The English and the Celts - no genocide?

[Tarbicus]

I just caught the end of an interesting report on the BBC's Newsnight. It was looking at Celtic versus English identity, especially the Cornish Celts who still feel bitter about the supposed Anglo-Saxon genocide to eradicate the Celts from England.

However, (and no doubt it's been discussed before), one theory is that the Germanic peoples were here long before the Romans ever set sight on the white cliffs of Dover. One archaeologist is investigating placenames, and has an interesting theory. Many place names in an extensive area all have Germanic endings (-ey), which means the place was an island. From the layout of these places he believes there was a vast lake there. The problem is a Roman road runs smack bang through the middle of that large area. Therefore, they must have been called those names before the lake dried up, which would be long before the Romans came. Ergo, Germanic language was already being spoken here.

A Professor Stephen Oppenheimer of Oxford Uni has apparently written a book on this, and believes that the reason for the geographical split between those of Celtic heritage (Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall), and those of Germanic heritage (England), is not because of genocide, it being unnecessary. The former simply originated from Spain and the Basque region, and the English came across the still joined eastern side of England from Europe, before the British Isles broke away from the mainland continent.

More reading:
http://www.forum.oxfordancestors.com/vi ... php?tid=51
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/arti ... hp?id=7817 (two thirds of the page down)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/ma ... rits10.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3618613.stm

[Robert Vermaat]

This has been discussed on other forums a great deal.

The man in question is Win Scutt, he offered the readers of Britarch to read his theory from his website: http://writeboard.com/a1f300104540dbaa4 The password is 'durrington'.

The basics have beeen heard for years - there is a group of people that believe that the current 'partition' of Britain is not the result of post-Romen developments, but goes back to the last Ice Age. Similarly, some Belgians believe that the cureent 'language border' between Flemish and French also predates the Roman period by centuries if not millennia. I have also in my possession a book from Slovenian authors who argue that the Slavic peoples were already present in Austria and Slovenia long before the Celts and Romans came and went again (in fact they see them all through Europe).

Personally, I see no real merit in these theories. Whenever it come to proving the presence of these languages centuries before they are currently attested, it comes down to very strained linguistics. I trust that modern linguistic expert will have no trouble shooting down this new theory too, as the development of Old English seems very secure as a derivate of similar Germanic languages, and not a language that developed in Britain 16000 year ago.

The theory of Oppenheimer, that basically genetics rather than linguistics, may be very interesting, but it's not based on ancient bodies but on modern humans. These theories stand and fall with the success with which the researchers can make their readers accept that researching dna of modern test subjects can in any way reflect on the movement op peoples 2000 years ago or even earlier.

Personally, I believe that so much can have happened tp folks in the meantime that we have no idea of, that such conclusions are at best extremely shaky, not to say downright wishful thinking.

[Tarbicus]

as the development of Old English seems very secure as a derivate of similar Germanic languages, and not a language that developed in Britain 16000 year ago.

But that's the point, isn't it? Germanic speaking peoples occupied England, and the Celts the rest. Nobody claims they spoke Old English.

[Robert Vermaat]

This is from Keith J Fitzpatrick-Matthews from the BritArch list:

Although the idea is interesting, I think that there are a number of things that need to be explained before taking it seriously.

First, there's the contemporary onomastic evidence. We have coinage from the later first century BC/early first century AD that gives the names of rulers and occasional placenames. These come from the area suggested as Germanic-speaking, yet all of them are Brittonic Celtic. Why would supposedly Germanic-speaking peoples take Celtic names for their rulers?

Secondly, there are the placenames recorded for eastern Britain in Classical sources. While some of them could be interpreted as germanic, the majority could not and many have direct cognates in Gaulish placenames (such as Camulodunum). If the placenames that are typical of early medieval England (those with elements such as leag/leah, eg or ing(a)) were already present in late prehistoric and Roman Britain, why do we not see any of them in contemporary sources?

Thirdly, there is the evidence from inscriptions that show people with Latinised but otherwise recognisably Celtic names (such as Ti Claudius Togidubnus), worshipping gods and goddesses with Celtic names (such as Senuna or Toutatis) in places with Celtic names. A quick search of RIB reveals almost no Germanic names and of those rare examples which are plausibly Germanic, it is clear from the bizarre spellings that those who composed the inscriptions were dealing with unfamiliar names that they found barbarous, hardly likely in an area in which Germanic was supposedly the indigenous language.

Fourthly, although the work of geneticists such as Stephen Oppenheimer is challenging, I continue to be worried by inferences made from DNA samples taken from living populations. We need a much stronger data set based on archaeologically derived DNA before reading contemporary data back into the distant past. I am also concerned by the way in which each new study seems to contradict the previous study (the debate seems to swing between the two extremes of virtually complete DNA replacement in England during the 'migration period' to virtually complete DNA stability since the Mesolithic). This surely indicates that the science of human population genetics is still in its infancy and is struggling to find ways of interpreting the data.

Fifthly, the idea that the English language arrived during the migration period was not a sixteenth-century hypothesis, but was already present in the early medieval period. Bede, writing in 731, is quite explicit about it. In Book One, Chapter One of the _Historia Ecclesiastic_ he states that there are five languages in Britain - English, British, Irish, Pictish and Latin - and he describes how the British speakers were the first settlers, followed by the Picts and then the Irish. Chapter Two describes the arrival of the Romans, bringing Latin with them. Chapter Fifteen is then the well known and contentious description of the origins of the English in Germany and their arrival during the joint reigns of Marcian and Valentinian III. Bede equates 'peoples' with languages as his view of history is framed very specifically along Old Testament lines. Nor was he alone in this interpretation. Gildas, writing any time between the 470s and the 550s, places the arrival of the English some time in the fifth century and is quite clear that the Britons were the indigenous inhabitants. The early ninth-century _Historia Brittonum_ follows Bede and is even more explicit in the identity of the newcomers as the bringers of a new language (in Chapter 46, the author introduces a snippet of garbled Old English - eu saxones eniminit saxas - in a context that implies that members of the ruling council of Britain will not be able to understand it).

The final problem, as I see it, is that the idea that languages are somehow linked to genes has long been discredited. So what if we have long-term DNA continuity among the population in lowland Britain? So what if the ancestors of this population can be hypothesised as arriving via the (then dry) North Sea basin during the Mesolithic? Do the origins of these people via Germany mean that they had to be speaking a Germanic language ten thousand years ago? Surely not, if linguists' ideas about the development of the Indo-European language family has any validity (not that I'm a believer in glottochronology or Urnfield People - I'm more concerned with the interrelationships between languages).

So, those are the challenges, Win. If you can answer them, it will remove what I see as the main objections to your hypothesis and make it more robust; if you can't, I think you need to look seriously at what your data (about English placenames and landscape) actually tells us. I have an idea, but I'm saving it!

Keith J Fitzpatrick-Matthews
http://www.kmatthews.org.uk

[Tarbicus]

Thanks Rob, all sounds reasonable to me.

[Redwald]

Rob,
I saw the programme, too, and have to say that I thought it rather confused. They mixed up Cornish identity with some place name evidence from the Midlands. I accept that the programme had to condense a lot of information but a Cornish poet reciting his poem about 'Big Macs' and pasties I thought was rather unneccesary.
However, I do agree with you, Robert (for once), and with Keith, that there is a a lot of wishful thinking involved.

For other contributors to this debate you may wish to dip into this link

on the Gegaderung. There are several threads on similar lines on the same forum. Sometimes they get quite heated.

Paul

[authun]

Many place names in an extensive area all have Germanic endings (-ey), which means the place was an island. From the layout of these places he believes there was a vast lake there. The problem is a Roman road runs smack bang through the middle of that large area. Therefore, they must have been called those names before the lake dried up, which would be long before the Romans came.

Hi Tarbicus

That's only true in part. Gelling's book Place Names in the Landscape states that ēg place names are not entirely dictated by topography.

In addition, as Win Scutt concedes, it is necessary to show that the land was dry in the post roman period. There are many examples of areas being flooded during the late roman marine transgression. In some parts of the Humber Wetlands, roman artefacts are found under 3m of marine deposit. It is entirely possible for a road to be built on dry land only for that road to become submerged later and for AS settlements to spring up around the edges.

However, in my opinion it has to be shown that there was a settlement in the pre roman iron age in the first place. Otherwise it is just a name with no date.

best

Harry Amphlett

[Tarbicus]

It's okay everyone, I already accepted the arguments. The point made about whether the land was dry after the Romans had gone is a very good one.

[Quadratus]

This is from Keith J Fitzpatrick-Matthews from the BritArch list:

The final problem, as I see it, is that the idea that languages are somehow linked to genes has long been discredited. So what if we have long-term DNA continuity among the population in lowland Britain? So what if the ancestors of this population can be hypothesised as arriving via the (then dry) North Sea basin during the Mesolithic?

Keith J Fitzpatrick-Matthews

Although I have not read the whole work in context, Fitzpatrick-Matthews, above, seems to imply by his "so what"s that it is of no great significance whether the population of lowland Britain arrived across the North Sea basin or not. At the risk of stating the obvious, this may be the case when discussing language, but it is of great significance when trying to understand the subsequent history of the Britain (in its broadest sense), and particularly the arrival or otherwise of the Angles, Saxons and all their kin.

On the language side, there is no reason whatever why someone whose ancestors came from Northern Europe shouldn't speak a Celtic language, or vice versa. Similarly there is a danger of assuming monoglot homogeneity; perhaps some groups spoke a Germanic language and some spoke a Celtic one. Perhaps being multilingual was commonplace, as it is many parts of the world today (great respect to RAT members for whom English is not their mother tongue). Perhaps…well, I think you get the point. So, although genetic makeup must still be considered to be one of a complex basket of markers to indicate probable cultural and linguistic behaviours, I'll accept the 'so what' in the linguistic context.

However, on the genetics side the picture is different. If the population of lowland Britain was essentially 'celtic' and homogenous both within itself and with the equally 'celtic' highland population then the invasion, migration and genocide scenario's take front stage. If, on the other hand, the lowland brits were already indistinguishable genetically from the people on the other side of the North Sea, while invasion theories are not ruled out, the possibility emerges of a very different set of less violent scenarios, which have the advantage of fitting both the emerging dirt archaeology and (most of the) more recent genetic studies far better.

So what? So a very great deal!

Alan

[Robert Vermaat]

This is from Keith J Fitzpatrick-Matthews from the BritArch list:

The final problem, as I see it, is that the idea that languages are somehow linked to genes has long been discredited. So what if we have long-term DNA continuity among the population in lowland Britain? So what if the ancestors of this population can be hypothesised as arriving via the (then dry) North Sea basin during the Mesolithic?
Keith J Fitzpatrick-Matthews

Although I have not read the whole work in context, Fitzpatrick-Matthews, above, seems to imply by his "so what"s that it is of no great significance whether the population of lowland Britain arrived across the North Sea basin or not. At the risk of stating the obvious, this may be the case when discussing language,

Which is exactly what Keith was talking about, the significance (or lack of it) between the actual movement (not if they migrated or not) and their hypothesised language. Nothing more.

On the language side, there is no reason whatever why someone whose ancestors came from Northern Europe shouldn't speak a Celtic language, or vice versa. Similarly there is a danger of assuming monoglot homogeneity; perhaps some groups spoke a Germanic language and some spoke a Celtic one. Perhaps being multilingual was commonplace, as it is many parts of the world today (great respect to RAT members for whom English is not their mother tongue). Perhaps…well, I think you get the point. So, although genetic makeup must still be considered to be one of a complex basket of markers to indicate probable cultural and linguistic behaviours, I'll accept the 'so what' in the linguistic context.

Yes, I already assumed that you and Keith (and myself) were on the same wave-length..
I see no reason why pre-Roman inhabitants of eastern Britain are supposed NOT to have spoken Celtic (and Keith gives plenty of reason to strengthen my beliefs). Furthermore, there is the difficulty oif the development of that hypothesised pre-Roman English - why would it have developed in exactly the same manner as we now suppose Old English developed 9as a derivative of other northern germ,anic languages that we know). This hypothesised 'insular English' that people want to see would have been as isolated from continental proto-English as, say, Anatolian Celts would have been from Celts in Gaul! Yet, the hypothesis is based on modern English place-names, which go back on a language that arrived from northern Germany, 15 centuries ago, instead of from 'somewhere' on the continent (where on earth?), 16 millennia ago?

However, on the genetics side the picture is different. If the population of lowland Britain was essentially 'celtic' and homogenous both within itself and with the equally 'celtic' highland population then the invasion, migration and genocide scenario's take front stage.

I agree, although we can discuss 'when' that took place. Myself, I'm for the 'gradual' migration, mixed with smaller 'invasions' from the 5th to 7th c., while I think that a later 'genocide' (better re-frased as massive ethnic cleaning I think) took place between the 7thy and 8th c., varying in time and intesity from place to place.

If, on the other hand, the lowland brits were already indistinguishable genetically from the people on the other side of the North Sea, while invasion theories are not ruled out, the possibility emerges of a very different set of less violent scenarios, which have the advantage of fitting both the emerging dirt archaeology and (most of the) more recent genetic studies far better.

That you should split out more I think. Define 'Lowland'? If you mean the Lowland zone, then I must disagree. But if you mean the areas opposite the continent, then I would agree that, during the Roman period (and before and after) one cannot deny that a constant travel of people from one shore to the other must have taken place. I mean, don't we see the same for the Irish Sea region?

I agree with Keith though that most genetic studies pose more problems than that they present clear-cut answers. Some are in direct opposition, while I keep maintaining that studies of modern dna provide only answers if you have a solid model of the relation between modern populations and the ones in, say, 16000 BC or 600 AD.

[Quadratus]

Yes, I already assumed that you and Keith (and myself) were on the same wave-length..

Yes Robert - I'm pretty sure we are.

While I'm on my soap box I'll air two concerns which I have as a layman. They apply to many (most?) areas of study, but seem particularly relevant to the field of linguistics/prehistory/archaeology.

The first is the presumption of homogeneity, to which I have already referred. It is almost mandatory to assure the reader that no such assumption must be made, and then the next moment to speak of 'the Romans', 'the Celts' or as I did (mea culpa :oops: ) 'the lowland brits' etc. No harm done in some contexts, but lethal in this one.

The second is what happens when experts step out of their own field. Colin Renfrew is a classic case. A world authority on certain fields of archaeology, but not on linguistics, it seems to me that he uses his eminence in one field to puff up some fairly speculative and to put it mildly, debatable conjectures in another. Stephen Oppenheimer does exactly the same. An expert on genetics, but by my estimate little more than an informed layman in linguistics. I am very interested in what Tom Cruise has to say about acting, but couldn't care less about his views on the origins of life on Earth: I place great weight on Oppenheimer's views on genetics, but have no more than curiosity for his views on the origins of the English language – unless adequately evidenced and supported (which in my view they were not).

I am not suggesting for a moment that only certified 'experts' can give opinions or make speculations, only that we should be very careful here, as elsewhere, about argument ad hominem. Fred Hoyle was a great astronomer, but a crap biochemist and Linus Pauling was a great biochemist, but a terrible medical theorist.

Sorry about this little rant, folks, but I must be still suffering from an excess of Christmas.

Aaaah … I feel better now.

[authun]

Aaaah … I feel better now

Hi Quadratus,

To make you feel even better, Stephen Oppenheimer is not a professional geneticist. His area of expertise is in the synthesis of separate fields of study, genetics being one of them. Whatever people claim he said about germanic being spoken in britain pre roman times, his actual words were 'possibly spoken'. He didn't even go so far as to say 'probably spoken'.

The idea that Celtic languages in the west came from Iberia shows that he also doesn't believe in homogeneity. I guess it would receive support from Vennemann who claims Semitic -> Vasconic -> Celtic. But, it's only one part of the british isles and there is no reason to suppose that the rest spoke just one language. Jackson's work show many hydronyms which are neither Celtic nor Germanic, something which seems to have been forgotten in this debate.

best

Harry Amphlett

[Robert Vermaat]

Stephen Oppenheimer is not a professional geneticist. His area of expertise is in the synthesis of separate fields of study, genetics being one of them.

He is by training a tropical paediatrician.

[Ron Andrea]

While we're all being humble, we can also blame the current academic ("publish or perish") environment for encouraging scholars to toss out new theories on increasingly flimsy grounds simply because they must. Many times their bibliographies and footnotes resemble mutual admiration societies quoting each other (or themselves) or inventing quotes and sources. (European scholarship may not be troubled with the latter, but American academia has been scandalized recently by tentured professors having fabricated sources, not to mention the usual plagarization and misquoting.)

Modern academicians are no longer content to stand on the shoulders of the ancients for a better view (a simile which dates back at least to Thomas Aquinas, I believe), but now feel obligated to kick them in the knees and stomp on their toes, if only to raise themselves by comparison.

Without a doubt much ancient scholarship is twaddle also, but the modern penchant for revisionism almost for its own sake is sad.

One reason I continually return to Roman Army Talk is the high standard of scholarship here, but even more the general humility to admit we have far from definitive knowledge about most of the things we discuss.

Keep up the good work, gentle men and gentle ladies.

[Robert Vermaat]

At the risk of providing ammunition to the 'genocide' camp, of which I am no member, here is a link to the forthcoming article by Richard Coates: "Invisible Britons - the view from linguistics", which will be published later this year;
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/linguistics/doc ... ritons.pdf

A very interesting read.