Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 83

Thread: English Origins: Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration

  1. #41
    Senior Member Sigel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 16th, 2006 @ 03:02 PM
    Subrace
    Ingvaeonic
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Heorot
    Gender
    Age
    49
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic
    Religion
    Lofgeornost
    Posts
    480
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

    Thanks for replying to my post Rhydderch. I’ll try to expand a few of the points you picked up on.

    From what I know of history, (including non-European) it would seem that those three cases are fairly unusual.
    Not that unusual. Hardly any Germanic tribes succeed in imposing their language and religion after the age of migration. Lombards, Goths, Burgundians, Vandals etc. all melted into their host populations and Christianised. So why did a ‘handful’ of Saxons succeed where others had failed?

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, I find that English folk tunes sound quite Celtic, similar to those of Ireland and Scotland, and virtually indistinguishable from those of Wales. Folk tunes are often ultimately of very ancient origin.
    I take it you’re a fan - me too. Love it! I could argue that Celtic tunes are similar to English, due to the English influence on them, but let’s not get petty. I would largely say it comes down to how you wish to define similarity. I’m sure experts could explain this in terms of ‘Doric Mode’ etc. but it’s beyond me.
    I disagree on one point though. The Irish music is quite unique. The ‘Borahn & Whistle’ sound could never be reproduced by the Saxon, he’d do himself an injury. It’s tempestuous, beautiful & intricate; quite unlike anything else.

    According to an account I’ve read, the idea is also based on literary evidence from Roman times. I think it’s also because these boats didn’t have masts or anywhere for a mast to fit. But they were also small boats and unable to carry many people.
    The ‘mast’ question is covered in great detail in the book I’ve mentioned. Yes, the boats were small. They could not have even carried enough provisions for a leisurely ‘paddle’ around the North Sea let alone ‘paddled’ a tribe across it. The fact is, as I’ve explained, they didn’t! The small, sleek raiders were prestige objects in themselves, like a dark age Ferrari. Any tribal chief worth his mead would want to be buried, sunk or immolated with one, and they were. Who would want to be buried with a large ugly transport ship? Evidence for these ships is there but their fate, at the end of a life of service was re-cycling or fire wood.

    The problem is that we are fixated on the popular notion of small boats without sails. Think about it. All nations trade and raid - it’s horses for courses. Germanic seamen were first class sailors, some even employed by the Romans to transport their legions over here and there is even evidence for Saxon and Frankish activity in the Mediterranean!!!
    I sat on a rowing machine in the gym today, and honest dude, I wouldn’t paddle anywhere, if I knew about sail and I could rig one up, would you? Well then.

    evidence indicates that migration was restricted to the period 450-500 and perhaps even for most of that time not very intense.
    What evidence? Please share.

    I believe the apparently different outcome is due to the situation in post-Roman Britain itself, rather than to the nature of the invaders or their invasion.
    Now I’m hooked. You see, if it wasn’t a mass migration, then something awesome and unparalleled must have happened. Bring it on.
    A people which takes no pride in the noble achievements of remote ancestors
    will never achieve anything worthy to be remembered with pride by remote descendents.

    Lord Macauley

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 07:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigel
    Not that unusual. Hardly any Germanic tribes succeed in imposing their language and religion after the age of migration. Lombards, Goths, Burgundians, Vandals etc. all melted into their host populations and Christianised. So why did a ‘handful’ of Saxons succeed where others had failed?
    I suppose I was really including those invasions as one of the three, in that they were invasions of Latin-speaking areas. When conquerors adopt the language of the conquered, it usually seems to be because that language is prestigious.
    Here's something I posted on another thread:

    "It's true that the English speak a Germanic language, but I think if 'vulgar' Latin had been dominant in late Roman Britain (as it was in late Roman Gaul) then the English would probably be speaking some sort of Germanicised Latin."

    Personal names and other evidence suggests that even the post-Roman British aristocracy were still speaking Brythonic as a first language, whereas Latin was dominant in the rest of the Roman world, even though for instance Gaulish was apparently still spoken to some extent in Gaul at the time, but not by the ruling classes.

    I have also thought of a reason why Old English was a relatively pure Germanic language. It's my own theory but I think it fits the situation perfectly. It does'nt involve 'cultural cringe'.

    I'll post it on this thread if you're interested.

    My opinion is that the migration involved perhaps a total between 100 and 200 thousand people, which if you look at it one way, is actually quite a substantial migration.
    I also think it was only 'elite dominance' in a limited sense. I think that probably the majority of invaders were free commoners, rather than aristocracy, but it was the latter who became kings.

    Concerning religion, I think this probably also has its origin in the lesser degree of Romanisation. On the continent, conversion to Christianity had become political, and closely associated with a 'Roman' identity, whereas it appears that the Britons no longer (or maybe never did) considered themselves Roman. There is also evidence to suggest that, although the invaders (and the Britons themselves in some cases), continued with their pagan religion, Christianity also continued.

    I take it you’re a fan - me too. Love it! I could argue that Celtic tunes are similar to English, due to the English influence on them, but let’s not get petty. I would largely say it comes down to how you wish to define similarity. I’m sure experts could explain this in terms of ‘Doric Mode’ etc. but it’s beyond me.
    I also have in mind the music of Holland, Germany and Scandinavia. Although I'm not nearly as familiar with that, from what I do know it has a distinctive sound to it (and a sound which all those countries seem to have in common) which is quite different to that of English folk music.
    There would probably be some degree of criss-crossing of music styles between England and the 'Celtic' countries, but I would think it is probably not enough to effect it significantly.

    I disagree on one point though. The Irish music is quite unique. The ‘Borahn & Whistle’ sound could never be reproduced by the Saxon, he’d do himself an injury. It’s tempestuous, beautiful & intricate; quite unlike anything else.
    That's true (although I'd say it often is very similar to Scottish music), but Welsh music (like English) also has less of that vigorous, tempestuous sound, although in comparison with the continental Germanic countries, English and Welsh music is often fast and flowing, but in all the British Isles there are also much slower ones.

    The ‘mast’ question is covered in great detail in the book I’ve mentioned. Yes, the boats were small. They could not have even carried enough provisions for a leisurely ‘paddle’ around the North Sea let alone ‘paddled’ a tribe across it. The fact is, as I’ve explained, they didn’t! The small, sleek raiders were prestige objects in themselves, like a dark age Ferrari. Any tribal chief worth his mead would want to be buried, sunk or immolated with one, and they were. Who would want to be buried with a large ugly transport ship? Evidence for these ships is there but their fate, at the end of a life of service was re-cycling or fire wood.
    I'm not sure that having sails or not would effect their speed. Sidonius indicates that the Saxon galleys were terrifying in their manoeverability and speed.
    And although small, they were large enough to carry booty (and family in migrations) and probably provisions, but for the latter, it would depend how fast they could travel, and also it seems likely to me that they travelled near the coast and could come ashore for provisions at any time, so it may have been not unlike the other Germanic migrations by land.

    I sat on a rowing machine in the gym today, and honest dude, I wouldn’t paddle anywhere, if I knew about sail and I could rig one up, would you? Well then.
    Although they may have known about sail, they probably would'nt necessarily have given up their traditional way of doing things, which they probably found easier, and they may not have really known how to make and maintain sails.

    What evidence? Please share.
    Unfortunately that's a difficult question What I know of the evidence is from a number of different things.
    I can think of one or two things though; Bede speaks of migration as if it was something of the distant past: early post-Roman times.

    I've also come across an article on Saxons which says they are not (or scarcely) heard of as a sea-faring people after 500 A.D.
    I googled for the site again but I have'nt found it so far. If I find it I'll give you a link.
    Last edited by Rhydderch; Saturday, February 12th, 2005 at 01:28 PM.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Sigel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 16th, 2006 @ 03:02 PM
    Subrace
    Ingvaeonic
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Heorot
    Gender
    Age
    49
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic
    Religion
    Lofgeornost
    Posts
    480
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

    Hi Rhydderch. I’d like to chew over a few points:
    I suppose I was really including those invasions as one of the three
    mmm... so not that unusual then.
    When conquerors adopt the language of the conquered, it usually seems to be because that language is prestigious... Personal names and other evidence suggests that even the post-Roman British aristocracy were still speaking Brythonic as a first language, whereas Latin was dominant in the rest of the Roman world
    It didn’t get any more prestigious than Roman Latin, that’s true. So, er... why after hundreds of years of Roman occupation were those stubborn Brits still clinging to Brythonic? and why suddenly choose to drop it when a bunch of sweaty, paddling Germanics came ashore?
    I have also thought of a reason why Old English was a relatively pure Germanic language. It’s my own theory but I think it fits the situation perfectly. It does’nt involve ‘cultural cringe’.
    I’ll post it on this thread if you’re interested.
    Yes please, it may explain the above.
    My opinion is that the migration involved perhaps a total between 100 and 200 thousand people, which if you look at it one way, is actually quite a substantial migration.
    I assume it was more but, then again, I would.
    I’m not sure that having sails or not would effect their speed. Sidonius indicates that the Saxon galleys were terrifying in their manoeverability and speed.
    Ultimately, speed was not the issue. There is no great distance between the hook of Holland and the coast of East Anglia. Sail merely allows a greater ratio of passengers to crew.
    it seems likely to me that they travelled near the coast and could come ashore for provisions at any time
    I wouldn’t say ‘any time’. One has to be careful when disembarking in someone else’s territory. It would have been far easier to cross the North Sea. Check on any map. Where do you see the Anglian homeland? Then look across to the east coast of England. Do the same for the Saxons and bear in mind that the Jutes were settled around the mouth of the Rhine before migrating. Notice anything?
    A good friend of mine, a Celtic expert, told me that identical (pre-Roman) shrines were erected by named Gallic merchants along the Humber and the old Rhine in Holland. They crossed over. The shrines were to give thanks for a safe passage. I asked him about the Saxon sail question. He was surprised that anyone would consider Saxons not to have had them. The Romans adopted these routes, as did the Angles. The Humber, itself, takes its name from the Ingvaeonic tribe, the Humbrones who settled along both banks and quite far inland.
    Although they may have known about sail, they probably wouldn’t necessarily have given up their traditional way of doing things, which they probably found easier, and they may not have really known how to make and maintain sails.
    So they really were an intransigent, laughable, bunch of grunts, as recently portrayed in the Arthur movie?
    Baffles me why any educated, civilized Brit would want to adopt such a culture!

    Bear in mind that all of the objections to mass migration could also be used to ‘prove’ that Celts never came to Britain in significant numbers. Likewise those Neolithic chaps before them, and so on and so on.

    Perhaps sometime in the future your descendants will encounter statements such as this:
    "As I have demonstrated, very few whites ever migrated to Australia. The original population is today, as it always was, virtually unaltered. Australians merely adopted the English language and Western ways, due to globalization. We’re all aboriginals in denial”.

    Food for thought eh?
    A people which takes no pride in the noble achievements of remote ancestors
    will never achieve anything worthy to be remembered with pride by remote descendents.

    Lord Macauley

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 07:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigel
    Yes please, it may explain the above.
    Here it is (with additions):

    The relative "Germanic purity" of Old English is probably due to the same reason as the purity of Latin in Britain; i.e. most of the Britons (in England) spoke Old English only as a second language at least up until the time it became a written language (around 600 A.D.); and once the written form became established, it probably changed very little (which was very common in ancient languages, for example Ancient Egyptian) compared to the spoken form, so that for example, the spoken language of 1000 A.D. may well have been far more Celtic influenced than we would guess by looking at the writings from that era. Latin by the way, was of a purer form in Roman Britain than in Gaul for instance; it is generally considered that the cause for this was that Britons spoke it as a second language, and it had not spread to the lower classes as it had in much of the Empire.

    So I think that spoken Old English probably only took on Celtic influence once the Britons had begun to speak it among themselves as a first language.

    A written form also often influences the spoken, so that early Celtic influence in the spoken form quite possibly weakened over time.

    Anyway, I think this would also mean that the Norman Conquest did not have such a profound effect on the structure of English as is commonly thought. It could well be that written Old English was quite archaic (by the time of the Normans).

    My view of the situation is that both Briton and most Saxon (as in the earlier post) leaders could speak Latin. Initial communication then would have been done in Latin, and perhaps continued for a time after the Saxons took over a kingdom (and the Saxons maybe used it for administrative purposes for a short time).
    But since both peoples spoke it only as a second language, it would have become more practical for the Britons to learn the language of the Saxon kings (albeit as a non-native tongue), and so Old English would have become the administrative language, with Latin ultimately dropping out of use.

    I think the difference with the continent is that since Latin was the native tongue of the conquered, as well as the administrative language, they (Gallo-Romans for instance) would'nt have found it necessary to adopt the language of the conquerors, since the conquerors could already speak their native language.

    I have heard though that in places like Gaul, many of the Germanic invaders continued to speak their own language among themselves, while Latin was only used administratively.


    I think then that the relative purity of Old English may well have its origin in the continued use of Brythonic, rather than its rapid demise.

    I have to go but I'll reply to the rest of your post when possible.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Sigel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 16th, 2006 @ 03:02 PM
    Subrace
    Ingvaeonic
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Heorot
    Gender
    Age
    49
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic
    Religion
    Lofgeornost
    Posts
    480
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

    Hi Rhydderch. Thanks for burning the midnight oil and getting back so soon. Your theory is interesting. I’d like to examine a few points.
    The relative “Germanic purity” of Old English is due to the fact that no Brythonic loan words entered the language. You believe that this is due to an inflexible written form not yielding to foreign words, like your example of Ancient Egyptian.
    There is an inherent contradiction in your thesis. As you point out Anglo-Saxon became a written language around 600, almost 200 years after colonisation. Plenty of time for a spoken minority language to vanish or at least adopt a huge amount of the majority Brythonic, as was the case with the Franks. Why didn’t this happen?
    If the common man was using huge amounts of Celtic vocabulary, this would have appeared in the newly emerging written form, there could be no alternative, it would simply be embedded in.
    There is no ancient example of any written form ever holding back the evolution of a language. Sanskrit became the sole preserve of the Brahmin class and was virtually unintelligible to the normal Northern Indian. Sumerian was maintained as a purely literary form, long after Proto Semitic languages had superseded it. Both of these were already codified and had many works produced in them. As delightful as inscriptions in the Anglo-Frisian Futhark are, I would not dare to imply that they carried the same literary weight as the Rig Verda or The Epic of Gilgamesh.
    So I think that spoken Old English probably only took on Celtic influence once the Britons had begun to speak it among themselves as a first language.
    Where is this “Celtic influence” in Old English? I am learning Anglo-Saxon and I can’t find any at all.
    I think this would also mean that the Norman Conquest did not have such a profound effect on the structure of English as is commonly thought. It could well be that written Old English was quite archaic (by the time of the Normans)
    You are spot on here. English didn’t change overnight. There was a gradual absorption of Latinate words, as surviving works demonstrate. But Old English was never archaic. Each region had its own variety. There was no common spelling or usage and it had evolved continuously since its arrival in these islands. Like all languages, it was not set in stone and was wide open for loan word acquisition (see the whopping influence of Norse on English vocabulary and grammar), so why didn’t this happen?

    In the scenario, you envisage, the purely administrative, minority, Anglo-Saxon would have become outdated and irrelevant to a majority population who were using ever more Brythonic language. Today we would be speaking a form of Welsh with a smattering of AS/ Norse loan words and a generous helping of French.

    The continued use of Brythonic would have been the death of Anglo-Saxon, not the cause of its survival.
    A people which takes no pride in the noble achievements of remote ancestors
    will never achieve anything worthy to be remembered with pride by remote descendents.

    Lord Macauley

  6. #46
    Disinterested
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 13th, 2005 @ 10:17 PM
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Politics
    Folkish
    Posts
    1,403
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigel
    It didn’t get any more prestigious than Roman Latin, that’s true. So, er... why after hundreds of years of Roman occupation were those stubborn Brits still clinging to Brythonic? and why suddenly choose to drop it when a bunch of sweaty, paddling Germanics came ashore?
    The Roman occupation of Britain had a limited effect on the culture because it was mostly official, and cultural borrowings in Britain were mostly related to the borrowing of motifs of Roman power by a native British elite. Because Roman authority in Britain was so limited, I would expect Roman language to have had a limited influence on Welsh language.

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 07:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigel
    Hi Rhydderch. Thanks for burning the midnight oil and getting back so soon. Your theory is interesting. I’d like to examine a few points.
    The relative “Germanic purity” of Old English is due to the fact that no Brythonic loan words entered the language. You believe that this is due to an inflexible written form not yielding to foreign words, like your example of Ancient Egyptian.
    There is an inherent contradiction in your thesis. As you point out Anglo-Saxon became a written language around 600, almost 200 years after colonisation. Plenty of time for a spoken minority language to vanish or at least adopt a huge amount of the majority Brythonic, as was the case with the Franks. Why didn’t this happen?
    That's the point I was making about the Britons not speaking it as a native language until at least 600 A.D.
    It tends to be mainly when people take a new language on as a native tongue that it will display characteristics of their former language.
    An administrative language used non-natively (such as Latin in Britain) often does'nt really take on characteristics of the more widely spoken one, although Old English does have a few Celtic borrowings, however negligible. As far as I remember, their are nine which can be certainly traced to Brythonic, but there are as many as thirty possibilities.

    I think it's also possible that Old English was rather resistant to borrowings, preferring to translate words. After the early English adopted Roman Catholocism, Latin began to be learned by scholars, and a number of loanwords (especially religious) did enter Old English from Latin. However, there are many examples of translation (for new concepts) rather than borrowing of words; for example, the Latin Spiritus Sanctus became Holy Ghost. I think it's likely that many Celtic concepts were borrowed in this way.

    There is no ancient example of any written form ever holding back the evolution of a language. Sanskrit became the sole preserve of the Brahmin class and was virtually unintelligible to the normal Northern Indian. Sumerian was maintained as a purely literary form, long after Proto Semitic languages had superseded it. Both of these were already codified and had many works produced in them. As delightful as inscriptions in the Anglo-Frisian Futhark are, I would not dare to imply that they carried the same literary weight as the Rig Verda or The Epic of Gilgamesh.
    A written form would'nt totally hold back the evolution of a language, but it tends to stabilise it, and it would undoubtably influence the spoken form to some degree, and to slow the evolution down to some degree.
    Languages without a written form tend to change much more rapidly.

    Where is this “Celtic influence” in Old English? I am learning Anglo-Saxon and I can’t find any at all.
    I'm talking hypothetically about the spoken form. I'm saying that after the Britons began to speak it as a native language (theoretically after 600 A.D.) there may have been considerable Celtic influence in the way they spoke, but which is not evident in the written form.

    You are spot on here. English didn’t change overnight. There was a gradual absorption of Latinate words, as surviving works demonstrate. But Old English was never archaic. Each region had its own variety. There was no common spelling or usage and it had evolved continuously since its arrival in these islands. Like all languages, it was not set in stone and was wide open for loan word acquisition (see the whopping influence of Norse on English vocabulary and grammar), so why didn’t this happen?
    As I said above, written forms do change. But this is an interesting bit; if I remember rightly, there are something like 900 Norse words in Middle English, but only about 150 in Old English.

    Also, there are apparently considerably more words in Middle English of Brythonic origin than in Old English.
    Examples are the words mum, dad, bogey and many others which presumably don't appear in Old English. Some have said that the two former words are only coincidence, and that they are babyish terms which can arise in any language, but I see no reason for that interpretation; their similarity with the Welsh words is obvious.

    Another thing I could add here is that the last entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is in 1154 (in West Saxon), by which time Middle English was apparently the spoken language.

    In the scenario, you envisage, the purely administrative, minority, Anglo-Saxon would have become outdated and irrelevant to a majority population who were using ever more Brythonic language.
    In my scenario, it would have been a minority language, but not purely administrative. Those of Saxon descent would have used Old English as a native language, and even in Saxon settlements in Northern Gaul (dating from early post-Roman times), their language survived (according to John Beddoe) until the 1000's A.D.

    It would also have been widely spoken among the Britons, but initially as a second language, and only to communicate with Saxons.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Sigel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 16th, 2006 @ 03:02 PM
    Subrace
    Ingvaeonic
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Heorot
    Gender
    Age
    49
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic
    Religion
    Lofgeornost
    Posts
    480
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

    That’s the point I was making about the Britons not speaking it as a native language until at least 600 A.D. It tends to be mainly when people take a new language on as a native tongue that it will display characteristics of their former language.
    I agree that the Brits adopted Anglo-Saxon, not vice versa and the few loan words (30 possibilities) first entered English when surviving British natives where using AS as their mother tongue - no probs there.
    I’m talking hypothetically about the spoken form. I’m saying that after the Britons began to speak it as a native language (theoretically after 600 A.D.) there may have been considerable Celtic influence in the way they spoke, but which is not evident in the written form.
    Okay, I’ll keep an open mind on this one.
    As I said above, written forms do change. But this is an interesting bit; if I remember rightly, there are something like 900 Norse words in Middle English, but only about 150 in Old English.
    Another thing I could add here is that the last entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is in 1154 (in West Saxon), by which time Middle English was apparently the spoken language.
    Fine, we know that scribes were notorious for preserving older forms in their written works, sort of adds authority etc.
    In my scenario, it would have been a minority language, but not purely administrative. Those of Saxon descent would have used Old English as a native language
    ... okay, a minority language.
    It would also have been widely spoken among the Britons, but initially as a second language, and only to communicate with Saxons.
    By what means did this racial and linguistic minority force the British majority to completely abandon their language, something even the Romans had failed to do, as Atlanto Med states?

    Until this question is resolved we have to assume that the AS formed the dominant majority population, in the fertile lowland zone. We agree on lots of points but you must see why the idea of a majority Brythonic population just does not stack up. There was nothing the AS had that the British needed. Technologically they were similar. This is one reason why few loan words were swapped - Saxon and Celt had a sufficient vocabulary for all their requirements. The AS had no cudos or high culture, like the Romans, which the British may have wished to emulate. There is simply NO reason why they would have adopted AS ways, unless they had little choice in the matter.
    A people which takes no pride in the noble achievements of remote ancestors
    will never achieve anything worthy to be remembered with pride by remote descendents.

    Lord Macauley

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 07:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigel
    I agree that the Brits adopted Anglo-Saxon, not vice versa and the few loan words (30 possibilities) first entered English when surviving British natives where using AS as their mother tongue - no probs there.
    Actually I meant that those few words could possibly have entered Old English before it was spoken by Britons as a first language.

    By what means did this racial and linguistic minority force the British majority to completely abandon their language, something even the Romans had failed to do, as Atlanto Med states?
    The Romans failed to do that in Britain but they succeded elsewhere, for example in Gaul and Spain. I would say though that the number of Romans who entered Britain was probably lower than that of the Germanic invaders, and also the Romans who did enter were probably more spread out and more mobile, so perhaps their language would have had a harder time establishing itself.

    Until this question is resolved we have to assume that the AS formed the dominant majority population, in the fertile lowland zone. We agree on lots of points but you must see why the idea of a majority Brythonic population just does not stack up. There was nothing the AS had that the British needed. Technologically they were similar. This is one reason why few loan words were swapped - Saxon and Celt had a sufficient vocabulary for all their requirements. The AS had no cudos or high culture, like the Romans, which the British may have wished to emulate. There is simply NO reason why they would have adopted AS ways, unless they had little choice in the matter.
    I think that the Saxons were probably at a similar level of advancement and Roman influence as the Franks, who conquered Gaul. Now the Gallo-Romans did actually adopt both the identity and the personal names of the Franks, and the social structure in early France contained both Germanic and Gallo-Roman elements. It seems to me that, apart from language (the reasons for which I have explained), the level of influence that the Franks had on the Gauls was similar to that of the Saxons on the Britons.

    I would also say that I believe the Celtic invaders were a minority in proportion to the earlier inhabitants, and the same with the Beaker folk invaders before them; it is a general rule of history, the minority invaders come and conquer the land and the earlier peoples take on the language.

    But if we are to believe the anthropologist Coon, it would seem that the physical type of the Celtic invaders (as found in Iron Age graves) is commoner in England today than any one type, either pre-Celtic or Germanic, but it is still in a minority overall.

  10. #50
    Account Inactive Huzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 @ 10:35 PM
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Paganist
    Posts
    2,485
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

    About English origins, historical estimations tell that ANGLO-SAXON-JUTS invaders mass, was less than a million people (700'000/800'000), while autoctonous Celtic-roman element was almost 2 million. The conquest was very violent, at least, at the begin; Anglo-saxons destroyed three quarters of previous celtic roman civilization. Besides many were killed or forced to escape on the continent, where they settled BRETAGNE (here, i think we could find signs of ancient celtic roman culture), making it the most Celtic of all france regions. Counting all these demographic factors, the population stabilized itself, with a final ratio, in my opinion of : Germanic element 35-40% ; Celtic element 60-65%. There isn't a germanic majority, strictly numerically, but if we remember that Germanics were the RULERS, then there is a BIG cultural majoriy. Not sufficient , numerically to create an overwhelming genetic dominance, surely sufficient to impose the language to all the country(in modern and ancient times there are many elites constituted by 5-10% of population, or less). After the most violent, first phase ( about 50 years) the ethno demographical situation crystalized itself thank insular position of England that stopped others waves of invasions (around 550 a.c.)
    NOTE 1) : the Celtic group, contains a Latin influence (very little, but notable, less than 1/5 of Celtic total) All population was considered "latin", but it's a cultural denomination : Roman citizenship was a cultural, rather than racial concept, so many who hadn't roman blood in their veins were considered latin.
    2) Viking Norman/apport. I can't suppose any "percentage on this. I only know vikings settled north eastern coast of England (Biasutti/Bedooe relevations here gave a light- mixed light eyes at 75-80%, twenty points over English mean). About Normands they took the power in England and became the new aristocracy ( but here i haven't any statistical data)

    My final analysis : strong Germanic stratum, culturally dominant. Stronger Celtic sub-stratum, culturally latent. Very little latin influence overall.

Similar Threads

  1. Anglo-Saxon Origins: The Reality of the Myth
    By Glenlivet in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: Monday, May 28th, 2018, 06:29 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, May 26th, 2018, 04:17 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Monday, April 23rd, 2018, 07:35 AM
  4. The Origins of the Anglo-Saxon Church
    By Dagna in forum Christianity
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sunday, April 22nd, 2018, 06:52 AM
  5. Y-Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration
    By Euclides in forum Y-Chromosome (Y-DNA) Haplogroups
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 03:38 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •