The transformation of Roman Britain

[Robert Vermaat]

So with all those 'Wall' names; walloons, welsh, walachians, valais; it seems an awful lot of people did not find the germanic culture very attractive at all. Then there are the Slavs who managed to resist -- not to mention a large group of the ancestors of the Spanish, modern day French, Italians, etc, etc. All these groups had powerful germanic neighbours -- sometimes as elites in charge. Strange that they didn't see the 'obvious' benefits of converting to a new prestige language.
Perhaps the Anglo-Saxons were just better teachers? I wonderl

Well, it's either that or the British were the only post-Roman society that got wiped out or bred out by a Germanic minority.
Personally I see the solution as sketched above, that the real impact of English only happened after more than two centuries after Britain was lost to Rome.

The Slavs, btw, not only managed to resist but took over large territories of once Germanic-settled lands, almost all of eastern Europe and the aestern Alps.
The Franks seem to have been more eager to continue the Latin culture than some former Roman provincials, if you believe some of Sidonius Appolinaris' suggestions. Maybe it was also that - in Italy, Spain, Gaul, the new Germanic peoples wanted to continue the Roman culture, not surprising as the had lived inside the Empire for some time before being able to take over. For the Saxons, that was very different.

[Agraes]

There was probably a power lack in the regions where the AS first settled. Romanised areas, with foederati charged of the defense for years and years. Part of the population would had already been germanised. In the West, it was different. In the North, the Brythonic elites were defeated because having spend more time fighting themselves. When Urien was killed, his allies rushed his kingdom, and the Bernicians recovered their strenght.

[taira1180]

But in Gallia, Hispania, and Italy the urban civilization was much stronger and attractive to the newcomwers, so they would try to preserve it. In Britany, few cities would survive, so to the anglo-saxons they were only defeating another people who had a similar way of life, with a scarce attractiveness (sorry by my bad english, but the spell check isn't working for some reason).

[authun]

However, we have several in a row here, and not on the continent but in Britain: Cerdic (Caratacus, Caradoc, Ceredig), his successor Cynric (Cunorix) and his sucessor Ceawlin (Coline).

Hi Vortigern,

I think this goes too far. We don't know if Cynric is a germanised form of Cunorix or Ceawlin a germanicised form of Coline. We may not have several in a row. Coates suggests them only as possibilities.

Cynric, could be wholly germanic --"Cyn" kin, + "ric" ruler (cf. Eormenric, aelfric, etc). Coates states that this is entirely possible. Regarding Ceawlin, even though he cannot find a germanic etymology for the name, he still states that the hypothesis that it is germanicised Coline must be used with the most extreme caution. It's still a long way off being the case for sure.

best

harry A

[Robert Vermaat]

However, we have several in a row here, and not on the continent but in Britain: Cerdic (Caratacus, Caradoc, Ceredig), his successor Cynric (Cunorix) and his sucessor Ceawlin (Coline).

I think this goes too far. We don't know if Cynric is a germanised form of Cunorix or Ceawlin a germanicised form of Coline. We may not have several in a row. Coates suggests them only as possibilities.
Cynric, could be wholly germanic --"Cyn" kin, + "ric" ruler (cf. Eormenric, aelfric, etc). Coates states that this is entirely possible. Regarding Ceawlin, even though he cannot find a germanic etymology for the name, he still states that the hypothesis that it is germanicised. Coline must be used with the most extreme caution. It's still a long way off being the case for sure.

Hi Harry.
Why does that go too far? If each of these men had lived in a Germanic context outside of a Celtic-speaking area I would agree with you, but these men live in Britain, amongst a Brythonic speaking population. So why does keeping open the possibility go too far? Would you agree that if these names had occurred in a Welsh or Irish pedigree, none would have any doubts that they were not Germanic? But we have been used to treating them as Anglo-Saxons that it is very hard to even contemplate that they were British, and only later incorporated into an Anglo-Saxon dynasty? This is what Dr. David Dumville assumes what happened.

Indeed, Richard Coates urges for caution, and rightly so. But he keeps open the possibility.

[authun]

I meant to suggest that British and Saxon had lived in the same communities until then, or maybe British communities next to Saxon communities. But not all Saxons behind a sharply divided frontier, and the British on the other side.

It depends on what you mean by sharply divided frontier. Communities of Britons speaking brittonic within Anglo Saxon kingdoms did exist. The 'eccles' place names are evidence of this and used by the anglo saxons to denote a community of British christians. In this sense, there isn't a line, Britons on one side, AS on the other side. There are other 'wal' type place names which indicate the presence of britons amongst the AS, though these can be confused sometimes with the germanic 'wal' as in a rampart.

Linguistically, the divide is sharper. Evidence of this may be found in place names which are tautological compounds, such as Penhill meaning, Hill Hill. Pen is the british name for a hill. The germanics knew that the British called it 'Pen' but had no idea what it meant, so they added their own 'hill'. These instances indicate that there must have been some contact, otherwise they would not have known the british term 'Pen', but that the contact was not long enough for the AS to learn its meaning.

At some point conflict starts and polarisation grows, driving the British to a choice: become English or leave.

Of the Northumbrian king Ethelfrid, Bede writes:

"For he conquered more territories from the Britons, either making them tributary, or driving the inhabitants clean out, and planting English in their places, than any other king or tribune."

Much is made of the 'driving out' but it should be noted that Bede also states 'either making them tributary'. In other words, some stayed. I think it is highly likley that, until this point, they spoke brythonic but, for those that stayed, this is the point where english started to become the first language.

At least this would appear to be the case in early 7th cent Northumbria. We see a different picture in the south and south east during the 5th and 6th cents.

During the roman period, the south east was the most christianised part of Britian and the western parts hardly christianised at all. However, during the early pagan AS period, the situation became reversed. Christian communities in Kent for example existed as evidenced by the 'eccles' place names but the rise of Christianity amongst the britons is largely in the west with a decline in the south east. It is as if the church moved westwards, leaving some communities behind. Moreover, the church in the west is influenced by the Irish and less by Rome, most probably because direct links with Rome are broken.

best

harry A

[authun]

So why does keeping open the possibility go too far?

Hi Vortigern,

Perhaps I misread or misinterpreted what you were saying. I thought you were saying that they were British, ie ignoring Coate's cautionary note. Keeping open the possibility is absolutely fine and is something with which I would agree.

Sorry if I read your post incorrectly.

best

harry A

PS checking back to a previous post you do indeed qualify it by the term 'possibility'.

[Ron Andrea]

Gentlemen,

Another difficulty stems from the limited number of contemporary sources: Gildas' Ruination of Britain and the Cambrian Chronicles being about all to survive from Sixth Century Britannia. Therefore, an added difficulty might be transliteration of names phoenetically from one language to another. Gildas wrote in Latin and the Chronicles in Brythonic (I believe; I haven't learned how to research while in the "reply" mode).

Also, many ancients were notably causal about spelling in general. Not until recent centuries have spellings for many words been standardized--and the Americans and British still disagree on many English words.

The Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britannia stalled late in the Fifth Century or early in the Sixth. Perhaps there was a time of Brythonic ascendency--erased by later Anglo-Saxon expansion--which allowed Brythonic names and words to "bleed" into the Germanic population for several generations.

(Though I have read several dialogue streams in the past, this is my first post.)

[Robert Vermaat]

Another difficulty stems from the limited number of contemporary sources: Gildas' Ruination of Britain and the Cambrian Chronicles being about all to survive from Sixth Century Britannia. Therefore, an added difficulty might be transliteration of names phoenetically from one language to another. Gildas wrote in Latin and the Chronicles in Brythonic (I believe; I haven't learned how to research while in the "reply" mode).

Full titles:
Gildas: De excidio et conquestu Brtitanniae: On the ruin and conquest of the Britains (yes, plural).
Annales Cambriae: The Welsh Annals.
Gildas is a 6th c. source, the AC are usually dated to the 10th c., but we don’t know when the first entries were made and from what sources. The earliest entry is usually dated to 447 AD but we don’t know if there was a 5th c. chronicle at the basis. By themselves, the AC were not started as a chronicle in the 5th c.
Both were written in Latin. My pages about them:
Gildas’ DEB: http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/arth ... tesgil.htm
AC: http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/annales.htm