons due to a lack of direct trade with the Byzantines, also fails.
With that, the added argument that this supposedly proved the lack of direct contact between British and Anglo-Saxons, also fails.
You’re darned right I’m talking about absolutes.
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - authun - 01-28-2007
Quote:Actually, I think we have better preserved Romano-British Christian
graveyards in the South West than the South East from the 4th through
the 5th c. Cemeteries at Dorchester (Dorset) and Cadbury Congresbury
(Somerset) contain hundreds of W-E facing rows of burials with little or
no grave-goods, that date through the 4th c and into the 5th.
Hi Ambrosius,
Do you have numbers and dates for them. Von Kalben lists the graveyards used but neither of these are mentioned. However, as far as I recall, around a dozen criteria are used to determine whether a burial is classified as christian or not.
best
Harry A
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - authun - 01-28-2007
Quote:Look at the other trading partners of the Byzantines, and see if the Justinian plage spread to them.
The Byzantines in Italy or North Africa? No.
The Ostrogoths? No.
The Lombards? No.
The Visigoths or other Spanish peoples? No.
The Franks? No.
Hi Vortigern,
There was a plague in Italy in 543AD and Gregory of Tours writes about a plague which was in the Rhone Valley in 543 AD too. The 542AD plague in Constantinople came from Egypt where it had struck in 541AD. This is all commensurate with the spread of one plague rather than independent outbreaks of different plagues. Moreover, the later plagues in the 6th cent and even into through the 7th and into the 8th cents are commensurate with recurrent outbreaks.
best
Harry Amphlett
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - Robert Vermaat - 01-28-2007
Quote:There was a plague in Italy in 543AD and Gregory of Tours writes about a plague which was in the Rhone Valley in 543 AD too.I stand corrected (I must say I already wondered about the lack of Justinian plagues). Any idea where in Italy?I'm not an expert on that, see.
I´ve since read about plagues in Gaul - how St. Gall saved the people of Clermont-Ferrand in Gaul from the disease in 543 (Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks IV, 5) and around 580, which may be a recurrent plague. Why did this one not hit the Anglo-Saxons? No trade with the Franks? I mean, this Justinian plague even travelled across the Persian Empire and on to China-how ccome there are people who claim with dry eyes that it did not reach the Anglo-Saxons?
The plague itself actually occured in all three forms: bubonic, pneumonic (also called pulmonary), and septicaemic, but clearly the bubonic form predominated. This means it would have been as deadly in northern areas as it was in southern ones.
Still, if the plague seems not to have spread much outside the region around the ports (as suggested by others here), maybe it did not hit the British that much either, as it did not hit the Goths and Franks very much? Maybe the Anglo-Saxons were also hit, but also not thát much?
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - authun - 01-29-2007
Hi Vortigern.
I don't know where in Italy. From what I can glean, the whole subject has been largely been bypassed by research. Sources such as Jordanes simply say 'plague'. Much of the medical research, and what historical research has been done, simply add these sources together and concur that it fits with the pattern of the spread of the black death, concluding that these outbreaks are part of the spread of the Justinian plague.
There are books such as Justinian's Flea: Plague, Empire, and the Birth of Europe by Rosen who may give more detail, but I haven't read them.
As far as I can tell, one of the problems is that, in latin, the term often used is 'mortality', which can be applied to famine too. I agree that it isn't satisfactory to simply conclude that, as a lot of people talk about it, it must be true, especially when sources may just be drawing on other sources. But, if it is true, it may be a factor worth considering.
best
Harry Amphlett
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - ambrosius - 01-31-2007
Hi Authun,
Quote:Quote:The Anglo-Saxons evidently did not adopt Brittonic as Franks adopted Gallic.
How do you know that the Franks spoke Gallic?
I mean that Anglo-Saxons did not adopt Brittonic vocabulary to the
extent which Franks adopted Gallic vocabulary (3 words:120 words).
Quote:And as a consequence, when discussing the period around the year 500AD, that comment is 400 years out of date! :lol:
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.
Quote: Firstly, I did write if that comment is typical.
Oh quite. The problem is, everyone assumes not only that it is
typical, but that it's typical of the ethnically Italian soldiers (which
the Roman army in Britain are also assumed to consist exclusively of)
and that this attitude must have remained the same for 400 years. :lol:
Those are the three assumptions of anyone who hasn't studied the
Roman army to any great extent (for which, read: 'Joe Public').
The truth is, though, that none of those three assumptions is true.
Firstly, we don't even know which Britons this comment refers to,
whether the hostile ones to the North or the pacified recruits to the
South. Secondly, the units based at Vindolanda at the time this tablet
was written weren't Italians at all, but Germans (only the four legions
which came to Britain necessarily had to be ethnically Italian, and even
that restriction no longer applied in the late-Roman army). And
thirdly, the public will always assume that: 'Romans in the 5th c. were
identical to Romans in the 1st c.'. Of course, the fact that everyone
freeborn within the Empire was 'Roman' by 500 is an unknown fact to
the man-in-the-street. Nor would he understand that, by 400, the
'Roman' units based here for the defence of Britain would undoubtedly
consist mainly of local, British recruits. (With all the implications
which that entails for the withdrawal or non-withdrawal of 'Roman'
troops in the 5th c.!) 8)
Quote: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?
Well, Harry, it's like this: :lol:
Firstly, the attitude of ethnic Italians in the administration of
Roman Britain was completely different from c.100 to c.500. For the
reasons above (and many more) Britain was no longer being conquered
by the Roman army, nor did they regard us as being anything other
than Roman ourselves (as we, too, were citizens, just as much as
anyone in Rome - or Ravenna - or probably Byzantium). Thus, if the
comments in the Vindolanda tablet had been atributable to ethnic
Italians, then this attitude would not have been representative of any
ethnic Italians 400 years hence.
Secondly, the attitude of newly recruited Germanic troops (from
outside the Empire) in c.100 towards Celtic peoples in general may
indeed have remained the same from c.100 to c.500. Certainly, the
linguistic evidence you've given us still has Celtic peoples being called:
Volcae/Welsh by Germanic peoples (especially Romanized Celtic ones).
Cheers,
Ambrosius / Mike
Re: The English and the Celts - no genocide? - authun - 01-31-2007
Quote:... the 'Roman' units based here for the defence of Britain would undoubtedly consist mainly of local, British recruits.
Hi Ambrosius,
I thought that British would be recruited for service abroad, not in Britain.
Quote:Secondly, the attitude of newly recruited Germanic troops (from
outside the Empire) in c.100 towards Celtic peoples in general may
indeed have remained the same from c.100 to c.500. Certainly, the
linguistic evidence you've given us still has Celtic peoples being called:
Volcae/Welsh by Germanic peoples (especially Romanized Celtic ones).
Firstly, you don't know if the word Britunculi was used by a germanic or that, if it was, it was typical of all the germanics towards the british in the 1st cent. Furthermore, it is a leap of faith to project that onto the attitudes of the 5th cent. germanics. Referring to celtic speakers by the term wahl is not necessarily derogatory either. It is merely a description of the language that they spoke. Slavic speakers were called Wends by the germanics and areas such as 'Das Wendland' still exist in Germany today, apparantly, still slavic speaking in the middle ages. It's the interaction between germanic speakers and slavic speakers and the use of wahl as a term to describe the language of a people that gives rise to the modern polish term for italians, wlochy.
Secondly, there are other sources, which I don't have to hand, which describe emnity between the romans, irrespective of ethnicity, and the Britons. I can't accept that there is any evidence at all for an 'anti-celtic' attitude amongst germanics in the 1st cent AD save for that typical of conflict.
best
Harry Amphlett
The Goon Show - ambrosius - 02-01-2007
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.
:lol: Ah, but that's an unwarranted assumption, Robert! :lol:
What on Earth do you think constitutes the evidence for a survival of Christian (presumably, you intend 'British') communities in Kent in the early days of the Anglo-Saxon arrival? Are you assuming that the
survival of a Greek/Latin loan word in Brittonic for 'Church' - that is,
'Ecclesia' - which gets adopted as a generic placename by the invading Anglo-Saxons (in the form 'Eccles') for any surviving church building
is evidence for a surviving British Christian community? :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's only evidence for the fact that the invading Jutes in Kent recognised
a Romano-British church building - no more, no less. It says absolutely
nothing about whether there was a surviving British community there.
To make any further assumption beyond the one that the Anglo-Saxons
simply recognised the architecture of an empty Roman church building
would be as falacious as to assume that every town/fort in England
which bears the suffix 'Chester/Caster/Caister' in its name was called
thus by the Anglo-Saxons because it was still a functioning town or fort
complete with Christian, Romanised Britons living inside it! 8) 8) 8)
And I happen to KNOW you don't believe that was the case, as
you (and Neil Faulkner) keep telling us. 8) So why - simply on the basis
of the Anglo-Saxon recognition of the architectural function of a now abandoned British church building - would you assume that this church
building is proof that there was a still surviving Christian British
community living in the area??? 8) :lol:
It seems to me that you are trying to have your cake and eat it...
Either British towns and forts in the East did not still function as towns
and forts (as you and Faulkner claim) and nor were there any Britons
living at Eccles in Kent when the Jutes captured it after winning the
battle of Aylesford - OR - if you really want to claim that every
Anglo-Saxon name for a standing British church building means there
must have been a surviving British community still living there (and that
they had not been killed or sent into exile) then you must also
make the same assumption that all British towns and forts in Kent and
the South East (with the Anglo-Saxon suffix 'Chester/Caster/Caister'
in their names) similarly imply a surviving Christian British community
at these sites, also. Which would imply that all the walled-towns of Rochester, Chichester, Colchester etc and the Saxon Shore Forts of
Caister, Brancaster, Portchester & Pevensey Castle (Andredscaster in
Old English) all had Christian British garrisons manning their walls.
Or... we needn't assume any of the above (without any archaeological
evidence to support it) and just accept that the Anglo-Saxon names
of the type 'Eccles' do [b]NOT[b] , necessarily, imply a Christian British
community surviving in the immediate area. 8)
Ambrosius / Mike[/quote]
The Goon Show - ambrosius - 02-02-2007
Quote:ambrosius:3i1xts9p Wrote: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.
Ah, you found another one. Well done. 8)
Quote: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?
Well, everything is always relative. Two 'Eccles' placenames in Kent,
teo in sussex and 6 in East Anglia versus three dozen further West and
North (including Scotland). That gives a fairer picture of the distribution
of Christianity across England & Scotland than the assumption that it
was more represented in the South-East in the immediate post-Roman
period. I'm not sure, though, that Harke claims the Amglo-Saxons
entered an 'empty landscape', so much as that they created one! :lol:
Don't forget that the battle of Aylesford in Kent in 455 was the first of
three between the invading Jutes and the Romanized Britons (Vortigern's
two sons, apparently). Anyhoo, that doesn't sound much like an 'empty
landscape' to me... 8) And if the next battle was Crayford, in 457,
then this is further West, towards London. Nomatter who claimed to have
won at Aylesford, the Jutes obviously struck further into British territory
and nearer to London, 2 years later. This means that they had likely
captured the river-crossing of Aylesford - and the site of the Roman
villa (and church) at the nearby hamlet of 'Eccles'. The fact that the
name survived at Eccles shows that the (pagan) Jutes recognised the
church as such (even though they would have no use for it, themselves,
for another 150 years, until St. Augustine came to convert them). :lol:
It says absolutely nothing about the existence - or otherwise - of any
surviving British Christian community at Aylesford in the period either
immediately before or after the battle. All it says is that the Jutes who
captured Aylesford recognized the nearby church as being what it was.
A church. That's all we can say. The site may well have already been
abandoned by the native Britons, seeking refuge from the advancing
Jutes. Certainly, I wouldn't expect there to have been any British
civilians hanging around at Aylesford to see the outcome of the coming
battle. Any still there when the Jutish forces arrived would presumably
have been killed or fled.
Ambrosius / Mike
Re: The Goon Show - Robert Vermaat - 02-02-2007
Quote: This means that they had likely captured the river-crossing of Aylesford - and the site of the Roman villa (and church) at the nearby hamlet of 'Eccles'. The fact that the name survived at Eccles shows that the (pagan) Jutes recognised the church as such (even though they would have no use for it, themselves, for another 150 years, until St. Augustine came to convert them). :lol:
[..]
All it says is that the Jutes who captured Aylesford recognized the nearby church as being what it was.
A church. That's all we can say. The site may well have already been abandoned by the native Britons, seeking refuge from the advancing Jutes. Certainly, I wouldn't expect there to have been any British civilians hanging around at Aylesford to see the outcome of the coming battle. Any still there when the Jutish forces arrived would presumably have been killed or fled.
Mike, that's just rubbish. Advancing pagan Jutes who not only recognise building as churches, AND retain the name! If that would really have happened, they would most likely have torched the place and renamed it after one of their own gods! :lol:
Talk about unwarrented assumptions - I like your sense of humour!
Let's face it Mike. I see signs of Britons living among the Anglo-saxons, how few or many I can't tell, but I see signs.
You have a different model - no contacts at all, and that means you must explain awy every such sign that points into the other direction.
That's your good right, but I see no point in discussing that any further - it's down to differences of opinion and neither of us can really prove what happened for real.