The English and the Celts - no genocide?

[Felix]

Isn´t the Gaelic in some ways a recreated language? At least the Irish Gaelic Dialect... In this I mean the written language of gaelic. I know it has been constanly spoken.

If you mean by fitting written latin letters to the phonetics of it then all languages were recreated when they were put to writing. Dont forget the old ways of writing ... Ogham etc

Take Pin Yin and the Wade Guiles systems for Chinese ... Gung Fu , Kung Fu ... both pronounces teh same way.

But with Chinese the situation is complicated by differences in pronunciation and differences in the ears of people trying to write it down. By modern Mandarin pronunciation, Wad Giles is often just plain wrong: Beijing is "BAY-JING", not "PEA-KING". German and French renderings of Mandarin are noticeably different from romanizations by English speakers. And, of course, different dialects of Chinese are very different in pronunciation; romanized Cantonese should look quite different from romanized Mandarin.

[ambrosius]

I think the article fails to note the closer example to Britain, that of Roman Africa, there Latin vanished without leaving any trace on Arabic. Social prestige and cultural identity explain that.

The amount of Gallic words entering into Latin, a few hundred, was also disappointing, given that Latin and Gallic were spoken next to ach other for half a millennium? If one compares that to British words entering into English, the very low number is not so surprising.

Certain Gallic words remaining in Frankish (French) are ~120
Certain Gallic words remaining in Latin are ~40
Certain British words remaining in English are... 3

That is the most disappointing thing of all, and, as Coates points-out,
strongly suggests an Anglo-Saxon conquest of the British people,
treating everything about their culture - including their language -
as being utterly irrelevant and not worthy of adoption.

Maybe Celtic was just too difficult for Latin- and Germanic speakers to enter into their vocabulary? I like that explanation better than to conclude that no British were present to speak to the Anglo-Saxons!

I'm sure you do prefer that explanation better, Robert. [text moderated] Why not simply accept
the simplest explanation for the lack of British words in Old English,
which is that the Anglo-Saxons didn't want to speak them? As for there
being no Britons present to speak to the invading Anglo-Saxons, I don't
think anyone has ever suggested that scenario. Obviously, during the
initial phase of the Anglo-Saxon conquest, the native Britons would
have vastly outnumbered the incoming Anglo-Saxons. The question is
not one of whether or not there were any British speakers alive to
transmit British to the Anglo-Saxons. The question is why the Anglo-Saxons chose not to adopt the British language - even slightly.

I think Aryaman makes the point. When invading cultures fail to adopt
any vocabulary from the conquered native population, it is because
they see absolutely no prestige in adopting that language. And the
reason for that is because the invaders regard the natives as being
either inferior or totally alien to themselves. Didn't the Anglo-Saxons
call the native Britons 'wealas' (the origin of modern 'Welsh') meaning:

1.)Foreigners?
2.)Slaves?
3.)Romanised people?

All three of which connotations denoting that the Anglo-Saxons
regarded the native Britons as being inferior and/or alien.

Ambrosius / Mike

[Tarbicus]

Isn't scouse a dirivative of an Irish accent ?

There's bound to be a good mix of it, but that said, Scandinavians sound like native scousers after living in the area for a while. The area was colonised by the vikings kicked out of Ireland :wink:

[authun]

Didn't the Anglo-Saxons
call the native Britons 'wealas' (the origin of modern 'Welsh') meaning:

1.)Foreigners?
2.)Slaves?
3.)Romanised people?

Hi Ambrosius,

Germanic speakers appeared to have referred to their neighbours by language so, in north germany, we have Das Wendland, land of the Wends (slavic speakers) and in Switzerland we have Das Welschland, ie what is now french speaking switzerland. There are many of these names. The canton of Valais is derived from wahlisk as is the Walchersee etc. It's not so much 'foreigner' but a description of the type of foreign language that they spoke. Also, it only seems to be used where it is a neighbouring area. The irish weren't called welsh, but Hibernians, or Scots after their tribal name for example.

best

Harry Amphlett

[ambrosius]

Hi Harry,

Didn't the Anglo-Saxons
call the native Britons 'wealas' (the origin of modern 'Welsh') meaning:

1.)Foreigners? 2.)Slaves? 3.)Romanised people?

Germanic speakers appeared to have referred to their neighbours by language so, in north germany, we have Das Wendland, land of the Wends (slavic speakers) and in Switzerland we have Das Welschland, ie what is now french speaking switzerland. There are many of these names. The canton of Valais is derived from wahlisk as is the Walchersee etc. It's not so much 'foreigner' but a description of the type of foreign language that they spoke. Also, it only seems to be used where it is a neighbouring area. The irish weren't called welsh, but Hibernians, or Scots after their tribal name for example.

Well, we've been having this discussion recently on another list, and it
seems that the ultimate origin of the term 'Wealas/Welch/Welsh' is in
the name of the Celtic tribe, the Volcae Technosausages (okay, I
deliberately mis-spelt that last part for comic effect) :lol:

Anyway, it seems that the Germanic tribes neighbouring the Volcae
then adopted their name as the generic description for any Celtic tribe
(especially a Romanised one - once Gaul had become part of the
Empire). Hence we get the three possible connotations of the term
'Welsh' as applied to 5th/6th c. Britons. As you point-out, this refers to
Romanised Celtic communities/enclaves neighbouring the incoming
Anglo-Saxons. As you know, the placename 'Walton' is an Old English
one meaning 'Welsh settlement'. Interestingly, there is a Walton Castle
which is the Saxon Shore Fort near to Felixtowe in Suffolk. This then
gives us a nice clue as to this fort not only still being occupied in the
late 5th c. (when the Angles first arrived) but probably still garrisoned
by British troops. 8)

There are many other examples of 'Walton' placenames across England.
One is South of Glastonbury, in Somerset, which is also neighbouring
to the anciently named 'Brutteshayshe' - meaning 'British Ash', for a
British enclave sited near an Ash tree. And both these sites are next to
the modern town of Street, which (as in so many other locations across
England) is the Old English name for a still functioning Roman road. :wink:
Thus we have OE names indicationg a Romanised British/Welsh enclave
living to the West of the main West Saxon advance, probably named
at some time after the West Saxon push west in the mid 6th c.

Other examples of Saxon Shore Forts still likely occupied in the 5th c.
would include Pevensey Castle (Anderida) whose garrison is attested in the ASC as being besieged, captured and slaughtered c. 490 by South
Saxons under Aelle. Also mentioned in the ASC is Carisbrooke, as one
of the battle sites in the West Saxon campaign of the early 6th c., which
they fought against the native British population. Carisbrooke is very
interesting, as the later Norman Castle is built over the visible remains
of a late Roman fort. We know it's late Roman, as its masonry is laid
herring-bone fashion and there are still two small external bastions
evident. The overall ground-plan is also square. This indicates a date
of construction of the mid 3rd century, since the square plan and small
external bastions place it as intermediate between the earliest Saxon
Shore Forts (c. 200 AD) and the latest (c. 300 AD). There is no chance,
whatsoever that a structure like this is late-Saxon.

As to why Carisbrooke is not listed in the Notitia Dignitatum is anyone's
guess. But as Carisbrooke is just to the West of Portchester (the most
Westerly listed Shore Fort in the N.D.) and as we have always known
that the pages detailing the forts and units in Wales and on the West
coast have always been missing from the N.D., then it is reasonable to
surmise that Carisbrooke is simply one of those many forts (like Cardiff
Castle - another 'Saxon Shore Fort' defending this harbour from Irish
pirates) which were originally listed on pages of the N.D. that have
simply not survived.

Portchester, itself, (guarding Portsmouth harbour) is the likely site
captured by the eponymous Saxon king 'Port', c. 500. And it's also
likely the site of the battle of 'Llongborth' (Warship Port) in the British
poem of the same name, where the British prince, Geraint (Gerontius)
is described as leading his armoured cavalry to try to recapture the
said site from the Saxon invaders. 8)

Ambrosius / Mike

[Robert Vermaat]

My reason to bring up Coates was to discuss several of his point about Anglo-Saxon-British interaction. I think the article is challenging, but I have also criticism about some of his points.

His treatment of the historical sources is not correct. Starting with Gildas, who writes of Romano-Britons being driven from their cities up into the hills and caves where they starve of hunger, while behind them all their cities burn. A truly apocalyptic image, which was very common for Gildas fellow writers on the continent – if we would believe them, all the Roman provinces burned ‘like a giant funeral pyre’ (as one happy fella wrote). Of course, no-one believes that, and archaeology disproves it. Yet Coates uses this to support a ‘vacated east’. Yet when he uses Bede, he does the other thing and stresses that the British kingdoms that ARE mentioned by Bede must have been “scattered (relict) stateletsâ€

[ambrosius]

My reason to bring up Coates was to discuss several of his point about Anglo-Saxon-British interaction.
His treatment of the historical sources is not correct. Starting with Gildas, who writes of Romano-Britons being driven from their cities up into the hills and caves where they starve of hunger, while behind them all their cities burn. Of course, no-one believes that, and archaeology disproves it. Yet Coates uses this to support a ‘vacated east’.

Actually, archaeology doesn't disprove it. Archaeology supports it. The
archaeology of romano-British towns shows that Romanised British
occupation survives in Eastern cities (the ones most vulnerable to
Anglo-Saxon pirate raiding and settlement) like Canterbury & Colchester
until about the mid 5th c. (coinciding with the Adventus Saxonum).

Larger, more populous, more important & better defended cities, like
London, or those further West and out of reach of the initial Saxon
settlement, like St. Albans, Silchester, Chichester seem to remain
populated till about 500 AD. These progressively get surrounded by
a Westerly Anglo-Saxon settlement/military advance (see the ASC)
and seem to 'conk-out' in the early 6th c.

Then you get cities in the West, like Ilchester, which still show evidence
of importing Byzantine coins and Tintagel-ware pottery (most likely
through the still British controlled harbours of Tintagel, Bantham etc)
into the 520s, but not as late as 550 AD.

Finally, you get the cities like Wroxeter, near the English/Welsh border,
which show building-work continuing into the early 6th c. and multiple Roman military artefacts - such as plumbatae - in a stratigraphic range
up to the late 6th c. (which some observers have suggested implies
that Wroxeter is a likely candidate for the base of any surviving 6th c. British field army).

So the archaeology does indeed support the gradual Westerly abandon-
ment of British cities with time, which is exactly what we should expect
to see as a result of a gradual Westerly Anglo-Saxon advance - such as
that attested in the ASC. What archaeology implies is that, starting in
450, there is a steady push Westwards of Anglo-Saxon immigrants,
lasting about 150 years, which has left only Wroxeter functioning as a
Romanised British urban centre after 550. As a consequence, this also
corroborates what Gildas tells us - if he was writing c. 540 - about all
British cities having been abandoned to the Saxons. The only exception,
as far as archaeology would allow, would be Wroxeter, which, if it was
now the British field-army base (like modern Catterick or Aldershot)
may no longer even have resembled a 'city' to Gildas's eyes, but more
like a 'fortress' in the style of the old legionary fortresses of the past.

Vortigern Studies\\n[quote]
Yet when he uses Bede, he does the other thing and stresses that the British kingdoms that ARE mentioned by Bede must have been “scattered (relict) stateletsâ€

[Robert Vermaat]

My reason to bring up Coates was to discuss several of his point about Anglo-Saxon-British interaction.
His treatment of the historical sources is not correct. Starting with Gildas, who writes of Romano-Britons being driven from their cities up into the hills and caves where they starve of hunger, while behind them all their cities burn. Of course, no-one believes that, and archaeology disproves it. Yet Coates uses this to support a ‘vacated east’.

Actually, archaeology doesn't disprove it. Archaeology supports it.

No Mike, archaeology does not support Gildas' claim that all cities burned and were deserted.

I agree with your post about the cities, not about that wave of immigrants pushing west, but I wás referring to Gildas apocalyptic view ..

[Robert Vermaat]

Vortigern Studies\\n[quote]
Yet when he uses Bede, he does the other thing and stresses that the British kingdoms that ARE mentioned by Bede must have been “scattered (relict) stateletsâ€

[Tarbicus]

If the 'wave' of Saxon immigration and conquest were by many different warlords, is it possible that each British settlement could have received different treatment and terms from each warlord? Or were the Saxons under one ruler? (not my area at all but humour me)

[authun]

Anyway, it seems that the Germanic tribes neighbouring the Volcae
then adopted their name as the generic description for any Celtic tribe

Hi Ambrosius,

It's the most widely quoted etymology, though some others are claimed. The argument is:

Latin/Gaulish V is really a W
Gaulish O is equivalent to Germanic A (the Gaulish nominative singular masculine ending is -os, the Gothic ditto is -az)
L is unchanged
C (=K) becomes H in Germanic, due to the Germanic Sound Shift (GSS)
(aka Grimm's Law) cf. Cimmerland and Himmerland.

So

V W
O A
L L
C H

As you know, the placename 'Walton' is an Old English one meaning 'Welsh settlement'. Interestingly, there is a Walton Castle which is the Saxon Shore Fort near to Felixtowe in Suffolk.

Care has to be taken with 'wal' names because germanic also uses the same for wall. A 'Walton' may be a settlement with a wall or even a settlement in a forest 'w(e)ald'.


best

Harry Amphlett

[authun]

The Gallo-Romans certainly continued to speak Celtic, right into Late Roman times, as Hieronymus and Sidonius Appolinaris testify. So maybe that *could* also have happened in Britain?

Hi Vortigern,

It did, Celtic languages continued to be spoken in the British Isles. They still are in some parts. But, as the germanic/celtic lingusitic border moved south in Gaul, the border moved west in the british isles.

The situation in Gaul is of course more complicated as Gallic gave way to French eventually but in areas dominated by a military elite only, such as the Burgundian kingdom based on Lyons, germanic speakers were insufficient in numbers and their language was lost.

Switzerland is an interesting case. Burgundians were insufficient in numbers to impose their language in the Suisse Romande or Welschland, yet the Alemanni were able to impose their language in much of Switzerland.

One argument often made for Gaul is that a military elite made use of existing institutions, such as the church, which had remained more or less intact. Using such institutions was made easier by adopting the language of the institution.

The situation with the church in Britain is very interesting. The most Christianised part of Roman Britain was the south east with scant evidence of christianisation in the west. However, by the end of the 6th cent., the situation is reversed. Whether this is the result of the church and the congregation moving west, or the church only, is unknown. The important point is that, in Britain, the church moved whereas in Gaul, it didn't.

best

harry Amphlett

[authun]

Then you get cities in the West, like Ilchester, which still show evidence of importing Byzantine coins and Tintagel-ware pottery (most likely
through the still British controlled harbours of Tintagel, Bantham etc)
into the 520s, but not as late as 550 AD.

Hi Ambrosius,

This may be due to the Justianian plague. Procopius' description is informative, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/5 ... lague.html

It may have affected the western parts more severely than we think. The irish annals do refer to a 'great mortality'. It may be the point at which the last ties with the roman world were severed.

The germanic speakers in the east were unaffected by the plague but may have received a fresh wave of immigration from Scandinavia caused by drought and cold. Merowingian mercenaries too may have come to take advantage of the situation and/or flee the plague which was affecting southern Gaul. Hence, in the latter half of the 6th cent. we see renewed attacks on the weakened romano british population in the west.

best

Harry Amphlett

[authun]

Of course, no-one believes that, and archaeology disproves it. Yet Coates uses this to support a ‘vacated east’.

Hi Vortigern,

Some parts have been shown by archaeology to have been vacated. West Heslerton in Deira for example is one of 'complete social and economic collapse'. Kevin Leahy's work on Lincolnshire supports a rapid and dramatic decline, one which resulted in a great loss of wheat production and, presumably, its knock on effects. York and Lincoln both suffered.

best

Harry Amphlett

[authun]

But even so, if you take the end of occupation layers of some eastern towns as proof that these places were overwhelmed by a wave of Anglo-saxon settlers, I say you cannot claim that cities that do continue are 'islands' that were bypassed.

Hi Vortigern,

Germanic settlers of the 5th and 6th cents. had little interest in towns. They are only of use where there is production, markets and an economic system. They do make sense in the west where there is continued trade with the roman world.

best

Harry Amphlett