Southern Britain was German in pre-Roman times ?

[Aryaman2]

Pliny the Elder NH IV,31 also sees the Germani dwelling both sides of the Rhin, so Germani is not just a geographical name, those populations beyond the Rhin, as i said the more logical conclussion is that they see Germans different from Celts because they spoke a different language.
I see the Belgae similar to the Celtiberi, Ancient sources see the Celtiberi as a sort of mix of both Iberian and Celts, archaeology shows they had a siginificant cultural iberian influence, yet they spoke a Celtic language. It is possible the same was true for the Belgae, showing a heavy Celtic cultural influence but speaking a Germanic language.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Harry,

Thanks for those very eloquent replies, you've put it much beteeer than I ever could. A laudes well-deserved.

Personally I can't see burying people in a barrow surrounded by a square ditch as an idea which just somehow caught on.

I vaguely recall that there was something like a study that pointed out that nothing changed in the genetics of the buried remains? I may be wrong there, but I recall there was something that made some archaeologists change their mind about the assumption that somehow, changing burial patterns did not automaticall mean a foreign invasion.

Don't forget about that signature? :wink:

Hi Paul,

this is one of the arguments used by Oppenheimer et al to suggest the same was true of Anglo-Saxon; ergo the 'Britons' language wasn't replaced and must have 'germanic' origins).........

I think Harrry made the point that English as we know it developed from a germanic language after c. 350AD, not half a millenium earlier, as would be the consequence of Oppenheimer's claim. One could still make that claim, but not without having to accept the linguistical necessity of retaining a big influence of Germanic speakers who then would still become the dominating factor of the Germanic languages spoken in Britain as we know they did.
Oppenheimer is of course right to notice the dearth of Brythonic words in English, but then even he can't find the neccesary remains of the supposed 'Germano-British language' which he claims was spoken in southern Britain before the Roman conquest.

[Paullus Scipio]

Hi Robert - I was not seeking to support Oppenhemer's argument,( I don't believe it, incidently!) merely demonstrating his logic and reasoning.....

My point was that Oppenheimer's argument is too simplistic - there are simply too many factors that influence the development of a language. English is the only one whose many complexities, factors and inputs I am familiar with, but I am sure that the same is true of all languages to a greater or lesser degree, ancient or modern.....

As to Harry's point, I would suggest that an'English' language used universally in Southern Britain did not develop until much later ( though the process may have had its beginnings after 350 AD).....until very recently ( the twentieth century and radio) people from one part of Britain often found it difficult/impossible to converse with others from only a score or more miles away....pronunciation and grammar rules were different, as was vocabulary, ( the task of unifying these really only began with Samuel Johnson in the late 18th century) and a cockney from London would not understand 'weald talk' from the inhabitants of Sussex and Surrey, who in turn would have trouble with the way an 'ampshire'og spoke, not to mention the strange speech of 'Zummerzet' and the totally incomprehensible language and speech of cornwall.....

Another prominent example comes from the time of Hastings. The Northern English (not Danes from the Danelaw) could readily converse with Harold Hardraada's Norse invaders, but had great difficulty with King Harold of England's South Saxon speech....

[Conal]

until very recently ( the twentieth century and radio) people from one part of Britain often found it difficult/impossible to converse with others from only a score or more miles away....pronunciation and grammar rules were different, as was vocabulary, ( the task of unifying these really only began with Samuel Johnson in the late 18th century) and a cockney from London would not understand 'weald talk' from the inhabitants of Sussex and Surrey, who in turn would have trouble with the way an 'ampshire'og spoke, not to mention the strange speech of 'Zummerzet' and the totally incomprehensible language and speech of cornwall.....

Another prominent example comes from the time of Hastings. The Northern English (not Danes from the Danelaw) could readily converse with Harold Hardraada's Norse invaders, but had great difficulty with King Harold of England's South Saxon speech....

Which supports a "dialect" differentiation in Ceasars time. The wild Belgic types had less contact with Clasical Civil Society than the ones closer to the south of Europe so they would have less contact with other Celtic speakers from down south.

[Robert Vermaat]

Which supports a "dialect" differentiation in Ceasars time. The wild Belgic types had less contact with Clasical Civil Society than the ones closer to the south of Europe so they would have less contact with other Celtic speakers from down south.

Conal,

I have no idea what you're referring to. How doe this relate to Oppenheimer's theory? Did I miss a step?

[Martin Wallgren]

What about multilingual cultures. Most of the europeans has been that during the last 1000 years and probably where before that too. In Stockholm by the end of the 15 c you would meet alot of people that spoke Swedish/Finnish/German. And then again the Nation of Sweden had dialects so diffrent that they could not understand oneother. (some areas still have rather strange accents).

[Robert Vermaat]

What about multilingual cultures. Most of the europeans has been that during the last 1000 years and probably where before that too. In Stockholm by the end of the 15 c you would meet alot of people that spoke Swedish/Finnish/German. And then again the Nation of Sweden had dialects so diffrent that they could not understand oneother. (some areas still have rather strange accents).

Martin,

Although people may speak more languages that does not mean the culture can be described as multilingual. The Dutch speak English to a high degree (not to mention other European languages as well as non-European languages being spoken here) but that still does not mean we are a multilingual nation.

The Britons spoke Brythonic at home and Latin at the work or at the marketplace (overcoming dialects and other languages), but when Roman power collapsed the Brythonic remained.

The point made above of Germanic language development had nothing to do with influences or dialects, but with language evolution. Linguists can recognaise when languages develop and when regional developments occur. In case of this discussion, no traces of a pre-Roman Germanic language are found to have influenced what we know of English. English is proven to be developed from a 3rd to 5th c. Germanic language.

To kame the point viz. Oppenheimer - he is right when he notices that English contains extremely few Brythonic words, but in fact English contains no 'pre-Roman Germanic' words at all.

[Conal]

Which supports a "dialect" differentiation in Ceasars time. The wild Belgic types had less contact with Clasical Civil Society than the ones closer to the south of Europe so they would have less contact with other Celtic speakers from down south.

Conal,

I have no idea what you're referring to. How doe this relate to Oppenheimer's theory? Did I miss a step?

I was trying to say that any percieved difference in language, by Julius Ceasar, between the Belgic Gauls & the Celtic Gauls may have been dialectic rather than a completely different langauge i.e. a German one.

If the Belgae stood apart as a conferation of tribes from the Celtae then there may already have been differeing speech patterns or they may have been of an older type as they had less influences from outsiders than did the Cetae.

[authun]

As to Harry's point, I would suggest that an'English' language used universally in Southern Britain did not develop until much later ( though the process may have had its beginnings after 350 AD).....

The 350AD I think you refer to is from Gray and Atkinson's mathematical model for calculating the branching of IE languages. It's entirely theoretical. I quoted it to contrast Forster's much older date. The point being, why should Oppenheimer chose one in favour of the other?

I agree Brythonic will have continued to be spoken by some groups for very much longer.

best
Harry Amphlett

[authun]

I was trying to say that any percieved difference in language, by Julius Ceasar, between the Belgic Gauls & the Celtic Gauls may have been dialectic rather than a completely different langauge i.e. a German one.

This is a possibility. The account of the Gaels needing a translator when talking to the Picts could lead us to think that Pictish was a very different language, but many people believe it was simply a dialect of Brythonic.

best
harry Amphlett

[Martin Wallgren]

What about multilingual cultures. Most of the europeans has been that during the last 1000 years and probably where before that too. In Stockholm by the end of the 15 c you would meet alot of people that spoke Swedish/Finnish/German. And then again the Nation of Sweden had dialects so diffrent that they could not understand oneother. (some areas still have rather strange accents).

Martin,

Although people may speak more languages that does not mean the culture can be described as multilingual. The Dutch speak English to a high degree (not to mention other European languages as well as non-European languages being spoken here) but that still does not mean we are a multilingual nation.

The Britons spoke Brythonic at home and Latin at the work or at the marketplace (overcoming dialects and other languages), but when Roman power collapsed the Brythonic remained.

The point made above of Germanic language development had nothing to do with influences or dialects, but with language evolution. Linguists can recognaise when languages develop and when regional developments occur. In case of this discussion, no traces of a pre-Roman Germanic language are found to have influenced what we know of English. English is proven to be developed from a 3rd to 5th c. Germanic language.

To kame the point viz. Oppenheimer - he is right when he notices that English contains extremely few Brythonic words, but in fact English contains no 'pre-Roman Germanic' words at all.

Ah yes, I agree. What I ment was that a nation/country/area/tribeconfederation could have more that one language spoken as a native language with it´s borders. Some tribes could have had influences or such from the germanic language group as well as celtic in their speach. I think we often tend o think in 19 c nationality concepts and applys that to ancient people witch could be right but also very wrong.

[Aethelfrith]

No it was not. It's crap, supported by modern right-wing groups who want to make the claim stick that EEENGGLLOOND was theirs all along (instead of having to accept they were once 'foreigners', too). It's been done before in former Yugoslavia, where people have made claims of the Slavic languages being there before the Romans, etc., instead of entering after the Slavic migrations of the 6th c. and after.

I agree and personally hate the anti-immigration stance that is becoming popular in Europe (due to the influence of the right-wing nuts). On the flip side I hate the idea that England isn't a Germanic nation; both are racist views.

Britishism is more popular in the UK at the moment. Britishism is the idea that the inhabitans of the isles are only British and not Germanic and Gaelic also. This is a way of seperation ourselves from the scummy continental; we are Basques and the continentals are Germanic, Celtic etc...:roll:

I really hate the anti-European feeling of the ''British''; personally I proud of my close cultural links to the wonderful Dutch, Swedish, Germans etc and also the slightly more distant links with all the Indo-European groups including the Indians and the Iranians.

Also racism closes peoples eyes to the beauty of all cultures and that is why I actually feel sorry for racists!

[Aethelfrith]

genetics - a lot of this idea seems to hang on modern studies of modern dna, whatever that's worth. But contrary to the media, most scientists are careful to make big claims, and they tell us clearly enough that it's impossible to say when a certain group of Germanic ancestors actually entered the British Isles: it's impossible to see the difference between a 5th-c. Saxon or a 10-th-c. Dane. therefore, no answers are available to those who want to know if Germanic ancestors could have entered Britain say 10.000BC or 400BC.

Actually, when put to the test the reverse to the claim is true: most 'English' people who take the DNA test actually find that they are more 'Welsh' than 'English'.

It isn't conclusive, plus culture is not defined by genetics (hence when tested loads of Dutch people and German people will be genetically ''Celtic''). It is worth stating that most genetics test go by the corrupt gene system (someone with mainly ''Welsh'' heritage on his father's side is just ''Welsh'' despite the other genetical strands that make up his DNA). Loads of people have Middle-Eastern blood in Europe but that doesn't automatically make someone a Middle-Easterner just as ''Welsh'' genetics doesn't make them not English or even Welsh.

Plus most of the English being Welsh stuff is from Sykes and Oppenheimer who are arch-racists and actually later claimed that their was a difference in English genetics but it was only due to the Iberians (who Oppenheimer clams Welsh descend from) moving north and their DNA changing to look like other northern people (including most Germanic nations...) instead of looking like the ''Welsh DNA"; quackery at best.

Genetic tests are pointless and not a good way of looking at what people are culturally. I mean most Europeans are a mixed bunch and rightfully so.

[Aethelfrith]

To kame the point viz. Oppenheimer - he is right when he notices that English contains extremely few Brythonic words, but in fact English contains no 'pre-Roman Germanic' words at all.

That sort of depends as what you mean as English is etymologically traceable to proto-Germanic and some English words are closers to proto-Germanic words than, say, German and vice versa. The Germanic language of the English naturally progressed due to shifts and influences...it still retains the Ingvaeonic nasal spirant that is present in Frisian also.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Al,

Mind the modern politics please - we do not discuss either modern religion or modern politcs here to keep the peace.