Southern Britain was German in pre-Roman times ?

[Conal]

http://www.proto-english.org/

This is basically the Stephen Oppenheimer arguement that the Belgic tribes spoke German not Gaulish/Celtic and brought the language to Britain. That is why the Anglo-Saxon(isation) of south eastern Britain was linguistically smooth. No genocide of the Brits as they had been ousted loooong ago.

What do you guys make of it?

[Robert Vermaat]

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 bet that if certain right-wingers in the US thought they could pull it off, they'd claim that European were present in the Americas before the first Asian set foot in Alaska, 20.000 BC.

I've discussed this many times with many people (from interested UK folks to Belgians who were interested in 'extending the language divide', but so far no evidence has been brought forward to support this theory.

Basically, there's two problems:

1) 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.

But of course, languages and genetics need not have any connections - Chinese in Europe can speak German, Spanish, Dutch, English, nor does their dna present in Europe mean that Chinese is spoken on every street corner, if you get my drift.

2) linguistics - the main claim of the theory. So far, all kinds of attempts have been made to 're-translate' words and names now seen as Celtic/Brythonic into a Germanic provenance instead, which is not difficult due to their common Indo-European origin. However, no convincing evidence has been put forwards to actually prove that even one name or word of a Germanic language was present in Britain before we have the first written evidence.

So far, all we can say is that Caesar entered a Celtic Britain.

[sonic]

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'.

[Conal]

So far, all we can say is that Caesar entered a Celtic Britain.

What do you make of the Belgic tribes having German ancestry?

[M. Demetrius]

Sounds like the evidence of dna can tell "who" but not really "when" unless there are graves from different eras that tend to have different dna families, with a sudden change that can be dated by artifacts or other archeology. In many ways, I'm a right wing American*, but I couldn't see the purpose in saying that the European colonists from boats preceded the Asian colonists who walked over the land bridge. I suppose for some, that might make a difference. It was all long before my time, so it's irrelevant to me, except as a curiosity, perhaps.



*I may look like a skinhead, but that's just because the hair refuses to grow on the top any more. It's not a political statement of any sort. :roll:

[caiusbeerquitius]

That wouldn´t surprise me at all. It´s only Ceasar who says that on the right side of the Rhine there are only Germans and on the left side only Gauls. All archaeological sources clearly contradict that statement...

[Robert Vermaat]

So far, all we can say is that Caesar entered a Celtic Britain.

What do you make of the Belgic tribes having German ancestry?

It totally depends on what you call 'Belgic tribe'. Those we call 'Belgic' today, those named by the Romans with the name 'Belgic', those occupying lands in the area known today as Belgium, or those suposedly speaking a language defined today as 'Belgic'?

And, of course, what do you mean by 'Germanic ancestry' - let's make it as complicated as we can, because it all sounds way too simple!? :?
germanic as in language, Germanic as from the area East of the Rhine, or Germanic as in some ethnic or cultural definition?

Well, my answer would be: the tribes dominating British politics when Caesar arrived were in all probability beloninging to a cultural group we define as 'Celtic', and their dominating elite had names defined as 'Celtic', probably indicating that the dominant language in that group was a form of early brythonic, too (but linguists may set me straight about the correct description).

As to the tribes who occupied the aerea of the later Roman provinces called Belgica, I couldn't tell you. Some names are very much Celtic, but then so were the names of most leaders of the Cimbri and Teutones, whereas the name of Atilla the Hun was Gothic. It does not tell us a thing about the mass of the people. Caesar can tell us all across the Rhine were Germanic, but we now think that many tribes south of the Main river may have ben culturally closer to what we define as 'Celtic', rather than 'Germanic'. So maybe many spoke Germanic, or maybe none?

[caiusbeerquitius]

but we now think that many tribes south of the Main river may have ben culturally closer to what we define as 'Celtic', rather than 'Germanic'.

And the whole area south of the Danube including the Alps was also "Celtic", basically up to Pannonia.
As problematic as such maps usually are, i am still tempted to post it - it is a good map:
[url:21y5sw3d]http://www.pantel-web.de/bw_mirror/history/bwmaps/bw_282.jpg[/url]

What we always tend to forget:
When new guys come along into a certain area, then the old guys don´t necessarily disappear suddenly.

When everything looks like new guys came along that doesn´t necessarily mean that new guys actually came along. It may very well be that simply the neighbour´s material culture has been copied completely.

When new guys come along that doesn´t necessarily mean that the leave some kind of imprint into the society they have e.g. conquered. (See Goths in Italy - disappear from archaeological record within two or three generations as if they hadn´t been there at all.)

[Conal]

by Belgic I mean the confederation of tribes from both the area cited by Ceasar and beyond the Rhine also. More Belgic speaking (if that is a dialect of Gaulish/Celtic).

As for ancestry I suppose what I meant was linguistically/culturally Germanic (as ethnically i suppose all were differing strains of Indo -European) tribes who became culturally Celtic in word and deed, and religion so that very little of the original culture was left.

The Celtic leaders names of the Cimbri & Teutones is a paradox and does point to a Belgic origin rather than a German one to me, but then those names have beenn argued as "titles" rather than actual names.

[Aryaman2]

1) 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.

DNA studies actually can tell you if a group of population entered Britain 10.000 years ago or just 2.000 years ago, even if they shared the same haplogroup in 8.000 years for sure they have developed into different subclades, for instance R1b1c4 developed some 3.000 years ago and is probably a good marker of Basque population.
Nowdays the problem is not in the genetic research, that is quite advanced and can distinguish with great finesse population groups developed only some centuries ago, the problem for historical research is in the sample, it is very difficult to select a large one that is also representative.

[authun]

That wouldn´t surprise me at all. It´s only Ceasar who says that on the right side of the Rhine there are only Germans and on the left side only Gauls. All archaeological sources clearly contradict that statement...

That's right but it's modern interpretations that Gaul = gallic speaking and Germania = germanic speaking which are wrong. Caesar writes in terms of geographic areas, not linguistic areas. He writes that three languages are spoken in Gaul. We shouldn't conclude that everyone in Germania spoke a german language.

best
Harry Amphlett

[authun]

So far, all we can say is that Caesar entered a Celtic Britain.

What do you make of the Belgic tribes having German ancestry?

The Moselle valley was inhabited by the Treveri. The area, especially around Bernkastel was still speaking a romance language in the 9th cent. despite being in the kingdom of the Franks. I doubt they spoke a germanic language at the time of Caesar's writings.

best
Harry Amphlett

[Conal]

He writes that three languages are spoken in Gaul.

Did he say which languages ?

[authun]

http://www.proto-english.org/

This is basically the Stephen Oppenheimer arguement that the Belgic tribes spoke German not Gaulish/Celtic and brought the language to Britain. That is why the Anglo-Saxon(isation) of south eastern Britain was linguistically smooth. No genocide of the Brits as they had been ousted loooong ago.

What do you guys make of it?

There's no evidence for the 'English as a Fourth Branch of the Germanic Languages' at all. Forster's work, is an exercise in computational modelling and gives a huge date range, from something like 6,600 years ago to 2000 years ago. It's so wide it is meaningless to apply it a history of the British Isles. It is also contradicted by Gray and Atkinson's model which shows english separating from the west germanic language tree around 350 AD. In any event, this all supposes that language evolution follows the same rules as human evolution and that is it possible to apply the models of molecular biology.

In particular, molecular changes in the human genome, mutations, are hard to predict and timing is imprecise. The rate of change is described by the geometric distribution, that is, a memoryless state. Average mutation rates are averages based on observations and therefore cannot be used to predict when the next mutation will happen. They are not evenly distributed. Languages too do not evolve at an even rate. They are affected by many factors such as who the new neighbours are or who the new landlord is.

best
Harry Amphlett

[authun]

He writes that three languages are spoken in Gaul.

Did he say which languages ?

The line in question is from the Gallic Wars, Book 1:

All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws.

We know from Trask that Aquitanian was a vasonic language and we know Gallic was a Celtic language. We don't know what the language of the Belgae was. To claim that some of the Belgic tribes came from Germania and that the Belgae must therefore have spoken a germanic language is a leap of faith. There are many other theories ranging from the Nordwestblock to Venetic.

best
Harry Amphlett