Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Appearence and tactics of early 5th century Saxons.
#31
Greetings Redwald
Quote:Please have a look here for the academic use of the word 'welsh' as foriegn http://www.alarichall.org.uk/phd.php
The article links to one on Elves.... :? D
Depends on whether they are Germanic, Norse or Tuatha de Danaan I suppose....or even Icelandic????
Of course there is an opinion that England is actually 'the land of Ing', short for Ingvi Frey, who was of course Lord of the fair Elves of Ljossalfheimr
....and wasn't Raedwald a WuffINGa :wink: :wink:
regards
Cristina
The Hoplite Association
[url:n2diviuq]http://www.hoplites.org[/url]
The enemy is less likely to get wind of an advance of cavalry, if the orders for march were passed from mouth to mouth rather than announced by voice of herald, or public notice. Xenophon
-
Reply
#32
Hello Cristina,
Raedwald was indeed a Wuffing! It may be he that is buried in Mound 1 at Sutton Hoo.

The Angles may well have worshipped Ing (probably Ingui in Old English) in Scandinavian lands called Ingvi Freyr and he was lord of elves. Those elves weren't necessarily the elves of modern fairy tales - they could be very powerful.

There are two good books about Ingui -- Richard North's Heathen Godds in Old English Literature -- academic but worth the read if interested and John Grigsby's Beowulf and Grende -- a much easier read, covers more ground and comes to some interesting conclusions.


Cheers,

Paul (Raedwald)
Paul Mortimer
Reply
#33
In re Islam and cultural changes, it is true that Algeria and Morocco do preserve much of the pre Islamic language and culture; one might contrast this with the situation of Egypt; which had a very large non Arab population and a very deeply rooted and sophisticated culture when it was Byzantine; we can be quite sure the number of Arabs who moved into the country didn't outnumber the natives. Yet the survival of the pre-Arab culture is limited to a very marginalized group of Copts, and I think the language survives primarily as a liturgical one.
Felix Wang
Reply
#34
Hi Felix,
What you say about the coptic language is true, however, my understanding is that they retain much more of it in their verison of Arabic than English does British. One other aspect is that Coptic had been weakened a little by the earlier Greek invasion of Alexander, when Greek became the language of government.


Paul (Raedwald)
Paul Mortimer
Reply
#35
Vortigern,
I wuold be very interested in the reference where one set of Germans calls another welsh.


Paul (Raedwald)
Paul Mortimer
Reply
#36
Quote:
Felix:2r5p974j Wrote:one might contrast this with the situation of Egypt; which had a very large non Arab population and a very deeply rooted and sophisticated culture when it was Byzantine; we can be quite sure the number of Arabs who moved into the country didn't outnumber the natives. Yet the survival of the pre-Arab culture is limited to a very marginalized group of Copts, and I think the language survives primarily as a liturgical one.
Hi Felix, What you say about the coptic language is true, however, my understanding is that they retain much more of it in their verison of Arabic than English does British. One other aspect is that Coptic had been weakened a little by the earlier Greek invasion of Alexander, when Greek became the language of government.
Felix' point was that the bulk of Egypt lost most if not all pre-Arabic culture except for the marginanlised Copts. I would compare that to the situation of Britain, where the British culture had also been weakened by the Roman occupation and is only preserved by the marginalised Welsh.

No, I don't say it's exactly the same, but I would merely use it as an example of acculturation without a mass migration or large-scale displacement. Similar processes happened, around the same time.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#37
Quote:I wuold be very interested in the reference where one set of Germans calls another welsh.

Hi Paul,
Charles-Edwards, Thomas (1995): Language and Society among tne Insular Celts AD 400-1000, in: Green, M.: The Celtic World, pp. 703-736.

I don't know the article by heart, but I recall that the author (looking at all names for the British and Welsh in this article) finds parallels with the Franks, who not only call their Gallo-Roman subjects walas, but in law also treat them similarly as the wealhas are treated in Ine of Wessex' laws.
I think no-one would even dream of supposing that the Franks also initiated a system of apartheid to suppress the Gallo-Romans!

Charles-Edwards thinks that mainly the speaking of the language stipulated to which group one belonged. To me, if true, that sounds like the perfect vehicle for those who wanted to move up in society, to change languages.
The author notices that the 'language barrier' is different from the 'cultural barrier' and extends much further west even though to corresponding graves of immigrant Anglo-Saxons do not. He
concludes that it must have been the unique quality of the English language that was responsible for absorbing the masses of Brythonic, Danish and Norman speakers..
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#38
Hi Vortigern,
Sorry for the delay -- very busy weekend.

I know what you mean - I had the Late Roman weekend to do... Big Grin

(1) Burials
In the Iron Age accompanied inhumation seems to have been the preferred rite in high-status burials which were under tumuli in prominent positions. During the period and extent of Roman rule, unaccompanied inhumation close by villa, vicus or town was normal for some people, for the rich in elaborate mausolea. The poor probably were cremated.

Some Iron Age high status chamber and tumili burials resemble some post-Roman 'Germanic' burials very much. Though it's of course possible that's a coincidence, but in my opinion those who say it might represent signs of a possible continuation that at least need to be looked at before they are dismissed out of hand, have a valid point.
PRIA (pre-Roman Iron Age) inhumation was however not just for the rich, and if you look at areas where inhumation occurred, it's largely in the same as the areas where later 'Germanic' inhumation occur.

The introduced Germanic burial rites are (i) cremation in distinctive forms of urn and (ii) accompanied (usually) inhumation in separate cemetery areas away from settlements. Usually the settlements are in river valleys while the cemeteries are up on the higher ground.
That's not a rule. In fact there are plenty of cemeteries where the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ graves continue the pattern of burial that’s already there. So either they were integrated enough in the local society, or they represent continuation of the local society, but with new burial influences.
I don’t know of a list, but some of them I know: Dorchester-on-Thames and Spong Hill. I’ll scout through my stuff to find more.

Mound burial does not seem to have been among the earlier rites, but only comes in from ca.600, therefore there is a gap of about 700 years between Lexden and Prittlewell in which little or no mound burial took place.
Ah, but there you are wrong, this gap does not exist. Take, for instance, Six Hills at Stevenage, Hertfordshire, and the Bartlow Hills at Ashdon, Essex. I also know of several in East Kent, two near Birchington, two more near the east coast farmsteads at Broadstairs and Dumpton, and another near Manston Aerodrome. These are all mound burials from the Roman period.

4. No-one is arguing that the AS are inferior, but their pottery is not of such good quality as the late Roman products. This is because their ability with wood and maybe leather was so good that they did not need ceramics except for particular, traditional purposes i.e. burial containers. Presumably British potters did not forget how to throw a pot on a wheel; but if the potters were no longer there then that would account for the loss of that industry and its skills.
No post-Roman pottery is of the quality as the Late Roman pottery. Grey wares and grass-tempered wares are also very local and by no means as good as the Roman stuff.

5 Jewellery. Across the Gmc world, women’s adornment carries information about status and ethnicity. Perhaps British women did want to copy Gmc fashions, but the point is: would that be possible/allowed? If wearing a great square-headed brooch showed a certain status and position, then it would be vital to restrict these materials to those who were eligible to wear them.
Best read these works, they give the arguments for changes in Late Roman fashion much better than I can here:
Swift, Ellen (2000): Regionality in Dress Accessories in the Late Roman West, Monographies Instrumentum 11, (Éditions Monique Mergoil, Montagnac).
Swift, Ellen (2000): The End of the Western Roman Empire, An Archaeological Investigation, (Tempus, Stroud).
You are btw assuming that somehow the British women would not be allowed to wear Germanic jewellery? Who would prevent them? Or are you taking Anglo-Saxon domination and that supposed apartheid system as a given?

6 I am not referring to Roman weapons but to Germanic ones -- I am surprised that you don't know what I mean. If you have access to Menghin's Das Schwert im Fruhen Mittealter or Davidson's The Sword in Anglo Saxon England - you will see that Germanic swords are stylistically very different. The same goes for other war gear.
You misunderstand how I misunderstand you! You said: “The new weapons are stylistically very different from the earlier, British ones.â€
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#39
Hi all
I was able to read the original article on the German genetic influx in England and `the "apartheid" society, and I have to say that it is no new evidence, but a new analisys of old evidence that very much twist the facts to force a conclusion, that in turn has been very much exagerated by the mass media.
I see that the idcussion has been followed on archaeological terms, as well as in historical parallels. To sum up I would resume my position here as follows.
The subject, mass Germanic inmigration and displacement of the original population, is one of Human population history. To that the main prove should be genetic, and that is lacking, as I said so far Y Chromosome studies reveals certainly a different genetic composition for England, especially Eastern England, than Wales or Ireland, but the basic R1b haplogroupe remain majoritary. So, genetics support the idea of the continuity of local population.
The argument of English becoming the predominant language is flawed at the base, we are talking demography, and language is a cultural subject, it could be learnt by anyone regardless of his genetic background, to suppose that to become predominant a mass influx of population is required is a mistake, as many imperial languages, latin in Western Europe included, proved.
So, to sum up, a minority of Germanic conquerors impose their language, nothing surprising, it happened all the time in history. If other Germanic invaders didn´t succeed in that it is because they faced a much stronger cultural resistance in a more urban, developed society in Gallia with a cultivated aristocracy centered around the Roman heritage and the Catholic Church. The early catholic conversion of the Franks probably helped too, in Visigothic Spain the Germanic language was very much linked to the Arian cult.
AKA Inaki
Reply
#40
BTW I wonder, is there a political agenda behind this discussion? I don´t mean here in our forum, but in general. It seems to me that after other peoples, like Irish or Welsh, constructing national identities around a Celtic past, English, used to be just that, has their identity absorbed in the "British" concept, and some are now trying to build a different English identity around a Germanic origin. If that is the case, I don´t object at all (after all I am not British, it is not my business) but I do object to dubious historical arguments, like those linking material culture (archaeological evidence) to any race.
AKA Inaki
Reply
#41
Hi Vortigern,
Thank you for the reference. I thought yousaid that Germans called other Germans, wealas, but your reply says that the Franks called their Gallo-Roman subjects walas. Presumably these subjexts were not ethnically Franks and not German, so the same rule still seems to appliy - the word is being used to address people that the Franks consider foreign, i.e. not Frankish.

Isn't this where the word 'Walloon' comes from?

BTW -- I have never suggested that anyone practised 'apartheid' - althoughyou yourself have just pointed out that the Franks treated their Gallo-Roman subjects differently-- isn't that a form of apartheid?
Also, I do not place much faith in genetic studies of modern populations -- particularly as it is such a developing science and it's interpretation is based on statistical methods that I can't follow.


He
concludes that it must have been the unique quality of the English language that was responsible for absorbing the masses of Brythonic, Danish and Norman speakers..


Did Charles-Edwards say that English is easier than other languages to learn? I am a little suspicious of his conclusions if he did -- did he point out that the Danes actually helped to bring about grammatical change to the language? Unlike the Normans - who just added to the vocabulary. As for the 'asorbtions' -- these are assumptions!

Cheers,

Paul
Paul Mortimer
Reply
#42
Dear Vortigern,

Sorry, but isn’t that a derogatory remark – only farmers can speak about agricultural issues? He’s a prehistoric archaeologist (no, not a Bronze Age specialist) – I take it for granted that these people are well-versed in their speciality - which was about prehistoric farmers! He also never claimed to be an Early medieval specialist.

I don't think that it is a derogatory remark at all, nor did I say that you should only listen to farmers about farming. I am just pointing out that Pryor has a tendency to speak outside his field, and because he does it with the authority of television his views do need to challenged-- as for him not claiming to be an early medieval specialist -- he presented a programme about the early medieval, post Roman period!

Why is ' found his way on to television' an insulting remark? Only recently I found my way onto television in a BBC4 programme about the Sutton Hoo helmet.

Incidentally, Harke does not take the view of total replacement of populations either. However, he is an early medievalist with a sound reputation.

Please discuss arguments here, not personal views.

I am a bit puzzled by this remark -- how can you argue without using personal views? I am happy to discuss this aspect on pms rather than here but my personal views and yours are the basis of what we are talking about. Your personal view of the the Adventus Saxonom is different to mine -- we would not be having this discussion otherwise.

Cheers,

Paul

ps - I'll reply to the rest later.
Paul Mortimer
Reply
#43
Thank you for the reference. I thought yousaid that Germans called other Germans, wealas, but your reply says that the Franks called their Gallo-Roman subjects walas. Presumably these subjexts were not ethnically Franks and not German, so the same rule still seems to appliy - the word is being used to address people that the Franks consider foreign, i.e. not Frankish.
I think you should start reading my posts more carefully, since this is not the first time you mix my words(my English is not that good) .. Big Grin
No, my point was that the word did not denote 'foreigner', but was more likely used for 'Roman'. I'm not sure if I'm right, but the Frankish use of the word may (if used the same way by Anglo-Saxons) add to that idea. The subjects were not 'foreign'(i.e. from another country), but they were the Roman provincials.

Isn't this where the word 'Wallon' comes from?
Yes it's thought so.

BTW -- I have never suggested that anyone practised 'apartheid' -
OK Big Grin

although you yourself have just pointed out that the Franks treated their Gallo-Roman subjects differently-- isn't that a form of apartheid?
No, of course not. Apartheid suggests an extreme (next to) total segregation of the population. The article in question suggested it as a way to 'breed out' the British geens from the population.

Also, I do not place much faith in genetic studies of modern populations -- particularly as it is such a developing science and it's interpretation is based on statistical methods that I can't follow.
Well, there I agree with you! Big Grin

Did Charles-Edwards say that English is easier than other languages to learn? I am a little suspicious of his conclusions if he did -- did he point out that the Danes actually helped to bring about grammatical change to the language? Unlike the Normans - who just added to the vocabulary. As for the 'asorbtions' -- these are assumptions!
What can I say - he's a respected man. Best read the article.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#44
Quote:So, to sum up, a minority of Germanic conquerors impose their language, nothing surprising, it happened all the time in history. If other Germanic invaders didn´t succeed in that it is because they faced a much stronger cultural resistance in a more urban, developed society in Gallia with a cultivated aristocracy centered around the Roman heritage and the Catholic Church. The early catholic conversion of the Franks probably helped too, in Visigothic Spain the Germanic language was very much linked to the Arian cult.
I can agree with that conclusion!

Quote:BTW I wonder, is there a political agenda behind this discussion? I don´t mean here in our forum, but in general.
There always is. Maybe not in high places, but this sort of history is always being misused. See my post on the Illyrians.
In this case, there is a group of English nationalist that even flatly denies that any other language than English was spoken before the Romans. I have a similar book that makes similar claims about Slovenia and Austria (but claiming Slavs were there before the Romans).
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#45
Hi Paul,

Why is ' found his way on to television' an insulting remark? Only recently I found my way onto television in a BBC4 programme about the Sutton Hoo helmet.
Good for you!
I may have been mistaken, but you used it in a sentence where you clearly voiced an opinion about Richard Pryor where you a) stated you did not value his opinion about rural matter highly because he was not a farmer ("Besides Pryor is not a farmer, I wouldn't attach too much importance to his statements about farming"), b) you then stated he was not a specialist for the period, immediately followed by the remark that he knew not much about what he was talking about ("he is a bronze age specialist who has found his way onto tellevision and been asked to comment on subjects of which he actually knows very little").
My English may not be very good, but to me that constitutes a derogatory remark.

I am just pointing out that Pryor has a tendency to speak outside his field, and because he does it with the authority of television his views do need to challenged-- as for him not claiming to be an early medieval specialist -- he presented a programme about the early medieval, post Roman period!
So archaeologists have to remain silent 'outside their field'? What nonsense. In fact the man wrote a book full of new insights, mistakes too of course, but new ideas that are worthy of discussion, not silence and ignoring by those who just say he's wrong because he speaks outside his field.
Man, that TV show must've been bad!
What can I say - please read the book and check each argument in detail. Be warned about his chapter on Roman Britain though - that's crap.

I do not think that by presenting a show you automatically claim that you are the expert - that would make Terry Jones an expert on world history just because his face was in view during his programmes?

Incidentally, Harke does not take the view of total replacement of populations either. However, he is an early medievalist with a sound reputation.
Meaning the other guy is not?
Best PM me with the answer.

I am a bit puzzled by this remark -- how can you argue without using personal views?
Paul, I suspect you know what I meant there. If not I'll repeat it: plaese discuss the arguments, not if someone has a right to speak up or not. See the above comment.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Where to put your Saxons? Arturus Uriconium 28 5,260 02-12-2009, 11:32 AM
Last Post: Arturus Uriconium

Forum Jump: