01-04-2007, 09:01 AM
This has been discussed on other forums a great deal.
The man in question is Win Scutt, he offered the readers of Britarch to read his theory from his website: http://writeboard.com/a1f300104540dbaa4 The password is 'durrington'.
The basics have beeen heard for years - there is a group of people that believe that the current 'partition' of Britain is not the result of post-Romen developments, but goes back to the last Ice Age. Similarly, some Belgians believe that the cureent 'language border' between Flemish and French also predates the Roman period by centuries if not millennia. I have also in my possession a book from Slovenian authors who argue that the Slavic peoples were already present in Austria and Slovenia long before the Celts and Romans came and went again (in fact they see them all through Europe).
Personally, I see no real merit in these theories. Whenever it come to proving the presence of these languages centuries before they are currently attested, it comes down to very strained linguistics. I trust that modern linguistic expert will have no trouble shooting down this new theory too, as the development of Old English seems very secure as a derivate of similar Germanic languages, and not a language that developed in Britain 16000 year ago.
The theory of Oppenheimer, that basically genetics rather than linguistics, may be very interesting, but it's not based on ancient bodies but on modern humans. These theories stand and fall with the success with which the researchers can make their readers accept that researching dna of modern test subjects can in any way reflect on the movement op peoples 2000 years ago or even earlier.
Personally, I believe that so much can have happened tp folks in the meantime that we have no idea of, that such conclusions are at best extremely shaky, not to say downright wishful thinking.
The man in question is Win Scutt, he offered the readers of Britarch to read his theory from his website: http://writeboard.com/a1f300104540dbaa4 The password is 'durrington'.
The basics have beeen heard for years - there is a group of people that believe that the current 'partition' of Britain is not the result of post-Romen developments, but goes back to the last Ice Age. Similarly, some Belgians believe that the cureent 'language border' between Flemish and French also predates the Roman period by centuries if not millennia. I have also in my possession a book from Slovenian authors who argue that the Slavic peoples were already present in Austria and Slovenia long before the Celts and Romans came and went again (in fact they see them all through Europe).
Personally, I see no real merit in these theories. Whenever it come to proving the presence of these languages centuries before they are currently attested, it comes down to very strained linguistics. I trust that modern linguistic expert will have no trouble shooting down this new theory too, as the development of Old English seems very secure as a derivate of similar Germanic languages, and not a language that developed in Britain 16000 year ago.
The theory of Oppenheimer, that basically genetics rather than linguistics, may be very interesting, but it's not based on ancient bodies but on modern humans. These theories stand and fall with the success with which the researchers can make their readers accept that researching dna of modern test subjects can in any way reflect on the movement op peoples 2000 years ago or even earlier.
Personally, I believe that so much can have happened tp folks in the meantime that we have no idea of, that such conclusions are at best extremely shaky, not to say downright wishful thinking.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
