07-29-2006, 08:58 AM
Vortigern,
Thank you for your extensive reply to my post. I would like to comment further:
1. Burials. You are right - Germanic burials were being used in these islands before the Romans left. But why was this? There were significant numbers of Germans here who had been brought here and settled in order to fight for the Romans. Mucking in Essex, not far from where I live is one such site. These early German settlers may well have laid the foundations of the later settlements when their relatives, friends etc came and joined them. In many cases these later settlements may well have been relatively or even totally peaceful.
2. Jutland. Your comments may well have some validity -- but those people did go somewhere. As Bede says that they came here and as similar pottery, etc styles suddenly crop up in England at around the right time - it seems a little obtuse to just dismiss the argument. Yes I know it is not fashionable to believe what Bede and Gildas say, that they are supposed to have other agendas, etc, etc, but from a literary standpoint they are the nearest to the time, especially Gildas.
4. Pottery. There is one very strange aspect of the new Germanic pottery. It wasn't particularly good, in fact the early stuff was quite crude (it could have some pretty designs, though). Why abandon better pottery for the new Germanic style?
5. Jewellery. The new styles are, mostly, radically different from what went before. Why would British women want to copy Germanic ones?
6. Weapons. The new weapons are stylistically very different from the earlier, British ones. I think that you are ignoring this. If you wish we can discuss Swanton's spear head types and look at the forms that the Germanic sword took. Shields and their decoration (where it survives) are very different.
7. Language. The case of Arabic is not the same. The Islamic conversion was just that, a conversion. With that conversion came the necessity to speak Arabic. The Germanic settlers did not set out, as far as we know, to convert anyone to their faith. In fact they do not seem to have had anything resemblin a unified system of beliefs -- possibly family or tribal beliefs that varied a great deal.
One other point is the fact that Old English had very few, probably not more than a couple of dozen, British loan words, none of which are words relating to cooking, utensils, food, etc - the sorts of words that a British mother might teach her children. This is not the case in some Arabic lands like Algeria where many words survive from displaced languages.
8. Farming. I cannot agree with you and do not follow the logic of your statement. The Anglo-Saxons had to eat, they would need to use the land as soon as possible, they could not afford to let it waste, if they did they would starve. So what they were warriors -- warriors need food like anyone else -- many warriors, or members of their families, would have been farmers, too. The Anglo-Saxons, like the British lived in a close relationship with the land. Why would they need a manual?
One other point that I would like to make. The early English and many of the British did not benefit from a liberal, multi cultural education, they lived in tribal societies and regarded others, as not the same, perhaps not even human. They would not, necessarily excercise too much restraint in getting the means to survive and thrive from people that they regarded as 'Welsh' (foriegn) - people who were not of their kin. I am sure that different groups of Germans also saw the other as enemies.
Cheers,
Paul
Thank you for your extensive reply to my post. I would like to comment further:
1. Burials. You are right - Germanic burials were being used in these islands before the Romans left. But why was this? There were significant numbers of Germans here who had been brought here and settled in order to fight for the Romans. Mucking in Essex, not far from where I live is one such site. These early German settlers may well have laid the foundations of the later settlements when their relatives, friends etc came and joined them. In many cases these later settlements may well have been relatively or even totally peaceful.
2. Jutland. Your comments may well have some validity -- but those people did go somewhere. As Bede says that they came here and as similar pottery, etc styles suddenly crop up in England at around the right time - it seems a little obtuse to just dismiss the argument. Yes I know it is not fashionable to believe what Bede and Gildas say, that they are supposed to have other agendas, etc, etc, but from a literary standpoint they are the nearest to the time, especially Gildas.
4. Pottery. There is one very strange aspect of the new Germanic pottery. It wasn't particularly good, in fact the early stuff was quite crude (it could have some pretty designs, though). Why abandon better pottery for the new Germanic style?
5. Jewellery. The new styles are, mostly, radically different from what went before. Why would British women want to copy Germanic ones?
6. Weapons. The new weapons are stylistically very different from the earlier, British ones. I think that you are ignoring this. If you wish we can discuss Swanton's spear head types and look at the forms that the Germanic sword took. Shields and their decoration (where it survives) are very different.
7. Language. The case of Arabic is not the same. The Islamic conversion was just that, a conversion. With that conversion came the necessity to speak Arabic. The Germanic settlers did not set out, as far as we know, to convert anyone to their faith. In fact they do not seem to have had anything resemblin a unified system of beliefs -- possibly family or tribal beliefs that varied a great deal.
One other point is the fact that Old English had very few, probably not more than a couple of dozen, British loan words, none of which are words relating to cooking, utensils, food, etc - the sorts of words that a British mother might teach her children. This is not the case in some Arabic lands like Algeria where many words survive from displaced languages.
8. Farming. I cannot agree with you and do not follow the logic of your statement. The Anglo-Saxons had to eat, they would need to use the land as soon as possible, they could not afford to let it waste, if they did they would starve. So what they were warriors -- warriors need food like anyone else -- many warriors, or members of their families, would have been farmers, too. The Anglo-Saxons, like the British lived in a close relationship with the land. Why would they need a manual?
One other point that I would like to make. The early English and many of the British did not benefit from a liberal, multi cultural education, they lived in tribal societies and regarded others, as not the same, perhaps not even human. They would not, necessarily excercise too much restraint in getting the means to survive and thrive from people that they regarded as 'Welsh' (foriegn) - people who were not of their kin. I am sure that different groups of Germans also saw the other as enemies.
Cheers,
Paul
Paul Mortimer
